Numerical evaluation of test setups for determining the shear strength of masonry
- 346 Downloads
The bond shear strength between masonry units and mortar is the weakest link in a masonry wall. Different material tests have been developed in order to characterize this bond behaviour. The objective of this study is to evaluate three common test setups through non-linear finite element analysis. The simulation method is based on our recent development of cohesive elements, which allows for the first time to fully capture the force-deformation characteristic of shear tests in 3D from the onset of loading until the residual shear strength and to retrieve typical shear failure modes observed in experiments. This study provides new insights into our understanding and interpretation of such shear tests: (1) elastic analysis, which has been widely used in the past, does not yield a stress distribution that is representative of the stress distribution at maximum resistance; (2) while friction coefficient is well estimated (the error is less than 10%), the local cohesion is underestimated by all three test setups of which the error lies between 13 and 32%; (3) the randomness of the material properties leads to a further underestimation of the mean value of the local cohesion; (4) differences in the material properties of the two joints of the triplet test units do not jeopardize the applicability of this test setup and estimations of the mean properties are obtained with similar reliability as for couplet tests.
KeywordsMasonry Cohesion Shear test Triplet test Failure analysis Cohesive elements
This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through the Grant \(200021\_140973 / 1\).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.CEN: EN 1052-3: Methods of test for masonry Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2002)Google Scholar
- 5.Montazerolghaem M, Jaeger W (2014) A comparative numerical evaluation of masonry initial shear test methods and modifications proposed for EN 1052-3. In: Proceedings of the 9th international masonry conferenceGoogle Scholar
- 6.Stockl S, Hofmann P, Mainz J (1990) A comparative finite element evaluation of mortar joint shear tests. Mason Int 3(3):101–104Google Scholar
- 7.Van der Pluijm R (1993) Shear behaviour of bed joints. In: Harry, G.H., Ahmad, A.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th North American Masonry conference, pp. 125–136. Lancaster: Technomic Publ. CoGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology. ISBN 90-407-1221-2Google Scholar
- 10.CEN: EN 1998-3: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2005)Google Scholar
- 11.Riddington JR, Fong KH, Jukes P (1997) Numerical study of failure initiation in different joint shear tests. Mason Int 11(2):44–50Google Scholar
- 12.Popal R, Lissel S (2010) Numerical evaluation of existing mortar joint shear tests and a new test method. In: Proceedings of the 8th international masonry conferenceGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mohammadipour AH (2015) Interface fracture in masonry composites: a lattice approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of HoustonGoogle Scholar
- 22.Bazant ZP, Planas J (1997) Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
- 23.Van der Pluijm R (1992) Material properties of masonry and its components under tension and shear. In: Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry symposium. University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
- 30.van der Pluijm R (1999) Out-of-plane bending of masonry : behaviour and strength. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR528212
- 31.van Zijl GPAG (2004) Modeling masonry shear-compression: role of dilatancy highlighted. J Eng Mech 130(11):1289–1296. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:11(1289) CrossRefGoogle Scholar