PLASTIC-DAMAGE MACRO-MODEL FOR NON-LINEAR MASONRY

STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO CYCLIC OR DYNAMIC LOADS

Andrzej WAWRZYNEK Andrzej CIŃCIO

Prof., DSc, PhD PhD
Silesian University of Technology, Poland Silesian University of Technology, Poland
andrzej.wawrzynek@polsl.pl andrzej.cincio@polsl.pl

Summary
In the paper the plastic–damage material model for concrete (based on continuum
damage mechanics and the theory of elasto-plasticity), proposed by J. Lubliner et. al. (1988)
and modified by L. Fenves et. al. (1998), is adapted to masonry structures. A manner of
determining model parameters determination for homogeneous masonry structures is
explained. Some results of the numerical analysis of a prismatic specimen subjected to cyclic
loading are presented, which show a good compatibility with laboratory tests (Singha et. al.).
Additionally, a seismic simulation of the response (time history analysis) of a masonry
structure to tremors is submitted.
Keywords: dynamics of structures, masonry constitutive macro-model, non-local damage
mechanics, theory of plasticity, time history analysis.

1. Introduction
The task of modelling masonry structures belongs to relatively complex numerical
problems. The mechanical behaviour of masonry depends on the composite nature of the
material, constituted by the fine dimensions, of natural or clay blocks connected by cement or
cement-lime mortar joints. Both these mentioned materials differ from each other, among
others: in the compression modulus, tensile (compressive, shear) strength. The emergency
state of a masonry wall is manifested by crack expansions mainly near the joints.
The complex mechanical behaviour of masonry structures requires so-called two-
material micro-models with discontinuous discrete elements (modelling the blocks) and
interface elements (modelling the mortar joints). However this type of these models (see eg.
[5]) have a restricted range of application, limited to constructions which are not too large and
whose geometry is rather simple. In numerical analyses, discontinuities of displacement fields
are taken into account in FEM by interface elements. Also some new methods, based on the
discrete element method (DEM) [6], is becoming more and more popular.
In the case of modelling geometrically complicated structures significant computational
complications leads to the formulation of a simplified description of the mechanical properties
of masonry structures, using a macro–model. The macro-modelling approach makes no
distinctions between blocks and joints, e.g. masonry material is treated as a fictitious
homogeneous and continuous equivalent material, the mechanical parameters of which can be
determined on the basis of laboratory tests.

Additional difficulties of modelling masonry structures, especially subjected to cyclic

and dynamic loads, are connected with taking into consideration a progressive degradation of
brittle materials, as a result of the progressive lost of material integrity, caused by
crack/microcrack opening and closing. Also an increase of inelastic strains must be described
by that model. It can be done by applying more and more popular models of non-local
damage mechanics [7], in which the local damage of the material is expressed by some
additional strain softening, as well as the reduction of mechanical parameters. The
connections between the description of the material destruction and non-elastic softening are
described by coupled damage-plasticity models, which are based on the theory of incremental
elastoplasticity and continuum damage mechanics (e.g. for the concrete [8]).
The paper deals with the task of adaptating the nowadays plasticity-damage model for
concrete, called as Barcelona Model (BM), to masonry materials. The paper presents also a
proposal of specifying of the model parameters basing on laboratory tests of masonry
specimens [12-13]. Additionally, a seismic simulation (time-history analysis) of a two-
material (concrete & masonry) spatial model of a building structure is submitted. The result of
the analysis with applications of the plastic-damage material model is compared with results
of the analysis where a linear-elastic model was used.

2. Basic concepts of the Barcelona Model

The plastic-damage model for concrete, proposed For the first time by a group of
researchers viz. J. Lubliner, J. Oliver, S. Oller and E. Oñate (1989) and modified by
G. L. Fenves & J. Lee (1998) was used in numerical analysis of damages of concrete
structures [9-10] as well as a numerical simulations of seismic tremor influences on a 2D
plane model of a concrete dam [4].
The Barcelona Model is characterized by a bi-dissipative, isotropic degradation of
material described by two separate damage variables dt i dc for tension and compression.
These variables determined on the basis of independent material damage functions can be
coupled, expressing the confirmed influence of the compression variable dc on the value of
the tension degradation variable dt, after changing of the stress sign. The coupling of elastic-
plastic material characteristics and description its damage is realised by means of constitutive
equations of the theory of plasticity by the effective stresses.

