Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
sciences
Article
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the
Compressive and Shear Behavior for a New Type
of Self-Insulating Concrete Masonry System
Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen *
Key Laboratory of RC & PC Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China;
abubakre55@yahoo.com
* Correspondence: 101003944@seu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-139-5101-8486
Abstract: The developed study aimed at investigating the mechanical behavior of a new type of
self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU). A total of 12 full-grouted wall assemblages were
prepared and tested for compression and shear strength. In addition, different axial stress ratios
were used in shear tests. Furthermore, numerical models were developed to predict the behavior
of grouted specimens using simplified micro-modeling technique. The mortar joints were modeled
with zero thickness and their behavior was applied using the traction–separation model of the
cohesive element. The experimental results revealed that the shear resistance increases as the level
of precompression increases. A good agreement between the experimental results and numerical
models was observed. It was concluded that the proposed models can be used to deduct the general
behavior of grouted specimens.
Keywords: self-insulating concrete masonry units; masonry assemblage; compression test; shear test;
micro modeling; cohesive surface-based behavior; full grouted masonry
1. Introduction
Masonry has been used as a common building material worldwide for many centuries. Masonry is
a composite of block units bonded together with mortar. The most effective use of masonry building
can be found in load-bearing structures. The manufacturing of masonry units consumes significant
amounts of resources and energy. This has added considerable pressure on the construction industry
to reduce energy consumption associated with masonry production. Accordingly, many developed
countries applied the energy conservation concept in the building technology. This concept can be
achieved by introducing alternative building materials that have a low impact on the environment.
The use of thermal insulation materials in the production of masonry is one of the most effective ways
for green building technology [1,2].
A number of studies were carried out in this area, and it is thought that there are many parameters
which influence the thickness of an insulator, such as building type, shape, construction materials,
insulation materials, and costs [3–6]. In general, external insulation methods are common practice
around the world. However, use of insulation blocks composed of expanded polystyrene (EPS)
foam, which are used to replace the external insulation of buildings, becomes more popular with the
intention of thermal insulation. EPS is composed of small, white, and interconnected beads and offers
superior engineering properties such as being lightweight, versatile, energy-efficient, and cost effective.
Therefore, it is used as insulation material in buildings and it can be molded into many shapes to fit
the required purpose [7].
Most of the previous researches focus on lightweight concrete masonry units as good thermal
insulation materials in buildings. This is because they have a lower thermal conductivity compared
with normal-weight concrete. Unfortunately, masonry units made from lightweight concrete have low
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 2 of 14
mechanical properties compared with normal-weight concrete [8–12]. Inserting insulation material
such
43 as EPSMost of the previous researches focus on lightweight concrete masonry units as good thermal
into normal-weight concrete with a special configuration of concrete masonry units (CMUs)
44 toinsulation materials in buildings. This is because they have a lower thermal conductivity compared
leads an increase in their thermal resistance without affecting their mechanical performance [13].
45
Recently, a new type of unreinforced masonry system was developed in Europe for use in the
with normal‐weight concrete. Unfortunately, masonry units made from lightweight concrete have
46 low
construction mechanical
of small properties
houses. Thecompared with normal‐weight
developed system has anconcrete [8–12]. Inserting
energy-efficiency insulation
enclosure without
47 material such as EPS into normal‐weight concrete with a special configuration of concrete masonry
concern for thermal bridges. This type of unreinforced masonry system offers significant contribution
48
regardingunits (CMUs) leads to an increase in their thermal resistance without affecting their mechanical
the design and construction of cost-effective buildings in seismic regions [14].
49 performance [13]. Recently, a new type of unreinforced masonry system was developed in Europe
In this research, a new type of concrete masonry unit has been developed with a self-insulating
50 for use in the construction of small houses. The developed system has an energy‐efficiency enclosure
feature.
51 The developed
without concern for type of self-insulating
thermal bridges. This concrete masonry unit
type of unreinforced (SCMU)
masonry would
system besignificant
offers applicable for
52
both low and medium height residential buildings in seismic area zones. The main objective
contribution regarding the design and construction of cost‐effective buildings in seismic regions [14]. of this
53 was to
study investigate the mechanical properties, namely, compression strength and shear strength,
In this research, a new type of concrete masonry unit has been developed with a self‐insulating
of54the proposed
feature. The developed type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) would be applicable
SCMUs. The second objective of this study was to develop numerical models to predict
55 for both low and medium height residential buildings in seismic area zones. The main objective of
the behavior of grouted specimens using a simplified micro-modeling technique. The successful use of
56
SCMUs this study was to investigate the mechanical properties, namely, compression strength and shear
in the construction industry can have a potentially significant impact on the sustainability of
57 strength, of the proposed SCMUs. The second objective of this study was to develop numerical
masonry structures.
58 models to predict the behavior of grouted specimens using a simplified micro‐modeling technique.
59 The successful use of SCMUs in the construction industry can have a potentially significant impact
2. Experimental Program
60 on the sustainability of masonry structures.
A comprehensive testing program was carried out to determine the compressive strength and
61 strength
shear 2. Experimental Program
of masonry wall assemblages. A total of 12 full-grouted wall assemblages were
62
constructed with a new type of SCMU. Six specimens (Nanjing Shihao Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China) were
A comprehensive testing program was carried out to determine the compressive strength and
63 for
tested shear strength of masonry
compression strength,wall assemblages.
whereas A total of
the remaining 12 full‐grouted
specimens werewall assemblages
tested for shearwere
strength
64 constructed with a new type of SCMU. Six specimens (Nanjing Shihao Co., Ltd.,
(triplet test). It should be highlighted that all specimens were prepared with the same SCMUs, mortar, Nanjing, China)
65 were tested for compression strength, whereas the remaining specimens were tested for shear
and grout properties.
