6.

NON-LINEAR PSEUDO-STATIC ANALYSIS OF ADOBE

WALLS
Blondet et al. [2005] carried out a cyclic test on an adobe wall to reproduce its seismic
response and damage pattern under in-plane loads. The displacement was applied at the
wall top and at low increments to simulate a static analysis. In this work, the force-
displacement curve obtained from the experimental test (see section 3.5) is used for
calibrating preliminary numerical models of adobe walls.
In the previous chapter different modelling approaches were described for representing
the cracking and damage on concrete panels, which are also applied to masonry panels,
including adobe walls. These numerical approaches are divided into discrete and
continuum models.
The numerical modelling of adobe structures is not simple since there is scarce material
information, especially the fracture energy in tension and compression for modelling the
inelastic behaviour of the adobe material. In this chapter three finite element models of
adobe walls are built and, taking advantage of the experimental results shown in 3.5.3, the
adobe material properties are calibrated within a discrete and continuum approach. For
this, two finite element programmes are used: Midas FEA and Abaqus/Standard. In
Midas FEA two finite element models are built, one following the simplified micro-
modelling (discrete model) and the second one following a smeared crack model
(continuum model). The adobe wall built in Abaqus/Standard is modelled following a
damaged plasticity model (continuum model). The finite element models are solved
following an implicit solution, and are described as follows.
6.1 IMPLICIT SOLUTION METHOD FOR SOLVING QUASI-STATIC PROBLEMS
In this analysis the load/displacement is applied slowly to the body so that the inertial
forces can be neglected (acceleration and velocities are zero). It follows that the internal
forces I (for a given displacement u ) must be equal to the external forces P at each
time step t A , or the residual force ( ) R u must be:
( ) ( ) ~ R u = P I u 0 (6.1)
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

114
Amongst the different solution procedures used in the implicit finite element solvers, the
Newton-Raphson solution procedure is the faster for solving non-linear problems under
force control, though no convergence procedure is full proof. When solving quasi static
problems, a set of non-linear equations are generally expressed as:
( ) ( )
T T
V S
dV dS o = =
} }
0 G u B u N t (6.2)
where G is a set of non-linear equations in u which are updated at each iteration and are
function of the nodal displacements vector u , o is the stresses vector, B is the matrix
that relates the strain vector to the displacements, N is the matrix of element shape
functions and t is the surface traction vector. V and S represent the volume and surface
of the body, respectively. The right-hand side of Equation (6.2) represents the difference
between the internal and the external forces.
Equation (6.2) is solved for a displacement vector that equilibrates the internal and
external forces, as explained in Harewood and McHugh [2007]. Besides, Equation (6.2) is
solved by incremental methods where load/displacements are applied in time steps t A ,
t t A +
u is solved from a known state
t
u . In the following equations the subscript denotes
iteration number and the superscript denotes an increment step.
At the beginning, Equation (6.2) is solved to obtain the displacement correction
t t
i 1
A
A
+
+
u
based on information of
t t
i
A +
u as:
( )
( )
t t
i
t t t t
i i
1
1
A
A A
A

+
+ +
+
(
c
(
=
c (

G u
u G u
u
(6.3)
The partial derivative on the right side is the so called Jacobian matrix expressed as the
global stiffness matrix
tan
K :
( )
( )
t t
i
t t
i tan
A
A
+
+
c
c
G u
K u =
u
(6.4)
Thus:
( ) ( )
t t t t t t
i i i
1
1 tan
A A A
A

+ + +
+
(
=

u K u G u (6.5)
The previous equation involves the inversion of the global stiffness matrix (no singular
matrix), which ends in a computationally expensive operation, but it ensures that a
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

115
relatively large time increment can be used while maintaining the accuracy of the solution
[Harewood and McHugh 2007].
The displacement correction
t t
i 1
A
A
+
+
u is added to the previous state, thus the improved
displacement solution is given with Equation (6.6) and
t t
i 1
A +
+
u is used as the current
approximation to the solution for the subsequent iteration ( ) i 1 + in Equation (6.2) until
the equilibrium is reached.
t t t t t t
i i i 1 1
A A A
A
+ + +
+ +
= + u u u (6.6)
Convergence is measured by ensuring that the difference between external and internal
forces ( ) G u , displacement increment
t t
i
A +
u and displacement correction
t t
i 1
A
A
+
+
u are
sufficiently small. The difference between several solution procedures is the way in which
t t
i 1
A
A
+
+
u is determined. As an example, Figure 6.1 shows the iteration process followed
with a Newton-Rapshon procedure for reaching equilibrium in an implicit procedure.

