Numerical Modelling of Masonry Panel Subjected to Surface

Numerical Modelling of Masonry Panel

Subjected to Surface Blast Loading

Saba Shamim1

Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Civil engineering

Aligarh Muslim University (A.M.U.), Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh (India)

Shakeel Ahmad2 Professor, Department of Civil engineering


Rehan A. Khan3 Professor, Department of Civil engineering


Abstract- Site investigation of blast phenomenon is not always possible due to various restrictions concerning life and

environmental well-being. Nevertheless, computational technology has made it possible to simulate blast scenario and its

effect on structures. However, such software’s are based on numerical theories defining several parameters. The

effectiveness of numerical model depends on proper computation of these parameters. The present study aims at

calibrating the numerical model of masonry infill panel based on dilation angle. For the purpose, actual experimental

blast test data for masonry wall were taken from literature. Further, parametric studies have been carried out

investigating the effect of scaled distance and weight of charge on the calibrated wall. It was found that both scaled

distance and weight of charge greatly influence the peak displacement and end rotation response of the wall panel.

Moreover, dilation angle proved to be an influential parameter for generating precised numerical model of masonry.

Keywords- Masonry, Blast Load, Finite Element Modelling, Dilation Angle, Weight of Charge, Scaled Distance

I. Introduction

Masonry is one of the oldest and most commonly used building materials which is not only durable and easy to

apply but also provides acoustic insulation and fire protection along with aesthetic appearance to the structure at a

very low cost. But, brick masonry materials offer relatively small resistance against blast loading, unlike most of the

building materials [15]. Investigation on behaviour of masonry against the action of blast loading has been given due

consideration over last decade due to increase in Terrorist bombing attacks. However, experimental study of blast is

not always possible due various constraints risking the life and environmental well-being. Besides, there are several

computational methods and software that can effectively simulate the blast effects on structure for example;

ABAQUS, SAP2000, LS-DYNA, ANSYS etc. But, numerical simulation of structure as well as blast requires a

deep insight about the subject.

P.W. Sielicki and T. Lodygowski [12] investigated the response of masonry wall subjected to close-in explosion.

The explosive loading was presented by a rapid pressure wave which propagates through the ambient air. Based on

the experimental data a novel numerical approach using VUMAT subroutine in ABAQUS was suggested for

modelling the brittle behaviour of two-phase masonry subjected to blast. This complex experiment was numerically

modelled by mixing the newly developed material response described by equations of the state for the air and

explosive respectively. Finally, the numerical studies were compared with the experimental results, consequentially

developing the pressure-impulse curves and masonry failure. S.H. Alsayed et al. [17] tested a half-scale externally

strengthened infill masonry walls using GFRP sheets against the blast loads due to C-4 explosive. The response of

strengthened walls was compared with un-strengthened infill masonry walls. The field test results of un-

strengthened as well as the strengthened walls were simulated using ANSYS-AUTODYN. The blast pressures

recorded during the experiments were also validated with numerical results of analysis. The numerical models were

then used for studying the effect of various parameters such as scaled distance and FRP end anchorage. X. Yuan et

al. [21] analyzed the blast properties of the masonry infill walls with the finite element program LS-DYNA by the

way of distinctive consideration of the bricks and mortar material in contrast to the experimental data. The

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XII, Issue VII, 2020

ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 846

numerical results have a good agreement with experimental data. The reliability and efficiency of this method in

predicting the dynamic responses of masonry walls to blast loads was proven. X. Wei and M.G. Stewart [20] carried

out numerical simulations to estimate the response and damage of unreinforced brick masonry walls subjected to

explosive blast loading based on the transient dynamic finite element program LS-DYNA. A new model for strain

rate effects of bricks and mortar was included in the numerical analysis. The results obtained from the numerical

models were compared with field test data and good agreement was found. Parametric studies were conducted to

evaluate the effect of material strength, boundary conditions, and thickness of the wall on the blast response of

unreinforced brick masonry walls. It was found that boundary conditions and wall thickness significantly affect the

blast response, while the effect of material strength was relatively small.

