Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted masonry assemblages

Mohammad Bolhassani a,⇑, Ahmad A. Hamid a, Alan C.W. Lau b, Franklin Moon a
a
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
b
Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

 A simplified micro model for masonry assemblages is proposed.

 The model is used for hollow and grouted prisms, shear and diagonal tension specimens.
 Mortar joints and units are smeared into one homogeneous material.
 The model relies on CDP and surface-based cohesive behavior for units and interface elements.
 The proposed model can be successfully used to model grouted, ungrouted and partially grouted masonry walls.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Masonry is an anisotropy structure due to the presence of different components within the assembly.
Received 2 October 2014 Although, the concepts of concrete modeling are applicable to fully grouted masonry there are difficulties
Received in revised form 23 February 2015 for modeling hollow and partially grouted masonry. Cohesive surface-based behavior (interface
Accepted 4 March 2015
elements) has been used in this study as a discontinuity for hollow and grouted masonry. The mortar
Available online 16 March 2015
joints and concrete masonry units were smeared into one homogeneous material using concrete damage
plasticity model (CDP). The traction–separation behavior of the cohesive element was employed to model
Keywords:
the mortar joints. Damage initiation was considered based on compressive strength of mortar and grout
Masonry assemblages
Cohesive surface-based behavior
in the hollow and grouted masonry, respectively. A set of tests were conducted on masonry assemblages
Micro modeling and properties were used as input in the model. It is evident from results that the responses predicted by
Concrete damage plasticity the analysis are generally in good agreement with the behavior observed in the experiments for the
Partially grouted masonry hollow and grouted prisms, shear and diagonal tension assemblages. The proposed model can be
successfully used to model hollow and partially grouted masonry walls.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction finite elements with estimated mechanical properties such as

Masonry is the oldest structural material still in use for a vast
variety of construction. It has been continually employed for differ-
ent construction purposes. Old masonry structures were designed
and constructed without any complicated mathematics, but
through the expert masons with trial and error methods. In the last
few decades engineers’ attention are being devoted to the new
methods of analysis of masonry structures [18,29,19,9,22,23,24,
25,31,26]. These methods are mostly based on developing numeri-
cal methods calibrated with experimental test results. The Finite
Element Method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling
a continuous structure with an infinite number of complex
elements. This is done by converting the structure into simple
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mb3238@drexel.edu (M. Bolhassani), hamidaa@drexel.edu
(A.A. Hamid), lau@drexel.edu (A.C.W. Lau), flm72@drexel.edu (F. Moon).
modulus of elasticity compressive and tensile strength. There are
two main categories of FEM approaches for masonry structures
modeling called heterogeneous and homogeneous. Mortar joints
and units are considered separately in the heterogeneous approach
while they are assumed to be smeared into a uniform composite
material with average properties in the homogeneous approach.
Though homogeneous models are traditionally used for masonry
modeling, heterogonous models are more representative [7].
Considering masonry as a heterogeneous material can improve
the results compared to the homogenous modeling.
Minaie [26] developed a three dimensional FEM for a partially
grouted wall using the CDP model for grout and units in Abaqus.
The CDP could not represent cracks in a realistic fashion especially
in presenting the fracture behavior of the mortar joints. Even
though the model could duplicate the cyclic load displacement
response fitting to experimental results, the failure mechanism of
the wall was not properly captured.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.021
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
160 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173
Nomenclature
E0 un-damaged modulus of elasticity, MPa (psi)
rt tensile strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
rc compressive strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
rc0 initial compressive strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
rt0 initial tensile strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
rtu ultimate tensile strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
rcu ultimate compressive strength of masonry, MPa (psi)
w dilation angle, degrees
fbo bidirectional compressive strength of masonry, MPa
(psi)
fco unidirectional compressive strength of masonry, MPa
(psi)
Em modulus of elasticity for masonry, MPa (psi)
epl plastic strain
eel elastic strain
ec compressive strain
A more detailed model combining smeared and discrete crack
was successfully used by Koutromanos et al. [15] to simulate the
inelastic behavior of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames
and capture the failure mechanism of a partially grouted wall
under cyclic reversed quasi static and earthquake loads. The model
used cohesive crack interface elements to model flexural and shear
cracks in reinforced concrete columns and mixed mode fracture of
masonry mortar joints in the infill. The computational model
closely captured the failure mechanism and load displacement
hysteresis curves of an infilled frame tested on a shake table [31].
In overall to capture the response of masonry in a more realis-
tically fashion a numerical model requires interface elements. One
possible option is to use interface elements for the joints and suit-
able model for masonry units, grout and mortars. In this case, most
of the important factors affecting the wall behavior are taking into
account and the model can be solved with general purpose finite
element software. Therefore, a simplified 3D micro model con-
sidering units and grout is employed to build the model in this
study. Proposed model includes material parameters such as elas-
tic and inelastic property, stress–strain, failure and yield criteria of
hollow and grouted masonry. For simplicity, masonry units are
modeled as a solid block with thickness equal to the sum of the
thicknesses of the two face shells. Grout is also represented by
solid concrete, mortar joints and blocks are combined into a
homogeneous unit material by applying CDP model. Contact
elements were used as a discontinuity in the hollow portion using
cohesive surface-based behavior.
Fig. 1. Modeling strategies of masonry.
et tensile strain
dc compressive damage factor
dt tensile damage factor
sc critical shear stress, MPa (psi)
l friction coefficient factor
0
fd diagonal tensile strength, MPa (psi)
A area, mm2 (in2)
0
fv bed joint shear stress, MPa (psi)
dn ; ds and dt initial separation in normal, in-plane and out of
plane shear, mm (in)
t n ; t s and t t traction stress vector in normal and two shear direc-
tion, MPa (psi)
dnf ; dsf and dtf ultimate separation in normal, in-plane and out of
plane shear, mm (in)
Knn, Kss and Ktt stiffness coefficients, N/m (lb/in)
1.1. Macro and micro modeling
Masonry is heterogeneous and anisotropic material due to dif-
ferent component constituent materials such as mortar, unit, grout
and presence of mortar joints in the two directions. Considering
the masonry as a homogeneous or heterogeneous material is a
key decision when modeling masonry walls. Macro and micro
models have already been developed for masonry as sub-branches
of aforementioned approaches. Different strategies of masonry
modeling are summarized in Fig. 1 and they will be briefly
discussed in this section.
Macro modeling: The macro model is based on the homogeneous
material and it can provide an approximate response only for the
basic design. In the macro approach, masonry is considered as a
composite material and this type of model is used to study the
overall response of the structure. One of the methodologies to
model a system such as shear wall using macro element is to adopt
different type of springs instead of structural elements [11]. To
simplify the modeling, some researchers considered the homoge-
neous approach to present the mortar and units with average
mechanical properties. This method was used for the large scale
models in such a way that mortar joints and units are smeared into
one isotropic or anisotropic material. However, since masonry is
not homogeneous, this type of model will not be able to properly
predict the local behavior of the wall assembly. Some other studies
have been conducted to consider masonry homogeneous by defin-
ing the smeared crack which called micro/macro modeling. This
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173 161

