A Mixed Solution Strategy For The Nonlinear Analysis PDF

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.
191 (2002) 5847–5876

www.elsevier.com/locate/cma
A mixed solution strategy for the nonlinear analysis

of brick masonry walls
a,*
Giovanni Formica , Vittorio Sansalone b, Raffaele Casciaro a
a
Dipartimento di Strutture, Universit
a della Calabria, Rende (CS), Cosenza 87030, Italy
b
DSIC, Universita ‘‘Roma 3’’, Roma, Italy
Received 12 October 2001; received in revised form 22 May 2002
Abstract
The paper presents a discrete mechanical model for masonry walls based on a Lagrangean description where each
brick is described as a rigid body and each mortar joint as an interface element. Constitutive assumptions, characterized
by elasticity, damage and friction, are associated to the joints only. A numerical solution strategy, based on a mixed
path-following approach in terms of stresses, strains, displacements, damage and load parameters, is proposed for
avoiding convergence problems related to the joint softening behaviour. Some numerical results are also presented
showing the robustness and effectiveness of this proposal.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Masonry; Damage; Friction; Mixed formulation; Path-following analysis
1. Introduction
There are still some unresolved aspects in the evaluation of the behaviour of unreinforced masonry
buildings, as shown by the difference between theoretical predictions and experimental results [1–4]. Ac-
tually, we are still far from having reliable tools for predicting the results of full scale experimental tests.
This situation has led to a further research in this field [5] aiming at a better understanding of the
mechanical behaviour of masonry and developing suitable numerical solution procedures. This paper is a
contribution to such research. Its main purpose is to investigate, in a very simple context, some basic as-
pects of masonry modelling and set up a solution strategy suitable for treating softening damage problems.
The proposed approach is based on a discrete model of brick masonry walls where the bricks are de-
picted as rigid bodies and the mortar joints as straight interface elements. Fracture phenomena can only
develop in the mortar joints, whose constitutive behaviour is modelled in terms of elasticity, damage and
friction (see [6,7] and in particular [3,8]).
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +39-984-494045.
E-mail address: formica@labmec.unical.it (G. Formica).
0045-7825/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 8 2 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 5 0 1 - 7
5848 G. Formica et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 5847–5876
The analysis is driven by a path-following approach [9] rewritten in mixed form. According to [10], all
the relevant variables––displacements, stresses, strains, load and damage parameters––are treated as ‘‘main
description variables’’. In this way, a relatively smooth description is obtained where all the nonlinearity of
the problem reduces just to that of the constitutive equations. Extensive numerical tests have been carried
out (see [11,12]). The numerical results, some of which are reported in Section 4, show that the proposed
strategy makes it possible to avoid the failures in convergence which are typical of standard compatible
formulations based only on displacement variables [13].
It is worth mentioning that the implemented code is only suitable for investigative purposes. It can only
tackle simple plane brick masonry panels and, due to its description, it can hardly be used as a practical tool
for the structural design of masonry buildings. Nevertheless, it can be useful––and it was implemented for
this purpose––to: (i) emphasize some aspects of brick masonry wall behaviour; (ii) investigate the modelling
of interface constitutive laws; (iii) obtain benchmarks suitable for deriving equivalent continua by homo-
genization techniques, as well as made in linear elasticity [14]; (iv) set up and validate, in a simple context,
general numerical strategies for masonry analysis.
The paper is organized as follows: the masonry model and the proposed solution strategy are described
in Sections 2 and 3 respectively; the results of numerical tests are reported and discussed in Section 4; final
comments and remarks are presented in Section 5.
2. The discrete model
2.1. Initial mechanical hypothesis
We consider a plane brick masonry panel, whose geometry is defined by the depth s of the panel, by the
height H and length B of the bricks, and by thickness a and lengths h of the mortar joints (see Fig. 1).
The masonry wall is depicted as an assembling of rigid blocks (bricks) linked to one another by six
interface elements (mortar joints). In this way, we represent the wall as a discrete Lagrangean system in
which fractures and all constitutive aspects localize in the interfaces only [15,16]. The block elements take
into account three displacement parameters––(two translations, ux and uy , and one rotation u in the plain of
Fig. 1. Basic masonry model.

G. Formica et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 5847–5876 5849
the wall) and three dual force parameters (two forces, fx and fy , and a couple m). The joint elements are
characterized by four stress and strain parameters corresponding to the normal and tangential stresses (r; s)
and the associated normal
pffiffiffi and tangential strains (e; c) in two Gauss-points, located on the interface at a
distance equal to 3=6 of its length from the middle point.
Stresses and strains in the mortar joints are related to the forces and displacements of the bricks by
means of the compatibility and equilibrium equations respectively. Then, if
8 9 8 9
< ux = < fx =
ui :¼ uy and f i :¼ fy ð1Þ
: ; : ;
u i m i
are the local vectors associated to the ith brick, both collected in the global vectors u and f, the compat-
ibility equation for the gth Gauss-point can be written as
eg Dg u þ eg ¼ 0; ð2Þ
where vector eg is the distorsion assigned to the Gauss-point and Dg is the discrete compatibility operator.
The equilibrium equation is conversely expressed by
X
Qg rg f ¼ 0; ð3Þ
g
where Qg is the discrete equilibrium operator associated to the gth Gauss-point. Obviously, due to the
duality condition
X
f T du rTg deg ; ð4Þ
g
we have
Qg ¼ DTg : ð5Þ
Note that, in this formulation, we can also have constraint conditions, i.e. some components of displace-
ment or stress can be assigned. In this case Eqs. (2) and (3) define the dual (distorsion or force component)
constrained reactions.
From now on, for an easier writing, we will neglect the index g in the compatibility and constitutive
equations, which are in any case intended to be applied to each Gauss-point.
2.2. Constitutive relation
According to LemaitreÕs principle of strain equivalence [17] the local stress state can be obtained through
the expression

r
r :¼ ¼ ð1 bÞru þ brd ; ð6Þ
s
where b is the damage level (damaged area rate, 0 6 b 6 1) associated to the Gauss-point. Eq. (6) defines a
linear combination of two virtual materials, the former undamaged (u) and the latter damaged (d). The
undamaged part behaves like a linear elastic material
ru ¼ Ee; ð7Þ
E and e being the local elastic stiffness matrix and the local strain state respectively:

kn 0 e
E :¼ ; e :¼ : ð8Þ
0 kt c
The damaged part is described as a no-tension frictional material:

rd ¼ 0
for open joints ðe > 0Þ;
kn e ð9Þ
rd ¼ for closed joints ðe 6 0Þ;
kt ðc cf Þ
cf being the drift between the two crack faces, produced when the limit friction shear is achieved. It is
implicitly defined by the friction law (see [3,6,7]):
sd :¼ kt ðc cf Þ; f ½rd
:¼ jsd j þ crd 6 0; ð10Þ
where c :¼ tanð/Þ, / being the friction angle. An explicit formula, suitable for computational purposes, is
obtained which relates the increment c_ f of the drift to the increment e_ of the total strain:

