# Prediction of Rubble-Stone Masonry Walls Response under Axial Compression Using 2D Particle Modelling

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Particle Models

#### 2.1. General Formulation

#### 2.2. Contact Stiffness and Resistance Models

#### 2.3. Generation of the Numerical Models

#### 2.4. Model Parameters and Calibration Requirements

## 3. Experimental Work

#### 3.1. Rubble-Stone Masonry Specimens

#### 3.2. Materials and Specimens’ Properties

^{3}[21]. The average compressive strength, measured from 14 specimens with nearly 60 × 60 × 60 mm

^{3}, prepared and tested according to [22], is 47.8 MPa. Besides these results, six stone specimens with almost 70 × 70 × 70 mm

^{3}were tested within the scope of this work, aiming to obtain the modulus of elasticity in axial compression [22], of 5.89 GPa, required for the numerical analysis. The hydrated air-lime used in the mortar of the rubble-stone masonry specimens [1] is a binder resulting from the decomposition under the temperature effect, of limestones with a percentage of calcium carbonate or calcium and magnesium higher than 95% [23]; according to NP EN 459-1:2011, this hydrated air-lime belongs to class CL90 S. The dimensions of the sands used in the experimental specimens mortar varies between 0.149 mm (minimum dimension of both River sand and Yellow pit sand) and 2.38 mm (maximum dimension of River sand).

^{3}, the following are used in this work: compressive strength and tensile flexural strength [24] of 0.650 MPa and 0.300 MPa, respectively. Under the scope of this work, additional tests were performed on mortar prismatic samples of 160 × 40 × 40 mm

^{3}, and the following results were obtained: compressive strength of 0.633 MPa and modulus of elasticity in axial compression of 74.95 MPa [24].

#### 3.3. Experimental Analysis of the URM Specimens

^{2}/0.32 m

^{2}). According to Table 1, the following average values were obtained as mechanical parameters of the reference (URM) specimens M43, M21, and M32: ${\sigma}_{c,max}=0.43$ MPa; ${\epsilon}_{v,{F}_{max}}=4.9\u2030$ and $E=0.305$ GPa.

## 4. Numerical Modelling

#### 4.1. Model Generation

^{3}[1]. Figure 6 shows an image of the frontal view of specimen M43 that was used to define the stone contours required to build the 2D-PM model, see Section 2.3.

#### 4.2. Parameter Calibration–Uniaxial Testing

## 5. Particle Model Prediction

#### 5.1. Frontal Model

#### 5.2. Lateral Model

**Table 7.**Elastic properties and peak-strength—numerical and experimental values [1].

Model | ${\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ [kN] | E [GPa] | ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{\mathit{c},\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ [MPa] | ${\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{v},{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}}$ [mm] |
---|---|---|---|---|

m-refined | 270 | 0.254 | 0.56 | 3.38 |

m-refined-elastic | 325 | 0.254 | 0.68 | 4.50 |

[1] | 168 (238) | - | 0.49 (0.73) | 5.97 (6.39) |

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

URM | Unreinforced masonry |

FEM | Finite element method |

DEM | Discrete element method |

DDA | Discontinuous deformation analysis |

RVE | Representative volume element |

2D-PM | 2D Particle model |

PM | Particle model |

## References

- Pinho, F.F.S. Ordinary Masonry Walls–Experimental Study with Unstrengthened and Strengthened Specimens. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal, 2007. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G. Rubble Stone Masonry Walls in Portugal: Material Properties, Carbonation Depth and Mechanical Characterization. Int. J. Archit. Herit.
**2017**, 11, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rots, J.G. Numerical simulation of cracking in structural masonry. Heron
**1991**, 36, 49–63. [Google Scholar] - Lourenço, P.B.; Rots, J.G. Multisurface Interface Model for Analysis of Masonry Structures. J. Eng. Mech.
**1997**, 123, 660–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lemos, J. Discrete element modelling of the seismic behaviour of stone masonry arches. In Proceedings of the Computer Methods in Structural Masonry—4 Fourth International Symposium, 1st ed.; Pande, G., Middleton, J., Kralj, B., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 1998; pp. 220–227. ISBN 9780419235408. [Google Scholar]
- Azevedo, N.M.; Lemos, J.V.; de Almeida, J.R. Discrete Element Particle Modelling of Stone Masonry. In Computational Modeling of Masonry Structures Using the Discrete Element Method; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 146–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Q.; Wang, W.; Sun, Z.; Wang, B.; Xu, S. Statistical analysis of mesoscopic concrete with random elastic modulus. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 33, 101850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smoljanović, H.; Živaljić, N.; Nikolić, Ž. A combined finite-discrete element analysis of dry stone masonry structures. Eng. Struct.
**2013**, 52, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smoljanović, H.; Živaljić, N.; Nikolić, Ž.; Munjiza, A. Numerical analysis of 3D dry-stone masonry structures by combined finite-discrete element method. Int. J. Solids Struct.
**2018**, 136, 150–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baggio, C.; Trovalusci, P. Limit Analysis for No-Tension and Frictional Three-Dimensional Discrete Systems. Mech. Struct. Mach.
**1998**, 26, 287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thavalingam, A.; Bicanic, N.; Robinson, J.I.; Ponniah, D.A. Computational framework for discontinuous modelling of masonry arch bridges. Comput. Struct.
**2001**, 79, 1821–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Massart, T.J.; Peerlings, R.H.J.; Geers, M.G.D. Structural Damage Analysis of Masonry Walls using Computational Homogenization. Int. J. Damage Mech.
**2007**, 16, 199–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Azevedo, N.M.; Candeias, M.; Gouveia, F. A Rigid Particle Model for Rock Fracture Following the Voronoi Tessellation of the Grain Structure: Formulation and Validation. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
**2014**, 48, 535–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Agrawal, A.K.; Chan, A.H.; Cheng, Y. Simulating the failure of masonry walls subjected to support settlement with the combined finite-discrete element method. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 43, 102558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Azevedo, N.M.; Lemos, J.V. A Hybrid Particle/Finite Element Model with Surface Roughness for Stone Masonry Analysis. Appl. Mech.
**2022**, 3, 608–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Senthivel, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Finite element modelling of deformation characteristics of historical stone masonry shear walls. Eng. Struct.
**2009**, 31, 1930–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bergonse de Souza, M. Numerical Modeling of Ordinary Masonry Walls Using a Particle Model. Master’s Thesis, FCT UNL, Lisbon, Portugal, 2019. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, D.V.; Lourenço, P.B. Implementation and validation of a constitutive model for the cyclic behaviour of interface elements. Comput. Struct.
**2004**, 82, 1451–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Pinho, F.F.S. Structural Rehabilitation of Traditional Stone Masonry Walls; Science, Engineering and Technology Collection, Nova; FCT Editorial: Lisbon, Portugal, 2021. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- E223:1968; Aggregates Volumetric Ratio Determination. Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC): Lisbon, Portugal, 1968. (In Portuguese)
- NP EN 1936:2008; Natural Stone Test Methods. Determination of Real Density and Apparent Density, and of Total and Open Porosity. Intituto Português de Qualidade: Caparica, Portugal, 2008. (In Portuguese)
- NP EN 1926:2000; Test Methods for Natural Stone. Determination of Compression Resistance. Intituto Português de Qualidade: Lisbon, Portugal, 2000. (In Portuguese)
- Veiga, M.; Aguiar, J.; Silva, A.; Carvalho, F. Conservation and Renovation of Ancient Building Walls Coverings; Collection on Buildings; LNEC: Lisbon, Portugal, 2004; Volume 9. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- EN1015-11:1999; Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 11: Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
- Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G.; Baião, M.F.C. Rubble stone masonry walls in Portugal strengthened with reinforced micro-concrete layers. Bull. Earthq. Eng.
**2012**, 10, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G.; Baião, M.F.C. Rubble Stone Masonry Walls Strengthened by Three-Dimensional Steel Ties and Textile Reinforced Mortar Render, Under Compression. Int. J. Archit. Herit.
**2014**, 8, 670–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G.; Baião, M.F.C. Rubble Stone Masonry Walls Strengthened by Three-Dimensional Steel Ties and Textile-Reinforced Mortar Render, Under Compression and Shear Loads. Int. J. Archit. Herit.
**2015**, 9, 844–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G.; Baião, M.F.C. Experimental analysis of rubble stone masonry walls strengthened by transverse confinement under compression and compression-shear loadings. Int. J. Archit. Herit.
**2018**, 12, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Correia, J. Experimental Analysis of a Large Rubble Stone Masonry Specimen. Master’s Thesis, FCT UNL, Lisbon, Portugal, 2011. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Morais, H. Experimental Analysis of a Small Rubble Stone Masonry Specimen. Master’s Thesis, FCT UNL, Lisbon, Portugal, 2010. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Cusatis, G.; Bažant, Z.P.; Cedolin, L. Confinement-shear lattice model for concrete damage in tension and compression: I. Theory. J. Eng. Mech.
**2003**, 129, 1439–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 6.**Numerical model generation: (

**a**) Frontal wall photography with stone contour and (

**b**) final stone units representative polygons discretized with inner particles.

**Figure 7.**2D-PM numerical models that are representative of the masonry walls facets with a zoom of the particle assembly including the inter-particle contacts.

**Figure 8.**Final crack patterns: compression tests (specimen size 0.04 × 0.04 m

^{2}) and bending tests (specimen size 0.14 × 0.04 m

^{2}).

**Figure 9.**(

**a**) Stress-displacement diagram for compression test and (

**b**) Force-displacement diagram for bending test.

**Figure 12.**Contact crack evolution for frontal numerical model with 25% mortar–Yield plateau of 0.80 MPa (m-refined) and elastic behaviour under compression (m-refined (elastic)).

**Figure 13.**Numerical stress-displacement diagrams for frontal numerical models with 25% mortar volume–Frontal model–Refined and coarse particle assemblies.

**Figure 14.**Frontal model (m-refined)-Evolution of the damage pattern. Instances (

**a**–

**d**) are identified on Figure 10 as “Representative points”.

**Figure 15.**Frontal model (m-refined (elastic))-Evolution of the damage pattern. Instances (

**a**–

**d**) are identified on Figure 10 as “Representative points”.

**Figure 16.**Comparison of the experimental [1] and numerical stress-displacement diagrams for frontal numerical models with 25% mortar volume–Lateral model–Refined particle assembly.

**Figure 18.**Lateral Model m-refined-Evolution of the damage pattern. Instances (

**a**–

**d**) are identified on Figure 16 as “Representative points”.

**Figure 19.**Numerical stress-displacement diagrams for lateral numerical models with 25% mortar volume–Lateral model–Refined and coarse particle assemblies.

**Table 1.**Main experimental results obtained under compression loads of the rubble-stone’s masonry specimens.

Specimen | Age at Test | ${\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ | ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{\mathit{c},\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ | ${\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{v},{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}}$ | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

[days] | [kN] | [MPa] | [mm] | [GPa] | |

M47 ^{(1)} | 372 | 76.8 | 0.24 | 4.5 | 0.093 |

M43 ^{(2)} | 618 | 134.2 | 0.42 | 6.8 | 0.239 |

M21 ^{(3)} | 626 | 127.7 | 0.40 | 6.4 | 0.409 |

M32 ^{(4)} | 638 | 148.5 | 0.46 | 4.3 | 0.267 |

M36 ^{(5)} | 2866 | 238.3 | 0.74 | 6.4 | 0.212 |

M9 ^{(6)} | 3087 | 192.2 | 0.60 | 5.4 | 0.341 |

Model | Particles | Contacts | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Stone (s) | Mortar (m) | m-m | m-s | s-s | |

Frontal-m-coarse | 14,990 | 88,738 | 40,337 | 247,943 | 21,053 |

Frontal-m-refined | 17,790 | 175,822 | 45,141 | 499,097 | 32,925 |

Lateral-m-coarse | 7501 | 45,381 | 20,034 | 127,176 | 10,154 |

Lateral-m-refined | 9363 | 90,012 | 23,327 | 255,619 | 16,275 |

(a) Experimental values | ||||

Material | E [GPa] | $\nu $ | ${\sigma}_{c}$ [MPa] | ${\sigma}_{t.fl}$ [MPa] |

Mortar | 0.075 | 0.16 | 0.65 | 0.3 |

Stone | 6.0 | 0.3 | 47.8 | - |

(b) Numerical predictions after calibration | ||||

Mortar (m-coarse) | 0.075 | 0.16 | 0.66 (0.69) | 0.15 (0.16) |

Mortar (m-refined) | 0.075 | 0.16 | 0.65 (0.67) | 0.25 (0.25) |

Stone | 6.0 | 0.3 | 47.8 | - |

Contacts | $\overline{\mathit{E}}$ | $\mathit{\alpha}$ | ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{\mathit{n}\mathit{t},\mathit{c}}$ | ${\mathit{\tau}}_{\mathit{c}}$ | ${\mathit{\mu}}_{\mathit{c}}$ | ${\mathit{G}}_{\mathit{f},\mathit{n}}$ | ${\mathit{G}}_{\mathit{f},\mathit{s}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[GPa] | [–] | [MPa] | [MPa] | [–] | [N/m] | [N/m] | |

s-s | 8.60 | 0.11 | 8.90 | 35.7 | 1.0 | 0.3838 | 56.1403 |

m-m & m-s (m-coarse) | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1.0 | 0.0013 | 0.0030 |

m-m & m-s (m-refined) | 0.09 | 0.45 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 1.0 | 0.0020 | 0.0046 |

**Table 5.**Elastic properties and peak-strength—Frontal model-Numerical and experimental values [1].

Model | ${\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ [kN] | E [GPa] | ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{\mathit{c},\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}$ [MPa] | ${\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{v},{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}}$ [mm] |
---|---|---|---|---|

m-refined | 176 | 0.283 | 0.55 | 2.25 |

m-refined-elastic | 350 | 0.283 | 1.13 | 5.63 |

[1] | 168 (238) | – | 0.49 (0.73) | 5.97 (6.39) |

Loading Stage | ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{{\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}}$ [MPa] | |
---|---|---|

m-m | m-s | |

3.00 mm/0.74 MPa | 5.94 | 5.21 |

4.50 mm/1.04 MPa | 10.36 | 10.26 |

5.63 mm/1.13 MPa | 14.27 | 15.13 |

4.50 mm/1.04 MPa | 11.79 | 11.38 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Azevedo, N.M.; Pinho, F.F.S.; Cismaşiu, I.; Souza, M.
Prediction of Rubble-Stone Masonry Walls Response under Axial Compression Using 2D Particle Modelling. *Buildings* **2022**, *12*, 1283.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081283

**AMA Style**

Azevedo NM, Pinho FFS, Cismaşiu I, Souza M.
Prediction of Rubble-Stone Masonry Walls Response under Axial Compression Using 2D Particle Modelling. *Buildings*. 2022; 12(8):1283.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081283

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro, Fernando F. S. Pinho, Ildi Cismaşiu, and Murilo Souza.
2022. "Prediction of Rubble-Stone Masonry Walls Response under Axial Compression Using 2D Particle Modelling" *Buildings* 12, no. 8: 1283.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081283