66 strength (triplet test). It should be highlighted that all specimens were prepared with the same
67 SCMUs, mortar, and grout properties.
2.1. Materials
68 The 2.1. Materials
general dimensions of the new type of self-insulating concrete masonry unit used in this study
69 390 mmThe general dimensions of the new type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit used in this
are length, 190 mm height, and 240 mm width for block units and 190 mm length with the
70 height
same and width for half-block units as shown in Figure 1. The SCMU has one core with circular
study are 390 mm length, 190 mm height, and 240 mm width for block units and 190 mm length with
71 the same height and width for half‐block units as shown in Figure 1. The SCMU has one core with
voids at the ends and two chambers: (1) an outer chamber with thickness of 20 mm to accommodate
72 circular
insulation, andvoids
(2) anat inner
the ends and two
chamber withchambers:
thickness(1)
ofan
160outer
mmchamber with thickness
to accommodate of 20 mm
reinforcing to with
steel
73 accommodate insulation, and (2) an inner chamber with thickness of 160 mm to accommodate
the filling grouting concrete. The face and web shell thickness is 30 mm. After blocks were produced,
74 reinforcing steel with the filling grouting concrete. The face and web shell thickness is 30 mm. After
the insulation material (EPS) with thickness 20 mm was inserted in chamber (1). Table 1 shows the
75 blocks were produced, the insulation material (EPS) with thickness 20 mm was inserted in chamber
mechanical
76 and thermal properties of EPS used in this study.
(1). Table 1 shows the mechanical and thermal properties of EPS used in this study.
(a) (b)
77 Figure 1. Self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) configurations: (a) block; and (b) half‐block
Figure 1. Self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) configurations: (a) block; and (b) half-block units.
78 units.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 3 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245
Table 1. The mechanical and thermal properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS). 3 of 14
79 Density Table 1. The mechanical and thermal properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS).
Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Young Modulus Yield Strength
3
(kg/m ) (w/m·K) Capacity (J/kg·◦ C) (kN/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )
Density Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Young Modulus Yield Strength
30 3)
(kg/m 0.04
(w/m∙K) 1300
Capacity (J/kg∙°C) 3.6 2)
(kN/mm 0.46 2)
(N/mm
30 0.04 1300 3.6 0.46
The compressive strength of SCMUs was determined in accordance with The American Society for
80 TestingThe compressive strength of SCMUs was determined in accordance with The American Society
and Materials (ASTM) C140 [15] and ASTM C90 [16]. The test was conducted using universal
81 machine
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C140 [15] and ASTM C90 [16]. The test was conducted using
(Jinan Time Shijin Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) with load capacity of 2000 kN and load
82 universal machine (Jinan Time Shijin Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) with load capacity of 2000
rating of 0.05 ± 0.01 N/mm2 /sec. The average compressive strength value of SCMUs was 6.7 N/mm2 .
83 kN and load rating of 0.05 ± 0.01 N/mm2/sec. The average compressive strength value of SCMUs was 3
Also, the weights of SCMUs were measured which have an average density value of 1850 kg/m .
84 6.7 N/mm2. Also, the weights of SCMUs were measured which have an average density value of 1850
The typical mode of failure with face-shell separation was observed during the test for all SCMU
85 kg/m3. The typical mode of failure with face‐shell separation was observed during the test for all
86 specimens as shown in Figure 2. No cracks were observed during loading of the SCMUs, and the
SCMU specimens as shown in Figure 2. No cracks were observed during loading of the SCMUs, and
87 failure was brittle without warning.
the failure was brittle without warning.
88 Figure 2. SCMU under compression test machine.
Figure 2. SCMU under compression test machine.
89 Mortar used in this study was Mb15 (GB50003‐2010) [17]. Mortar was composed of cement, sand,
90 Mortar used in this study was Mb15 (GB50003-2010) [17]. Mortar was composed of cement, sand,
lime, and water. The mortar mixtures were prepared according to JGJ/T98‐2011 [18]. Three cubes of
91 lime, and water. The3 were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the compressive
70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm mortar mixtures were prepared according to JGJ/T98-2011 [18]. Three cubes
92 ofstrength of mortar. The average compressive strength value of the three specimens of mortar was
70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm3 were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the
93 compressive
14.7 N/mm2. strength of mortar. The average compressive strength value of the three specimens
94 of mortar was 14.7 N/mm2 .
The grout was used to fill the cores, increasing the effective cross‐sectional area of the masonry
95 for load resistance, and permitting the bonding of reinforcing bars to the concrete masonry blocks.
The grout was used to fill the cores, increasing the effective cross-sectional area of the masonry
96 for
Three cubes of 100 × 100 × 100 mm
load resistance, and permitting were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the
3
the bonding of reinforcing bars to the concrete masonry blocks.
97 Three
compressive
cubes ofstrength of grout.
100 × 100 × 100 The
mmgrout
3 werespecimens were
casted and tested
tested at 28in days
accordance with
of curing timethe to
ordinary
determine
98 the
concrete mechanical performance test method (GBJ50081‐2002) [19]. The value
compressive strength of grout. The grout specimens were tested in accordance with the of the average
ordinary
99 concrete
compressive strength of the three specimens of grout was 24.7 N/mm2.
mechanical performance test method (GBJ50081-2002) [19]. The value of the average
compressive strength of the three specimens of grout was 24.7 N/mm2 .
100 2.2. Compressive Strength Test
101 2.2. Compressive
Six prisms Strength
of SCMUs Testwall assemblages (denoted by PC1–PC6) as illustrated in Table 2 were
102 prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for compressive
Six prisms of SCMUs wall assemblages (denoted by PC1–PC6) as illustrated in Table 2 were
103 strength test [17]. The compressive strength test of masonry prism was conducted on units of
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for compressive strength
104 dimensions of 590 mm length, 240 mm width, and 790 mm height, as shown in Figure 3. The masonry
test [17]. The compressive strength test of masonry prism was conducted on units of dimensions
105 prisms were constructed with four courses in running bond pattern. The prisms were fully grouted
106 ofand wooden forms were used to ensure the proper finishing of the grout at the end of the face‐shells.