Figure 6.1. Iteration process for an implicit solution.
6.2 DISCRETE MODEL: MODELLING THE PUSHOVER RESPONSE OF AN ADOBE
WALL
The adobe wall I-1 presented in section 3.5 is now created in Midas FEA using linear
elastic solid elements and zero thickness non-linear interface elements. The combined
cracking-shearing-crushing model is used for representing the non-linear behaviour of the
adobe masonry lumped at the mortar joints. A total of 17 courses were placed to model
the adobe masonry. The original dimensions of the unit bricks (0.30x0.13x0.10 and
0.22x0.13x0.10 m) were extended to take into account the 13~15 mm mortar thickness.
The model includes the reinforced concrete beams (at the top: crown beam, and at the
base: foundation), the adobe walls and the timber lintel. The base of the foundation is
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

116
fully fixed; the top part of the crown beam is free. Since the test was displacement
controlled, in the numerical model a monotonic top-displacement was applied at one
vertical edge of the top concrete beam to reach a maximum displacement of 10 mm. The
material parameters are changed in the finite element model for a parametric study.

a) Complete model view b) View of the interface elements

c) In red the applied loads
Figure 6.2. Finite element model of the adobe wall subjected to horizontal displacement loads at the
top. Discrete model, Midas FEA.
The configuration of the numerical model in Midas FEA is shown in Figure 6.2.. All the
solid elements are considered elastic and isotropic and the properties, shown in Table 6.1,
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

117
are taken from the published literature, where E is the elasticity modulus, is the
Poissons ratio, and
m
is the weight density. Figure 6.2b shows the interface elements,
placed around each adobe brick for the in-plane wall, and just at the top and bottom part
of the adobe courses in the transverse walls. This assumption intends to simulate
horizontal failure planes in the transverse walls. The interface layers that join the adobe
blocks with the top reinforced concrete beam are numerically stiffer than the mud mortar
joints; this was considered to avoid sliding between the concrete beam and the adobe
layer. Figure 6.2c shows the point where the displacement load is applied.
Table 6.1. Elastic material properties of the adobe blocks, concrete and timber materials.
Adobe blocks Concrete Timber
E (MPa)
m
(N/mm
3
) E
(MPa)

m
(N/mm
3
)
E
(MPa)

m
(N/mm
3
)
230 0.2 2e-05 22000 0.25 2.4e-05 10000 0.15 6.87e-06

The parameters calibration is done by comparing the numerical pushover curve with the
experimental envelope of the cyclic Force-Displacement curve (Figure 3.15). First, the
elastic behaviour is calibrated and then the inelastic behaviour is discussed.
6.2.1 Calibration of material properties
As previously mentioned, a complete database of material properties of the adobe
typically used in Peru is not available. The scarce available data refers to compression
strength and elastic properties only (e.g. elasticity modulus). The lack of available data for
defining the inelastic properties of adobe, such as fracture energy in compression and
tension, introduces large uncertainties in the analyses.
A correct parametric study should vary all parameters (material properties) at the same
time to look for a non-linear optimization. However, since in this work it is not possible
due to the lack of information about the material properties, here each parameter is
varied one by one, and the best value is determined by comparison between the
numerical with the experimental pushover curve.
The values of the elasticity modulus for the adobe masonry (bricks plus mortar joints)
vary from 170 to 260 MPa, as discussed in section 3.2. The first parameters to define a
discrete model are the penalty stiffness
n
k and
s
k , which refers to normal and shear
stiffness at the interface, respectively [CUR 1997; Loureno 1996]. These penalty values
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

118
are related to the elasticity modulus of the adobe bricks and the mortar joints, as seen in
Equation (5.12) and repeated here for convenience:
( )
unit mortar
n
mortar unit mortar
E E
k
h E E

