Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
, 593-605
GINEERING
UCTURAL
9061 PAPER
GROUP
Introduction
Brick masonry is commonlyusedas
infill inframedstructures.Althoughthe
masonry significantly enhances both the stiffness and strength of the frame, its
contribution is often not considered on account of the lack of knowledge of the
composite behaviour of the frame and theinfill. One of the difficulties in predicting
the behaviour of the composite frame is the realistic stress analysisof the masonry
infill which is in a state of biaxial stress. The in-plane deformation and failure of
masonry is influenced by the properties of its components, the bricks and the
Written discussion closes 16 February 1987; for further details
see p. ii.
* Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying,The Universityof Newcastle, New South
Wales, Australia.
593
D H A N A S E K A RA N DP A G E
mortar. The influenceof the mortar jointsis particularly significant as these joints
act as planesof weakness.
2. This Paper describes theuse of finite element techniques to assess the contribution of the infill tothebehaviour
of infilled frames. A previouslyreported
material model-3 (which includes the influence
of the mortar joints) is incorporated into an incremental, iterative
finite element program capableof simulating
racking tests on infilled frames. With increasing racking load, the finite element
model can reproduce the progressive separation of the wall and its surrounding
frame, the non-linear deformation characteristics
of the infill masonry and the
progressive failure of the infill. This progressive failure typically takes place as
or a crushing failure near
either a shearing typeof failure down the panel diagonal,
the loaded or reaction corners.
3. The influence of the properties of the masonry infill on the behaviour of
infilled frames is assessed by means of a parametric study. It is shown that the
behaviour of the composite frame not only depends on the relative
stiffness of the
frame and the infill and the frame geometry, butis also critically influencedby the
magnitudes of the shear and tensile bond strengths relative to the compressive
strength of the masonry.
( 4 E , I h )
in which E , , t and h are the Youngs modulus, thickness and height of the brick
masonry infill, E , and I are the Youngs modulus and moment of inertia of the
frame member, and8 is the angle between theinfill diagonal and the horizontal. It
has been shown that the strength of the infill decreases as I h increases (that is, as
the frame becomes more
flexible).
6. Incontrastwiththeexperimentalinvestigations,onlylimitedtheoretical
studieshavebeenperformedonthebehaviour
of frameswithbrickmasonry
594
Racklng
load
Dlagonal tension
failure
Separation of frame
and Dane1
Compression diagonal
Material model
8. A comprehensive, macroscopic material model for brick masonry has been
derived from a large numberof biaxial tests onhalf-scale, solid clay brick masonry
panels.23*2 4 A total of 186 panels, each 360 mm square, was tested with the prime
aim of establishing a failure criterion for brick masonry under biaxial stress. The
panels were tested
under
biaxial
compression<ompression
and
tensioncompression.Theloadwasincreasedmonotonically
in allcases.Ineach
test
average strains over270 mm gauge lengths (incorporating a numberof bricks and
joints) were also recorded. From the experimental data, deformation characteristics and afailure surface were established.
Deformation characteristics
9. Thedeformationcharacteristicsconsist
of both elasticpropertiesand
inelasticstress-strainrelations.Intheelasticrange,thebrickmasonryunder
595
D H A N A S E K A R A N D PAGE
consideration was found tobe isotropic on average.' Average values of 5700 MPa
for Young's modulus and 0.19 for Poisson's ratio were found to be reasonably
representative of the behaviour.
10. In the inelastic range, however, the behaviourwas found to be significantly
influenced by the orientation of the mortar joints to the applied stresses.' From
the non-linear segments of the stress-strain curves of the biaxial compressioncompression tests, relatively simple inelastic stress-strain relations were derived
in which the superscript p denotes plastic and the subscripts n and p refer
to
directions normal and parallel to the bed jointing planes. The constants B,, Bp
and B, havebeen taken as 7.3 MPa, 8.0 MPa and 2.0 MPa respectively, and
indicatethe stress levels at which theplasticstrainsbecomesignificant.The
average values of the constants nn , np and n, are 3.3, 3.3 and 4.0 respectively. The
variability in the data does not warrant more complex relations.
Failure surface
11. The mode of failure of solid brick masonry under biaxial stress depends on
both the state of stress and the orientation of the stresses to the jointing planes.If
is tensile, failure occurs
one or both of the principal stresses at a particular location
B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L
in a plane (or planes) normal to the surface of the wall with the joints playing a
significantrole. If both principal stresses are compressive,theinfluence of the
joints is less significant and failure usually occurs by spalling or splitting of the
panel in a plane parallel to the surface of the wall. In general, therefore, failure
must be expressed in termsof the principal stressesat a point andtheir orientation
to the bed joints.An alternative formulation is to define the failure surfacein terms
of stresses normal andparallel to the bedjointing planes (normalstress U " , parallel
stress np,and shear stress T). A failure surface in this form has been derived from
thebiaxial tests3 The surface, consisting of threeintersectingellipticcones,
is
shown in Fig. 2. The three elliptic cones do not exactly correspond to the various
modes of failure. However, the two endcones correspond approximately totensile
bond and compressionfailures, and the bulk of the intermediate cone corresponds
to a combined shear and compression
failure.
DHANASEKARANDPAGE
-.-
60-
2 40-
v'
o
/
'
P'
d
Q'
,d
Deflexlon: mm
(4
100o
-0-
Experimental
Finite element model
80 -
P/
Z
1
o/*
60-
U
0
-
O/*
.'
"f
.-C
5m
d"
.l
40-
o./
LT
d
cm/
20-
f
OO
oY/
1 .o
2.0
Deflexion- mm
3 .O
(W
Fig. 3. Observed and predicted load-deflexion curves for infilled frames: (a) frame
# 1;(b)yrume # 2
598
B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L
and then progressed towards the loaded and reaction corners. Frame
# 2 (with
infill possessing higher bond strength),
failed by local crushingof the masonry near
the loaded corner.
DHANASEKARANDPAGE
Elastic properties
E , , MPa
0.10
I "
Frame # 2
Frame # l
load, kN
5700
57007
5700
Ratio* Ultimate
load, kN
46
43
40
1.07
43
43
43
1 .00 85
1 .00
l .00
Ratio* Ultimate
1.12
95
1.oo
85 1
65 0.93 0.76
1. O o
1.00
85
0.94
80
Elastic modulus
1
0,5E,
2.0Eb
~~~
Frame # 1
Deflexion,
mm
Ratio*
Deflexion,
mm
Ratio*
1.64
1.62 1.38 0.72
1 .00
1 .00 0.52 0.99
0.69
0.56 0.29
0.68
Frame #2
5700 MPa.
./.
-0
2
I
40-
m
0-
v0-
E, 2850 MPa
E, 5 7 0 0 MPa
E,. 11400 MPa
Bare frame
10
2 .o
Deflexlon: mm
(a)
3.0
1O O r
Deflexion: mm
(b)
Fig. 4. Load-deflexioncurves
for infilled frameswith
stiffness: (a)frame # 1; (b)frame # 2
D H A N A S E K A RA N DP A G E
B , , MPa
0.5
3.65
7.30
14.60
1.0*
2.0
B , , MPa
B , , MPa
1 .00
2.00
4.00
8.00
n,
1.65
3.30
6.60
n,
np
1.65
6.60
4.00
2.00
4.00
3.30
8.00
16.00
* Original constants.
assumed in the material model). This insensitivity of the inelastic constants may
not be as apparent for cases in which larger areas of the wall are in a state of
biaxial compression.
It
Tensile bond
strength,
MPa
Shear bond
strength,
MPa
Ultimate load,
0.40
0.00
0.30
0.30
0.80
0.40
0-40
0.80
0.20
0.15
0.60
0.60
0.15
43
10
63
16
15
75
kN
12
Mode of
failure,
MPa*
1
1
0.30
1
1
2
1
B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L
*Or
1
z
,q
!i401
a
Deflexlon: mm
Fig. 5. Load-deflexion curves for injilledframes with brick masonryof varying bond
strength
Influence of the shearand tensile bond strengthof the masonry
25. For frame # 1, the tensile and shear bond strengths of the masonry were
variedbothindependentlyandtogether,
while holdingalltheothermaterial
of
propertiesconstant.Thecasesconsidered,theultimateloadandthemode
failure for each analysis are summarized in Table 4. The load-deflexion curves for
the analyses are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the load-deflexion curves are
coincident until cracking of the masonry infill commences. The level at which this
reduction in stiffness occurs varied markedly, and is directly related to the bond
strengths. The ultimate load of the infill is also significantly affected in all cases.
The mode of failure remained the same except for analysis # 6 . In this case, the
increased shear and tensile bond strength was sufficient to prevent a diagonal
shear failure and thus to precipitate corner crushing
failure.
26. It can be concluded, therefore, that accurate definitionof the bond properties of the infill is required if realistic predictions of infilled frame behaviour areto
be made, as variations
in bond strengths can affect both the stiffness and the
strength of the composite frame. It is significant to note that most of the previous
studies of infilled frame behaviour have not considered the influenceof the tensile
and shear bond strength on the behaviour
of the composite frame.