Masonry wall when subjected to blast undergo tensile flexural failure. However, shearing of bed joints is an

accompanied response during any lateral load. . The shearing of bed joints in masonry is technically known as

dilatational behavior which is a well known phenomenon and has already been studied by various researchers

[example; 2, 9-11, 16]. During the dilation process the shearing along bed joints also causes upward translation,

resulting in global volume increase of masonry model and this effect is usually considered while describing the

inelastic behaviour of masonry. Hence, for defining a non-linear numerical model angle of dilation is an important

parameter. Therefore, such a phenomenon needs to be correctly incorporated during the computational modelling.

The present study aims at calibrating the numerical model of masonry panel enclosed in RC frame based on angle of

dilation (Ψ) of masonry using Finite Element (FE) tool in ABAQUS/Explicit software [1]. An experimental wall test

data of masonry infill RC frame wall subjected to blast were taken from the literature for the purpose of validation.

Later, parametric studies were carried out on the calibrated wall model to investigate the effect of scaled distance

and weight of charge.

II. Numerical Modelling

2.1 Modelling of masonry panel-

The material properties for defining the elastic behaviour of masonry are modulus of Elasticity (E), Poisson’s ratio

and density whose values were taken as; 3000MPa, 0.2 and 2100kg/m3 respectively [4]. However, the non-linear

behaviour of masonry was modelled using elastic-plastic strain hardening theory wherein; Mohr Coulomb (MC)

yield and failure criterion was considered. The elastic-plastic model for masonry uses the classical plasticity theory

which comprises of strain rate decomposition into elastic and inelastic strain rates, elasticity; yield; flow; and

hardening [3]. The Mohr Coulomb Plasticity (MCP) program in ABAQUS considers both Mohr-Coulomb (MC)

criteria as well as non-associated plastic flow of cohesive frictional materials.

The Mohr-Coulomb (MC) yield and failure surface is defined as (1),

𝐹 = 𝑞𝑅𝑐 − 𝑝 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅ − 𝑐 = 0 (1)

where, c and Ø are material cohesion and internal friction angle. p and q are first and second stress invariants. Rc is

the measure of Mohr-Coulomb deviatoric stress defined by (2),

RC (∅,θ)= 1

3𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃 +

𝜋

3)𝑡𝑎𝑛∅ +

1

√3𝑐𝑜𝑠∅𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝜃 +

𝜋

3) (2)

The yield function in meridional and deviatoric planes is shown in Figure 1; the shape of which is controlled by

varying the material internal friction angle (Ø).

The non-associated flow potential function is defined as (3),

𝐺𝑃 = √(𝛼𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛹)2 + (𝑞𝑅𝑚𝑝)2 − 𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑛Ø (3)

where, c are the initial cohesion yield stress at zero plastic strain, taken as equal to 0.7115MPa [7] and α is the flow

potential eccentricity in the meridional plane respectively (Figure 2). Ψ is the dilation angle measured in the p-Rmp

plane. The shape of deviatoric failure surface is governed by a factor ‘e’ (4) which depends on the angle of friction

(Ø).

𝑒 = 3−𝑠𝑖𝑛∅

3+𝑠𝑖𝑛∅ (4)



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 847

Figure 1. Mohr-Coulomb yield surface in meridional and deviatoric planes

Figure 2. Non-associated flow potential in meridional and deviatoric planes

Therefore, MCP model consists of three basic parameters namely; dilation angle, frictional angle and cohesive yield

stress at zero plastic strain. The accuracy of numerical model depends on the effective evaluation of these

parameters. M. Godio et al. [11] illustrated a noteworthy effect of the dilatancy of the joints on strength of masonry

by comparing the strength of the masonry for dilatant joints (associative case, Ψ=Ø) and non-dilatant joints (non-

associative case, Ψ=0). S. Burnett et al. [16] included the effect of varying dilatancy in modelling the masonry wall

subjected to out of plane impact loading and found that cracks width increases with decrease in dilation angle.

