See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260052106

Characterisation of vibration and damage in masonry structures:

Experimental and numerical analysis

Article  in  European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering · November 2014

DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2014.883335

CITATIONS READS

13 491

3 authors:

Trung Bui Ali Limam

Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
31 PUBLICATIONS   201 CITATIONS    160 PUBLICATIONS   1,170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Quoc-Bao Bui
Ton Duc Thang University
63 PUBLICATIONS   635 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Generating Guided Waves for Detection of Transverse Type-Defects in Rails View project

STRUCTURE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Trung Bui on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA]
On: 06 February 2014, At: 02:25
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Environmental and

Civil Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Characterisation of vibration and

damage in masonry structures:
experimental and numerical analysis
a a b
T.T. Bui , A. Limam & Q.B. Bui
a
Université de Lyon, INSA de Lyon, Laboratoire LGCIE,
Villeurbanne Cedex, France
b
Université de Savoie, POLYTECH Annecy-Chambéry, LOCIE - CNRS
UMR 5271, Le Bourget du Lac, France
Published online: 05 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: T.T. Bui, A. Limam & Q.B. Bui , European Journal of Environmental and
Civil Engineering (2014): Characterisation of vibration and damage in masonry structures:
experimental and numerical analysis, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2014.883335

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.883335

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.883335

Characterisation of vibration and damage in masonry structures:

experimental and numerical analysis
T.T. Buia*, A. Limama and Q.B. Buib
a
Université de Lyon, INSA de Lyon, Laboratoire LGCIE, Villeurbanne Cedex, France; bUniversité
de Savoie, POLYTECH Annecy-Chambéry, LOCIE - CNRS UMR 5271, Le Bourget du Lac,
France
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

(Received 30 September 2013; accepted 9 January 2014)

For masonry structures, due to their heterogeneity and the complexity of the inter-
face’s behaviour between the blocks and mortar, the discrete element method (DEM)
seems to be the best adapted to model this kind of structure, in particular for repro-
ducing complex nonlinear post-elastic behaviour. However, unlike the software using
the finite element method, the DEM does not directly obtain the natural frequencies
and the mode shapes of the structure via a classic vibrational analysis. On one hand,
these dynamic characteristics are needed for the structural design in the case of
dynamic loads (seismic, impact). On the other hand, these dynamic characteristics
can be useful for the assessment of existing structures by in situ dynamic tests.
Therefore, the first objective of this study was to propose a technique that could
indirectly identify dynamic characteristics of masonry structures using the DEM. The
study began on a simple brick column structure. The sensitivity of the interface
parameters following the dynamic characteristics was studied. Then, a masonry arch
structure was studied. The technique proposed to identify the dynamic characteristics
was validated by comparison with the experimental data. Based on vibrational
analysis, the damage to the structure was assessed.
Keywords: masonry; DEM; vibration; arch

1. Introduction
Due to the heterogeneity of masonry walls (bricks, joints and interfaces), the discrete
element method (DEM) is the best adapted tool available today to study this type of
structure, especially to reproduce the nonlinear behaviours that appear beyond the elastic
phase. An explicit DEM based on finite difference principles, originated in the early
1970s by a landmark work on the progressive movements of rock masses as 2D rigid
block assemblages (Cundall, 1971). This technique was then extended to the modelling
of masonry structures. Our previous studies (Bui & Limam, 2012; Bui, Limam,
Bertrand, Ferrier, & Brun, 2010) were conducted on masonry walls submitted to in-
plane and out-of-plane static loads on a wall, which indeed confirmed the effectiveness
of the DEM. The objective of this article is to study the dynamic behaviour of masonry
structures using the DEM. Unlike the software using the finite element method (FEM),
the DEM does not directly obtain the structure’s natural frequencies and mode shapes
via a classic vibrational analysis. On one hand, these dynamic characteristics are needed
for the structural design in the case of dynamic loads (seismic, impact). On the other

*Corresponding author. Email: tan-trung.bui@insa-lyon.fr

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 T.T. Bui et al.