3
3
σ1
1
1 2
(2)
2
σt0 σt0 biaxial
tension

σc0 σt0 uniaxial

σ2
tension

3 (4)
1 3
2

1
2

(3) σc0
(σb0 ,σb0)
biaxial uniaxial
compression compression

Fig. 1. Yield surface of BM for the plane stress space

 From the point of view of the incremental theory of plasticity the BARCELONA Model
is characterized by:
• Yield surface which is an extension of the classical Drucker-Prager model with a non-
circular deviatoric cross section;
• Non-associative flow rule;
• Nonlinear isotropic hardening rules different and independent one for tension and the
other for compression based on the hypothesis of strain hardening.

Figure 1 presents the shape of the yield surface of the BM in the plane stress space that
consists of four functions (1):
− the 1st quarter of the co-ordinate system: one quarter of the circle with a radius equal to
uniaxial tensile strength σt 0 :
− the 2nd quarter:
1
f (σ , κ ) ≡ (q − 3α p + β σ 1 ) − σ c (κ ) = 0 (1’)
1−α
− the 3rd quarter:
1
f (σ , κ ) ≡ ( q − 3α p ) − σ c (κ ) = 0 (1’’)
1−α
− and the 4th one:
1
f (σ , κ ) ≡ (q − 3α p + β σ 2 ) − σ c (κ ) = 0
1−α

where α i β are dimensionless parameters of the model – eqs. (2) - which are expressed by the
following yield stresses: for uniaxial compression σ c 0 = σ c (0) , for biaxial compression σb 0 and
for the tension (the same one for uni- and biaxial acting) σ t 0 = σ t (0) . The denotations p and q
are stress tensor invariants. The overline (e.q. q ) denotes the effective value which depends
on the actual level of material degradation.
σ b0 − σ c0 σ c (κ )
α= , β (κ ) = (1 − α ) − (1 + α ) (2)
2σ b 0 − σ c 0 σ t (κ )

The evolution of the yield surface is described by two hardening variables

κ = {κ c , κ t } which are expressed by equivalent plastic strains ε%cp and ε%tp , respectively for
T

compression and tension ( κ = {ε%cp , ε%tp } ).

T

a) b)
σt
1D
σc stress 1D
σ cu ultim ate
stress
hardening
σ t0 Failure
stress
stress softening
tension stiffening
σ c0 plasticity
d c′ , d c′′ → d c (ε%cp ) curve
lim it
E0

E0 (1- d c′ ) E 0
(1- d t′) E0 d t′, d t′′→ d t (ε%tp )
(1 - d c′′) E 0

(1- d t′′) E0
ε%tp ε%td ε%te ε%t
ε%cp ε%cd ε%ce
ε%c ε%tin
ε%cin

Fig.2. Description of the cyclic uniaxial test of BM for a) compression, b) tension

 Material degradation (and changes of elastic stiffness) - that starts when the stress path
reaches the yield surface - is described by two non-decreasing functions
d c = d c (ε%cp ) , d t = d t (ε%tp ) which ideas are presented in Fig. 2.

3. Adaptation of BM for masonry

As mentioned above, masonry is an anisotropic composite material. Laboratory
experiments show that the shape and dimensions of the biaxial envelope of the load capacity
of masonry is strongly dependent on the angle between the stress principal directions and bed
joints. So it is not possible to adapt concrete parameters of BM for masonry only by simple
rescaling of its yield stresses. In particular, it is a great problem to describe the biaxial
envelope for anisotropic masonry by the isotropic envelope (the yield surface) of the
BARCELONA Model. A new proposition has been presented by A. Cińcio in [1]. There it is
assumed that in the biaxial area of compression (see Fig. 3a) the shape of the strength
envelope is similar to a half of an elongated ellipse. Additionally, the diversification between
uni- and biaxial strengths is greater in comparison to concrete. Simultaneously, on the basis of
Eq. (2) the parameters of the model for masonry are evaluated (for assuming that σcu = 0.5 fmx
σbu = 0.5 fmx - Fig. 3 where uniaxial compressive strength fmx is 8 MPa): α=0.33 i β = 9.84.
a) σ2 / fmx b)
σ2 / fmx
1.0 0.75 0.50 0.25 1.0 0.75 0.50 0.25
0 0

σcu
0.25 0.25

σ2 σ 2 α = 22.5 ο

σ1
0.50 σ1 0.50

σ1 / fmx
σ1 σ1
σ2 σ2
0.75 0.75
σ1 / fmx

σbu
1.0 1.0

1.25 1.25

A A

σ2 / fmx
c)
1.0 0.75 0.50 0.25 Biaxial compressive strength of masonry
0
Ganz, Thurlimann (1982), Page (1981),
Lurati, Graf (1989)
0.25
α = 45ο Soild clay brick masonry
σ σ ( fmx= 8.0 MPa )
2

0.50
σ1 / fmx

σ σ Description of strength envelope for BM -

2
1

proposal
0.75
for σcu = 0.50 fmx

1.0 fmx

1.25

Fig. 3. Proposition of the biaxial strength envelope for masonry (dashed line)

The envelope of the elastic states for biaxial compression of masonry (yield surface)
was evaluated on the basis of experimental results obtained by Naraine & Singha [12, 13].
There were assumed the following values of uniaxial yield stresses has been assumed: for
compression σco = 0.67 σcu = 0.34 fmx , and for tension σtu =σt0 = 0.03 fmx
The hardening rule and degradation functions are determined for uniaxial material
loading. Their specification can be found on the basis of the results of the cyclic compression
of the masonry wall obtained by Naraine & Singla w [11] – Fig. 4a (full line). Real hysteresis
loops of loading should be changed by straight lines (dashed straight lines on Fig. 4a). It was
assumed that the compressive yield stress is equal to σco = 2.25 MPa for an elastic strain equal
ε ce = 0.1 percent.
The hardening function for compression was expressed – according to an
implementation of the BM in the finite element software ABAQUS – by non-elastic strains
ε cin = ε c − ε ce (see fig. 2). The function of material degradation dc was determined on the basis
of changes of Young’s modulus (different slope of the dashed line in Fig. 4a) during
successive cycles of loading. The discrete values and their approximation are presented in Fig.
4b).

a)
-6.0 b)
dc
0.5
-5.0 0.40
0.4 0.38
0.43
0.35
0.3 0.28
-4.0 0.22 dc
0.2
stress [MPa]

0.1 0.05 0.10

-3.0 ε c in [00/0]
0.0 0.02
σc0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
-2.0

-1.0

0.0
εce = 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Strain εc [0/00]

Fig. 4. a) Experimental results used for the calibration of BM parameters [12],

b) Degradation function for compression (dc)

These parameters and functions of the BM are used during the numerical reconstruction of
Naraine’s [12] experiment. Results of this process are presented in Fig. 5. and seem to be
good – the exactness of the reconstruction is very high.

Cyclic compression test (Naraine & Sinha 1989)

−σ [MPa]
5.20 5.25
5.00
5.0 4.70 5.00
4.30
4.0 3.65
3.15
3.0 2.75

σc 0=2.25
2.0
laboratory test

1.0 numerical result (BM)

0.0 ε [0/00]
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Fig. 5. Comparison between the laboratory [12] and the numerical results
4. Simulation of seismic tremor in building
The main aim of this simulation is: 1) to test the explicabilities of BM in non-elastic
seismic or paraseismic analyses, 2) comparison between building responses in two cases –
elastic and non-elastic models of wall material. A 3D finite element shell model of two-storey
building was analyzed with brick walls and floors and headers made of concrete (Fig. 6).
Front view g= 20 cm

a) 10
b)

mur
5.6 3 0 cm

20 x 30 cm

40 x 50 cm

6.0
m
4.0

ax
Material code
front wall
concrete
masonry

Fig. 6. a) Geometry of the building model, b) The FE model

The assumed values of yield points (σc0 , σt0), ultimate stresses (σcu , σtu) and initial modulus
of elasticity E are as follows
− for concrete: σc0 = 5.33MPa, σcu = 16.0 MPa, σt0 = σtu = 1.60 MPa, E = 27.0 GPa
− for masonry: σc0 = 1.99 MPa, σcu = 3.0 MPa, σt0 = σtu =0.10 MPa, E = 2.21 GPa.
The deadweight of the building is taken into account at the first step of the history
analysis then the influence of the known seismic tremors is added as a kinematical forcing –
second step (step time from 0 to 3.73 sec) – imposed horizontally - on the bottom edge of the
model (see Fig. 6a where ax is a component of acceleration). The course of the real
acceleration of the ground (recorded in the Polish copper mining district) which was used in
simulation is presented in Fig. 7a). To receive a distinct plastic response of the building, this
acceleration is multiplied by a coefficient equal to 2.5. The time history method is used to find
numerical results - 752 integration steps are needed and a total number of iterations amounts
to 776.
The diagram of displacements of one point (No 10 on fig. 6a) from the upper edge of the
building model, concerning plastic-damage and elastic models, are presented in Fig. 7b).
Differences between these two curves result from taking into consideration the dissipation of
the energy caused by material plasticity and its degradation. Additionally, in Fig. 8 the final
pictures of degradation are described by two variables: dt – for tension degradation and d - for
global degradation.

5. Conclusions
The presented BM of masonry can be used for non-linear dynamic or cyclic analyses.
There is a relatively good agreement between numerical simulations and laboratory
experiments (see [1, 3, 9]). One of the main disadvantage of the BM is the assumption
concerning the isotropy of masonry. Nowadays attempts are made ones work to modify the
plane isotropic BM model for orthotropic material.
Results which are received with the application of masonry BM in comparison with
elastic solutions the following features:
− the field of displacement is characterised by a lower instantaneous value of the
displacement amplitude;
 − there are no fictitious stress concentration which exceed the ultimate yield stresses for
compression and tension (see Fig. 9);
− local damages of material are clearly described by degradation variables (Fig. 8).

a) b) 4.0 Barcelona Model

1.5

displacement [mm]
3.0 Elastic model
1.0 2.0
acceleration [m/s2]

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 -1.0
-2.0
-0.5 -3.0 step time [s]
step time [s] -4.0
-1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Fig. 7. a) Recorded horizontal acceleration of the ground, b) comparison between building

responses for elastic and plastic-damage models

tensile damage dt scalar stiffness degradation d

0.45
0.11
Increase

0.00 0.00

a) layer n- b) layer n-

Fig. 8. Final damage image described by two variables d i dt

a) σx [Pa] Elastic model b) σx [Pa] Barcelona model

0.2 MPa 0.1 MPa

σx > σt0 = 0.1 MPa

(non-realistic values)

Fig. 9. The horizontal tensile stresses result from elastic and plastic-damage models
(for masonry part of model only)
6. Acknowledgements
The financial assistance of the Ministry of Scientific Research and Information
Technology within the grant number 7 T07E 021 28 is gratefully acknowledged herewith.
The numerical calculation were carried out in the Academic Computer Centre
CYFRONET-AGH within the grant number KBN/SGI2800/PŚląska/023/2003.

7. References

[1] CIŃCIO A., Numeryczna analiza dynamicznej odporności niskiej zabudowy na wstrząsy
parasejsmiczne z zastosowaniem przestrzennych modeli wybranych obiektów. PhD
Thesis, Silesian Univ. of Technology., 2004 (in Polish).
[2] CIŃCIO A., WAWRZYNEK A.: Obliczenia dynamiczne budowli z zastosowaniem
plastyczno-degradacyjnego modelu materiału, Proc. 3rd International Conference on
New Trends in Static and Dynamic of Buildings, Bratislava 21-22.10.2004, pp. 293-296
(in Polish).
[3] CIŃCIO A., WAWRZYNEK A.: Zastosowanie plastyczno-degradacyjnego modelu
materiału w obliczeniach dynamicznych budowli, Materiały 50-tej Konferencji
Naukowej KILiW PAN i KN PZITB, Krynica 12-17 09.2004, t.II, pp. 29-36 (in Polish)
[4] FENVES L., LEE J., A plastic-damage concrete model for earthquake analysis of dams.
Earthquake Eng. and Structural Dynamics, vol. 27, 1998, pp. 937-956.
[5] GIAMBANCO G., RIZZO S., SPALLINO R.: Numerical analysis of masonry structures
via interface models, Computer Method in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
(Elsevier), vol. 190, 2001 pp.6493-6511.
[6] JING L.: Formulation of discontinuous deformation analysis (DDA) an implicit discrete
element model for brick systems, Eng. Geology (Elsevier), vol. 49, 1998, pp. 371-381.
[7] JIRÁSEK M.: Nonlocal models for damage and fracture: Comparison of approaches,
Int. J. of, Solid and Structures, vol. 35, 1998, p. 4133-4145.
[8] LEE J., FENVES G.L., Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures,
Journal of Eng. Mechanics, vol 124, No.8, 1998, pp. 892-900.
[9] LUBLINER J., OLIVER J., OLLER S., OÑATE E., A plastic-damage model for
concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 25, 1989, pp. 299-329.
[10] LUBLINER J., OLIVER J., OLLER S., OÑATE E., Finite element nonlinear analysis of
concrete structures using a plastic-damage model. Eng. Fracture Mechanics, vol. 35,
No.1/2/3, 1990, pp. 219-231.
[11] NARAINE K. SINHA S.: Behavior of brick masonry under cyclic compressive loading,
J. of Construction Eng. and Management (ASCE), vol. 115, No. 2, 1989, pp. 1432-1443.
[12] NARAINE K. SINHA S.: Cyclic behaviour of masonry in biaxial compression, J. of
Structural Eng. (ASCE), vol.117, No.5, 1991, pp.1336-1355.
[13] NARAINE K. SINHA S.: Stress-strain curve for brick masonry in biaxial compression,
J. of Structural Eng. (ASCE), vol.118, No.6, 1992, pp.1451-1461.