method is based on the same approach used in reinforced concrete.

Reducing the modulus of elasticity by increasing the load in the
model represents the propagation of cracks in the elements. The
method has been conducted to evaluate the lateral resistance of
hollow and fully grouted masonry shear walls. Lotfi and Shing
[18] used the smeared crack in finite element model analysis to
investigate the capability of the model in capturing the failure
mechanism and ultimate strength of fully grouted concrete shear
walls. Their model has shown excellent agreement with respect
to flexural behavior, but it was not capable to predict the brittle
shear behavior of the walls. This was found to be caused by unrea-
listic kinematic constraint on the crack opening. The cracks were
modeled by introducing displacement in the continuum field.
Using the smeared concept is appropriate for fully grouted
masonry walls because of their similarity to concrete structures.
For hollow masonry, smeared method will be less appropriate. In
this category of modeling (micro/macro), Zhuge et al. [32] devel-
oped a comprehensive analytical model using two dimensional
plane stress concrete behavior of unreinforced masonry. The model Fig. 2. Suggested modeling strategies [19].
was affected by in-plane dynamic load and has been solved in a
nonlinear finite element program. The failure envelopes were
employed for modeling a homogeneous material. The model was the behavior of masonry units and plasticity interface elements
calibrated with experimental tests and results showed reasonable were used for the tensile and shear behavior of the mortar joints.
agreement between the analytical and experimental outputs. Results showed that the walls lateral strength predicted numeri-
Micro modeling: To reach more accurate response of partially cally are higher than defined experimental outputs. However, the
grouted masonry, different types of masonry components need to failure mode of the walls was well captured in this model.
be considered. Therefore, the detailed micro modeling is the most Moreover, the results showed that the behavior of partially grouted
appropriate method to predict the actual behavior of masonry. In masonry is similar to infill reinforced concrete frame.
this method, units, mortar and unit/mortar interface are repre- Homogenization approach is another method in masonry mod-
sented by continuum and discontinuous elements respectively. eling which intended as intermediate between macro and micro
Different properties of both units and mortar, such as Poisson’s modeling. This approach which is studied mainly by Milani et al.
ratio, Young’s modulus and inelastic characteristics, were taken [21], Casolo and Milani [10], and Milani [24], Milani [25], is an
into account in this approach. Although this approach is more appropriate method for a heterogeneous structure consist of a
realistic and predicts the local behavior of masonry, modeling periodic cells. In this approach the user only requires a reduced
becomes a complicated question by considering all behaviors of number of material parameter only for an assigned cell by avoiding
the masonry constituent and this makes the heterogeneous independent modeling of all joints and units existing through the
approach uneconomic and inefficient in terms of time. To over- structure as can be seen in Fig. 3. Implementing this strategy leads
come this problem, simplified micro modeling has been estab- to a simplification in numerical modeling and computational cost
lished and most of the studies on finite element modeling of of masonry.
grouted and ungrouted masonry, such as Shing et al. [29], Berto
et al. [9], Milani [22], Stavridis and Shing [31], and La Mendola
2. Constitutive models
et al. [16] have been conducted on this type of modeling. In this
approach, mortar joints are clamped into the unit/mortar interface
2.1. Concrete damage plasticity
as a discontinuous element. Expanded units up to half of the
mortar thickness in vertical and horizontal directions were
To simulate the nonlinear response of the masonry units and
simulated to continuum elements. Shing et al. [30] have used
grout, the CDP model available in Abaqus was used. CDP model
discrete crack approach to model the brittle shear behavior of
has been developed to predict the behavior of concrete and other
masonry shear walls as a simplified model. Interface elements
quasi-brittle materials such as rock and mortar under cyclic
were used for mortar joints as the primary crack source.
loading. Cracks in tension or crushing in compression are the main
Secondary source of cracks were modeled using smeared crack
failure modes of this model. The model is based on primary models
approach in the units. This model successfully predicted the shear
proposed by Lubliner et al. [20] and Lee and Fenves [17]. The
behavior of brittle reinforced shear wall when compared to the
tension and compression damage from micro to macro cracking
experimental results. Lourenço and Rots [19] used an interface
can be tracked separately in this model. CDP model assumes that
model for analyzing unreinforced masonry structures. Different
the uniaxial compressive and tensile response of concrete is
failure modes were considered in the model and a new strategy
characterized by damaged plasticity (see Fig. 4).
for modeling masonry was developed (details of model are shown
in Fig. 2). In this approach, the mortar joints are considered as the
weakest elements and modeled by an elastic–plastic interface 2.2. Cohesive surface-based element
behavior. Results showed that the model was able to reproduce
the experimental response without any numerical difficulties. Generally, cohesive interactions are a function of displacement
Additionally, the model can estimate cracks inside the units. separation between the edges of potential cracks. The concept of
Capturing this type of failure was a new achievement in masonry cohesive zone was employed by Dugdale [12] for the first time.
finite element modeling. Barenblatt [8] adopted the concept of cohesive stress zone into
Shing and Cao [28] employed two different types of elements to account for the finite strength of brittle materials in the fracture
model the behavior of partially grouted masonry walls; smeared modeling. Needleman [27] recognized that cohesive elements are
and interface elements. Smeared elements were used to model partially useful when interface strength are relatively weak
162 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Fig. 3. Homogenization [21].

(a) Tension (b) Compression

Fig. 4. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading Abaqus theory manual [1].

compared to the adjoining materials. Composite parts and lami-
nates bonded with adhesives–cohesive behavior are examples for
modeling with the adhesive bonded interfaces. Adhesive bonded
interface is appropriate to model the separation between two ini-
tially bonded surfaces. Cohesive zone model has been extensively
employed to study the failure of different materials [13]. It can
be used where the interface strength and integrity of structure
may be of interest. The mechanical constitutive behavior of cohe-
sive elements can be defined in three methods: (1) uniaxial
stress-based, (2) continuum based and (3) traction–separation
constitutive model. Where two bodies are connected by a third
part material like glue, the continuum based modeling is appropri-
ate for the adhesive. In this case, glue should be considered with a
finite thickness. The mechanical properties of adhesive material
were employed directly in the model from the experimental
results. In general, the adhesive material has more impact than
the surrounding material in real structures. Therefore, the damage
initiation and propagation dominate the ultimate behavior of com-
posite material. The traction–separation constitutive models can
also be used when the glue is very thin and for the practical pur-
pose may be considered as a zero thickness material. The cohesive
elements can be applied in situations where cracks are expected to
propagate. In this model, cracks are restricted to develop along the
layers at the head and bed joints. Prior to damage, the cohesive
behavior follows a linear traction–separation law and progressive
degradation of the bond stiffness leads to the bond failure. Once
a damage initiation in the interface element is met, damage will
take place based on the user defined damage factor. A typical trac-
tion–separation response is presented in Fig. 5. In the elastic part,
the traction stress vector consists of normal, tn and two shear trac-
tion components ts ; t t . These components represent mode I, II and
III of fracture modes shown in Fig. 5. Also in this model
dn ; ds and dt represent the corresponding initial separation caused
by pure normal, in plane and out-of-plane shear stresses, respec-
tively. These values can be calculated using the stiffness and
strength of each fracture modes.
The second part of traction–separation response shows the
damage propagation of bond which can be determined in different
ways. The maximum nominal stress (MAXS available in Abaqus
library) for damage propagation was selected here. The damage
initiates when the maximum nominal stress ratio reaches a value
of one. Damage evolution in this model describes the degradation