During the shear failure of masonry, it is usually observed that initial shear displacement us parallel to the joint is

accompanied by displacement normal to the joint ut (Figure 3). The ratio ut/us is defined as the coefficient of

dilatancy (tan Ψ). Typically measured value of coefficient of dilatancy (tanΨ) lies in the range 0.1 to 0.7 depending

on the roughness of the unit surface [9]. In other word, the value of dilation angle for masonry may vary between

Ψ= 6° to 50°. For cohesive frictional materials (like masonry) the dilation angle (Ψ) is always taken smaller than the

internal friction angle in analytical modelling. The value of internal friction angle of masonry was taken as 54.9° [7].

Thus, in present study, the numerical model was calibrated based on values of Ψ (6° to 50°), for achieving the most

précised model; simulating the experimental results.

Figure 3. Simple dilatant friction model, showing initial ‘saw tooth’ type sliding



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 848

2.2 Modelling of RC frame-

For defining the elastic behaviour the values of density, modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s ratio were taken as

2400kg/m3, 22000MPa and 0.15 respectively for concrete whereas; 8050kg/m3, 200000MPa and 0.3 for steel

respectively [4].

Inelastic behaviour of concrete was modelled using Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) program which includes

basic parameters defined as; dilation angle (Ψ), flow potential eccentricity (e), initial biaxial/uniaxial compressive

stress ratio (fb0/fc0), shape of failure surface (Kc) and viscosity (μ). For concrete dilation angle (Ψ) is equal to the

internal friction angle which may take values between 36° to 40° [5]. Herein, Ψ=38° was taken for the numerical

simulation. However, other parameters were given default input values (i.e., e=0.1, fb0/fc0=1.16, Kc=0.667 and μ=0)

as recommended by ABAQUS. In addition to these basic parameters stress-strain relationships were also identified

based on the compressive and tensile strength of concrete taken as respectively. Non-linear behaviour of steel

reinforcement was modelled using elasto-plastic strain hardening model wherein, values of yield stress, ultimate

stress and plastic strain at ultimate stress were taken as 415MPa, 712MPa and 0.072 respectively. Further, to account

for the effect of high strain loading (blast); Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) equal to 1.12, 1.19 and 1.17 were

adopted for masonry [22], concrete [18] and steel [18] respectively.

2.3 Modelling of interface

The interface between the masonry and RC frame was modelled using Penalty method which is based on Coulomb

Friction model of slip-stick interface behaviour. The coulomb friction model states that the contact pair can carry

shear stresses (τ) up to a certain limit (τmax) across the interface, also known as sticking state (i.e., τ < τmax = µ Pc + c)

thereafter, they will lose the shear strength and start sliding at the interface relative to each other. Here, µ and c are

contact coefficient of friction and contact cohesion at the contact interface respectively. The approximate value of

coefficient of dry friction as obtained by the laboratory experimental study can range from 0.5 to 0.9 for different

mortar types of the masonry wall and RC frame and; for any value of μ within this range numerical results do not

reflect any noteworthy change in results [4]. In present case, μ=0.8 was taken for modelling the interface. In the

constraint, steel reinforcement was considered to be embedded with steel assigned as embedded region and concrete

as host region.

III. Computation of Surface Blast Parameters

In a phenomenon of blasting the shock waves almost instantaneously amplify the pressure to the peak incident

pressure. These shock waves move radially from the point of burst with a diminishing shock wave velocity U, which

is in excess of the sonic velocity of the medium. During expansion, the blast wave decays in strength as the distance

of the shock waves increases from ground zero. The wave front impinges on the structures located within the path

and then the complete structure is engulfed by the shock pressure as the wave expands in air.

Surface blast also called hemispherical burst loading, occurs when the centre of detonation is on the ground and the

waves reflect instantaneously. Due to nearness of explosive to the ground, there is an immediate interaction between

the ground and the blast wave thereby resulting in an amplified effect. The generated pressure would be

approximately twice that produced by the same charge under free air burst conditions. Total pressure acting on the

structure due to surface blast has three components; incident over-pressure, reflected overpressure and drag pressure

of the accompanying blast wind.

Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) discusses about the development of idealized surface blast Pressure time (P-t)

history. In Indian code [8] various blast parameters from ground burst of 1Tonne TNT explosive corresponding to a

range of stand-off distances are been specified. Using the cube root scaling law given in equation (5) and (6), these

blast parameters were determined from the code for a required weight of charge (in kg TNT) at specific standoff

distance and blast (P-t) profiles were generated as required in Section 5.1 and 5.2 (Figure 11 and Figure 13).

Scaled distance, 𝑥 = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑊1/3 (5)

Scaled time, 𝑡0 =𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

𝑊1/3 (6)

where, W = yield of explosion in equivalent weight of the reference explosive measured in Tonnes.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 849

IV. Validation Study

R.K. Varma et al. [14] carried out experimental trials on several full-scale cantilever masonry infill panels enclosed

in RC frames under the action of blast. This experimental wall model was developed in ABAQUS/Explicit [1] using

Finite element (FE) macro modelling approach and; three tests which were conducted using Trinitrotoluene (TNT)

explosive on 230mm thick wall were chosen for the purpose of validation (Table - 1).

Table - 1 Details of experimental Blast trails considered in present study

Identification

Wall

thickness

(mm)

Weight of

charge, (kg

TNT)

Standoff

distance, R (m) Blast (P-t) profile

Test 1 230 21.5 4.0

Test 2 230 50.6 5.5

Test 3 230 51.4 5.5

The infill masonry (3000mm x 3000mm x 230mm) and RC frame (230mm x 235 mm) were modelled using Cubic

elements (C3D8R; 3-Dimensional, 8-Nodes with Reduced Hour-Glass) whereas, steel reinforcement was modelled

using Truss elements (T3D2; 3-Dimentional, 2-Nodes). The numerical model was discretised using 100mm mesh

size after performing a Mesh convergence test for 50mm, 75mm, 100mm and 150mm sizes of the mesh. The reason

for using coarser mesh is just to reduce the running time of the model. A total of 3490 elements were generated

having 5358 nodes (Figure 4). Also, the wall was restrained in three global directions at the base whereas, remained

free at the top (cantilever wall).

0

1.3

0 1.73

Pre

ssu

re (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

0

1.84

0 2.1

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

0

2.01

0 1.92

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 850

Figure 4: Mesh model of the wall under study

The response of experimental wall subjected to blast in terms of displacement was found to be highest in the mid-

section of masonry infill panel while; the RC frame remained in undamaged state. The peak displacement observed

in the masonry panel during experimental trail of Test 1 was about 127.5mm whereas, during Test 2 and Test 3 the

masonry panel collapsed completely and hence the displacements were reported to be greater than the thickness of

wall (>230mm).

The numerical model of wall considered for present work was calibrated, considering several values of angle of

dilation (Ψ) between 6° to 50° (see section 2.1) at an interval of 3° to get the best numerical model simulating the

experimental results of Test1, Test2 and Test 3. The scatter plot shown in Figure 5 indicates peak displacement

values corresponding to each dilation angle obtained during the present numerical simulation. Also, displacement-

time variation of numerical model for Ψ=6°, Ψ=10˚, Ψ=15˚, Ψ=25˚ and Ψ=35˚ are shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and

Figure 8 as sample for wall Test 1, Test 2 and Test 3 respectively. Thus, a decrease in peak displacement value was

observed for each increment in the dilation angle. Also, the rate of decrease is quite distinguishable which can

greatly influence the precision of numerical model.

For Ψ=18°, the numerical peak displacement for Test 1 was equal to 126.1mm(very close to experimental

displacement ~127.5mm) whereas, for Test 2 and Test 3 were equal to 223.8mm, 227.3mm (both dissatisfying the

experimental displacement i.e., >230mm) respectively. However, for Ψ=15° the numerical peak displacements were

found as 129.7mm (~127.5mm), 230.7mm (>230mm) and 232.5mm (>230mm) respectively which are to a great

extent satisfying the experimental results. Moreover, while considering a slight increase in Ψ>15°, the peak

displacement of Test 1 were found to be overvalued compared to the experimental value. Therefore, on the basis of

calibration; at Ψ=15°, numerical model was found to be most remarkably validating the experimental blast trails.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 851

Figure 5. Comparison of peak displacement at mid section of masonry panel

Figure 6. Numerically obtained Displacement-time variation while simulating Test 1 corresponding to several dilation angles (Ψ) in present study


50

100

150

200

250

5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50

Pea

k D

isp

lacem

en

t (m

m)

Dilation angle (Ψ°)

Total Collapse Limit

Test 1 (Experimental)

Test 1 (Presesnt Study)

Test 2 (Present Studyl)

Test 3 (Present study)

0

40

80

120

160

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (m

m)

Time (sec)

Test 1- Present StudyΨ=6°

Ψ=9°

Ψ=15°

Ψ=24°

Ψ=36°

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (m

m)

Time (sec)


Ψ=9°

Ψ=15°

Ψ=24°

Ψ=36°

Deflection >230mm



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 852


V. Parametric study

Within the scope of this parametric study variation of weight of charge and scaled distance have been investigated.

Also, for the purpose of parametric study the top of the calibrated wall has been restrained in the z-direction as

shown in Figure 9, considering the fact that in actual there will be a slab having high in-plane stiffness.

The responses of wall have been investigated in terms of peak displacement (δ) and corresponding end rotation (Ʊ).

Based on the value of Ʊ, PDC-TR 06-08 Rev 1 [13] recommends four levels of expected damage that may occur in

masonry wall subjected to blast defined as; superficial damage (Ʊ <1.5°), moderate damage (1.5°≤Ʊ <4°), heavy

damage (4°≤Ʊ <8°) and hazardous damage (Ʊ≥8°). Therefore, the damage state of wall has also been determined.

Figure 9: FE model of wall showing support condition

5.1 Effect of weight of charge (W)

Weight of explosive is generally expressed in terms of TNT (Trinitrotoluene). The first step in quantifying the

explosive wave from a source other than the TNT, is to convert the charge mass into an equivalent mass of the TNT

[6]. Therefore, TNT equivalent weight of charge W1=25kg, W2=50kg, W3=75kg and W4=100kg was considered

for constant standoff distance 20m. The blast (P-t) curve for W1, W2, W3 and W4 are shown in Figure 10 wherein;

the area under the (P-t) profile denotes the impulse (I). The unit for impulse, pressure and time are Kilo-Pascal

(kPa), Mega-Pascal (MPa) and milliseconds (ms) respectively. The dynamic performance of masonry in terms of

displacement at the mid section of masonry panel is shown in Figure 11. Also, the values peak displacement (δ) and

end rotation (Ʊ) along with the damage assessment is indicated in Table - 2.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (m

m)

Time (sec)


Ψ=9°

Ψ=15°

Ψ=24°

Ψ=36°



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 853

Figure 10. Blast (P-t) profile for (a) W1= 25kg (b) W2= 50kg (c) W3= 75kg (d) W4= 100kg generated using Indian code

Figure 11. Variation of Displacement with time for different weight of charge (W) corresponding to a constant standoff distance 20m

Table - 2 Comparison of peak values and corresponding damage state between various weight of charge (W)

W (kg TNT) δ (mm) Ʊ (°) Damage assessment

W1 =25 28.2 1.08° Moderate damage

W2 =50 76.0 2.91° Moderate damage

W3 =75 151.8 5.82° Heavy damage

W4 =100 229.6 >8° Hazardous failure

0

0.171

0 8.55

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(a)

0

0.267

0 7.35

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(b)

I= 0.981kPa-sec

0

0.251

0 9.46

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(c)

I= 1.187kPa-sec

0

0.289

0 9.54P

ress

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(d)

I= 1.379kPa-sec

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (m

m)

Time (sec)

W1= 25kg

W2= 50kg

W3= 75kg

W4= 100kg

I= 0.731kPa-sec



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 854

5.2 Effect of scaled distance (Z)

Through the introduction of scaling laws the effect of distance and charge weight on the blast characteristics can be

taken into account simultaneously. Hopkinson-Cranz scaling law, also known as cube root scaling is one of the

most widely accepted laws which states that “Self-similar blast waves are produced at identical scaled distances

when two explosive charges of similar geometry and of the same type of explosive, but different sizes, are

detonated in the same atmosphere” [19]. Hopkinson-Cranz gave a dimensional scaled distance (𝑍 =𝑅

𝑊1/3) where, R

is the distance from the detonation source to the point of interest or target (in metre/m) and W is weight of explosive

or charge weight (in kilogram/kg). Scaling actually provide a correlation of parameters between a particular

explosion and a standard charge of the same substance.

