Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245303596
CITATIONS READS
36 72
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Yan Zhuge on 30 September 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY
Abstract: A comprehensive analytical model has been developed and presented in this paper to study the
response of unreinforced masonry to in-plane dynamic loads, including earthquake loads. The analysis has been
implemented in a nonlinear finite element program. Masonry is treated as a nonlinear homogeneous orthotropic
material. A failure envelope has also been developed which is capable of predicting both joint sliding and
cracking and/or crushing type of failure. The effect of bed joint orientation has been considered and this is
achieved through an ubiquitous joint model. The model is capable of performing both static and time history
analyses of masonry structures. Nonlinear dynamic analysis is carried out using the Modified Newton-Raphson
iteration scheme in conjunction with the Newmark time integration algorithm. In order to calibrate the model and
to demonstrate its applications, several numerical examples have been treated and the results have been
compared with those from full-scale tests on masonry shear walls under both cyclic and dynamic loads.
Reasonably good agreement has been found between the analytical and experimental results.
INTRODUCTION
Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures are widely used throughout Australia and other regions around the
world, even though they seem to have experienced the worst damage during earthquakes. However, it has been
found that even when unreinforced, masonry has a substantial deformation capacity after cracking, if it is
designed with suitable compressive loads and material properties. Therefore, it is necessary to study the dynamic
1
Lecturer, School of Engrg, Univ. of South Australia, The Levels, SA 5095, Australia. Tel: 61-8-8302 3140
2
Prof., School of Civ. Engrg, Queensland Univ. of Tech., Queensland, 4001, Australia.
3
Prof. and Pro Vice Chancellor (R&A), Queensland Univ. of Tech., Queensland, 4001, Australia
Key words: masonry, nonlinear dynamic analysis, finite element, modelling, earthquake
The finite element method is a powerful numerical method for the analysis of structures and it has been
extensively used for analysing the behaviour of masonry structures in the last decade. Due to the nature of the
problem, masonry can be described as a two-phase material consisting of an elastic brick set in an inelastic mortar
joint matrix. A two-phase nonhomogeneous finite element model (micro-modelling of brick and mortar) of
masonry has been used by Page (1978), Lourenco and Rots(1994) and Lotfi and Shing (1994). However, such a
model undoubtedly made analysis more complex. To simplify the problem, a homogeneous one-phase material
(macro-) model has been used by some investigators, such as Samarasinghe et al. (1981), Dhanasekar et al.
In Engineering literature, reference to seismic/dynamic modelling and analysis of masonry has been rare. A
review of previous studies on dynamic behaviour of masonry has revealed that most research work has focused on
experimental investigations (Tomazevic and Lutman, 1996; Klopp and Griffith, 1994).
For finite element modelling of masonry under dynamic loads, a single degree of freedom model is still commonly
used (Jankulovski and Parsanejad, 1994). This model can be used to study the global behaviour of a building
system, but the local response of masonry walls, such as cracking, crack propagation, crushing etc. cannot be
A two-dimensional finite element model has been employed by some investigators to study the cyclic behaviour
of masonry (LaRovere, 1990 and Vratsanou, 1991). However, the analyses were under pseudo dynamic loads,
which essentially means that a static analysis was performed with cyclic stress-strain relations.
It is arguable that the behaviour of URM is much more complex than that of concrete. Masonry is a two-phase
material and its properties are therefore dependent upon the properties of its constituents, the brick and the mortar.
The influence of mortar joint as a plane of weakness is a significant feature which is not present in concrete and
excitation, a comprehensive analytical model has been developed by the authors and is implemented in a nonlinear
finite element program (Zhuge, 1995). The model is capable of performing both static and time history analyses
of masonry structures and has been calibrated by using results from experimental testing of several masonry
panels.
A homogeneous finite element model has been adopted herein as the aim of the paper is to investigate the seismic
response of unreinforced masonry. First, an anisotropic material model which was originally derived for concrete
by Darwin and Pecknold (1977), is developed to analyse unreinforced masonry under various states of stresses
before and post-failure. The material model is then combined with a two-dimensional nonlinear ubiquitous joint
finite element model to analyse masonry subjected to in-plane static and dynamic loads. A failure criterion has
also been developed, which combines both biaxial and Coulomb shear failure models. The resultant failure model
is capable of predicting joint failure and this is achieved through the use of the ubiquitous joint model.
The results from the proposed analytical model are then compared with several experimental findings with
different failure modes. The development and application of this model are treated in this paper.
The stress-strain relations of masonry depend on the state of stress. Previous experimental results have shown that
under biaxial compression-compression and uniaxial compression, masonry behaves in a nonlinear and
anisotropic manner. While under biaxial tension-compression or uniaxial tension, no such nonlinearity was
apparent and the walls might be regarded to be isotropic (Dhanasekar, 1984). Therefore, an anisotropic material
model for URM under biaxial compression-compression or uniaxial compression has been developed.
Considering a plane-stress state and referring to the principal stress axes, 1 and 2, the stress-strain relations in an
d 1 E1 E1 E 2 0 d1
1
d 2 = E2 0 d 2 (1)
d 1
2
12
sym
(1 2 )G d 12
where E1, 1 and E2, 2 are the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of masonry in the principal directions 1 and 2
respectively, the equivalent Poissons ratio is given by 2=12 and G is the in-plane shear modulus of
masonry.
When E1= E2= Em= the Youngs modulus of masonry, and G= Em/2(1+), Eq. 1 depicts the constitutive matrix
If the shear modulus G is expressed as a function of E1, E2 and , as shown in Eq. 2, the constitutive matrix in Eq.
1 can be defined by these three properties (E1, E2 and ), which depend on the state of stress and strain.
1
(1 2 )G = ( E1 + E 2 2 E1 E 2 ) (2)
4
From Eq. 1, tangent moduli Et1, Et2 in the principal stress directions can be determined from the uniaxial stress
strain curve by applying an "equivalent uniaxial strain" concept which was first introduced by Darwin and
Pecknold (1977) for concrete. By using this technique, the actual biaxial stress-strain curves can be duplicated
from "uniaxial" curves developed in an experimental investigation, especially when the masonry structure is
By using this method, the tangent modulus Eti, i=1,2, in the current principal stress direction i, is determined from
a family of i - iu curves, in which i is the principal stress and iu is the equivalent uniaxial strain in the i
direction and can be expressed as shown in Eq. 3. Therefore, the constitutive model can be developed in such a
way that the explicit relationship is determined completely by conventional parameters, i.e. the uniaxial
compressive strength f'c, uniaxial crushing strain cu, and the initial tangent modulus E0, see Figure 1.
i
iu = (3)
1 j
i
Under uniaxial compression or under a biaxial compressive-compressive stress state of the material, nonlinear
material characteristics are presented and a more complicated stress-strain relation has to be derived. Naraine and
Sinha (1991) provided the first detailed information on the constitutive relation of unreinforced masonry panels
subjected to uniaxial and biaxial cyclic compression loading. Based on the experimental data, they proposed an
exponential equation:
= ( ) exp(1 ) (4)
c c c
where c and c are the compressive strength and corresponding strain respectively.
i
= ( iu ) exp(1 iu ) (5)
ic ic ic
the continuously changing principal stress ratio =i/j, the strength fc and strain cu. The Poisson effect is
d i ic
E0= iu = 0 = exp( ) (6)
d iu ic
For a given stress level, the value Eit for use in material stiffness matrix can be obtained by differentiating Eq. 5:
iu
d i (1 )
Eit = = exp ic ic (1 iu ) (7)
d iu ic ic
The peak stress ic is obtained from the failure envelope and will be discussed in the next section.