hand, they can be useful for assessment of existing structures using in situ tests (Anzani,
Binda, Carpinteri, Invernizzi, & Lacidogna, 2010; Bui, Morel, Hans, & Meunier, 2009;
Carpinteri, Invernizzi, & Lacidogna, 2009).
Dynamic behaviour of masonry structures was studied by using FEM in several pre-
vious researches (see e.g. Peña, Lourenço, Mendes, & Oliveira, 2010). However, by
DEM’s approach, the studies in literature about this topic are still limited. In a recent
paper, Dimitri, De Lorenzis, and Zavarise (2011) realised a study on the dynamic behav-
iour of masonry structure but the study concentrated on temporal analysis, no informa-
tion about dynamic characteristic of the structures was presented. To our knowledge,
identification of masonry’s dynamic characteristics by DEM is not yet addressed in the
literature. That is why, the first objective of our study is to propose a technique that can
identify dynamic characteristics of masonry structures using DEM. Then, based on
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

dynamic analysis, an assessment of the damage of the structure can be given.

2. Modal analysis using the DEM applied to a masonry column

2.1. DEM validation based on the FEM result
2.1.1. Technique proposed
To verify the capacities of the DEM in modal analysis (mode shapes and natural
frequencies), a column made of bricks with dry joints built at its base was studied. To
validate the DEM, a calculation using the FEM and based on homogenisation was
made. The column was made of bricks without mortar. The idea was to study several
states of cohesion in the column: from the state of dry bricks alone with weak interac-
tion between them (no transmission of rigidity, total discontinuity) to the state of a
monolithic system. In the monolithic system, the bricks develop a strong interaction,
making it possible to create flexural and torsional rigidities. In other words, as far as the
interfaces behave linearly, the behaviour of modal by FEM and DEM are expected to
be identical.
The 1.47 m column consists of 30 blocks measuring 220 × 103 × 49 mm3 (length ×
width × height) (Figure 1). The base of the column was assumed to be perfectly embed-
ded. Modal analysis was first carried out using the FEM with the ABAQUS code. The
FEM provided a direct resolution of the eigenvalue problem by solving the classical
equation in dynamic of structures (det [K0 −ω2 M]=0). Solide C3D8R elements were
used. The column consisted of 32,340 elements and was studied in the elastic part: the
Young modulus, 9300 MPa; density, 2200 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio, .2.
For the DEM, the numerical simulation was carried out using the 3DEC code
(ITASCA, 2002). The principle was based on the discretisation of the bricks and the
interaction between them was governed by the interface laws. For deformable bricks,
the elastic behaviour was adopted. The masonry wall is simulated by a simplified
micro-modelling (Figure 2(b)).
The joints were not directly modelled as elements, but indirectly through an inter-
face law between the blocks. The Mohr-Coulomb criterion was chosen for the interface
law (Figure 2(c)). However, for the modal analysis, the joints were assumed to remain
within the elastic range. The elastic behaviour (details can be seen in Bui, 2013)
depended on normal stiffness (kn) and shear stiffness (ks):
    
ss ks 0 us
frg ¼ ½Kfug or ¼
rn 0 k n un
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 3

where: σn: normal loading; un: normal displacement; τs: shear stress and us: shear
displacement.
Assuming that the theory of elasticity was applicable, the relation was:
ks = kn /[2(1+ν)] with ν = .2.
For laboratory dynamic tests, the excitation is often a hammer impact (Bui et al.,
2009). With the same principle, in the DEM modal analysis, the structure was excited
by an impact (impact on the column with a relatively weak force). The dynamic
response at 10 points of the column (Figure 1(a)) was recorded and analysed. For the
dynamic analysis, the damping was assumed to be zero. The structure’s damping was
due to the friction between blocks.
The natural frequencies were identified by transforming data from the time domain
to the frequency domain using the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform). The mode shapes
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

were identified using the FDD technique (Frequency Domain Decomposition), (see
details in Andersen, Brincker, Goursat, & Mevel, 2007). Two elastic stiffness values of
the interfaces (kn and ks) were interpolated so that the first natural frequency would be
close to that obtained by the FEM. These values were kn = 62 GPa/m, ks = 25.83 GPa/m.
The natural frequencies obtained by the FFT of 10 measured responses (in two
horizontal directions X and Z, Figure 3) are presented in Figure 4. The peaks in the
frequency domain correspond to the natural frequencies of the structure. Each natural
frequency corresponds to a vibrational mode. Figure 5 shows the mode shapes of six
modes obtained by FDD (DEM) and FEM. The natural frequencies of the first six