(a) Traction-separation response (b) Fracture modes

Fig. 5. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes.
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173
Fig. 6. Frictional behavior (Abaqus theory manual).
of the cohesive stiffness. For this purpose, the maximum sep-
aration at the end of graph can be specified either by using the total
fracture energy or the post damage-initiation effective separation
at failure (i.e. dnf ; dsf and dtf . Post damage-initiation separation
was used to consider the damage evolution in the present study.
Cohesive elements are used to bond two bodies and they degrade
after applying load due to the tensile or shear deformation.
Subsequently, the two bonded component come into a contact
after debonding. Therefore, Coulomb frictional contact behavior
is also defined in the current model. Coulomb friction describes
the interaction of contacting surfaces and the model characterizes
the frictional behavior using a coefficient of friction, l. It is impor-
tant to avoid components penetration after forming the contact,
especially for the normal behavior of contacts. This allows the
assemblages to take apart in presence of the critical force.
Abaqus provides two options for the standard contact including
surface-to-surface and self-contact. For the presented problem,
surface-to-surface contact was used and contacting properties for
the tangential and normal behavior were specified. This contact
is applicable for modeling two surfaces that are deformable. The
coefficient of friction can be defined based upon slip-rate data. In
this study, contact-pressure dependent behavior was used based
on the results from the shear test assemblages. The tangential
motion is zero until the surface traction reaches a critical shear
stress value which is dependent upon the normal contact pressure,
according to the Eq. (1).
sc ¼ lp
where l is the coefficient of friction and p is contact pressure
between the two surfaces. This equation introduces the limiting
frictional shear stress for the contacting surfaces. The contacting
surfaces do not slip until the shear stress across their interface
reaches the limiting frictional shear stress. The solid line in Fig. 6
represents the ideal behavior of Coulomb friction model; there is
zero relative motion (slip) of the surfaces when they are sticking
Fig. 7. Unit configuration.
163
(the shear stresses are below lp). And surfaces moves infinitely
when the critical shear is reached. Basically, there is a finite sliding
between contacts even by imposing a small amount of shear stress.
The dotted line shows the realistic behavior of Coulomb model.
3. Finite element idealization
3.1. Summary of the experiment
Regular hollow concrete blocks with nominal thickness of
200 mm (8 in), meeting ASTM C90 [6] provisions, were used in this
research as shown in Fig. 7.
Different types of hollow and fully grouted concrete masonry
assemblages were constructed and tested to determine the physi-
cal and mechanical properties of masonry under axial compres-
sion, bed joint shear and diagonal tension. Three samples of each
specimen were tested to account for variability. The test results
demonstrate the distinct difference in behavior (failure mode,
strength and deformation capacity) between ungrouted and fully
grouted concrete masonry. Grouting provides continuity and uni-
formity and results in higher strength and deformation capacity
compared to ungrouted masonry. The average properties of the
assemblages, described in the following sections, were used in
the numerical modeling. Type S Portland cement–lime mortar
was used in construction of the test specimens. Proportions by vol-
ume of Portland, lime and masonry sand were 1:0.5:4.5 following
ASTM C270 [2]. Two inch mortar cubes were tested under axial
compression to determine compressive strength. The average com-
pressive strength of mortar was 13.1 MPa (1.9 ksi). The model
masonry grout consisted of 1.0:2.78:0.74 by weight of cement,
sand and water, respectively. The water to cement ratio of the
grout was chosen to achieve sufficient workability for good flow
of grout into the cells, without any segregation while pouring.
Also, during assemblage construction, a steel rod was used to agi-
tate the grout and achieve compaction and good bond between the
grout and the blocks. To determine compressive strength of grout,
block-molded specimens (prepared as per ASTM C1019 [5] were
tested under axial compression, the average grout compressive
strength was 23.4 MPa (3.4 ksi).
3.1.1. Axial compression tests
Three ungrouted full block wide by three courses high prisms
were constructed in stack bond and tested under axial compres-
ð1Þ sion following ASTM C1314 [3] to determine the compressive
strength of ungrouted masonry (see Fig. 8a). Same setup was used
for all other tests. Two grouted half blocks wide by three courses
high were tested under axial compression to determine the com-
pressive strength of grouted masonry. Vertical strain was mea-
sured using LVDT strain gauges. Load was applied using MTS
actuator under force control. Failure mode of the ungrouted was
characterized by vertical tensile splitting cracks initiated at the
middle web and spreading to the top and bottom units (Fig. 8b).
164 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Fig. 8. Axial compression test.

Table 1 For the grouted specimen, failure mode was characterized by

Compressive strength of ungrouted and grouted prisms.
diagonal crack as shown in Fig. 8c.
Results ID Strength Table 1 contains test results of the ungrouted and grouted
specimen prisms. For the ungrouted (hollow) prisms compressive strength
Individual MPa (ksi) Average MPa (ksi) COV%
is presented based on mortar net area. The compressive strength
Ungrouted PU1 17.9 (2.5 ksi) 19.8 (2.8 ksi) 11
PU2 20.7 (3.0 ksi) of the grouted prism is higher than that of the ungrouted prisms
PU3 20.7 (3.0 ksi) (based on net area) because the compressive strength of the grout,
Grouted PG1 21.6 (3.1 ksi) 25.4 (3.7 ksi) – occupying 51% of the gross area, is much higher than the compres-
PG2 29.1 (4.2 ksi) sive strength of the outer shell (hollow prisms).

Fig. 9. Shear test specimens.

 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173 165

Table 2 mortar joints and resulted in shear slip failure at the block–mortar
Shear strength of ungrouted and grouted specimens. interfaces.
0
Results specimen ID Shear strength Bed joint shear strength f v is calculated as,
Individual MPa (psi) Average MPa (psi) COV%
0 P
Ungrouted SU1 0.22 (31 psi) 0.20 (30 psi) 23 fv ¼ ð2Þ
A
SU2 0.18 (25 psi)
SU3 0.27 (39 psi) where P is the applied ultimate load and A is the net and gross con-
SU4 0.16 (24 psi)
tact area between one of the central blocks and the two end blocks
Grouted SG1 0.58 (84 psi) 0.60 (85 psi) 3.5 for ungrouted and grouted specimens, respectively. Table 2 presents
SG2 0.57 (83 psi)
the test results for the ungrouted and grouted specimens. Shear
SG3 0.61 (89 psi)
strength of grouted masonry is four times that of ungrouted
masonry. This is attributed to the high shear strength of the grout
column for grouted prisms compared to the limited mortar bond
strength at the block–mortar interface for ungrouted prisms.
3.1.2. Bed joint shear tests
The assemblage shown in Fig. 9, originally developed by Hamid 3.1.3. Diagonal tension tests
et al. [14], was chosen to determine joint shear slip resistance. Hollow (ungrouted) and fully grouted diagonal tension (DT)
Three ungrouted (hollow) and three grouted model bed joint shear assemblages with six units height and three units long were con-
assemblages with two units height were constructed flat-wise structed with a running bond and tested diagonally (Fig. 10a) fol-
using two full blocks at the middle and one full model block at lowing ASTM E519 [4] Standard. The specimens were constructed
the top and bottom. Vertical load was applied at the top of the mid- by a qualified mason and were filled with grout 24 h after con-
dle block as shown in Fig. 9. This load created pure shear at the struction. The load was applied uniformly in constant intervals

Fig. 10. Diagonal tension specimens.

166 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Table 3 using a vertical MTS actuator under force control. The failure mode
Diagonal tension strength of ungrouted and grouted DT specimens. of the ungrouted specimens was characterized as step-wise crack
Results ID DT strength at the block–mortar interfaces as shown in Fig. 10b. For the
specimen
Individual MPa Average MPa (psi) COV% grouted specimens, however, the failure plane followed a straight
(psi) line through a combination of head joints and masonry units as
Ungrouted DTU1 0.63 (93 psi) 0.51 (75 psi) 17.8
shown in Fig. 10c. Grout-filled cells tend to reinforce the mortar
DTU2 0.45 (65 psi) joints at those locations and force the crack through the units.
0
DTU3 0.43 (63 psi) Horizontal diagonal tensile strength f d at the center of the
DTU4 0.55 (80 psi)
specimen is calculated as,
Grouted DTG1 1.50 (217 psi) 1.12 (162 psi) 14.3
DTG2 1.00 (146 psi) 0 0:707P
fd ¼ ð3Þ
DTG3 0.85 (124 psi) A

Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of prism, shear and diagonal tension specimens.

Table 4
Mechanical properties of ungrouted and grouted masonry assemblages.

Sample Mass Elasticity Plasticity

Density kg/m3 (lbf. s2/in4) Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio t Dilation angle w Eccentricity fbo/fco K Viscosity parameter
E0 GPa (ksi)
Ungrouted 26,717 (0.0025) 26.2 (3804) 0.2 32 0.1 1.16 0.67 0.001
Grouted 33.7 (4890) 34
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173 167

Table 5
Compressive and tensile behavior of the model.

Concrete damage plasticity

Hollow Grouted
Compressive behavior Tensile behavior Compressive behavior Tensile behavior
Yield stress MPa (psi) Inelastic strain Yield stress MPa (psi) Cracking strain Yield stress MPa (psi) Inelastic strain Yield stress MPa (psi) Cracking strain
13.8 (2000) 0 0.64 (93) 0 17.4 (2523) 0 1.5 (217) 0
17.2 (2500) 0.00012 0.62 (90) 0.00006 20.7 (3000) 0.0003 1.15 (167) 0.00029
17.9 (2596) 0.00032 0.34 (50) 0.00028 21.6 (3135) 0.0005 0.83 (120) 0.00044
13.8 (2000) 0.00057 0.21 (30) 0.00045 20.9 (3038) 0.0010 0.3 (43) 0.00092
7.6 (1100) 0.00131 0.12 (17) 0.00079 19.6 (2851) 0.0015 0.1 (15) 0.00300
4.4 (640) 0.00191 0.05 (7) 0.00139 15.1 (2191) 0.0029 0.06 (9) 0.00450
2.2 (320) 0.00245 0.03 (5) 0.00299 10.3 (1490) 0.0045 0.05 (7) 0.00530
1 (140) 0.00295 0.02 (3) 0.00349 2.0 (295) 0.0099 – –

Fig. 12. Compressive and tensile behavior of ungrouted and grouted model.

Table 6
Cohesive behavior of joints.

Sample Contact
Tangential behavior Normal behavior Cohesive behavior
Traction–separation Damage
behavior
Stiffness coefficients MN/m Initiation MPa (psi) Evolution
(Kipf/in)
Friction coefficient Knn Kss Ktt Normal Shear I Shear II Plastic displacement mm (in)
Ungrouted 0.78 Hard contact 8.7 (50) 8.7 (50) (0) 12.6 (1825) 0.21 (30) 0 2.0 (0.08)
Grouted 14 (80) 14 (80) (0) 23.7 (3434) 0.60 (85) 0 2.3 (0.09)

Fig. 13. Tension–separation behavior of masonry models.

168 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Fig. 14. Modeled units, finite element mesh and boundary condition.