The failure of masonry walls has been investigated for many years. Unlike other materials (concrete or steel),
masonry is a non-homogeneous material. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute failure of masonry to a single
cause. Many types of failure are possible and the one that gives the lowest bound is the critical one. Furthermore,
masonry exhibits distinct directional properties due to mortar joints acting as planes of weakness. Depending
upon the stress state acting on the joints, failure may occur in the joints alone, or in some form of combined
mechanism involving the mortar and the masonry unit. Therefore, to develop a rational failure criteria, all the
The ubiquitous joint model is an anisotropic plasticity model which assumes a series of weak planes embedded in
a Mohr-Coulomb solid. The model was first developed by Zienkiewicz and Pande (1977) for analysing rock
In this model, failure may occur in either the solid or along the slip (weak) plane, or both, depending on the
material properties of the solid and weak plane, the stress state and the angle of the weak planes. Herein the
"weak plane" signifies that parameters for failure along these planes are considerably smaller (weaker) compared
When applying this model to masonry, initially, the stresses may be computed assuming linear, elastic behaviour
everywhere. An examination of sliding, cracking and crushing conditions in any element is then possible if a
direction is specified for the joint plane (weak plane) in that element.
In order to predict the shear slip type of failure along the joints, the stresses can be transformed to directions
perpendicular and along the planes of weakness. For a weak plane k, the stresses may be expressed as:
x ( k )
k = y ( k ) (8)
( k )
xy
These stresses along the joint are then examined for shear sliding by Coulomb type failure criterion:
However, previous research had shown that Eq. 9 is applicable only when the normal stress n is less than
approximately 2 MPa.
The common method of predicting the failure of concrete and masonry is the biaxial failure criterion (defined in
terms of principal stresses 1 and 2). Since masonry is a brittle material similar in properties to concrete
(ignoring the effect of mortar joints acting as planes of weakness), conventional concrete failure criteria have been
adopted by many researchers and modified for masonry. However, biaxial cyclic compressive tests conducted by
Naraine and Sinha (1991) found that a failure surface described by Eq. 10 provides a better fit to the experimental
data. This failure surface has been adopted in the present study for crushing type of failure.
1 2
J2 = ( '
'
)2
f cn f cp
1 2
I1 = ( '
+ )
f cn fcp'
1 2
I2 = ( '
)
f cn fcp'
fcn and fcp = uniaxial compressive strength normal and parallel to the bed joint, respectively; C=1.6.
It should be noted that when C=1, Eq. 10 reduces to the Von Mises failure criterion.
compression range) in terms of the principal stress system are transformed to direct stresses normal (n) and
parallel (p) to the bed joint and shear stress () along the bed joint. The failure envelope has been shown in
Figure 3 with various stress ratio (2/1= 5, 10, 15). As shown in the figure, the lowest failure curve defines the
governing failure condition for any stress combination. The uniaxial compressive strength fm is assumed equal to
10ft (uniaxial tensile strength) in this envelope. It is a simple matter to modify this for other compressive/tensile
strength ratios. The straight line describes the shear sliding and the curves describe cracking type of failure.
It can be seen from this figure that when 45 < 90 (low ratio of y/), failure is controlled by the shear failure
criterion (straight line, Eq. 9) which agrees well with the test results of Page (1982), showing that the crack
developed along the bed joints due to shear slips in this range. When the bed joint angle decreased, the shear
strength of the wall increased as n increased. If the shear strength exceeds the principal tensile stress ( < 45),
the failure will be controlled by the biaxial failure criterion (principal tensile stress).
In order to perform nonlinear dynamic analysis, the constitutive law developed for monotonic loads will be
extended to allow for fully reversed cyclic loads, such as seismic loads. The analytical model has been developed
for carrying out time history analysis of URM under seismic loads.
The governing equation for the dynamic analysis of a structure is given by:
.. .
[ M ]{U } + [C]{U } + [ K ]{U } = {P} (11)
where [M], [C] and [K] are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices; {P} is the external load vector and {U},
. ..
{U } and {U } are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration vectors.
For dynamic analysis, it is necessary to derive the element mass matrix in addition to the stiffness matrix. The
element mass matrix is a matrix of equivalent nodal masses that dynamically represent the actual distributed mass
of the element. The mass matrix and stiffness matrix can be derived by using Lagrange's equations. If the
.. ..
structure is only subjected to ground acceleration (u g , v g ) , the external load vector is (P1, P2,......,Pi,...., Pn),
where
u..
Pi = mgi ..
g
(12)
vg
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is carried out with the modified Newton-Raphson iteration scheme in conjunction
with the Newmark direct time integration algorithm. In direct integration, equation (11) is integrated using a
numerical step-by-step procedure, the term "direct" meaning that prior to the numerical integration, no
Figure 4 shows two typical elastic and secant type of unloading or reloading options for masonry under cyclic
loading. For elastic unloading, the crack closes immediately upon a strain reversal, whereafter further strain-
decomposition is terminated and elastic behaviour is resumed (line BE). For secant unloading (line BO), the
stress follows a straight line back to the origin. The crack normal strain is reversible and upon reaching the origin
of the diagram, the crack truly closes and n=0, whereafter elastic behaviour is recovered (Rots, 1988).
The tensile unloading/reloading constitutive relations can be defined as follows: before the peak strain
( iu cr ), the elastic modulus of masonry is assumed for the linear unloading/reloading path; the secant
unloading/reloading model is used beyond the peak, as it provides a better approximation to reality. The secant
model accounts for the decrease of stiffness with increasing crack opening strain.
It is assumed that the static tensile stress-strain curve provides an envelope for the cyclic curve. If the strain
exceeds cr, the crack starts to open and the stress drops along the envelope curve. The unloading starts at point
B, where =cr and (1a) is defined as an unloading parameter which can be determined by calibrating the
finite element model with experimental results. Usually, a large amount of experimental testing will be required
to determine the value of this unloading parameter. The reloading path follows the same secant modulus as
unloading, back up to point B and proceeds along the envelope curve A-C up to the point of next unloading.
The smeared crack model has been used for crack modelling and the possibility of crack closing and opening and
the formation of secondary cracks have been considered. The cyclic tests carried out elsewhere (Zhuge, 1995)
have shown that under reversed loading, reopening and closing of cracks may take place repeatedly and this
feature is incorporated into the analytical model. When unloading starts after cracking, the usual constitutive
Es 0 0
[D f ] = 0 E 0 (13)
0 0 ' G
It is also assumed that (a) during unloading if 1 becomes zero, the crack is considered to be closed and elastic
behaviour is recovered and (b) during reloading a crack reopens and follows the same path as unloading, when the
The proposed analytical model was implemented into a finite element program and verified by comparing the
As a first example, the experimental results on a full scale unreinforced masonry wall tested by Calvi and
Magenes (1991) at the University of Pavia, Italy, under shear and compression, were considered. The test wall
panel has a width/height ratio of 0.75 (1500 x 2000 mm) and a thickness t = 380mm. The wall was subjected to a
vertical compression stress m = 1.2 MPa. The material properties are summarised in Table 1.
During the testing, the vertical compressive stress was kept constant whereas the horizontal load was increased
gradually in increments up to failure. When the horizontal load was increased up to 259.3KN, major diagonal
cracking occurred and the wall failed. The proposed analytical model was used to simulate this test
Comparisons are made for the failure load, the load-deflection behaviour and the failure patterns. The analytical
lateral load vs. displacement curve is plotted in Figure 5 and compared with the experimental one. It can be seen
that the results from the analytical model proposed in this paper agree well with those from the experiments. The
final failure was assumed in the program when the solution failed to converge. The ultimate load predicted by the
analysis is 250KN which agrees reasonably well with the experimental result of 259.3KN.
The final failure pattern of the wall is presented in Figure 6 and it is consistent with the experimental
observations. It can be seen from Figure 6 that the final crack is in diagonal shear connecting the toe and the
horizontally loaded point of the wall. The crushing type of failure did not occur in this case.
The experiments carried out by the authors (Zhuge et al, 1994) were simulated as the second example. In these
experiments, twelve full-scale unreinforced masonry walls were tested under combined compression and racking
(cyclic) loads. The wall specimens were divided into two groups: one group had an aspect ratio equal to 1.94
(930x480mm), while the other equal to 1.46 (1400x960mm). The vertical compressive stress varied from
0.34MPa to 0.45MPa. The experimental details can be found in Zhuge (1995). Analytical peak loads are
compared with the experimental peak loads from positive and negative cycles in Table 2.
Further analytical results are compared with the test results of wall 2 with an aspect ratio of 1.46 and compressive
stress equal to 0.45MPa. The material properties of the wall are shown in Table 3. The lateral load vs
displacement envelope obtained from the analytical model is shown in Figure 7 and compared with the
experimental hysteresis curves. It can be seen that there is reasonably good agreement in the results for the failure
The experimental results have shown that the failure pattern of wall 2 is by rocking, where flexural cracks
initiated from both ends of the wall and developed along the interface of concrete base and mortar. At failure, the
base of the brick wall separated from the concrete base and crushing also occurred at the right hand corner. It was
found during the testing, the wall had large deformation capacity after cracking with considerable energy
absorption capacity. However, there were 5 walls tested under the same conditions as wall 2 and the failure
patterns were different. 3 walls (including wall 2) failed by rocking, and 2 walls failed by diagonal shear. The
different failure patterns of these walls may be attributed to the variation in workmanship. It is found that the
failure pattern of URM walls changes from flexural cracking to stair-stepped diagonal shear depending on the
vertical compressive load. The vertical compressive load applied to these 5 walls may lie within some critical
state of two failure patterns. Therefore, the crack developments predicted by the model and shown in Figure 8,
are in between those of walls which failed by diagonal shear (example 1) and those which failed by rocking
(example 3). In practice, the failure pattern may be determined by the local strength of mortar in the particular
case. In Figure 8, cracks developed along the vertical edge of the wall on the left hand side and these were caused
by the tensile bending stress generated by lateral load. However, in the real wall these cracking zones would be
likely to appear as joint failure and might not be seen with the naked eye. Toe crushing was also predicted near
the ultimate load although it looks longer than the experimental observation.
In the third example, the nonlinear analytical model developed in this paper was used to simulate the dynamic
response of URM single-story walls, which had been tested experimentally at the University of Adelaide (Klopp
Experiments were conducted on double clay brick wall specimens, which were unreinforced. Sinusoidal base
motion was used to simulate earthquake excitation. During the experiments, for each test specimen a fixed
frequency was used and the amplitude of the sine wave was increased until the specimen was deemed to have
failed. In every test, failure occurred by rocking of the panels when the wall specimens separated from the
reinforced concrete bases. Testing was stopped at this point (Klopp and Griffith, 1994).
The material properties are summarised in Table 4. Detailed verification can be found in (Zhuge,1995) and here,
the results from the analytical model are only compared with those from one test result, viz, that of wall 5. The
input excitation time history for wall 5 is shown in Figure 9. The wall has an aspect ratio of 1.58 and a vertical
compressive stress equal to 0.015MPa. The fundamental period of vibration of the uncracked wall is 0.081sec.
Measurements on various types of URM on a shaking platform reported by (Pomonis et al., 1992) have shown
values for damping ratios to be between 7% and 8% of critical damping. The damping ratio in the present study is
assumed to be 7% of critical damping. A time step of 0.001sec was chosen for the time history analysis as the
The comparisons are based on the maximum horizontal displacement at each cycle of acceleration (because no
displacement time history was recorded during the experiments), maximum acceleration at failure and the failure
pattern.