Measurement
(X11,Y11,Z11) points
(X10,Y10,Z10) Point
impact
(X9,Y9,Z9)

(X8,Y8,Z8)
(X7,Y7,Z7)
1470

(X6,Y6,Z6)

(X5,Y5,Z5)
(X4,Y4,Z4)

(X3,Y3,Z3)
Y
294

Y (X2,Y2,Z2)
147

Y
49

220,5 103
X Z X

(a) (b)
1.2
Diagonal force (N)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1
Time (ms)
(c)

Figure 1. (a) Impact point and measurement points; DEM mesh; (b) FEM mesh; and (c) impact
force.
 4 T.T. Bui et al.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. (a) Detailed micro-modelling masonry wall; (b) Simplified micro-modelling masonry
wall; and (c) Mohr-Coulomb model of joint with tension cut-off.
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

Figure 3. Vibration of the point P2(X2, Y2, Z2) after impact.

0.0005
Power spectrum

15,93Hz Z2
0.0004 Z3
Z4
0.0003 Z5
0.0002 Z6
96,49Hz Z7
164,9Hz
0.0001 Z8
260,4Hz
Z9
0 Z10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Z11
Frequency (Hz)

0.00025
Power spectrum

29,98Hz X2
0.0002 X3
X4
0.00015 X5
0.0001 X6
X7
0.00005 164,9Hz 172,4Hz X8
X9
0 X10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 X11
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. Natural frequencies of the column, obtained by FFT.

modes obtained by two methods (FEM and DEM) are reported in Figure 6. The
similarity of natural frequencies and mode shapes obtained by the two methods confirm
the relevance of the DEM dynamic analysis.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 5

FEM DEM DEM FEM DEM FEM

(a) f=15.88Hz f=15.93Hz (b) f=29.98Hz f=33.45Hz (c) f=96.49Hz f=97.29Hz
1.47 1.47 1.47
1.323 1.323 1.323
1.176 1.176 1.176
1.029 1.029 1.029
Y (m)

Y (m)

Y (m)
0.882 0.882 0.882
0.735 0.735 0.735
0.588 0.588 0.588
0.441 0.441 0.441
0.294 DEM 0.294 DEM 0.294 DEM
0.147 FEM 0.147 FEM 0.147 FEM
0 0 0
-2 -1 0 1 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
X Z
Z
(d1) DEM
f=164.9Hz
FEM
f=156.77Hz
(d2) DEM
f=164.9Hz
FEM
f=156.77Hz
1.47 1.47
1.323 1.323
1.176 1.176
1.029
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

1.029

Y (m)
Y (m)

0.882 0.882
0.735 0.735
0.588 0.588
0.441 0.441
0.294 0.294 DEM
FEM
0.147 0.147 FEM
DEM
0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
X Z

DEM FEM FEM DEM

(e) f=172.4Hz f=191.23Hz (f) f=263.62Hz f=260.4Hz

1.47 1.47
1.323 1.323
1.176 1.176
1.029 1.029
Y (m)
Y (m)

0.882 0.882
0.735 0.735
0.588 0.588
0.441 0.441
DEM
0.294 DEM 0.294
FEM
0.147 FEM 0.147
0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -2 -1 0 1
X Z

Figure 5. Mode shapes obtained by FDD and FEM.

(a) (b)
300 Mode 1 2 3
FEM
Frequency (Hz)

250 DEM FEM (Hz) 15.88 33.45 97.29

DEM (Hz) 15.93 29.98 96.49
200
Difference (%) -0.31 10.37 0.82
150 Mode 4 5 6
100 FEM (Hz) 156.77 191.23 263.62
50 DEM (Hz) 164.9 172.4 260.4
Difference (%) -5.19 9.85 1.22
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mode

Figure 6. Comparison of natural frequencies obtained by the DEM and FEM.

2.1.2. Sensitivity of dynamic characteristics as a function of interface parameters

The two elastic stiffnesses, kn and ks, were studied. kn varied from a fairly low value
(10 GPa/m) to a relatively high value (1000 GPa/m). The kn/ks = 2.4 ratio was kept
constant. Figure 7 shows the influence of kn (or ks) on the natural frequencies of the first
six modes (1–6).
 6 T.T. Bui et al.

302 kn=10e9
kn=20e9
252 kn=40e9
kn=60e9

Frequency (Hz)
202 kn=80e9
kn=100e9
kn=200e9
152
kn=300e9
kn=400e9
102
kn=500e9
kn=600e9
52 kn=700e9
kn=800e9
2 kn=900e9
1 2 3 4 5 6 kn=1000e9
Number of mode FEM
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

Figure 7. Variation of natural frequencies as a function of kn (and ks).

As can be seen in Figure 7, the more kn increases, the more the DEM’s natural
frequencies were close to the FEM’s natural frequencies and when kn ≥ 200 GPa/m, the
DEM results were very close to the FEM results. Figure 8 shows the influence of kn on
the natural frequency for each mode. For low values of kn (<300 GPa/m), the frequen-
cies were very sensitive with kn but when kn ≥ 300 GPa/m, the frequencies were less
sensitive with kn, because in these cases, the column’s behaviour was close to that of a
monolithic structure.
Theoretically, in the case of dry bricks without any “cohesion”, vibrational modes,
especially for higher modes, are difficultly captured. These results show the influence of
contact’s characteristics, on the dynamic behaviour of masonry structures. This point is

18 34
Mode 1 Mode 2
16
29
14
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

24
12
10 19
8
14
6
9
4
2 4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
kn (xE9) kn (xE9)

110 200
Mode 3 Mode 4
100 180
90 160
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)

80 140
70 120
60 100
50 80
40 60
30 40
20 20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
kn (xE9) kn (xE9)

Figure 8. Natural frequencies according to kn.

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 7

important for discrete modelling (especially for masonry structures with weak bonds
such as dry stone masonry) and for assessment of existing structure (cracking corre-
sponds to decrease of effective contact).

2.2. Validation of the DEM based on experimental results

The vibrational analysis in the previous section was conducted on a column with dry
joints. It was validated by numerical results obtained using the FEM. An experiment
was also conducted. In practice, it was difficult to measure the vibrations on a dry brick
column (without mortar), so the experiment was conducted on a column of bricks with
mortar to experimentally validate the DEM’s dynamic results.
The column consisted of 17 bricks measuring 22.05 × 10.3 × 4.9 cm3 stacked verti-
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

cally (Figure 9(a)). The mortar between the bricks had an average thickness of 1 cm.
The column was fixed at its base.
Tests were conducted to characterise the Young modulus of mortar and bricks. For
mortar, six specimens measuring 4 × 4 × 16 cm3 were manufactured and their frequencies
were measured in time using the Grindosonic system (Figure 9(b)). The Young modulus
was measured by analysing specific frequencies (see further details in Boukria &
Limam, 2012a, 2012b). The brick’s elastic modulus was also measured using a
nondestructive method (the details of other NDT methods can be seen in Invernizzi,
Lacidogna, Manuello, & Carpinteri, 2011): an impact was applied to the brick; its
dynamic response was measured by uniaxial piezoelectric accelerometers (Figure 9(c));
by analysing the dynamic response, the elastic modulus could be identified (Bui et al.,
2009). To overcome the boundary condition problem, the brick was suspended by two
strings.
The bricks’ elastic modulus was 11,200 MPa and their density was 2200 kg/m3. An
impact was applied at the top of the column, on an angular point, following the diago-
nal line of the bricks’ section. After the impact, the dynamic response was measured at
several points in the column. The same analysis presented in Section 2.1 was used: kn
was found to be 450 GPa/m.
Figure 10 shows the comparison of the natural frequencies obtained by DEM and
by experimentation. The DEM captured the first three experimental modes well with an
error less than 5%. From the fourth mode, the error between calculation and test
increased. This difference can be explained by the limits of current experimental

Figure 9. (a) Column; (b) Grindosonic mortar test; and (c) brick test.
 8 T.T. Bui et al.