Fig. 15. Geometry of assemblages and surface-based interaction of units.

where P is the applied ultimate vertical load and A is the net and
gross area of the vertical diagonal section for ungrouted and
grouted specimens, respectively. The net area is calculated as the
gross area times the average percent solid of the block which is
taken equal to 51%. Table 3 presents test results of the ungrouted
and grouted specimens. As shown, grouting significantly increased
the diagonal tensile strength. The strengthening of the bed joints
due to the continuity of grout resulted in higher and more uniform
strength.
3.2. Tests outputs
Stress–strain results of grouted and ungrouted prism specimens
were used in the model as inputs. These include elastic and inelas-
tic parameters of both prisms. For this purpose PU1 and PG1 speci-
mens with 17.9 MPa (2.5 ksi) and 21.6 (3.1 ksi) compressive
strength were selected. In elastic and inelastic portions of each
stress–strain curve, modulus of elasticity and compressive behav-
ior of concrete damage plasticity were calculated modified and
implemented in the subsequent finite element model
(Fig. 11a and b). The same procedure in diagonal tension speci-
mens was also followed and stress–strain curve of DTU1 and
DTG1 specimens with 0.63 MPa (93 psi) and 1.5 MPa (217 psi)
diagonal tensile strength was used in the model. In this case results
of horizontal diagonal LVDT were picked up for simulating the ten-
sile behavior of concrete damage plasticity as it shown in
Fig. 11e and f. Mechanical parameters of SU1 and SG1 specimens
with 0.22 and 0.58 MPa (31 and 84 psi) nominal shear strengths
were also employed for modeling mode I of shear in cohesive
behavior of mortar (Fig. 11c and d). Additionally, elongation of
horizontal diagonal in DT test, reaching to 10% of its maximum
strength, was used as plastic displacement in defining the damage
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173 169

parameter of contact cohesive behavior. By considering 1.5 m
(60 in) gauge length, plastic displacements in damage evolution
of ungrouted and grouted specimens measured 2 and 2.3 mm
(0.08 and 0.09 in), respectively. Moreover, type S Portland
cement–lime mortar was tested under axial compression to deter-
mine compressive strength. The average compressive strength of
mortar was 12.6 MPa (1.8 ksi). This value was used as damage
initiation in the normal direction of ungrouted specimens.
However, in grouted specimens grout is the major source of
masonry strength against shear. Therefore, in this case average
compressive strength of masonry grout, 23.7 MPa (3.4 ksi), was
employed in order to model the normal damage initiation. All
the test outputs which were used in the model will be discussed
in the following section.
4. FE model, results and discussion
4.1. Model inputs
4.1.1. Concrete damage plasticity parameters
Table 4 shows the material properties which were used for
modeling the ungrouted and grouted masonry assemblages. The

Fig. 16. Prism stress–strain curves, principal and Mises stress and strain contours.
170 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173

Fig. 17. Shear bond stress–strain curves, principal and Mises stress and strain contours.

plasticity characteristics of material need different types of experi-
mental tests which are beyond the scope of this research. In the
absence of such data, the plasticity parameters were determined
indirectly by trial and error in the calibration process, and by use
of common values recommended in the literature. Modulus of elas-
ticity and the compressive behavior of CDP model were extracted
from stress–strain curves of PU1 and PG1 prisms. Elasticity modu-
lus of ungrouted and grouted specimens are 26.2 and 33.7 GPa
(3804, 4890 ksi), respectively (Fig. 11a and b). Data collected in
the horizontal direction of DTU1 and DTG1 (diagonal tension,
Fig. 11e and f) specimens were used for the tensile behavior of
the model. Table 5 shows the yield stress versus the inelastic strain
and cracking strain calculated from the mentioned tests. For a bet-
ter presentation, smooth inelastic and crack strain versus stress
curves are illustrated in Fig. 12.
4.1.2. Joints cohesive behavior parameters
Cohesive behavior of mortar was defined based on information
presented in Table 6. Mortar is the only source of bond resistance
against shear forces along the bed joints. Therefore, the compres-
sive strength of S type mortar was used for the cohesive behavior
of ungrouted specimens in mode I (normal). However, for grouted
specimens the compressive strength of grout was used as a normal
mode of masonry fracture (see Table 6). As mentioned in
Section 3.2, normal strength of tested mortar and grout are 12.6,
23.7 MPa (1.8 and 3.4 ksi), respectively. Shear strength of SU1
and SG1 specimens were also used for mode II which called shear
I in the Table 6. For simplicity, in the traction–separation model the
same stiffness in the normal and shear directions were assumed.
Since there is no out-of-plane shear in force applied to the tested
specimens, to simulate the mode III (shear II), shear value of
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173 171

Fig. 18. DT load–displacement curves, principal and Mises stress and strain contours.

masonry was taken equal to zero in this mode. Plastic displace-
ment values, which employed in the strength degradation of mor-
tar, were calculated based on the maximum separation of tip
displacement in the diagonal tension for the ungrouted masonry
assemblages as discussed earlier. Fig. 13 shows the employed trac-
tion–separation behavior of ungrouted and grouted specimens in
the model. In this graph the maximum stresses are the strength
of mortar and grout [12.6 and 23.7 MPa (1825 and 3434 ksi)] for
ungrouted and grouted specimens, respectively. In addition, the
maximum separation considered the same as plastic displacement
of the diagonal specimen, calculated based on displacement
related to 10% of strength of smooth curve of DTU1 and DTG1
specimens. Maximum separation of ungrouted and grouted speci-
mens considered 2 and 2.3 mm (0.08 and 0.09 in), respectively.
Since the traction–separation graph is linear the slope of each line
which called stiffness coefficient are 8.7 and 14 MN/m (50 and
80 kipf/in) for ungrouted and grouted specimens only based on
mortar and grout strengths and also maximum separation.
Contact assumed to be zero thickness, therefore hard contact was
assigned for normal behavior of contact. It is supposed that
‘‘Hard’’ contact refers to an interaction without any softening, in
other words, no penetration of the surfaces can occur in the model.
Also, the most common friction coefficient of concrete masonry is
in the range of 0.6–0.8, which the best fit was captured using 0.78
in this study.
The finite element mesh and boundary conditions of assem-
blages are shown in Fig. 14. Units are modeled using 50 mm cubi-
cal mesh (2 in). All models were tested under displacement control
by applying displacement at the top of the specimen using Abaqus
implicit. Because there are a large number of elements in the
masonry micro-modeling the use of higher order elements often
results in extensive computation time without adding too much
accuracy into the overall analysis outcomes. Therefore, an eight-
node 3D stress linear brick, reduced integration elements
172 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173
(C3D8R) were used for modeling the masonry units. These ele-
ments are based on linear interpolation and a 4  4 Gauss integra-
tion scheme. The model adopts a linear varying normal strain and a
constant shear strain over the elements area. The geometry of
assemblages and defined interaction surfaces between units are
shown in Fig. 15. The size of the grouted unit is 406  203 
203 mm (16  8  8 in) and the thickness of mortar is considered
zero. However for simplicity, the hollow portions of ungrouted
units were ignored, as shown in Fig. 14a and b. The masonry block
is modeled as a solid unit with equivalent thickness equal to the
thicknesses of unit face-shells. Although omitting the hollow por-
tions of ungrouted units in the modeling resulted in a simplified
model, one may say the accuracy of outputs and behavior of
masonry assemblages will be affected due to different mechanical
behavior of real and simplified hollow units. The major source of
strength in hollow prism is provided by the concrete flesh of unit
so considering the solid part of unit instead of detailed model will
be reasonable in this case. In the shear specimen mortar resists
against the load and due to relatively high strength of concrete
to mortar, the unit just transfers the stresses. Therefore, in the
shear case this assumption will not cause a huge difference
between the real and simplified model and using simplified unit
will be numerically cost effective. Lastly, though mechanical
behavior and fracture mechanism of DT is complex than the other
two specimens, it mostly takes advantage of unit compressive
strength in the vertical direction and mortar strength in the hori-
zontal direction. Vertical core of DT has the same performance of
prism with different joint alignment which is horizontal in the
prisms but has 45 degree in the DT. Therefore, the simplified
concept will be good enough to represent the behavior of such
structure. Additionally, for defining the relation between different
surfaces and applying the path of load between units in a logical
way, master and slave surfaces were defined in the bed and head
joints between the units and the traction–separation behavior
was assigned to the surface-based cohesive of mortars as shown
in Fig. 15.
4.2. Model outputs
Fig. 16 shows the load–displacement relationship of the
ungrouted and grouted prisms from the numerical analysis and
experimental tests by reaching to peak load. The numerical results
showed good agreement with the experimental tests. Despite simi-
lar strength at ultimate load in the experiments, axial deformation
at peak load of the ungrouted and grouted prisms are similar. As
described before, the failure mode of the ungrouted specimen
was characterized by vertical tensile splitting cracks initiated at
the middle web and spreading to the top and bottom units
(Fig. 8b) and for the grouted specimen, the failure mode was
characterized by diagonal crack as shown in Fig. 8c. The final
Mises stresses, maximum principal stress and strain in ungrouted
and grouted specimens are presented in Fig. 16. As can be seen,
the maximum stress in the ungrouted specimen occurred at the
bottom edges of prism and the maximum stress shear of the
grouted prisms is located at the bottom of sample, which coincides
with the experimental results.
Fig. 17 shows the experimental and numerical stress–strain
curves of the ungrouted and grouted shear specimens, respectively.
The deformation at the ultimate load of the grouted specimens is
much higher than that of the ungrouted specimens. Adhesion mor-
tar bond at the block–mortar interfaces has very small deforma-
tion, indicating high degree of brittleness for this mode of failure.
It is to be noted that the axial stress normal to bed joints, induced
by gravity and axial loads, maintains a large amount of slip defor-
mation after failure of adhesion bond. Thereby, this creates a duc-
tile mode of failure and large energy absorption capacity in the
axially loaded prisms. The stiffness of specimens obtained from
the numerical analysis is the same as obtained from the tests
however, the maximum shear strength in both models are a little
bit greater than experimental results. In addition as shown in
Fig. 17, the maximum stress occurred at the neighbor of surfaces
and gap.
Fig. 18 shows load–deflection curves of the vertical diagonal in
the compression path of diagonal tension specimens. Grouted
specimens showed much higher deformation capacity compared
to the ungrouted specimens. The model was able to predict the
behavior of ungrouted and grouted diagonal tension with good
agreement. The stress distributions in the ungrouted and grouted
specimens are almost the same and it was shown that the diagonal
portion of the specimen carried the most of load. As expected, the
left and right sides of model take zero load and deformation.
5. Summary and conclusions
For having a better understanding of the behavior of masonry
assemblages a simplified micro model of assemblages has been
developed. Failure and yield criteria, elastic and inelastic property
of masonry and stress–strain were employed in this model based
on different experimental test results. Cohesive surface-based
behavior (interface elements) was used in this study as a dis-
continuity. Mortar joints and units were smeared into one
homogeneous material, and they were modeled using concrete
damage plasticity model. The traction–separation behavior of
cohesive element was employed for modeling the mortar joints.
The initiation of damage was considered based on strength of
mortar and grout in the ungrouted and grouted masonry,
respectively. Damage evolution, maximum crack opening when
the load becomes zero, was defined as a plastic displacement.
The mechanical properties of the ungrouted and grouted masonry
were extracted from the prism and diagonal tension tests, respec-
tively. It is evident from the numerical results that the responses
predicted by the analysis are generally in agreement with the
behavior and strength of the test specimens. In the experimental
part of the study, test results showed that there is a distinct differ-
ence in behavior (failure mode, strength and deformation capacity)
between the ungrouted and fully grouted concrete masonry
assemblages. Grout-filled cells tend to reinforce the week mortar
bed joints resulting in more continuity and uniformity. Therefore,
fully grouting the cells of concrete masonry units increased
the compressive strength, shear strength and diagonal tensile
strength of assemblages. The model also was able to capture these
differences with the minimum error. The proposed model can be
successfully used to model ungrouted and partially grouted
masonry walls.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by a Grant from National Science
Foundation (NSF) Grant No. 1208208. The support of Delaware
Valley Masonry Institute and Sabia Mason Contractors in providing
the mason to build the test specimens is acknowledged. The
results, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this paper are solely
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
sponsoring organizations.
References
[1] Abaqus analysis user’s manual, 6.13-3. RI, USA: Dassault Systems Providence;
2013.
[2] ASTM C270. Specification for mortar for unit masonry. West Conshohocken,
PA; 2012.
[3] ASTM C1314. Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry
prisms. West Conshohocken, PA; 2014.
 M. Bolhassani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 83 (2015) 159–173
[4] ASTM E519. Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in masonry
assemblages. West Conshohocken, PA; 2010.
[5] ASTM C1019. Standard test method for sampling and testing grout. West
Conshohocken, PA; 2014.
[6] ASTM C90. Standard specification for load-bearing concrete masonry units.
West Conshohocken, PA; 2012.
[7] Ahmad S, Khan RA, Gupta H. Seismic performance of a masonry heritage
structure. Int J Eng Adv Technol 2014;3(4). ISSN: 2249 – 8958.
[8] Barenblatt GI. The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle
fracture. Adv Appl Mech 1962;7(55–129):104.
[9] Berto L, Saetta A, Scotta R, Vitaliani R. Shear behaviour of masonry panel:
parametric FE analyses. Int J Solids Struct 2004;41:4383–405.
[10] Casolo S, Milani G. A simplified homogenization-discrete element model for
the non-linear static analysis of masonry walls out-of-plane loaded. Eng Struct
2010;32(8):2352–66.
[11] Chen SY, Moon F, Yi T. A macroelement for the nonlinear analysis of in-plane
unreinforced masonry piers. Eng Struct 2008;30(8):2242–52.
[12] Dugdale DS. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids
1960;8(2):100–4.
[13] Elices M, Guinea GV, Gómez J, Planas J. The cohesive zone model: advantages,
limitations and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 2002;69(2):137–63.
[14] Hamid A, Bolhassani M, Turner A, Minaie E, Moon FL. Mechanical properties of
ungrouted and grouted concrete masonry assemblages. 12th Canadian
Masonry Symposium Vancouver, British Columbia, June 2–5.
[15] Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K. Numerical modeling of
masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct
2011;89(11):1026–37.
[16] 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;54:190–6.
[17] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.
173
[18] Lotfi H, Shing P. An appraisal of smeared crack models for masonry shear wall
analysis. Comput Struct 1991;41:413–25.
[19] Lourenço PB, Rots JG. Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry
structures. J Eng Mech 1997;123(7):660–8.
[20] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
[21] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls.
Part I. Failure surfaces. Comput Struct 2006;84(3):166–80.
[22] Milani G. 3D upper bound limit analysis of multi-leaf masonry walls. Int J
Mech Sci 2008;50(4):817–36.
[23] Milani G. 3D FE limit analysis model for multi-layer masonry structures
reinforced with FRP strips. Int J Mech Sci 2010;52(6):784–803.
[24] Milani G. Simple homogenization model for the non-linear analysis of in-plane
loaded masonry walls. Comput Struct 2011;89(17):1586–601.
[25] Milani G. Simple lower bound limit analysis homogenization model for in and
out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(12):4426–43.
[26] Minaie, E. Behavior and vulnerability of reinforced masonry shear walls [Ph.D.
thesis]. Drexel University; 2010.
[27] Needleman A. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding.
J Appl Mech 1987;54(3):525–31.
[28] Shing P, Cao L. Analysis of partially grouted masonry shear walls. US
Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. NIST GCR, 97-710.
[29] Shing P, Lofti H, Barzegarmehrabi A, Bunner J. Finite element analysis of shear
resistance of masonry wall panels with and without confining frames. Paper
presented at the Proc., 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg..
[30] Shing P, Schuller M, Hoskere V. In-plane resistance of reinforced masonry
shear walls. J Struct Eng 1990;116(3):619–40.
[31] Stavridis A, Shing PB. Finite-element modeling of nonlinear behavior of
masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 2010;136(3):285–96.
[32] Zhuge Y, Thambiratnam D, Corderoy J. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
unreinforced masonry. J Struct Eng 1998;124(3):270–7.