(6.7)
( )
unit mortar
s
mortar unit mortar
G G
k
h G G

(6.8)
The elasticity modulus for the adobe bricks is assumed as 230 MPa. The elasticity
modulus for the mud mortar is assumed to be lower than that for bricks, so values of
79.25, 113.40, 156.50 and 216.85 MPa are considered. The mortar thickness,
mortar
h , is
around 15 mm. The shear modulus is taken as 0.4E for the bricks and mortar. With the
previous values, the normal and shear penalty stiffness are those reported in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. Variation of elasticity of module of the mortar joints for evaluating the penalty stiffness
n
k and
s
k .
Mortar thickness
(mm)
E unit
(MPa)
E mortar
(MPa)
k
n
(N/mm
3
)
K
s

(N/mm
3
)
15 230 216.85 252.85 101.14
15 230 156.50 32.58 13.03
15 230 113.40 14.95 5.98
15 230 79.25 8.06 3.23

In order to make the first round of analysis the other material parameters are defined as
shown in Table 6.3, where c is the cohesion,
o
is the friction angle, is the dilatancy
angle,
r
is the residual friction angle, f
t
is the tensile strength,
I
f
G is the fracture energy
for Mode I (related to tension softening), a and b are factors to evaluate the fracture
energy for Mode II (expressed as G
II
= a.+b and related to the shear behaviour), f
c
is the
compression strength C
s
is the shear tension contribution factor (which is 9 according to
Loureno [1996],
c
f
G is the compressive fracture energy, and k
p
is the peak equivalent
plastic relative displacement. The parameters which are marked with * are considered for
the parametric study and those shown in Table 6.3 are the ones which gave good
numerical experimental agreementin terms of global response of the masonry wall (as
discussed later). The inelastic parameter values for the adobe masonry were taken lower
than those proposed by Loureno [1996] for clay masonry based on the clear difference
in the material strengths.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

119
Table 6.3. Preliminary material properties for the interface model (mortar joints).
Structural Mode I
k
n
(N/mm
3
)
k
t

(N/mm
3
)
c (N/mm
2
)
o
(deg) (deg)
r
(deg)
f
t
(N/mm
2
)*
I
f
G
(N/mm)*
Table 6.2 Table 6.2 0.05 30 0 30 0.01 0.0008

Mode II Compression cap
a (mm)* b (N/mm)* f
c
(N/mm
2
) * C
s
c
f
G (N/mm) *
k
p
(mm) *
0 0.01 0.25 9 0.02 0.09
Figure 6.3 shows the effect of the variation of the penalty stiffness
n
k and
s
k , on the
elastic part of the pushover curve. As expected, it is seen that greater stiffness values lead
to a stiffer elastic response. It is shown that
n
k N mm
3
8.09 / = and
s
k N mm
3
3.23 / = ,
which implies
unit
E MPa 230 = and
mortar
E MPa 80 ~ , match well the elastic part and the
yielding initiation, so these values were fixed to analyze other material parameters.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
kn=8.09 N/mm
kn=14.95 N/mm
kn=32.58 N/mm
Kn=253 N/mm

Figure 6.3. Comparison of the pushover curves in models with different penalty stiffness values.
Discrete model, Midas FEA.
Variation of the tensile strength
t
f of the mortar was applied to study its influence. The
fracture energy
I
f
G was maintained constant and equal to 0.0008 N/mm, which means
that the area under each curve is the same. So, due to this the crack displacement values
related to low tensile strength are greater than those related to high tensile strength (e.g.
see curve for
t
f MPa 0.0025 = in Figure 6.4). The crack displacement is equal to the
tensile strain times the thickness of the mortar joint, which is around 15 mm.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

120
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
ft=0.02 MPa
ft=0.01 MPa
ft=0.005 MPa
ft=0.0025 MPa

Figure 6.4. Variation of tensile strength
t
f at the interface,
I
f
G = 0.0008 N/mm, h = 15 mm.
Figure 6.5 shows the pushover curves obtained varying the tensile strength. It is seen that
the global strength of the masonry depends on the crack displacement values in the
tensile softening. Greater crack displacement values produce an increment on the lateral
resistant at the post-yield peak. When the tensile softening part of the constitutive law
descends abruptly (e.g. f
t
MPa 0.02 = curve in Figure 6.4), the pushover curve stops after
the yielding initiation because can not develop greater crack displacements. All the curves,
except the one related to f
t
MPa 0.02 = , have similar global behaviour until 6.2 mm top
horizontal displacement. The best match in terms of crack pattern and strength was
obtained with
t
f MPa 0.01 = .
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
ft=0.0025 MPa
ft=0.005 MPa
ft=0.01 MPa
ft=0.02 MPa

Figure 6.5. Influence of the tensile strength
t
f on the pushover response. Discrete model, Midas
FEA.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

121
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Gf=0.0015 N/mm
Gf=0.0008 N/mm
Gf=0.0005 N/mm

Figure 6.6. Variation of fracture energy
I
f
G at the interface, constant
t
f = 0.01 MPa, h = 15 mm.
A variation of the tensile fracture energy
I
f
G with constant tensile strength f
t
was applied
to study its influence on the structural response (Figure 6.6). An increment in the lateral
strength of the masonry is observed when the tensile softening part does not descent
abruptly (Figure 6.7), which partially concludes that greater fracture energy gives greater
lateral strength.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Gf=0.005 N/mm
Gf=0.008 N/mm
Gf=0.015 N/mm

Figure 6.7. Influence of the fracture energy in tension
I
f
G on the pushover response. Discrete
model, Midas FEA.
A parametric study was carried out for evaluating the compression strength of adobe
masonry. Since there is not information about the inelastic material properties, a
hardening/softening curve was assumed taking into consideration the experimental
results obtained by Loureno [1996] for clay masonry. It was decided to keep the peak
compressive plastic strain around 0.0008 mm/mm (related to k
p
= 0.09 mm) and the
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

122
compression fracture energy of 0.02 N/mm, which can be considered a lower bound
value of a real compression curve (Figure 6.8).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain (mm/mm)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
fc=0.40 MPa
fc=0.25 MPa
fc=0.15 MPa

Figure 6.8. Variation of compression strength
c
f at the interface, constant
C
f
G = 0.02 N/mm, h =
115 mm.
The characteristic length for compression, h , is taken as twice the half height of the
adobe brick plus the mortar thickness, that is 115 mm. The relative peak compressive
displacement, k
p
, is taken as the peak compressive plastic strain times the characteristic
length. Figure 6.9 shows that the failure process does not depend at all on the
compression behaviour.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
fc=0.15 MPa
fc=0.25 MPa
fc=0.40 MPa

Figure 6.9. Influence of compression strength
c
f on the pushover response. Discrete model, Midas
FEA.
A variation of the compressive fracture energy
f
c
G was applied to analyze its effect on the
global response of the masonry wall. The plastic strain related to f
c
MPa 0.25 = was kept
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

123
constant and close to 0.0008 mm/mm (Figure 6.10). The results showed no variation on
the global response of the adobe wall.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain (mm/mm)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Gf=0.04 N/mm
Gf=0.02 N/mm
Gf=0.01 N/mm

Figure 6.10. Variation of fracture energy
C
f
G at the interface, constant
c
f = 0.25 MPa, h = 115 mm.
Another studied considered a variation of the relative peak compressive displacement k
p
while maintaining a constant compressive strength (f
c
MPa 0.25 = ) and a constant
compressive fracture energy (
f
c
G N mm 0.02 / = ), Figure 6.11. As in the previous cases,
no variation in the global response was observed. The pushover curves were more or less
the same as the one shown in Figure 6.9.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain (mm/mm)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
kp=0.09 mm
kp=0.15 mm
kp=0.20 mm

Figure 6.11. Variation of
p
k for the compression curve, constant
c
f = 0.25 MPa and
C
f
G = 0.02
N/mm , h = 115 mm.
It should be said that Midas FEA does not include the compression cap model when the
analysis refers to a three-dimensional interface model. For this reason no variation on the
pushover curves was observed varying the compression strength. Finally, a variation of
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

124
the Mode II fracture energy (shear) was applied to study the shear behaviour of the
mortar joints. The dilatation angle was assumed zero. In this case it seems that fracture
energy of 0.01 N/mm can be considered for adobe masonry (Figure 6.12).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Gf=0.2 N/mm
Gf=0.05 N/mm
Gf=0.01 N/mm