590 mm length, 240 mm width, and 790 mm height, as shown in Figure 3. The masonry prisms were
107 constructed with four courses in running bond pattern. The prisms were fully grouted and wooden
The prisms were cured in standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before testing, the
108 forms were used to ensure the proper finishing of the grout at the end of the face-shells. The prisms
prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface.
were cured in standard conditions (22 ± 3 ◦ C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before testing, the prisms were
capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 4 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 4 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 4 of 14
109
109 Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm).
Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm).
Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm).
110
110 The compressive
The
The compressive
strength
compressive strength test
strengthtest was
testwas
was performed
performed
performed
using
using
using
a universal machine
a universal
a universal
(Jinan Time Shijin
machine
machine (Jinan (Jinan Time
Time Shijin
111
111 Instruments
Shijin Instruments
Instruments
Co., Ltd., Jinan,
Co.,Jinan,
Co., Ltd.,
China)
Ltd.,China) with
Jinan, with
China)capacity of
with of
capacity
5000
capacity kN
5000 kN
and
of and loading
5000loading
kN and rate of
loading
rate
0.05 ±
of 0.05 rate
0.01
of
± 0.01
112
112 N/mm 2/sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes of the prism and
0.05 ± 20.01
N/mm 2
N/mm /sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes
/sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes of the prism and
113
113 the
of the
the
center
prism
center
of thrust
of and
of the of
the of
thrust center machine
thrust of
the machine
were aligned. were
the aligned.
were machine Test setup
aligned.
Test setup
of Test
compressive strength is shown
setup of compressive
of compressive strength
strength is shown
in
in
114
114 Figure 4.
is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4.
115
115
116
116 Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup.
Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup.
Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup.
117
117 Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed
Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed
118
118
Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed2
that the average compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm
that the average compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm22
119
119
that the average2, respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength
and 0.4 N/mm compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm
and 0.4 N/mm22, respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength
120
120
and 0.4 N/mm , respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength
test is shown in Figure 5. It was observed that the prisms failed due to the development of vertical
test is shown in Figure 5. It was observed that the prisms failed due to the development of vertical
121
121
test is shown
cracks along in Figure
their 5. It Apparently,
height. was observedthe
that the prisms
lateral failedof
expansion due tomortar
the the development of vertical
induced high tensile
cracks along their height. Apparently, the lateral expansion of the mortar induced high tensile
122
122
cracks along their height. Apparently, the lateral expansion of the mortar induced high tensile stresses
stresses in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is
stresses in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is
123
123
in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is influenced
influenced by the modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system
influenced by the modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system
124
124
by the modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system [20].
[20].
[20].
125
125
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms.
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms.
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms.
Specimen No.
Specimen No. Compressive Strength (N/mm
Compressive Strength (N/mm2 ) 2) )
2
Specimen No. Compressive Strength (N/mm
PC1
PC1 9.79
9.79
PC1 9.79
PC2
PC2 9.58
9.58
PC2 9.58
PC3
PC3 9.27
9.27
PC3
PC4 9.27
8.85
PC4 8.85
PC4
PC5 8.85
9.08
PC5 9.08
PC5
PC6 9.08
8.71
PC6
Average Compressive 8.71
PC6 strength of prisms 9.21
8.71
Average Compressive strength of prisms 9.21
Average Compressive strength of prisms 9.21
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 5 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 5 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 5 of 14
126 Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism.
Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism.
126 Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism.
127 2.3. Shear Strength Test
2.3. Shear Strength Test
127
128 2.3. Shear Strength Test
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were
129
128 prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength test
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength
130
129 [17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm in height,
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength test
test [17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm
131
130 as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running bond pattern.
[17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm in height,
in height, as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running
132
131 All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before
pattern. All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 ◦ C and 95% RH)
as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running bond pattern.
bond
133
132 testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface.
All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before
for 28 days. Before testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a
134
133 Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor
testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface.
uniform bearing surface.
135
134 Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load
Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor
Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor
136
135 while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used
Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load
Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load
137
136 to apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of
while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used
while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to
138
137 load and to control the location of supporting points.
to apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of
apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of
139
138 Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm2, whereas prisms PS4,
load and to control the location of supporting points.
load and to control the location of supporting points.
140
139 PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm 2. Then the pressures were kept constant
Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm 2, whereas prisms PS4,
2 , whereas prisms
Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm
141
140 while the shear load was applied until the failure
PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm of the prism occurred [21,22]. Shear load was
2. Then the pressures were kept constant
2 . Then the pressures
PS4, PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm were kept
142
141 increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm
while the shear load was
2 per minute.
applied until the failure of the of
prism occurred [21,22]. Shear load load
was
constant while the shear load was applied until the failure the prism occurred [21,22]. Shear
142 increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm 2 per minute.
2
was increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm per minute.
143 Figure 6. Masonry prism for shear test (units in mm).
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 6 of 14
148 Figure 7. Shear test general setup.
Figure 7. Shear test general setup.
149148 Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the pre‐
Figure 7. Shear test general setup.
150 Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the
compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases
151149
pre-compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases
when increasing the level of pre‐compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens,
Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the pre‐
152150
when increasing the level of pre-compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens,
as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding
compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases
153151 when increasing the level of pre‐compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens,
failure mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr‐Coulomb’s failure
as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding
152
154failure as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding
criterion equation:
mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr-Coulomb’s failure
153 failure mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr‐Coulomb’s failure
criterion equation:
154 σ tan
τ =τ c +
c σtanφ
criterion equation: (1)(1)
155where, c σ tanfriction,
τ internal
Where, c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of internal friction, σ is the normal stress.
c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of σ is the normal stress. (1)
156155 Where, c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of internal friction, σ is the normal stress.
Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms.
Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms.
156 Specimen Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms.
Precompression Maximum Shear Precompression Shear Stress τi
Specimen
No. Precompression
Load F pi (kN) Maximum
Load FimaxShear Precompression
(kN) Precompression
Stress σ i (N/mm2) Shear Stress2)
(N/mm τi
Specimen Precompression Maximum Shear 2) Shear Stress τ2 )i
No.
PS1 Fpi (kN)
Load8.7 Load F103.0
imax (kN) Stress σ0.10
i (N/mm (N/mm
No. Load Fpi (kN) Load Fimax (kN) Stress σi (N/mm2) (N/mm0.60
2)
PS1
PS2
PS1 8.7
8.5
8.7 103.0
106.7
103.0 0.10
0.10
0.10 0.60
0.60 0.62
PS2
PS3
PS2 8.5
8.4
8.5 106.7
105.1
106.7 0.10
0.10
0.10 0.62
0.62 0.61
PS3
PS4 8.4
26.0 105.1
126.8 0.10
0.30 0.61
PS3 8.4 105.1 0.10 0.61 0.74
PS4 26.0 126.8 0.30 0.74
PS4
PS5 26.0
25.0 126.8
124.5 0.30
0.29 0.74 0.73
PS5 25.0 124.5 0.29 0.73
PS5
PS6 25.0
27.0 124.5
130.3 0.29
0.31 0.73 0.76
PS6 27.0 130.3 0.31 0.76
157 σpiσ=pi F
= F/A
PS6 27.0 130.3 0.31 0.76
pi/Ai and τi= Fimax/2Ai, (Ai) is the cross‐sectional area of a specimen parallel to the bed joints, in square
pi i and τi = Fimax /2Ai , (Ai ) is the cross-sectional area of a specimen parallel to the bed joints, in square
158157 σpi = Fpi/Ai and
millimeters (mm
millimeters
τ i
(mm2 ).2).2
= F imax/2Ai, (Ai ) is the cross‐sectional area of a specimen parallel to the bed joints, in square
158 millimeters (mm ).
159159
160160 Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism.
Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism.
Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism.
161 Based on the test results presented in Table 3, the friction coefficient in the bed joint can be
161 Based on the test results presented in Table 3, the friction coefficient in the bed joint can be
162 Based on the test results presented in Table 3, the friction coefficient in the bed joint can be
calculated based on the levels of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22].
162 calculated based on the levels of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22].
163
calculated based on the levels
The resulting shear‐stress ‐normal‐stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from a
of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22].
163164 The resulting shear‐stress ‐normal‐stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from a
linear regression of points. The average cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU
The resulting shear-stress-normal-stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from
164165 linear regression of points. The average cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU
a linearprisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm
regression of points. The average 2 and 33.7°.
cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU
165 prisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm 2 and 33.7°.
2
◦
prisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm and 33.7 .
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 7 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 7 of 14
7 of 14
166
167 Figure 9. The resulting shear‐stress–normal‐stress graph.
Figure 9. The resulting shear‐stress–normal‐stress graph.
Figure 9. The resulting shear-stress–normal-stress graph.
168 3. Finite Element Modeling
Finite Element Modeling
3. Finite Element Modeling
3.
169 The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very
The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very
The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very
170 complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model a
complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model a
complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model
171 masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro‐ and micro‐modeling. The macro‐model is based
masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro‐ and micro‐modeling. The macro‐model is based
a masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro- and micro-modeling. The macro-model is
172 on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared into one
on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared into one
based on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared
173 isotropic or anisotropic material.
isotropic or anisotropic material.
into This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large masonry
one isotropic or anisotropic material.
This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large masonry
This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large
174 structures
masonry structures due to the reduced time memory
structures due
due to
to the
the reduced
reduced time
time and
and memory requirements
requirements
and memory as
as well
requirements well
as as
as asa
well a auser‐friendly
user-friendly mesh
user‐friendly mesh
mesh
175 generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy
generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy
generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy
176 and efficiency is needed [23,24].
and efficiency is needed [23,24].
and efficiency is needed [23,24].
177
178 Figure
Figure 10.
10. Modeling
Figure 10. Modeling strategies
Modeling strategies for
strategies for block
for block masonry.
block masonry. (a)
masonry. (a) Typical
(a) Typical masonry
Typical masonry sample;
sample; (b)
masonry sample; (b) Detailed
(b) Detailed micro
Detailed micro
micro
179 (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.
modeling; (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.
modeling;
modeling; (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.
191 3.1. Constitutive Models
3.1. Constitutive Models
192 (a) Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP)
(a) Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP)
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 8 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 8 of 14
199
199
200 Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29].
Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29].
200 Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29].
201 (b) Cohesive Surface‐Based Element
201 (b)(b) Cohesive Surface‐Based Element
Cohesive Surface-Based Element
202202 The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges
The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges
The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges of
203203 of of
potential cracks [32].
[32]. Furthermore, pervious researches have been conducted to study the
potential crackscracks
potential Furthermore,
[32]. Furthermore, pervious
pervious researches
researches havehave
beenbeen conducted
conducted to study
to study the
the parameters
204204 parameters
parameters that affect the
the cohesive interaction performance for for brittle materials.
These These have
that affect the that affect interaction
cohesive cohesive interaction
performance performance
for brittle materials.brittle materials.
These have concluded have that the
205205 concluded that the mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1)
concluded that the mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1)
mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1) uniaxial stress-based,
206206 uniaxial
uniaxial stress‐based, (2)
stress‐based, (2) continuum‐based
continuum‐based and and (3) (3)
traction–separation
traction–separation constitutive model.
constitutive The The
model.
(2) continuum-based and (3) traction–separation constitutive model. The traction–separation model
207207 traction–separation model represents the corresponding initial separation caused by pure normal, in
traction–separation model represents the corresponding initial separation caused by pure normal, in
represents theout
corresponding initial separation caused12. byThis
pure normal, ininto
plane, and out plane the shear
208208 plane,
plane, and
and plane shear
out plane shear stress
stress as
as shown
shown in in
Figure
Figure 12. study
This takes
study takes consideration
into consideration the
209209 damage
stress as shown
damage in Figure
evolution which 12. can This study takes either
be specified into consideration the damage evolution which can
evolution which can be specified by by either using the post‐damage‐initiation
using the post‐damage‐initiation effective
effective
210 be separation at failure or the total fracture energy. Furthermore, Coulomb frictional contact behavior
specified by either using the post-damage-initiation effective separation at failure or the total
210211 separation at failure or the total fracture energy. Furthermore, Coulomb frictional contact behavior ( ) which
fracture energy.to Furthermore,
was applied Coulomb
the current models frictional contact
by introducing behavior
a coefficient was applied
of friction to the prevents
current models
211 was applied to the current models by introducing a coefficient of friction ( ) which prevents
212 by components’ penetration after forming the contact as shown in Figure 13, especially for the normal
introducing a coefficient of friction (µ) which prevents components’ penetration after forming
212213 components’ penetration after forming the contact as shown in Figure 13, especially for the normal
thebehavior
contact of
as contacts.
shown in For this study,
Figure surface‐to‐surface
13, especially for the normalcontact behavior
was chosen of and the contacting
contacts. For this study,
213214 behavior of contacts. For this study, surface‐to‐surface contact was chosen
properties for the tangential and normal behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally
surface-to-surface contact was chosen and the contacting properties for the tangential and and the contacting
normal
214215 properties for the tangential and normal behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally
used to describe the behavior of two deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip‐rate data
behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally used to describe the behavior of two
215216 used to describe the behavior of two deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip‐rate data
were specified to define the coefficient of friction [29,33].
deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip-rate data were specified to define the coefficient
216 were specified to define the coefficient of friction [29,33].
of friction [29,33].
(a) (b)
217 Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction‐separation response;
218 (a)
(b) Fracture modes [29]. (b)
217 Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction‐separation response;
Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction-separation response;
218 (b) Fracture modes [29].
(b) Fracture modes [29].
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 9 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 9 of 14
219
220 Figure 13. Frictional behavior [29].
Figure 13. Frictional behavior [29].
221 3.2. FE Model, Results, and Discussion
3.2. FE Model, Results, and Discussion
222 Three models—compression prism and shear prisms with precompression stress of 0.10 N/mm
Three models—compression prism and shear prisms with precompression stress of 0.10 N/mm2
2
223 and 0.30 N/mm
and 0.30 N/mm2—were generated using Abaqus software to simulate the experiments.
2
—were generated using Abaqus software to simulate the experiments.
224 3.2.1. Model Inputs
3.2.1. Model Inputs
231 unidirectional
where, Ψ is the compressive strength
dilation angle of masonry
(degrees), (N/mm2 ), Kcompressive
fbo is bidirectional is the ratio ofstrength
the second stress invariant
of masonry (N/mmon2), the
fco is
tensile meridian, and Viscosity parameter is used for the viscoplastic regularization of the concrete constitutive
232 unidirectional compressive strength of masonry (N/mm
equations in Abaqus/Standard analyses (seconds).
2), K is the ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile
233 meridian, and Viscosity parameter is used for the viscoplastic regularization of the concrete constitutive equations
234 in Abaqus/Standard analyses (seconds).
Table 5. Compressive and tensile behavior of the model.
235 Table 5. Compressive and tensile behavior of the model.
Concrete Damage Plasticity
Compression and Shear Prism
Concrete Damage Plasticity
Compressive Behavior Compression and Shear Prism
Tensile Behavior
(N/mm2 ) Inelastic Strain
Yield Stress Compressive Behavior Yield Stress (N/mm 2) Cracking Strain
Tensile Behavior
3.68
Yield Stress (N/mm )
2 0
Inelastic Strain 1.06
Yield Stress (N/mm )