700
DEM
600 Experiment Mode DEM Experiment Error
(Hz) (%)
Frequency (Hz)
500
1 40.24 39.06 2.93
400
2 73.54 75.68 -2.91
300 3 237.7 249.02 -4.76
200 4 284.5 305.18 -7.27
100 5 383.9 439.15 -14.39
6 613.8 651.25 -6.10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mode

Figure 10. Experimental and numerical results.

Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

methods in the identification of higher modes. Indeed, it is well known that the higher
modes are less well captured than the first modes, but the first modes are more impor-
tant (Hans, Boutin, Ibraim, & Roussillon, 2005). The DEM therefore gives results with
sufficient accuracy for modal analysis.
Analysis of the mode shape is not presented here, because the number of the accel-
erometers used was limited, and therefore the mode shape of the column could not be
identified.

3. DEM and damage characterisation

3.1. The masonry arch
In this section, the DEM was used to study the vibration of an arch made in masonry.
The numerical results will be compared with the experimental results, which were pre-
sented in Ramos, De Roec, Lourenco, and Campos-Costa (2010). This structure had
vertical and horizontal joints, which induces anisotropic behaviour.
The arch had a span measuring 1500 mm, outer radius 795 mm, inner radius 745
mm, thickness 50 mm and width 450 mm. This arch was made of clay bricks measuring
100 × 50 × 25 mm3. The arch was assembled of 63 rows of bricks. The thickness of the
joints was about .5 cm. The arch was built on two concrete bases bolted to the floor.
Damage of masonry structure can be identified by many approach, for example, a
multilevel approach can be described in (Anzani et al., 2010). In our case, Ramos et al.
(2010) identified the damage of this structure with vibrational analysis. The measure-
ments were taken with several accelerometers and strain gauges on the vault. The vault
was impacted by a hammer or excited by the ambient solicitations. First, the vibrational
analysis was conducted on the virgin structure (without damage). Then, the arch was
loaded on the section located at one quarter of the span, up to a load level that gener-
ated cracking damage. Then, the vibrational analysis was re-performed. The operation
was repeated eight times for which each test had an increment of the load. For the first
four levels of the load, the structure worked in the elastic range (no cracks visually
observed). From the fifth loaded/unloaded test, cracking was observed in the arch at the
position of crack 1 in Figure 10 (crack in the joint between the brick rows 16 and 17).
The vibrational analysis at this damage level was called the C1 status. The C2 status
corresponded to the appearance of cracks 1 and 2 (Figure 11), C3 status corresponded
to the appearance of cracks 1, 2 and 3, and C4 status corresponded to the appearance of
cracks 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 9

(a) (b)

31 32 33 34 35
27 28 29 30 36 37
25 26 38 39
23 24 40 41

19
20
21 22
42
43
44
45
crack 3
18 46
17 47
16 48
15 49

12
13
14
crack 1 50
51
52
11 53
10 54
9 55
8 56
7 57
6 58
5 59

crack 4 3
4 60
61

1
2
crack 2 62
63

Figure 11. (a) Geometry of the arch (Ramos et al., 2010); and (b) failure modes of the arch.