DHANASEKARANDPAGE
brick masonry. The incremental finite element model is able to reproduce the
non-linear behaviour caused by material non-linearity and progressive failure. The
adequacy of the finite element model has been verified by comparison with the
results of racking tests onsteel frameswith brick masonry infill.
28. A detailed parametric study of the influence of brick masonry properties
on thebehaviour of infilled framessubjected to rackingloadsusingthefinite
element model has revealed the following.
(a) The modulus of elasticity of the infill masonry significantly influences the
Acknowledgements
29. The contribution of Mr P. W. Kleeman, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of Newcastle to this research work is
gratefullyacknowledged. Part of the researchwasfundedby
theAustralian
Research Grants Scheme.
References
1. DHANASEKAR
M,, PAGEA. W. andKLEEMANP. W. The elasticproperties of brick
masonry. I n t . J .Masonry Constr., 1982,2, No. 4, 155-160.
2. DHANASEKAR
M,, KLEEMAN
P. W. and PAGEA. W. Biaxial stress-strain relationships for
brick masonry. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Cio. Engrs, 1985,111, May, No.ST5,1085-1100.
3. DHANASEKAR
M,, PAGEA. W. and KLEEMAN
P. W. The failure of brick masonry under
biaxial stresses.Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 2,1985,79, June, 295313.
4. THOMAS
K. The strength of brickwork. Struct. Engr, 1953,31, No. 2 , 3 5 4 6 .
5. WOODR. H. The stability of tall buildings. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, 1958,11,69-102.
6. BENJAMIN
J. R. and WILLIAMS
H. A. The behaviour of one storey brick shear walls. J .
Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Cio. Engrs, 1958,84, No. ST4, 1-30.
7. HOLMES
M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete tilling. Proc. Instn Ciu Engrs, 1961,
19,473478.
8. HOLMES
M. Combined loadingson infilled frames. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, 1963,25, No. 5,
31-38.
604
BRICKMASONRY
INFILL
9. STAFFORD-SMITH
B. Lateral stiffnessof infilled frames. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs,
1962,88, NO.ST6,183-199.
10. STAFFORD-SMITH
B. Behaviour of squareinfilledframes. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu.
Engrs, 1966,92, No. STl, 381403.
11. STAFFORD-SMITHB. Methods of predicting the lateral stiffness and strength
of multistorey infilled frames.Bldg Sci., 1967,2,247-257.
12. STAFFORD-SMITHB. and CARTER C.
A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc. Instn
Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1969,44,3 148.
13. SIMMS
L. G. The behaviour of no-fines concrete panels as theinfill in reinforced concrete
frames. Ciu. Engng Publ. Wks Rec.,1967,62, No. 736,1245-1250.
14. MAINSTONE R.
J. and WEEKSG. A. The influence of a bounding frame on the racking
stiffness and strengthsof brick walls. Proc. 2nd Int. Con$ on Brick Masonry, Stoke-onTrent, 1970,16>171.
15. MAINSTONEJ.R.
On the stiffness and strengthsof infilled frames. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,
1971, Suppls, 57-90.
16. KADIRM.R. and HENDRYA.W.Thebehaviourofbrickworkinfilledframesunder
(S), 1975, No. 24,6577.
racking load.Proc. Er. Ceram. Soc., Load Bearing Brickwork
17. MALLICK
D. V. and SEVERN R.
T. The behaviour of infilled frames under static loading.
Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,1967,38,639-656.
18. RIDDINGTON J. R. and STAFFORD-SMITH B. Analysis of infilled frames subject
to racking
with design recommendations.Struct. Engr, 1977,55, No. 6,263-268.
19. KINGG. J. W. and PANDEY P. C.The analysis of infilled frames using finite elements.
Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1978,65,749-760.
20. WOOD R.H. Plasticity, composite action and collapse designof unreinforced shear wall
panels in frames.Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs,Part 2, 1978,65,381411.
21. LIAUWT. C. and KWANK. H. Non-linear analysis of multistorey infilled frames. Proc.
Instn Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1982,73,441-454.
22. DAWEJ. L. and YONG T.C.Aninvestigationoffactorsinfluencingthebehaviourof
masonry infill in steel frames subjectedto in-plane shear. Proc. 7th Int. Con$ on Brick
Masonry, Melbourne, 1985,803-814.
23. PAGE
A. W. The biaxial compressive strength of brick masonry. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,
Part 2,1981,71,893-906.
24. PAGE
A. W. The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tensionxompression. Int. J .
Masonry Constr., 1983,3, No. 1 , 2 6 3 1 .
25. PAGE
A. W., KLEEMAN
P. W. and DHANASEKAR
M. An in-plane finite element model for
brick masonry. Proc. of Structural Engineering Congress, 1985. American Society of
605