2 0
Cracking Strain
5.95 0.00021 0.80 0.00013
3.68 0 1.06 0
8.77 0.00082 0.65 0.00025
5.95
9.16 0.00021
0.00120 0.80
0.48 0.00013
0.00052
8.77
9.20 0.00082
0.00140 0.65
0.43 0.00025
0.00064
9.16
9.13 0.00120
0.00230 0.48
- 0.00052
-
8.14
9.20 0.00746
0.00140 -
0.43 -
0.00064
9.13 0.00230 ‐ ‐
8.14
(b) Joints Cohesive Behavior Parameters0.00746 ‐ ‐
236 The most common friction coefficient (µ) of concrete masonry is in the range of 0.6–0.8 [33].
(b) Joints Cohesive Behavior Parameters
The best fit was obtained when using 0.80 in this study. Cohesive behavior of the bed and vertical
237 The most common friction coefficient ( μ) of concrete masonry is in the range of 0.6–0.8 [33]. The
238 best fit was obtained when using 0.80 in this study. Cohesive behavior of the bed and vertical joints
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 10 of 14
239 were defined as shown in Table 6. However, the average compressive strength of masonry prism of
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 10 of 14
240 9.2 N/mm2 was employed in order to model the normal damage initiation [33]. Shear (I) presents the
241 in‐plane shear, which was determined according to Equation (1) (Figure 9). It is well known that the
242 shear strength for masonry depends on the mechanical properties of masonry assemblage and the
joints were defined as shown in Table 6. However, the average compressive strength of masonry prism
243 of amount
9.2 N/mm of 2the
wasapplied vertical
employed load. to
in order This leads
model to normal
the different values initiation
damage of shear strength for (I)
[33]. Shear the presents
three
244 models as presented in Table 6. The last parameter of traction–separation
the in-plane shear, which was determined according to Equation (1) (Figure 9). It is well known model is shear (II) that
that
245 defines the out‐of‐plane shear, which was set to zero for all models. Furthermore,
the shear strength for masonry depends on the mechanical properties of masonry assemblage and the the maximum
246 separation
amount of theand stiffness
applied coefficient
vertical specified
load. This leads tofor shear models
different values only were
of shear 1.25 mm
strength forand 26 MN/m,
the three models
247 respectively. These values were obtained indirectly by trial and error in the calibration process. More
as presented in Table 6. The last parameter of traction–separation model is shear (II) that defines
248 tested specimens are needed to specify more accurate values for the maximum separation and
the out-of-plane shear, which was set to zero for all models. Furthermore, the maximum separation
249 stiffness coefficient. The contact was assumed to have a thickness of zero, therefore hard contact was
and stiffness coefficient specified for shear models only were 1.25 mm and 26 MN/m, respectively.
250 assigned for normal behavior of contact. It is supposed that “hard” contact prevents the penetration
These values were obtained indirectly by trial and error in the calibration process. More tested
251 of surfaces which can occur in the models.
specimens are needed to specify more accurate values for the maximum separation and stiffness
252 coefficient. The contact was assumed to have a thickness of zero, therefore hard contact was assigned
Table 6. Cohesive behavior of joints.
for normal behavior of contact. It is supposed that “hard” contact prevents the penetration of surfaces
which can occur in the models. Contact
Cohesive Behavior
Table 6. Cohesive behavior of joints.
Traction‐Separation
Tangential
Behavior Contact
Sample Behavior Damage Initiation (N/mm2) Evolution
Normal Stiffness Cohesive Behavior
Tangential
Behavior Traction-Separation Behavior
Coefficients (MN/m)
Behavior
Stiffness Coefficients (MN/m) Damage Initiation (N/mm2 ) Evolution
Sample Normal
Plastic
Frication Behavior Plastic
Frication
Coefficient Knn Knn Kssss
K KKu u Normal
Normal Shear I
Shear I Shear II
Shear II Displacement
Displacement
Coefficient
(mm)
(mm)
Compression
Compression Hard
Hard
0.8 - ‐ -
prism 0.8 contact ‐ ‐ - 9.2
9.2 00 0 0 - ‐
prism contact
Shear prism (1) 26 26 0 9.2 0.61 1.25
Shear prism (1)
Shear prism (2) 26 26 0 9.2 0.61
0.74 1.25
Shear prism (2) Ku represent the stiffness
Knn , Kss , and coefficients
in normal
and two shear0.74
directions, MN/m.
253 Knn, Kss, and Ku represent the stiffness coefficients in normal and two shear directions, MN/m.
The finite element mesh, boundary conditions, and loading of masonry assemblages are shown in
254 The finite element mesh, boundary conditions, and loading of masonry assemblages are shown
Figure 14. All the nodes at the bottom of the compression prism were restrained in the three directions
255 in Figure 14. All the nodes at the bottom of the compression prism were restrained in the three
(x, y, and z axes) to simulate the friction test condition as shown in Figure 14a. While in the shear
256 directions (x, y, and z axes) to simulate the friction test condition as shown in Figure 14a. While in the
models, the bottom of the prism and the right sides (for bottom and top units) were restrained in the
257 shear models, the bottom of the prism and the right sides (for bottom and top units) were restrained
directions against the loading as shown in Figure 14b.
258 in the directions against the loading as shown in Figure 14b.
(a) (b)
259 Figure 14. Geometry of assemblages, finite element (F.E.) mesh, boundary conditions and surface‐
Figure 14. Geometry of assemblages, finite element (F.E.) mesh, boundary conditions and surface-based
260 based interaction of units. (a) Compression prism; (b) Shear prism.
interaction of units. (a) Compression prism; (b) Shear prism.
261 An eight‐node 3D stress linear brick (C3D8R) was used for modeling the masonry assemblages
262 An eight-node 3D stress linear brick (C3D8R) was used for modeling the masonry assemblages to
to reduce the computation time without losing the results accuracy [33]. The geometry of assemblages
reduce the computation time without losing the results accuracy [33]. The geometry of assemblages
and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are
390 × 220 × 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 11 of 14
11 of 14
263
263 and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are 390 × 220
and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are 390 × 220
264
264 × 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245
× 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar. 11 of 14
265
265 3.2.2. Model Outputs
3.2.2. Model Outputs
3.2.2. Model Outputs
266
266 Figure 15 shows the final von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression
Figure 15 shows the final von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression
267 Figure 15 shows the finalmaximum
von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression
267 prism.
prism. As
prism.
As can
As
can be
can be
be seen,
seen, the
seen, the
the maximum stress
maximum
stress occurred
stress
occurred at
occurred at the
at the
the bottom
bottom
bottom edges
edges of
edges of
prism,
of prism,
prism, while
while
while the
the maximum
the
268
268 maximum strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical
maximum strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical
269 strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical tensile
269 tensile splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units, which
tensile splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units, which
splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units,numerical
which is
270
270 is
is similar
similar to
to what
what was was found
found experimentally.
experimentally. The
The maximum
maximum stress
stress obtained
obtained from
from the
the numerical
271 similar to what was found experimentally. The maximum stress obtained from the numerical model
271 model
model was
was 8.67
8.67 2N/mm
N/mm2 with
2
with a
a difference
difference of
of 6%
6% compared
compared with
with that
that recorded
recorded from
was 8.67 N/mm with a difference of 6% compared with that recorded from experimental results.
from experimental
experimental
272
272 results.
results.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
273
273 Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von Mises stresses.
Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von Mises stresses.
Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von Mises stresses.
274
274 Figure 16 shows the numerical results for the two shear models. Figure 16a presents the von
Figure 16 shows the numerical results for the two shear models. Figure 16a presents the von
275
275 Mises Figure
Mises and 16 shows the
and principal
principal numerical
stresses
stresses and results for
and strains
strains for
for the twoprism
shear
shear shear with
prism models.
0.1 Figure
with 0.1 N/mm16a
N/mm presents
22 axial
axial the von
constant
constant Mises
stress.
stress. In
In
2 axial constant stress. In addition,
276
276 and principal
addition,
addition, the stresses
the load and strains
load displacement for
displacement curve shear
curve was prism with
was obtained 0.1
obtained and N/mm
and compared
compared with
with the the experimental
experimental one.
one.
277
277 the load displacement curve was obtained and compared with the experimental one. Furthermore,
Furthermore, Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm
Furthermore, Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm 22.
.
2 . Displacement
278
278 Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant
Displacement for model (b) (with an axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm stress of 0.3 N/mm
Displacement for model (b) (with an axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm ))is much higher than model
22 is much higher than model
279
279 for
(a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm
(a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm 0.3 N/mm2 ) is much higher than model (a) (with an
model (b) (with an axial constant stress of22), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial
), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial
2
280
280 axial constant
stress.
stress. stress of 0.1 N/mm ), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial stress.
(a)
(b)
281 Figure 16. Shear prisms; load displacement curves, principal, and von Mises stress and strain contours:
Figure 16. Shear prisms; load displacement curves, principal, and von Mises stress and strain contours:
282 (a) Model with precompression stress 0.1 N/mm
(a) (b) Model with precompression stress 0.3 N/mm2 ..
Model with precompression stress 0.1 N/mm2 ; ; (b) Model with precompression stress 0.3 N/mm
2 2
283 The maximum horizontal loads obtained numerically for the two models were 94.4 kN and 119.9
The maximum horizontal loads obtained numerically for the two models were 94.4 kN and
284 kN for model (a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm2) and model (b) (with an axial constant
119.9 kN for model (a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm2 ) and model (b) (with an axial
285 stress of 0.3 N/mm2), respectively. Moreover, the horizontal displacement corresponding to the
constant stress of 0.3 N/mm2 ), respectively. Moreover, the horizontal displacement corresponding
286 maximum horizontal loads was 0.074 mm and 0.13 mm, respectively. These results show a difference
to the maximum horizontal loads was 0.074 mm and 0.13 mm, respectively. These results show
287 not more than 10% compared with the experimental one. The stepped shape for the experimental
a difference not more than 10% compared with the experimental one. The stepped shape for the
288 load‐displacement curves took place due to the fact that the load was manually applied with force
experimental load-displacement curves took place due to the fact that the load was manually applied
289 control. Furthermore, Figure 16 shows the maximum von Mises stress that occurred at the location
with force control. Furthermore, Figure 16 shows the maximum von Mises stress that occurred at the
290 of applying the shear loading. The maximum strain is located in the horizontal joints for both models
location of applying the shear loading. The maximum strain is located in the horizontal joints for both
291 which agreed with the experimental results as shown in Figure 8. The amount of the horizontal
models which agreed with the experimental results as shown in Figure 8. The amount of the horizontal
292 displacement (slip) at the location of bed joint is relatively small, indicating a high degree of
displacement (slip) at the location of bed joint is relatively small, indicating a high degree of brittleness
293 brittleness for the materials. Failure modes and load‐displacement curves for the numerical models
for the materials. Failure modes and load-displacement curves for the numerical models showed good
294 showed good agreement with the experimental results.
agreement with the experimental results.
295 4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
296 This paper presents an experimental and analytical study for masonry assemblages which were
This paper presents an experimental and analytical study for masonry assemblages which were
297 built from a new type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU), and subjected to compression
built from a new type of self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU), and subjected to compression
298 and shear loadings. Based on the results from experimental and numerical analysis, it can be
and shear loadings. Based on the results from experimental and numerical analysis, it can be
299 concluded that:
concluded that:
300 (1) The special configuration of SCMUs has advantages in both structural and thermal properties.
301 The structural advantage is providing stronger bonds than the ordinary concrete masonry units by
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 13 of 14
(1) The special configuration of SCMUs has advantages in both structural and thermal properties.
The structural advantage is providing stronger bonds than the ordinary concrete masonry units by
facilitating the grout between the units, both vertically and horizontally. On the other hand, the thermal
advantage is reducing the thermal bridges by using continuous insulation materials.
(2) The shear resistance of SCMUs’ assemblages increased as the level of precompression
increased. The shear stress increased from approximately 0.61 N/mm2 to 0.74 N/mm2 as the
precompression stress increased from 0.1 N/mm2 to 0.3 N/mm2 . A similar trend was obtained
from the numerical analysis.
(3) Using a simplified micro-modeling strategy for grouted masonry assemblages gave accurate
results with a simple model procedure. Furthermore, the mortar joints were modeled with
zero thickness and their behavior was simulated using the traction–separation model of the
cohesive element.
(4) The applications of Mohr–Coulomb’s failure criterion and the compressive strength of masonry
prism in the traction–separation model displayed an acceptable procedure to deduce the general
behavior of grouted masonry assemblages. An average cohesive stress of 0.54 N/mm2 and friction
angle of 33.7◦ for SCMUs’ prism were obtained from a linear regression model (R2 = 0.99).
(5) The crack patterns observed experimentally were in good agreement with those predicted by
the F.E. models. Also, excellent correlations between the numerical and experimental results of failure
loads, displacement, and stress distribution were recorded. The predicted values of failure load and
stress presented not more than 10% error.
Acknowledgments: This research was conducted with the financial support of the National “Twelfth Five-Year”
Research Project in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program (Grant No. 2015BAL03B02).
Author Contributions: Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad wrote the manuscript; Abu-Bakre
Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen designed the experiments. Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim
Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen modified the final paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ghrab-Morcos, N. CHEOPS: A simplified tool for thermal assessment of Mediterranean residential buildings
in hot and cold seasons. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 651–662. [CrossRef]
2. Mohsen, M.S.; Akash, B.A. Some prospects of energy savings in buildings. Energy Convers. Manage. 2001, 42,
1307–1315. [CrossRef]
3. Al-Homoud, M.S. Performance characteristics and practical applications of common building thermal
insulation materials. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 353–366. [CrossRef]
4. Ansari, F.A.; Mokhtar, A.S.; Abbas, K.A.; Adam, N.M. A simple approach for building cooling load estimation.
Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2005, 1, 209–212. [CrossRef]
5. Al-Khawaja, M.J. Determination and selecting the optimum thickness of insulation for buildings in hot
countries by accounting for solar radiation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2004, 24, 2601–2610. [CrossRef]
6. Yu, J.; Yang, C.; Tian, L.; Liao, D. A study on optimum insulation thicknesses of external walls in hot summer
and cold winter zone of China. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 2520–2529. [CrossRef]
7. Demirel, B. Optimization of the composite brick composed of expanded polystyrene and pumice blocks.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 306–313. [CrossRef]
8. Ding, X.Y.; Luo, Y.-L.; Chen, Z.-F.; Xu, M. Self-insulation concrete block design and optimized design based
on thermal and mechanical properties in severe cold zones. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1051, 730–736. [CrossRef]
9. Javidan, F. Shape optimization of hollow concrete blocks using the lattice discrete particle model. Iranica J.
Energy Environ. 2013, 4, 243–250. [CrossRef]
10. Xunrong, G. An optimization design research of self-heat preservation concrete hollow block for cold region
of north-east China. Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, June 2013.
11. Del Coz Diaz, J.J.; García Nieto, P.J.; Rodriguez, A.M.; Martinez-Luengas, A.L.; Biempica, C.B. Non-linear
thermal analysis of light concrete hollow brick walls by the finite element method and experimental
validation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 777–786. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 14 of 14
12. Al-Jabri, K.S.; Hago, A.W.; Al-Nuaimi, A.S.; Al-Saidy, A.H. Concrete blocks for thermal insulation in hot
climate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1472–1479. [CrossRef]
13. Christine, B. Masonry Design and Detailing: For Architects And Contractors; McGraw-Hill eBooks: New York,
NK, USA, 2004.
14. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of
macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng. Struct. 2014, 64, 52–67. [CrossRef]
15. ASTM. Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units C140/C140M-15aε1 ; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
16. ASTM. Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units C90-16; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
17. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Code for design of
masonry structures GB50003-2011; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
18. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. The masonry mortar
mix design procedure JGJ/T98-2011; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
19. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Ordinary concrete
mechanical performance test method GBJ50081-2002; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2002.
20. Fortes, E.S.; Parsekian, G.A.; Fonseca, F.S. Relationship between the compressive strength of concrete
masonry and the compressive strength of concrete masonry units. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 27. [CrossRef]
21. Gabor, A.; Ferrier, E.; Jacquelin, E.; Hamelin, P. Analysis and modelling of the in-plane shear behaviour of
hollow brick masonry panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 308–321. [CrossRef]
22. British Standard. Methods of test for masonry-Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength BS EN 1052-3: 2002;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
23. Lourenco, P.B. Computational strategies for masonry structures; Delft Univirisy press: Delft, Netherlands, 1996.
24. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Possibilities and comparison of structural component models for the seismic
assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 2079–2091. [CrossRef]
25. Berto, L.; Saetta, A.; Scotta, R.; Vitaliani, R. Shear behaviour of masonry panel: Parametric FE analyses.
Inter. J. Solids Struct. 2004, 41, 4383–4405. [CrossRef]
26. La Mendola, L.; Accardi, M.; Cucchiara, C.; Licata, V. Nonlinear FE analysis of out-of-plane behaviour of
masonry walls with and without CFRP reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 190–196. [CrossRef]
27. Milani, G. 3D upper bound limit analysis of multi-leaf masonry walls. Inter.J. Mech. Sci. 2008, 50, 817–836.
[CrossRef]
28. Koutromanos, I.; Stavridis, A.; Shing, P.B.; Willam, K. Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames
subjected to seismic loads. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 1026–1037. [CrossRef]
29. Dassault Systems. Abaqus analysis user’s manual 6.13-3. RI2013; Dassault Systems Providence: Waltham, MA,
USA, 2013.
30. Lubliner, J.; Oliver, J.; Oller, S.; Onate, E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Inter. J. Solids Struct. 1989, 25,
299–326. [CrossRef]
31. Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124,
892–900. [CrossRef]
32. Dugdale, D.S. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Mech. Phys. Solids 1960, 8, 100–104. [CrossRef]
33. Bolhassani, M.; Hamid, A.A.; Lau, A.C.; Moon, F. Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted masonry
assemblages. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 83, 159–173. [CrossRef]
34. Sinha, B.P.; Gerstle, K.H.; Tulin, L.G. Stress-strain relations for concrete under cyclic loading. J. Am. Concr. Ins.
1964, 61, 195–211.
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).