3.2. Results of the undamaged state

Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

The arch was first modelled by the FEM using the ABAQUS code. The arch was
divided into seven layers in its thickness. The behaviour of the arch and two concrete
bases was elastic. The concrete bases had an elastic modulus of 35 GPa, a density of
2500 kg/m3 and a Poisson’s ratio of .2. Their boundary conditions were the fixed bases.
The arch had a density of 1930 kg/m3 and a Poisson’s ratio of .2; its elastic modulus
was recalibrated in order to reproduce the first experimental natural frequency. A 4-GPa
Young modulus was identified for the vault. It is important to note that the module
experimentally measured by the author was 3.28 GPa. This was obtained by means of
five compression tests conducted on three assembled bricks.
For the DEM, the arch was modelled by assembling deformable bricks whose elastic
modulus was 5 GPa (Figure 12(a)). The contacts between the bricks were modelled by
elastic joints without thickness. Joint rigidities were optimised in order to reproduce the
experimental frequency of mode 1, by varying from 0 to 1000 GPa/m. The parameters
selected were: kn = 62 GPa/m and ks = 25.83 GPa/m. In these calculations, damping was
ignored. The same principle used for the column was applied to the arch: the dynamic
characteristics were identified by adding an impact excitation on the structure. The arch
was impacted by a relatively small dynamic force to excite the vibration. After impact,
the responses of 22 points on the arch (Figure 12(b), points P2–P23 on the outer edge
of the vault) were measured.
Figures 13 and 14 show the natural frequencies and the mode shapes obtained. The
similarity of the mode shapes obtained by the DEM (Figure 14(b)), the FEM
(Figure 14(a)), and the experiments (Ramos et al. 2010) allow comparison of the natural
frequencies obtained. Figure 15 presents this comparison. The DEM, which used the
approach proposed, gave results close to the experiment’s results.

(a) (b) P12P13

P10 P11 P14 P15
P9 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35
36 37
P16
P8 23 24
25 26 38 39
40 41
P17
42
P7 21 22 43 P18
20 44
19 45
18 46
P6 17 47 P19
16 48
15 49
P5 13
14 50 P20
51

P4 11
12 R7 52
53 P21
9
10
95 54
55
8 56
P3 7 R7 57 P22
5
6
45 58
59
P2 4
Y 60 P23
3 61
2 62
1 63

Figure 12. (a) DEM mesh; and (b) measurement points.

 10 T.T. Bui et al.

1.E-04
35,41Hz X2
1.E-04 X3

Power spectrum
X4
8.E-05 X5
X6
6.E-05
X7
130,2Hz 156,2Hz
4.E-05 X8
120,8Hz 201Hz X9
2.E-05 57,28Hz 71,86Hz 180,2Hz
X10
X11
0.E+00
0 50 100 150 200
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 13. Frequencies obtained from the vault (FFT).

Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

(a)

f=35,41 Hz
(b) 1 1
f=57,28 Hz
1
f=71,86 Hz 1 f=130,2 Hz

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Y (m)

Y (m)

Y (m)
Y (m)

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
X (m) X (m) X (m) X (m)

Figure 14. Initial shape and mode shapes: (a) FEM; and (b) DEM.

250
Experimentation
DEM
200 FEM
Frequency (Hz)

150

100

50

Mode
0
0 2 4 6 8

Figure 15. Natural frequencies: DEM, FEM and experimental test.

3.3. Results of the damaged structure

The presence of damage in the structure can lead to changes in frequencies and mode
shapes. Important questions today are how to identify the appearance of damage, its
location and its severity.
A crack was modelled by a joint with lower kn, ks stiffnesses (Figure 16). The rigidi-
ties were recalibrated to reproduce the first experimental frequency (mode 1) of the dete-
riorated structure. kn was determined to be 7.2 GPa/m.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 11

Figure 16. Positions of the cracks of two damage levels (using the DEM).

250.00 250.00
C0 Experimentation C0 DEM
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

C1 C1
200.00 200.00
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)
C2 C2
C3 C3
150.00 C4 150.00 C4

100.00 100.00

50.00 50.00

0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
(a) Mode (b) Mode

Figure 17. Damage assessment from natural frequencies.

For the experiment, the damage level C1 was a very small crack. This “crack 1”
appeared more clearly at the C2 damage level. In other words, crack 1 (in C1) and
crack 2 (in C2) did not reflect the same damage level. Consequently, to translate the
experimental result, kn, ks should be changed according to both the position of the crack
and its size (opening, depth). In the numerical model, only the cracks’ positions were
taken into account; kn, ks were not changed for the C2, C3 and C4 damage levels,
which is why, for these states, greater differences between numerical and experimental
results can be observed (Figure 17).

4. Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to propose a technique which can identify the dynamic
characteristics (natural frequencies and mode shapes) of masonry structures by using
DEM.This was done not by solving an eigenvalue problem, but indirectly by making an
impact analysis. These dynamic characteristics are important for dynamic studies,
especially in seismic design or assessment of existing structures by nondestructive
tests.This approach demands a calibration to identify the appropriate interface
parameters. Thus, the spectral method, which is classical for the FEM but had remained
an open question for the DEM, now finds a solution in the approach proposed here,
which opens new prospects for the characterisation of interface elastic parameters
(inter-brick contacts). The proposed approach also opens the way for damage assessment
of masonry structures using the DEM.

References
Andersen, P., Brincker, R., Goursat, M., & Mevel, L. (2007). Automated modal parameter
estimation for operational modal analysis of large systems. In R. Brincker & N. Møller (Eds.),
 12 T.T. Bui et al.

Proceedings of the 2nd international operational modal analysis conference (pp. 299–308).
Copenhagen.
Anzani, A., Binda, L., Carpinteri, A., Invernizzi, S., & Lacidogna, G. (2010). A multilevel
approach for the damage assessment of historic masonry towers. Journal of Cultural Heritage,
11, 459–470.
Boukria, Z., & Limam, A. (2012a). Experimental damage analysis of concrete structures using the
vibration signature – Part I: Diffuse damage (Porosity). International Journal of Mechanics, 6,
17–27.
Boukria, Z., & Limam, A. (2012b). Experimental damage analysis of concrete structures using the
vibration signature – Part II: Located damage (Crack). International Journal of Mechanics, 6,
28–34.
Bui, T. T., Limam, A., Bertrand, D., Ferrier, E., & Brun, M. (2010). Masonry walls submitted to
out-of-plane loading: Experimental and numerical study. International Masonry Society
Proceedings, 2, F-243, 1153–1162.
Bui, T. T., & Limam, A. (2012). Masonry walls under membrane or bending loading cases:
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 02:25 06 February 2014

EXPERIMENTS and discrete element analysis. In B. H. V. Topping (Ed.), Proceedings of the

eleventh international conference on computational structures technology (pp. 1–17).
Stirlingshire: Civil-Comp Press. doi:10.4203/ccp.99.119
Bui, T. T. (2013). Etude expérimentale et numérique du comportement des voiles en maçonnerie
soumis à un chargement hors plan [Experimental and numerical study of masonry walls sub-
mitted to out-of-plane loading] (Thèse de l’INSALyon [PhD thesis of INSA Lyon]).
Bui, Q. B., Morel, J. C., Hans, S., & Meunier, N. (2009). Compression behaviour of nonindustrial
materials in civil engineering by three scale experiments: The case of rammed earth.
Materials and Structures, 42, 1101–1116.
Carpinteri, A., Invernizzi, S., & Lacidogna, G. (2009). Historical brick-masonry subjected to
double flat-jack test: Acoustic Emissions and scale effects on cracking density. Construction
and Building Materials, 23, 2813–2820.
Cundall, P. A. (1971). The measurement and analysis of acceleration in rock slopes (PhD thesis).
Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London.
Dimitri, R., De Lorenzis, L., & Zavarise, G. (2011). Numerical study on the dynamic behavior of
masonry columns and arches on buttresses with the discrete element method. Engineering
Structures, 33, 3172–3188.
Hans, S., Boutin, C., Ibraim, E., & Roussillon, P. (2005). In situ experiments and seismic analysis
of existing buildings. Part I: Experimental investigations. Earthquake Engineering & Struc-
tural Dynamics, 34, 1513–1529.
Invernizzi, S., Lacidogna, G., Manuello, A., & Carpinteri, A. (2011). AE monitoring and numeri-
cal simulation of a two-span model masonry arch bridge subjected to pier scour. Strain, 47,
158–169.
ITASCA. (2002). 3DEC – Three dimensional distinct element code Version 4.0. Minneapolis, MN:
Author.
Peña, F., Lourenço, P. B., Mendes, N., & Oliveira, D. V. (2010). Numerical models for the seis-
mic assessment of an old masonry tower. Engineering Structures, 32, 1466–1478.
Ramos, L. F., De Roeck, G., Lourenço, P. B., & Campos-Costa, A. (2010). Damage identification
on arched masonry structures using ambient and random impact vibrations. Engineering
Structures, 32, 146–162.

View publication stats