Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 52:64 | Cite as

Expansion of mortar joints in direct shear tests of masonry samples: implications on shear strength and experimental characterization of dilatancy

  • G. AndreottiEmail author
  • F. Graziotti
  • G. Magenes
Original Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

The expansion of masonry specimens during direct shear tests has been reported in several research studies. This phenomenon, known as dilatancy, is caused by the formation of cracking surfaces in mortar joints. In particular, when the cracking surface is not perfectly flat, the shear displacements tend to increase the volume of the sample. Experimental investigations focused on the characterization of this phenomenon are rather limited for masonry and the effects on shear strength have received little attention, with consequent issues for a correct interpretation of the results. The present article reports the results of an ongoing research on brick masonry aimed to characterize experimentally the dilatancy and to evaluate the role of this phenomenon in the interpretation of the direct shear test. If the expansion of the specimen is significantly restrained, the standard approaches used for the characterization of the mechanical parameters (as per EN 1052-3 and ASTM C1531) tend to overestimate the initial shear strength (fvo) and underestimate friction. Moreover, no indications are generally given to characterize dilatancy with experimental data. This aspect is particularly important for the micro-modelling of masonry because the constitutive models commonly used for mortar joints require this information. One of the objectives of the present article is to propose a simple model for a sound interpretation of the direct shear test of masonry samples taking into account the dilatancy. Several masonry samples composed of calcium silicate units and cement mortar joints have been subjected to triplet tests (EN 1052-3) and laboratory-simulated shove tests. First, a repeatable and objective methodology to measure and characterize the dilatancy is provided. Then, an extension of the standard methodology of the EN 1052-3 and ASTM C1531 that includes the contribution of this phenomenon is proposed. The novel formulation offers the possibility to characterize dilatancy with experimental data and the definition of mechanical parameters that are not biased by the presence of this phenomenon. The model presented in this article has proven to be consistent with the experimental data and it has been validated numerically in another recent research study.