Figure 6.12. Influence of the shear fracture energy
II
f
G at the interface on the pushover response.
Discrete model, Midas FEA.
6.2.2 Results of the pushover analysis considering a discrete model
Figure 6.13 shows the sequence of damage obtained with the selected parameters
specified in Table 6.1 and Table 6.3. The crack pattern follows the experimental results:
the cracks go from the top left (where the load is applied) to the right bottom of the wall
(Figure 6.14). Also, the horizontal cracks at the transversal walls are in agreement with the
experimental results. Since the load applied is monotonic, the FE model cannot capture
the X-shape failure observed in the experiments. The presence of the two transversal
walls prevents the rocking behaviour, representing correctly the tested wall. The
maximum displacement reached at the top of the wall is around 6.2 mm, after which the
program stopped due to convergence problems. The comparison between the numerical
and experimental pushover response is shown in Figure 6.15.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

125

a) Top displacement= 1 mm b) Top displacement= 2 mm

c) Top displacement= 4 mm d) Top displacement= 6.26 mm
Figure 6.13. Damage pattern of the adobe wall subjected to a horizontal top displacement.

e) Top displacement= 6.26 mm, isometric view
Figure 6.13. Continuation. Damage pattern of the adobe wall subjected to a horizontal top
displacement. Discrete model, Midas FEA.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

126

Figure 6.14. Experimental damage pattern for wall I-1 due to cyclic displacements applied at the top .
Just the adobe wall is shown here, the concrete beam and foundation are hidden,
[Blondet et al. 2005].
All the models were run in Midas FEA with arc-length method with initial stiffness. The
number of load steps was specified as 100, the initial load factor was 0.01, and the
maximum number of iteration per load step was 300. The convergence criteria were given
by an energy norm and displacement norm of 0.01.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Numerical
Experimental

Figure 6.15. Load-displacement diagrams, experimental and numerical.
6.3 TOTAL-STRAIN MODEL: MODELLING THE PUSHOVER RESPONSE
In this part the adobe wall tested by Blondet et al. [2005] is modelled using a continuum
approach. A plane stress finite element model is created in Midas FEA using 4-node
rectangular shell elements (Figure 6.16a) and considering drilling DOFs and transverse
shear deformation. The size of the mesh is usually kept at 100 x 100 mm, which is related
to a characteristic length dimension h= 141.4 mm, obtained from the square root of the
area of the shell element [Baant and Oh 1983]. The thickness of the shell is 300 mm. The
adobe masonry includes the adobe bricks and the mud mortar joints; in this case, a
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

127
homogeneous material is assumed and the cracks are smeared into the continuum. The
top and bottom reinforced concrete beams and the timber lintel are considered elastic.
The foundation is fully fixed at the base. The crown beam is at the top. The numerical
model is subjected to a unidirectional displacement imposed at the two ends of the top
crown beam (Figure 6.16b).
The elastic material properties for the concrete beam and the timber lintel are given in
Table 6.1, while those for the adobe masonry are specified in Table 6.4. The material
properties marked with * are calibrated based on the experimental pushover curve as
discussed later. Equation (5.29) and Equation (5.37) are considered for computing the
inelastic part of the tension and compression constitutive law, respectively.
i
o is taken
greater than f
c
/3 to maintain a parabolic shape of the compression curve.
Table 6.4. Material properties for the adobe masonry within total-strain model.
Elastic Tension Compression
E
(N/mm
2
)*

m
(N/mm
3
)
h
(mm)
f
t
(N/mm
2
)*
I
f
G
(N/mm)*
f
c
(N/mm
2
)*
c
f
G

(N/mm)*

p

(mm/mm)*
200 0.2 2e-05 141.4 0.04 0.01 0.3 0.103 0.002

a) Complete view of the model b) Position of horizontal applied loads
Figure 6.16. Finite element model of the adobe wall subjected to horizontal displacement loads at the
top. Total-strain model, Midas FEA.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

128
6.3.1 Calibration of material properties
The first parameter that was calibrated is the elasticity modulus E of the adobe masonry.
According to section 3.2.3.1 and 3.7, the E value can be considered between 200 and 220
MPa. Besides, [Blondet and Vargas 1978] suggests to use E= 170 MPa; however, this
value seems to be too conservative. In this work E= 200 MPa has been considered for all
the numerical analyses since it yields a good agreement between the numerical and
experimental curves. Figure 6.17 shows the variation of the in-plane response of the
adobe wall due to the variation of elasticity modulus. The other, elastic and inelastic,
material properties used were the ones specified in Table 6.4.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
E=250 MPa
E=220 MPa
E=200 MPa
E=150 MPa