0 if f~ 6 0;
c_ f :¼ f~ :¼ f ½rd þ E_e
: ð11Þ
signðsd Þf =kt if f~ > 0;
~
The constitutive relation can be therefore synthesized as

r ¼ Eðe ber Þ ð12Þ
where the residual strain er is defined by

e if e > 0; 0
er :¼ being ef :¼ : ð13Þ
ef if e 6 0; cf
By introducing the damage parameter
b
a :¼ ; ð14Þ
1b
representing the ratio of the damaged area to the undamaged one (a P 0), we can rewrite Eq. (12) in the
form

a
r¼E e er : ð15Þ
1þa
Eq. (15) can be inverted providing a relation which will be useful in the next section to define the damage
evolution law:

h
ð1 þ aÞr=kn
if r > 0;
ð1 þ aÞs=kt
e ¼ e½r; a
:¼
: ð16Þ
r=kn
if r 6 0;
ð1 þ aÞðs sf Þ=kt
where we have introduced
sf :¼ bkt ðc cf Þ
which represents the total friction force acting on the Gauss-point.
It is worth mentioning that the normal and tangential elastic factors kn and kt can be expressed in terms
of the equivalent normal E and tangential G elastic coefficients of the mortar joint
hs hs
kn ¼ E ; kt ¼ G : ð17Þ
2a 2a
Since the thickness a is usually small in comparison with the surface dimensions of the joint, the lateral
deformations are nearly prevented and then we generally have E G.
2.3. Damage evolution law
The damage evolution modelling is provided by GriffithÕs approach which derives the monotonic in-
crease of the damage by the energetic condition
G R 6 0; ð18Þ
G is the rate of energy release and represents the rate of energy available to increase the crack opening, i.e.
oUc ½r; a
oU½e; a
G :¼ ; ð19Þ
oa oa
Uc ½r; a
and U½e; a
being the complementary and the strain elastic energy for given a, respectively. R is the
toughness function and represents the strength opposed by the material to the crack growth (see [18]).
According to Gambarotta and Lagomarsino [3], we take
1
ð1 þ aÞðr2 =kn þ s2 =kt Þ if r > 0;
Uc ½r; a
¼ 21 2 2 ð20Þ
2
ðr =k n þ ð1 þ aÞðs s f Þ =k t Þ if r 6 0
which, by using Eq. (16), corresponds to
1
ðk e2 þ kt c2 Þ=ð1 þ aÞ if e > 0;
U½e; a
¼ 21 n 2 ð21Þ
2
ðkn e þ kt c2 Þ=ð1 þ aÞ if e 6 0;
so we obtain
*
1 2
2
ðkn e2 þ kt c2 Þ=ð1 þ aÞ if e > 0;
G :¼ 1 2 ð22Þ
k c2 =ð1 þ aÞ
2 t
if e 6 0:
Still following [3] we take

q 1 if a 6 1;
R½a
:¼ Rcr a with q ¼ ð23Þ
qm if a > 1;
where qm is a suitable exponent (qm ¼ 0:8–0.9 can be taken for mortar joints in masonry walls) and Rcr
represents a critical strength parameter, which can be expressed in the form
r2t
Rcr :¼ ; ð24Þ
2kn
rt being the tensile strength of the mortar joints, i.e. the limit strength at which the material response
becomes softening.
Using the previous expressions, the crack opening condition (18) can be rewritten as

W½e
:¼ 12 eT Ee; E :¼ P½e
T EP½e
;
W½e
C½a
6 0; with ð25Þ
C½a
:¼ ð1 þ aÞ2 R½a
;
where P½e
is the projection matrix selecting the strain/stress components responsible for the damage
growth:

h½e
0 1 if e > 0;
P½e
:¼ with h½e
:¼ ð26Þ
0 1 0 if e 6 0:
Fig. 2 shows both the R½a
and C½a
functions, the latter being expressed by
2
C1 ½a
:¼ ð1 þ aÞ Rcr a if a 6 1;
C½a
¼ 2 ð27Þ
C2 ½a
:¼ ð1 þ aÞ Rcr aqm if a > 1:
Fig. 2. Damage evolution laws.
Note that the straight line

e ½a
:¼ 2Rcr a
C ð28Þ
is also shown in the figure. When a rough approximation of dC½a
=da is needed, as will occur in the iterative
e ½a
:
process described in Section 3.3, we can refer to the derivative of C
e ½a
dC½a
d C
¼ 2Rcr : ð29Þ
da da
3. The solution strategy
3.1. General aspects
The analysis is performed by means of several subsequent loading phases (see Fig. 3). Each phase is
controlled by a load factor k amplifying an additional external action (forces or displacements assigned to
the blocks, distorsions or tensions assigned to the joints).
Fig. 3. Loading phases.

Fig. 4. Path-following approach.
By recovering Eqs. (2), (3), (12) and (25) in a single system, the mechanical problem is ruled by the
nonlinear equations
r½x; k
:¼ s½x
þ k^
p ¼ 0; ð30Þ
where vector x collects all the variables of the problem (displacements, stresses, strains and damage pa-
rameters) and s½x
and ^ p correspond to the structural response and the nominal external action, respec-
tively. If n is the dimension of vectors x and r, Eq. (30) implicitly describes a curve in Rnþ1 which is called
equilibrium path and is recovered by determining a sequence of sufficiently close equilibrium points
fxðkÞ ; kðkÞ g through a standard Riks path-following approach [9]. That is, if the first k solutions have already
been obtained, the new (k þ 1)th solution is achieved using Eq. (30) and a further constraint condition
fixing the step amplitude in the fx; kg space (see Fig. 4):
gðkþ1Þ ½x; k
¼ 0: ð31Þ
ðkþ1Þ
According to Riks [9], it is worthwhile using a simple form for g ½x; k
, i.e.
gðkþ1Þ ½x; k
:¼ gTx ðx xj Þ þ gk ðk kj Þ ¼ 0 ð32Þ
ðkþ1Þ ðkþ1Þ
which defines a hyperplane passing through a current estimate fxj ; kj g of the solution point fx ;k g
and normal to the local tangent of the equilibrium path, according to a suitable metric.
The nonlinear system (30) and (31) can be solved iteratively using a Newton–Raphson scheme starting
from a first estimate fx1 ; k1 g obtained by extrapolating the previous kth step of the analysis