The effect of Z on numerical wall was studied for different values indicated as; Z1=2.2m/kg1/3, Z2=4.3m/kg1/3,

Z3=6.5 m/kg1/3 and Z4=8.6 m/kg1/3. The blast (P-t) curves obtained from IS code corresponding to each considered

scaled distance is shown in Figure 12 (where, Impulse (I) = area under the curve). The results of the analysis

showed that mid section of the masonry panel was most vulnerable whereas, the RC frame was found to be

negligibly affected against blast loading. The comparison of peak values of displacement (δ) and their

corresponding end rotations (Ʊ) are listed in Table - 3, along with the identification of damage in wall for each Z1,

Z2, Z3 and Z4. Also, the variation of displacement with respect to time at mid section of the masonry panel for

various scaled distances is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 12. Blast (P-t) profile for (a) Z1=2.2m/kg1/3 (b) Z2=4.3m/kg1/3 (c) Z3=6.5m/kg1/3 (d) Z4=8.6m/kg1/3 generated using Indian code

0

1.28

0 4.55

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(a)

I= 2.912kPa-sec

0

0.289

0 9.54

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(b)

I= 1.379kPa-sec

0

0.181

0 13.15

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(c)

I= 1.190kPa-sec

0

0.151

0 14.94

Press

ure (

MP

a)

Time (ms)

(d)

I= 1.128kPa-sec



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 855

Figure 13. Variation of displacement with time for different scaled distances (Z)

Table - 3 Comparison of peak values and corresponding damage state between various scaled distances

Z (m/kg1/3) δ (mm) Ʊ (°) Damage assessment

Z1 =2.2 >230 >8° Hazardous

failure/Total collapse

Z2 =4.3 229.6 >8° Hazardous failure

Z3 =6.5 72.5 2.77° Moderate damage

Z4 =8.6 54.7 2.09° Moderate damage

VI. Conclusions

Masonry infill RC framed wall which has been previously tested in field against blast load was modelled in

ABAQUS/Explicit using Mohr Coulomb plasticity (MCP) approach. The surface blast (P-t) profile was developed in

accordance with the Indian code for each blast scenario.

Based on the dilation angle of masonry, the wall was first calibrated for achieving a good agreement between the

numerical (present study) and experimental results. The effect of dilation angle was found to be quite significant on

the numerical model as; the peak displacement in masonry panel was found to be decreasing with respect to

increasing angle of dilation; that too at a distinguishable rate. Therefore, it can be concluded that precision of

numerical model to a great extent depends on proper selection of dilation angle. Hence, dilation angle should

perhaps be considered an important parameter in numerical modelling.

Moreover, parametric studies were performed on the calibrated model to investigate the effect of weight of charge

and scaled distance. The mid-section of the masonry panel was found to be most susceptible whereas, the RC frame

was found to be least affected during the dynamic analysis. Also, it was observed that peak displacement and

consecutive end rotation increases with increasing weight of charge (at constant standoff distance, 20m) and,

decreases with increasing scaled distance (Z). Besides, the damage states of wall were also identified based on the

observed end rotations. Therefore, the results of parametric study conclude that both weight of charge and scaled

distance are momentous parameters influencing the damage state of wall.

REFERENCES

[1] ABAQUS 6.14. User Documentation, Dessault Systems, 2014

[2] A. Spada, G. Giambanco and P. Rizzo, “Damage and plasticity at the interfaces in composite materials and

structures”, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, 1998, 198(49-52), 3884- 3901

[3] A.K. Ghosh, A.M. Arnde and J. Colville, “Finite Element Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry”, 10th IB2 Mac,

Calgary, Canada, July 5-6, 1994

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (m

m)

Time (sec)

Z1= 2.2m/kg^1/3

Z2= 4.3m/kg^1/3

Z3= 6.5 m/kg^1/3

Z4= 8.6m/kg^1/3



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 856

[4] A.K. Pandey and R.S. Bisht, “Numerical Modelling of Infilled Clay Brick Masonry under Blast Loading”,

Advances in Structural Engineering, 2014, 17(4), 591-606

[5] C. Oucif, J.S.K. Rama, K.S. Ram and F. Abed, “Damage modeling of ballistic penetration and impact behavior

of concrete panel under low and high velocities”, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.03.013.

[6] H. Draganić and V. Sigmund, “Blast Loading On Structures”, Technical Gazette 2012, 19 (3), 643-652

[7] H. Okail H., A. Abdelrahman, A. Abdelkalik and M. Metwaly, “Experimental and Analytical Investigation of

the Lateral Load Response of Confined Masonry Wall”, HBRC journal, 2014, 12, 33-46.

[8] IS: 4991-1968 (Reaffirmed, 2018), “Indian Standard Code of Criteria for Blast Resistant Design of Structures

for Explosions above Ground”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[9] J.G. Rots, “Structural masonry: an experimental/numerical basis for practical design rules”, Rotterdam:

Balkema, 1997

[10] M. Bolhassani, A.A. Hamid, A.C.W. Lau and F. Moona, “Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted

masonry assemblages”, Constr Build Mater, 83(159), 73.

[11] M. Godio, I. Stefanou, K. Sab, “Effects of the dilatancy of joints and of the size of the building blocks on the

mechanical behavior of masonry structures”, 2017, DOI 10.1007/s11012-017-0688-z.

[12] P.W. Sielicki and T. Lodygowski, “Masonry wall behaviour under explosive loading”, Engineering Failure

Analysis, 2019, 104, 274–291.

[13] PDC-TR 06-08 Rev1, “Single-Degree-of-Freedom Structural Response Limits for Antiterrorism Design”, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Protective Design Center Technical Report, 14, 2008.

[14] R.K.Varma, C.P.S. Tomar, S. Parkash and V.S. Sethi, “Damage to brick masonry panel walls under high

explosive detonations”, ASME-Publications-PVP, 1996, 351, 207–216.

[15] S. Ahmad, A. Elahi, H. Pervaiz, A.G.A. Rahman and S. Barbhuiya, “Experimental study of masonry wall

exposed to blast loading”, Materiales de Construcción, 2014, 64(313),

http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/mc.2014.01513

[16] S. Burnetta, M. Gilberta, T. Molyneauxb, G. Beattiec and B. Hobbs, “The Performance of Unreinforced

Masonry Walls Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts: Finite Element Analysis”, International Journal of Impact

Engineering, 2007, 34, 1433–1450

[17] S.H. Alsayed, H.M. Elsanadedy, Z.M. Al-Zaheri, Y.A. Salloum and H. Abbas, “Blast response of GFRP-

strengthened infill masonry walls”, Construction and Building Materials, 2016, 115, 438–451.

[18] Unified facilities criteria: UFC 3-340-02 (2008), “Structures to resist the effects of accidental”, Department of

Defense, United States of America, 2008

[19] W.E. Baker, P.A. Cox, P.S. Westine, J.J. Kulesz and R.A. Strehlow, “Explosive Hazards and evaluation”,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, 1983

[20] X. Wei and M.G. Stewart, “Model Validation and Parametric Study on the Blast Response of Unreinforced

Brick Masonry Walls”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2010, 37, 1150-1159

[21] X. Yuan, L. Chen, J. Wu and J. Tang, “Numerical simulation of Masonry Walls Subjected to Blast Loads”,

Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 461, 93-96

[22] Z. Li, L. Chen, Q. Fang, H. Hao, Y. Zhang, H. Xiang, W. Chen, S. Yang and Q. Bao, “Experimental and

Numerical Study of Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry Walls Subjected to Vented Gas Explosions”,

International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2017, 104, 107-126



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 857

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.03.013

http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/mc.2014.01513

Documents

Numerical Modelling of Masonry Panel Subjected to Surface