Figure 6.17. Comparison of the pushover curves in models with different E. Total-strain model.
The next parameter that was calibrated was the tensile strength f
t
of the masonry, which
can be roughly assumed around 10% of the compression strength f
c
. The tensile fracture
energy
I
f
G is maintained in all cases as 0.01 N/mm (Figure 6.18).
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
ft=0.02 MPa
ft=0.04 MPa
ft=0.06 MPa

Figure 6.18. Variation of tensile strength for total-strain model, constant
I
f
G = 0.01 N/mm, h =
141.4 mm.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

129
Since the area under the tensile softening curve is fixed for all values of the tensile
strength, the crack displacement values are greater for lower tensile strengths (Figure
6.18).
Figure 6.19 shows that the most accurate pushover curve is obtained
when
t
f MPa 0.04 = . Lower values of
t
f reduce the in-plane strength of the masonry.
However, they also give more stable pushover curves due to the large values of the crack
displacement (see Figure 6.18). On the other hand, larger values of
t
f increase the
seismic in-plane capacity, but the pushover curve stops due to convergence problems.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
ft=0.02 MPa
ft=0.04 MPa
ft=0.06 MPa

Figure 6.19. Influence of the tensile strength
t
f on the pushover response. Total-strain model, Midas
FEA.
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Gf=0.005 N/mm
Gf=0.01 N/mm
Gf=0.015 N/mm

Figure 6.20. Variation of fracture energy
I
f
G for total-strain model, constant
t
f = 0.04 MPa, h =
141.4 mm.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

130
A variation of the tensile fracture energy
I
f
G was considered 0.05, 0.01 and 0.015 N/mm
(Figure 6.20). The tensile strain values are equal to the crack displacements divided by the
characteristic element length h (141.4 mm). It is seen that greater the fracture energy, the
larger the crack displacement values.
The best fit of the experimental pushover curve is obtained with
I
f
G MPa 0.01 = (Figure
6.21), in terms of both wall strength and crack pattern. This preliminary study concludes
that even though adobe is a very brittle material, it still retains some tension fracture
energy, which controls the crack formation process.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Gf=0.005 N/mm
Gf=0.01 N/mm
Gf=0.015 N/mm

Figure 6.21. Influence of the fracture energy in tension
I
f
G on the pushover response. Total-strain
model, Midas FEA.
The smeared crack model takes into account the effect of shear through a reduction
factor | that multiplies the shear stiffness. This is only possible when a fixed crack
model is used, as is the case for this work (see section 4.2.2). A variation of | is analyzed
to see how much this can influence the global numerical response. As shown in Figure
6.22, the best numerical result was obtained considering 0.05 | = . The compression
strength f
c
of the adobe masonry was varied from 0.30 to 0.80 MPa. The
hardening/softening curve is similar to the one used by Loureno [1996] for clay masonry
but proportionally scaled for adobe masonry. For this reason the ratio
C
f c
G f / is kept at
about 0.344 mm. The peak plastic compression strain c
p
is kept at 0.002 mm/mm, and the
plastic strain at 50% of the compression strength
m
c is kept at 0.005 mm/mm in all cases.
The different compression curves are shown in Figure 6.23. According to the
experimental data, it is seen that a reasonable f
c
value can be greater than 0.50 MPa;
however, this value is calibrated for within a smeared crack approach.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

131
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
bheta=0.02 N/mm
bheta=0.05 N/mm
bheta=0.10 N/mm

Figure 6.22. Influence of the shear retention factor | on the pushover response. Total-strain model,
Midas FEA.
The total peak compression strain values shown in Figure 6.23, which are the sum of the
elastic plus the peak plastic strain, are 0.00345, 0.0041, 0.005275 and 0.0056 mm/mm for
c
f = 0.30, 0.45, 0.70 and 0.80 MPa, respectively.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Strai n (mm/mm)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
fc=0.30 MPa
fc=0.45 MPa
fc=0.70 MPa
fc=0.80 MPa

Figure 6.23. Variation of compression strength
c
f for total-strain model. Relation
C
f c
G f / = 0.344
mm in all cases, h = 141.4 mm.
Figure 6.24 shows the numerical pushover curves obtained with different compression
strength values. It can be observed that the best results are obtained with f
c
= 0.30 MPa.
The pushover curves obtained with other compression strengths are superimposed and
give higher strength, but stop earlier due to convergence problems due to the
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

132
concentration of compression stress at the right top window corner. If convergence is
reached, so the pushover curve will down and continues closes to the experimental curve.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
fc=0.45 MPa
fc=0.30 MPa
fc=0.70 MPa
fc=0.80 MPa

Figure 6.24. Influence of the compression strength
c
f on the pushover response. Total-strain model,
Midas FEA.
6.3.2 Results of the pushover analysis considering a total-strain model
Figure 6.25 shows the sequence of damage obtained with the parameters specified in
Table 6.4. Only the adobe walls are shown here; the ring concrete beams and the lintel are
hidden. The maximum top displacement reached was around 9.34 mm. Similar to the
experimental response (Figure 6.13), the numerical results show a diagonal crack forming
from the corners of the opening. Horizontal cracks are also detected in the perpendicular
walls.

a) Top displacement= 1 mm b) Top displacement= 4 mm
Figure 6.25. Damage evolution of the wall subjected to a horizontal top load (4 displacement levels).
The top and bottom concrete beam and the lintel are hidden. Total-strain model, Midas
FEA.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

133

c) Top displacement= 6 mm d) Top displacement= 9.34 mm

Figure 6.24. Continuation. Damage evolution of the wall subjected to a horizontal top load (4
displacement levels). The top and bottom concrete beam and the lintel are hidden.
Total-strain model, Midas FEA.
Figure 6.26 shows the evolution of the maximum principal stresses on the in-plane adobe
wall (the concrete beams, lintel and perpendicular walls are not shown). In the legend the
maximum tensile stress value is limited to 0.05 MPa. A good agreement is seen between
the maximum tensile stresses and the experimental damage pattern (Figure 6.14). Large
tensile stresses correspond to large crack openings. The principal stresses reach their
maximum values at the opening corners and then travel to the wall corners. The white
zones inside the adobe wall show the parts where the tensile strength has been exceeded;
this is possible when dealing with a fixed crack [de Borst and Nauta 1985; Feenstra and
Rots 2001; Noghabai 1999].
The good global agreement between the numerical results and the experimental tests
leads to the conclusion that the total-strain model can be successfully applied to the
analysis of adobe masonry, and the assumption of a homogeneous material is reasonable.
Figure 6.27 shows the deformation pattern at the last computation step.
The models were run in Midas FEA with arc-length method with initial stiffness. The
number of load steps was specified as 100, the initial load factor was 0.01, and the
maximum number of iterations per load step was 800. The convergence criteria were
given by an energy norm equal to 0.01 and a displacement norm equal to 0.005.

Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

134
a) Top displacement= 1 mm b) Top displacement= 4 mm
c) Top displacement= 6 mm d) Top displacement= 9.34 mm



Figure 6.26. Evolution of maximum principal stresses in the adobe wall subjected to a horizontal top
displacement. Total-strain model, Midas FEA.

Figure 6.27. Deformation of the adobe wall due to a maximum horizontal top displacement of 9.34
mm. Total-strain model, Midas FEA.

Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

135
6.4 CONCRETE DAMAGED PLASTICITY: MODELLING THE PUSHOVER RESPONSE.
A finite element model was created in Abaqus/Standard using 4-node rectangular shell
elements without integration reduction (Figure 6.28a). For element controls, a finite
membrane strain and a default drilling hourglass scaling factors were selected. The
numerical model is similar to the one created in Section 6.3 with Midas FEA, so the shell
elements are 100 x 100 mm with 300 mm thick, and the characteristic length is equal to the
diagonal of the shell element. The reinforced concrete beams (top and bottom) and the
wooden lintel are modelled using linear material properties. The adobe masonry is
represented by the concrete damaged plasticity model, which takes into account the
tension and compression constitutive laws for adobe. The displacement history is applied
at one edge of the top concrete beam as seen in Figure 6.28b. The base of the foundation
is fully fixed, while the top part of the crown concrete beam is free of movement.