x1 :¼ xðkÞ þ xðkþ1Þ ðxðkÞ xðk1Þ Þ;
ð33Þ
k1 :¼ kðkÞ þ xðkþ1Þ ðkðkÞ kðk1Þ Þ;
xðkþ1Þ being an appropriate step-size amplification factor which can be used for reducing the step-size in the
nonlinear regions of the path or extending it in the linear ones. This predictor estimate is iteratively updated

xjþ1 ¼ xj þ x_ j ;
ð34Þ
kjþ1 ¼ kj þ k_j
by the correction fx_ j ; k_j g obtained by solving the linear system

pk_j ¼ rj ;
Hj x_ j ^
ð35Þ
gx x_ j þ gk k_j ¼ 0;
T
Fig. 5. Riks iterative scheme.
Hj being the Hessian matrix associated to Eq. (30) evaluated in x ¼ xj :

ds½x

Hj :¼ : ð36Þ
dx x¼xj
Notice that the linear system (35) can be solved by partitioning
8 1 _ pÞ;
< x_ j ¼ Hj ðrj þ kj ^
>
1
gTx Hj rj ð37Þ
: k_j ¼ T 1
>
gx H j ^p þ gk
whose execution requires the triangular decomposition of matrix Hj , which is the most expensive operation
from a numerical point of view. This way of attaining the solution is depicted in Fig. 5.
The nonlinear system (30) collects all the equations and variables of the problem, so it has relatively large
dimensions. Therefore, the decomposition of Hj implies relatively high computational costs. However,
many of its equations, i.e. the damage evolution, constitutive and compatibility equations, have a local
nature being related to a single Gauss-point. This fact can be exploited assuming these equations as being
a-priori satisfied and using them for eliminating, by substitution, the associated variables.
For instance, the damage evolution law can be substituted in the constitutive equations, eliminating the
explicit reference to the a parameters; the constitutive equations can be substituted in the compatibility
ones, eliminating e variables; finally, the compatibility equations can be substituted in the equilibrium ones,
eliminating r variables. In this way, we obtain a more compact formulation of the problem, usually called
compatible formulation, where only the equilibrium equations and the displacement variables are main-
tained:
sc ½u
k^
pc ¼ 0; ð38Þ
sc and ^
pc being the structural response and the nominal external load in a compatible formulation. Now, the
Hessian matrix

dsc ½u

Kj :¼ ð39Þ
du u¼uj
proves to have dimensions much smaller than Hj and so it is more suitable to a numerical solution of the
system. For this reason the compatible formulation is so widely used that it can be considered as standard.
The use of the formulation (38) rather than the extended one (30) is completely equivalent with respect to
the definition of the solution. However, the two formulations can behave very differently when they are
used in a Newton–Raphson iteration scheme. Indeed, as shown in [10], the convergence behaviour of the
iterative process is highly sensitive to the formulation of the problem and mainly depends on which
variables are used for its description. This is an important consideration in the present context because the
damage growth introduces an unstable behaviour which tends to slow the iterative process and, using
inadequate choices, can cause a failure in convergence [13,19].
It is worth mentioning that it can be very hard to overcome convergence difficulties when using com-
patible formulations. In this case, for avoiding a premature abort of the solution process, due to the loss
in convergence, a kind of freezing of the crack opening during the iteration is usually suggested [13]. This
simple trick corresponds to the use of an Euler extrapolation of the damage law and could be justified by
the small size of the step. Indeed, the extrapolation error can be reduced by shortening the step length and it
is partially recovered in the subsequent steps. However, this approximation implies some drift phenomena
in recovering the equilibrium path and, in the presence of unstable branches, can produce unpredictable
consequences. Therefore, it canÕt be used if the aim is to implement robust solution procedures able to
provide reliable results.
As shown in [10], a simpler and effective way to improve the convergence behaviour of the iteration
process is the use of alternative formulations able to reduce the nonlinearities of the problem, by means of
an appropriate choice of the description variables. We will see in the following sections how this does not
introduce, in the solution process, significant computational overcosts compared to a standard compatible
formulation.
3.2. Formulation choices
To avoid convergence difficulties, it is convenient to adopt a formulation based on three groups of

variables fe; r; ug, all considered and treated as main variables. Consequently, system (30) is composed of
three groups of equations:
8
< rr :¼ re ½e; a
þ r ¼ 0 constitutive eqs:;
r :¼ e Du þ kê ¼ 0 compatibility eqs:; ð40Þ
: e
rf :¼ DT r þ k^f ¼ 0 equilibrium eqs:;
where

a W½e
C½a
6 0
re ½e; a
:¼ E e er ½e
with ð41Þ
1þa a_ P 0
expresses the constitutive and damage evolution laws (15) and (25) for each Gauss-point. D is the discrete
compatibility operator collecting the local operators Dg , its transpose DT is the discrete equilibrium oper-
ator, E is the stiffness matrix collecting the local matrices Eg , and ^f and ê are the nominal external loads,
corresponding to block forces and joint distortions respectively. Assigned displacements kû and stresses k^ r
are contained in u and r, so providing contributions kDû and kDT r ^ which are treated as external loads in
the associated compatibility and equilibrium equations.
It is worth noting that all the nonlinearities of the problem lie in the constitutive equations. The equi-
librium and compatibility equations are linear, so in the iterative scheme (34) and (35) they are always
identically satisfied.
Letting
8 9
<e=
x :¼ r ð42Þ
: ;
u
the vector assembling the three groups of variables and
8 9
< 0 =
^
p :¼ ê D^
u ð43Þ
:^ ;
f DT r
^
the dual vector of the external actions, the Hessian matrix (36) used in the iterative scheme (34) and (35) is
2 3
Ej I
Hj ¼ 4 I D 5; ð44Þ
DT
where I is the identity matrix and

ore ½e; a
ore ½e; a
oa½e
Ej :¼ þ ð45Þ
oe oa oe a¼aj
e¼ej
is the only minor of Hj varying during the analysis and whose valuation could be non-banal.
This solution procedure is actually much simpler than it first appears. First of all, the iterative scheme
e of the submatrix Ej . In particular, the choice
is sufficiently robust to accept a rough estimate E
e :¼ E;
E ð46Þ
E being the elastic matrix for the undamaged structure, assures the convergence of the scheme in any case.
Furthermore, we can considerably save computational costs and obtain a formal simplification by ex-
e makes matrix Hj constant during the whole analysis. Then the solution of the
ploiting that the use of E
system (35) only needs the assembly and the factorization of the initial elastic matrix H and these relatively
expensive operations donÕt have to be repeated during the analysis.
Moreover, due to the local nature of the constitutive equations, the variables e and r can be conveniently
solved at the Gauss-point level, by means of a static condensation. In this way, the effective dimension of
the problem reduces to that of displacement variables alone and the solution of system (35) only needs the
assembly and decomposition of the ‘‘elastic stiffness matrix’’
K :¼ DT ED ð47Þ
without computational overcosts compared to a standard compatible formulation, which uses the same
matrix as approximation of the Hessian matrix (39). The distinction between the two formulations only lies
in the computational sequence for evaluating the residual vector rj . Indeed, in order to solve the linear
system (35), the operation H1 rj in (37) can be performed through the following sequence
?
? u_ j ¼ K1 frfj þ DT ðErej þ rrj Þg;
?
? e_ j ¼ Du_ j rej ; ð48Þ
?
y r_ j ¼ E_ej rrj
which shows how the effective equilibrium residual rfj þ DT ðErej þ rrj Þ is obtained by static condensation of
all the residuals. Note that, while using the same K matrix of the compatible scheme, the proposed scheme
produces a different correction that always satisfies equilibrium and compatibility exactly and is so char-
acterized by a much better convergence behaviour (see Section 3.5 for further details and refer to [10] for a
more detailed discussion of these topics).
3.3. Iterative updating of damage variable
The equations defining the damage evolution process are highly nonlinear. The evaluation of aj for a
given ej , required for computing, for each Gauss-point, re ½ej ; aj
and then the residual vector rrj , cannot be
obtained in closed form but has to be determined iteratively. We could use, for instance, a Newton–
Raphson iteration
?
? C;ai a_ i ¼ W½ej
C½ai
;
? ð49Þ
y aiþ1 :¼ maxfai þ a_ i ; aðkÞ g; with C;ai :¼ C;a a¼ai ;
where aðkÞ is the Gauss-point damage level achieved in the previous kth step. The scheme is initialized
assuming a0 :¼ aj1 .
Note that, as described at the end of Section 2.3, we can use instead of C;aj its approximation
e ;aj ¼ 2Rcr , constant during the whole analysis. Furthermore, due to the fact that aj is used during the
C
iterative external cycle (34) and (35), where, as we will show in the next section, an approximate evaluation
a~j aj is available from step (j 1), it is possible to stop the process at the first iteration, so obtaining the
simple expression

1 ðkÞ
aj ¼ max a~j þ ðW½ej
C½~
aj
Þ; a : ð50Þ
2Rcr
3.4. Summary of the solution algorithm
The system (35) yields the partitioned solution (37):

8
_ j þ k_j x
< x_ j ¼ x ^;
T_
g x ð51Þ
: k_j ¼ T x j ;
^ þ gk
gx x
where
_ j ¼ H1 rj ;
x ^ ¼ H1 ^
x p: ð52Þ
It is convenient to define the constraint function (32) by taking into account all the quantities of the
problem, including a, weighted in a homogeneous way by means of the energy metric:
g½x; k
:¼ DuT Ku_ j þ DeT E_ej þ DrT Fr_ j þ DaT Ca_ j þ lDkk_j ; ð53Þ
where the set fDu; De; Dr; Da; Dkg defines the tangent to the solution curve, F :¼ E1 , C is the diagonal
e ;a ¼ 2Rcr and l ¼ ûT Kû. Thus, k_j assumes the
matrix containing, for all the Gauss-points, the coefficients C
form
DuT Ku_ j þ DeT Ee_ j þ DrT Fr

_ j þ DaT Ca_ j
k_j ¼ ; ð54Þ
DuT K^
u T
j þ De E^ e þ Dr F^ T r þ DaT C^ aj þ lDk
where u _ j , e_ j , r
_ j and û, ê, r^ are the components of vectors x _ j and x^, respectively, and the vectors a_ j and âj ,
which take into account the damage evolution, collect for each Gauss-point the terms
1
W;ej e_ j if aj > aðkÞ ; 1
W;ej ê if aj > aðkÞ ;
a_ j ¼ 2Rcr ðkÞ
a^j ¼ 2Rcr ð55Þ
0 if aj ¼ a ; 0 if aj ¼ aðkÞ :
Notice that Eq. (54) requires an evaluation of the tangent to the solution curve: a convenient choice is given
by the current step increment:
Du ¼ Duj :¼ uj uðkÞ ; . . . ; Dk ¼ Dkj :¼ kj kðkÞ : ð56Þ

Also notice that, at the end of the jth loop, vectors a_ j and âj defined by Eq. (55) provide an estimate for
vector ajþ1
a_ j þ k_j ^
ajþ1 :¼ maxfaj þ
~ a; aðkÞ g ajþ1 ð57Þ
which can be used, in the new loop (j þ 1), as a starting value in the scheme (50).
In conclusion, the iterative solution algorithm for computing the new (k þ 1)th equilibrium point from
the previous (k)th one can be summarized in the following sequence:
repeat :
?
? aj ¼ maxf~ aj þ 2R1 cr ðW½ej
C½~ aj
Þ; aðkÞ g then Daj :¼ aj aðkÞ
?
? r ¼ r ½e ; a
þ rj
? rj e j j
? r ¼ e Du þ k ê
? ej j j j
?
? rfj ¼ DT rj þ kj^f
? 1
?x_
? j ¼ H rj ðperformed by partioning through sequence ð48ÞÞ
? T _ T _ T _
j þ DaTj Ca_ j
? k_ ¼ Duj Kuj þ Dej Eej þ Drj Fr

? j T
Duj K^ T
u þ Dej Eê þ Drj F^ T
r þ DaTj Câj þ lDkj
? ð58Þ
?
j þ k_j x
? x_ j ¼ x ^
?
? xjþ1 ¼ xj þ x_ j then Dxjþ1 :¼ xjþ1 xðkÞ
?
?~ ðkÞ
a_ j þ k_j âj
? ajþ1 :¼ maxfaj þ a_ j ; a g where a_ j :¼
y
until :
kx_ j k þ a_ Tj Ca_ j 6 k^xk tol
then compute the new point :
eðkþ1Þ ¼ ej ; rðkþ1Þ ¼ rj ; uðkþ1Þ ¼ uj ; aðkþ1Þ ¼ aj
where kxk is defined according to Eq. (53) and tol is the assumed relative tolerance on the equilibrium
error.
Once the (k þ 1)th point is computed, the step-counter is updated (k k þ 1) and the next step is ini-
tialized:
8
>
> e ¼ eðkÞ þ xðkþ1Þ ðeðkÞ eðk1Þ Þ;
< 1
r1 ¼ rðkÞ þ xðkþ1Þ ðrðkÞ rðk1Þ Þ;
ð59Þ
>
> u ¼ uðkÞ þ xðkþ1Þ ðuðkÞ uðk1Þ Þ;
: 1 ðkÞ ðkþ1Þ ðkÞ ðk1Þ
a1 ¼ a þ x ða a Þ:
Note that the path-following process obtains the new equilibrium point starting from an extrapolation of
the previous step, then iterates until the equilibrium check is satisfied. So it always iterates at least once. The
iteration loops required for performing each incremental step are related to the assumed tolerance tol, to
the step-size and to the path nonlinearity. The simple formula
1 nk
n
xðkþ1Þ :¼ 1 ; ð60Þ
2 nk þ
n
nk being the number of iteration loops made in the previous step and n an assigned reference number, can be
conveniently used for obtaining an adaptive choice for the step size factor xðkþ1Þ . Small values for the
reference loops number, n ¼ 2–5, usually reduce the total number of iterations needed by the solution
process and then speed up the analysis.
3.5. Compatible versions of the solution algorithm
It is worth comparing the proposed mixed (MIX) solution scheme (58) with its standard compatible
versions (CMP) which can be summarized as follows:
repeat
? :
? ej :¼ Duj kjê
?
? aj ¼ a½ej
?
? rj :¼ re ½ej ; aj
?
? r ¼ DT r þ k ^f
? j j j
? 1
? u_ j ¼ K rj
? DuT K u_ j
?_ ð61Þ
? kj ¼ T j
? Duj K^ u þ lDkj
?
? u_ ¼ u þ k_ ^
u
? j j j
? u ¼ u þ u_ then Du :¼ u uðkÞ
? jþ1 j j j j
y
until :
u_ Tj Ku_ j 6 ^ uT K^ u tol
where a½ej
represents a procedure capable of solving for each Gauss-point the problem
C½aj
W½ej
6 0; aj P aðkÞ : ð62Þ
A possible alternative to this scheme, aiming at reducing convergence problems, is obtained by freezing the
damage parameter during the iteration loops (EulerÕs extrapolation, EUL), that is, by modifying the first
step of the sequence into

ej :¼ Duj kjê;
ð63Þ
rj :¼ re ½ej ; ~
aðkþ1Þ
;
where ~aðkþ1Þ aðkþ1Þ is the damage ‘‘frozen’’ at the loop j ¼ 1, i.e. a~ðkþ1Þ :¼ a½ej¼1
.
Note that the differences between mixed and compatible schemes lie essentially in how the stress update
is performed: by iterating through the residual (MIX), or by directly using the constitutive law (CMP,
EUL). The computational work is essentially the same for all schemes.
4. Some numerical examples
Some of the numerical results obtained by the proposed algorithm are presented here. All tests refer to a
regular masonry pattern with 50% drift and use the basic data reported in Table 1.
The tests are mainly intended to show the in-plane shear wall behaviour, which represents the main
aspect characterizing the structural safety of masonry buildings subject to seismic actions, and are carried
out using monotonic and cyclic shear actions, after superimposing the vertical loads. Each test reports the
wall geometry and the applied loads, the load/displacement curve and the displacement configuration and
the damage map in the final state. For a better illustration, the displacements in the drawings are amplified
by a factor of 4.
All tests are obtained using tol ¼ 104 and different values (2–5) for n. A maximum number of possible
iterations equal to 10 has also been assumed, for safety purposes: once reached it causes the step-size be
halved and the iterative scheme restarted. The number of times this fact occurs is also reported, as the
number of ‘‘false steps’’.
Table 1
Basic test characteristics
Bricks:
B 250 mm
s 120 mm
H 55 mm
Drift 50%
Joints:
a 10 mm
E 200 MPa
G 10 MPa
rt 0.4 MPa
q 0.8
/ 30°
4.1. Simple compression-shear and simple tensile test
The two tests reported in this section refer to the simplest case of two bricks linked by a bed mortar joint
and differ only in the loading.
In the first test, which is intended to show the shear-friction behaviour of the joint, the upper brick is
subjected to a constant vertical load (18 KN) and cyclic horizontal load F . The analysis is driven by the
loading phase sequence reported in Fig. 6, preceded by a compressive loading phase arrested at the value of
18 KN of the vertical load. The shear response of the joint is shown in Fig. 7.
In the second test, which is intended to show the fracture behaviour under pure tensile load, the upper
brick is subjected to a cyclic vertical load F , v, whose history is represented in Fig. 8. The tensile response of
the joint is shown in Fig. 9.
Note that, in the former test, the behaviour is characterized by a bilinear hysteretic response composed
of an elastic unloading and a subsequent friction sliding; in the latter test the unloading is linear without
hysteresis.
Fig. 6. Load history for the test in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Pure compression-shear test.
Fig. 8. Load history for the test in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. Pure tensile test.

4.2. Comparison between different solution algorithms
The tests presented in this section show a comparison between the proposed MIX solution algorithm
and the compatible versions, CMP and EUL, by using different number of n. The results are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, including the CPU times (Pentium II 350), the total steps, the total number of iteration
loops and false steps.
4.2.1. Simple wall

The first test refers to the simple wall in Fig. 10. The analysis is driven by a preliminary compressive
force-control loading phase, stopped when the compressive vertical load attains the value of 0.5 MPa,
which is followed by a shear displacement-control loading phase, stopped when u ¼ 18 mm.
The equilibrium paths provided by the three iteration schemes are reported in Fig. 11. All schemes have
been able to complete the whole loading path and give practically coincident solution curves, while needing
different computational times. The better performance of the MIX scheme can be seen in its smaller exe-
cution times and iteration numbers in Table 2. Because of the adaptive step resizing strategy used, it also
needs a small number of steps. Moreover, the EUL scheme seems to be preferable to the CMP one (this will
be more apparent in the successive test). It is worth noting that better performances are obtained when
using n ¼ 2 (the optimal value for
n tends to slightly increase for more complex problems).
Table 2
Comparison of algorithms performances for the wall in Fig. 10
Solution Final u n ¼ 5 n ¼ 4
scheme (mm) Time (s) Total Total False steps Time (s) Total Total False steps
loops steps loops steps
MIX 18 0.508 219 74 3 0.489 219 77 1
EUL 18 0.679 351 95 4 0.662 343 103 1
CMP 18 0.732 375 106 5 0.712 366 115 1
n ¼ 3 n ¼ 2
MIX 18 0.462 196 85 1 0.417 168 99 0
EUL 18 0.581 315 108 2 0.534 298 128 1
CMP 18 0.626 336 121 2 0.576 318 143 1
Table 3
Comparison of algorithm performances for the wall in Fig. 14
Solution Final u n ¼ 5 n ¼ 4
scheme (mm) Time (s) Total Total False Time (s) Total Total False
loops steps steps loops steps steps
MIX 22.5 3.031 468 135 4 2.764 434 143 3
EUL 17.0a 1.984 391 269 4 1.979 393 271 4
CMP 15.5a 2.001 407 261 5 1.991 421 266 5
n ¼ 3 n ¼ 2
MIX 22.5 2.501 386 156 3 2.248 357 172 2
EUL 17.0a 1.865 390 280 4 1.801 385 283 4
CMP 15.5a 1.985 410 269 5 1.981 405 271 5
a
Stop for convergence failure.
Fig. 10. Geometry (in mm) and loads.
Fig. 11. Comparison between equilibrium paths computed using MIX, CMP and EUL schemes for the wall in Fig. 10.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the damage map and the displacement configuration at the end of the analysis.
Note that, due to the relative slenderness of the wall, the damage mainly lies in the wall base.
From Fig. 11, it can be seen that, for high damage levels, the wall response is approximately flat. This is
due to the dominant effect of the friction shear when the other resistance capabilities of the wall pull down.
Actually, the ratio between the total shear (29 KN) and the global compressive force acting in the sliding
plane (46.2 KN) is c ¼ 29=46:2 0:63, which is about the value of the assumed friction coefficient
c ¼ tanð30°Þ 0:58.
Fig. 12. Final displacement configuration.
Fig. 13. Final damage map.
4.2.2. Wall with a window opening

This test refers to the wall with a window opening shown in Fig. 14. The analysis is driven, as in the
previous test, by two different loading phases: the former is a compressive force-control phase arrested at
the value of 0.15 MPa of the vertical load (see Fig. 14); the latter is a shear displacement-control phase
arrested at the value of u ¼ 22:5 mm.
The test is slightly harder than the previous one. Due to failures in convergence, both the EUL and the
CMP scheme have not been able to recover the whole equilibrium path; this has been only fully recovered
by the MIX scheme (see Fig. 15 and Table 3). Apart from its robustness, the better behaviour of the MIX
scheme is also apparent from Table 3 and, here once more, the EUL scheme proves to be more convenient
than the CMP one. Better performances are obtained for n ¼ 2–3.
The damage map and displacement configuration provided by the MIX scheme at the end of the analysis
are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. As in the previous case, the final shear response of the wall shows a global
25 F (kN)
20
u = 17.0 mm
u = 15.5 mm
15
Solution u = 22.5 mm
algorithms
10 MIX
EUL
CMP
5
u (mm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fig. 15. Comparison between equilibrium paths computed using MIX, CMP and EUL schemes for the wall in Fig. 14.
friction behaviour, being c ¼ 14:6=27:9 0:52. It is worth mentioning that the EUL variant of the com-
patible scheme, while providing a better convergence behaviour than the CMP version, was not really able
to avoid failures in convergence.
4.3. Random distribution of Rcr
The numerical tests reported in this section aim to show the influence of masonry dishomogeneity. They
refer to the wall in Fig. 10, assuming a random distribution for the critical toughness Rcr which is computed
by the following formula
Rcr ¼ ð1 þ grÞR cr ; ð64Þ
Fig. 18. Comparison between equilibrium paths obtained by different Rcr random distributions for the wall in Fig. 10.
R cr being the mean value of the critical toughness, obtained by the Eq. (24) and the value of rt reported in
Table 1, g is the average imperfection size and r is obtained, for each Gauss-point, by a flat random dis-
tribution varying in the range ½1; þ1
.
The tests are carried out by the mixed scheme using different values of g.
The load/displacement plots are shown in Fig. 18. The final damage maps and displacement configu-
rations are reported in Fig. 19. Note that the different curves attain approximately the same final value of
the horizontal force, which represents a mean shear response ruled by the friction. The greater differences
involve, in practice, only the path obtained for g ¼ 0:5. In fact, comparing the final configurations (see Fig.
19), a different collapse mechanism is activated. Finally the algorithm is tested also for different values of n
(see Table 4).
Fig. 19. Comparison of the final displacement configurations and damage maps.
Table 4
n
g ¼ 0:0 g ¼ 0:1
Time (s) Total loops Total steps False steps Time (s) Total loops Total steps False steps
5 4.479 637 156 6 4.459 636 153 6
4 4.480 605 170 5 4.464 604 168 5
3 3.565 547 188 2 3.537 543 186 2
2 3.392 457 221 2 3.263 451 220 2
g ¼ 0:2 g ¼ 0:3
5 4.439 631 154 6 4.428 636 157 6
4 4.465 601 171 5 4.358 598 174 4
3 3.537 544 185 2 3.560 551 183 2
2 3.310 458 223 2 3.296 459 219 2
g ¼ 0:4 g ¼ 0:5
5 4.312 629 151 5 4.038 588 138 5
4 4.406 607 174 4 4.082 579 151 3
3 3.612 554 191 2 3.324 531 153 2
2 3.357 461 230 2 3.121 443 208 1
4.4. Influence of the tensile strength rt
This test aims to show the behaviour of the panel when changing the tensile strength rt of the mortar
joints. The results refer to the simple wall with a window opening subjected to an initial compressive load
(see Fig. 20).
The test is performed, as in the previous cases, by an initial compressive force-control loading phase
(stopped at the vertical load value of 0.1 MPa), followed by a shear displacement-control loading phase
(stopped at the horizontal displacement value of u ¼ 20 mm): the control lies in constraining both vertical
displacements and rotations at the top of the wall (which is represented in Fig. 20 by the upper stiff beam).
Note that a decrease of rt causes not only a lowering of the pick shear response of the panel (see Fig. 21),

Fig. 21. Comparison between equilibrium paths obtained by different values of rt for the wall in Fig. 20.
but also activates a different inelastic mechanism (see Fig. 22). Also in this test, the frictional behaviour
plays a leading role in the global shear response. In fact, by observing the different equilibrium paths (Fig.
21), we can conclude that, although attaining different pick values, the shear response tends to similar final
values. Also in this case, the algorithm performances are tested for different values of n (see Table 5).
4.5. Influence of the friction angle /
The present test aims to investigate the influence of the friction angle /. All results refer to the wall with a
door shown in Fig. 23, by considering different values for / (in particular / ¼ 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°. As in the
other cases, the analysis is driven by a preliminary compressive loading phase followed by a shear loading
phase. The former is arrested at the achievement of the vertical load value of 0.15 MPa (see Fig. 23), the
latter at the value of u ¼ 15 mm.
With respect to the damage map (Fig. 24) there are not appreciable differences, while there are significant
differences in the equilibrium paths (see Fig. 25) and in the final displacement configurations (see Fig. 26).
The latter shows that for smaller (/ 6 10°) values of the friction angle, a sliding crack also occurs in the
right part of the wall (see Fig. 26, / ¼ 0°) causing a strong fall in the shear response (see Fig. 25).
The curves remain quite similar, until the path doesnÕt reach a damage level such that the response at the
base of the wall is ruled mainly by the friction; beyond this level, the structural shear response is different
and, in conditions of less friction, tends quickly to decrease.
However, in all cases, except when / ¼ 0°, the ratios c attains approximately the different friction co-
efficients: c ¼ 22=37:26 0:59 for tanð30°Þ 0:58, c ¼ 16=37:26 0:43 for tanð20°Þ 0:36 and c ¼
8=37:26 0:21 for tanð10°Þ 0:18. Finally, the comparison of the algorithm performances for different
values of n is reported in Table 6.
4.6. Wall subjected to cyclic shear loads
This test aims at investigating the behaviour of the wall when subjected to cyclic shear loads. All results
refer to the wall with a window opening shown in Fig. 27.
The analysis is driven by a preliminary compressive loading phase followed by several shear loading/
unloading phases. The first phase is arrested at the achievement of the vertical load value of 0.25 MPa (see
Fig. 27). The second phase is arrested at the different values of u reported in the load history (see Fig. 28);
Fig. 22. Comparison of the final displacement configurations and damage maps.
Table 5
n
rt ¼ 0:40 MPa rt ¼ 0:20 MPa
5 2.334 431 109 3 2.199 402 105 3
4 2.232 412 113 2 2.084 392 107 1
3 2.002 361 118 1 1.851 340 112 0
2 1.879 324 125 1 1.687 307 115 0
rt ¼ 0:10 MPa rt ¼ 0:05 MPa
5 1.769 321 91 2 1.585 292 85 1
4 1.646 298 94 1 1.560 284 87 1
3 1.554 281 99 0 1.503 279 88 0
2 1.548 275 103 0 1.462 264 93 0
this cyclic phase allows only horizontal displacements at the top of the wall (the presence of a stiff beam in
Fig. 27 emphasizes this fact).
Fig. 25. Comparison between equilibrium paths obtained by different values of / for the wall in Fig. 23.
Table 6

n / ¼ 30° / ¼ 20°
5 8.798 499 153 13 8.881 541 161 15
4 8.795 482 162 12 8.739 512 172 12
3 6.582 435 169 10 7.204 458 183 11
2 6.708 392 191 5 6.801 406 201 6
/ ¼ 10° / ¼ 0°
5 10.610 522 134 15 15.514 638 207 17
4 7.694 431 141 12 14.358 630 198 14
3 6.203 233 89 9 12.167 573 220 13
2 6.824 275 129 11 9.631 501 241 13
Fig. 28. Load history for the test in Fig. 27 controlled by the parameter u.
Fig. 29. Equilibrium path for the wall in Fig. 27.

Table 7
n
Time (s) Total loops Total steps False steps
5 15.299 731 288 12
4 13.151 624 295 6
3 13.255 614 298 6
2 13.232 612 301 5
First of all, note how, in this load condition, the structural response is ruled by a hysteretic behaviour
(see Fig. 29). After the sequence of subsequent loadings, the shear response reaches about 50% of the global
compressive force, equal to 62.1 KN.
Moreover, due mainly to the constraints applied at the top of the wall, the collapse mechanism tends to
have an ÔXÕ shape (see Fig. 30 and particularly Fig. 31). Also in this case, a comparison of algorithm
performances is made (see Table 7).
5. Conclusions
A discrete model suitable for the analysis of brick masonry walls subjected to in-plane cyclic loads has
been presented. The model is based on a discrete description of the wall, as an assembly of bricks and
mortar joints. The latter represent the only deformable elements of the system and are characterized by a
simple constitutive law, which, however, takes account of their main behaviour features: elasticity, damage
and friction.
An incremental solution strategy has been proposed, based on a mixed formulation in terms of dis-
placements, strains, stresses, damage and load parameters, and on a path-following mixed iterative scheme
which solves, in the incremental step, all the equations of the problem without introducing any heuristic
approximations. This scheme proved to be more robust and computationally convenient than classical
compatible schemes (formulated in terms of displacement variables alone); it allowed a reliable recovery of
the whole (pre- and post-critical) wall behaviour, even in the presence of strongly unstable damage growth.
It is worth noting that the ‘‘brick-and-joints’’ model described in the paper is, obviously, addressed to
theoretical investigations rather than to practical use in the analysis of real masonry constructions com-
posed of a large number of walls. Actually, it should be considered as a computational tool suitable for
providing ‘‘reference’’ solutions useful in the definition of equivalent masonry continua or in the setting up
of specialized finite elements suitable for a coarse description of masonry structures.
Note, also, that the choices made can be considered, in a way, over-simplified and only aimed at an
initial investigation. The model is able to describe the typical shear behaviour of masonry and emphasizes
the importance of the friction in the wall response for high damage levels, but some improvements in
constitutive modelling should be made to take into account other relevant aspects of the wall behaviour,
such as the occurrence of internal cracks in the bricks, the presence of compressive failure mechanisms and
the deterioration of the friction strengths produced by cyclic sliding deformations. Due to the organization
of the solution process, these extensions only require local adaptations without modifying the overall
equations format and the solution strategy: for instance, brick failures could be modelled by subdividing
the bricks and introducing specialized joints; other improvements can be obtained by introducing a plastic
behaviour in compression and relating the friction coefficients to the sliding drifts. However, this requires
further theoretical and experimental insight into masonry behaviour and further investigation for modelling
the out-of-plane behaviour.
Finally, we would like to mention that the proposed path-following solution strategy, although tested
only in a simple context, appears suitable for more general purposes and can be considered as a convenient
choice in the analysis of nonlinear structures with unstable response.
Acknowledgements
The research has been supported by the Italian Ministry of University Scientific and Technology Re-
search within the joint research project [5]. Particular thanks are due to all colleagues in the Laboratory of
Computational Mechanics at the University of Calabria (www.labmec.unical.it) for their help in preparing
this paper. We also thank all the participants in the joint research, for their comments and suggestions.
References
[1] G. Magenes et al., Experimental and numerical investigation on a brick masonry building prototype––Report 3: Numerical
prediction of the experiments, CNR––Gruppo nazionale per la difesa dai terremoti, task: Prevention of damages to building,
subtask: Experimental evaluation of the seismic behaviour of structures, January 1995.
[2] G. Magenes, G.M. Calvi, In plane seismic response of brick masonry walls, Earth. Eng. Struc. Dyn. 26 (1997) 1091–1112.
[3] L. Gambarotta, S. Lagomarsino, Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part I: the mortar joint
model and its applications, Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (1997) 423–439.
[4] L. Gambarotta, S. Lagomarsino, Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II: the continuum
model and its applications, Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (1997) 441–462.
[5] Italian Ministry of University Scientific and Technology Research (MURST), Cofin 1998–2000, Development of an integrated
strategy for the modelling and the analysis of masonry buildings, February 1999–February 2001. (www.murature.it).
[6] G. Alpa, A. Tafanelli, Equazioni costitutive per solidi elastici microfessurati, VII Congresso Nazionale AIMETA, Trieste, Italy,
1984.
[7] L. Gambarotta, S. Lagomarsino, A microcrack damage model for brittle materials, Int. J. Solids Struct. 30 (2) (1993) 177–198.
[8] H.R. Lofti, P.B. Shing, Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 120 (1) (1994) 63–80.
[9] E. Riks, An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems, Int. J. Solids Struct. 15 (1979) 529–551.
[10] G. Garcea, A. Trunfio, R. Casciaro, Mixed formulation and locking in path-following nonlinear analysis, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 165 (1998) 247–272.
[11] V. Sansalone, R. Casciaro, Un modello lagrangiano per lÕanalisi lineare di pannelli murari, Report LabMec no. 13, University of
Calabria, Rende(CS), Italy, February 2000.
[12] G. Formica, R. Casciaro, Analisi nonlineare di pannelli murari soggetti a fenomeni di tipo fessurativo, Report LabMec n.16,
University of Calabria, Rende(CS), Italy, December 2000.
[13] G. Uva, Analisi di pareti murarie. Modellazione costitutiva del danneggiamento e strategie numeriche di soluzione, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Calabria, Rende(CS), Italy, February 1998.
[14] G. Salerno, G. De Felice, Continuum modelling of periodic brickwork, Int. J. Solids Struct, in press.
[15] A.W. Page, Finite element model for masonry, J. Struct. Div., ASCE 104 (1978) 1267–1285.
[16] S. Pietruszczak, X. Niu, A mathematical description of macroscopic behaviour of brick masonry, Int. J. Solids Struct. 29 (5) (1992)
531–546.
[17] J. Lemaitre, A Course on Damage Mechanics, Springer, Berlin, 1992.
[18] D. Broek, Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands, 1984.
[19] R. De Borst, Computation of post-bifurcation and post-failure behaviour of strain-softening solids, Comput. Struct. 25 (2) (1987)
211–224.

A Mixed Solution Strategy For The Nonlinear Analysis PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Mixed Solution Strategy For The Nonlinear Analysis PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

191 (2002) 5847–5876

A mixed solution strategy for the nonlinear analysis

Keywords: Masonry; Damage; Friction; Mixed formulation; Path-following analysis

2. The discrete model

2.1. Initial mechanical hypothesis

Fig. 1. Basic masonry model.

2.2. Constitutive relation

The damaged part is described as a no-tension frictional material:

The constitutive relation can be therefore synthesized as

2.3. Damage evolution law

Fig. 2. Damage evolution laws.

Note that the straight line

3. The solution strategy

3.1. General aspects

Fig. 3. Loading phases.

Fig. 4. Path-following approach.

Fig. 5. Riks iterative scheme.

Hj being the Hessian matrix associated to Eq. (30) evaluated in x ¼ xj :

3.2. Formulation choices

To avoid convergence diﬃculties, it is convenient to adopt a formulation based on three groups of

3.3. Iterative updating of damage variable

3.4. Summary of the solution algorithm

The system (35) yields the partitioned solution (37):

DuT Ku_ j þ DeT Ee_ j þ DrT Fr

Du ¼ Duj :¼ uj  uðkÞ ; . . . ; Dk ¼ Dkj :¼ kj  kðkÞ : ð56Þ

3.5. Compatible versions of the solution algorithm

4. Some numerical examples

4.1. Simple compression-shear and simple tensile test

Fig. 6. Load history for the test in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Pure compression-shear test.

Fig. 8. Load history for the test in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Pure tensile test.

4.2. Comparison between diﬀerent solution algorithms

4.2.1. Simple wall

Fig. 10. Geometry (in mm) and loads.

Fig. 12. Final displacement conﬁguration.

Fig. 13. Final damage map.

4.2.2. Wall with a window opening

Fig. 14. Geometry (in mm) and loads.

4.3. Random distribution of Rcr

Fig. 16. Final displacement conﬁguration.

Fig. 17. Final damage map.

4.4. Inﬂuence of the tensile strength rt

Fig. 20. Geometry (in mm) and loads.

4.5. Inﬂuence of the friction angle /

4.6. Wall subjected to cyclic shear loads

Fig. 23. Geometry (in mm) and loads.

Fig. 24. Final damage map.

Fig. 26. Final displacement conﬁguration.

Fig. 27. Geometry (in mm) and loads.

Fig. 29. Equilibrium path for the wall in Fig. 27.

Fig. 30. Final displacement conﬁguration.

Fig. 31. Final damage map.

S-ar putea să vă placă și

DuT Ku_ j þ DeT Ee_ j þ DrT Fr

Du ¼ Duj :¼ uj uðkÞ ; . . . ; Dk ¼ Dkj :¼ kj kðkÞ : ð56Þ