Engineering Faculty
Comunit Europea
Fondo Sociale Europeo
Vorrei ringraziare:
Prof. Paolo Belli, per avermi accompagnato nei tre anni di Corso con i consigli e
laffetto di un padre e per avermi concesso di affiancarlo nellattivit didattica
da cui ho tratto utili insegnamenti.
Prof. Luciano Nunziante, al quale sono grata per la sua guida inestimabile ed
indispensabile nel complesso campo della Ricerca Scientifica.
Prof. Federico Guarracino, per essere stato il primo a credere in me e per avermi
dato la possibilit di intraprendere questa interessante esperienza di Dottorato.
Dott. Massimiliano Fraldi, per avermi seguita, con enorme disponibilit, in tutto
il lavoro di tesi, alternando sapientemente la figura di un eccellente maestro a
quella di un caro amico. A lui devo molto di quello che ora il mio bagaglio
culturale in materia di Scienza delle Costruzioni.
Gli amici, tutti, per avermi sempre spronato a dare il massimo nel lavoro e per la
gioia regalatami fuori dal lavoro. Tra questi, un ringraziamento particolare va
all Ing. Raffaele Barretta, per avermi sorretto nei momenti pi duri con la sua
preziosa ed irrinunciabile amicizia, nonch allArch. Eugenio Ruocco, per
essermi stato accanto in tutto il mio percorso con il calore di un affetto sincero e
di un incoraggiamento costante a cui devo il raggiungimento del traguardo.
Oltre che alla mia famiglia, dedico a lui la mia tesi.
La mia famiglia, cui dedico la tesi, per il supporto morale che ha saputo
offrirmi, come sempre, al di l delle parole.
INDEX
Introduction
Chapter I  Micromechanics theory
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Definition of the Representative Volume Element: geometrical
3
and stresscondition considerations
1.3 General theory for evaluating average quantities
17
1.4 Elasticity, groups of symmetry, anisotropic solids with fourth
40
rank tensors
1.5 Overall elastic modulus and compliance tensors
68
1.6 Strategies for obtaining overall elasticity tensors: Voigt and
86
Reuss estimating
1.7 Variational methods Hashin and Shtrikmans variational
94
principles
1.8 Inhomogeneous materials: Stress and Displacement
103
Associated Solution Theorems
APPENDIX
130
Chapter II  Homogenization theory
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Introduction
General theory
Localization and Homogenization problem in pure elasticity
Equivalence between prescribed stress and prescribed strain
134
135
138
142
144
145
154
156
159
161
172
ii
194
220
221
232
Introduction
Structural elements and systems
Assembly and analysis of a structure
Boundary conditions
General model
The systems of standard discretization
Coordinate transformations
General concepts
Direct formulation of the Finite Element Method
5.9.1 Shape functions
5.9.2 Strain fields
5.9.3 Stress fields
5.9.4 Equivalent nodal forces
5.10 Generalization to the whole region
5.11 Displacement method as the minimum of the total potential
energy
5.12 Convergence criterions
5.13 Error discretization and convergence classes
5.14 Analysis of a threedimensional stress field
5.14.1 Displacement functions
5.14.2 Strain matrix
5.14.3 Elasticity matrix
5.14.4 Stiffness, stress and loads matrix
286
288
295
298
299
301
302
304
306
307
309
310
311
315
318
319
320
322
322
325
326
327
329
330
333
iii
341
348
352
352
355
358
360
364
Introduction
Review of masonry codes
Comparison on design philosophies
Comparison of the key concepts for uneinforced masonry
7.4.1 Allowable stress design
7.4.1.a Axial compression
7.4.1.b Axial compression with flexure
7.4.1.c Shear
7.4.2 Strength design or limit state design
7.4.2.a Axial compression
7.4.2.b Axial compression with flexure
7.4.2.c Shear
7.5 Comparisons of the key concepts for reinforced masonry
7.5.1 Allowable stress design
7.5.1.a Axial compression
7.5.1.b Axial compression with flexure
7.5.1.c Shear
7.5.2 Strength design or limit state design
7.5.2.a Axial compression
7.5.2.b Axial compression with flexure
7.5.2.c Shear
7.6 Discussion
7.7 The Italian code (T.U. 30/03/2005)
7.7.1 Structural organization
7.7.2 Structural analyses and resistance controlling
7.7.3 Allowable stress design for unreinforced masonry
7.7.3.a Axial compression with flexure
7.7.3.b Shear for inplane loads
7.7.3.c Concentrated loads
389
390
394
397
398
398
399
401
402
402
402
402
403
403
404
404
405
406
406
407
408
409
410
416
418
420
420
421
421
iv
422
422
422
423
423
Conclusions
425
References
429
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
II
constituents, mortar and natural or artificial blocks. The anisotropy is, instead,
due to the different masonry patterns since the mechanical response is affected
by the geometrical arrangement of the constituents. Basically, in literature, two
approaches are usually taken into account for materials which have a
heterogeneous
microstructure:
the
heuristic
approach
and
the
Introduction
III
IV
and
on
the
existent
homogenization
procedures
and,
Introduction
the
analytical
results
obtained
by
our
proposed
CHAPTER I
Micromechanics theory
1.1 Introduction
Continuum mechanics deal with idealized solids consisting of material
points and material neighbourhoods, by assuming that the material distribution,
the stresses and the strains within an infinitesimal material neighbourhood of a
typical point were essentially uniform [47], [48]. On the contrary, at a microscale, the infinitesimal material neighbourhood turns out to be characterized by
some microheterogeneities, in the sense that it can appear to be constituted by
various components, inclusions with differing properties and shapes, or yet, it
can show some defects such as cracks or cavities. Hence, the actual stress and
strain fields are not likely uniform, at this level.
A lot of advanced materials have this heterogeneous microstructure. For
example, the ceramics, some metals, ceramic, reinforcing fibres, polymeric
composites and so on. For such materials, a micromechanical analysis must be
involved.
Basically, two approaches are usually employed for the micromechanical
analysis of such media [25].
fact that the resulting theories are able to make predictions in situations where
the equivalent homogeneity approach cannot. A remarkable case is that one in
which the deformation of the void volume is significant [15].
In the present chapter, a general treatment of micromechanics theory is
employed in the spirit of the first of the above mentioned approaches.
According to it, there are several micromechanical models which are used
for predicting the global mechanical behaviour of the heterogeneous materials,
as the dilute approximation, the selfconsistent scheme, the spherical model,
the MoriTanaka and the differential scheme. All these models involve some
approximations useful for carrying out the analysis and, therefore, they provide
approximate effective global properties. The validity of the prediction depends
on the chosen model.
MICROSCALERVE
e3
(V)
3
(V)
(V)
(V)
magnified
(V)
x
O
e2
e1
Hence, according to the above given concept of the RVE, two lengthscales
are necessary: one is the continuum or macrolength scale, by which the
infinitesimal material neighbourhood is measured; the other one is the microlength scale which corresponds to the smallest microconstituent whose
properties and shape are judged to have direct and firstorder effects on the
continuum overall response and properties. Therefore, it provides a valuable
dividing boundary between continuum theories and microscopic ones, being
large if compared to the microconstituents and small if compared to the entire
body. So, for scales larger than the representative volume element, continuum
mechanics are used and properties of the material as whole are determined,
while for scales smaller than the representative volume element, the
microstructure of the material has to be considered.
In general, if the typical dimension of the material being modelled is named
with L, if the typical dimension of the macroelement is named with D and if
the typical dimension of the microelement is named with d, they have to be in
the following relation:
L?D?d
L
D
? 1;
? 1;
D
d
(1.21)
This means that the typical dimension D of the RVE should be much larger
than the typical size d of the microelement and much smaller than the typical
size L of the entire body, as it is shown in the following figure, where the RVE
is used in the shape of cube.
d
D
Hence, the definition of the RVE is one of the most important decisions that
the analyst makes for employing an accurate micromechanical analysis. An
optimum choice would be one that includes the most dominant features that
have firstorder influence on the overall properties of interest and, at the same
time, yields the simplest model. This can only be done through a coordinate
sequence of microscopic and macroscopic observations, experimentations and
analyses.
The until now mentioned definition of the RVE, based only on geometrical
ratio between the different scales of the whole body, RVEs size and
characteristic dimensions of the microinclusions or defects, is in general
not sufficient to ensure the optimality of the choice related to the accuracy and
consistency of the micromechanical approach, as well as of the
homogenization procedure. Indeed, as shown in some works with reference to
configurational body force, possible significant gradients of stress and strain
fields can play a crucial rule for establishing the RVE size, provided that they
strongly vary within the RVE characteristic length, [39]. In other words, a
consistent criteria to select an RVE has to be also based on the preliminary
requirement of a smooth distribution of the physical quantities involved in the
analysis. This mathematical property finds its mechanical interpretation in the
fact that all micromechanics and homogenization theories are based on
averaged stress and strain values over the RVE domain, as well as on the
overall elastic and inelastic responses. Therefore, no strong field gradients have
x = xi ei
(1.22)
T ( x ) = 0;
T ( x ) = T T ( x ) in V
(1.23)
where body forces are assumed absent and where the superscript T stands for
transpose.
In a rectangular Cartesian component form, the (1.23) becomes:
10
ij ,i = 0;
ij = ji in V
(1.2.4)
where:
i = j = 1, 2,3
and where a comma followed by an index denotes the partial differentiation
with respect to the corresponding coordinate variable.
Moreover, the straindisplacement relation has to be verified:
E ( x) =
1
T
u + ( u)
2
} in V
(1.25)
= i ei =
ei
xi
(1.26)
ij =
1
( ui, j + u j,i ) in V
2
(1.27)
T ( x ) n = t 0 on Vt
(1.28)
ij ni = t 0j on Vt
(1.29)
where:
n=
t 0 , are prescribed.
11
t
e
On the other hand, when the selfcompatible displacements, u0 , (selfcompatible in the sense that they dont include rigidbody translations or
rotations) are assumed prescribed on the boundary of the RVE, as shown in
Figure 1.4, it follows that:
u = u0 on Vu
(1.210)
ui = uio on Vu
(1.211)
where:
12
e11D
e3
e2
e1
13
T& ( x ) = T& T ( x ) in V
(1.212)
and
1
T
E& ( x ) = u& + ( u& )
2
} in V
(1.213)
T& ( x ) n = t&0 on Vt
(1.214)
On the other hand, when the velocities, u& 0 , are assumed prescribed on the
boundary of the RVE, it follows that:
u& = u& 0 on Vu
(1.215)
14
Sijhk = ij hk
Sijhk
ij
hk0
ij
= (1 ij ) (1 hk ) 0
hk
i , j , h, k = x , y , z (1.216)
where consistent considerations are done for defining the opportune average
strain field to use in the calculation. In the second case, the goal is to found the
average stress field as a function of the corresponding prescribed nominal
strain one. Consequently, the components of the overall stiffness tensor are
obtained as:
Cijhk = ij hk
Cijhk
ij
hk0
ij
= (1 ij ) (1 hk ) 0
hk
i , j , h, k = x , y , z (1.217)
where consistent considerations are done for defining the opportune average
stress field to use in the calculation.
In order to reach this objectives, fundamental averaging methods are
necessary for evaluating average quantities and they will be shown in the
following section.
It is worth to notice, here, that an elastic solution obtained via micromechanical approach satisfies, at a microscale, both the equilibrium and the
compatibility in each internal point of the RVE, either in the case of prescribed
stress problem either in the other one of prescribed strain. On the contrary, by
considering the RVE inside the continuum solid, the first problem satisfies the
15
T = 0
( E ) = 0
x B
(1.218)
where:
16
17
stress field is constant in each phase and it assumes different values from phase
to phase) as a function of the corresponding prescribed strain field.
Consequently, the components of the overall stiffness tensor are obtained as
given by the (1.217), where consistent considerations are done for defining the
opportune average stress field to use in the calculation.
T = < T ( x) > =
1
V
T ( x ) dV
V
(1.31)
where x is the position vector, that identifies each point in the volume V of
the RVE, with components xi ( i = 1, 2, 3) , relative to a fixed rectangular
Cartesian coordinate system (see Figure 1.1).
( x )T
= j xi ei e j = xi , j ei e j = ij ei e j = 1( 2)
where:
ij = Kronecker delta
(1.32)
18
Hence, in according to the equilibrium equations (1.23) and since the stress
tensor T ( x ) is divergencefree, the stress field T ( x ) can be written in the
following form:
T ( x ) = 1( 2 ) T ( x ) = ( x ) T ( x ) = { ( T ( x ) x )}
By
means
of
the
Gauss
theorem,
and
by
(1.33)
remembering
the
{ (T ( x ) x )}
V
1
dV =
{n (T ( x ) x )}
V
1
ds (1.34)
1
V
ij =
1
V
T=
x t 0 ds
(1.35)
xi t 0j ds
(1.36)
It should be noted that since the prescribed surface tractions, t 0 , are selfequilibrating, their resultant total force and total moment about a fixed point
vanish, i.e.:
t ds = 0
x t ds = 0
(1.37)
or, in components:
t ds = 0
0
j
ijk
x j tk0 ds = 0
(1.38)
where:
eijk = the permutation symbol of the third order; eijk = ( +1, 1, 0 ) when i, j, k
form (even, odd, no) permutation of 1, 2, 3.
19
x t 0 ds = t 0 x ds
V
(1.39)
and, so:
TT =T
(1.310)
T ( x ) n = t 0 on Vt
(1.311)
T 0 n = t 0 on Vt
(1.312)
and:
where:
n=
Vt =
t0 =
T ( x ) = the spatially variable stress tensor obtained from the stress prescribed
problem within the volume V of the heterogeneous RVE.
T0 =
the spatially constant stress tensor obtained from the stress prescribed
problem within the volume V of the RVE, regarded as homogeneous.
From the equation (1.35), and by using again the Gauss theorem, it can be
written:
20
T=
1
1
1
x t 0 ds = ( T 0 x ) n ds = ( T 0 x ) dV (1.313)
V V
V V
V V
Thus, by taking into account the position (1.33), the volume average of the
spatially variable and integrable quantity T ( x ) can be expressed in the
following form:
T=
1
V
T
V
dV = T 0
(1.314)
For the rate problem, the average stress rate is obtained in an analogous
manner to what has been done previously, by obtaining that:
1
T& = < T& ( x ) > =
V
x t&0 ds
(1.315)
xi t&0j ds
(1.316)
1
V
Hence, it is seen that for the small deformations the average stress rate
equals the rate of change of the average stress:
d
T& = < T& ( x ) > = < T ( x ) > = T&
dt
(1.317)
u =< u( x) > =
1
V
u ( x ) dV
(1.318)
21
where x is the position vector, that identifies each point in the volume V of
the RVE, with components xi ( i = 1, 2, 3) , relative to a fixed rectangular
Cartesian coordinate system (see Figure 1.1).
From the Gauss theorem, and in view of the boundary conditions (1.210), it
is:
u ( x ) dV = n ( x ) u ( x ) ds = n ( x ) u ( x ) ds
0
(1.319)
where:
u = < u ( x) > =
1
V
n ( x ) u ( x ) ds
1
V
(1.320)
ni u 0j ( x ) ds
(1.321)
R( x) =
T
1
u ( x ) ( u ( x ))
(1.322)
1
u j,i ui, j
2
(1.323)
or, in components:
Rij ( x ) =
22
E ( x) =
T
1
u ( x ) + ( u ( x ))
(1.324)
or, in components:
1
u j,i +ui, j
2
Eij ( x ) =
(1.325)
Let us to denote the volume average of the spatially variable and integrable
quantity E ( x ) by:
E = < E ( x) > =
1
V
E ( x ) dV
V
(1.326)
Hence, by means of the (1.324) and of the (1.319), the average strain field
E is expressed as:
E = < E ( x) > =
1
V
1
n u0 + u0 n ) ds
(
2
(1.327)
1
V
1
ni u 0j + ui0 n j ) ds
(
2
(1.328)
or, in components:
1
V
1
V
R = < R( x) > =
1
n u0  u0 n ) ds
(
2
(1.329)
1
ni u 0j  ui0 n j ) ds
(
2
(1.330)
or, in components:
ET = E
(1.331)
23
ur + x R r =
=< u r + x R r > =
n ds u r +
n x ds R r
(1.332)
1
V
1
V
n ds =
1
V
n 1( 2 ) ds =
1
V n x ds = V
1
V
1( 2 ) dV = 0
1
V x dV = V
( 2)
(2)
(1.333)
1 dV = 1
where:
( ur + x Rr ) = < ( ur + x Rr ) > = Rr
(1.334)
significance in estimating the relations between the average stresses and strains
24
u = < u( x) > =
1
V
u ( x ) dV
V
(1.335)
u = < u( x) > =
1
V
( u ( x ) x ) ( u ( x ) ) x dV
(1.337)
u = < u( x) > =
1
V
n ( u0 ( x ) x ) ds
1
( u ( x ) ) x dV (1.338)
V V
or, in components:
ui = < ui ( x ) > =
1
V
n j u 0j xi ds
1
u j, j xi dV
V V
(1.339)
u = < u( x) > =
or, in components:
1
V
n ( u0 ( x ) x ) ds
(1.340)
25
ui = < ui ( x ) > =
1
V
n j u 0j xi ds
(1.341)
E ( x ) x = u0 on Vu
(1.342)
E 0 x = u0 on Vu
(1.343)
and:
where:
E ( x ) = the spatially variable strain tensor obtained from the strain prescribed
problem within the volume V of the heterogeneous RVE.
E0 =
the spatially constant strain tensor obtained from the strain prescribed
problem within the volume V of the RVE, regarded as homogeneous.
x=
Vu =
u0 =
From the equation(1.327), the average value of the strain tensor can be
written:
E = < E ( x) > =
1
=
V
1
V
1
n u0 + u0 n ) ds =
(
2
1
0
0
V 2 n ( E x ) + ( E x ) n ds
(1.344)
26
E = < E ( x) > =
1
V
1
(E0 x) + ( E0 x)
V 2
) ds
(1.345)
E=
1
V
E 0 dV = E 0
(1.346)
For the rate problem, the average strain rate is obtained in an analogous
manner to what has been done previously, by obtaining that:
1
V
n ( x ) u& ( x ) ds
0
1
1
E& = < E& ( x ) > =
n ( x ) u& 0 ( x ) + u& 0 ( x ) n ( x ) ) ds (1.347)
(
V
V
2
1
1
R& = < R& ( x ) > =
n ( x ) u& 0 ( x )  u& 0 ( x ) n ( x ) ) ds
(
V
V
2
Hence, it is seen that for the small deformations the average strain rate
equals the rate of change of the average strain:
d
E& = < E& ( x ) > = < E ( x ) > = E&
dt
(1.348)
d
R& = < R& ( x ) > = < R ( x ) > = R&
dt
d
u& = < u& > = < u > = u
dt
(1.349)
and similarly:
(1.350)
27
( X ) = 0;
( X ) = T ( X ) in B
(1.351)
ijM,i = 0;
where:
ijM = Mji in B
(1.352)
28
i = j = 1, 2,3
and where a comma followed by an index denotes partial differentiation with
respect to the corresponding coordinate variable. Note that the superscript M
stands for macro.
Moreover, the straindisplacement relation has to be verified:
E(X) =
T
1
U ( X ) + ( U ( X ) ) in B
2
(1.353)
= i ei =
ei
X i
(1.354)
ijM =
1
(U i, j + U j ,i ) in B
2
(1.355)
=T ;
E=E
(1.356)
n = t 0 on V
(1.357)
29
E x = u0 on V
(1.358)
= (E , S )
(1.359)
( E )
E
(1.360)
30
( E , S ) + ( , S ) = : E
(1.361)
= ( , S )
(1.362)
E=
( )
(1.363)
( E ) + (T ) = :
(1.364)
( E )
;
E
(1.365)
and also:
E=
( )
31
E = E ( x ,E )
(1.366)
T = T ( x ,E )
= ( x , E ( x ,E ) ) = E ( x , E )
(1.367)
E ( x ,E ) =
E ( x ,E )
E
E
(1.368)
Then:
( x , E ( x ,E ) ) E ( x ,E )
:
E >=
E
E
E ( x ,E )
=<
: E >=
< E >: E
E
E
(1.369)
< T ( x ,E ) > =
< E ( x, E ) >
E
(1.370)
E = E ( E ) = < E ( x, E ) > =
1
V
( x, E ) dV
E
(1.371)
E = E ( E ) = T =< T ( x ,E ) >
(1.372)
32
it is obtained that:
E ( E ) =
E
(E )
E
(1.373)
E = E ( x , )
(1.374)
T = T ( x , )
where the argument emphasizes that a traction boundary data with constant
macrostress,
= T =< T ( x , ) > ,
is
being
considered.
Then,
the
= ( x, T ( x , ) ) = ( x , )
(1.375)
T ( x , ) =
Then:
T ( x , )
(1.376)
33
( x ,T ( x , ) )
T ( x , )
:
>=
T
( x , )
= < :
>= :
< >
(1.377)
< E ( x , ) > =
< ( x, ) >
(1.378)
= ( ) = < ( x, ) > =
1
V
( x, ) dV
(1.379)
E = E ( ) = E = < E ( x , ) >
(1.380)
it is obtained that:
E () =
()
(1.381)
= ( E ) = : E ( )
(1.382)
34
= ( x, E ( x , ) ) = ( x , )
= ( x, T ( x, ) ) = ( x , )
(1.383)
and hence:
+ = T ( x, ) : E ( x, )
(1.384)
(1.385)
The comparison of the (1.385) with the (1.382), by taking into account th
e(1.379), shows that:
( E ) = < ( x, ) >
(1.386)
(E )
E
(1.387)
E = E ( E ) = E : E E (E )
(1.388)
E = ( x , E ( x, E ) ) = E ( x , E )
E = ( x,T ( x, E ) ) = E ( x, E )
(1.389)
and hence:
E + E = T ( x , E ) : E ( x, E )
The volume average over the volume V of the RVE yields:
(1.390)
35
(1.391)
The comparison of the (1.391) with the (1.388), by taking into account the
Errore. L'origine riferimento non stata trovata., shows that:
E ( E ) = < E ( x, E ) >
(1.392)
E=
E E
( )
E
(1.393)
t 0 = n on V
(1.394)
T = T ( x, )
E = E ( x, )
(1.395)
E = < E ( x , ) >
(1.396)
Now, suppose that boundary displacements are defined for this obtained
macrostrain by:
u0 = x E on V
(1.397)
T = T ( x, E )
E = E ( x, E )
(1.398)
In general, these fields are not identical with those ones shown in the
equation (1.395). Furthermore, while it is:
E = < E ( x ,E ) >
(1.399)
36
produces,
through
the
(1.394),
macrostrain
< T ( x ,E ) > ;
(1.3100)
u0 = Ex on V
(1.3101)
T = T ( x, E )
E = E ( x, E )
(1.3102)
E = < T ( x ,E ) >
(1.3103)
Now, let us suppose that boundary tractions are defined for this obtained
macrostress by:
t 0 = n E on V
(1.3104)
T = T ( x, E )
E = E ( x , E )
(1.3105)
37
In general, these fields are not identical with those ones shown in the
equation (1.3102). Furthermore, while it is:
E = < T ( x ,E ) >
(1.3106)
< E ( x ,E ) > ; E
(1.3107)
;
E
( )
(E ) ;
(1.3108)
( ) + E (E ) ; : E
(1.3109)
It should be noted, however, that even for and E which satisfies the
(1.3108), it will be:
T ( x , ) T ( x ,E )
E ( x , ) E ( x ,E )
(1.3110)
38
( x , ) + E ( x ,E ) ( x , ) : E ( x ,E )
Similarly, the macropotentials
(1.3111)
E E
;
E
E ) ; E
(
)
E
(
(1.3112)
E ( E ) + (E ) ; E : E
(1.3113)
E ( x , E ) + ( x ,E ) ( x ,E ) : E ( x , )
(1.3114)
The following table 1.1 provides a summary of the results presented in this
section:
39
PRESCRIBED
PRESCRIBED Ee
microstress
T ( x,)
T ( x ,E )
microstrain
E ( x, )
E ( x,E )
macrostress
= < T ( x, ) >
macrostrain
E = < E ( x, ) >
( x, )
( x , E ( x , ) )
T ( x, ) =
microstrain potential
E ( x, ) =
macrostress potential
microlegendre
transformation
macrolegendre
transformation
approximated
macrolegendre
transformation
corresponding
microlegendre
transformation
( x, )
( x , T ( x , ) )
T
() = <
+ = :E
+ T ( x , ) : E ( x,E )
E
(E )
( ) = <
>
>
( )
E
+ = T ( x,E ) : E ( x,E )
E
(E ) + ( ) : E
E =
(E ) = <
( )
>
+ = T ( x , ) : E ( x, )
=
E
( x, E )
( x , T ( x , E ) )
E ( x, E ) =
>
( x ,T ( x, E )) =
( x, E )
( x , E ( x , E ) )
T ( x, E ) =
(E )
E =
(E ) = <
= < T ( x ,E ) >
( x , E ( x, E )) =
macrostrain potential
( x ,T ( x, )) =
E = < E ( x ,E ) >
( x , E ( x, )) =
microstress potential
+ = :E
E
(E ) + ( )
:E
+ T ( x,E ) : E ( x ,)
Table 1.1 Relation between macro and micro quantities for prescribed
macrostress and macrostrain.
40
1.4
and anisotropy, since the first aspect is due to the multiphase composition of
the medium, while the second one is due to the geometrical arrangement of the
different constituents within the examined heterogeneous volume.
In the previous sections, it has been analyzed the first aspect.
In this section, the constitutive relations for anisotropic materials, in linearelasticity, are presented [64].
A linear anisotropic elastic material, as known, can have as many as 21
elastic constants. However, this number can be opportunely reduced when the
examined material possesses certain material symmetry. Moreover, it is also
reduced, in most cases, when a twodimensional deformation is considered. It
is worth to remember that the matrices of the elastic constants must be positive
definite, because the strain energy must be positive.
