Materials and Structures

, Volume 45, Issue 1–2, pp 15–29 | Cite as

The effect of damage and creep interaction on the behaviour of masonry columns including interface debonding and cracking

  • Jung J. Kim
  • Tai Fan
  • Mahmoud M. Reda TahaEmail author
  • Nigel G. Shrive
Original Article


Creep can produce significant effects on the structural behaviour of composite quasi-brittle systems, such as masonry, by altering the stress distribution between and within structural elements. The failure of a masonry element can be accelerated through damage incurred by weathering or degradation from creep effects. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element model of a grouted masonry column is used to evaluate the significance of the interaction of creep and damage on the structural behaviour of the column. The effects of Poisson’s ratio in producing differential out-of-plane constraint stresses can be simulated using this model. By utilizing a cracking criterion and incorporating a cohesive zone material (CZM) model for the brickwork-grout interface, the sequence and the patterns of cracking of the masonry column, debonding of the interface and local failure are examined. It is shown that debonding of the brickwork-grout interface occurs prior to cracking of the outer shell of brickwork. Case studies are presented to demonstrate the significance of the interaction of creep and damage on local failure, cracking and debonding. It is shown that cracking and debonding can result in a stability failure of a masonry column that was originally in a stable condition. Further work on local buckling and post-buckling analysis seems crucial to explain composite masonry behaviour.


Masonry Creep Damage Cracking Debonding Stability Buckling Finite element modeling 



The financial support to the first three authors by research grants from Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and Army Research Office (ARO) is greatly appreciated. The support of the last author by the Killam Foundation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is also greatly appreciated. Special thanks to Dr. Bill Harvey for providing the picture in Fig. 16.


  1. 1.
    Alfano G, Crisfield MA (2001) Finite element interface models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues. Int J Numer Methods Eng 50:1701–1736CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bažant ZP (1972) Prediction of concrete creep effects using age-adjusted effective modulus method. J Proc Am Concr Inst 69:212–217Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binda L (2006) Learning from failure, long-term behaviour of heavy masonry structures. WIT Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binda L, Saisi A (2003) The collapse and reconstruction of the Noto cathedral: importance of investigations for the design choice. In: Van Gemert D (ed) Advanced in materials science and restoration, vol 1. Aedificatio Publishers, Freiburg, pp 117–134Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Binda L Anzani A, Gioda G (1991) An analysis of the time-dependent behaviour of masonry walls. In: 9th International brick/block masonry conference, Berlin, Germany, vol 2, pp 1058–1067Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binda L, Gatti G, Mangano G, Poggi C, Sacchi Landriani G (1992) The collapse of the civic tower of Pavia: a survey of the materials and structure. Mason Int 6(1):633–642Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boresi AP, Schmidt RJ, Sidebottom OM (1992) Advanced mechanics of materials, 5th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carpinteri A (1986) Mechanical damage and crack growth in concrete. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen WF, Han DJ (1988) Plasticity for structural engineers. Springer-Verlag, USACrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drysdale RG, Hamid AA, Baker LR (1999) Masonry structures, 2nd edn. The Masonry Society, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fan T, Kim JJ, Reda Taha MM, Shrive NG (2010) Simulating creep and damage interaction in masonry columns considering interface debonding. In: Proceedings of 8th international masonry conference. CD-ROM, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glanville JI, Hatzinikolas MA, Ben-Omran HA (1996) Engineered masonry design, limit states design. Winston House Enterprises, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lemaitre J, Chaboche JL (1990) Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge University Press, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lenczner D (1969) Creep in model brickwork. In: Johnston FB (ed) Proceedings of designing engineering and construction with masonry products. Houston, TX, pp 58–67Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neville AM, Dilger WH, Brooks JJ (1983) Creep of plain and structural concrete. Construction Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reda Taha MM, Shrive NG (2006) A model of damage and creep interaction in a quasi-brittle composite material under axial loading. J Mech 22(4):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SAS, ANSYS 7.1 (2003) Finite element analysis system. SAP IP, Inc., CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shrive NG (1988) Effects of time-dependent movements in composite and post-tensioned masonry. Mason Int 2:25–29Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shrive NG, England GL (1981) Elastic, creep and shrinkage behaviour of masonry. Int J Mason Constr 1:103–109Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valluzzi MR, Binda L, Modena C (2005) Mechanical behaviour of historic masonry structures strengthened by bed joints structural repointing. Constr Build Mater 19(1):63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D, Wevers M (2009) Monitoring and predicting masonry’s creep failure with the acoustic emission technique. NDT&E Int 42(6):518–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D, Hendriks MAN (2010) A 3D damage model to describe creep deterioration in historic masonry, In: Proceedings of 8th international masonry conference. CD-ROM, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D, Hendriks MAN (2011) Modelling and analysis of time-dependent behaviour of historic masonry under high stress levels. Eng Struct 33(1):210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    William KJ, Warkne ED (1975) Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete. In: Proceedings of international association for bridge and structural engineering, vol 19. ISMES, Bergamo, p 174Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young FJ, Mindess S, Gray RJ, Bentur A (1998) The science and technology of civil engineering materials. Prentice Hall, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung J. Kim
    • 1
  • Tai Fan
    • 1
  • Mahmoud M. Reda Taha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nigel G. Shrive
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations