Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: 1328-7982 (Print) 2204-2261 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsen20

Mathematical Modelling of Stress-Strain Curves of

Masonry Materials

A H Alwathaf, W A Thanoon, M S Jaafar & J Noorzaei

To cite this article: A H Alwathaf, W A Thanoon, M S Jaafar & J Noorzaei (2012) Mathematical
Modelling of Stress-Strain Curves of Masonry Materials, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, 13:3, 219-230

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.7158/13287982.2012.11465112

Published online: 16 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsen20

Download by: [Nipissing University] Date: 09 September 2016, At: 08:28

 219

Mathematical modelling of stress-strain

curves of masonry materials*

AH Alwathaf†
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen

WA Thanoon
College of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman

MS Jaafar and J Noorzaei

Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia

ABSTRACT: Stress-strain relationship of masonry material is essential to predict strength and

deformation of masonry structures in analytical modelling. This relationship is important when
the masonry system consists of different material properties. In this study, compression testing is
conducted, and the best fit equation of experimental data for masonry block and grout is employed.
Numerical technique is proposed to obtain proper material parameters for both ascending and
descending parts. The proposed expression is capable of simulating the stress-strain relation for
different masonry materials, and can be incorporated efficiently into the biaxial stress model. To
examine its ability to simulate the stress-strain behaviour in masonry modelling, the proposed
formula has been incorporated into a finite element program for masonry analysis using a micro-
modelling approach. Accurate simulation for the compression test results is attained by the proposed
equation and perfect modelling has been achieved for the masonry system.

KEYWORDS: Stress-strain; masonry; compression; best fit; modelling; regression.

REFERENCE: Alwathaf, A. H, Thanoon, W. A., Jaafar, M. S. & Noorzaei, J. 2012,

“Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of masonry materials”, Australian Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 219-230, http://dx.doi.org/10.7158/S11-110.2012.13.3.

1 INTRODUCTION Numerous mathematical models have been developed

Using a stress-strain relationship that can describe
accurately the behaviour of masonry materials is
essential to consider the actual non-linear behaviour,
and to predict the actual strength and deformation
of the masonry structure under loading. This fact is
more significant when the system consists of different
constituents (block units, grout, mortar) in which
every material has a different stress-strain behaviour
and required to be discretised separately in the finite
element model (FEM) to incorporate the effects of
interactions of these constituents.
* Paper S11-110 submitted 30/06/11; accepted for publication
after review and revision 13/12/11.
† Corresponding author A/Prof Ahmed Alwathaf can be
contacted at aalwathaf@yahoo.com.
for simulating the experimental stress-strain relation
for concrete under uniaxial compression (Park &
Paulay, 1975). In view of the fact that plain concrete
is the actual status of the masonry concrete block
and grout, the stress-strain relations reviewed here
have been developed for plain concrete, which is
also applicable for concrete masonry materials. The
reviewed stress-strain models are shown in table 1
with the important features. The coefficients in the
table were recommended by the respective authors
in their studies.
Some important notes and discussion on the
reviewed relations in table 1 can be drawn as follows:
1. Hognestad’s (1951) equation assigns two versions;
one for the ascending part and the other for the
descending part.

© Institution of Engineers Australia, 2012 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 219 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 220 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei

Table 1: Reviewed stress-strain relations.

Reference Equation Feature Remarks

2
ª H §H · º
V V o «2 ¨ ¸ » (1a) For ascending
Hognestad «¬ H o © H o ¹ »¼
(1951)
ª § H  H o ·º
V V o «1  0.15 ¨ ¸» (1b) For descending
¬ © H u  H o ¹¼
Desayi & EoH
V (2) For ascending (Eo/Es) should be
Krishnan (1964) 1  (H / H o )2 and descending equal to 2
EoH (Eo/Es) should be
Saenz (1964) V (3)
1  (Eo / Es  2)(H / H o )  (H / H o )2 equal or greater than 2
For ascending: For descending:
ª A(H / H o )  B(H / H o ) º 2 A = 1.300501; A = 0.349777;
Wang et al V Vo « (4) B = –0.835818;
2» B = –0.104963;
(1978) ¬ 1  C(H / H o )  D(H / H o ) ¼ C = –0.699498; C = –1.650222;
D = 0.1641812 D = 0.895036
Carreira & Chu A(H H o )V o 1
V (5) For ascending A (6)
(1985) A  1  (H H o )A and descending 1  (Es Eo )

ª A(H / H o ) º For plain concrete:

V Vo « (7) For ascending
Thanoon (1997) 3 2 » A = 1.1; B = –1.3;
¬ (H / H o )  B(H / H o )  C(H / H o )  D ¼ and descending
C = 0.75; D = 0.65
where σ is the stress corresponding to the strain ε; σo is the maximum compressive stress; εo is the strain corresponding to the
maximum stress; εu is the ultimate strain; Eo is the initial tangent modulus at the origin; Es is the secant modulus at the peak
(σo/εo); and A, B, C and D are constants.

2. In Desayi & Krishnan’s (1964) equation, the ratio of
initial tangent modulus (Eo) to the secant modulus
(E s = σ o/ ε o) should be equal to 2, otherwise
the expression yields higher or lower than the
maximum stress at the peak of the test data.
3. It can be seen that the Desayi & Krishnan (1964)
equation is a special case from the Saenz (1964)
equation in which Eo = 2Es. However, the ratio of
initial tangent modulus to the secant modulus
(E o/ E s) should be equal or greater than 2 in
the Saenz (1964) equation to avoid a concave
curve at the lower stress level. Saenz’s formula
is frequently used in the concrete modelling
under biaxial stress conditions when the material
non-linearity is included (Chen, 1982; Cerioni
& Doinda, 1994). However, the formula is not
suitable for the descending part because the
inflection point cannot be provided by the
formula. Therefore, some authors have used
linear formula in the descending part instead of
Saenz’s formula in their stress-strain modelling
(Cerioni & Doinda, 1994).
4. An attempt was done by Wang et al (1978) to fit
the concrete data, however, this equation can only
fit test data having certain values of compressive
strength and corresponding strain within a
specific range.
5. Equation (5) used by Carreira & Chu (1985) is
capable of simulating the stress-strain relation
for different concrete materials that may show
different curvature on the ascending and also in
the descending part. This is because the material
parameter, A, is the power of the third term of
the denominator. This is a significant feature in
this equation because the other relations have
constant curvature. Equation (6) is the derivative
of equation (5) at the origin point when εo = 0,
however, this equation is not reliable to estimate
the material parameter, A. The accuracy of this
method depends on the accurate estimation of the
slope of the stress-strain curve at the origin and
hence many trails are needed to find the suitable
initial slope. Carreira & Chu (1985) proposed
different empirical expressions to estimate the
material parameter. However, their proposed
formulas are not applicable to the test specimens in
this study due to some restrictions and conditions
that mostly concern specimen shape.
6. Thanoon (1997) observed that the best fit results
are obtained by his equation defining two levels
of stress, one at 0.45σo stress level and the other
at 0.85σo. The present coefficient values in table
1 for Thanoon’s equation are assigned for plain
concrete obtained from his test result.
Some concluding remarks on the reviewed studies
can be drawn as follows:
1. The uniaxial stress-strain relations with constant
coefficients are not suitable for biaxial modelling
because these coefficients restrict using those
expressions in non-linear analysis where different

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 220 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei
family curves are produced due to the different
biaxial stress states during the incremental loading.
2. Estimating the initial tangent modulus at the
origin from the test data accurately is quite
difficult, particularly for some stress-strain curves
where the curvature is varied.
3. Equation (5) seems to be able to fit properly the
test data provided that a suitable method is used
to estimate the material parameter, A. This formula
can be also incorporated easily in the modelling
of masonry with different material properties.
In this study, compression tests of concrete masonry
blocks units and concrete grout cylinders have
been carried out to obtain the experimental stress-
strain diagrams. Numerical manipulation has been
conducted on the experimental results to find the
best fit formulas for the experimental diagrams.
Non-linear regression analysis technique has been
used to obtain the proper material parameters. The
relationship has been extended to masonry biaxial
stress modelling. Masonry block and grouted prisms
have been analysed by finite element programs to
verify the stress-strain model.
2 COMPRESSION TEST OF
BLOCK AND GROUT
2.1 Test specimens
The standard concrete cylinder or cube is most
commonly used for concrete material tests in
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: Compression test specimens – (a) corner, stretcher and half block units; and
(b) grout cylinders.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 221
221
standard specifications. For masonry blocks,
however, this choice is limited because concrete
block units are moulded by compaction and
vibration simultaneously, rather than usual casting.
At the beginning, the uniaxial compression test was
conducted on coupons (40×40×100 mm) cut from
block units face-shell to obtain stress and strain as
uniform as possible, and also to minimise the end
platen restrain. However, the coupons results were
quite different and even contradictory. This is due
to the non-uniform cross-sections of the face-shell,
which commonly tapered. Unfortunately, there is no
sufficient thick intersection between the face-shell and
web that could be cut and used in the coupon test.
A comprehensive investigation conducted by Guo
(1991) showed that the strength ratios of block
coupons to the corresponding block units varied
from 0.96 to 0.93, and the accuracy can be expected
within that limit. Moreover, uniaxial compression
test using block units were conducted by some
researchers to investigate the stress-strain behaviour
and to establish the strength characteristic of the
block material (Page, 1978; Ali & Page, 1988; Guo &
Drysdal, 1989; Guo, 1991). Based on the above, the
uniaxial compression test was conducted on the block
units instead of the coupons.
Specimens of this test consist of different individual
concrete block units (15 stretchers, 12 corners, and
10 halves) and concrete grout cylinders (5 cylinders).
Figures 1(a) and 1(b) shows the block and grout
specimens. The test block called interlocking hollow
Vol 13 No 3
2/11/12 2:53 PM
 222 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei

block was obtained by interlocking keys to ensure
efficient construction formation with well-aligned
masonry structures without mortar. The blocks were
prepared for test by cutting the extended projections
from the top. To assure planarity and smoothness of
the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens, silicon
carbide stone was used for grinding of the surfaces
and also mortar plaster was cast as a capping on the
surfaces of the specimens. The tests were started 28
days after curing and storing of block units and grout
specimens inside the lab. Preparing and testing the
block units and grout cylinders were according to the
requirements of ASTM C140-99b (ASTM, 1999) and
ASTM C 469-94 (ASTM, 1994), respectively.
2.2 Compression test setup and test procedure
All specimens were tested under displacement
control mode to allow constant strain rate, which
yields a complete loading history for the specimens
in the ascending and descending portions. The
load was applied continuously with a constant
stroke of 0.005 mm/s until failure, as suggested by
Neville (1995). The specimens were instrumented
to measure the axial deformation using two linear
variable displacement transducers of 0.001 mm
precision located vertically on two opposite sides on
the specimens using special glue. Load and vertical
deformations were measured directly by the machine
acquisition system. The gauge length that used for all
block units was 100 and 120 mm for grout cylinders.
highly affected by the block density, in which higher
density revealed higher compressive strength.
The variation in the block density is due to the
unavoidable variation in the machine compaction
and vibration during casting process. Elastic
modulus (Ec) in this table is the slope of a straight line
from the origin to 0.45 of the compressive strength of
the material (0.45σo) on the stress-strain curve.
The resulted stress-strain curves for all block unit
specimens are grouped into three typical curves
according to their strength (higher, medium and
lower) as shown in figure 2. All block unit types
exhibited stress-strain behaviour as shown in
figure 2, in which each type has relatively three
modes of deformation. The stress-strain curves in
the figure are non-linear, and consist of ascending
and descending branches. As shown in the figure,
the specimen units revealed different behaviours
according to the strength of the block units. These
curves also indicate that the stronger material has a
brittle behaviour compared to weaker material. This
is consistent with the observed failure during the test
in which quite sudden failure was observed in blocks
having higher strength. It can be also observed that
the modulus of elasticity increases with the increase
of compressive strength. For structural analysis of
masonry wall, it is necessary to define the strain (εo)
at the level of maximum stress (σo) and the elastic

2.3 Uniaxial compressive stress-strain behaviour

Table 2 shows a summary of the compression test

results for the three block units and grout cylinders.
No significant difference is observed in the results
between the different block units (stretcher, corner
and half). The minor differences between the block
unit results could be attributed to some sources such
as effect of shape (aspect ratio of the specimen),
location and number of transverse webs, and mould
properties. It has been observed for any block type,
the compressive strength of the masonry block is Figure 2: Typical stress-strain curve of block.

Table 2: Compression test results of block and grout material.

Type of Dimensions Density Comp. strength Elastic modulus

specimens (L×W×H) [mm] [kg/m3] o
[MPa] Ec [MPa]
Average 2010 22.0 9605
Stretcher block 300×150×200
COV (%) 2.4 16.5 10.6
Average 2001 23.7 8780
Corner block 300×150×200
COV (%) 3.0 13.7 7.6
Average 2013 21.3 9390
Half block 150×150×200
COV (%) 2.7 16.4 10.8
Average 2040 20.4 11538
Grout 150×300
COV (%) 2.0 5.5 10.9

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 222 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei 223

modulus (Ec). Hence, the strains at the maximum

compressive stress for block units and the elastic
modulus are plotted in figures 3 and 4, respectively,
with the fitted expressions. All the block types’ results
were plotted together in figures 3 and 4 to show the
average behaviour because masonry walls commonly
contain the three types.
Unlike the block units, identical curves for stress-strain
relationships were obtained from the compressive
test of grout cylinders. This is due to the uniformity
of the material density. Figure 5 shows the typical
stress-strain curve for grout cylinders that represents
a sample of stress-strain behaviour of the grout Figure 3: Maximum compressive stress and
material. Flatter peaks are observed compared to the corresponding strain of block.
block stress-strain curves. The descending portion of
the curves decreased gradually with small negative
slope, and the degree of curvature of the stress-strain
curves of the grout specimens in the ascending part
is higher than the block specimens. The reason of
this variation in behaviour could be attributed to
the differences in the material mix components and
preparation of the block and grout specimens.
It can be observed in the weakest block and grout
stress-strain curve that the descending branch
consists of distinct parts. Actually, strain-softening
behaviour is very complicated and sensitive.
Generally, the strain-softening branch of the
stress-strain diagram not only reflects the material
Figure 4: Maximum compressive stress and
behaviour, but the response of entire structural
elastic modulus of block.
system, including effects from the testing machine.

3 SELECTION OF STRESS-STRAIN
RELATION

Most of the reviewed expressions (shown in table

1) were examined to fit the typical stress-strain
experimental test data of the grout specimen
as shown in figure 6 for comparison purposes.
However, the examined equations could not fit
accurately the present test data, and as shown in
the figure, it deviated mostly in the descending part.
The selection of a suitable stress-strain relation is Figure 5: Typical stress-strain curve of
of particular concern in the present study because concrete grout.
different concrete materials exist in the masonry
system and the relation will be incorporated into the
FEM proposed for the masonry system. Hence, the
selected stress-strain relation should be simple and
adaptable to represent different materials accurately,
and also efficient in the non-linear analysis procedure.
Equation (5) is selected in this study to fit the
compressive stress-strain curves for the concrete
block and grout material because of its simplicity
and suitability for the FE modelling. However,
another technique will be proposed here to obtain the
material parameter (A). From table 1, equation (5) is:
A(H H o )V o
V (5) Figure 6: Different stress-strain
A  1  (H H o )A relations comparison.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 223 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 224 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei
where A is the material parameter that was
determined according to equation (6) as follows:
1
A (6)
1  (Es Eo )
The material parameter expression (equation (6)) is
not suitable for curve fitting of the tested masonry
materials conducted in this study because it depends
on the initial slope at the origin, Eo. To explain this
shortcoming, figures 7 and 8 show how the initial
modulus could yield inappropriate values for the
material parameters via equation (6). The data used
in the figures is for the typical stress-strain test data of
the grout specimen that is selected to clarify the idea.
The maximum compressive stress of the specimen is
22.29 MPa and the corresponding strain is 0.0021. The
initial tangent modulus is expected, graphically, to be
within two values (30,000 and 23,000 MPa) because
the curvature is not clear, and varies in the vicinity of
the origin point as shown in figure 7. It can be seen
from the figure that the third value of Eo (17,336 MPa)
is out of the expected range because it seems that this
line cannot be considered as a tangent for the curve at
the origin point. Substituting these two initial tangent
moduli into equation (6) to obtain the corresponding
material parameters and using equation (5) to draw
the possible stress-strain curves, two fitted curves
Figure 7: Initial tangent modulus estimation at
the origin for a specimen.
Figure 8: Stress-strain curve based on the
estimated initial tangent moduli.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 224
were obtained. Both of the estimated initial tangent
moduli yield an inaccurate stress-strain curve as
shown in the fitted curve in figure 8, because they
provide improper material parameters. Therefore, if
the initial tangent modulus method is used for the
present test curve, many trials are needed to find the
appropriate range of the initial slope, Eo. Therefore, a
different method should be proposed to evaluate the
material parameter based on the entire experimental
data, not only on the data at the origin point.
4 PROPOSED TECHNIQUE FOR MATERIAL
PARAMETER DETERMINATION
While some stress-strain test curves are quite difficult
to estimate their initial slopes and since the stress-
strain data near zero loads is very sensitive to the
setting of the deformation measurement, the entire
stress-strain diagram should be much less sensitive
to the setting. Based on this consideration, it seems
reasonable to determine the material parameter, A,
based on the whole stress-strain test diagram.
In this study, non-linear regression analysis is used to
obtain the material parameter (A) of the stress-strain
relation in equation (5) based on the entire diagram
of the test data. Non-linear regression is a method of
finding a non-linear model of the relationship between
the dependent variable and a set of independent
variables (Bates & Watts, 1998). The dependent
variable in equation (5) is the stress ratio (σ/σo) after
normalising the stress using the maximum stress at
the peak, σo. Furthermore, the independent variable
is the strain ratio (ε/εo). Non-linear regression can
estimate models with arbitrary relationships between
independent and dependent variables. This is
accomplished using iterative estimation algorithms.
The non-linear regression analysis technique was
applied for the previous test curve to find a more
accurate value for the material parameter and
A = 2.56 was obtained. The resulted value was used to
find the best fit curve by applying equation (5). Figure
9 shows a comparison between the fitted curves using
the non-linear regression analysis results (A = 2.56)
and the previous results obtained by equation (6)
(A = 1.54 and 1.85 for different initial tangent moduli).
As shown in figure 9, employing the proposed
technique yields an excellent fitted curve with
coefficient of determination of R2 = 0.994. It is worth
to mention here that the initial tangent modulus
that gives the accurate curve fitting is the third line
in figure 7, which is 17,336 MPa. This value is the
initial slope of the best fit curve and can be calculated
from the derivative of equation (5) (equation (10)
in section 5) or from equation (6) using A = 2.56.
Therefore, the initial tangent modulus at the origin
is not a reliable method to evaluate the material
parameter and hence the proposed technique based
on performing non-linear regression analysis of the
whole experimental data exhibited accurate results.
Vol 13 No 3
2/11/12 2:53 PM
 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei 225

Figure 9: Stress-strain data fitting comparison. Figure 10: Stress-strain data fitting of block unit.
30

The proposed method is also used to obtain the best

25
fit stress-strain relation of the block unit and accurate

/mm2
Compressive stress NMPa
curve fitting has been obtained. The test data and 20

proposed stress-strain relation for the typical stress-

15
strain data of blocks are shown in figure 10 with
the material parameters for the curves. For all fitted 10
curves, the coefficient of determination, R2, is not less
than 0.980 for each curve. 5

Another validation is shown in figure 11, in which 0

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
some experimental test data of the block and grout, Strain mm/mm
as well as the best fit curve, were drawn by equation Test data of block Proposed Eq for block Saenz Eq for block
(5) (after using the proposed method to get the A Test data of grout Proosed Eq for grout Saenz Eq for grout
parameter) are depicted. A comparison with the well-
known formula suggested by Saenz (1964) (equation Figure 11: Comparison of test data and
(3) in table 1), which is frequently used for simulation the best fit relation.
of compressive stress-strain curves of masonry and
concrete under biaxial stress state (Cerioni & Doinda,
1994; Chen, 1982), is also shown in figure 11. Unlike framework. In addition, micro-model is adequate
equation (5), Saenz’s formula fails to represent the for detailed stress analysis and for capturing the
variation of curvatures of the stress-strain relations various failure mechanisms of masonry assemblages
for different materials, which in turn makes Saenz’s (Alwathaf, 2006).
equation more suitable for a masonry macro-model To include the biaxial stress effect on the uniaxial
as used by some researchers (Cerioni & Doinda, stress-strain relation given by equation (5), the
1994). As it was mentioned before, another condition following procedure has been suggested to develop
that restricts using Saenz’s formula is the ratio of the a more general stress-strain expression to incorporate
tangential modulus of elasticity at the origin to the the biaxial effect. Rewriting equation (5) in terms of
secant modulus at the peak, which should be more equivalent uniaxial strain, we obtain (for i = 1, 2):
than or equal to 2, otherwise a concave curve at the
low stress level will be produced. A(H iu H ip )V ip
Vi (8)
A  1  (H iu H ip )A

5 BIAXIAL STRESS MODELLING

After obtaining the best fit expression and suitable
technique to find the proper material parameter of
the stress-strain curves of the masonry materials
in the previous section, equation (5) has been
incorporated into a two-dimensional (2D) FEM using
a micro-model approach to investigate numerically
the stress-strain behaviour of the masonry system.
The micro-model approach seems to be more realistic
and capable of predicting the behaviour and local
failure more accurately than other models, because
the constitutive relations of the masonry constituents
are developed individually in the micro-model
where σ ip is the maximum (peak) compressive
principal stress in direction i, εip is the equivalent
uniaxial strain corresponding to maximum (peak)
compressive principle stress σ ip, and ε iu is the
equivalent uniaxial strain.
The concept of equivalent uniaxial strain was
developed in order to allow actual biaxial stress-
strain relationships to be duplicated from uniaxial
relationship. This technique was introduced first by
Darwin & Pecknold (1977) and developed by several
researchers to include the change of the damaged
concrete state in different stress condition (Foster &
Gilbert, 1996; Ayoub & Filippou, 1998).

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 225 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 226 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei
Figure 12 shows two equivalent uniaxial stress-strain
curves of the principal directions of an element loaded
by biaxial compression stresses σ1 and σ2 (|σ1| <
|σ2|). The equivalent uniaxial strain for direction i is
εiu (i = 1, 2), σip and εip are the equivalent uniaxial peak
and the corresponding strain, and Eit is the tangent
modulus of elasticity at the studied principal stress σi.
The equivalent uniaxial strain εiu essentially removes
Poisson’s effect, whereas the strengthening due to the
micro-cracking confinement in biaxial compression
stress and softening in compression-tension stress
fields are incorporated in σip and εip, respectively. Thus
a single relation (equation (8)) can represent the infinite
variety of monotonic biaxial loading curves. It can be
seen in figure 12, higher confinement is provided by
σ2 in direction 1. As a result, this higher confinement
increases the concrete strength in the orthogonal
direction 1 in which σ1p > σ2p.
The secant modulus at any point on the curve can be
found by dividing equation (8) by εiu and expressed
as follows:
A(H iu H ip )V ip
Eis
[ A  1  (H iu H ip )A ]H iu
Also, the tangent moduli E1t and E2t for a given
principal stress directions are found as the slopes
of the σ1 versus ε1u and σ2 versus ε2u curves for the
current ε1u and ε2u as follows:
AEs ª¬ A  1  (H iu / H ip )A  A(H iu / H ip )A º¼
Eit 2 (10)
ª¬ A  1  (H iu / H ip )A º¼
where Es is the secant modulus at the peak (maximum
stress) σip/εip.
A detailed model for masonry analysis is proposed,
and an incremental-iterative 2D non-linear finite
-ıi
2
ı1p
ı2p
ı2
ı1
İ1u İ2u İ2p İ1p
Figure 12: Equivalent uniaxial stress-strain of an
element under biaxial compression.
Table 2: Masonry materials properties.
Type of material Eo [MPa]
Block 10932
Grout 12882
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 226
element code is developed to implement the
proposed constitutive model. Moreover, numerical
procedure and solution algorithm are proposed
to solve the non-linear system. More details about
the model and solution algorithm can be obtained
elsewhere (Alwathaf, 2006).
6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Masonry concrete block unit and grouted masonry
prism were simulated under vertical loads and non-
linear finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted.
The stretcher block unit was used in the simulation
of the block and grouted prism. The simulated prism
was constructed from three courses without mortar
and hence mortarless (dry) joints were formed. The
dry joint properties were established experimentally
and incorporated in the simulation. However, its
characteristics were not added to the study because
this study focuses on the masonry material stress-
strain characteristic. More details about the dry joint
characteristics can be found elsewhere (Jaafar et al,
(9) 2006; Thanoon et al, 2008a; 2008b).
Previous studies on hollow block masonry systems
under compression showed that the differences in
ultimate strength using 2D (plane stress and plane
strain) and 3D FEA were not more than 5% (Suwalski
& Drysdale, 1986; Guo, 1991). The accuracy can
be increased if the FE mesh is used in the critical
section where the failure is initiated. Also using
3D discretisation for non-linear analysis involves
higher computational cost. Therefore, plane stress
2D continuum is adopted in this study.
The properties used in the analysis of block and
grout material are shown in table 2. In table 2,
the initial tangent modulus at the origin (Eo) was
obtained by substituting the compressive strength
(σo) and corresponding strain (εo) into equation (10).
To examine the stress-strain model, the FEA results
were compared with those found experimentally for
1
the unit block and grouted prism (Alwathaf, 2006).
ı2 6.1 Block unit
ı1
As the entire compressive loads of a block unit are
carried by the block face-shells due to the removal
of top projections, the FEA was conducted on the
face-shell only as shown in the 2D mesh of the block
- İiu
face-shell in figure 13. The boundary condition at the
top and the bottom was also modelled as shown in
figure 13, which simulates the end platen restrain
against lateral deformation during the test.
o
[MPa] o
Material parameter, A
0.2 –22.0 –0.0024 8.10
0.2 –20.4 –0.0026 2.56
Vol 13 No 3
2/11/12 2:53 PM
 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei 227

The stress-strain relationships obtained by FEM 6.2 Grouted prism

and experimental test for the block unit are shown
in figure 14. It can be seen that the FE results agree
very well with the experimental data. The close
matching between the experimental and theoretical
analysis indicates that the adopted masonry material
modelling is capable of predicting both the linear
as well as non-linear stress-strain response of the
masonry materials.
Figure 13: Block unit face-shell finite
element mesh.
25
Figure 15 shows a half of the three courses height
prism analysed using the developed FEM. 2D
FE discretisation of the prism in the x-y plane is
adopted as shown in figure 15(b). The horizontal and
vertical discontinuous lines in the FE mesh refer to
the interface elements. The compressive load was
applied incrementally, and the boundary condition
at the top and bottom of the prism were simulated
as reported in the experimental test.
The FEA results of the grouted prism revealed a
very good agreement with the test results, as shown
in the axial deformation curves in figure 16. The
FEM and experimental results showed relatively
linear variation of load with deformation, followed
by non-linear style of relation (at about 60% of the
maximum predicted load), reflecting the degradation
of stiffness due to the non-linearity of materials and
gradual de-bonding of block-grout interface. As
shown in the figure, noticeable deformation occurs
at the higher load levels. The compressive strength
predicted by the model is 12.5 MPa (11.5 MPa from
450
400

350
/mm 2

20 Demec
MPa

Points
Compressive load kN

300
Compressive Stress N

15 250

200
10
FE model 150 FE model
Test result - - - - Test Results
PRG1
5 100
PRG2
50
PRG3
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Strain mm/mm Axial deformation mm

Figure 14: Stress-strain curves of block unit. Figure 16: Mode of deformation of grouted prism.

y y
x
z x
(a)   (b)

Figure 15: (a) Half of grouted prism and (b) FE mesh.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 227 2/11/12 2:53 PM

 228 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei
test), which is 8.0 % higher than the average strength
of the tested prisms.
7 CONCLUSION
Stress-strain behaviour for masonry materials
under axial compression has been investigated
experimentally and analytically in this study. The
investigation includes the material hardening and
softening parts to obtain the complete structural
response.
It has been found that the stress-strain data of the
masonry materials (block and grout) has been
accurately fitted by the employed stress-strain
equation after using the whole diagram data to obtain
the material parameter. The non-linear regression
analysis for the entire experimental stress-strain
curve yielded accurate material parameters. A perfect
formula for any concrete material has been obtained
by this technique.
The best fit stress-strain relation proposed for
masonry block and grout material was implemented
effectively in the FE modelling in order to estimate
accurately the non-linearity of different masonry
materials under loading in the uniaxial and biaxial
stress states. Comparable deformation and strength
was obtained by the FE mode compared to the test
result of the block unit and prism.
REFERENCES
Ali, S. S. & Page, A. W. 1988, “Finite Element Model
for Masonry Subjected to Concentrated Loads”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No.
8, pp. 1761-1784.
Alwathaf, A. H. 2006, “Development of Finite
Element Code for Non-linear Analysis of Interlocking
Mortarless Masonry System”, PhD thesis, University
Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
1994, ASTM C 469-94 Static Modulus of Elasticity
and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression,
Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
1999, ASTM C140-99b Sampling and Testing Concrete
Masonry Units and Related Units, Philadelphia, PA.
Ayoub, A. & Filippou, F. 1998, “Nonlinear finite
element analysis of RC shear panels and walls”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No.
3, pp. 298-308.
Bates, D. M. & Watts, D. G. 1998, Nonlinear Regression
and Its Applications, Wiley, New York.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 228
Carreira, D. J. & Chu, K. C. 1985, “Stress-Strain
Relationship for Plain Concrete in Compression”,
ACI Journal, Vol. 82, pp. 797-804.
Cerioni, R. & Doinda, G. 1994, “A Finite Element
Model for the Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced and
Prestressed Masonry Wall”, Computer and Structures,
Vol. 53, pp. 1291-1306.
Chen, W. F. 1982, Plasticity in reinforced concrete,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, USA.
Darwin, D. & Pecknold, D. 1977, “Nonlinear biaxial
stress-strain law for concrete”, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 229-241.
Desayi, P. & Krishnan, S. 1964, “Equation for the
Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete”, ACI Journal, Vol.
61, No. 3, pp. 345-350.
Foster, S. & Gilbert, R. 1996, “Rotating crack finite
element model for reinforced concrete structures”,
Computers & Structures, Vol. 58, pp. 43-50.
Guo, P. 1991, “Investigation and Modelling of the
Mechanical Properties of Masonry”, PhD Thesis,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Guo, P. & Drysdal, R. G. 1989, “Stress-Strain
Relationship for Hollow Concrete Block in
Compression”, Proceeding of 5th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
of British Colombia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 599.
Hognestad, E. 1951, “A Study Of Combined Bending
And Axial Load In Reinforced Concrete Member”,
University of Illinois Engineering Experimental
Station, Bulletin Series No. 399.
Jaafar, M. S., Alwathaf, A. H., Thanoon, W. A.,
Noorzaei, J. & AbdulKadir, M. R. 2006, “Behaviour of
Interlocking Mortarless Block Masonry”, Proceedings
of ICE, Construction Materials, Vol. 159, No. 3, pp.
111-117.
Neville, A. M. 1995, Properties of Concrete, Longman
Group, London, UK.
Page, A. W. 1978, “A Finite Element Model for
Masonry”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No. 8, pp. 1267-1285.
Park, P. & Paulay, T. 1975, Reinforced Concrete
Structures, John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA.
Saenz, L. P. 1964, “Discussion of ‘Equation for the
stress-strain curve of concrete’, by Desayi and
Krishnan”, ACI journal, Vol. 61, No. 9, pp. 1229-1235.
Suwalski, P. & Drysdale, R. 1986, “Influence of
Slenderness on the capacity of concrete Block Walls”,
Vol 13 No 3
2/11/12 2:53 PM
 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei
Proceedings of 4 th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Fredericton, New Brunswick, pp. 122-135.
Thanoon, W. A. 1997, “Modelling of Stress-Strain
Relation of Steel Fibre Concrete”, Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on Concrete Engineering and
Technology, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Thanoon, W. A., Alwathaf, A. H., Noorzaei, J., Jaafar,
M. S. & Abdulkadir, M. R. 2008a, “Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis of Grouted and Ungrouted Hollow
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 229
229
Interlocking Mortarless Block Masonry System”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 1560-1572.
Thanoon, W. A. M., Alwathaf, A. H., Noorzaei, J.,
Jaafar M. S. & Abdulkadir, M. R. 2008b, “Finite
Element Analysis of Interlocking Mortarless Hollow
Block Masonry Prism”, Computer and Structures, Vol.
86, pp. 520-528.
Wang, P. T., Shah, S. P. & Naaman, A. E. 1978, “Stress-
Strain Curves of Normal and Lightweight Concrete in
Compression”, ACI Journal, Title No. 75-62, pp. 603-611.
Vol 13 No 3
2/11/12 2:53 PM
 230 “Mathematical modelling of stress-strain curves of ...” – Alwathaf, Thanoon, Jaafar & Noorzaei

AHMED ALWATHAF

Ahmed Hasan Alwathaf is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering

Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen. He has
a BA Honours Degree in Civil Engineering from Sana’a University, Yemen; MSc
Honours Degree in Civil Engineering from Jordan University, Jordan; and PhD
in Structural Engineering from the University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.

WALEED THANOON

Waleed Abdulmalik Thanoon is Professor and Dean of the College of Engineering

and Architecture, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman. He has a BSc and MSc
in Civil Engineering from Mosul University, Mosul, Iraq; and PhD in Civil
Engineering from IIT Roorkee, India.

MUHAMMAD JAAFAR

Muhammad Saleh Jaafar is Professor and Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research

and Innovation) in the Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia. He has a BSc with Honors in Civil Engineering
from Michigan State University, USA; MS (Structures) from the University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor, USA; and PhD from the University of Sheffield, UK.

JAMALODIN NOORZAEI

Jamalodin Noorzaei is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department, Faculty

of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia. He has a BE (with Distinction) from
Mysore University, Karnataka State India; and ME and PhD from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 13 No 3

S11-110 Alwathaf.indd 230 2/11/12 2:53 PM