Simulation of Masonry in ANSYS and LS-DYNA

The Features and Challenges

Wolfram Jger, Tammam Bakeer & Peter Schps
Dresden University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Structural Design
Dresden, Germany

Summary
There is an ever-increasing demand for more advanced and user-friendly FEM packages. Despite the
great progress achieved in FEM industry, the modelling of masonry structures is still challenging at
several scales.
The present paper discusses the potential capabilities of both FEM packages ANSYS and LS-DYNA
for multiple scales modelling of masonry structures. The smeared and discrete modelling approaches,
constitutive models and solution strategies will be discussed and the outcome will be supported with
examples for unreinforced and reinforced masonry.
Further discussion will be given to the difficulties and challenging problems. The paper will be
concluded to recommendations to enhance the current state and the aspects of future works.

Keywords
ANSYS, LS-DYNA, masonry, explicit/ implicit solvers

1.

Introduction

The multipurpose finite element packages like ANSYS and LS-DYNA have many potential and user
programmable features to solve civil engineering problems. Masonry structures in all forms and types,
the historical and todays structures, have received a great attention in recent decades in parallel to
the advance achieved in FEM industry.
Numerical models of masonry are based on two methodologies. First, mesoscopic detailed
descriptions consider masonry as a heterogeneous structure with separate descriptions of each
constituent. Second, models intended for large-scale structural calculations are generally of a
phenomenological nature, and represent the collective behaviour of constituents by closed-form
macroscopic constitutive equations. The two principle modelling strategies are correspond to three
different scales of complexity which have been identified by Loureno [18] and Rots [23]:
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

- Micro modelling or two phase material model: starting from the knowledge of single constituents.
Each component of masonry has its own behaviour which might be complex. This modelling strategy
can be categorized into:
(a) Detailed micro-modelling whereby units and mortar represented as continuum, with the
unit/mortar interfaces modelled using discontinuous interfaces as potential crack, slip and crushing
planes;
(b) Simplified micro-modelling through the adoption of "geometrically expanded" masonry units with
a single "averaged" interface representing the mortar and the two mortar/unit interfaces. This
model requires the material model of the expanded unit and masonry joints.
- Macro-modelling or single phase material model, the quasi-periodic nature of masonry has prompted
to investigate the use of homogenization techniques, where all masonry components are smeared by
an equivalent homogenized continuum. One-phase material models have been treated masonry as an
ideal homogeneous material with constitutive equations that differ from those of the components.

2.
2.1

Methods of modelling
Discrete Modelling

1 (1,1)

transformation to
isoparametric
coordinates of the
master segment

slave node

segment normal

2 (-1,1)

projection distance

Several discrete modelling methods are available in literature (Rigid Bodies Spring Method,
Discontinuous Deformation Analysis, Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics, Modified Discrete Element
Method, Combined Finite-Discrete Elements and Applied Element Method), Bakeer [5]. The modelling
methods which can be used in ANSYS and LS-DYNA are mainly based on discretization of the
structure and defining the interface model which has contact formulation or interface element. The
available ANSYS contact elements (ideal plastic, linear softening) and the interface elements
(exponential load displacement relationship) can be employed for modelling masonry joints.
LS-DYNA has fully automated contact analysis capabilities, which make this software very userfriendly for contact analysis problems.
The node-segment pair is the root level of all contact types in LS-DYNA. The node is a point with
mass and is usually named as slave node. The segment is either 3-noded or 4-noded connectivity
information and is usually named as master segment. The contact algorithm consists of the following
steps, Bala [6]:
(a) The slave node-master segment pair is assembled so that, the projection of the slave node onto
the master segment, along the master segment normal must lie within the area enclosed by the 3
or 4 nodes of the segment. The projection point called contact point and the distance from slave
node to contact point called projection distance. In order to collect the nodes which may lie near
the edges, it is necessary to use a small increase in the area of the segment. LS-DYNA uses an
additional 2% increase to the master segment.

master segment

scaled segment
contact point

3 (-1,-1)

Figure 1

4 (1,-1)

Assemblage of slave node- master segment pair

(b) Determining of the contact point in the isoparametric coordinates of the master segment.
(c) Computing the projection distance in the local coordinate system which is embedded in the
master segment.
(d) When the projection distance found to be negative, its absolute value indicates the depth of the
penetration. The slave nodal force is calculated according to the following equation
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

f
{s

contact force

K
{c

contact stiffness

(1)

penetration depth

(e) Distributing the contact force to the master segment nodes. Each master node gets a fraction of
the slave force based on the contact point location by using the isoparametric shape functions
Discrete modelling is very high time consuming for modelling masonry structures, even with high
performance computers. As an example, LS-DYNA model was built to explore the effect of earthquake
characteristics on the collapse of historical masonry buildings Figure 2, each calculation was
performed using parallel 40 Intel Itanium processors SGI Altix 4700 at the centre of High
Performance Computing of TU-Dresden. The calculation for the model was carried out along 7 days
for only 20 seconds of loading.

Figure 2

2.2

Collapse analysis of the Mosque of Takiyya al-Sulaymaniyya under generated

earthquake model, Bakeer & Jger [4].

Smeared Modelling

In continuum methods the softening and local cracking of material have considered by the smeared
crack approach. The smeared crack approach was first developed to be used in concrete structures
and has been extended to masonry. In this approach cracks are modelled in an average sense by
modifying the material properties at the integration points of finite elements. Smeared cracks are
convenient when the crack orientations are not known beforehand, because the formation of a crack
involves no remeshing or new degrees of freedom. However, the smeared crack models can not be
able to simulate the final stage of softening process in masonry material, i.e. the full separation of the
continuum can not be accomplished by means of smeared crack models.
Many complications arise with continuum approach for the highly nonlinear behaviours, either from
material or geometrical perspectives. For instance, it is very difficult or unfeasible to use the continuum
approach to study the behaviour of materials or structures that change their status from continuum
state to entirely discrete state, like behaviour of structures before and during collapse.

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

The interest to develop continuous model for the discrete structure of masonry is due to computation
efficiencies gained by this model while the discrete type of analyses is very computer time consuming.
Furthermore, masonry often has periodic nature where the application of the homogenized continuum
model would allow for more elegant and efficient solution.
The plasticity theory has been employed to develop macro material models for in plane behaviour of
masonry. Loureno [18] has proposed an anisotropic model of two surfaces Rankine/Hill. Massart [21]
has developed two-dimensional anisotropic damage model in a multi-plane framework. Schlegel [24]
has implemented the material model of Ganz theory (Ganz [11]) in ANSYS software. Jger et al. [13],
[14] have implemented the shear theory of Mann & Mller in ANSYS to be employed for calculation of
minimum cross sectional area of the shear walls to develop simplified seismic design procedure. By
this constitutive law the cyclic elastoplastic behaviour have been realistically simulated. Mistler [22], as
well, has employed the shear failure theory of Mann & Mller [20] to implement a material model for
masonry panels in ANSYS.

Figure 3

3.
3.1

Continuum modelling for (a) the Church of our ladies (Frauenkirche), Dresden, Stoll. et
al.[26], (b) Plastic strains in multi-family building, Jger et al. [13] & [14].

Constitutive models
Constitutive models of masonry constituents

Masonry constituents belong to geo-materials. There are large amounts of experimental data reported
by different researchers over past years for masonry constituents. Different multi parameter yield
functions have been proposed to fit with the experiential data, which have been resulted in a variety of
constitutive models capable to represent various aspects of geo-materials behaviour, such as
limestone, granite, as well as concrete and ceramics. The key feature of material model is to identify
the relationship between the stress tensor and strain tensor based on few parameters that
characterize the material behaviour.
In ANSYS most materials basically can better simulate the hardening behaviour. However, the
concrete material in ANSYS can be used with Solid element 65 to represent brittle softening. ANSYS
has user-programmable features that offer the possibility to implement user materials. To consider the
softening behaviour of masonry constituents, 2D material model has been implemented Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows the calculation of element length to consider the possible orientation of crack. The
material model has been tested on shear wall to examine the damage patterns and the load deflection
curve, Figure 6.
LS-DYNA comprises material models that cover a wide range of masonry constituents, but such
materials have been developed basically for concrete and soils. They represent the general behaviour
of many geo-materials. The candidate LS-DYNA materials for masonry are: Soil and foam material
model No.5, Pseudo tensor material model No.16, Concrete material No. 72, Winfrith concrete
material model No. 84, Cap material models No.25, No.145 and No.159. However, the general triaxial

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

empirical laws of many masonry materials are still lacking in literature and further investigations are
required.

0
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

-1

1 in N/mm

-2

2 + 2 ( f )2
TT Region
2
t
t
1
F = 1 k f k 2 t f t k f k t f t TC Region

2
2
1 + 2 1 2 k f k CC Region

-3

-4

-5

-6

1 in N/mm

Figure 4

-7

The yield surface of multiple functions

lcal

lcal

lcal

Figure 5

Possible crack orientation and calculation of the correspond element length

Figure 6

Load-deflection curve and damage pattern at load of 0.55 N/mm (0.5 0) without defining
contact on the head joints (variation coefficient of tensile strength 15%)

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

3.2

Constitutive models of the interfaces

Various numerical approaches can be employed to simulate the crack formation, tied or adhesive
contact surfaces with failure, interface elements, breakable tied nodes and pre-refinement of the mesh
along potential crack. Those numerical approaches can only give a real representation of the
interfaces in case of masonry if an accurate constitutive model is employed. All these numerical
approaches are already implemented in LS-DYNA with various options, but the possibility to employ
those approaches for masonry with the appropriated options and the validation is still questioned.
Due to the robustness of contact algorithms in LS-DYNA, the available contact options for modelling
masonry interfaces have been examined. The Tiebreak contact in LS-DYNA allows the modelling of
connections which transmits both compressive and tensile forces with optional failure criterion. The
separation of the slave node from the master is resisted by contact spring for both tensile and
compressive forces until failure, after which the tensile coupling is removed, Bala [6]. The option 6 of
contact tiebreak permits damage modelling by scaling the stress components after failure is met. The
following yield function has been employed:

F (, ) =

( )
(2)
c2
where: f t tensile strength of the interface, c shear strength of the interface, ( ) linear damage
function, given by ( ) = 1 , the damage scalar given by = w / wc , and w , wc current
ft 2

crack width and crack width at failure, respectively.

After the damage is initiated, the stress is linearly scaled down until the crack width reaches the critical
distance wc at which the interface failure is complete. Tiebreak contact in LS-DYNA uses penalty
method. This produces some relative displacement between the surfaces before the damage of the
contact which results in deponding, due to which, the yield criterion is possible to be achieved. This
brings out an unrealistic behaviour because the tractions between the surfaces are suddenly jumped
down. Further options to prevent this behaviour are available in LS-DYNA by increasing the stiffness
scale factor of the contact. However, care should be taken with higher penalty stiffness, which results
in high frequency modes and therefore instability in the solution.
Beattie et al. [7], Beattie et al. [8] and Burnett et al. [10] have developed a discrete crack model in LSDYNA for modelling masonry joints within a project to study the performance of masonry parapet walls
that subjected to vehicle impact. The yield surface in the proposed model is concave. For this reason
the return mapping has been used parallel to shear axis in compression region instead of radial return
mapping, but in such case the assumption of the plastic potential theory (Huber-von Mises theory) is
not valid.
Several interface models have been developed in literature to model masonry mortar joints. Interface
element also has been developed in LS-DYNA in ver. 971, and has been used for problems of
dynamic delamination modelling, Iannucci [12] and modelling of damage in composite materials, Jiang
et al.[15]. Interface elements are available to be used with the following cohesive material models in
LS-DYNA:
(1) Elastic cohesive material model,
(2) Tvergaard and Hutchinson cohesive material model, and
(3) General cohesive material model.
To simulate the dynamic events after the failure of the interface elements, it would be possible to
replace the surfaces which linked by the failed interface elements with frictional contact model. The
deletion of the interface element after the failure does not bring any loss in the mass if the thickness of
the interface element has been set to zero. In such way, the inherent difficulties associated with large
displacement after the failure of the interface element also are avoided. In LS-DYNA contact eroding
single surface offers a possibility to detect the contact on the eroded surfaces after the failure of the
interface element.
The adoption of non-smooth yield surface needs further treatments for corners which increase the
complexity of implementation, and increase the computation time. The complexity is going to be worse
especially for explicit solvers like LS-DYNA, where the material subroutine has to be called in time
steps smaller than those in implicit solvers. An interface model has been implemented into LS-DYNA
that based on smoothed yield surface (Bakeer [5]), It reduces the computation time and avoids the
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

treatments of corners, Figure 7. The proposed model is multi yield surface but does not need any
further treatment of the transition points.
23

arctan( )
Region 3

Shear Stress

= 0 + (r 0) (1 ())
F2 = c () +

F1 = 2 +

F3 = 2 Ff2 Fc

+ L(c )

X (c ) L(c )
Ff = c () +

c2
(1 ) 2 + 2 c c 2 2
ft 2

c ()

Softening

arctan( r )

Fc =1
-fc c (c )

F12

Region 2

Region 1

-L (c )

f t ( )

normal stress

f t 2

2 1
c 2
B=

2 1
c 2

C=
4 1
A=

Region 2

F12

F23

Figure 7

The smooth yield surface of the cohesive interface model, Bakeer [5].

In ANSYS a user-interface element has been developed for modelling masonry joints and discrete
simulation of cracks. The implemented model has yield surface of two parts, the compression part
governed by Mohr-Coulomb surface and the tensile part governed by elliptic yield surface, Figure 8.
Several options have been provided for the definition of the strength-crack width relationships: linear,
bilinear, exponential, and Hordijk functions.

fvk0-

Linear
Bilinear

Elliptic
part
fvk0

Exponential

Softening

Hordijk

S
w
-

ft
Figure 8

wc

The yield surface and the possible functions for strength-crack width relationship

The implemented subroutine has been examined by three point flexural test, and DIN shear test. The
simulation results of the three point bending test Figure 9 and the DIN shear test have been

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

demonstrated good conformity with tests results. The influences of the crack energy and element size
have been studied. Figure 10 shows the results for brittle and ductile behaviours.
300
Versuch Spaltffnung
250

FEM linear
FEM bilinear

200
Last in N

FEM exponentiell
150

FEM Hordijk

100
50
0
0

0,2

-50

Figure 9

0,4

0,6

0,8

Weg in mm

(Left) Simulated bending test with a notched prism for an inverse calculation of the
crack energy by using user- implemented Interface-Elements, (Right) Comparison of
FEM and test for tensile strength of 0.78 N/mm and crack energy of 10 N/m for
different softening functions (PP4 AAC)

1
mittlere Haftscherfestigkei
nach DIN 18555-5 [N/mm]

0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3

sprde
duktil

0,2
0,1
0
0

Figure 10

4.

50

100
150
Elementlnge [mm]

200

Influence of crack energy and element size

Meshfree methods

The Lagrangian mesh based numerical methods like FEM show a lot of difficulties when are applied to
simulate the fracture and fragmentation of material under high dynamic loading. The combination of
finite element with discrete element method brings out a great enhancement. However, it is still based
on mesh connectivity which shows difficulties at the level of one discrete element.
Contrary to the Lagrangian mesh, the Eulerian mesh is fixed on the space and by time the materials
are flowing across the mesh. Therefore, large deformations in the material do not cause any
deformations in the mesh. By this way the numerical problems in Lagrangian mesh based methods
can be avoided at this point. Nevertheless, Eulerian methods dominate the area of computational fluid
dynamic, and the application of this method for irregular geometries brings up a lot of difficulties.
The Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches have been combined to overcome the limitations of each
other and to produce more robust numerical approaches, like CEL coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL)
and Arbitrary Lagrange Eulerian (ALE), (Liu et al. [16] & [17]). Those approaches have been
developed basically to solve problems of solid fluid interaction. Despite the great success of mesh
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

based methods, the prerequisite of mesh is the main reason for the limitation of those methods and at
the same time it is the key of success.
Several research efforts during the last years have been concerned to develop mesh independent
methods, which have been driven to mesh free methods. The key idea of mesh free methods is to
represent the domain of the problem using a set of nodes or particles without considering any
connectivity in between.
Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) is one of mesh free Lagrangian methods which already
implemented into LS-DYNA. It has features of the simplicity and adaptability to handle large
deformations without regarding the distribution of particles. Figure 11 shows 2D SPH modelling for
masonry shear wall. Masonry units as well as mortar have been represented using SPH particles
spaced each 1 cm. The whole model is composed of 5625 SPH particles. The initial SPH density for
each particle is considered to be equally distributed over unit or over mortar. Few geo-materials in LSDYNA support SPH modelling. Concrete model No.72 has been employed for unit and mortar
materials. Vertical and horizontal displacements have been applied increasingly on the model, to
simulate the shear failure of the wall.
SPH analysis of the masonry shear wall has been demonstrated the ability of this method to represent
all failure modes, even the fragmentation due to compressive crushing which difficult to handle in finite
element analysis.
Unit 23x23x15 cm

Horizontal displacement

Vertical displacement

2D SPH model for Masonry shear wall

Figure 11

5.

Plastic strain output results of SPH analysis

SPH analysis of masonry shear wall in LS-DYNA

Loading regime

The type of loading has a great influence on the performance of the FEM solver. Explicit based
integration solvers are highly recommended to solve short duration loading problems, whereas implicit
based solvers are recommended to solve long term loading problems. LS-DYNA is basically has
powerful explicit solver, therefore, it has widely employed to simulate high dynamic events like impact,
explosion, and earthquake actions. On other hand, ANSYS has powerful implicit solver with which the
static and long term loading problems can be well solved.
The combination of explicit and implicit solvers is common in both FEM packages when several
loading regimes are being applied in sequence. For example, it is essential, before imposing the
earthquake action, or wind action on the model, to initialize the stresses and deformation state in the
structure which can be developed from gravity loads. The application of gravity loads immediately
together with earthquake loads causes further unwanted vertical vibrations to the structure at the
beginning of simulation. Therefore, in order to eliminate the dynamic effect of gravity loads, it must be
applied (statically) through enough time. Therefore, the implicit solver can be lunched until getting the
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

stresses and deformation states and then running the explicit solver for earthquake loads. Figure 12
and Figure 13 show examples of using different solvers for applying different loading sequence.

40%g
(b)

(a)

Figure 12

Simulation of masonry structure under earthquake actions, (a) full scale experimental
test carried out in Ispra, Anthoine [2], (b) collapse analysis of the tested specimen
under 40%g, Bakeer [5].

High Wind
pressure

Figure 13

6.

Simulation the dynamic response of the structure for high wind pressure

Confined masonry

Confined masonry differs from both reinforced masonry and infill masonry. The most essential
difference in comparison with infill masonry consists in the fact that masonry carries a portion of the
vertical load. The sequence in the erection of the structural members is therefore an important factor
for confined masonry
In the following the typical numerical crack patterns have been simulated in ANSYS (Schps et al.
[25]). Compared with unconfined masonry the cracks are found out clearly wide and also the stress
distribution in the masonry is more homogeneous. In Figure 14, it can be seen that the first cracks
goes diagonally through the masonry and both resulting wall halves are held together by the frame.
With the most unfavourable estimation that both wall halves take the same portion of the shear load a
shear action arises for the frame by the half height of the external shear load.
The joint failure could be examined only numerically, because the bond strength of the used AAC-unit
is greater than the tensile strength of the units. The failure type varies depending on the unit geometry,
the vertical load, and the relation of tensile bond strength to the initial shear strength. The gaping
shown on the right in Figure 14 must not lead to failure in the case of confined masonry, but rather to
an additional load of the frame.
ANSYS Conference &
27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

10

Figure 14

7.

Left: numerical crack pattern for masonry wall (monotonic static loading)
Right: Joint failure for shorter masonry unit without unit failure (normal stress,
compression is positive)

Modelling of reinforced masonry

Various modelling approaches have been proposed for masonry. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the
reinforcement into the model is still challenging, and fraught with difficulties, consequently, reinforced
masonry is still lacking in literature. In analogue with modelling strategies that have been proposed for
reinforced concrete models, the following modelling strategies can be employed for the reinforced
masonry: discrete modelling and smeared modelling.
7.1

Discrete modelling

In discrete modelling, the reinforcement can be modelled by means of bar elements, and masonry can
be modelled using solid elements (2D or 3D). The nodes of reinforcement bars must be merged with
masonry elements through the shared nodes, Figure 15-a.
nodes of reinforcement bar

sheared node between

reinforcement and unit
points of compatible
displacements between
reinforcement and unit

reinforced bar element

unit finite element

reinforced bar element

(a) Discrete reinforcement model

Figure 15

(b) Embedded reinforcement model

Discrete modelling of reinforced masonry

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

11

The restriction to create shared nodes might result in some inflexibility in mesh generation. However, it
is not quite accurate to apply full bonding between the reinforcement and masonry mesh. The bonding
model can be represented by dummy spring elements that connect the duplicated nodes from
reinforcement and masonry. The spring element has no dimension and serves only as a breakable
linkage between reinforcement and masonry. Therefore, the failure model is the most important part of
spring element.
In order to avoid the restriction of node sharing between reinforcement and masonry, an embedded
formulation can be introduced. In the embedded formulation, the intersection points of reinforcement
bar with the segments of masonry elements are first identified and then used to create the nodal
locations of the reinforcement elements, Figure 15-b. Brookes et al. [9] have utilized the partially
constrained spar formulation to model reinforcement independently from masonry. The connection
between the reinforcement and masonry meshes was achieved through a non-linear bond element.
The arrangement of reinforcement is automated without the need for topologically consistent element
meshes. In LS-DYNA [19] the following methods can be employed for modelling the reinforcement of
masonry:
(1) Truss elements tied to solids by one dimensional contact
The 1D Contact was originally developed to offer bond slip failure for modelling reinforced
concrete. In addition, it is possible to employ this feature for reinforced masonry. The principle of
this contact model is to allow the sliding of reinforcement nodes along masonry nodes, where the
sliding initiates after the rebar debonds. The bond model is assumed to be elastic perfectly
plastic.
(2) Constrained Lagrange in solid
This constrained method has been developed for modelling the fluid structure interaction and
frequently used to embed the reinforcement rebar inside concrete element, Abu Odeh [1]. The
reinforcement mesh maintained to be fixed within the solid elements. However, the bond slip
failure has not been considered in this formulation. For masonry, the reinforcement can be
treated as a slave material that is linked to the master material of masonry by means of
constrained Lagrange in solid. Both masonry and reinforcement mesh must be Lagrangian.
(3) Constrained spotweld
The spotweld provides a breakable connection for the nodal points of the nodal pairs. The failure
force at which the spotweld is failing can be regarded as the pull-out force of reinforcement.
(4) Discrete beam elements
with nonlinear plastic discrete beam material to simulate failure of the beams.
Although several methods are available in LS-DYNA to build embedded discrete models of
reinforcement concrete, care should be taken when applying these methods on reinforced masonry by
considering the correct bonding behaviour between reinforcement and masonry.
7.2

Smeared modelling

The smeared approach integrates the reinforcement with masonry in one finite element. The resultant
element has to be constructed from the individual properties of masonry and reinforcement using
composite theory. This technique has been often applied to large structures, where the reinforced
details are not essential to capture the overall response of the structure. In LS-DYNA or ANSYS, there
are material models which can represent the reinforced concrete include an option to represent the
reinforcement in a smeared fashion. However, the material models that represent reinforced masonry
or even unreinforced masonry in smeared approach are missing in LS-DYNA and ANSYS.
The simulation of reinforced masonry is of great interest for retrofitting and rehabilitation of cultural
heritage masonry structures. It is also important to understand the interaction between the
reinforcement and masonry to identify the modes of failures and to propose the design procedures. In
Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 are examples for discrete modelling of reinforced masonry in
ANSYS and LS-DYNA.

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

12

1
NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

JUN 3 2007
19:01:41

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=.05
S1
(AVG)
DMX =.898E-04
SMN =-688.535
SMX =3830

JUN 3 2007
21:31:11

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=.05
S1
(AVG)
DMX =.435E-04
SMN =-717.435
SMX =4284

MX

MN

MX

MN

Y
Z

-688.535

315.685
-186.425

1320
817.795

2324
1822

3328
2826

-2800

-1556
-2178

3830

(a) pull-out failure of the reinforcement

-311.111
-933.333

933.333
311.111

2178
1556

2800

(b) Local compression

Figure 16

FE model in ANSYS for reinforced masonry shear wall, the reinforcement smeared with
grout material

Figure 17

Simulation of Sistanis House in Bam Citadel to calculate the required reinforcement.

Figure 18

Simulation of the main tower at Governor Seat in Bam Citadel to calculate the required
reinforcement.

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

13

8.

Conclusion and recommendations

One of the challenging problems in simulation of large deformation using finite element method is that,
the model undergoes large deformations during collapse. Such problem causes the termination of
calculation in the finite element codes.
It has been proofed that the smooth yield surfaces are computationally stable and efficient for
implementation. It is recommended thus to apply the smooth functions to represent the yield surface,
which is especially recommended for explicit solvers like LS-DYNA, where the material subroutine will
be called in time steps smaller than those in implicit solvers.
The contact formulation is more appropriate for representing the post failure behaviour than interface
elements. It emphasizes, therefore, to offer possibility for implementing user contact models into LSDYNA in next versions. This allows the researchers from different research fields to develop their own
constitutive models.
The progressive crack growth methods in fracture mechanics like Virtual Crack Closure Technique
VCCT and Discrete Cohesive Zone Models DCZM, are highly recommended for further research work,
where such methods are not embedded in most of finite element codes. In order to study the effect of
dynamic events that cause high local distortion, failure or fragmentation, the features of the mesh free
methods are urged. Meshfree methods could be an alternative for the discrete methods. The obtained
results for simulating a masonry shear wall have been proofed the ability to represent all failure modes
even the crushing under high compression and the fragmentation of the material without any
numerical problems. One drawback of this method is the need for large numbers of particles, even if
the model is small the computation time will be relatively big, and the accuracy is less than that in finite
element method.
The discrete modelling of reinforcement or reinforcement-masonry bonding models are lacking in
literature. The available tools in finite element packages have been developed primarily for modelling
problems other than reinforcement. It is recommended therefore to consider this issue for further
research in this direction.

9.

References

[1]

Abu-Odeh, A.: Application of New Concrete Model to Roadside Safety Barriers. In: Proc. of the
9th International LS-DYNA Users Conference: Dearborn 2006

[2]

Anthoine, A.: Definition and Design of the Test Specimen. Technical report D8.1 of the
collective research project ESECMaSE: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission,
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA): October 2007

[3]

Bakeer, T. & Jger, W.: Collapse analysis of reinforced and unreinforced adobe masonry
structures under earthquake actions case study: Bam Citadel. In: Proc. of the Structural
Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture X, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press:
Prague 2007, pp. 577-586

[4]

Bakeer, T. & Jger, W.: The effect of earthquake characteristics on the collapse of historical
masonry buildings: case study of the mosque of Takiyya al-Sulaymaniyya. In: Proc. of the
Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture XI, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT
Press:, Tallinn, Estonia, 22-24 July, 2009

[5]

Bakeer, T.: Collapse Analysis of Masonry Structures under Earthquake Actions. PhD Thesis,
Dresden University of Technology. Publication Series of the Chair of Structural Design, Faculty
of Architecture, Dresden University of Technology Vol. 8: Dresden 2009

[6]

Bala, S.: Tie-Break Contacts in LS-DYNA. Livemore Software. USA 2007

[7]

Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M. & Burnett, S.: Masonry Shear Strength under Impact
Loading. In: Proc. of the 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium

[8]

Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M.; Hobbs, B.; Burnett, S. & Newton, P. & Gration, D.A.:
Improving the Impact Resistance of Masonry Parapets. In: Proc. of LS-DYNA Users
Conference, LSTC: Paris, France 2001

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

14

[9]

Brookes, C.L. & Mehrkar-asl, S.: Numerical Modelling of Reinforced Masonry to Enhance
Seismic Resistance. In: Proc. of the 1st Conference on Strengthening and Retrofitting of
Structures, University of Amir-Kabir: Tehran-Iran 2002

[10] Burnett, S.; Gilbert, M.; Molyneaux, T.; Beattie, G. & Hobbs, B.: The Performance of
Unreinforced Masonry Walls Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts: Finite Element Analysis.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34 (2007) 8, pp. 1433-1450
[11] Ganz, H.R.: Mauerwerkscheiben unter Normalkraft und Schub. Dissertation, ETH Zrich,
Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion. Birkhuser Verlag Basel: Zrich, Switzerland 1985
[12] Iannucci, L.: Dynamic delamination modelling using interface elements. Computers &
Structures, 84 (2006) 1, pp. 1029-1048
[13] Jger, W.; Nguyen, S.H.; Schps, P.: Konstruktive Manahmen zur Gewhrleistung der
Erdbebensicherheit im Mauerwerksbau. Abschlubericht, gefrdert durch Bundesamt fr
Bauwesen und Raumordnung, 2005.
[14] Jger, W.; Nguyen, S.H.; Stransky, W.: Konstruktive Manahmen zur Gewhrleistung der
Erdbebensicherheit im Mauerwerksbau Erweiterung fr die Zonen 2 und 3. Abschlubericht,
gefrdert durch Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung, 2008.
[15] Jiang, W.G.; Hallett, S.R. & Wisnom, M.R.: Modelling of damage in composite materials using
interface elements. In: Proc. of the 5th European LS-DYNA Users Conference: Birmingham, UK
2005, pp. 5d-55
[16] Liu, G.R. & Gu, Y.T.: An Introduction to Meshfree Methods and Their Programming, Springer:
Netherlands 2005
[17] Liu, G.R.: Mesh Free Methods, Moving beyond the Finite Element Method, CRC press: USA
2003
[18] Loureno, P.B.: Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. PhD-Thesis, Delft University
of Technology. Delft University Press: Delft, The Netherlands 1996
[19] LSTC: LS-DYNA ver. 971 Keyword User's Manual, Livemore Software Technology
Corporation: California 2007
[20] Mann, W. & Mller, H.: Failure of Shear-Stressed Masonry- an Enlarged Theory, Tests and
Application to Shear Walls. Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society, 30 (1982) 1, pp. 223235
[21] Massart, T.J.: Multi-scale modeling of damage in masonry structures. PhD-Thesis, Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands 2003
[22] Mistler, M.: Verformungsbasiertes seismisches Bemessungskozept fr Mauerwerksbauten.
Dissertation, Technischen Hochschule Aachen: Aechen, Deutschland 2006
[23] Rots, J.G.: Smeared and discrete representations of localized fracture. International Journal of
Fracture, 51 (1991) 1, pp. 45-59
[24] Schlegel, R.: Numerische Berechnung von Mauerwerkstrukturen in homogenen und diskreten
Modellierungsstrategien. Dissertation, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar: Weimer 2004
[25] Schps, P.; Steinborn, Th. & Hveling, H.: Schubtragfhigkeit von Mauerwerk aus PorenbetonPlansteinen und Porenbeton-Planelementen. Forschungsbericht. Technische Universitt
Dresden, Fakultt Architektur, Lehrstuhl fr Tragwerksplanung AIF-Nr.14642BG. 2009.
[26] Stoll, V.: The Main Cupola of the Dresden Frauenkirche. In International Quality Network
Tradational and Innovative Structures in Architecture First report, Eds. W. Jger; A. Lippert; L.
Rietzschel; D. Wendland, From Research to Practice in Construction, Publication Series of the
Chair of Structural Design, Dresden University of Technology: Dresden 2003, pp. 169-189

ANSYS Conference &

27th CADFEM Users Meeting 2009
November 18-20, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany

15