Hence, referring to a fixed rectangular coordinate system e1 , e2 , e3 , let T
and E be the stress and the strain fields, respectively, in an anisotropic pierelastic material. The stressstrain relation can be written in the following form:
T = C:
:E
(1.41)
ij = Cijhk hk
(1.42)
or, in components:
where:
(1.43)
41
(1.44)
Cijhk = Chkij
(1.45)
and
where the (1.44) follows directly from the symmetry of the stress and the
strain tensors, while the (1.45) is due to the assuming hypothesis of existence
of the elastic potential , [64]. In other word, the strain energy per unit
volume of the material, given by:
= ij d ij
0
(1.46)
is independent of the loading path, i.e. the path that ij takes from 0 to while
it depends on the final value of , only.
In linear elasticity, the (1.46) may be written as:
1
1
= ij ij = Cijhk ij hk
2
2
(1.47)
Cijhk ij hk > 0
(1.48)
E = S:
:T
(1.49)
ij = Sijhk hk
(1.410)
or, in components:
where:
42
(1.411)
(1.412)
Sijhk = Shkij
(1.413)
and
where the (1.412) follows directly from the symmetry of the stress and the
strain tensors, while the (1.413) is due to the assuming hypothesis of existence
of the elastic complementary potential , [64]. In other word, the stress energy
= ij d ij
0
(1.414)
is independent of the loading path, i.e. the path that ij takes from 0 to
while it depends on the final value of , only.
In linear elasticity, the (1.414) may be written as:
1
1
= ij ij = Sijhk ij hk
2
2
(1.415)
Sijhk ij hk > 0
for any real, non zero, symmetric tensor ij .
Hence, as said before, the compliance tensor S is defined positive.
Introducing, now, the contract notation, [36], such that:
(1.416)
43
11 = 1 ,
22 = 2 ,
33 = 3 ,
32 = 4 ,
31 = 5 ,
12 = 6 ,
(1.417)
11 = 1 ,
22 = 2 ,
2 32 = 4 ,
33 = 3 ,
2 31 = 5 ,
212 = 6 ,
the stressstrain laws (1.42) and (1.410) may be written, respectively, as:
= C ,
C = C
(1.418)
= S ,
S = S
(1.419)
and
T = C : E,
C = CT
(1.420)
The stress and the strain tensors, T and E , are expressed in form of 6x1
column matrices, while the stiffness tensor C is expressed in form of 6x6
symmetric matrix, as given in the following equation:
C11
C=
C12
C13
C14
C15
C22
C23 C24
C25
C33
C34
C35
C44
C45
Sym
C55
C16
C26
C36
C46
C56
C66
(1.421)
44
ij (or hk )
11
22
33
32 or 23
31 or 13
12 or 21
(or )
(1.422)
i
=
9 i j
h
=
9 h k
if i = j
if i j
(1.423)
if h = k
if h k
E = S :T ,
S = ST
(1.424)
S11
S=
S12
S13
S14
S15
S 22
S 23
S24
S 25
S33
S34
S35
S44
S 45
Sym
S55
S16
S26
S36
S46
S56
S66
(1.425)
Here, the transformation between Sijhk and S is similar to that one between
45
Sijhk = S
if both , 3
2Sijhk = S
if either or 3
4Sijhk = S
if both , > 3
(1.426)
1 T
1
1
E CE = T T E = T T ST
2
2
2
(1.427)
E T CE > 0
(1.428)
T T ST > 0
This implies that the matrices C and S are both positive definite. Moreover,
the substitution of the (1.424) in the (1.420) yields:
CS=I=SC
= =
(1.429)
where the second equality follows from the first one which says that C and S
are the inverses of each other and, hence, their product commute.
For a linear anisotropic elastic material, like it has been anticipated before,
the matrices C and S have 21 elastic independent constants. However, this
number can be reduced when a twodimensional deformation is considered.
Assume, therefore, the deformation of the examined anisotropic elastic
bodies to be a twodimensional one for which 3 = 0 . When 3 = 0 , the
stressstrain law given by the first equation of (1.418) becomes:
= C
= 1, 2,3,...., 6
= 1, 2,...., 6
(1.430)
E
T = C
where:
=C
T
C
(1.431)
46
T T = [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]
(1.432)
E T = [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]
(1.433)
and:
C11 C12
C22
C=
Sym
C14
C15
C24
C25
C44
C45
C16
C26
C46
C56
C66
C55
(1.434)
is obtained from C by deleting the third row and the third column
Since C
is a principal submatrix of C and it also is positive definite. It
of it, C
contains 15 independent elastic constants.
The stressstrain law (1.419) for 3 = 0 is:
3 = 0 = S3
(1.435)
3 =
1
S3
S33 3
(1.436)
and by sobstituting the (1.436) within the first equation of the (1.419), it is
obtained:
= S '
(1.437)
with:
S ' = S
where:
S 3 S3
S33
= S '
(1.438)
47
S ' 3 = 0,
S '3 = 0
, = 1, 2,...., 6
(1.439)
E = S' T
Sv
' = Sv
'T
(1.440)
where Sv
' can be defined as reduced elastic compliance tensor and it has a
symmetric matrix form, given by:
S '11 S '12
S '22
S' =
Sym
S '14
S '15
S '24
S '25
S '44
S '45
S '55
S '16
S '26
S '46
S '56
S '66
(1.441)
'=I=S
CS
= = ' C=
(1.442)
and
where the second equality follows from the first one which says that C
S ' are the inverses of each other and, hence, their product commute. This
result is independent of whether 3 = 0 or not, because it represents a property
48
1 T 1 T 1 T
E CE = T E = T S ' T
2
2
2
(1.443)
and to consider that has to be positive for any nonzero T and E , so it must
be:
E > 0
E T C
T T S ' T > 0
(1.444)
e1 , e2 , e3
under an orthogonal
transformation:
e = e
(1.445)
ei = ij e j
(1.446)
or, in components:
T = I = T
(1.447)
or:
ij kj = ik = ji
jk
(1.448)
49
C = C
(1.449)
C ijhk = Cijhk
(1.450)
or in components:
where:
C ijhk = ip jq hr ks C pqrs
(1.451)
Cijhk = ip jq hr ks C pqrs
(1.452)
C = K r K t Crt
(1.453)
where:
1 0 0
= 0 1 0 = I
0 0 1
(1.454)
It is obvious that the (1.452) is satisfied by the given in the (1.454) for any
Cijhk . Therefore, all the anisotropic materials have the symmetry of central
inversion.
50
cos
( ) = sin
0
(r)
sin
cos
0
0
0
(1.455)
e *3 = e 3
e *2
e2
e1
e *1
Figure 1.5
51
2
p
(1.456)
the rotation angle about an axis, this latter is defined as axis of elastic symmetry
with order p . Since p may assume values equal to 2,3, 4, 6 and , the axis
of elastic symmetry has indicated, respectively, with L2 , L3 , L4 , L6 and L .
If is, instead, an orthogonal matrix as defined below:
= I 2nnT
(1.457)
where:
n = a unit vector
then, the transformation (1.445) represents a reflection about a plane whose
normal is n , defined as reflection plane or symmetry plane (P). In particular, if
n = n ,
m = m
(1.458)
52
nT = [ cos ,sin , 0]
(1.459)
i.e. the symmetry plane contains the e3 axis and its normal vector makes an
angle of with the e1 axis, as shown in the following figure.
e3
p
e2
p
e1
The orthogonal matrix of the (1.457), so, has the following expression:
cos 2
( ) = sin 2
sin 2
cos 2
0
0 <
2
2
1
(1.460)
53
1 0 0
( ) = 0 1 0
0 0 1
(1.461)
e2 axis:
0
1
( ) = 0 cos 2
0 sin 2
sin 2 <
2
2
cos 2
0
(1.462)
54
n'
O
e2
n
e1
Figure 1.7
55
Cijhk = ij hk + G ( ih jk + ik jh )
(1.463)
where and G are the Lam constants, satisfies the (1.452) for any
orthogonal .
It is possible to demonstrate that if an anisotropic elastic material possesses
a material symmetry with the orthogonal matrix , then it also possesses the
material symmetry with T = 1 . This means, for example, that if the
material has rotational symmetry with rotation about the x3 axis an angle , it
also has the symmetry about the x3 axis an angle . Moreover, it is possible
to demonstrate, yet, that if an anisotropic elastic material possesses a symmetry
with ' and '' , then it also possesses a symmetry with = ' '' , [64].
These statements, valid either for linear or nonlinear material, are useful in
determining the structure of the stiffness tensor when the material possesses
symmetries.
Depending on the number of rotations and/or reflection symmetry a crystal
possesses, Voigt (1910) in fact classified crystals into 32 classes. However, in
terms of the 6x6 matrix C , there are only 8 basic groups, since different
combinations of symmetry forms may lead to the same structure of the stiffness
tensor, [36]. This classification maid for crystals can be extended for noncrystalline materials, so that for them the structure of
C can also be
56
Triclinic materials
They represent the most general case, in which no symmetry form exists.
The number of independent constants is, therefore, 21 and the matrix C
assumes the following form:
C11
C=
C12
C13
C14
C15
C22
C23 C24
C25
C33
C34
C35
C44
C45
Sym
C55
C16
C26
C36 0
n = 21
C46
C56
C66
(1.464)
Monoclinic materials
C11
C=
C12
C13
C14
C22
C23 C24
C33
C34
C44
Sym
C55
0
0
0 0
n = 13
0
C56
C66
(1.465)
or = 0 :
2
C11
C=
57
C12
C13
C15
C22
C23
C25
C33
C35
C44
Sym
C55
0
0
0 0
n = 13
C46
0
C66
C11
C=
C12
C13
C22
C23
C33
C44
C45
Sym
C55
(1.466)
:
2
C16
C26
C36 0
n = 13
0
0
C66
(1.467)
The symmetry forms are: 3P, 3L2 , L2 2 P ,3L2 3PC ; With reference to the
symmetry form 3P, it means that the three coordinate planes, = 0 , =
and =
58
C11
C=
C12
C13
C22
C23
C33
C44
Sym
0
0
0 0
n =9
0
0
C66
C55
(1.468)
Trigonal materials
The symmetry forms are: L3 3L2 , L3 3P, L36 3L2 3PC ; With reference to the
symmetry form 3P, it is verified that the three coordinate planes, = 0 ,
=+
and =
are the symmetry planes. The number of the
3
3
C11
C=
C12
C11
C13
C13
C14
C14
0
0
C33
C44
Sym
C44
0
n0 = 6
0
C14
1
( C11 C12 )
2
0
0
(1.469)
Tetragonal materials
, = , =+
4
4
2
and = +
59
C11
C=
C12
C13
C11
C13
C33
C44
Sym
0
0
0 0
n =6
0
0
C66
C44
(1.470)
L3 P, L3 3L2 4 P, L6 , L6 6 L2 , L6 PC , L6 6 P, L6 6 L2 7 PC ;
For the transversely isotropic materials the symmetry planes are =
,
2
i.e. ( e3 = 0 ) , and any plane that contains the e3 axis. So, the e3 axis is the
axis of symmetry. The number of the independent elastic constants is 5 and the
matrix C assumes the following form:
C11
C=
C12
C11
Sym
C13
C13
0
0
0
0
C33
C44
0
C44
0
n0 = 5
0
1
( C11 C12 )
2
0
0
(1.471)
60
Cubic materials
C11
C=
C12
C12
C11
C12
C11
C44
Sym
C44
0
0
0 0
n =3
0
0
C44
(1.472)
Isotropic materials
For the isotropic materials any plane is a symmetry plane. The number of
the independent elastic constants is 2 and the matrix C assumes the following
form:
61
0
0
0
C11 C12 C12
C11 C12
0
0
0
C11
0
0
0
n0 = 2 (1.473)
0
0
( C11 C12 )
C=
Sym
0
( C11 C12 )
2
1
( C11 C12 )
If and G are the Lam constants, the (1.473) assumes the expression given
by:
2G +
C=
2G +
Sym
2G +
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
n =2
0
0
(1.474)
62
Figure 1.8
It is worth to underline that the structure of the matrix C above obtained for
each class of materials is referred to the specified coordinate system. When
different coordinate systems are employed, the transformation law (1.451) has
to be used for obtaining the structure of the new matrix C , in which, while the
number of nonzero elements may increase, the number of independent elastic
constants remains constant since it does not depend on the choice of the
coordinate systems. In the applications, the choice of the coordinate system is
very often dictated by the boundary conditions of the problem and hence it may
not coincide with the symmetry planes of the material. In these cases, the
transformation of the matrix C to a different coordinates system becomes
necessary.
63
The analysis until here presented for obtaining the structure of the stiffness
tensor C may be applied analogously for obtaining the structure of the
compliance tensor S . Like C , the elastic compliance tensor S is a fourth rank
tensor and, under the orthogonal transformation (1.445), its components,
S ijhk , referred to a new coordinate system are related to those ones, Sijhk ,
referred to the initial coordinate system by:
S ijhk = ip jq hr ks S pqrs
(1.475)
The relation:
(1.476)
1
S56 = S 24 = S14
2
(1.477)
and the elastic coefficient C66 in (1.469), (1.471) and (1.473) is replaced by:
S 66 = 2 ( S11 S12 )
(1.478)
1
1
S=
E
Sym
2 (1 + )
0
2 (1 + )
0
(1.479)
0
0
2 (1 + )
0
64
where:
E=
G ( 3 + 2G )
,
+G
2 ( + G )
(1.480)
are, respectively, the Youngs modulus and the Poisson ratio. It can be shown
that:
E
,
(1 + )(1 2 )
G=
E
2 (1 + )
(1.481)
For obtaining the structure of the elastic reduced compliance tensor S ' , the
same considerations are valid with some modifications required by the (1.438)
. Hence, for example, the expression of S ' for isotropic materials is the
following one:
1
1
S' =
2G
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 0 0 n0 = 2
2 0
2
(1.482)
Cij
Cij
C jj
(1.483)
(1.484)
Cii
Cij
Cij
Cih
C jj
C jh
65
Cih
(1.485)
(1.486)
where i, j , h are distinct integers which can have any value from 1 to 6.
In particular, according to the theorem which states that a real symmetric
matrix is positive definite if and only if its leading principal minors are
positive, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the 6x6 matrix C to be
positive definite are the positivity of its 6 leading principal minors, i.e.:
C12
C12
C22
(1.487)
C11
C12
C12
C22
C13
C23
C33
(1.488)
C13
(1.489)
(1.490)
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C12
C22
C23
C24
C25 C26
C13
C23
C33
C34
C35
C14
C24
C34
C44
C45 C46
C15
C25
C35
C45
C55
C56
C16
C26
C36
C46
C56
C66
C36
>0
(1.491)
66
Analogously, the (1.416) implies that the 6x6 matrix S is also positive
definite and, so, also its 6 leading principal minors are positive. The same
Cijhh n j = ( C pqss n p nq ) ni
(1.492)
Cikhk nh = ( C pqrq n p nq ) ni
(1.493)
Cijhk n j nk nh = ( C pqrs n p nq nr ns ) ni
(1.494)
Cijhk m j mk mh = ( C pqrs n p mq nr ms ) ni
(1.495)
67
ni = i1 ,
mi = i 2 cos + i 3 sin
(1.496)
Qih ( n ) = Cijhk n j nk
(1.497)
Cijhk mi n j nh nk = 0
(1.498)
Cijhk mi m j mh nk = 0
(1.499)
68
( = 1, 2,..., n ) . It is assumed
that the microinclusions are perfectly bonded to the matrix. All the
constituents of the RVE are assumed to be linearly elastic. Hence, the overall
response of the RVE is linearly elastic, too. The matrix and each inclusion are
assumed to be homogeneous, but neither the matrix nor the inclusions need be
isotropic. In general, the overall response of the RVE may be anisotropic, even
if its constituents are isotropic. This depends on the geometry and arrangement
of the microinclusions.
The overall elasticity and compliance tensors of the RVE, denoted by C and
S , respectively, are, in the follows, estimated in terms of the RVEs microstructural properties and geometry. As done previously, the cases of a
prescribed macrostress and a prescribed macrostrain are considered separately.
t 0 = n 0 on V
(1.51)
69
Because of the heterogeneity, neither the resulting stress nor the resulting strain
fields in the RVE are uniform. Define the constant strain field E 0 by:
E 0 SM : 0
(1.52)
and observe that the actual stress field, denoted by T ( x ) , and the actual strain
field, denoted by E ( x ) , can be expressed as:
T ( x ) = 0 + T d ( x )
(1.53)
E ( x ) = E0 + Ed ( x )
where the variable stress and strain fields, T d ( x ) and E d ( x ) , are the
disturbances or perturbations in the prescribed uniform stress field and the
0
CM : E ( x ) = CM : { E0 + E d ( x )} in M = V
T ( x) = +T ( x) =
0
d
in
C : E ( x ) = C : { E + E ( x )}
0
(1.54)
and:
S M : T ( x ) = S M : {0 + T d ( x )} in M = V
(1.55)
E ( x) = E + E ( x) =
0
d
in
S : T ( x ) = S : { + T ( x )}
0
where:
n
M = matrix volume
From the averaging theorems, discussed in Section 1.3, and according to the
(1.51), it follows that:
70
T =< T ( x ) >= 0
(1.56)
On the other hand, the overall average strain field is given by:
(1.57)
< Ed ( x) > 0
(1.58)
E = S:
: T = S:
: 0
(1.59)
In order to do it, obtain the average value of the strain field over each microinclusion as:
E = < E ( x ) > =
E ( x ) dV
(1.510)
and the average value of the stress field over each microinclusion is:
T = < T ( x ) > =
T ( x ) dV
(1.511)
In similar manner, the average value of the strain field over the matrix material
is obtained as:
E M = < E ( x ) >M =
1
M
E ( x ) dV
(1.512)
and the average value of the stress field over the matrix material is obtained as:
T M = < T ( x ) >M =
1
M
T ( x ) dV
(1.513)
The volume average of the (1.55) over the matrix and the inclusions yields:
E M = SM :
:T M
E = S :
:T
Since:
( not summed )
(1.514)
71
=1
=1
f M E M = E  f E = S : 0 f S : T
(1.515)
0 n
= S : f T
=1
(1.516)
and:
fM E
= fM S : T
M
=1
=1
where:
f =
fM =
M
= the volume fraction of the matrix
V
(S
S M ) :< 0 + T d ( x ) > = ( S S M ) : T = H : 0
(1.518)
72
S = S M + f H
(1.520)
=1
u0 = x E 0 on V
(1.521)
T 0 CM : E 0
(1.522)
and observe that the actual stress field, denoted by T ( x ) , and the actual strain
field, denoted by E ( x ) , can be expressed as:
T ( x) = T 0 + T d ( x)
E ( x) = E0 + Ed ( x)
(1.523)
73
where the variable stress and strain fields, T d ( x ) and E d ( x ) , are the
0
associated constant stress field T , due to the presence of the inclusions with
different elasticity, i.e. of the existence of a material mismatch.
The total stressstrain relations are given by (1.54) and (1.55).
From the averaging theorems, discusses in the Section 1.3, and according to
the (1.521), it follows that:
E =< E ( x ) >= E 0
(1.524)
On the other hand, the overall average stress field is given by:
(1.525)
< T d ( x) > 0
(1.526)
T = C:
: E = C:
:E0
(1.527)
The volume average of the (1.54) over the matrix and the inclusions yields:
T M = CM :
: EM
T = C :
: E
( not summed )
(1.528)
Since:
n
=1
=1
f M T M = T  f T = C : E 0 f C : E
(1.529)
f M T M = f M S M : E M = S M : E 0 f E
=1
(1.530)
and:
74
=1
=1
The (1.531) leads to an exact result. It defines the overall stiffness tensor
E S M : T = J : E 0
(1.532)
C = C M f C M : J = C M : 14 f J
=1
=1
(1.533)
which is an exact result, yet. At this point, the constant tensors H and
75
V=M+
V
76
strain and stress fields as the actual heterogeneous solid under the applied
boundary conditions (tractions or displacements). The introduced strain field
t = n
t = n
M
M
+ *
(a)
(b)
0
E ( x ) =
E ( x)
in M
in
(1.534)
Since for this equivalent problem the elasticity tensor is, as already
mentioned, uniform everywhere and given by C M , the strain and the stress
fields within the solid can be expressed as:
E ( x ) = E0 + Ed ( x )
and:
(1.535)
77
CM : ( E 0 + E d ( x ) )
in M
(1.536)
T ( x) = C : ( E ( x ) E ( x )) =
M
0
d
C
:
E
+
E
x
E
x
in
( )
( ))
(
which shows that the eigenstrain field disturbs the stressstrain relation.
In order to relate the eigenstrain E ( x ) to the corresponding perturbation
strain E d ( x ) , consider the equivalent uniform elastic solid of volume V and
uniform elasticity C M and observe that, since by definition:
T 0 = CM : E 0
(1.537)
E 0 = SM : T 0
(1.538)
or:
T ( x) = T0 + Td ( x)
E ( x ) = E0 + Ed ( x )
(1.539)
T d ( x ) = C M : ( E d ( x ) E ( x ) ) in V
(1.540)
Since the resulting stress field must be in equilibrium and must produce a
compatible strain field, in general the perturbation strain field E d ( x ) is
obtained in terms of an integral operator acting on the corresponding
eigenstrain E ( x ) . In the present context, this integral operator is denoted by
S , such that:
E d ( x ) = S ( x; E )
(1.541)
Eijd ( x ) = Sij ( x; E )
(1.542)
or, in components:
78
0
T ( x) =
T ( x)
in M
in
(1.543)
Since for this alternative equivalent problem the elasticity tensor is, again,
uniform everywhere and given by C M , the strain and the stress fields within
the solid can be expressed as:
E ( x ) = E0 + Ed ( x )
(1.544)
and:
CM : ( E0 + E d ( x ) )
inM
(1.545)
T ( x ) = C : E ( x ) +T ( x ) =
M
0
d
C : ( E + E ( x ) ) + T ( x ) in
M
which shows that the eigenstress field disturbs the stressstrain relation.
In order to relate the eigenstress T ( x ) to the corresponding perturbation
stress T d ( x ) , by considering again the equivalent uniform elastic solid of
volume V and uniform elasticity C M and by taking in account the (1.535),
(1.536) and the (1.539), it follows that:
T d ( x ) = C M : E d ( x ) + T ( x ) in V
(1.546)
T d ( x ) = T ( x; T )
or, in components:
(1.547)
79
Tijd ( x ) = Tij ( x; T )
(1.548)
According to this topic, an important result due to Eshelby (1957), whis has
played a key role in the micromechanical modelling of elastic and inelastic
heterogeneous solids, as well as of nonlinear creeping fluids, is that if:
1. V is homogeneous, linearly elastic, and infinitely extended and
2.
is an ellipsoid
then:
1. the eigenstrain E necessary for homogenization is uniform in .
2. the resulting strain E d and, hence, stress T d are also uniform in
E d = S : E in
(1.549)
Sijkl
= S jikl = Sijlk
(1.550)
Sijkl
Sklij
(1.551)
80
The components of the Eshelby tensor are listed for several special cases.
For them, the reader is referred to the Appendix, at the end of this chapter.
When the eigenstrain E and the resulting strain disturbance E d are
uniform in , then the corresponding eigenstress T and the associated stress
disturbance T d are also uniform in . Hence, a fourthorder tensor T may
be introduced, such that:
T d = T : T in
(1.552)
T + C M : E = 0,
E + SM : T = 0
(1.553)
So, from the (1.546), the (1.549) and the (1.552), it follows that:
(
: (S
) : ( C
1( ) ) : ( S
S : E = S M : T 1(
4)
: E )
T : T = CM
:T)
(1.554)
S + S M : T : C M = 1( ) ,
T + C M : S : S M = 1(
4)
(1.555)
or, in components:
1
(ik jl + il jk )
2
1
= ( ik jl + il jk )
2
M
Sijkl
+ Sijpq
: T pqrs
: Crskl
=
ijkl
+C
M
ijpq
:S
pqrs
:S
M
rskl
(1.556)
However, for the general case, the eigenstrains and the eigenstresses
necessary for the homogenization are not uniform in , even if is
ellipsoidal, whether V is unbounded or finite. So, the eigenstrains, E ( x ) (or
81
CM : E ( x ) = CM : { E0 + E d ( x )} inM = V
T ( x) = T + T ( x) =
0
d
in
C : E ( x ) = C : { E + E ( x )}
0
(1.557)
Hence, the resulting stress field in , according to the (1.557), is given by:
T ( x ) = C : E ( x ) = C : { E 0 + E d ( x )} in
(1.558)
T ( x ) = CM : ( E ( x ) E ( x ) ) = CM : ( E0 + E d ( x ) E ( x ) ) in (1.559)
By summarizing the equations (1.558) and (1.559), the stress field in
can be expressed in the following form:
T ( x ) = C : ( E 0 + E d ( x ) ) = CM : ( E 0 + E d ( x ) E ( x ) )
(1.560)
E ( x ) = S : (T 0 + T d ( x ) ) = S M : ( T 0 + T d ( x ) T ( x ) )
(1.561)
82
T 0 = 0
(1.562)
E 0 = SM : 0
while, if the overall strain E 0 is given, then:
E0 = E0
(1.563)
T 0 = CM : E 0
E 0 + E d ( x ) = A : E ( x ) ,
T 0 +T d ( x ) = B : T ( x ) in
(1.564)
where:
A = ( C M C ) : CM ,
B = ( S M S ) : S M
and B satisfy:
S M : C = 1( ) ( A ) = 1( ) ( B )
4
(1.565)
(1.566)
(1.567)
1 T
or:
C M : S = 1( ) ( B ) = 1( ) ( A )
4
1 T
where the superscript T stands for the inverse of the transpose or the
transpose of the inverse.
In the follows, the attention is confined to the case when V is unbounded
and is ellipsoidal, so that the eigenstrains and the eigenstresses necessary
for the homogenization are both uniform in . In particular, when V is
unbounded there is no distinction between the cases when the strain or the
stress is prescribed and, so, it is:
E 0 = SM : 0
0 = CM : E 0
(1.568)
83
and eigenstress
homogenization:
E = ( A S ) : E 0 ,
T = ( B T ) : 0 in
(1.569)
Hence, according to the (1.564) and the (1.569), it can be obtained the
strain and stress fields expressions:
E = E 0 + E d = A : ( A S ) : E 0
1
T = +T = B : ( B T
0
in
(1.570)
The strain field E and the stress field T in given by the (1.570) are
equivalent. From costitutive relations (1.557) and from dual ones:
S M : T ( x ) = S M : { 0 + T d ( x )} in M = V
E ( x) =
0
d
in
S : T ( x ) = S : { + T ( x )}
substitution of the (1.565) into (1.570), yields, in :
{ {
: E = {C : {1
E = S : B : ( B T ) : 0 = S : 1(4) T : 1(4) CM : S
1
T = C : A : ( A S
( 4)
( 4)
)}
S : 1 S : C
M
)}
}
}
(1.571)
: CM : E0
:S
(1.572)
0
By taking into account the advantage of the identities (1.555), the fourthorder tensors in the righthand sides of (1.572) become:
{
C : {1
(
: ( 1( ) S
)}
: C )}
S : 1( ) T : 1( ) CM : S
4
( 4)
{
= {1
(
: (1( ) C
)}
: S )}
: CM = 1( ) S : 1( ) SM : C
:S
( 4)
(1.573)
84
Hence, the (1.573) compared with the (1.570) yields the equivalence
relations between A , S
) and ( B
,T ) , as it follows:
S : B : ( B T ) : C M = A : ( A S )
1
C : A : (A S
: S = B : ( B T
(1.574)
(1.575)
(1.576)
J = H : CM ,
H = J : S M
(1.577)
and
H = ( S S M ) : B : ( B T )
J = (S S
):C
: A : (A S
(1.578)
or:
H = ( S S M ) : C : A : ( A S ) : S M
1
J = ( S S M ) : B : ( B T ) : C M
1
(1.579)
85
As pointed out before, the Eshelby tensor S and its conjugate T , in case
of uniform ellipsoidal inclusion in an unbounded uniform matrix M, depend
on the aspect ratios of and on the elastic parameters of the matrix material,
but they are independent of the material properties of . On the other hand,
(
)
= (1( ) S )
H = 1( ) S
4
: SM
(1.580)
which shows that H and J tensors are effective tools for homogenization
of solids with cavities and cracks, [47].
It is seen, from the above equations, that the equivalence relations between
(A
86
1.6 Strategies for obtaining overall elasticity tensors: Voigt and Reuss
estimating
In this section, we will introduce some general results about extremely
useful bounds for overall elastic stiffness and compliance tensors, in the
framework of the micromechanical theory. In particular, Hill (1952) has proved
that, independently from the RVE geometry, the actual overall moduli lie
somewhere in an interval between the Reuss and Voigt estimates, as shown in
the follows.
For semplicity, it is considered the simplest case of an RVE volume V
consisting in a linear elastic homogeneous matrix M which contains one only a
linear elastic homogeneous inclusion . So, either for stress prescribed and
for strain prescribed boundary conditions, the equation (1.517) assumes the
following form:
(S
S ) : = f ( S M S ) : T
(1.61)
where:
f =
T = L :
(1.62)
where:
L = f 1 ( S M S )
(S
S)
(1.63)
87
T M = LM :
(1.64)
where:
= f M T M + f T
(1.65)
From the (1.65), by taking in account the relations (1.62) and (1.64), it
has to be verified that:
f M LM + f L = I
(1.66)
where:
LM = ( I  f L ) f M 1
(1.67)
(C
C ) : E = f ( C M C ) : E
(1.68)
88
E = M :
(1.69)
where:
M = f 1 ( C M C )
(C
C)
(1.610)
E M = MM :
(1.611)
where:
= f M E M + f E
(1.612)
From the (1.612), by taking in account the relations (1.69) and (1.611), it
has also to be verified that:
f M M M + f M = I
(1.613)
where:
M M = ( I  f M ) f M 1
(1.614)
By taking into account the (1.514) and the (1.528), the equations (1.65)
and (1.612), respectively, yield:
= f M C M : E M + f C : E
E = f M S M :
Because it is:
+ f S :
(1.615)
89
= C:
(1.616)
by combining the (1.616) with the first equation of the (1.615), and according
to the (1.69) and (1.611), the required effective RVEs stiffness tensor is
obtained in the following form:
C = fM CM : M M + fC : M
(1.617)
= S :
(1.618)
by combining the (1.618) with the second equation of the (1.615), and
according to the (1.62) and (1.64), the required effective RVEs compliance
tensor is obtained in the following form:
S = f M S M : LM + f S : L
(1.619)
A model for the evaluation of the overall elastic stiffness tensor, probably
the simplest one, was introduced by Voigt in 1889 for the estimation of the
average constants of polycristals. He assumes that the strain field throughout
the RVE is uniform, that yields:
E = EM = E = E0
(1.620)
K2
90
MM = M = I
(1.621)
CV = f M C M + f C
(1.622)
which the superscript V underlines that the overall stiffness tensor has been
obtained in the Voigt approximation.
Moreover, the equation (1.532) yields that in Voigt approximation, the
J = 1( 4 ) S M : C
(1.623)
T = T M = T = T0
(1.624)
K1
K2
91
It follows that:
LM = L = I
(1.625)
S R = f M SM + fS
(1.626)
which the superscript R underlines that the overall compliance tensor has been
obtained in the Reuss approximation.
Moreover, the equation (1.519) yields that in Reuss approximation, the
(1.627)
subjected
to
displacement
homogeneous
boundary
conditions,
u0 = Ex on V
(1.628)
W=
1
1
1
t u0 ds = ti ijM x j ds = ijM ti x j ds
2 V
2 V
2 V
(1.629)
92
E = < E ( x ,E ) >= E
(1.630)
1
1
W = E EV = E T V
2
2
(1.631)
t 0 = n on V
(1.632)
W=
1 0
1
1
t uds = ijM n j ui ds = ijM n j ui ds
2 V
2 V
2
V
(1.633)
T = < T ( x ,E ) >=
(1.634)
It
can
be
noted
that,
by
taking
in
account
the
Errore. L'origine riferimento non stata trovata., the equation (1.631) yields the
following relation:
W =
It
can
be
noted
that,
( x , E ) dV = ( E ) V
E
by
taking
in
account
the
Errore. L'origine riferimento non stata trovata., the equation (1.635) yields the
following relation:
W =
( x, ) dV = ( ) V
93
1
1
W = E V = E T V
2
2
(1.635)
W=
1
1
ti ui ds = ij ij dV
2 V
2V
(1.636)
ij ij =
1
ij ij dV
V V
(1.637)
Define:
p
ijp = ( M ijhk
) hkp ,
(1.638)
p
ijp = Sijhk
hk
(1.639)
where the superscript p stands for the inclusion phase or for the matrix
p
p
phase, M, and where Cijhk
and Sijhk
represent the elastic stiffnesses and
p
ijp = Sijhk
hkp
(1.640)
ijpijp = ij ijp
(1.641)
(1.642)
94
The second terms in the left sides in the equations (1.642) are positive,
since they can be written, respectively, as:
(
(
p
ij
p
ij
p
ijp )( ijp ij ) = Cijhk
( hkp hk )( ijp ij )
p
ij )( ijp ijp ) = Sijhk
( hkp hk )( ijp ij )
(1.643)
(
p
ij
p
ij
ij ) dV = 0,
p
ij
ij ) ijp dV = 0
(1.644)
V ij ij ij ijp dV
V
V ij ij ij ijp dV
(1.645)
Cijhk
Sijhk
1
p
Cijhk
dV
V V
1
p
Sijhk
dV
VV
(1.646)
This result, by taking in account the equations (1.622) and (1.626), can be
expressed in the following form:
V
Cijhk Cijhk
R
Sijhk Sijhk
(1.647)
which indicates that the Voigt approximation gives upper bound and the Reuss
approximation gives lower bound for the overall stiffness tensor of the
homogenized material. Unfortunately, these bounds are of pratical significance
only for small volume fractions and slight mismatch of elastic moduli of
95
phases. Better universal bounds are given by Hashin and Shtrikman (1963), as
shown in the following section.
1
1 1
CE E = inf
C ( E + E d ) ( E + E d ) dV
d
E
E
2
VV2
1
1 1
ST T = inf
S ( T + T d ) (T + T d ) dV
d
T
T
2
VV2
(1.71)
where:
96
S = C 1
(1.72)
In this framework, the basic physic idea of the Hashin and Shtrikmans
principles is to substitute the heterogeneous medium with a reference
H
97
CE E  C H E E dV =
V 2
2
1
1
= sup T E  ( C C H ) T T dV
V
2
T H
(1.73)
where:
E = E + E
(1.74)
)(
1
1
C E + E E + E C H E E dV =
V 2
2
1
1
= sup < T > E ( C C H ) T T dV +
V
2
T H
+ T E + C H E E dV
V
2
(1.75)
98
1
1
CE E C H E E =
2
2
(1.76)
1
1
(T )
H 1
(T )
is defined by:
(T )
FC H : E E T E + C H E E dV
2
(1.77)
1
1
CE E C H E E =
2
2
(1.78)
1
1
(T )
H 1
= inf
FCH
< T > E ( C C ) T T dV + inf
E E
V T H V
2
The equations (1.76) and (1.78) represent the Hashin and Shtrikmans
variational principles, based on the eigenstress. In particular, the (1.76) is a
saddle principle, while the (1.78) is a minimum principle. From them, by
imposing stationariness principles with respect to T , it is obtained:
(C C )
H
T = E + E
(1.79)
99
that confirms that stress field T is the correction which has to be prescribed to
is positive
1
1
ST T S H T T =
2
2
(1.710)
1
1
( E )
H 1
(E )
is defined by:
( E )
FS H : T T E T + S H T T dV
2
(1.711)
and where:
100
1
1
ST T S H T T =
2
2
(1.712)
1
1
( E )
H 1
= inf
FSH
< E > T ( S S ) E E dV + Tinf
T
V EH V
2
The equations (1.710) and (1.712) represent the Hashin and Shtrikmans
variational principles, based on the eigenstrain. In particular, the (1.710) is a
saddle principle, while the (1.712) is a minimum principle. From them, by
imposing stationariness principles with respect to E , it is obtained:
(S S )
H
E = T + T
(1.713)
that confirms that strain field E is the correction which has to be prescribed
(T )
functionals, FCH
(E )
101
and T .
1 +
1 1
C E E = inf
C ( E + E d ) ( E + E d ) dV
d
E
E
2
2
f V
V
1 +
1 1
Sh
T T = inf
S (T + T d ) (T + T d ) dV
d
T
T
2
f V
V 2
(1.714)
1
1
CE E C + E E
2
2
1
1
SE E S + E E
2
2
(1.715)
102
C + , upper and lower limitations for the elastic energy, and the complementary
one, of the homogenized material are obtained, as given by:
1
1
1
C E E CE E C + E E
2
2
2
1
1
1
S E E SE E S + E E
2
2
2
(1.716)
E f and T f , i.e., coinciding with the space constituted by the sole null tensor.
In this way, the well known Voigt and Reuss estimations dallalto e dal basso
are reached; in particular, for a biphasic composite, it is:
( f M S M + f S ) C f M C M + f C
1
( f M C M + f C ) S f M S M + f S
1
(1.717)
with:
f M C M + fC = ( C+ ) ,
( f M C M + f C )
( f M S M + fS )
= (C
f M S M + fS = ( S
= ( S )
+ R
(1.718)
103
1
1
CE E C H E E
2
2
(1.719)
T)
1
1
(
H 1
and:
1
1
ST T S H T T
2
2
(1.720)
1
1
( E )
H 1
inf
FS H
< E > T ( S S ) E E dV + inf
T T
V E H f V
2
1
1
CE E C H E E
2
2
(1.721)
1
1
(T )
H 1
inf
FH
< T > E ( C C ) T T dV + inf
E E C
V T H V
2
and
1
1
ST T S H T T
2
2
(1.722)
E )
1
1
(
H 1
(T )
(E )
and of FS H
implies
that only the minimum principles (1.720) and (1.721) yield upper estimations
for the density of the elastic complementary energy and for the elastic one,
respectively, for the homogenized material. The saddle principles (1.719) and
(1.722), instead, are able to yield an estimation that cannot be read as an upper
or lower estimation.
104
105
CI = ( x ) CH ,
where:
reference problem.
CI =
the
corresponding
anisotropic
B=
the domain occupied by both the homogeneous object (BH) and the
inhomogeneous one (BI).
R+ =
( x) =
a C 2 ( B ) scalar function.
(1.82)
106
where:
H
C ijhk
= those only elastic coefficients explicitly involved in the specific
107
T ( u) = 0
in B H
T (u) n = t
on BtH
(1.83)
where:
u = u0 on BuH
(1.84)
where, in fact:
T ( u ) = C H : E ( u ) = C H : sym ( u ) = C H : ( u )
(1.85)
or, in components:
H
H
ij = Cijhk
hk = Cijhk
u h ,k
(1.86)
108
T ( u) = 0
in B I
T (u) n = t I
on BtI
(1.87)
where:
109
u = u0 on BuH
(1.88)
where, in fact:
T ( u ) = C I : E ( u ) = C I : sym ( u ) =
= ( x ) C H : sym ( u ) = ( x ) C H : ( u )
(1.89)
T ( u) = ( x ) CH : E ( u) + CH : E ( u) ( x ) = 0 in B I
(1.810)
uH = uI
(1.811)
where:
( )
( )
( )
T uH = ( x ) T H uH + T H uH ( x ) = 0 in BI
(1.812)
( )
( )
C H : E u H = T H u H
But, since the equation (1.813) is equal to zero, it follows that:
(1.813)
110
( )
T H u H ( x ) = 0 x B I
(1.814)
detT H = 0,
x B H
(1.815)
detT = 0
(1.816)
The geometrical relationship (1.814) between the stress tensor T H and the
vector may be rewritten in the form:
{T
} {
111
= 0 v V , T H : ( v ) = 0
(1.817)
where:
TH
H1 0
0
H
= 0 2 0
0
0 H3
(1.818)
and representing in the same space the gradient of the scalar function , as:
( ) = , 1 , 2 , 3
T
(1.819)
H1 , 1 = 0;
H2 , 2 = 0; H3 , 3 = 0
(1.820)
and it is satisfied only if the two conditions above written are satisfied. The
case of three zero eigenvalues of the stress tensor T H in each point x B H is
trivial; The case of only one zero eigenvalue of the stress tensor T H in each
point x B H , for example in the 3 direction, the only non zero component
of the vector at the corresponding points x B I is ,3 (so, too, if there
are two zero eigenvalues there can be two nonzero components of ).
In the following figure it is shown the case of stress plane, for each point
112
) is coaxial with the eigenvector associated with the zero stress eigenvalue.
It can be noted that the assumed position (1.81) and the hypothesis (1.811)
, that is true if the equation (1.814) is satisfied, imply:
T I = T H
(1.821)
113
B I , respectively. Let be
CH
and
{
: { T ( u) = 0
}
on B }
p H : T ( u) = 0 in B H , T ( u) n = t on BtH , u = u0 on BuH
pI
in B I , T ( u) n = t on BtI , u = u0
I
u
(1.822)
where:
( x ) C 2 ( B ) x B, ( x ) > > 0, R +
if u H is the solution of the homogeneous problem p H , then u I = u H if and
only if T H : ( v ) = 0, v V , i.e.:
(1.823)
{x B , v V , T : ( v ) = 0} u = u
In other words, when a solution B = {u , E , T } for an anisotropic
I
p I as
114
For example, let us to consider the composite materials for which each
phase is characterized by constant elastic moduli within their own phase, but
different from phase to phase.
This kind of inhomogeneity can be described by a scalar function that is
constant in each phase, but piecewise discontinuous.
In this case, in particular, for each phase p of the composite material, the
elasticity tensor can be written as:
C Hp = p C H
p = {1, 2, ..., n} N
(1.824)
where:
( B ) B U pn=1 p ( B ) }
(1.825)
and let us to indicate with ( p ,q ) the interface boundary between two generic
subdomains p and q of the partition, with elasticity tensors C Hp and C Hq ,
respectively.
In order to obtain the solution for this kind of composite material, starting
from the known solution for the anisotropic homogeneous reference problem, it
has to be:
T pH = pT H
x p ( B )
(1.826)
115
T pH = p T H = 0
x p ( B )
(1.827)
E pH = C Hp TpH = C H T H = E H
p N , x p
(1.828)
T pH n( p ,q ) = TqH n( q , p )
{{ p, q} N , x ( ) }
p ,q
(1.829)
where:
n( p ,q ) = the unit normal vector to the interface between the phases p and q.
According to the equation (1.826), the equation (1.829) is satisfied if:
T H n( p ,q ) = 0
x ( p , q )
(1.830)
This means that, for each point belonging to the interface surfaces between
two phases, the stress tensor T H of the reference homogeneous material has to
possess at least one zero eigenvalue, that is:
detT H = 0
x ( p , q)
(1.831)
So, the eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of the stress tensor
is coaxial with the unit normal vector to the tangent plane to the interface.
Finally, to complete the elastic solution for the composite material, it is
necessary that the equilibrium conditions on the external boundary were
116
TeH n = teH = e t H
x Bt ( e)
(1.832)
Bt = U ke=1 Bt ( e)
(1.833)
where:
k = the total number of the phases that have a projection of their boundary on
the external boundary on which the tractions are prescribed.
At this point, known the stress and strain fields that are elastic solution for
the reference homogeneous problem, it is possible to built the elastic associated
solution for the composite multiphase materials with analogous geometry to
the homogeneous problem.
It also has to be noted that the case of multiphase materials, characterized
by a scalar parameter , constant in each phase, can be seen as a
generalization of the S.A.S. theorem where it is sufficient that the condition
detT H = 0 were worth only in the points belonging to the internal interfaces
between the different phases, and not necessarily in each point of the
homogeneous body; in other words, the stress tensor T H can be a threedimensional stress field in any point of the domain, except for the points
belonging to the interface surfaces.
A further example of materials to which the S.A.S. theorem can be applied
is that one of composite multiphase materials, where, in a more general
situation, the following relation can be written for the elasticity tensor in each
phase of the heterogeneous solid:
C Hp = p ( x ) C H
117
x p p ( B ) B
(1.834)
where:
p ( B ) B U np=1 p ( B )
(1.835)
118
SI =
1 H1
C = ( x) SH ,
( x)
where:
reference problem.
SI =
of
B=
the domain occupied by both the homogeneous object (BH) and the
inhomogeneous one (BI).
R+ =
( x) =
a C 2 ( B ) scalar function.
where:
(1.837)
119
H
S ijhk
= those only compliance coefficients explicitly involved in the specific
T ( u) = 0
in B H
T (u) n = t
on BtH
T (u) n = 0
on BoH
where:
(1.838)
120
BtH =
BoH =
u = 0 on BuH
(1.839)
where, in fact:
T ( u ) = C H : E ( u ) = C H : sym ( u ) = C H : ( u )
(1.840)
or:
sym ( u ) = E ( u ) = S H : T ( u )
(1.841)
H
H
ij = Cijhk
hk = Cijhk
u h ,k
(1.842)
in components:
and:
H
ij = Sijhk
hk
(1.843)
121
T ( u ) = b
in B I
T (u) n = t
on BtI
T (u) n = 0
on BoI
(1.844)
where:
u = 0 on BuH
(1.845)
where, in fact:
TI =TH
(1.846)
122
[ (S H : T H )] = O
(1.847)
E H = S H : T H = sym u H
(1.848)
where:
[ (S I : T I )] = [ ( S H : T H )] = O
(1.849)
sym u I = E I = S I: T I = S H : T H
(1.850)
= ( x3 )
(1.851)
123
This means that x3 is the direction that is locally coaxial with the gradient
of , i. e.,
T = [0, 0, /x3 ]
(1.852)
H
H
H
,33 u2,2 + ,3 (u2,3 u3,2 ),2 = 0
H
H
,3 (u1,2 u2,1 ),1 = 0
H
H
,3 (u1,2 u2,1 ),2 = 0
(u H + u H ) + [(u H u H ) + (u H u H ) ] = 0
,3
1,3
3,1 ,2
2,3
3,2 ,1
,33 1,2 2,1
(1.853)
124
strain field, where any plane with support the axis x3 can be the
plane of the strains:
detE H = 0,
x B H
(1.854)
In the previous statements, analogously to what has been done with the
stress state, it has been implicitly considered the definition about the plane
strain: a strain state will be said plane if, in a fixed point x of the solid, there
is a plane of the strains to which all the strain components ij belong. It is easy
to demonstrate that this plane exists if the strain tensor E has a zero
eigenvalue. So, if {1 , 2 , 3 } is the orthogonal principal reference frame of the
strain tensor E and if 3 is assumed, for example, as the eigenvector
associated to the zero eigenvalue of E , the plane of the strains must coincide
with 1 3 plane.
It follows that a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a
plane strain is given by:
detE = 0
(1.855)
125
{curl [curl ( S :T )] = O}
{h V : h = 0, ( curlu
H
h = 0, sym( uH )h h = 0
(1.856)
where:
( x ) C 2 ( B ) x B, ( x ) > > 0, R +
h = any unit vector defined in the threedimensional Euclidean space E 3
V = the corresponding vector space
Moreover, it is worth to note that the assumed position (1.836) and the
hypothesis (1.846), that is true if the equation (1.849) is satisfied, imply:
EI = EH
(1.857)
So, at this point, it can be stated that any anisotropic and homogeneous
elastic problem that possesses a solution represented by the displacement
equations can be considered a Displacement Auxiliary Solution for the
corresponding dual inhomogeneous elastic problem.
In other words, it can be possible to demonstrate the following theorem:
126
{
}
p : {T ( u) = b inB , T ( u) n = t on B , T ( u) n = 0 on B , u = 0 on B }
pH : T ( u) = b inBH , T ( u) n = t on BtH , T ( u) n = 0 on BoH , u = 0 on BuH
I
I
t
I
o
I
u
(1.858)
if w H = curl u H v V , skew u H v = w H v
we have that:
h V h = 0, ( curl u h = 0, sym( u )h h = 0
H
T =T
I
}
{
(1.859)
for an anisotropic
p I as
It is worth to underline that in the case where displacement boundaryvalue u is not equal to zero, the elastic mixed problem can be rewritten
127
as the corresponding first type one, in which only the traction and reaction
fields are considered.
For more details on D.A.S. demonstration, let us to send to the references
being in literature, [23].
It is useful to underline, now and again, the geometrical interpretation of the
result of the theorem, constituted by the observation that, in order to find an
analytical solution for a given elastic inhomogeneous and anisotropic body in
= 0 + 1 x1 + 2 x2 + 3 x3
(1.860)
128
*
*
*
*
1 (u1,2
u2,1
),2 = 2 (u1,2
u2,1
),1
*
*
*
*
2 (u2,3 u3,2 ),3 = 3 (u2,3 u3,2 ),2
*
*
*
*
3 (u1,3 u3,1 ),1 = 1 (u1,3 u3,1 ),3
(1.861)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[(
u
u
)
+
(
u
u
)
]
=
(
u
u
)
+
(
u
u
)
1 1,2 2,1 ,3
1,3
3,1 ,2
2
1,3
3,1 ,1
3
1,2
2,1 ,1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2 [(u2,1 u1,2 ),3 + (u2,3 u3,2 ),1 ] = 1 (u2,3 u3,2 ),2 + 3 (u2,1 u1,2 ),2
[(u * u * ) + (u* u* ) ] = (u* u* ) + (u * u * )
3,2
2,3 ,1
1
3,2
2,3 ,3
2
3,1
1,3 ,3
3 3,1 3,1 ,2
Because of the arbitrary of the assumption about the constants in the law,
by setting to zero all skew components of u H , a very closed solution of
the system can be found in the classical strain potential form, [8], that is
u H =
(1.862)
curl u H = 0
(1.863)
129
For the examples of applicability of the D.A.S. theorem and for more details
on its formulation, let us to send to the references being in literature, [23].
It is worth to note that the D.A.S. theorem, like the S.A.S. one, yields the
possibility to find a closedform solution for some inhomogeneous materials
and it evidences that this possibility
130
APPENDIX
S1111 =
S1122 =
S1212 =
3
(1 2 ) I
a12 I11 +
1
8 (1 )
8 (1 )
1
(1 2 ) I
a22 I12
1
8 (1 )
8 (1 )
1
(1 2 ) I + I
a12 + a22 ) I12 +
( 1 2)
(
16 (1 )
16 (1 )
[11]
131
I1 =
I3 =
4 a1a2 a3
(a
2
1
12
(a
4 a1a2 a3
2
2
12
{F ( , k ) E ( , k )}
a ( a 2 a 2 )1 2
3
2 1
E ( , k )
a1a3
[12]
I1 + I 2 + I 3 = 4
and:
4
,
a12
I I
I12 = 22 12
a1 a2
where F and E are the elliptic integrals of the first and the second kind, and:
12
a2 a2
= arcsin 1 2 3 ,
a1
12
a2 a 2
k = 12 22
a1 a3
[14]
2) Sphere ( a1 = a 2 = a3 = a ) :
Sijkl =
5 1
4 5
ij kl +
(ik jl + il jk )
15 (1 )
15 (1 )
3) Elliptic cylinder ( a3 ) :
[15]
S1111 =
a 2 + 2a a
1
a2
2
1 2
+
1
(
)
2 (1 ) ( a1 + a2 ) 2
a1 + a2
S 2222 =
a 2 + 2a a
1
a1
1
1 2
+
1
(
)
2 (1 ) ( a1 + a2 ) 2
a1 + a2
132
S3333 = 0
S1122
1
a22
a2
=
(
)
2 (1 ) ( a1 + a2 ) 2
a1 + a2
S 2233 =
1
2 a1
2 (1 ) a1 + a2
1
a12
a1
S 2211 =
(
)
2 (1 ) ( a1 + a2 ) 2
a1 + a2
S1133 =
1
2 a2
2 (1 ) a1 + a2
S3311 = S3322 = 0
S1212 =
a 2 + a 2
(1 2 )
1
1
2
+
2
2 (1 ) 2 ( a1 + a2 )
2
S 2323 =
a1
2 ( a1 + a2 )
S3131 =
a2
2 ( a1 + a2 )
4) Pennyshape ( a1 = a2 ? a3 ) :
[16]
133
S1111 = S 2222 =
S3333 = 1
(13 8 ) a3
32 (1 ) a1
(1 2 ) a3
4 (1 ) a1
S1122 = S2211 =
( 1 + 8 ) a3
32 (1 ) a1
S 2233 = S1133 =
( 1 + 2 ) a3
8 (1 ) a1
S3311 = S3322 =
S1212 =
( 4 + 1) a3
1
8
a1
( 7 8 ) a3
32 (1 ) a1
S3131 = S2323 =
1 ( 2 ) a3
1 +
2 4 (1 ) a1
[17]
134
CHAPTER II
Homogenization theory
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a short introduction to the notion of the homogenization and
of the essential concepts connected to it is provided.
In particular, by considering a heterogeneous medium, i.e., a medium whose
material properties vary pointwise in a continuous or discontinuous manner, in
a periodic or non periodic way, deterministically or randomly, homogenization
can be defined as the modelling technique of such a heterogeneous medium by
means a unique continuous medium, [41]. Furthermore, its goal is to determine
the mechanical parameters of the unique fictitious material that best
represents the real heterogeneous material or composite material. Obviously,
homogenization procedure applies itself to all fields of macroscopic physics,
but we will focus the attention on the mechanics of elastic bodies, particularly,
on composite materials.
Since most of the composite materials present a brittle, rather than ductile,
behaviour and, so, the elastic behaviour prevails, often there is no need to
consider the homogenization in an elastoplastic range. Such an approach
135
cannot be ignored when the plastic behaviour comes into play, like in the
composites which have a metallic matrix, for example. This leads to some
difficulty since the solution of the elastoplastic homogenization problem in an
exact form is available only for very simple cases. However, we will be
interested in the elastic response of the homogenized material.
2.2 General theory
In the chapter 1, it has been noticed that, in order to employ a
homogenization procedure, two different scales are used in the description of
the heterogeneous media. One of these, we remember, is a macroscopic scale at
which homogeneities are weak, [41]. The other one is the scale of
inhomogeneities and it has been defined as the microscopic scale. The latter
defines the size of the representative volume element.
About the notion of the RVE, it can be said that, from the experimental
point of view, there exists a kind of statistical homogeneity, in the sense that
any RVE at a specific point looks very much like any other RVE taken at
random at another point.
The mechanical problem presents itself in the following manner, [41].
Let T ( x ) and E ( x ) be the stress and the strain field at the microscale in
the framework of the examined RVE and denote, analogously to what has been
done in the previous chapter, the same mechanic quantities at macroscale by
( X ) and E ( X ) , and the averaging operator by < ... > . Hence, for a volume
averaging, we have, as already seen before:
136
( X ) = < T ( x) > =
1
T ( x ) dV
V V
(2.21)
1
E ( X ) = < E ( x ) > = E ( x ) dV
VV
where V is the volume of the representative element.
In literature, [41], the following definitions are given:
a) The process that relates the macrofields
(2.21),
to
the
microscopic
( , E ) ,
constitutive
by means of
equations
is
the
called
homogenization.
b) The inverse process which consists in determining the microfields
(T , E )
< E >= E
< T > = ,
(2.22)
137
T n = n on V
(2.23)
u = E x on V
(2.24)
T
1
1
T
u + ( u ) ds =
n ( E x ) + ( n ( E x ) ) ds (2.25)
V
2
2
This implies:
(2.26)
The local strain field E ( u ) is made of two parts, the mean E and a
( )
E ( u ) = E + E ( u ) ,
< E ( u ) > = 0
(2.27)
where:
u = periodic displacement
Therefore, the boundary conditions for this problem are the following ones:
T n is antiperiodic on V
u = E x + u ,
u periodic on V
(2.28)
(2.29)
138
By taking in account the (2.23) and (2.24) or the (2.28) and (2.29), the
localization problem (2.22) is, now, theoretically wellposed, but this must be
verified for each constitutive behaviour.
2.3 Localization and Homogenization problem in pure elasticity
The case of purely elastic components will be examined, in this section.
Here, anisotropic linearelastic components will be considered.
About the localization problem, it is written in the following form:
T ( x ) = C ( x ) : E ( x ) = C ( x ) : E + E ( u ( x ) )
divT ( x ) = 0
(2.31)
+ boundary conditions
where E or is prescribed and where:
div C ( x ) : E ( u ( x ) ) = div ( C ( x ) : E )
+ boundary conditions
(2.32)
div ( C : E ) = ( C : E ) n ( I )
(2.33)
C = C + C
(2.34)
where:
and where:
( I ) = Diracs distribution.
139
n=
the unit normal oriented from the  to the + side of the surface I
separating components.
For the demonstration of the existence and uniqueness of the solution, the
reader can see Suquet (1981). We are only interested, here, to give the
representation of the solution.
( )
( )
for a
E ( u ) = Ehk E ( hk )
(2.35)
E ( u ) = E + E ( u ) = E ( I + E ( ) )
(2.36)
E ( u) = L : E
or, in components:
(2.37)
140
ij ( u ) = Lijhk : Ehk
(2.38)
Lijhk = I ijhk + ij ( hk )
(2.39)
where:
with:
1
ih jk + ik jh ) = the tensorial representation in R 3 of the unity of
(
2
R6 .
The tensor L , as already mentioned in the previous section, is called the
I ijhk =
tensor of concentrations (Mandel, 1971) or, depending on the author, the tensor
of strain localization or also the tensor of influence (Hill, 1967).
About the homogenization problem, instead, we can write:
(2.310)
so that:
= C :E
(2.311)
where:
(2.312)
< L > = I,
< LT > = I
(2.313)
141
For the demonstration of the existence and uniqueness of the solution, here
again, the reader can see Suquet (1981). Here, we are only interested to give
the representation of the solution, by starting that a unique solution exists.
In this case, the localization problem becomes:
E ( u ) = E + E ( u ) = S : T ( x )
divT ( x ) = 0
< T ( x) > =
(2.314)
+ boundary conditions
where:
T ( x ) = hk M hk
(2.315)
T ( x) = M :
or, in components:
(2.316)
142
ij ( x ) = M ijhk : hk
(2.317)
M ijhk = ( M hk )ij
(2.318)
where:
E = S:
(2.320)
where:
(2.321)
< M > = I,
< MT > = I
(2.322)
143
(2.41)
in which, for the definition of the tensors L and M , the first factor represents
an admissible stress field and the second factor is an admissible strain field.
So, by applying the HillMandel principle, and by considering that C : S = I ,
the (2.41) assumes the following form:
C : S = I + O (d / l )
(2.43)
144
CHAPTER III
Mechanics of masonry structures: experimental, numerical
and theoretical approaches proposed in literature
3.1
Introduction
Masonries have been largely used in the history of architecture. Despite
their unusual use in new buildings, they still represent an important research
topic due to several applications in the framework of structural engineering,
with particular reference to maintaining and restoring historical and
monumental buildings. Hence, since preservation of existing masonry
structures is considered a fundamental issue in the cultural life of modern
societies, large investments have been concentrated on this issue, leading to
develop a great number of theoretical studies, experimental laboratory activities
and computational procedures in the scientific literature. The main interest of
many researchers is in finding constitutive models able to simulate the complex
response of such structures subjected to static and dynamic loads.
145
Discrete Models
Continuous Models
146
147
148
Block mesh and joint mesh must be connected together, so that they
have to be compatible, which is possible only if interface joints are
identically located. This compatibility is very difficult to ensure when
complex block arrangements are to be handled, like in 3D structures.
The joint element is intrinsically able to model the contact only in the
small displacement field. When large motion is to be dealt, is not
possible to provide easy remeshing in order to update existing contacts
and/or to create new ones.
149
150
between elements. Hence, masonry provides just a natural application for this
technique since its significant deformation occurs at joints or contact points, i.e.
the deformation and failure modes of these structures are strongly dependent on
the role of the joints. This approach is, therefore, as already mentioned, well
suited for collapse analysis and may thus provide support for studies of safety
assessment, for example of historical stone masonry structures under
earthquakes. It has been recently applied by Guiffr et al (1994) for the design
of masonry walls.
The representation of the interfaces between blocks relies on sets of point
contacts. Adjacent blocks can touch along a common edge segment or at
discrete points where a corner meets an edge or another corner.
facetoface (FF)
edgetoface (EF)
151
vertextoface (VF)
edgetoedge (EE)
vertextoedge (VE)
vertextovertex (VV)
152
153
154
155
In the following subsections, major details are given on this topic by starting
from the description of first approach. This latter provides valuable information
used to establish, via phenomenological considerations or via experimental
testing, empirically and semiempirically based methodologies for the design of
156
157
Some authors have tried to develop a formal theoretical framework for such
phenomena, just based on the assumption that the material model, that is
intended to be an "analogue" of real masonry, cannot resist tensile stress, but
behaves elastically (indefinitely) under pure compression, [7], [6], [19], [14],
[66], [20].
It is noted that these conditions give a welldefined specification of the
admissible domain for stresses, but allow complete freedom for the path of
fracture growth. This means that, in building up the stressstrain relationships
for inelastic deformation (fractures, in this case), one is free to include the most
appropriate assumptions. Hence, one deals with Standard NRT (NotResistingTension) material or with Nonstandard NRT material, depending on the
circumstance that the material is assumed to fracture according to a pattern
similar to the Drucker's postulate, or not.
In the NNRT (NonStandard NRT) case, one can imagine even more
patterns.
In the framework of such notension structures, with reference to the danger
of their collapse, a special extension of Limit Analysis has been developed in
literature allowing to formulate basic theorems quite analogous to the
kinematical and static theorems of classical Limit Analysis, thus giving the
possibility to establish effective procedures to assess structural safety versus
the collapse limit state, [6], [14]. Special problems, such as the nonexistence in
highly depressed arches of collapse mechanisms involving exclusively
unilateral hinges, have been identified, and attention has been drawn on the
necessity to include the eventuality that sliding mechanisms occur between
stones by inadequate friction. More in general, an analysis of the class of
structural problems with unilateral constitutive relations has been employed by
formulating a general model and by proving its consistency. The authors of this
158
analysis, moreover, have exposed two iterative methods for the numerical
solution of this class of problems, [61].
However, as regards the masonry, the basic assumption to study via
phenomenological approach this kind of structures, we underline again, is that
notension stress fields are selected by the masonry through the activation of an
additional inelastic strain field, i.e. the fractures. Hence, the stressstrain
relationship for NRT materials is of the form:
E = Ee + E f = S T + E f
(3.3.11)
T = C ( E E f ) = CEe
(3.3.12)
where:
S=
compliance tensor
C = stiffness tensor
Since in a NRT solid, the equilibrium against external loads is required to
be satisfied by admissible stress fields, which imply pure compression
everywhere in the solid, and by assuming stability of the material in the
Druckers sense, compatibility of the strain field can be ensured, indeed, by
superposing to the elastic strain field an additional fracture field, that does not
admit contraction in any point and along any direction.
This means that the stress tensor T in equation (3.3.11) must be negative
semidefinite everywhere in the solid, while the fracture strain field E f is
required to be positive semidefinite.
In other words, it has to be verified:
E f positive
E fa 0
semi definite
a ra
T
0
T
negative
a
where:
(3.3.13)
159
ra =
a=
160
161
nonlinear analysis at the structural level, Geymonat [27], Pande et al. [58],
Maier et al. [40] and Pietruszczak and Niu, [60], introduced homogenization
techniques in such approximate manner. In spite of the fact that these
simplified approaches present some limits in the solution accuracy, as it will be
illustrated in the follows, they are used by several authors and, nevertheless,
perform satisfactorily in the case of linear elastic analysis. In nonlinear field,
on the contrary, they lead to unacceptable results.
The third one, e.g. Anthoine, [5] and Urbanski et al. [65], is to apply
rigorously the homogenization theory for periodic media to the basic cell in a
sole step. Because of the complexity of the exact geometry of the basic cell, it
becomes necessary to find the solution problem by using an approximate and
numerical method such as the finite element method. Since the complete
determination of the homogenized constitutive law requires an infinite number
of computations, in a nonlinear range, the theory has been used to determine
the macroparameters of masonry and not, actually, to carry out analysis at the
structural level.
162
intercepted by the sets of head and bed joints. Thus, the presence of discrete
sets of mortar joints results in a strong directional dependence of the average
mechanical properties. The estimation of them is the main interest of the
authors.
Therefore, let us consider a typical element of structural masonry, i.e. a
brick panel, as shown schematically in the following figure:
t
t
h
l
e2
O
e3
e1
163
T& ( 1) = C ( 1) E& ( 1 )
(3.3.2.a1)
1
where the volume average of stress rate T& ( ) in the medium (1) is considered
(1)
(1)
(1)
T& ( 1) = &11(1) ,& 22
, & 33
, &12(1) , &13(1) , & 23
(3.3.2.a2)
164
1
and so also for the volume average of strain rate E& ( ) in the medium (1):
(3.3.2.a3)
1
while C ( ) is the volume average of 6x6 stiffness matrix in the medium (1).
In particular, if both bricks and head joints are isotropic, then the
homogenized medium (1) can be regarded as an orthotropic elasticbrittle
1
material. In such a case, the components of C ( ) can be estimated from
Homogenized m edium
Bed joints
165
T& ( 2 ) = C ( 2 ) E& ( 2 )
(3.3.2.a4)
By assuming that both constituents (1) and (2) exist simultaneously and are
perfectly bonded, the overall stress and strain rate averages, T& and E& , can be
derived from the averaging rule (Hill, 1963):
(3.3.2.a5)
(3.3.2.a6)
where f1 and f 2 are the volume fractions of both constituents, defined as:
f1 =
h
;
h+t
f2 =
t
h+t
(3.3.2.a7)
and where h and t represent the spacing and the thickness of bed joints,
respectively.
The assumption of perfect bonding between the constituents and the
equilibrium requirements provides additional kinematics and static constraints,
given by:
where:
* E& ( 1) = * E& ( 2 )
(3.3.2.a8)
(3.3.2.a9)
1 0 0 0 0 0
= 0 0 1 0 0 0 ;
0 0 0 0 1 0
*
166
0 1 0 0 0 0
[ ] = 0 0 0 1 0 0 (3.3.2.a10)
0 0 0 0 0 1
E& (1) and E& ( 2 ) . Thus the problem is mathematically determinate. Moreover, it
can be noticed that the number of unknowns can be reduced by introducing
certain simplifying assumptions pertaining to the kinematics of bed joints. For
example, the formulation can be employed by expressing the local deformation
field in bed joints in terms of velocity discontinuities rather than strain rates
i = 1, 2 (3.3.2.a11)
where:
C21( i )
F1( i ) = C41( i )
(i)
C61
C23(i )
C43(i )
C63(i )
C25( i )
C45( i ) ;
C65( i )
C22( i )
F2( i ) = C42( i )
(i)
C62
(i)
C24
(i)
C44
C64( i )
C26( i )
C46( i ) (3.3.2.a12)
C66( i )
By using the equations (3.3.2.a11) and the (3.3.2.a8), the static constraint
(3.3.2.a9) can now be expressed in the following form:
167
[ ] E& ( 2 ) =
1
f
[ ] E&  1 [ ] E& ( 1)
f2
f2
(3.3.2.a14)
(3.3.2.a15)
where:
1
f
[M ] = F2(1) + 1 F2( 2) F2( 2) [ ] + F1( 2) F1(1) * (3.3.2.a16)
f2
f2
E& ( 1 ) = M1 E&
(3.3.2.a17)
where:
0
1
M
M12
11
0
0
M1 =
M 21 M 22
0
0
M 31 M32
M13
M14
M15
M 23
M 24
M 25
M33
M34
M 35
0
M16
M 26
0
M 36
(3.3.2.a18)
168
The strain rates in bed joints can be expressed in a similar functional form
to that of equation (3.3.2.a17). Indeed, after substituting the equation
(3.3.2.a17) in (3.3.2.a5), one obtains:
E& ( 2 ) = M 2 E&
(3.3.2.a19)
f
M 2 = [I ] 1 M1
f2
f2
(3.3.2.a20)
where:
)}
T& = C E&
(3.3.2.a22)
represents the average constitutive relation for the entire composite system, it is
obtained that:
C = f1 C (1) M1 + C ( 2 ) [I ] f1 M1
)}
(3.3.2.a23)
169
C11(1)
(1)
C12
(1)
C
1)
(
C = 13
C12(1)
C13(1)
C22(1)
C23(1)
C23( )
C33( )
C44( )
C55( )
0
0
C66(1)
(3.3.2.a24)
( 2)
( 2)
0
0
0
C12 C11 C12
( 2)
2
2
C12 C12( ) C11( )
0
0
0
2)
(
C =
( 2)
0
0 C44
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0 C44( ) 0
2
0
0
0
0
0 C44( )
170
2
2
2
C44( ) = C11( ) C12( ) (3.3.2.a25)
C12(1)
F1( 1) = 0
C23(1)
0
0
( 2)
( 2)
C12
=
0
0
( 2)
F1
0 ;
0
C22( 1)
F2( 1) = 0
0 ;
0
C11( 2 )
F2( 2 ) = 0
C12
0
0
0
( 1)
C44
0
0
C44( 2 )
0
C66(1)
0
C44( 2 )
(3.3.2.a26)
C12( 2) C12(1)
[M] = 0
where:
1 C11( )
f2 a
2
(C( ) C( ) )
2
12
1
23
0
0
2
1 C44( )
0
f2 c
1 C44( )
f2 b
(3.3.2.a27)
171
a = C22( ) +
1
f1 2
C11 ;
f2
b = C44( ) +
1
f1 ( 2)
C44 ;
f2
c = C66( ) +
1
f1 ( 2 )
C44 (3.3.2.a28)
f2
f1 C12( ) C12( )
2
);
C22 =
1
;
1 (1) 1 ( 2)
C + C
f1 22 f2 11
);
C44 =
1
;
1 (1) 1 (2) (2)
C44 + C11 C12
f1
f2
C66 =
1
;
1 (1) 1 ( 2) ( 2)
C66 + C11 C12
f1
f2
f 2
C + 1 C11( )
f2
(1)
22
f1 C12( ) C23( )
2
f 2
1
C22( ) + 1 C11( )
f2
(1)
(1)
(1)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
)(
f1 ( 2)
C11
f2
)(
f1 ( 2)
C11
f2
)(
f1 (2)
C11
f2
);
);
);
(3.3.2.a29)
3.3.2.b
Homogenization
Anthoine
theory
for
periodic
172
media
by
ENGLISH BOND
DUTCH BOND
FLEMISH BOND
Figure 3.9 Basic cell and frame of reference for more complex bond patterns.
173
In particular, it can be said that, for twodimensional periodic media, i.e. for
threedimensional media under the plane stress or plane strain assumption, the
periodicity of the arrangement may be characterized by a plane frame of
reference ( v1 , v 2 ) , where v1 and v2 are two independent vectors having the
following property:
 the mechanical characteristics of the media are invariant along any
translation m1v1 + m2 v 2 , where m1 and m2 are integers, as it is shown in
the following figure.
v1+v2
v1
v2
2v1
v1 v2
e1
Figure 3.10
S = v1 v2
174
(3.3.2.b1)
 the boundary S of a cell S can always be divided into two or three pairs
of identical sides corresponding to each other through a translation along
Figure 3.11 Two different cells associated to the same frame of reference and
having, respectively, two and three pairs of opposite sides.
However, it is worth to underline that neither the frame of reference, nor the
cell, are uniquely defined: the same cell, S, leads to different masonry patterns
when associated to different frames of reference; and so also, for a given frame
of reference more cells can be used, but it is worth choosing that one with the
least area and, if possible, with symmetry properties. Such minimum cells and
associated frames of reference will be called basic cell.
175
v2
v2
v1
v1
v1v2
Figure 3.12 Frame of reference, basic cell and opposite sides for common
masonry patterns: d=0 for stack bond; d=l for running bond.
The reference frame is then composed by the vectors v1 and v2 that satisfy
the following relations:
v1 = 2le1
v2 = de1 + 2he2
176
(3.3.2.b2)
where:
2l = the length of the brick plus the thickness of the head joint
2h = the height of the brick plus the thickness of the bed joint
d = the overlapping
So, according to the above shown figure, the different frames that can be
determined in function of the variation of the parameter d yields to different
bond patterns. In fact, it is:
2
d = l another kind of running bond pattern, and so on
3
The first two bond patterns are here considered.
The boundary S of the chosen cell is, so, composed of three pairs of
opposite sides, if d 0 (running bond pattern), or of two pairs of opposite
sides, if d = 0 (stack bond pattern). In particular:
d 0 the opposite sides are the vertical ones, the upper left with the
lower right, the upper right with the lower left.
d = 0 the opposite sides are the parallel sides of the rectangle according
to the definition of the opposite sides, given before.
Once it is established the appropriate basic cell, the homogenization
procedure can be performed.
Here, the author proposes a different approach to the homogenization
problem for periodic continuum media that aims to overcome the limits of the
177
178
the stress vector has to be continuous when passing from a cell to the
next one. Since passing from a cell to the next one that is identical is
the same thing that passing from a side to the opposite one in the same
cell, this condition can be written in the form:
x2 [ h, h ] , u ( l , x2 ) u ( l , x2 ) = U Rx2 e1
x1 [ l , l ] , u ( x1 , h ) u ( x1 , h ) = V + Sx1e2
(3.3.2.b4)
179
where:
Since each corner of the cell belongs both to the vertical and the horizontal
side and since it must undergo the same displacement, the equation (3.3.2.b4)
has to be compatible when written for the extreme values of x1 and x2 :
x2 = h u ( l , h ) u ( l , h ) = U Rhe1
x2 = h u ( l , h ) u ( l , h ) = U + Rhe1
x1 = l u ( l , h ) u ( l , h ) = V + Sle2
(3.3.2.b5)
x1 = l u ( l , h ) u ( l , h ) = V  Sle2
The relations (3.3.2.b5) can be ensured only if R and S are zero constants.
What has been written for the stack bond pattern can be reformulated for the
running bond pattern, shown in the following figure 3.14:
180
lx
lx
lx
x2 [ h, h] , u l + 2 , x2 u l + 2 , x2 = U R x2e1 + 2 e2
2h
2h
2h
(3.3.2.b6)
l
l
x1 [ l, l ] , u + x1 , h u + x1 , h = V + Sx1e2
2
2
dx
dx
x2 [ h, h ] , u l + 2 , x2 u l + 2 , x2 = U
2h
2h
x1 [ l , l ] , u + x1 , h u + x1 , h = V
2
where:
d = the overlapping
(3.3.2.b7)
181
, = 1 or 2, u ( x1 , x2 ) = E x + up ( x1 , x2 )
u ( x1 , x2 ) = E x + u p ( x1 , x2 )
(3.3.2.b8)
where:
E = constants
u P ( x1 , x2 ) = u ( x1 , x2 )  Ex
(3.3.2.b9)
E11 = U1 2l
E 21 = U 2 2l
E12 = (V1 U1 d 2l ) 2h
(3.3.2.b10)
E 22 = (V2 U 2 d 2l ) 2h
From the relations (3.3.2.b10), it can be noted that, for example, the
component E11 represents the mean elongation of the cell along the x1 axis
and, so, E can be considered as the mean strain tensor of the cell. It can be
demonstrated by considering the definition of the average of the strain
components in the domain of the basic cell. Therefore, it is:
182
1
( u ) ds
S S
(3.3.2.b11)
( u ) =
where:
component .
, =
1, 2
S=
Since, the generic strain component, obtained as the symmetric part of the
gradient of u , is given by the following expression:
( u ) = E + up, + E + up,
(3.3.2.b12)
( u ) = E + ( up, + up, ) 2
(3.3.2.b13)
( u) = E +
1
2S
(u
p
,
+ up, ) ds = E +
1
2S
(u n
+ up n ) dl (3.3.2.b14)
183
( u ) = E
(3.3.2.b15)
and, as it was above mentioned, E turns out to coincide with the average of
( u ) on the cell.
By substituting the (3.3.2.b15) into the (3.3.2.b9), it is obtained:
u P ( x1 , x2 ) = u ( x1 , x2 )  ( u ) x
(3.3.2.b16)
T = T0
div T = 0 on S
T periodic on S (Tn anti periodic on S )
(3.3.2.b17)
E = f 1 ( T )
u x periodic on S
where:
T=
1
T ds
S S
(3.3.2.b18)
with:
T = the average value of the stress tensor in the domain of the basic cell
In particular, in this prescribed stress problem (the macroscopically
homogeneous stress state T0 is the assigned data of the problem), no body
forces are considered and the constitutive law f is a periodic function of the
184
= E0
u E0 x periodic on S
T = f (E)
(3.3.2.b19)
div T = 0 on S
T periodic on S (Tn anti periodic on S )
where the assigned data of the problem is the macroscopically homogeneous
strain state E 0 , and analogously to the equation (3.3.2.b18) it is:
E=
1
S
E ds
(3.3.2.b20)
185
or the size of the basic cell is quite small when compared with the size
of the structure, so that, at a structural scale, two adjacent cells have
almost the same position and, therefore, the same loading.
2.
or the basic cell is not so small when compared with the size of the
structure, but the macroscopic stresses induced by the structural loads
dont vary (or vary slowly) within the structure.
div T = 0
186
on S
E ( u ) = C 1 :: T
T periodic on S (Tn anti periodic on S )
(3.3.2.b21)
u C 1 :: T x periodic on S
T = T0
where:
C1 ::T = ( u ) = the average value of the strain tensor in the basic cell
and
C 1 = S=
= the known elastic compliance tensor of the constituents in plane
stress.
For the prescribed strain problem:
div ( C : E ( u ) ) = 0
on S
T = C : E (u)
= E0
where:
E ( u) = E + E ( u p )
(3.3.2.b23)
187
div C : E + div C : E ( u p ) = 0
T = C : E + E ( up )
on S
= E0
When the boundary of the basic cell is constituted by the same material in
each its point and when the two constituents of the cell are homogeneous
materials, and so, the stiffness tensor C is constant on each component, the
( )) n
is antiperiodic on
f = div C : E = ( C m Cb ) : E nI
(3.3.2.b25)
where:
the normal oriented from the brick to the mortar (see figure 3.15)
188
T = T T0
(3.3.2.b26)
T = BT0
(3.3.2.b27)
where:
189
C = C 1 : B
or
(3.3.2.b29)
S = S:B
where:
1
u = u E0
(3.3.2.b30)
E ( u ) = E ( u E0 ) = E ( u ) E0 = E E0
(3.3.2.b31)
where:
E = AE0
(3.3.2.b32)
where:
T = T = C : E = C : A : E0 = C : A : E0 = C : A : E (3.3.2.b33)
So, it may be deduced that:
C = C:A
190
(3.3.2.b34)
where:
191
the inverse of it
The methods belonging to both two groups, differently from the formulation
proposed by Anthoine, dont need finite element calculations, but, for their
simplicity, they can be implemented analytically.
In the follows, in Table 3.1 and in Table 3.2 are summarized the direct
comparisons, about the macroscopic properties, between the different methods,
respectively for the twodimensional methods and for the threedimensional
ones:
192
E1(MPa)
E2(MPa)
n12
G12(MPa)
8530
6790
0.196
2580
Running bond
8620
6770
0.200
2620
9208
6680
0.2045
2569
8464
6831
0.2182
2569
8587
6768
0.1948
2569
9646
6950
0.2077
2782
TWO DIMENSIONAL
HOMOGENIZATION
Stack bond
E2(MPa)
n12
G12(MPa)
8600
7000
0.200
2580
Running bond
8680
6980
0.204
2620
8566
7066
0.1974
2569
8676
7006
0.1995
2569
9647
7198
0.2098
2782
TWO DIMENSIONAL
HOMOGENIZATION
Stack bond
E1(MPa)
193
All the results are presented in terms of four material elastic coefficients, E1 ,
E2 , 12 and G12 .
From the Table 3.1, the first two rows obtained with the Anthoines
formulation yield that the different bond pattern, stack bond or running bond,
has very little influence (less than 1% difference) on the homogenized elastic
properties. This influence is, however, stronger on the local displacements and
stress fields, [5]. Moreover, yet from the Table 3.1, it can be noted that the
other four simplified methods lead to quite acceptable results. The less accurate
is the multilayer approach (the simplest one) where the homogenized elastic
coefficients are overestimated. This was logical, since head joints are
substituted by a stiffer material (the brick). The more elaborated approach
(homogenization in three steps, Maier et al (1991)), instead, doesnt reveal
itself the more accurate.
The Table 3.2, substantially, suggests the same considerations as deduced
by Table 1, about the global elastic behaviour of masonry, as obtained through
the different methods.
It is interesting to underline that, for a given bond pattern and for a given
method, the twodimensional approach always gives lower values of the elastic
constants than the threedimensional one. This fact is quite obvious, since the
plane stress assumption neglects the thickness of the wall, by weakening it. In
spite of this consideration, the two and the threedimensional approaches yield
quite similar results on the homogenized elastic coefficients (less than 4%
difference).
However, strong differences can be, instead, pointed out in the local stress
fields. In particular, this fact is not relative to the inplane components
( 11 , 12 , 22 ) ,
194
definition, equal to zero in the twodimensional approach. For this reason, even
if the homogenized elastic constants are only slightly modified in the two
approaches, it is worth to consider this strong difference in a nonlinear
analysis: by neglecting the stress component 33 in the twodimensional
method, some failure situations may be not encountered.
It is, therefore, most probable that the conclusions drawn in the elastic
range, in the twodimensional approaches, are wrong in a nonlinear range. In
fact:

the bond pattern may strongly influence the failure mechanism and
consequently the failure load; for example, in the stack bond
masonry the cracks may develop easily in the aligned head joints,
while in the running bond masonry they need to pass through or
around the brick.
195
A. Zucchini and P.B. Lourenco, [67]. They have proposed a new micromechanical model. By taking in account the actual deformations of the basic
cell of a periodic masonry arrangement, this micromechanical model includes
additional internal deformation modes which are neglected in the standard twostep homogenization procedure, which is based on the assumption of
continuous perpendicular head joints. The authors show that these mechanisms,
which result from the staggered alignment of the bricks in the composite, are
important for the medium global response and for reducing the maximum
errors in the calculation of the homogenized elastic moduli when large
difference in mortar and brick stiffness are expected. Indeed, one of the goals
of this approach is constituted just by the overcoming the limitations presented
in the standard twostep homogenization technique, often known in literature as
simplified homogenization approach that, we remember, are:
o
The results depend on the order in which the two steps are
executed.
In particular, the analysis is employed for a single leaf masonry wall, with
typical periodic arrangement in stretcher bond and the hypothesis of linear
elasticbrittle behaviour is assumed, so that the S.P. may be used until the
collapse. The unitmortar interface is not considered in the model. On the
196
contrary, the full threedimensional behaviour is examined and the attention is,
finally, given to a comparison between the results from a detailed finite
element analysis (FEM) and the proposed micromechanical homogenization
model, in order to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed solution, [67].
Hence, such a micromechanical model is obtained by extracting a basic
periodic cell, which can rebuild the whole structure by making opportune
translations of it, as shown in figure below.
y
z
Unit (b)
The following figure shows, in detail, the geometry of the basic cell, with
the definition of its dimensions and of adopted symbols.
197
198
Figure 3.18 (a) finite element mesh, (b) deformation for compression in
xdirection, (c) deformation for shear xy, (d) deformation
for shear xz
As an example, therefore, in the case of uniform normal stress in x
direction, the assumed deformation mechanism and, as a consequence, the
chosen stress components are shown in the figure below.
199
200
201
Vertical normal stress 1yy , in the bed joint, when the basic cell is
loaded with inplane shear xy0 .
Inplane shear 1xy , in the bed joint, when the basic cell is loaded
with a horizontal inplane normal stress xx0 .
Outofplane shear 1yz , in the bed joint, when the basic cell is loaded
with an outofplane shear stress xz0 .
In order to define uniquely the unknown internal stresses and strains of
each component, a set of equilibrium, compatibility and constitutive equations,
for each loading case, has to be imposed, as it follows. Brick, bed joint, head
joint and cross joint variables will be indicated respectively by the superscripts
b, 1, 2 and 3. The mean value of the normal stress xx and the normal strain
xx in the unit will be indicated, respectively, by xxb and xxb . The prescribed
uniform normal (macro) stresses on the faces of the homogenized basic cell in
0
the x, y and zdirection will be indicated, respectively, by xx0 , yy
and zz0 .
the basic cell. In this case, all shear stresses and strains for each component are
in the bed
joint and in the brick, as illustrated in the above figure 3.19. We remember that
the shear strain component, 1xy , is one of the deformation mechanisms here
considered and, instead, neglected by the standard two step homogenization
procedure, since depending on the geometrical arrangement of the bricks in the
202
masonry pattern. Furthermore, the nonzero stresses and strains are assumed to
b
be constant in each basic cell constituent, except the normal stress xx
in the
brick, which must be a linear function of x in order to account for the presence
b
of the shear stress component xy
. The latter, moreover, requires the
203
bed joint equilibrium, a shear stress 1xy has to be introduced also for the left
and right sides of such joint.
Under these hypotheses, the following equilibrium equations, at internal or
boundary interfaces, can be written:
Limit equilibrium equation at internal interface brickhead joint
l t
2h
(3.3.2.c1)
where:
b
xxb =
xxb1 + xxb 2
2
(3.3.2.c2)
with:
(3.3.2.c3)
where the authors assume that the shear acts only on the bedbrick interface
l t
2h
(3.3.2.c4)
l t
2h
204
(3.3.2.c5)
byy = 1yy
(3.3.2.c6)
l t
0
h xx2 + 2t xx3 + h xxb + 1xy
= 2 ( h + t ) xx
2h
(3.3.2.c7)
(3.3.2.c8)
2th zz2 + 2 ( l t ) t 1zz + 2lh zzb + 4t 2 zz3 = 2th + 2 ( l + t ) t + 2lh zz0 (3.3.2.c9)
Analogously, the following compatibility equations can be written:
Compatibility equation at upper boundary
(3.3.2.c10)
(3.3.2.c11)
zzb = zz1
(3.3.2.c12)
zzb = zz2
(3.3.2.c13)
In the above equations, the unknown stresses and strains in the cross joint
can be eliminated by means of the following relations:
205
E2 2
yy
E3
E1
xx3 = 3 1xx
E
E3
zz3 = 1 1zz
E
(3.3.2.c14)
xx3 = 1xx
(3.3.2.c15)
3yy =
The equations (3.3.2.c14) assume that the cross joint behaves as a spring
connected in series with the bed joint in the xdirection, connected in series
with the head joint in the ydirection and connected in parallel with the bed
joint in the zdirection. The equation (3.3.2.c15) represents the equilibrium at
the crossbed joint interface. It can be noted that the stressstrain state in the
cross joint does not play a major role in the problem, because of its usually
small volume ratio, [67].
By coupling with the nine linear elastic stressstrain relations in the brick,
head joint and bed joint the above considered equilibrium and compatibility
equations, a linear system of 18 equations comes out. In particular, the
constitutive equations assume the following form:
Constitutive linear elastic equations
1
Ek
1
yyk = k
E
1
zzk = k
E
xxk =
k = b,1, 2
(3.3.2.c16)
206
In this linear system, the unknowns are the six normal stresses and strains of
each of the three components (brick, head joint and bed joint) and the shear
stress and strain in the bed joint, for a total of 20 unknowns.
Therefore, two additional equations are necessary to solve the problem.
These ones can be derived introducing the shear deformation of the bed joint:
the elastic mismatch between the normal x strains in the brick and in the head
joint is responsible for the shear in the bed joint because of the staggered
alignment of the bricks in the masonry wall. This mechanism, shown in the
following figure, leads to the approximated relation:
Compatibility equation
1xy =
(3.3.2.c17)
which is valid in the hypothesis that the bed joint does not slip on the brick and
the xxb is assumed linear in xdirection. In particular, it would be verified that:
(l t )
(3.3.2.c18)
2hE b
but, usually, the second term in the righthand side can be neglected.
Another one additional equation is the elastic stressstrain relation:
Constitutive linear elastic equation
(3.3.2.c19)
ii0 = 1, ij0 = 0 i j
i, j = x, y , z
(3.3.2.c20)
207
Once the unknowns are found, the shear stress in the brick can be obtained
by means of the internal equilibrium equation:
b
xxb xy xzb
+
+
=0
x
y
z
(3.3.2.c21)
y
xyb = 1xy 1
h
(3.3.2.c22)
Ei =
Hjj
ii0
,
=
,
ij
iiH
iiH
i, j = x, y, z
(3.3.2.c23)
where:
H
xx
yyH
zzH
l t + 2t E 1 E 3
=
l +t
2
yy ( h + 2t E 2 E 3 ) + h byy
=
l+t
b
= zz
1
xx
(3.3.2.c24)
208
In this case, all stresses and strains are neglected, except the intheplane shear
and strain components 1yy and 1yy in the bed joint. We remember that this
latter is one of the strain components here considered and, instead, neglected by
the standard two step homogenization procedure. Furthermore, the nonzero
stresses and strains are assumed to be constant in each basic cell constituent,
b
except the shear stress xy
in the brick, which must be a linear function of x in
order to account for the presence of the normal stress component 1yy in bed
joint. The deformation of the basic cell is approximated in the following figure.
209
(3.3.2.c25)
xy2 = xyb +
l 1
yy
2h
(3.3.2.c26)
xyb = 1xy
(3.3.2.c27)
where:
1yy
2t ' 2t y + ( t l ) y
,
2t
2t
xy2 xyb =
y y
+
(3.3.2.c28)
2t 2l
(3.3.2.c29)
By coupling with the four linear elastic stressstrain relations in the brick,
head joint and bed joint the above considered equilibrium and compatibility
equations, a linear system of 8 equations comes out. In particular, the
constitutive equations assume the following form:
Constitutive linear elastic equations
k = b,1, 2
(3.3.2.c30)
(3.3.2.c31)
210
In this linear system, the unknowns are the three shear stresses and strains
of the three basic cell components (brick, head joint and bed joint) and the
normal stress and strain, 1yy and 1yy , in the bed joint, for a total of 8
unknowns.
By solving the obtained linear system, the internal stresses and strains are
found.
At this point, the homogenized shear modulus, Gxy , of the basic cell is,
finally, given by:
Gxy =
xy0
2
H
xy
l ( t + l )( t + h)
tl ( t + h) ( t + l kt ) ( lh t
k
+
G2
Gb
) + t (t + l )( t + l kt )
(3.3.2.c32)
G1
where:
xyH = homogenized strain, obtained for a prescribed stress case and given by:
xyH =
1 b
h
t2
2
1
2
b
l
+
t
+
t
( xy xy ) l + t xy ( xy xy ) l + t
h + t
(3.3.2.c33)
k=
lE1 + 4hG b
l 2 Gb
lE1 + 4hG b + E1
1
l + t G2
(3.3.2.c34)
In this case, all stresses and strains are neglected, except the intheplane shear
211
stress and strain ( xz , xz ) in each basic cell component, and the shear stress
and strain components 1yz and 1yz in the bed joint. We remember that this
latter is one of the strain components here considered and, instead, neglected by
the standard two step homogenization procedure. Furthermore, the nonzero
stresses and strains are assumed to be constant in each basic cell constituent,
except the shear stress xzb , which must be a linear function of x in order to
account for the presence of the shear stress component 1yz in bed joint. The
deformation of the basic cell is approximated in the following figure 3.23.
(l t ) 1
h xzb +
yz + 2t 1xz + h xz2 = 2 ( t + h ) xz0
2h
(3.3.2.c35)
212
xz2 = xzb
(l t ) 1
yz
2h
(3.3.2.c36)
1xz = xzb
(3.3.2.c37)
1yz =
1 2
xz xzb )
(
2
(3.3.2.c38)
By coupling with the four linear elastic stressstrain relations in the brick,
head joint and bed joint the above considered equilibrium and compatibility
equations, a linear system of 8 equations comes out. In particular, the
constitutive equations assume the following form:
Constitutive linear elastic equations
xzk = 2G k xzk
k = b,1, 2
(3.3.2.c39)
(3.3.2.c40)
In this linear system, the unknowns are the three shear stresses, xz , and
strains, xz , of the three basic cell components (brick, head joint and bed joint)
213
and the shear stress and strain, 1yz and 1yz , in the bed joint, for a total of 8
unknowns.
By solving the obtained linear system, the internal stresses and strains are
found.
Hence, the homogenized shear modulus Gxz of the basic cell is, finally,
given by:
0
Gxz = xzH =
2 xz
( t + l ) ( tG1 + hG b )
4hG b + ( l t ) G1
+l
(t + h) t
2
1
4hG + ( l t ) G
(3.3.2.c41)
where:
xzH = homogenized strain, obtained for a prescribed stress case and given by:
H
xz
t xz2 + l xzb
=
t +l
(3.3.2.c42)
In this case, all stresses and strains are neglected, except the intheplane shear
stress and strain
yz
214
(3.3.2.c43)
byz = 1yz
(3.3.2.c44)
byz = yz2
(3.3.2.c45)
By coupling with the three linear elastic stressstrain relations in the brick,
head joint and bed joint the above considered equilibrium and compatibility
equations, a linear system of 6 equations comes out. In particular, the
constitutive equations assume the following form:
215
yzk = 2G k yzk
k = b,1, 2
(3.3.2.c46)
In this linear system, the unknowns are the three shear stresses yz and the
three shear strains yz of the three basic cell components (brick, head joint and
bed joint), for a total of 6 unknowns.
By solving the obtained linear system, the internal stresses and strains are
found.
Hence, the homogenized shear modulus G yz of the basic cell is, finally,
given by:
G yz =
yz0
2 yzH
t + h 1 lG b + tG 2
G
t +l
tG b + hG1
(3.3.2.c47)
where:
yzH = homogenized strain, obtained for a prescribed stress case and given by:
=
H
yz
t 1yz + h yzb
t+h
(3.3.2.c48)
216
This has allowed assessing the performance of the model for inelastic
behaviour. In fact, nonlinear behaviour is associated with (tangent) stiffness
degradation and homogenisation of nonlinear processes will result in large
stiffness differences between the components. In the limit, the ratio between
the stiffness of the different components is zero or infinity.
The material properties of the unit are kept constant, whereas the properties
of the mortar are varied. In particular, for the unit, the Youngs modulus Eb is
20 GPa and the Poissons ratio is 0.15. For the mortar, the Youngs modulus is
varied to yield a ratio Eb/Em ranging from 1 to 1000 while the mortar
Poissons ratio is kept constant to 0.15 and equal to that one of the unit.
The adopted range of Eb/Em is very large (up to 1000). Note that the ratio
Eb/Em tends to infinity when softening of the mortar is complete and only the
unit remains structurally active.
The elastic properties of the homogenised material, calculated by means of
the proposed micromechanical model, are compared with the values obtained
by FEM analysis, in the figures 3.25 and 3.26.
217
218
219
The figure 3.26a also includes the results of the standard twostep
homogenisation of Lourenco (1997), showing that it leads to nonacceptable
errors up to 45% for the estimation of Youngs modulus E x in xdirection.
Less pronounced differences are found in the estimation of youngs moduli in
y and z directions, but they are not reported in the figure, see Lourenco
(1997).
For large ratios Eb/Em the simplified model predicts value of E x , xz and
Gxz much smaller than the actual values obtained by FEM analysis. The large
and increasing errors of such model on these variables (up to 50%) indicate that
for much degraded mortar the neglected deformation mechanisms of the bed
joint contribute significantly to the overall basic cell behaviour.
In spite of the fact that Lourencos approach overcomes the limits of the
standard twosteps homogenization, it is worth to notice that the proposed
homogenized model is obtained on a parametrizationbased procedure
depending on a specific benchmark FEM model (i.e. selected ratios between
elastic coefficients and geometrical dimensions), so it shows a sensitivity to
geometrical and mechanical ratios!
220
CHAPTER IV
Proposal of modified approaches: theoretical models
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, some possible new procedures for modelling masonry
structures, in linearelastic field, are proposed, starting from the results of
literature approaches.
In the previous chapter 3, a general account on such existing
homogenization techniques has been shown. In particular, it has been
underlined that they can be basically divided in two approaches. The first one
employs an approximated homogenization process in different steps by
obtaining, on the contrary, a closeform solution (for example, Pietruszczak &
Niu, 1992). The second one employs a rigorous homogenization process in one
step by obtaining, on the contrary, an approximated numerical solution (for
example, Lourenco & al, 2002). Moreover, also the limits for each one of the
two approaches have been highlighted in the chapter 3.
221
222
Unit (b)
Unit (f)
The following figure shows, in detail, the geometry of the basic cell, with
the definition of the dimensions and of adopted symbols.
223
224
0
yy
0
xx
0
xx
0
yy
(a)
yy
(a)
xy
(a)
xx
(a)
xy
(a)
xx
(b )
xx
(b)
xy
(c)
xy
(b)
yy
(c)
yy
(d)
xx
(d)
xy
(c)
xy
(c)
xy
(e)
xx
(e )
xy
(e)
yy
(f )
yy
(g)
yy
(g)
xy
(f )
xx
(f )
xy
(f )
xy
(e)
xy
(e)
xy
(f )
yy
(e)
xx
(d)
yy
(f )
xy
(f )
xy
(d)
xx
(d)
xy
(e)
yy
(e)
xy
(d)
xy
(c)
yy
(f )
xx
(d )
yy
(d)
xy
(c )
xx
(b)
xy
(b)
xy
(a)
yy
(c)
xx
(b)
xx
(a)
xy
(a)
xy
(c)
xy
(b)
yy
(b)
xy
(g)
xx
(g)
xy
(g)
xx
(g)
xy
(g )
xy
(g)
yy
225
For both these load conditions, a plane stress state is considered: all shear
and normal stress components that involve zdirection are neglected and nonzero stress components, xx , xy , yy , are assumed bilinear functions in x
and y in each constituent of the cell. So, it can be written:
(p)
xx
= A 0 (p) + A1(p) x + A 2 (p) y + A 3(p) x y
(4.21)
(p)
xy
= B0 (p) + B1(p) x + B2 (p) y + B3 (p) x y
(4.22)
(p)
yy
= C0 (p) + C1(p) x + C2 (p) y + C3(p) x y
(4.23)
(p )ij ,i = 0

with i, j = { x , y}
(4.24)
(e p )
with:
p = a , b, c, e, f , g
i , j = x, y
ij(p ) i d =
(e p )
t (jp ) d
(4.25)
226
i =
t (j p ) =
ij(p ) i d =
(i p )
ij(q) i d
(4.26)
i( p )
i =
Moreover, they are written local equilibrium equations for the unloaded
boundary faces and global equilibrium equations, in a weak form, for
translation and rotation of the whole basic cell:

ij = 0

x, y
with i , j = x, y
(4.27)
ij
d = 0
(4.28)
and:
where:
ii x j d = 0
(4.29)
227
= k
(4.210)
k =1
with:
= the boundary surface of the whole basic cell, obtained as the summation
of four boundary faces shown in the following figure 4.4.
g
1
g
3
g
g
Figure 4.4 Boundary surface of the basic cell
Finally, in order to satisfy the conditions of polar symmetry, the following
equations are considered:

ij ( P ) = ij ( P * )
(4.211)
xx( p ) = xx0
(4.212)
( p)
xy( p ) = yy
=0
228
(4.213)
where:
(yyp ) = yy0
(4.214)
xy( p ) = xx( p ) = 0
(4.215)
where:
zz( p ) = zz0
(4.216)
where:
229
At this point, known the stress functions, strain ones, in each component,
can be derived by considering a linear elastic and isotropic stressstrain relation
of all the components.
That means:
1
( p ) ( p ) ( yy( p ) + zz( p ) )
( p ) xx
E
1
yy( p ) = ( p ) (yyp ) ( p ) ( xx( p ) + zz( p ) )
E
1
zz( p ) = ( p ) zz( p ) ( p ) ( xx( p ) + (yyp ) )
E
xx( p ) =
Here, in the follows, they are presented the values of the strains, induced by
the different load conditions. Since in all the three load cases, the stress state is
a monodimensional one and the nonzero stress component value is equal to
the applied load, generalizing the results, it can be written:
ij( p ) =
ij0( p )
2G ( p )
ij
( p) 0
hh
E( p)
(4.218)
where:
E ( p) = Young modulus
p
( ) = Poisson modulus
For the average theorem, when boundary conditions are applied in terms of
uniform stresses on the considered RVE (basic cell) and by naming with ij
the average value of stress in it, the following relation can be considered:
ij =
1
ij dV = ij0
VV
230
(4.219)
1
1 g
ij = ij dV = ij( p ) dV
VV
V p =a V ( p )
(4.220)
where:
Sijhk = ij hk
ij
hk0
with i , j = x, y , z
(4.221)
where:
Sijhk = (1 ij ) (1 hk )
ij
hk0
with i, j , h, k = x , y , z (4.222)
231
In this case, the analysis carried out in this paper has lead to the same results
of those ones reached by Lourenco e Zucchini, [67]. For this reason, the
procedure that we have employed for determining the homogenized shear
moduli will be not shown here, but we only illustrate the obtained results.
In particular, the fourth order compliance tensor, so determined, assumes
the following form:
0
0
0
S1122 S2222 S2233
S
S2233 S3333
0
0
0
S = 1133
0
0
S3131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 S3232
0
0
0
0
0
S1212
0
with x 1, y 2, z 3 (4.223)
where
S1111 = S2222 = S3333 =
h
h l h l
h 2 l 2 t 2t 2t
+ t
Eb Ef
Ea Eg Ed Ec Ed Ee
=
2 ( h + t ) (l + t )
(4.224)
ht a h l b 2 t 2 c 2( l t ) t d 2t 2 e h l f ht g
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ea
Eb
Ec
Ed
Ee
Ef
Eg
=
2 ( h + t ) ( l + t )
4 Gb h + (l  t ) Gd
(h + t ) t
+l
4 Ga h + (l  t ) Gd
1
S3131 =
=
2 Gxz
2 (t + l ) (t Gd + h Gb)
S3232 =
1
1
t + l t Gb + h Gd
=
2 G yz 2 Gd t + h l Gb + t Ga
(4.225)
(4.226)
(4.227)
S1212 =
+
1
4 Gb Gd h t (h + t ) + Ed l (l + t ) (Gd h + Gb t )
=
+
2 Gxy 2 Gd (h + t ) ( Ed Gb l 2 + Ga ( Ed l t + 4 Gb h (l + t )))
232
(4.228)
4 Ga h (Gb t (l + t ) + Gd (h l  t ))
2 Gd (h + t ) ( Ed Gb l 2 + Ga ( Ed l t + 4 Gb h (l + t )))
2
4.3
233
Since the description of this theorem has been already highlighted in the
Section 8 of the Chapter 1, we will limit here to expose the proposed
homogenization procedure.
In particular, it is considered a single leaf masonry wall in stretcher bond.
From it, a basic cell (RVE) is considered, as illustrated in the figure, below:
m2
b1
m1
b2
m3
m4
y
z
b3
m5
m6
234
1. Homogenization y > x
m1
p1
m3
p2
m6
y
x
detT H = 0
x H
(4.31)
b.
T H u H ( x ) = 0
( )
x I
(4.32)
where:
235
discontinuous from a phase to another one, and it is clear that the direction
is coincident with the ydirection. In this particular case, as already seen, the
above written two conditions become:
c.
detT H = 0,
x ( p , q )
(4.33)
d.
T H n( p , q) = 0
x ( p ,q )
(4.34)
where:
everywhere
plane in the reference homogeneous material, but only in each point belonging
to the interface surfaces, and that the eigenvector associated with the zero
eigenvalue of the stress tensor T H has to be coaxial with the unit normal
vector to the tangent plane to the interface.
For simplicity, it will be however considered a plane stress tensor T H in
each point of the homogeneous reference body.
So, by assuming the homogeneous reference body coincident with an
orthotropic characterization of the mortar, a strain prescribed homogenization
in ydirection is operated. The sole nonzero components of the stress tensor
TH have to be:
xxH 0, zzH 0, xzH 0
yyH = 0, zyH = 0, xyH = 0
(4.35)
236
CiI = i C H
uiI = u H
T = i T
I
i
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.36)
where:
CiI , uiI , TiI =
(4.37)
So, by using the Voigt notation, the stress tensor T H can be written in the
form of a vector, [24]. In general, it is:
11H
H
22
H
T H = 33H
32
H
31H
12
(4.38)
In the particular case that the sole nonzero stress component is the xxH , it
is:
237
xxH
0
0
TH =
0
0
0
(4.39)
1 x; 2 y; 3 z;
(4.310)
SH =
H
S1122
H
S1133
H
2222
H
2233
H
3333
H
3232
S
S
S
Sym
H
S3131
0
0
0
0
H
S1212
(4.311)
1
E (m)
1
(m)
21
( m)
E2
(m)
31( m )
E
SH = 3
0
12(m )
E1( m )
13( m )
E1( m )
1
E2( m )
(m)
23
E2( m )
1
E3( m )
1
2G32(m )
1
2G31( m )
32( m)
E3( m )
1
2G12( m )
238
(4.312)
where the symbol ( m ) indicates the mortar and where, for symmetry, it has to
be:
(m)
12( m ) 21
=
;
E1( m ) E2( m )
13( m ) 31( m )
=
;
E1(m ) E3( m )
(m)
23
32( m )
=
;
E2( m ) E3( m )
(4.313)
The strain tensor, for the same material, is, therefore, obtained through the
following relation:
EH = S H : T H
(4.314)
In the case that the sole nonzero stress component is the xxH and by using
the Voigt notation, the strain tensor E H is:
239
xxH
E (m)
1
(
21m ) xxH
( m)
E2
H
E = 31( m ) xxH
( m)
E3
(4.315)
EiI = E H with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.316)
E = EH
(4.317)
where:
I
i xxH
0
0
TiI = i T H =
0
0
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
240
(4.318)
T =
1
V
T I dV
(4.319)
where:
T =
1
TiI dV
V
V i i
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.320)
By remembering that:
Vi
TiI dV = Ti Vi
(4.321)
where:
I
Ti = average value of the stress tensor in the generic phase of the RVE
241
T = f i i T H
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.322)
fi =
Vi
;
V
Ti = TiI = i T H
(4.323)
with:
fi = the volumetric fraction of the generic phase, weighed upon the whole
inhomogeneous volume.
I
fii xxH
0
0
I
T =
0
0
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.324)
E = S :T
(4.325)
with:
I
yx
process,
here
considering
that
we
first
I
I
11
S 1111
I
22
I
33
I =
32
I
31
I
12
S 1122
I
S 2222
S 1133
I
S 2233
I
S 3333
S
I
3232
Sym
0
S
I
3131
I
0 11
I
0 22
I
0 33
I
0 32
I
0 31
I
I
S 1212 12
242
(4.326)
By taking into account the equations (4.317) and (4.324), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.37), the first column of the homogenized compliance tensor S
S 1111 =
1
;
fii E1( m )
S 2211 = S 1122 =
S 3311 = S 1133 =
(m)
21
; with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
fii E2( m )
(4.327)
31( m )
;
f ii E3( m )
By repeating the same procedure for the other two stress conditions, it is
possible to determine adding compliance coefficients.
In particular, let us to assume now the following stress condition:
(4.328)
So, by using the Voigt notation, the stress tensor of the homogeneous
reference material, T H , becomes:
243
0
0
zzH
H
T =
0
0
0
(4.329)
The strain tensor, for the same material, is, therefore, obtained through the
relation (4.314), that yields, in Voigt notation:
13( m ) zzH
E ( m)
1
(
m
23 ) zzH
( m)
E2
H
E = zzH
(m)
E3
(4.330)
For the same considerations, already done before, it is still worth to write:
EiI = E H with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.331)
and:
I
E = EH
Then, according to the S.A.S. theorem, it is now obtained that:
(4.332)
0
0
TiI = i T H = i zz
0
0
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
244
(4.333)
T = f i i T H
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.334)
I
The average stress tensor, T , in this case, has the following form:
0
0
fii zzH
I
T =
0
0
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.335)
By taking into account the equations (4.332) and (4.335), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.328), the third column of the homogenized compliance tensor
I
S 1133 = S 3311 =
S 2233 = S 3322 =
I
S 3333 =
1
;
fii E3( m )
13( m )
;
f ii E1( m )
(m)
23
; with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
fii E2( m )
(4.336)
245
(4.337)
H
0
0
0
TH =
0
xzH
0
(4.338)
About the strain tensor, for the same material, the relation (4.314) yields, in
Voigt notation:
0
0
EH = 0
H
xz( m )
2G31
0
(4.339)
EiI = E H
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.340)
and:
I
E = EH
Moreover, according to the S.A.S. theorem, it is now obtained that:
(4.341)
246
0
0
0
TiI = i T H =
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
0
i xzH
(4.342)
T = f i i T H
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.343)
I
The average stress tensor, T , in this case, has the following form:
0
0
0
I
T =
0
fii xzH
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.344)
By taking into account the equations (4.341) and (4.344), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.337), another coefficient of the homogenized compliance tensor
I
S 3131 =
1
2 fii G31( m )
with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.345)
I
In this way, for the symmetry of the compliance tensor S , only three
coefficients remain undeterminable, and the tensor assumes the form:
247
1
f E ( m)
i i 1
I
S =
( m)
21 ( m)
fii E2
S
I
2222
13( m )
fii E1( m )
23( m )
fii E2( m )
1
fii E3( m)
S 3232
0
1
2 fiiG31( m)
Sym
0 (4.346)
I
S 1212
where:
fii = f m1 m1 + f p1 p1 + f m3m 3 + f p 2 p 2 + f m 6m 6
(4.347)
m1 = m3 = m6 = 1
(4.348)
f p1 = f p2
(4.349)
fii = f morizz + f p1 ( p1 + p 2 )
(4.350)
with:
f morizz = f m1 + f m 3 + f m6 =
and where:
Vmorizz
V
(4.351)
248
f morizz = the volumetric fraction of the horizontal mortar, weighed upon the
whole RVE volume, V .
It is worth to underline that the found elastic coefficients represent an exact
solution to the homogenization problem, and, therefore, both compatible and
equilibrated solution, according to the S.A.S. theorem, [24].
Moreover, it must be said that the S.A.S. theorem also yields the stiffness
tensor for the generic phase i of the inhomogeneous material (RVE), shown
in figure 4.6, as:
CiI = i C H with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
(4.352)
1 H
S with i = m1 , p1 , m3 , p2 , m6
i
(4.353)
from whose:
SiI =
So, the compliance tensors for the partition p1 and p2 can be obtained as it
follows:
1
12(m)
13(m)
( m)
p1 E1(m)
p1 E1(m)
p1 E1
(m)
1
23(m)
21 (m)
p1 E2(m)
p1 E2(m)
p1 E2
( m)
32(m)
1
31
( m)
E( m )
p1 E3
p1 E3(m)
SIp1 = p1 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2 p1G32(m)
1
2 p1 G31(m)
0
(4.354)
2 p1G12(m)
0
249
and:
SIp2
(m )
p2 E1
( m)
21 ( m)
p2 E2
( m)
31
E ( m)
= p2 3
12( m)
p2 E1( m)
1
p2 E2( m)
13( m)
p2 E1(m )
23( m)
p2 E2(m )
(4.355)
0
(m )
2 p2 G12
0
32( m)
p2 E3( m)
1
p2 E3( m)
1
2 p2 G32(m )
1
2 p2 G31(m )
where:
m2
b1
m4
b2
a
y
z
b3
b
m5
250
(4.356)
p1 , it can be written:
C pj 1 = j C H
u pj 1 = u H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.357)
Tjp1 = j T H
where:
251
(4.358)
So, by using the Voigt notation, the stress tensor T H of the homogeneous
material can be written in the form of the following vector:
0
H
yy
0
TH =
0
0
0
(4.359)
1 x; 2 y; 3 z;
(4.360)
The strain tensor, for the same material is obtained by means the following
relation:
EH = S H : T H
(4.361)
In the case that the sole nonzero stress component is the yyH , by using the
Voigt notation and by remembering the (4.312), the strain tensor E
is:
12( m ) yyH
( m)
E1
H
yy
(m)
E2
E = 32( m ) yyH
E ( m)
3
252
(4.362)
E pj 1 = E H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.363)
E = E pj 1 = E H
(4.364)
where:
p1
253
0
H
j yy
0
Tjp1 = j T H =
0
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.365)
T =
1
V p1
V p1
T p1 dV
(4.366)
where:
T =
1
V p1
Vj
Tjp1 dV
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.367)
By remembering that:
Vj
p1
Tjp1 dV = T j V j
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.368)
where:
p1
T j = average value of the stress tensor in the generic phase j of the RVE,
with j = b1 , m2 , b2 .
254
T = f j' j T H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.369)
f j' =
Vj
V p1
p1
T j = Tjp1 = j T H
(4.370)
with:
f j' = the volumetric fraction of the generic phase j, weighed upon the
volume of the partition p1 .
p1
0
f ' H
j j yy
0
p1
T =
0
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.371)
p1
p1
E = S :T
with:
p1
(4.372)
255
p1
p1
S 1122
p1
S 2222
p1
S 1133
S 2233
p1
3333
p1
3232
p1
p1
Sym
S 3131
p1
0 11
p1
0 22
p
1
0 33
p
1
0 32
p
1
0 31
p
p1
1
S 1212 12
(4.373)
By taking into account the equations (4.364) and (4.371), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.358), the second column of the homogenized compliance tensor
p1
p1
1122
p1
=S
S 2222 =
p1
p1
2211
12( m )
= '
;
f j j E1( m )
1
;
f j E2( m)
'
j
p1
S 3322 = S 2233 =
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.374)
32( m )
;
f j' j E3( m )
By repeating the same procedure for the other two stress conditions, it is
possible to determine adding compliance coefficients.
In particular, let us assume now the following stress condition:
(4.375)
256
So, by using the Voigt notation, the stress tensor of the homogeneous
reference material, T H , becomes:
0
0
zzH
H
T =
0
0
0
(4.376)
The strain tensor, for the same material, is, therefore, obtained by means the
relation (4.361), that yields, in Voigt notation:
13( m ) zzH
E ( m)
1
(
m
23 ) zzH
( m)
E2
H
E = zzH
(m)
E3
(4.377)
For the same considerations, already done before, it is still worth to write:
E pj 1 = E H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.378)
and:
p1
E = E pj 1 = E H
Then, according to the S.A.S. theorem, it is now obtained that:
(4.379)
257
0
0
Tjp1 = j T H = j zz
0
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.380)
T = f j' j T H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.381)
p1
The average stress tensor, T , in this case, has the following form:
0
0
f j' j zzH
p1
T =
0
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.382)
By taking into account the equations (4.379) and (4.382), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.375), the third column of the homogenized compliance tensor
p1
p1
p1
p1
S 1133 = S 3311 =
S 2233 = S 3322 =
p1
S 3333 =
13( m )
;
f j' j E1( m)
(m)
23
;
f j' j E2( m )
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
1
;
f j E3( m)
'
j
(4.383)
258
(4.384)
H
0
0
0
TH = H
yz
0
0
(4.385)
About the strain tensor, for the same material, the relation (4.361) yields, in
Voigt notation:
0
0
E H = yzH
2G ( m )
32
0
0
(4.386)
E pj 1 = E H with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.387)
and:
p1
E = E pj 1 = E H
Moreover, according to the S.A.S. theorem, it is now obtained that:
(4.388)
259
0
0
0
Tjp1 = j T H =
H
j yz
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.389)
T = f j' j T H
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.390)
p1
The average stress tensor, T , in this case, has the following form:
0
0
0
p1
T = '
H
f j j yz
0
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.391)
By taking into account the equations (4.388) and (4.391), for the assumed
hypothesis (4.384), another coefficient of the homogenized compliance tensor
p1
S 3232 =
1
2 f j G32( m )
'
j
with j = b1 , m2 , b2
(4.392)
p1
In this way, for the symmetry of the compliance tensor S , only three
coefficients remain undeterminable, and the tensor assumes the form:
p1
p1
S 1111
12( m )
f j' j E1( m )
1
'
f j j E2( m )
13( m )
f j' j E1( m )
( m)
23
f j' j E2( m )
1
2 f j G32( m )
1
f j E3( m )
'
j
'
j
p1
Sym
S 3131
260
0 (4.393)
p1
S 1212
where:
(4.394)
m 2 = 1
(4.395)
being the phase m2 coincident with the mortar, while it will be:
b1 = b 2 = b
(4.396)
where:
f b' 1 = f b' 2
So, the equation (4.394) can be rewritten in the form:
(4.397)
261
(4.398)
S Ip 1 = S
p1
(4.399)
it is obtained that:
(4.3100)
procedure, it is here shown the result, only, that is the compliance tensor S :
p2
p2
12( m )
S
1111
f k' k E1( m )
'
f kk E2( m )
Sym
13( m )
f k'k E1( m )
( m)
23
f k'k E2( m )
1
2 f k G32( m )
1
f E3( m )
'
k k
'
k
p1
S 3131
0 (4.3101)
0
p1
S 1212
with:
f k' =
and where:
Vk
Vp 2
with k = m 4 , b3 , m 5
(4.3102)
262
f k' = the volumetric fraction of the generic phase k, weighed upon the
volume of the partition p2 .
So, it can be written:
(4.3103)
m 4 = m 5 = 1
(4.3104)
being the phases m4 and m5 coincident with the mortar, while it will be:
b 3 = b
(4.3105)
f m' 4 = f m' 5
(4.3106)
(4.3107)
S Ip 2 = S
p2
(4.3108)
it is obtained that:
(4.3109)
263
2 f m' 4 = f m' 2
2 fb' 1 = f b' 3
(4.3110)
and so, it can be written:
(4.3111)
with:
'
mvert
Vm' vert
fb' =
and
Vp 1
Vb'
Vp 1
(4.3112)
where:
fii = f morizz + 2 f p1 p
(4.3113)
that is:
(4.3114)
By considering that:
2 f p1 =
Vp 1 + Vp 2
V
2V p 1
V
(4.3115)
and by remembering the (4.351) and the (4.3112), the equation (4.3114) can
be rewritten in the form:
fii = f m + fbb
where:
(4.3116)
264
f m = f m orizz + f m vert
f m vert =
Vm vert
(4.3117)
Vb
V
fb =
1
E ( m )
1
I
S =
(m)
21
E1( m )
I
2222
13( m)
E1( m )
23( m)
(m)
E2
1
E
(m)
3
S 3232
Sym
0
1
2G31( m )
I
S 1212
(4.3118)
where = ( f m + fbb ) .
It has to be underlined, again, that the found elastic coefficients represent a
solution to the homogenization problem that is both exact and very simple. The
exactness is given according to the S.A.S. theorem, [24]. The simplicity is
related to the fact that the homogenized compliance tensor is obtained from that
one of the reference homogeneous material by multiplying for a scalar factor
265
2. Homogenization x y
Analogously to what has been done for the homogenization y> x , in order
to simplify the procedure, it is supposed that the homogenization in ydirection
was already effected. Therefore, the illustrated above masonry RVE can be
considered as the layered material shown below:
s3
s1
s2
s4
s5
y
z
x
Figure 4.8 Layered material (RVE)
For this layered material, it is clear that the direction is coincident with
the xdirection and that the material inhomogeneity is defined by a function
266
(4.3119)
C Iq = q C H
uqI = u H
with q = s1 , s 2 , s3 , s4 , s5
(4.3120)
TqI = q T H
where:
C Iq , uqI , TqI = respectively, the stiffness tensor, the displacements solution and
the stress tensor of the generic phase of the inhomogeneous
material (RVE), shown in figure 4.8.
E = S :T
(4.3121)
where:
I
E = EH
I
T = f qq T H
with:
with q = s1 , s2, s3 , s4 , s5
(4.3122)
(4.3123)
267
E =
T =
x y
I S I
11 1111
I
22
I
33
I =
32
I
31
I
12
S 1122
S 1133
S 2222
S 2233
S 3333
S 3232
0
I
Sym
S 3131
I
0 11
I
0 22
I
0 33
I
0 32
I
0 31
I
I
S 1212 12
(4.3124)
tensor S are obtained, and so, also the coefficient S 3232 . In particular, for the
second column, it is obtained:
S 1122
I
12( m )
= S 2211 =
f q q E1( m )
S 2222 =
I
268
1
f q q E2( m )
I
S 3322 = S 2233 =
with q = s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , s5
(4.3125)
32( m )
f qq E3( m )
S 1133
13( m )
= S 3311 =
f qq E1( m)
S 2233 = S 3322 =
I
S 3333 =
(m)
23
f q q E2( m )
1
f q q E3( m )
(4.3126)
and then:
I
S 3232 =
1
2 f q q G32( m )
(4.3127)
I
In this way, for the symmetry of the compliance tensor S , only three
coefficients remain undeterminable, and the tensor assumes the form:
269
I
S 1111
S =
12( m )
f qq E1( m )
13( m )
f qq E1( m)
23( m )
f qq E2( m)
1
f qq E3( m )
1
2 f qq G32( m )
1
f qq E2( m )
Sym
S 3131
0 (4.3128)
0
I
S 1212
where:
f q q = f s 1 s 1 + f s 2 s 2 + f s 3 s 3 + fs 4 s 4 + f s 5 s 5
(4.3129)
It can be considered, now, that the three partitions, s1 , s3 and s5 , have the
volumetric fractions, weighed upon the RVE volume, V , that are in the
following relation:
fs3 = 2 fs 1 = 2 fs 5
(4.3130)
while the partitions s2 and s4 have the same volumetric fraction, weighed
upon the RVE volume, V :
f s 2 = fs 4
(4.3131)
where:
fst =
Vs t
V
t = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(4.3132)
s1 = s 5
270
(4.3133)
s 2 = s 4
So, the equation (4.3129) can be rewritten in the form:
f q q = 2 f s 1 s 1 + s 3 + 2 f s 2 s 2
(4.3134)
C Iq = q C H
with q = s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , s5
(4.3135)
from whose:
S qI =
1 H
S with q = s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , s5
q
(4.3136)
271
1
12(m)
( m)
s t E1(m)
s t E1
( m)
1
21 (m)
( m)
st 2
s t E2
( m)
32(m)
31
E ( m)
s t E3(m)
st 3
SIs t =
0
0
0
0
0
0
with t [1,5]
13(m)
s t E1(m)
23(m)
s t E2(m)
1
s t E3( m)
1
2s t G32(m)
1
2s t G31(m)
0
(4.3137)
1
2s t G12(m)
0
{m
{m
homogenization
} {m , b , m
, m } and {m , b
s1
1
s4
1
, b2 4 , m3 4 , b3 4
process
s5
6
s2
1
s2
1
s5
1
in
ydirection
} {m
s3
1
of
the
elements
s
s
s
s
, m2 3 , m3 3 , b3 3 , m6 3 ,
s3
3
, b3s 4 , m6s 5 ,
s5
2
s
s
s
, m3 5 , m5 5 , m6 5 , respectively, as it is
m1S 3
m1S 2
m1S 1
b1S 1
S2
1
b
m3S 2
m3S 1
m4S 1
m6S 1
a
m2S 3
m3S 4
b3S 3
m4S 5
m6S 5
m6S 4
c
b1S 5
m3S 5
b3S 4
m6S 3
b
m1S 5
b1S 4
m3S 3
b3S 2
m6S 1
m1S 4
272
Figure 4.9 a) partition s1; b) partition s2; c) partition s3; d) partition s4;
e) partition s5.
So, let us consider for example the partition s1 .
For this layered material, it is clear that the direction is coincident,
now, with the ydirection and, analogously to the previous case, the material
inhomogeneity is yet defined by a function ( x ) that is a constant function,
but piecewise discontinuous from a phase to another one.
For analogous considerations to those previous ones, it will be again
considered a plane stress tensor T H in each point of the homogeneous
reference body.
So, by remembering that the orthotropic homogeneous reference body is
coincident with the mortar, a strain prescribed homogenization in ydirection is
operated. The sole nonzero components of the stress tensor T H , now, have to
be:
(4.3138)
273
s1 , it can be written:
C sr1 = r C H
urs1 = u H
(4.3139)
Trs1 = r T H
where:
C sr1 , urs1 , Trs1 = respectively, the stiffness tensor, the displacements solution and
the stress tensor of the generic phase of the partition s1 of the
RVE.
s1
E = S :T
s1
(4.3140)
where:
s1
E = EH
(4.3141)
and:
s1
T = f r'r T H with r = m1 1 , b1 1 , m3 1 , m4 1 , m6 1
s
(4.3142)
with:
s1
274
s1
T =
s1
f r' =
s1
Vr
s
s
s
s
s
s
; T r = Tr 1 = r T H with r = m1 1 , b1 1 , m3 1 , m4 1 , m6 1 (4.3143)
Vs 1
with:
f r' = volumetric fraction of the generic phase r, weighed upon the volume
Vs 1 of the partition s1
Vr = volume of the generic phase r of the partition s1
By considering in explicit form the equation (4.3140), it can be written:
s 1 S s 1
11 1111
s1
22
s1
33
s1 =
32
s1
31
s
121
s1
S 1122
s1
S 2222
s1
S 1133
s1
S 2233
s1
S 3333
s1
S 3232
Sym
0
s1
S 3131
s1
0 11
s1
0 22
s1
0 33
s1
0 32
s1
0 31
s
s1
1
S 1212 12
(4.3144)
275
(4.3142), the first and the third column of the homogenized compliance tensor
s1
s1
are obtained, and so, also the coefficient S 3131 . In particular, for the first
column, it is obtained:
I
S 1111 =
1
f r E1( m )
'
r
S 2211 = S 1122 =
S 3311 = S 1133 =
(m)
21
f r'r E2( m )
with r = m1 1 , b1 1 , m3 1 , m4 1 , m6 1 (4.3145)
s
31( m )
f r' r E3( m )
13( m )
f r' r E1( m )
S 1133 = S 3311 =
S 2233 = S 3322
I
S 3333 =
(m)
23
= '
f r r E2( m)
(4.3146)
1
f E3( m )
'
r r
and then:
I
S 3131 =
1
2 f r G31( m )
'
r
(4.3147)
s1
In this way, for the symmetry of the compliance tensor S , only three
coefficients remain undeterminable, and the tensor assumes the form:
1
'
(m )
f r r E1
s1
S =
12( m)
f r'r E1( m )
s1
S 1111
13(m )
fr'r E1( m)
23(m )
fr'r E2( m)
1
f E3(m )
'
r r
s1
S 3232
Sym
0
1
'
2 f r r G31( m)
276
0 (4.3148)
s1
S 1212
where:
f r'r = f ' s 1
m1
s
m1 1
+ f 's 1
b1
s
b1 1
+ f ' s1
m3
s
m3 1
+ f ' s1
m4
s
m4 1
+ f ' s1
m6
(4.3149)
s
m6 1
s1
s
m1 1
s
m3 1
s
m4 1
s
m6 1
=1
(4.3150)
s
b1 1
= b
(4.3151)
where:
m1
m6
(4.3152)
277
f ' s1 = f ' s1
b1
m4
(4.3153)
b1
(4.3154)
S sI 1 = S
s1
(4.3155)
it is obtained that:
s 1 = f r' r
(4.3156)
s5
S sI1 = S = S = S sI 2 s1 = s5
(4.3157)
s1 = s5 = 4 f m' S1 + fb'S1 (1 + b )
1
(4.3158)
procedure, it is here shown the result, only, that is the compliance tensor S :
1
'
( m)
fuu E1
s2
S =
12(m)
fu'u E1( m)
13(m)
fu'u E1(m)
23(m)
'
fuu E2(m)
1
f E3( m)
s2
S 2222
'
u u
S2
S 3232
0
1
2 f G31( m)
Sym
'
u u
278
0 (4.3159)
S2
S1212
where:
fu'u = f m' S2 mS2 + fb'S2 bS2 + f m' S2 mS2 + fb'S2 bS2 + f m' S2 mS2
1
(4.3160)
and:
fu' =
Vu
VS 2
(4.3161)
with:
fu' = the volumetric fraction of the generic phase u, weighed upon the
volume of the partition s2 .
By considering, again, that the mortar is the reference orthotropic
homogeneous material, it is:
m S2 = m S2 = m S2 = 1
1
(4.3162)
being the phases m1S 2 , m3S2 and m6S2 coincident with the mortar, while it will
be:
bS2 = b S2 = b
1
(4.3163)
279
Moreover, it can be considered that the constituents, m1S2 , m3S2 and m6S2 , of
the partition s2 , have the volumetric fractions, weighed upon the volume VS 2 of
the partition, that are in the following relation:
(4.3164)
f b' S2 = f b' S2
1
(4.3165)
(4.3166)
S sI2 = S
s2
(4.3167)
it is obtained that:
s2 = fu'u
(4.3168)
s4
S sI2 = S = S = S sI4 s2 = s4
(4.3169)
s2 = s4 = 4 f m' S2 + 2 fb'S2 b
1
(4.3170)
S is:
1
' ( m)
fvv E1
s3
S =
12(m)
fv'v E1( m)
s3
S 2222
13(m)
fv'v E1( m)
23(m)
fv'v E2( m)
1
f E3( m)
'
v v
s3
S 3232
0
1
2 f G31(m)
Sym
'
v v
280
0 (4.3171)
s3
S1212
where:
f v'v = f m' S3 mS3 + f m' S3 mS3 + f m' S3 mS3 + fb'S3 b S3 + f m' S3 mS3
1
(4.3172)
and:
f v' =
Vv
VS3
(4.3173)
with:
f v' = the volumetric fraction of the generic phase v, weighed upon the
volume of the partition s3 .
Again, it is possible to write:
(4.3174)
bS3 = b
3
(4.3175)
281
(4.3176)
f m' S3 = f b' S3
2
(4.3177)
(4.3178)
Because, it is:
f m' S3 = f m' S 1
1
f b S3 = f
'
(4.3179)
'
b1S 1
it is obtained that:
f v'v = f r' r
(4.3180)
S SI 3 = S
S3
(4.3181)
it is obtained that:
S3 = f v'v
(4.3182)
and so:
S3 = S1 = S5 = 4 f m' S1 + f b'S 1 (1 + b )
1
(4.3183)
282
By substituting the (4.3158), the (4.3170) and the (4.3183) in the equation
(4.3134), and by operating some manipulation according to the definition of
the involved volumetric fractions , it is reached that:
f q q = 16
VmS 1
1
+4
Vb S 1
1
(1 + b ) + 8
VmS 2
1
+4
Vb S 2
1
(4.3184)
(4.3185)
4Vb S 1 + 4 Vb S 2 = Vb
1
where:
Vb =
V=
f q q =
By considering that:
Vmorizz
V
Vmvert
V
Vb
b
V
(4.3186)
283
f m = f morizz + f mvert
Vmvert
f mvert =
f morizz =
V
Vmorizz
(4.3187)
Vb
V
fb =
where:
f m = the volumetric fraction of the mortar, weighed upon the volume V of the
RVE.
fb = the volumetric fraction of the brick, weighed upon the volume V of the
RVE.
The equation (4.3186) becomes:
f q q = f m + f bb
(4.3188)
I
12( m )
S
1111
E1( m )
( m)
E2
S =
Sym
13( m )
E1( m )
23( m )
E2( m )
1
2G32( m)
1
E
( m)
3
S 3131
I
S 1212
(4.3189)
284
where = ( f m + fbb ) .
By comparing the equation (4.3118) with the equation (4.3118), it is noted
that the found elastic coefficients of the homogenized compliance tensor
obtained after the homogenization process y x are equal to those ones of
the homogenized compliance tensor obtained after the homogenization process
Hom
1
E ( m )
1
12( m )
E1( m )
1
E2( m )
13( m )
E1( m )
(m)
23
E2( m )
1
2G32( m )
1
E
(m)
3
Sym
1
2G31( m )
0
(4.3190)
Hom
S1212
with:
285
286
CHAPTER V
Remarks on finite element method (F.E.M.)
5.1 Introduction
287
288
289
q11
q1 = q12
1
q3
U1
q11 = , etc
V1
(5.21)
a11
a1 = a12
1
a3
u1
a11 = , etc
v1
(5.22)
q 1 = K 1 a 1 + f p1 + f 1o
290
(5.23)
where:
f P1 =
f10 = the nodal forces necessary to balance the reactions due, for example, to
thermal strains.
1 = S1a1 + p1 + 1o
(5.24)
where the last two terms are, respectively, the stresses due to the distribution of
load on the element and the stresses due to the initial strains when the
displacement results to be constrained.
The matrix K e and the matrix S e are known, respectively, as stiffness
matrix and stress matrix of the element.
The relations (5.23) and (5.24) have been illustrated in an example of
three nodes element, with interconnection points that are able to transfer only
two force components. However, the same considerations and the same
definitions can be applied to a general case.
The element 2 has only two interconnection points, but in general it is
possible to have a higher number of such points. Moreover, if the connections
are rigid and builtin, the three components of the generalized forces and of the
291
generalized
displacements
corresponding
to
moments
and
rotations,
q1e
.
e
q =
.
q e
m
a1e
.
e
a =
.
a e
m
and
(5.25)
where q ei and a ei have the same components number of the freedom grades.
These quantities are connected the ones with the others.
The stiffness element matrix is always a square matrix and it assumes the
form:
K eii
.
e
K =
.
e
K mi
K eim
.
.
... K emm
K eij ...
.
.
...
(5.26)
where:
292
(5.27)
L = [( xn xi ) + ( yn yi ) ]
2
(5.28)
= tan 1
y n yi
x n xi
(5.29)
293
U i
sen
V
cos
i
pL
f pe = =
U n
sen 2
Vn
cos
(5.210)
f e0
U i
cos
V
i
sen
= =
( E TA)
U n
cos
Vn
sen
(5.211)
u i
vi
e
a =
u n
v n
(5.212)
U i
V
K ea e = i =
U n
Vn
294
2
sen cos
cos
sen cos ui
cos2
sen cos
v
2
2
sen
sen cos
sen
EA
i
=
(5.213)
2
L cos2
sen cos
cos
sen cos un
2
2
sen
sen cos
sen
vn
sen cos
1
e
C =
2 C
E cos
sen
cos
sen
2
1 pL d 1
=
a +
ET
L cos sen cos sen
1 8 I 1
(5.214)
where:
d = half deepness of the section.
I = inertial moment of the area.
All the terms in the (5.24) can be easily known.
For more complex elements, more advanced analytical procedures have
been required, but the results are formally identical.
It is worth to notice that the complete stiffness matrix, obtained for the
simple examined element, results to be symmetric. This is the consequence of
the energy conservation and its corollaries (the well known MaxwellBetti
theorem).
295
a1
.
a=
.
a n
(5.31)
and built by taking into account all the structure elements, satisfies
automatically the first condition.
In this way, the equilibrium condition within the single element is satisfied,
while it is necessary to establish the equilibrium condition at structure nodes.
The resulting equations will carry the unknown displacements, so that the
structural problem is determined after founding such displacements.
The internal elements forces or the stresses can be easily attained from the
equation (5.24) by using prioriestablished characteristics for each element.
Let us consider that the structure is loaded with external nodal forces r, in
addition to distribute loads acting on the single elements.
r1
.
r=
.
rn
296
(5.32)
The generic force ri, moreover, must have the same number of components
than those ones of the reactions of the examined elements.
For example, in this case, since the hypothesis of hinged nodes has been
done, it is:
X
ri = i
Yi
(5.33)
ri = q ei = q1i + q i2 + ...
(5.34)
e =1
where:
297
e=1
(5.35)
where:
f e = f pe + f eo
(5.36)
and where the summation is again pertained to the sole elements concurred in
the node i.
By assembling the equations, relative to all nodes, it is simply obtained:
Ka = r f
(5.37)
K ij = K eij
(5.38)
e =1
f i = f ie
(5.39)
e =1
298
0
a1 = a 6 =
0
(5.41)
This is equivalent to reduce the number of equilibrium equations (12 for this
case) by deleting the first and the last couple and, so, by reducing to eight the
number of unknown displacements.
It is always suitable, nevertheless, to include all nodes when assembling the
equations according to the relations (5.37). Obviously, without a number
minimum of constrained displacements, (that is a number minimum of
constrains which blocks the rigid displacement of the structure), it is not
possible to solve the system, since the displacements cannot univocally be
determined. Such an obvious physical problem can be mathematically read in
the fact that the matrix K becomes singular and has not an inverse matrix.
The assignment of suitable displacements, after the phase of the assembly,
allows obtaining a unique solution by deleting suitable rows and columns from
the various matrices.
299
If all the equations of a system are assembled, the assumed form is the
following one:
K 11a1 + K 12 a 2 + ... = r1 f1
K 21a1 + K 22 a 2 + ... = r2 f 2
(5.42)
a1 = a1
(5.43)
300
connection
1 3 4
element 2
1 4 2
element 3
5 2
element 4
3 6 7 4
element 5
4 7 8 5
Tabe 5.1 Nodal connections.
301
q ei = q ei (a)
(5.61)
302
Such relations can generally be nonlinear, but in a lot of cases they assume
a linear form, of a kind:
q ei = K i1a1 + K i 2 a 2 + ... + f ie
(5.62)
ri = q ei
(5.63)
e =1
Ka + f = r
(5.64)
so that:
m
K ij = K eij
e =1
fi = f
(5.65)
e
i
e =1
From such system, after the suitable boundary conditions have been
imposed, the solutions in the variables a are found.
It is noticed that these statements are very general and they include
structural problems, hydraulic or electronic ones, etc. Generally, there is neither
linearity nor the symmetry of the matrices, even if both linearity and symmetry
naturally come in a lot of problems.
303
a' = La
(5.71)
The corresponding force components have to carry out the same work in the
systems:
q T a = q' T a'
(5.72)
q T a = q' T La
(5.73)
q = LT q'
(5.74)
or
The set of the transformations given by the (5.71), (5.72), (5.73) and
(5.74) is called controvariant.
The stiffness matrix could also be obtained in the local reference system,
and so opportunely transformed. It can be, therefore, written:
(5.75)
q = LT K ' La
(5.76)
K = LT K ' L
(5.77)
304
The above mentioned transformation results to be very useful. This fact can
be verified by calculating the stiffness values of the previous example
(structure with hinged nodes) in the local reference system.
Generally, the problem is to substitute a group of parameters a, in which the
system of equations has been written, with another one b by means of a
transformation matrix T. Hence, it is obtained:
a = Tb
(5.78)
In the linear problem, the system of equations assumes the following form:
Ka = r f
(5.79)
KTb = r f
(5.710)
(T
KT b = T T r T T f
(5.711)
305
306
307
is preferred to obtain the results in a generalized form, which is, so, applicable
to various situations.
In order to avoid difficult concepts, the general relations are illustrated by
means of very simple examples regarding the analysis of plane stress fields for
a thin structure.
A general region is divided in triangular elements, as shown in the figure
5.4.
Figure 5.4 Plane stress field for a region divided in triangular elements.
5.9.1
Shape functions
308
a i
a
e
u u = N i a i = N i , N j ,... j = Na e
.
.
(5.9.11)
where:
Ni = preestablished functions depending on the nodes coordinates
u ( x, y )
u=
v ( x, y )
(5.9.12)
u
ai = i
v i
(5.9.13)
Ni x j , y j = Ni ( x m , y m ) = 0, etc
which is always satisfied by suitable linear functions in x and y.
(5.9.14)
(5.9.15)
309
(5.9.16)
where Ni is obtained by the (5.9.11), by noticing that Ni=1 for the vertex with
coordinates xi, yi but it is equal to zero for the other ones.
In the case of triangular elements, the more obvious linear interpolation is
shown in the following figure.
5.9.2
Strain fields
By the knowledge of all displacements within the element the strain field
can be determined everywhere, in each element point, according to the
following matrix relation:
= Su
where:
S = a suitable linear operator.
(5.9.21)
310
= Ba
(5.9.22)
B = SN
(5.9.23)
with:
For plane strain fields, the strain values are obtained in terms of
displacement fields by means of the wellknown relations which define the
operator S:
x x x
v
= y =
= 0
xy u v
+
y x y
u
y v
(5.9.24)
If the shape functions, Ni, Nj, Nm, are already established, the matrix B can
be easily reached. If a linear form is assumed for such functions, the strain field
is constant everywhere in the element.
311
= D( 0 ) + 0
(5.9.31)
where:
D = elastic stiffness matrix which contains the material properties.
For plane stress fields, there are only three stress components, denoted with:
x
= y
xy
(5.9.32)
x y
E
E
1
y ( y ) = x y
0
E
E
2 (1 + )
xy ( xy ) =
xy
0
E
(5.9.33)
1
0
E
1
D=
0
1 2
1
0 0
(5.9.34)
x ( x )0 =
Hence, it is obtained:
q ei
e
q
qe = j
.
.
312
(5.9.41)
which are statically equivalent to the boundary tractions and to the element
distribute loads.
Each force qei has the same number of components than the corresponding
nodal displacements a i and also the same directions.
The distribute mass forces b are defined as forces on unit volume at an
element point and they have directions corresponding to those ones of the
displacements u in such point.
For example, in a plane stress state, the nodal forces are:
U
q ei = i
V i
(5.9.42)
bx
b=
b y
(5.9.43)
313
u = Na e
and
= Ba e
(5.9.44)
The external work can be written in the following matrix form as:
T
a e q e
(5.9.45)
T u T b
(5.9.46)
a T (B T N T b)
(5.9.47)
or
T
T
a e q e = a e B T dV N T bdV
e
Ve
V
(5.9.48)
The equation (5.9.48) is valid for each virtual displacement and, therefore,
it has to be verified the following relation:
q e = B T dV N T bdV
Ve
(5.9.49)
Ve
q e = K ea e + f e
(5.9.410)
K e = B T DBdV
(5.9.411)
where:
and
f e = N T bdV B T D 0 dV + B T 0 dV
Ve
Ve
Ve
(5.9.412)
314
In the last equation, the three terms in the right hand represent the forces
due, respectively, to the mass forces, to the initial strains and to the initial
stresses.
If the initial stress field is selfequilibrated, like in the case of residual
stresses, the contribute of such forces in the (5.9.412) is identically null. For
this reason, their estimation is often omitted.
In the particular case of plane stress field for triangular elements, the matrix
B doesnt depend on the coordinates, so the volume integral becomes
particularly simple.
The structure interconnection and the structure solution, given by the
elements assembly, follow the simple procedures until now described.
Generally, nodal concentrated forces can be applied at nodes, and so the
matrix:
r1
r
2
r=.
.
rn
(5.9.413)
N T tdA
A
(5.9.414)
315
= DBa e D 0 + 0
(5.9.415)
where the terms of the equation (5.24) are immediately recognized. The stress
matrix is given by:
S e = DB
(5.9.416)
0 = D 0 + 0
(5.9.417)
have to be summed.
In the (5.9.415) there are not the stresses due to the distribute load, ep ,
because the internal element equilibrium has not been considered, since only
global equilibrium condition have been established.
316
u = Na
(5.101)
N i = N ei
(5.102)
Ni = 0
(5.103)
. For virtual displacements a, the sum of the internal and external work
for the whole region assumes the following form:
a T r = u T bdV + u T tdA T dV
V
(5.104)
Ka + f = r
(5.105)
K = B T DBdV
(5.106)
where:
and
317
f = N T bdV N T t dA B T D 0 dV + B T 0 dV
V
(5.107)
The integrals are calculated on the whole volume V and on the whole
surface A.
It is obvious that:
f i = f ie
K ij = K eij
(5.108)
( )dV = ( )dV
(5.109)
Ve
318
a T r + u T bdV + u T tdA = W
V
A
(5.111)
where:
W = external forces potential
This is true if ri, b, t are conservative.
The last terms of the equation (5.104) for elastic materials can be written in
the following form:
U = T dV
(5.112)
where:
U = elastic system energy.
For a linearelastic material, whose behaviour is described in the equation
(5.9.31), it is:
U=
1 T
DdV T D 0 dV + T 0 dV
2V
V
V
where:
D = elastic symmetric matrix
(5.113)
319
(U + W ) = ( ) = 0
(5.114)
where:
= total potential energy.
This means that, if the equilibrium is assured, the total potential energy is
stationary for admissible displacement variations.
The equations previously obtained (from the (5.105) to the (5.108)) are
simply the result of such variations with respect to constrained displacements
of a finite parameters number a . It can be written:
a
1
= a 2 = 0
a .
.
.
(5.115)
320
Both the criterions have to be satisfied if the elements dimension, at the limit,
tends to zero. By imposing such criterions on finite sizes, a greater solution
accuracy is yielded.
321
is, for example, a square polynomial and if the shape function includes all the
square terms, the approximations will yield just the exact solution. This latter
can always be expanded in series in the around of a point or a node with a
polynomial growth, as a kind:
u
u
u = u i + i (x x i ) + i
x i
y
(y y i ) + ...
i
(5.131)
u1 u
O( h 2 )
=
=4
u 2 u O(h / 2) 2
(5.132)
322
323
It is:
u
u = v
w
(5.14.11)
u = 1 + 2 x + 3 y + 4 z
(5.14.12)
u i = 1 + 2 xi + 3 y i + 4 z i
(5.14.13)
u=
1
6V
(ai + bi x + ci y + di z )ui + (a j + b j x + c j y + d j z )u j +
(am + bm x + cm y + d m z )um + (a p + bp x + c p y + d p z )u p
(5.14.14)
with:
1 xi
1 x
j
6V = det
1 x m
1 x p
yi
yj
ym
yp
zi
zj
zm
z p
(5.14.15)
xj
ai = det x m
xp
xj
ci = det x m
xp
zj
zm
z p
1 zj
1 zm
1 z p
yj
ym
yp
324
1 y j
bi = det 1 y m
1 y p
xj
d i = det x m
xp
zj
zm
z p
y j 1
y m 1
y p 1
(5.14.16)
ai
a
j
e
a =
a m
a p
(5.14.17)
with
ui
a i = vi
w
i
etc
(5.14.18)
(5.14.19)
Ni =
with
ai + bi x + ci y + d i z
6V
etc
(5.14.110)
325
I = identical matrix.
The used displacement functions obviously satisfy the required continuity at
the interface between two different elements, as natural consequence of their
linearity.
u
x
v
x
y
y w
z
= = z = Su
u v
xy +
yz y x
v w
zx +
z y
w + u
x z
(5.14.21)
= Ba e = B i , B j , B m , B p a e
where
(5.14.22)
N i
x
0
Bi =
N i
y
N i
z
0
N i
y
0
N i
x
N i
z
0
0
bi
0
N i
0
1
z =
0 6V ci
N i
d i
y
N i
x
0
ci
0
bi
di
0
326
0
0
di
0
ci
bi
(5.14.23)
e
e
e
0 =
0
0
(5.14.24)
with
= coefficient of thermal dilation
e = mean raise of temperature in the element.
327
x
y
z
= = D( 0 ) + 0
xy
yz
zx
(5.14.31)
1 1
E (1 )
D=
(1 + )(1 2 ) Sym
1
1
0
1 2
2(1 )
0
0
1 2
2(1 )
1 2
2(1 )
0
(5.14.32)
K eij = B Ti DB j V e
where:
Ve = tetrahedral volume.
(5.14.41)
328
The nodal forces, due to the initial strain field, have the following form:
f ie = B Ti D 0 V e
(5.14.42)
The forces due to the initial stress field have an analogous form.
The mass distribute forces are expressed in terms of the components bx, by,
bz. It is possible to show that the nodal forces equivalent to the distribute mass
ones result equal each others and they are equal to of the resulting force in
case where the mass forces are constant.
329
CHAPTER VI
Computational Analyses
6.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, it has been studied the finite element method from a
theoretical point of view. Hence, it has been seen that the FEM can be thought
as a mathematical model able to include in it the continuum theories. Such
method, in fact, overcomes the difficulties of the analysis of a continuum solid
structural response by operating a discretization of the same continuum. This
means, as already seen, that the solid is divided in a finite number of elements,
whose structural behaviours are known. Such elements, when assembled with
accurate relation laws among the nodes, are able to yield the global behaviour
of the primitive solid, even if approximately. Obviously, the solution is as
much close to the actual mechanical response as the mesh is heightened.
330
m
m
m
m
m
m
331
where m stands for the mortar components and b stands for the brick ones.
The assigned dimensions are so that the equivalence in the volumetric
fractions, between the above mentioned model and the one considered in the
LourencoZucchini analysis and in the staticallyconsistent Lourenco approach,
is obtained.
In particular, the two models must have the following dimensions:
332
Eb = 2 *105 daN / cm 2
brick dimensions :
Em = 2 *10 daN / cm
b = m = 0.15;
Eb
= 10
Em
(6.21)
model dimensions :
lx = 22 cm; l y = 12 cm; lz = 10 cm
with:
333
334
1 xx
4 2 zy
1 xx
4 zy
2 yy
5 2 zx
2 yy
5 zx
3 zz
6 2 xy
3 zz
6 xy
(6.31)
1 S11
2 S12
3 S13
=
4 0
5 0
6 0
S12
S13
S 22
S23
S23
0
S33
0
0
S44
0
0
S55
0 1
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
S66 6
(6.32)
where the superscript means that the above written equations refer to the
average values of the corresponding quantities within the considered RVE.
By applying the six loading conditions one at a time, it is possible to obtain
the single columns of the compliance tensor, one at a time too, according to the
following relation:
Sij =
i
j
i, j = 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6
(6.33)
j=
335
1
j dV = 0j
VV
j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(6.34)
where V stands for the volume of the basic cell and 0j is the generic stressprescribed component.
The same result is attained if the above shown RVE is considered subjected,
for an example, to a unit stress component 0j , i.e:
p = 0j = 1
(6.35)
Fj = (j r ) A( r )
(6.36)
r =1
where:
m = the number of the elements in which the loaded face is discretized.
Fj
r =1
r =1
Fj = A (jr ) (j r ) =
(6.37)
1 m (r )
F
F
j =
=
j = p = 0j
m r =1
mA Atot
(6.38)
where:
j = the average value of the jstress component on the examined loaded face
336
l=
n
m
(6.39)
and with:
n = the number of the elements, equal to 21120, in which the whole RVE has
been discretized.
Since such operation yields the average value of the jstress component within
the whole RVE, it is obtained that:
j = p = 0j = 1
(6.310)
i =
r =1
(r)
i
(6.311)
where:
n = the number of elements in which the whole RVE is discretized and equal
to 21120.
i( r ) = the average value of the istrain component, for the generic element.
Hence, the properties of the homogenized cell can be determined by means
of equation (6.33). In detail, in the follows, the found coefficients of the
homogenized tensor of compliances are shown for the six loading conditions:
 case of compression in xdirection:
S11 =
1
= 7,98 106
1
S 21 =
2
= 1, 09 106
1
S31 =
3
= 0,95 106
1
337
(6.312)
S 41 = S51 = S61 = 0
 case of compression in ydirection:
S12 =
1
= 1, 09 10 6
2
S 22 =
2
= 12, 6 106
2
S32 =
3
= 1, 04 106
2
(6.313)
S 42 = S52 = S62 = 0
 case of compression in zdirection:
S13 =
1
= 0.95 106
3
S 23 =
2
= 1, 04 10 6
3
S33 =
3
= 6, 6 10 6
3
S 43 = S53 = S63 = 0
 case of shear stress in zyplane:
(6.314)
338
S14 = S 24 = S34 = 0
S 44 =
4
= 14, 78 106
4
(6.315)
S54 = S64 = 0
 case of shear stress in zxplane:
5
= 9,19 106
5
(6.316)
S 65 = 0
 case of shear stress in xyplane:
6
= 15, 9 106
6
(6.317)
Hom
F.E.M.
0
0
0
7.98 1.09 0.95
1.09 12.6 1.04
0
0
0
0.95
1.04
6.6
0
0
0
= 106
0
0
14.78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.19
0
0
0
0
0
15.9
0
(6.318)
339
j = p = 0j = 1
(6.319)
i =
li
li
(6.320)
where:
li =
u ( )
r
r =1
(6.321)
where:
m =
ui (
r)
Analogously, the average value of the nominal shear strain components can
be obtained.
Hence, the properties of the homogenized cell can be determined by means
of the equation (6.33). In detail, in the follows, the found coefficients of the
physic tensor of compliances are shown for the six loading conditions:
 case of compression in xdirection:
340
S11 =
1
= 8, 05 106
1
S 21 =
2
= 1,13 106
1
S31 =
3
= 0,97 106
1
(6.322)
S 41 = S51 = S61 = 0
 case of compression in ydirection:
S12 =
1
= 1,13 106
2
S 22 =
2
= 12, 6 106
2
S32 =
3
= 1,1 106
2
(6.323)
S 42 = S52 = S62 = 0
 case of compression in zdirection:
S13 =
1
= 0.97 10 6
3
S 23 =
2
= 1,1 106
3
S33 =
3
= 6,8 106
3
S 43 = S53 = S63 = 0
 case of shear stress in zyplane:
(6.324)
341
S14 = S 24 = S34 = 0
S 44 =
4
= 15, 07 10 6
4
(6.325)
S54 = S64 = 0
 case of shear stress in zxplane:
5
= 8, 61 106
5
(6.326)
S 65 = 0
 case of shear stress in xyplane:
6
= 14,54 106
6
(6.327)
Phys
F.E.M.
0
0
0
8.05 1.13 0.97
1.13 12.6
1.1
0
0
0
0.97
1.1
6.8
0
0
0
= 106
0
0
15.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.61
0
0
0
0
0 14.54
0
(6.328)
342
0
C44
0
0
C55
0 1
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
C66 6
(6.41)
where the superscript means that the above written equations refer to the
average values of the corresponding quantities within the considered RVE.
By applying the six loading conditions one at a time, it is possible to obtain
the single columns of the stiffness tensor, one at a time too, according to the
following relation:
Cij =
i
j
i, j = 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6
(6.42)
More in detail, both homogenized stiffness coefficients and physic ones are
determined, as described in the follows.
Homogenized elastic stiffness
In the chapter 1, it has been seen that, for the average theorem, when the
boundary conditions are applied in terms of surface displacements on the
considered RVE (basic cell), the following relation furnishes the average strain
value in the RVE volume:
j=
343
1
V
j dV = 0j
(6.43)
where V stands for the volume of the basic cell and 0j is the generic strain
component so that:
0 x = u0
(6.44)
with:
j( r )
r =1
j = =
0
j
(6.45)
where:
n = the number of elements in which the whole RVE is discretized and equal
to 21120.
j( r ) = the average value of the jstrain component, for the generic element.
At this point, it occurs to calculate the average value of stress, i , obtained
as:
n
i =
r =1
(r )
i
(6.46)
where:
i( r ) = the average value of the istress component, for the generic element.
344
C11 =
1
= 0.13 106
1
C21 =
2
= 0.013 106
1
C31 =
3
= 0.02 106
1
(6.47)
C12 =
1
= 0.013 106
2
C22 =
2
= 0.08 106
2
C32 =
3
= 0.014 106
2
(6.48)
C13 =
1
= 0.02 106
3
C23 =
2
= 0.014 106
3
C33 =
3
= 0.17 106
3
(6.49)
345
4
= 0.07 106
4
(6.410)
C54 = C64 = 0
 case of shear strain in zxplane:
5
= 0.11 106
5
(6.411)
C65 = 0
 case of shear strain in xyplane:
6
= 0.06 106
6
(6.412)
C Hom
F.E.M.
0
0
0
0.13 0.013 0.02
0.013 0.08 0.014
0
0
0
0.02
0.014
0.17
0
0
0
= 106
0
0
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.11
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
(6.413)
346
j=
u 0j
lj
(6.414)
where:
i =
Fi
A
(6.415)
where:
C11 =
1
= 0.13 106
1
C21 =
2
= 0.013 106
1
C31 =
3
= 0.02 106
1
(6.416)
347
C12 =
1
= 0.013 106
2
C22 =
2
= 0.08 106
2
C32 =
3
= 0.014 106
2
(6.417)
C13 =
1
= 0.02 106
3
C23 =
2
= 0.014 106
3
C33 =
3
= 0.17 106
3
(6.418)
4
= 0.07 106
4
C54 = C64 = 0
 case of shear strain in zxplane:
5
= 0.11 106
5
C65 = 0
 case of shear strain in xyplane:
(6.419)
348
6
= 0.06 106
6
(6.421)
C Phys
F.E.M.
0
0
0
0.13 0.013 0.02
0.013 0.08 0.014
0
0
0
0.02
0.014
0.17
0
0
0
= 106
0
0
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.11
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
(6.422)
It is worth to notice that the homogenized and the physic stiffness tensor are
equal. It is due to the linearity of the problem.
The reader is referred to the appendix to this chapter for the plotting of the
obtained results.
349
the centimetre. Since the examined basic cell referrers to a single leaf masonry
wall, the characteristic length in zdirection ( lz = 10 cm ) doesnt influence the
volumetric fractions. Hence, the figure 6.4 shows the RVE in xyplane.
fi =
Ai
A
i = mortar , brick
(6.51)
where:
f m = 0.2
fb = 0.8
(6.52)
350
with:
S R = f m S m + fb Sb
(6.53)
2.1 14
0
0
0
R
6 2.1
S = 10
0
0
16.1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 16.1 0
0
0
0
0 16.1
0
(6.54)
From it, the Reuss stiffness tensor can be determined as the inverse of the
Reuss compliance one. Thus, it assumes the following form:
0
0
0.08 0.01 0.01 0
0.01 0.08 0.01 0
0
0
0.01 0.08
0
0
0
R
R 1
6 0.01
C = ( S ) = 10
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
351
(6.55)
CV = f m C m + fb Cb
(6.56)
0.03
0.03
0.17
0
0
0
CV = 106
0
0
0.14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0
(6.57)
From it, the Voigt compliance tensor can be determined as the inverse of the
Voigt stiffness one. Thus, it assumes the following form:
352
6.21
0.93
V
V 1
6 0.93
S = ( C ) = 10
0
0
0.93
0.93
6.21
0.93
0.93
6.21
7.14
7.14
0
0
(6.58)
7.14
353
The unit of measurement is the centimetre. Since also this examined basic
cell referrers to a single leaf masonry wall, the characteristic length in zdirection ( lz = 10 cm ) doesnt influence the volumetric fractions. Hence, the
figure 6.5 shows the RVE in xyplane, again.
Let us recall the analytical results, which are obtained by the authors. Thus,
it is:
354
0 )
( xx
( xx )
l t + 2t E (1) E (3)
S1111 = xx 0 = xx(1)
xx
l +t
0
yy( xx )
0
S2211 =
S3311 =
xx0
(2)
yy
( 0xx )
( h + 2t E
E (3) ) + h yy(b )
(2)
0 )
( xx
l +t
0
( xx
)
( 0xx )
zz
= zz(b )
0
xx
( 0 )
S1122
(1)
( 0yy ) l t + 2t E
yy
E (3)
= xx 0 = xx(1)
yy
l +t
( 0 )
S2222 =
S3322 =
yy yy
0yy
yy(2)
( 0yy )
( h + 2t E
E (3) ) + h yy( b )
0 )
( yy
(2)
l +t
( 0yy )
0 )
( yy
zz
= zz( b)
0
yy
(1)
0
xx( zz )
E (3)
(1)( zz ) l t + 2t E
= 0 = xx
zz
l +t
0
S1133
yy( zz )
( 0zz )
S2233 =
S3333 =
S3232 =
S3131 =
zz0
yy(2)
( h + 2t E
(2)
E (3) ) + h yy(b )
0 )
( zz
l +t
( 0zz )
( 0zz )
zz
= zz( b )
0
zz
yz
yz0
xz
=
xz0
t +l
tG ( b ) + hG (1)
(2t + h)G (1) lG (b ) + tG (2)
4hG ( b) + ( l t ) G (1)
+l
(2)
(1)
4hG + ( l t ) G
(1)
(b)
2 ( t + l ) ( tG + hG )
(t + h) t
tl ( t + h ) ( t + l kt ) ( lh t ) t ( t + l )( t + l kt )
k
+
+
(2)
(b )
G
G
G (1)
=
2l ( t + l )( t + h )
(2)
S1212 =
xy
xy0
(6.6.11)
355
By taking into account the numerical data given by the equation (6.21) and
by substituting the numerical value of the strains which the authors have
obtained for each basic cell constituent, the overall compliance tensor is finally
determined. It assumes the following form:
S LZ
0
0
0
7.47 1.02 0.92
0.54 6.83 0.5
0
0
0
0.91
0.92
6.13
0
0
0
= 10 6
0
0
14.99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.15 0
0
0
0
0
15
0
LZ
(6.6.12)
From it, also the overall stiffness tensor is obtained as the inverse of the
overall compliance one. Hence, it assumes the following form:
CLZ
0
0
0
0.14 0.024 0.023
0.013 0.15 0.014
0
0
0
0.022
0.026
0.17
0
0
0
= ( SLZ ) = 106
(6.6.13)
0
0
0.067
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0
0
0
0
0
0.064
0
6.6.2
The RVE adopted in this proposed approach is the same one used by
Lourenco and Zucchini. For clearness of exposition, it is shown here, again,
with its numerical characteristic dimensions:
356
+ t
Eb Ef
Ea Eg Ed Ec Ed Ee
=
2 ( h + t ) (l + t )
(6.6.21)
h t a h l b 2 t 2 c 2 ( l t ) t d 2 t 2 e h l f h t g
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ea
Eb
Ec
Ed
Ee
Ef
Eg
=
2 ( h + t ) ( l + t )
(6.6.22)
357
4 Gb h + (l  t ) Gd
(h + t ) t
+l
4 Ga h + (l  t ) Gd
1
S3131 =
=
2 Gxz
2 (t + l ) (t Gd + h Gb )
S3232 =
S1212 =
1
2 Gxy
(6.6.23)
1
1
t + l t Gb + h Gd
=
2 G yz 2 Gd t + h l Gb + t Ga
4 Gb Gd h t (h + t)
2 Gd (h + t ) ( Ed Gb l + Ga (Ed l t + 4 Gb h (l + t )))
2
(6.6.24)
Ed l (l + t ) (Gd h + Gb t ) + 4 Ga h (Gb t (l + t ) + Gd (h l  t ))
2
(6.6.25)
2 Gd (h + t ) ( Ed Gb l + Ga ( Ed l t + 4 Gb h (l + t )))
2
By taking into account the numerical data given by the equation (6.21), the
overall compliance tensor is finally determined. It assumes the following form:
S S c
0
0
0
14.2 2.1 2.1
2.1 14.2 2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 2.1 2.1 14.2
= 10
0
0
14.99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.15 0
0
0
0
0
15
0
S c
(6.6.26)
From it, also the overall stiffness tensor is obtained as the inverse of the
overall compliance one. Hence, it assumes the following form:
CS c
0
0
0
0.074 0.013 0.013
0.013 0.074 0.013
0
0
0
0.013
0.013
0.074
0
0
0
= ( S S c ) = 106
(6.6.27)
0
0
0.067
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0
0
0
0
0
0.064
0
358
6.6.3
It is shown, in the following figure 6.7, the RVE adopted in this proposed
approach with its numerical characteristic dimensions. It is worth to remember,
again, that the assigned dimensions are so that there is equivalence, in the
volumetric fractions, between such RVE and the examined F.E.M. model.
In particular, the model has the following dimensions:
I
S1111
I
S =
12( m )
E1( m )
1
E2( m )
359
13( m )
E1( m )
(m)
23
E2( m )
1
2G32( m)
1
E
( m)
3
I
S3131
Sym
I
S1212
(6.6.31)
where:
= ( f m + fbb )
(6.6.32)
By taking into account the numerical data given by the equation (6.21), the
overall compliance tensor is finally determined. It assumes the following form:
0
0
6.13 0.92 0.92 0
0.92 6.13 0.92 0
0
0
0.92
0.92
6.13
0
0
0
S S.A.S. = 106
0
0
7.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.05
0
0
0
0
0
7.05
0
S . A. S .
(6.6.33)
From it, also the overall stiffness tensor is obtained as the inverse of the
overall compliance one. Hence, it assumes the following form:
360
C S.A.S
0
0
0.17 0.03 0.03 0
0.03 0.17 0.03 0
0
0
0.03 0.17
0
0
0
S.A.S 1
6 0.03
= (S ) = 10
(6.6.34)
0
0
0.14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0
361
362
363
APPENDIX

364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
CHAPTER VII
Design codes for masonry buildings
7.1 Introduction
The most effective use of masonry construction is seen in load bearing
structures wherein it performs a variety of functions, namely, supporting loads,
subdividing space, providing thermal and acoustic insulation and so on.
Until 1950s there were no engineering methods of designing masonry for
buildings and thickness of walls was based on RulesofThumb tables given in
Building Codes and Regulations, [21]. As result, walls used to be very thick
and masonry structures were found to be very uneconomical. Hence, since
intensive theoretical and experimental research has been conducted in
advanced countries, factor affecting strength, stability and performance of
masonry structures have been identified, which need to be considered in
design.
390
BUILDING
CODE
REQUIREMENTS
STRUCTURES
(ACI 53002/ASCE 502/TMS 40202)
FOR
MASONRY
391
This code has been drawn up by the joint efforts of the American Concrete
Institute, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of the
Civil Engineers and the Masonry Society, [2], [3]. Such a code covers the
design and the construction of masonry structures, by providing minimum
requirements for the structural analysis and by using both allowable stress
design as well as limit state design for unreinforced and reinforced masonries.
An empirical design method applicable to buildings meeting specific location
and construction criteria is also included.
The International Building Code (IBC 2000) has been designed to meet the
need for a modern, uptodate building instrument addressing the design of
building systems through requirements emphasizing performance, [34]. This
model code encourages the international consistency in the application of
provisions and it is available for adoption and use by jurisdictions
internationally.
The provisions of this code for the design of masonry members have been
heavily borrowed from ACI 53002, ASCE 502, TMS 40202.
392
Such a code covers the design and the construction of masonry structures, in
order to guarantee preestablished safety coefficients. It adopts the limit state
design for unreinforced and reinforced masonries. In particular, the
constructions have to satisfy the following requirements:
o
393
the deformations will disappear when the external actions which have
caused such an overcoming will stop. In the second case, the damage
and deformations will be permanent and unacceptable; this limit state is
identified with damage limit state.
o
The New Zealand Standard has been prepared under the direction of the
Building and Civil Engineering Divisional Committee for the Standards
Council, established under the Standards Act 1988. It is set in two parts: Code
and Commentary, [55].
Such a code is largely dictated by seismic considerations. In this framework,
it is intended to provide a satisfactory structural performance for masonry
structures during a major earthquake. Minimum reinforcing requirements for
different structural systems and the reinforcing and separation of nonstructural
elements will limit nonstructural damage during moderate earthquakes.
The NZS 4230 adopts a design philosophy based on strength design, using
reinforced masonry only. It contains crossreferences to NZS 3101, which is
the primary code for the seismic design of structure.
394
INDIAN
STANDARD:
CODE
OF
PRACTICE
FOR
The Indian Standard on masonry design has been first published in 1960
and later on revised in 1969, 1980 and 1987, [35]. This latter has been
reaffirmed in 1998. A separate handbook to this code, SP 20 (S&T), 1991, is
also available, [21].
Such a code provides recommendations for structural design aspect of load
bearing and nonload bearing walls of unreinforced masonry only, by using a
design procedure based on the allowable stress design, along with several
empirical formulae.
These guidelines are referred to IS 4326 for strengthening unreinforced
masonry building for seismic resistance and it doesnt provide any calculation
for the design of reinforcement.
EMPIRICAL DESIGN
395
This method states that, under the working loads, the stresses developed in a
member must be less than admissible ones.
In case of unreinforced masonry, it is assumed that tensile stresses, not
exceeding the allowable limits, are resisted by masonry material, while in the
case of reinforced structures masonry tensile strength is neglected.
The ACI code has followed this approach for both reinforced and
unreinforced masonry, while the IS code has applied it only to unreinforced
masonry. On the contrary, such a design method doesnt find place in Eurocode
and in the New Zealand Standard.
396
unreinforced ones. The Eurocode 6 specifies a limit state design for collapse
and serviceability, wherein instead of strength reduction factors, partial safety
factors for loads and materials are specified separately. In particular, partial
safety factor for loads depends on the load combinations and partial safety
factor for materials depends on the type of masonry units and the failure mode.
Also the Italian code (T.U. 30/03/2005) adopts the ultimate and serviceability
limit state design, for reinforced and unreinforced masonry.
In these codes, the strength of reinforced masonry members is calculated by
basing on the following hypothesis:
a. There is strain continuity between the reinforcement, grout and
masonry.
b. The maximum compressive strain ( mu ) at the extreme masonry
compression fibre shall be assumed to be 0.0035 for clay masonry
and 0.0025 for concrete one. The New Zealand code also specifies
that the maximum usable strain will be 0.008 for confined concrete
masonry.
c. Reinforcement stress below specified yield strength
(f )
y
shall be
taken as Es times steel strain. For strain greater than the ones
corresponding to
to
( f ).
y
397
In this section, provisions of both allowable stress and strength (limit state)
design, specified in various codes, will be discussed and compared with
398
7.4.1
h
R = 1
for h / t 29
40t
(7.4.1a1)
20t
R=
for h / t > 29
h
where:
(7.4.1a2)
399
Pe =
2 Em I n 2e
1
h2
t
(7.4.1a3)
where:
e=
400
bending stress Fb in masonry, taken as 0.33 f m , which is 1.33 times the basic
compressive stress allowed for direct loads (0.25 f m ). This increase is due to
the restraining effect of less highly strained compressive fibres on those ones of
maximum strain and is supported by experiment.
For combined axial and flexural loads, a masonry member is acceptable if
the sum of the quotients of the resulting compression stresses to the allowable
stresses does not exceed 1, as given in the following relation and figure:
f a fb
+
1
Fa Fb
(7.4.1b1)
401
7.4.1c Shear
402
7.4.2
403
In this section, provisions of both allowable stress and strength (limit state)
design, specified in various codes, will be discussed and compared with
reference to reinforced masonry subjected to axial compression, flexure and
shear.
Reinforced masonry is a construction system where steel reinforcement, in
the form of reinforcing bars or mesh, is embedded in the mortar or placed in the
holes and filled with concrete or grout, [21].
By reinforcing masonry with steel reinforcement, the resistance to seismic
loads and energy dissipation capacity can be improved significantly. In such
reinforced structures, tension is developed in masonry but it is not considered
to be effective in resisting design loads: reinforcement is assumed to resist all
the tensile stresses.
7.5.1
Only the ACI code contains provisions on allowable stress design for
reinforced masonry.
404
( Pa )
in reinforced
which is obtained by
For combined axial compression and flexure, the unity formula for
interaction is not used in designing masonry members in case of reinforced
masonry, since it becomes very conservative.
In such cases, emphasis has been to compute nonlinear interaction diagram
taking the effect of reinforcement and compression behaviour of masonry into
account. The equations and the assumptions used for developing the axial loadbending moment interaction diagram are very similar to those ones used in the
analysis and design of reinforced concrete members. Interaction diagrams thus
produced permit a rapid graphical solution.
405
7.5.1c Shear
AV =
VS
FS d
(7.5.1c1)
where:
406
7.5.2
407
The nominal axial and flexure strength, for combined axial compression and
flexure, are computed similar to RC members with the design assumptions as
discussed earlier, which vary from one code to another.
According to ACI code and IBC 2000, the maximum usable strain mu shall
be 0.0035 for clay masonry and 0.002 for concrete masonry. In wall design for
outofplane loads, according to both the codes, the required moment due to the
lateral loads, eccentricity of axial load and lateral deformation are assumed
maximum at midheight of the wall. In certain design conditions, like large
eccentricities acting simultaneously with small lateral loads, the design
maximum moment may occur elsewhere. When this occurs, the designer
should use the maximum moment at the critical section.
In Eurocode 6, the maximum tensile strain in reinforcement should be
limited to 0.01. According to this code, no redistribution of the moment is
allowed with normal ductility steel. In this case the ratio of depth of neutral
axis to the effective depth should not be greater than 0.4. Redistribution of
moments in a continuous beam should be limited to 15% when high ductility
steel is to be used.
The New Zealand Standards, which deals with only concrete masonry,
specifies that mu shall be 0.0025 for unconfined masonry and 0.008 for
confined masonry. Confinement is provided to the masonry walls to impart
ductility to them, [21].
408
7.5.2c Shear
b=
409
frictional forces are proportioned to the coefficient of friction and the total
normal force acting across the joint, which may be provided by axial force, Pu ,
and distributed reinforcement, Avf f y , where Avf is the area of shear friction
reinforcement. The effective clamping force across the crack will be
Avf =
1
fy
Vu
Pu
(7.5.2c1)
7.6 Discussion
Presently, most design codes prefer Limit State Design approach because of
better reliability and economy, which is a major departure from the
conventional empirical design method. Moreover, for reinforced masonry, only
the ACI code contains provisions based on allowable stress values, whereas all
other codes follow only Limit State Design approach. The International
Building Code 2000 specifies some minor changes to the ACI code in the form
of design assumptions and strength reduction factors.
For allowable strength of masonry shear walls, ACI code emphasizes on the
aspect ratio and boundary conditions by a parameter M VdV . Also the
410
They will be exposed, in this paragraph, the main aspects of the Italian
code T.U. 30/03/2005. The interested reader is referred, for major details, to
[63].
The first aspect regards the determination of the characteristic resistances
for masonry and its constituents. In particular, it is:
411
fbk = f bm 1.64s
(7.71)
where:
s=
When the number n of the examined specimens is between 10 and 29, the
coefficient s assumes the following k values:
10
12
16
20
25
2.13
2.06
1.98
1.93
1.88
0.7 f bm ( N mm 2 )
(7.72)
412
fbk = 0.7 f bm
(7.73)
Compressive characteristic strength for mortar, f m , (UNI EN 9982) is given by the following table 2:
Class
M 2.5
M5
M 10
M 15
M 20
Md
Compressive
strength
2.5
10
15
20
N mm
f k = f m ks
(7.74)
where:
f m = average resistance
s = deviation estimate
k = a coefficient is dependent from the number n of the specimens, [63].
413
fbk , and to the mortar category, as shown in the following tables 3 and 4:
Compressive
strength f bk for
artificial masonry
Mortar type
M 15
M 10
M5
M 2.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
5.0
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.0
7.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.5
10.0
6.2
5.3
4.7
4.1
15.0
8.2
6.7
6.0
5.1
20.0
9.7
8.0
7.0
6.1
30.0
12.0
10.0
8.6
7.2
40.0
14.3
12.0
10.4

elements N mm
2.0
Mortar type
M 15
M 10
M5
M 2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
5.0
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.0
7.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.5
10.0
6.2
5.3
4.7
4.1
elements N mm
2.0
414
15.0
8.2
6.7
6.0
5.1
20.0
9.7
8.0
7.0
6.1
30.0
12.0
10.0
8.6
7.2
40.0
14.3
12.0
10.4

f vk 0 = 0.7 f vm
(7.75)
where:
Mortar type
f vk0
15
M 15
0.2
> 15
M 15
0.3
Compressive
strength f bk for
artificial concrete
elements
3
>3
Table 7.6
Mortar type
f vk0
M 15, M 10, M 5
0.1
M 2.5
0.1
M 15, M 10, M 5
0.2
M 2.5
0.1
Compressive
strength f bk for
natural elements
3
>3
Table 7.7
415
Mortar type
f vk0
M 15, M 10, M 5
0.1
M 2.5
0.1
M 15, M 10, M 5
0.2
M 2.5
0.1
f vk = f vk 0 + 0.4 n
where:
(7.76)
416
n = average normal stress, due to the vertical loads acting on the examined
section.
Elastic secant modulus, E , is given by the following relation:
E = 1000 f k
(7.77)
G = 0.4 E
(7.78)
The second aspect regards the specification of the provisions for the
structural organization of a masonry building and for the structural analysis of
unreinforced and reinforced masonry with reference to both allowable stress
and limit state design.
7.7.1
Structural organization
120 mm
200 mm
240 mm
 lined masonry:
400 mm
The following tables relate a classification for the artificial brick and
concrete elements:
417
Brick elements
Hole percentage
Full
15%
f 900 mm 2
Half full
f 1200 mm 2
Perforated
f 1500 mm 2
f
Hole percentage
elements
A 90000 mm 2
A > 90000 mm 2
Full
15%
10 A
15A
Half full
10 A
15A
Perforated
10 A
15A
= hole percentage.
= h0 t
where:
(7.7.11)
418
h/a 0.5
3/2 h/a
1/[1+(h/a)^2]
7.7.2
The structural analyses can be non linear analyses or linear ones, these latter
being obtained by assuming the secant value for the elastic moduli. For each
structural element, they must yield:
 the axial load given by the vertical loads and, for buildings with
height more than 10 m, the variation of the axial load given by the
horizontal actions.
 the shear force given by the vertical and horizontal loads.
 the eccentricity of the axial loads.
 the bending moments given by the vertical and horizontal loads.
The actions have to be combined so to determine the most disadvantageous
load conditions for the single resistance controlling. However, it has to be
419
fd =
fk 1
m R, d
(7.7.21)
where:
f vd =
f vk 1
m R, d
(7.7.22)
where:
f vk =
420
Calculation
method
R ,d
Allowable stress
1.2
7.7.3
Nd
fd
l t A
(7.7.3a1)
where:
421
Vd
f vd
A
(7.7.3b1)
where:
A=
N dc
fd
c Ac
where:
support area.
(7.7.3c1)
422
7.7.4
N d N Rd = t f d A
(7.7.4a1)
where:
M d M Rd =
where:
M Rd = design strength.
t=
wall thickness.
l=
wall length.
tl 2 N d
Nd
1
2 A A f d
(7.7.4b1)
fd =
A=
423
Vd VRd = Af vd
(7.7.4c1)
where:
Vd =
N dc N Rdc = c Ac f d
where:
Ac =
support area.
(7.7.4d1)
424
c =
It has been illustrated, here, a short review of the Italian code. For more
detail on it, the reader is referred to [63].
Conclusions
425
CONCLUSIONS
426
Conclusions
for
example).
The
second
one
employs
rigorous
Conclusions
427
 proposes a
parametric
428
Conclusions
429
REFERENCES
[2]
Aboudi,
Mechanics
of
Composite
Materials
Unified
Workshop:
430
[12] Christensen R.M., Mechanics of composite materials. WileyInterscience, New York (1979).
[13] Chung M.Y, Ting T.C.T, Line forces and dislocations in angularly
inhomogeneous anisotropic piezoelectric wedges and spaces. Philos.
Mag. A 71, 13351343, (1995).
[14] Cluni F., Gusella V., Homogenization of nonperiodic masonry
structures, I.J.S.S., 41, (2004)
[15] Como M., Grimaldi A., A unilateral model for the limit analysis of
masonry walls,
431
Mechanics Research
432
[33] Heyman J., The safety of masonry arches, J. Mechanic Sciences, vol.
2, pp.363384, (1969)
[34] Hill R., A selfconsistent mechanics of composite materials. J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 13, 213222 (1965).
[35] International Building Code, International Code Council, Virginia,
USA (2000)
[36] IS: 19051987, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Structural Use of
Unreinforced Masonry, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
(1987)
[37] Lekhnitskii, Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body. Mir, Moscow.
(1981).
[38] Lions J.L., Les Methodes de lHomogeneisation: Theorie et
Applications en Physique, Saint Germain Paris, Eyrolles Ed, (1985).
[39] Lourenco P.B., Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures,
Delft University Press (1996)
[40] Luciano R., Willis J.R, Nonlocal effective relations for fibrerinforced
composites loaded by configurational dependent body forces. J.M.P.S,
49, 27052717, (2001).
[41] Maier G., Nappi A., Papa E., Damage models for masonry as a
composite material: a numerical and experimental analysis,
Constitutive Laws for Engineering materials, pp.427432, ASME, New
York (1991)
[42] Maugin G.A., Material inhomogeneities in elasticity, Chapman & Hall
(1993).
[43] Mehrabadi M., Cowin S.C., Eigentensors of linear anisotropic elastic
materials, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 43, 1541 (1990).
433
[44] Mehrabadi M., Cowin, S.C. and Jaric J., Sixdimensional orthogonal
tensor representation of the rotation about an axis in three dimensions,
Int. J. Solids Structures, 32, 439449 (1995).
[45] Milani G., Lourenco P.B., Tralli A., A simple micromechanical model
for the homogenized limit analysis of masonry walls, GIMC., XV
Italian Congress of Computational Mechanics, AIMETA (2004)
[46] Mistler M., Butenweg C., Anthoine A., Evaluation of the Failure
Criterion for Masonry by Homogenization, Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Computational Structures Technology,
CivilComp Press, Scotland (2004)
[47] Mhlhaus H.B., Continuum models for layered soil and blocky rock ,
Comprehensive rock engineering, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, (1993)
[48] NematNasser S. and Hori M. Micromechanics: overall properties of
heterogeneous materials. NorthHolland, Amsterdam (1993).
[49] Nunziante L., Scienza delle Costruzioni Il continuo. Jovene (2000).
[50] Nunziante L., Scienza delle Costruzioni Cinematica. Statica. Jovene
(2000).
[51] Nunziante L., Scienza delle Costruzioni  La trave. Jovene (2001).
[52] Nunziante L., Fraldi M, Gesualdo A., Lanalisi delle strutture in
muratura mediante elementi finiti con danneggiamento: un esempio. In
Problemi attuali di Ingegneria Strutturale. CUEN, Napoli (2000).
[53] Nunziante L., Fraldi M, Lirer L., Petrosino P., Scotellaro S., Cicirelli
C., Risk assessment of the impact of pyroclastic currents on the towns
located around Vesuvio: a nonlinear structural inverse analysis.
Bulletin of Volcanology, ISSN: 02588900, V.65, 547561, (2003).
434
Petrocelli
P.,
Micromeccanica
di
materiali
eterogenei:
435