The predicted and experimental results for wall 5 are presented and compared in Table 5 for different values of
The horizontal displacement at the top of the wall with ft= 0.4MPa is plotted as a function of time in Figure 10.
For comparison, the results from the corresponding linear analysis are also presented in the same Figure.
It can be seen from Figure 10 that after cracking initiated at 0.59sec, the maximum top displacement increased
significantly for the nonlinear analysis (=2), however, when =4 was used, more cracks developed quickly and
thus caused the displacement divergence. The wall failed at 0.62 sec for =4 just after cracking at 0.59sec,
whereas, when =2 was used, the wall had substantial deformation capacity after cracking and did not fail until
1.08sec.
The horizontal displacements at the top of the wall with different values of tensile strength are shown in Figure
11. It can be seen, as expected, that the tensile strength has a significant effect on the structural behaviour of
masonry. This is because the failure is dominated by the cracking of the material. When ft= 0.3MPa, the wall
failed just after cracking. At ft= 0.4MPa and 0.5MPa, the wall had substantial deformation capacity after
cracking.
The development of cracks for wall 5 is presented in Figure 12 (ft =0.4MPa, =2). The cracks initiated at both
ends of the wall and developed along the interface between the bottom mortar and the concrete base. The cracks
grew gradually and the final failure pattern was controlled by rocking - the base of the masonry wall separated
from the foundation at both ends, and this pattern agrees well with the experimental results.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an analytical model for studying the response of unreinforced masonry under in-plane dynamic loads
has been presented. The material model for the masonry is described. The nonlinear behaviour of brick masonry
is caused by two major effects: - progressive local failure (cracking of the mortar) and nonlinear deformation
characteristics (in the biaxial compression-compression and uniaxial compression stress state). All these effects
are considered in the orthotropic constitutive relations developed in this research. A failure envelope has been
developed which is capable of predicting both joint sliding and cracking and /or crushing type of failure for a
homogeneous material model. The effect of bed joint orientation has been considered. A simple secant type
unloading/reloading curve is adopted for masonry under tension and the unloading parameter was determined
The analytical model was validated by comparing results with various experimental results and reasonably good
agreement has been found. However, further research could improve the model. More experimental results are
required to validate the proposed model, especially for non-linear time history analysis and for studying the effect
of unloading parameter .
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Calvi, G. M. and Magenes G. (1991). Experimental evaluation of seismic strength of old masonry structures,
Proc. 9th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Dublin, Ireland, pp. 490-497.
Darwin, D. and Pecknold, D.A. (1977). Nonlinear biaxial stress-strain law for concrete, J. Engrg. Mech. Div.,
Dhanasekar, M., Page, A. and Kleeman, P. A (1984). Finite element model for the in-plane behaviour of brick
masonry, Proc. 9th Australasian Conf. on the Mech. of Struct. and Materials, Sydney, 262-267.
Hamid, A. and Drysdale, R. G. (1981). Proposed failure criteria for concrete block masonry under biaxial
low seismic risk, 3rd National Masonry Seminar, Brisbane, Australia, 19.1-19.9.
LaRovere, H. (1990). "Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete masonry walls under simulated seismic
Lotfi, H. and Shing, P. (1994). Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures, J. Struct. Engrg,
Lourenco, P. B. and Rots, J. G. (1994). Understanding the behaviour of shear walls: a numerical review, Proc.
10th Int. Brick and Block Masonry Conf., Calgary, Canada, Vol. 1, 11-20.
Jankulovski, E. and Parsanejad, S. (1994). Earthquake resistance assessment of masonry buildings, 3rd
Naraine, K. and Sinha, S. (1991). Cyclic behaviour of brick masonry under biaxial compression, J. of Struct.
Page, A. (1978). "Finite element model for masonry", J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104(8), 1367-1285.