Keywords

Masonry Shear strength Expansion Dilatancy Triplet test (EN 1052-3) In situ shove test (ASTM C1531) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to Prof. Carlo Lai for his suggestions. The work presented in this paper was partially supported by the financial contribution of the Italian Department of Civil Protection within the framework “RELUIS-DPC” which is greatly acknowledged by the authors. The performed laboratory tests were part of the ‘‘Study of the vulnerability of masonry buildings in Groningen” project at the EUCENTRE, undertaken within the framework of the research program for hazard and risk of induced seismicity in Groningen sponsored by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV. The authors would like to express their gratitude also to S. Girello, A. Rossi and P&P Consulting Engineers Group for the execution of the tests at DICAr laboratory of University of Pavia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11527_2019_1366_MOESM1_ESM.docx (6.9 mb)
Supplementary material: Appendix A (DOCX 7072 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Andreotti G, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018) Detailed micro-modelling of the direct shear tests of brick masonry specimens: the role of dilatancy. Eng Struct 168:929–949.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson RH, Amadei BP, Saeb S, Sture S (1989) Response of masonry bed joints in direct shear. J Struct Eng ASCE 115(9):2276–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lourenço PB (1998) Experimental and numerical issues in the modelling of the mechanical behaviour of masonry. In: Roca P et al (eds) Structural analysis of historical constructions II. CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 57–91Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lourenço PB, Barros JO, Oliveira JT (2004) Shear testing of stack bonded masonry. Constr Build Mater 18:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lourenço PB, Ramos LF (2004) Characterization of cyclic behaviour of dry masonry joints. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(5):779–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Pluijm R (1992) Material properties of masonry and its components under tension and shear. In: Proceedings of the 6th Canadian masonry symposium, Saskatoon, Canada, pp 675–686Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Pluijm R (1993) Shear behaviour of bed joints. In: Proceedings of 6th North American masonry conference, Philadelphia, pp 125–136Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Pluijm R (1998) Overview of deformation controlled combined tensile and shear tests. Technical report TUE/BC0/98.20, Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Pluijm R (1999) Out-of-plane bending of masonry: behavior and strength. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rots JG (1991) Numerical simulation of cracking in structural masonry. Heron 36(2):49–63Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serpieri R, Albarella M, Sacco E (2017) A 3D microstructured cohesive–frictional interface model and its rational calibration for the analysis of masonry panels. Int J Solids Struct 122–123(2017):110–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zijl GPAG (1999) Numerical formulation for masonry creep, shrinkage and cracking. Technical report, series 11—Engineering Mechanisms 01, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bazant ZP, Gambarova PG (1980) Rough crack models in reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 106(4):819–842Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wong RCK, Ma SKY, Wong RHC, Chau KT (2007) Shear strength components of concrete under direct shearing. Cem Concr Res 37(2007):1248–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodman RE (1976) Method of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks. West Publishing Company, New York, p 472Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patton FD (1966) Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proceedings, 1st congress of international society of rock mechanics, Lisbon, vol 1, pp 509–513Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    EN (2007) European Standard EN 1015-11. Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Part 11—determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortars. Comitee Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM (2016) C1531-16: standard test methods for in-situ measurement of masonry mortar joint shear strength index. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/c1531-16
  22. 22.
    Calvi GM, Kingsley GR, Magenes G (1996) Testing of masonry structures for seismic assessment. Earthq Spectra 12(1):145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noland JL, Atkinson RH, Kingsley GR, Schuller MP (1990) Nondestructive evaluation of masonry structures. Atkinson-Noland & Associates Report to the National Science FoundationGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zijl GPAG (2004) Modeling masonry shear-compression: role of dilatancy highlighted. J Eng Mech 130(11):1289–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bolhassani M, Hamid AA, Lau ACW, Moon A (2015) Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted masonry assemblages. Constr Build Mater 83:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabor A, Ferrier E, Jacquelin E, Hamelin P (2006) Analysis and modelling of the in-plane shear behaviour of hollow brick masonry panels. Constr Build Mater 20:308–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Rossi A, Andreotti G, Magenes G (2018) Proposal for an improved procedure and interpretation of ASTM C1531 for the in situ determination of brick-masonry shear strength. In: Krogstad NV, McGinley WM (eds) Masonry 2018, ASTM STP1612. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, pp 13–33.  https://doi.org/10.1520/STP1612201701813
  28. 28.
    Eucentre (2015) Technical report: experimental campaign on cavity walls systems representative of the Groningen building stock. European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, Pavia, Italy, 337 p. http://www.eucentre.it/project-nam/
  29. 29.
    Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016) Experimental characterization of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In Proceedings of 16th international brick/block masonry conference, June 2016, Padova, Italy.  https://doi.org/10.1201/b21889-215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stupkiewicz S, Mróz Z (2001) Modelling of friction and dilatancy effects at brittle interfaces for monotonic and cyclic loading. J Theor Appl Mech 3(39):707–739zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Binda L, Mirabella G, Tiraboschi C, Abbaneo S (1994) Measuring masonry material properties. In: Proceedings US–Italy workshop on guidelines for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings. State University of New York at Buffalo, NCEER-94-0021, pp 6-3/24Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bandis S, Lumsden AC, Barton NR (1981) Experimental studies of scale effect on the shear behaviour of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kutter HK, Weissbach G (1980) Der Einfluss von Verformungs- und Bela- stungsgeschichte auf den Scherwiderstand von Gesteinskluften unter Besonderer Berucksichtigung der Mylonitbildung. Final Report, DFG Research Project Ku 361/2/4Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sun Z, Gerrard C, Stephanson O (1985) Rock joint compliance tests for compression and shear loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 4:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rahman A, Ueda T (2014) Experimental investigation and numerical modeling of peak shear stress of brick masonry mortar joint under compression. J Mater Civ Eng 26(9):04014061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wood DM (2004) Geotechnical Modelling. London: CRC Press.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315273556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    CEN (2005) European Standard EN 1992-2:2005 Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. Comitee Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    CEN (2007) European Standard EN 1052-1. Methods of test for masonry. Part 1—determination of compressive strength. Comitee Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    CEN (2007) European Standard EN 1052-3:2002/A1 Amendment A1 to European Standard EN 1052-3:2002. Comitee Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    CEN (2007) European Standard EN 1052-5. Methods of test for masonry. Part 5: determination of bond strength by the bond wrench method. Comitee Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureDICAr University of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering - EUCENTREPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations