International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)

ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue-9S3, July 2019

Simulation of Masonry Wall using Concrete

Damage Plasticity Model
Suraj D. Bhosale, Atul K. Desai

Abstract- The objective of this article is to study the use of FE II. FEM MODELLING
(Finite Element) tool in analyzed the masonry wall. Masonry
is made up of highly nonlinear material and its property varies 2.1 Type of modelling
from place to place. It is difficult to do an experiment on a There is three types of modelling of masonry done is done
full-scale model of a masonry wall. Its effect is also FE tool. They are 1. Micro modelling in which thickness
underestimated in construction of low rise building. As if the of mortar and brick/unit both are considered and analysis
wall is confined and properly bonded to the beam and column. is carried out. As it is more accurate but difficult to model
It enhances the performance of low rise building during and time-consuming.
seismic forces. As in low rise building energy is dissipated by
cracking. If masonry wall is cast monolithically (like confined 2. Simplified micro modelling approach in this modelling
masonry) with the column, it augments the stiffness of is simple then micro modelling and thickness of mortar
building and helps to sustain additional load compare to are not visualised as unit thickness interface is provided
conventional construction practice. In this study numerical between units/bricks. 3. Macro modelling in this whole
nonlinear analysis of wall panel is done by FE tool wall is considered as homogeneous and it is the fastest
(ABAQUS). Using Concrete Damage Plasticity Model (CDP). way to analyses the wall but results and not accurate as
And results are compared with the existing work done by other observed.
researchers and it is observed that results were satisfactory.

Keywords – Finite Element (FE), Concrete Damage Plasticity

(CDP), Masonry wall.

I. INTRODUCTION
It was observed that from many decades masonry wall
was considered as an only partition wall and it is not
considered as a structural member in RCC frame
structure. But in recent studies it was found that up to a
few stories, we can use confined masonry wall. Up to
three storey (floor to floor height 10 feet) building. It is
observed by researchers that confined masonry is
economical and effective then RCC frame structure up to
three stories. Seismic response of structures to strong
earthquake frequently produces excessive and
uncontrollable lateral displacement as well as serious
damages to structural and non-structural elements [1].
Masonry is classified as heterogeneous anisotropic
material and analysis, understanding and capture of the
structural behaviour of masonry are therefore complex.
[2].

Revised Manuscript Received on July 25, 2019.

Suraj D. Bhosale,
Research Scholar, Applied Mechanics Department, Sardar Vallbhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India.
Email- [email protected]
Dr. Atul K. Desai,
Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, Sardar Vallbhbhai Figure 1. FE Modelling Approaches (a) Micro Modelling (b) Simplified
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India. Micro Modelling. (c) Macro
Email- [email protected] Modelling [1]

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: I32740789S319/2019©BEIESP 1241 & Sciences Publication
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I3274.0789S319
 Simulation of Masonry Wall using Concrete Damage Plasticity Model

FE Modelling and Analysis is fixed and vertical pressure is applied in the initial step
and lateral load is applied in the second stage where
In present simplified micro modelling approach. 3D
hexahedral shaped eight node brick element with hour coupling contact is defined. At the centre of the steel
glass control (C3D8R) is used in modelling.[2] The section as shown in Fig. 3.
interface is defined as a surface-based cohesive interface.
Contact between adjacent masonry is General explicit Material Properties
surface to surface based contact. Model is generated in Brick/unit properties are determined experimentally.
Abaqus standard/explicit, mesh size is chosen based on Density of brick δ and Poisson ratio µ for brick is 1900
mesh analysis study. Where mesh size is changed and kg/m3 and 0.15 respectively whereas E = 3.98x109 N/m2.
results are compared and we found that current provided Steel E= 210x109 N/m2 and µ = 0.3. As provided by the
mesh size gives an optimum solution with less time manufactural.
consumption. i.e. 6 x 2 x 3 element in a brick/unit. The
dimension of the unit available in the locality was 195mm Table 1. Concrete Damage Plasticity Material Property
x 90mm x 70mm. So same dimension are been modelled.
Thirteen courses high and 780 mm width single brick Dilation Angle 10
masonry wall is modelled. Eccentricity 0.1
Fbo/Fco 1.16
Viscosity 0.002

Lateral load of 6600 N was applied on the steel section

connected on the top of the masonry in the second step
and an initial step a pressure force of 240000 N/m 2 was
given. Dynamic Explicit Model was used in the step.

Table 2. Interface Property.

Tangential Behavior 0.7

Frictional co efficient
Maximum Nominal Stress in 61100 N/m2
Normal Direction
Maximum Nominal Stress in 93350 N/m2
Shear Direction -I
Maximum Nominal Stress in 93350 N/m2
Shear Direction -II
Plastic Displacement 0.001 m
Exponential Parameter 10
Viscosity 0.002

III. SIMULATION RESULT AND VALIDATION

Figure 2. Brick/Unit Mesh Size with C3D8R element.

Figure 3. (a) shows the vertical stress in masonry during

Figure 3. Model of Masonry in Abaqus with other details. the initial step where only vertical pressure is applied and
no failure was observed in the analysis of the model.
Figure 3 shows the material properties of masonry and
steel separation in modelling and location of loads. Based

Published By:
Retrieval Number: I32740789S319/2019©BEIESP 1242 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I3274.0789S319 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue-9S3, July 2019

Figure 3. (b) shows the horizontal stress in masonry during the step where only horizontal pressure is applied and no failure
was observed in the analysis of the model.

Figure 4. shows the rocking failure and toe-crushing ar per the researcher has found failure in masonry in seismic loading.[5]

Figure 5. shows the rocking failure, toe-crushing and stress in FEM model analysis in abaqus.
study. If the bond between masonry and mortar is strong
Simulation results and failure pattern shown by the author might be possible that diagonal crack will be a dominant
are similar and validate the results by concrete damage failure in the same masonry.
plasticity model. This can be a new method and approach It gives accurate results and has validated with the author.
to analysing the masonry wall. As masonry is highly nonlinear and varieties of masonry
units are available CDP model has validated the brick
IV.CONCLUSION masonry model. Might not be valid to stone masonry or
Numerical analysis of masonry wall by simplified micro block masonry.
model approach is a better way to analyse masonry. And
beneficial were to perform the experiment is not
convenient. Rocking failure was dominant here in this

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: I32740789S319/2019©BEIESP 1243 & Sciences Publication
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I3274.0789S319
 Simulation of Masonry Wall using Concrete Damage Plasticity Model

REFERENCES Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Earth Planet. Sci., vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 431–
[1] M. Teguh, “Experimental Evaluation of Masonry Infill Walls of RC 440, 2003.
Frame Buildings Subjected to Cyclic Loads,” Procedia Eng., vol. [27] S. Y. Wang, S. W. Sloan, A. J. Abbo, M. J. Masia, and C. A. Tang,
171, pp. 191–200, 2017. “Numerical simulation of the failure process of unreinforced
[2] K. F. Abdulla, L. S. Cunningham, and M. Gillie, “Simulating masonry walls due to concentrated static and dynamic loading,” Int.
masonry wall behaviour using a simplified micro-model approach,” J. Solids Struct., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 377–394, 2012.
Eng. Struct., vol. 151, pp. 349–365, 2017. [28] V. Sarhosis, S. W. Garrity, and Y. Sheng, “Influence of brick-
[3] M. Resta, A. Fiore, and P. Monaco, “Non-Linear Finite Element mortar interface on the mechanical behaviour of low bond strength
Analysis of Masonry Towers by Adopting the Damage Plasticity masonry brickwork lintels,” Eng. Struct., vol. 88, pp. 1–11, 2015.
Constitutive Model,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 791–803, [29] C. V. R. Murty and S. K. Jain, “Beneficial Influence of Masonry
May 2013. Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of Rc Frame Buildings,”
[4] H. Jiang, X. Liu, and J. Mao, “Full-scale experimental study on Twelfth World Conf. Earthq. Eng., pp. 1–6, 2000.
masonry infilled RC moment-resisting frames under cyclic loads,”
Eng. Struct., vol. 91, 2015.
[5] R. Oyguc and E. Oyguc, “2011 Van Earthquakes: Lessons from
Damaged Masonry Structures,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 31,
no. 5, p. 04017062, Apr. 2017.
[6] N. N. Thaickavil and J. Thomas, “Behaviour and strength
assessment of masonry prisms,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 2018.
[7] T. Kanayama, “Taxonomy and phylogeny of the family Agonidae
(Pisces: Scorpaeniformes).,” Mem. Fac. Fish. Hokkaido Univ., vol.
38, no. 12, pp. 1–199, 1991.
[8] S. Noor-E-Khuda, M. Dhanasekar, and D. P. Thambiratnam, “Out-
of-plane deformation and failure of masonry walls with various
forms of reinforcement,” Compos. Struct., vol. 140, pp. 262–277,
2016.
[9] T. Sevil, M. Baran, T. Bilir, and E. Canbay, “Use of steel fiber
reinforced mortar for seismic strengthening,” Constr. Build. Mater.,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 892–899, 2011.
[10] Y.-F. Wu and M. P. Dare, “Axial and Shear Behavior of Glass
Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Wall Panels: Tests,” J. Compos. Constr.,
vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 569–578, 2004.
[11] T. Stablon, A. Sellier, N. Domede, B. Plu, and L. Dieleman,
“Influence of building process on stiffness: Numerical analysis of a
masonry vault including mortar joint shrinkage and crack re-closure
effect,” Mater. Struct. Constr., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 881–898, 2012.
[12] S. Noor-E-Khuda and M. Dhanasekar, “Masonry walls under
combined in-plane and out-of-plane loadings,” J. Struct. Eng., vol.
144, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2018.
[13] S. Nazir and M. Dhanasekar, “Modelling the failure of thin layered
mortar joints in masonry,” Eng. Struct., vol. 49, pp. 615–627, 2013.
[14] L. C. Silva, P. B. Lourenço, and G. Milani, “Nonlinear Discrete
Homogenized Model for Out-of-Plane Loaded Masonry Walls,” J.
Struct. Eng., vol. 143, no. 9, p. 04017099, 2017.
[15] T. Yi, F. L. Moon, R. T. Leon, and L. F. Kahn, “Analyses of a Two-
Story Unreinforced Masonry Building,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 132,
no. 5, pp. 653–662, 2006.
[16] C. Wang, J. P. Forth, N. Nikitas, and V. Sarhosis, “Retrofitting of
masonry walls by using a mortar joint technique; experiments and
numerical validation,” Eng. Struct., vol. 117, pp. 58–70, 2016.
[17] J. Proença, A. S. Gago, J. Cardoso, V. Cóias, and R. Paula,
“Development of an innovative seismic strengthening technique for
traditional load-bearing masonry walls,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 113–133, 2012.
[18] P. Sartaji, A. S. Moghadam, and M. Ghafory Ashtiany, “Interaction
of masonry walls and shear walls in masonry buildings,” Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Struct. Build., vol. 171, no. 3, pp. 226–240, 2018.
[19] G. de Felice et al., “Experimental characterization of composite-to-
brick masonry shear bond,” Mater. Struct. Constr., vol. 49, no. 7,
pp. 2581–2596, 2016.
[20] M. A. Kyriakides and S. L. Billington, “Behavior of unreinforced
masonry prisms and beams retrofitted with engineered cementitious
composites,” Mater. Struct. Constr., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1573–1587,
2014.
[21] B. H. Pandey and K. Meguro, “Simulation of brick masonry wall
behavior under in-plane lateral loading using applied element
method,” 13th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. Vancouver, BC, Canada,
August, no. 1664, pp. 1–6, 2004.
[22] H. Okail, A. Abdelrahman, A. Abdelkhalik, and M. Metwaly,
“Experimental and analytical investigation of the lateral load
response of confined masonry walls,” HBRC J., vol. 12, no. 1, pp.
33–46, 2016.
[23] H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai, and S. K. Jain, “Code approaches to
seismic design of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames: A
state-of-the-art review,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 961–
983, 2006.
[24] K. Shahzada et al., “Experimental seismic performance evaluation
of unreinforced brick masonry buildings,” Earthq. Spectra, 2012.
[25] M. B. Ravula and K. V. L. Subramaniam, “Investigation of
Compression Failure in Brick,” no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2017.
[26] K. S. Jagadish, S. Raghunath, and K. S. Nanjunda Rao, “Behaviour
of masonry structures during the Bhuj earthquake of January 2001,”

Published By:
Retrieval Number: I32740789S319/2019©BEIESP 1244 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.I3274.0789S319 & Sciences Publication