Page, A. (1982). An experimental investigation of the biaxial strength of brick masonry, Proc. of the 6th Int.
Pomonis, A., Spence, R. J., Coburn, A. W. and Taylor, C. (1992). Shaking table test on various types of
unreinforced masonry, 10th World Conf on Earthquake Engrg., Madrid, Spain, 3533 -3538.
Riddington, J. and Ghazali, M. (1990). "Hypothesis for shear failure in masonry joints", Proc. of Inst. of Civil
Rots, J. G. (1988). Computational modelling of concrete fracture, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology,
The Netherlands.
Samarasinghe, W., Page, A. W. and Hendry, A. W. (1981). Behaviour of brick masonry shear walls, The Struct.
Tomazevic, M., Lutman, M. and Petkovic, L. (1996). Seismic behaviour of masonry walls: Experimental
Tomazevic, M. and Lutman, M. (1996). Seismic behaviour of masonry walls: Modeling of hysteretic rules, J. of
Vratsanou, V. (1991). Determination of the behaviour factors for brick masonry panels subjected to earthquake
actions, Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil Dyn. and Earthquake Engrg., Germany, 23-26.
Zhuge, Y. (1995). Nonlinear dynamic response of unreinforced masonry under in-plane lateral loads, PhD
Zhuge, Y., Thambiratnam, D. and Corderoy, J. (1994). Experimental testing of masonry walls under in-plane
cyclic loads, Proc. 10th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Calgary, Canada, 313-322.
Zienkiewic, O. C. and Pande, G. N (1977). Time-dependent multilaminate model of rocks - a numerical study of
deformation and failure of rock masses, Int. J. Numer. and Analytical Methods in Geomec., Vol. 1, 219-247.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
C = constant
..
{U } = vectors of nodal acceleration
..
u
g = ground acceleration
= unloading parameter
= shear aggregate interlock factor
X, Y = normal stress
1, 2 = principal stresses
ic = maximum stress associated with direction i, i=1,2.
m = vertical compressive stress
n = normal stress
iu = equivalent uniaxial strain in ith direction, i=1,2.
ic = corresponding strain to ic in i direction
1, 2 = principal strains
cu = uniaxial crushing strain
cr = cracking strain
= mass density
= shear stress
0 = shear bond strength at zero precompression
u = ultimate shear strength
= shear strain
= friction coefficient at the brick mortar interface
= Poissons ratio
fm cu ft E0
Fm ft E0 0
Experimental Analytical
3 30 +40 -35 30 40
7 40 +80 -78 45 65
9 40 +70.8 -71.8 45 65
fm ft E0
a
The tensile strengths were not provided by Klopp and Griffith (1994) - they will be assessed in the present study.
b
A dynamic Youngs modulus was determined based on the dynamic shear stiffness measured in the laboratory
=2 =4 =2 =4 =2 =4
a
The wall failed immediately after the acceleration increased beyond 0.616g.
10
8 =67.5
Biaxial failure
criterion =45
6 Coulomb criterion
2 / 1 = 15
xy / ft
4 =22.5
10
2
5
=90 =0
0
2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14
n / ft (Compression)
300
250
Horizontal Load (KN)
200
150
100
Experiment
50
Analysis
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal Displacem ent (m m )
120
80
Lateral Force (KN)
40
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
-40
Experiment
-80
Analysis
-120
Lateral Deflection (m m )
Wall 5
0.7
0.5
0.3
Acceleration (g)
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
-0.7
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Tim e (s)
Wall 5 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Displacement (mm)
-0.05
-0.1
divergence
-0.15 linear
=2
-0.2 =4
-0.25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tim e (s)
Wall 5 0.15
0.1
0.05
Displacement (mm)
-0.05
f't=0.3MPa
f't=0.4MPa
-0.1
f't=0.5MPa
-0.15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tim e (s)
(a) t = 0.59 sec (b) t = 0.84 sec