a) Complete view of the model b) Position of horizontal applied loads at the top beam
Figure 6.28. Finite element model of the adobe wall subjected to horizontal displacement loads at the
top. Concrete Damaged Plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
The material parameters used in Abaqus/Standard are essentially the ones used for Midas
FEA, though the compression strength is increased to 0.45 MPa as shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5. Material properties for the adobe masonry within concrete damaged plasticity model.
Elastic Tension Compression
E
(N/mm
2
)

m
(N/mm
3
)
h
(mm)
f
t

(N/mm
2
)
I
f
G
(N/mm)
f
c

(N/mm
2
)
c
f
G
(N/mm)

p

(mm/mm)
200 0.2 2e-05 141.4 0.04 0.01 0.45 0.155 0.002

Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

136
The following default additional parameters are required for the concrete damaged
plasticity model: dilatation angle= 1, eccentricity= 0.1, ratio of initial equibiaxial
compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive yield stress= 1.16, k parameter
related to yield surface= 2/3, and null viscosity parameter.
Again, a parametric study for selection of the tensile and compression strength is carried
out. The tensile strength is between 0.02 to 006 MPa and the compression strength is
varied between 0.30 to 0.80 MPa (see Figure 6.18 and Figure 6.23). As in the previous
analysis, it is seen from the numerical pushover curves that the tensile strength is the
parameter that controls the global behaviour of the adobe masonry; low values of tensile
strength allows to a fast inelastic excursion and will end with convergence problems, high
values of tensile strength make more brittle the adobe masonry but increase its lateral
strength. According to Figure 6.29 a value of f
t
equal to 0.04 MPa should be selected.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
ft=0.02 MPa
ft=0.04 MPa
ft=0.06 MPa

Figure 6.29. Influence of tensile strength
t
f on the pushover response. Concrete damaged plasticity
model, Abaqus/Standard.
Figure 6.30 shows the numerical pushover curves analyzed with different compression
strength values. It is seen that the compression strength increment influences on the
maximum lateral strength of the adobe wall, but it maintains similar post peak behaviour
and failure pattern. The main difference in lateral strength is seen from 2 to 4 mm of top
displacement and it is due to the biaxial interaction between tensile and compressive
strength. Less difference it is seen for the pushover curves computed with f
c
=0.45 MPa
to 0.80 MPa.
A lower bound of f
c
= 0.30 MPa can be considered without loss of accuracy on the global
response for the plasticity damage model implemented in Abaqus. In this case, there was
a not convergence problem as seen in Midas FEA.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

137
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
fc=0.30 MPa
fc=0.45 MPa
fc=0.70 MPa
fc=0.80 MPa

Figure 6.30. Influence of compression strength
c
f on the pushover response. Concrete damaged
plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
For the cyclic analysis done in Section 6.5 a compression strength of 0.30 MPa is assumed
for the adobe masonry, while for the dynamic analysis performed in Section 7 the
compression strength was increased to 0.45 MPa. In both cases the relation
C
f c
G f / is
maintained as 0.344 mm.
6.4.1 Results of the pushover response considering the concrete damaged
plasticity model
The displacement pattern at the last stage is shown in Figure 6.31. The global behaviour
of the numerical analysis on the adobe wall represents well the experimental test in terms
of crack pattern and lateral capacity (see Figure 6.14). It is preliminarily concluded that
the calibrated material properties can be used for further numerical analyses.

Figure 6.31. Deformation of the adobe wall due to a maximum horizontal top displacement of 10
mm. Concrete damaged plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

138
Furthermore, the damage pattern is analyzed based on the formation of plastic strain in
tension at different levels of top displacement (Figure 6.32). It is observed that the
formation of cracks starts at the opening corners and at the contact zone of the lintel
with the adobe masonry. Horizontal cracks are also observed at the perpendicular walls,
similarly to the ones observed in the experimental test.

a) Top displacement= 1 mm b) Top displacement= 4 mm

c) Top displacement= 6 mm d) Top displacement= 10 mm




Figure 6.32. Evolution of maximum in-plane plastic strain in the adobe wall subjected to a horizontal
top displacement. Concrete damaged plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
Figure 6.33 shows the evolution of the maximum principal stresses in the in-plane adobe
wall, without the two concrete beams, the timber lintel and the perpendicular walls. It is
observed that the maximum tensile zones (shown in red) are reached first at the opening
corners and evolve diagonally to the wall corners. After any integration point reaches
t
f ,
so the tensile stress value descends but increasing the crack displacement (softening part
of the tensile constitutive law).
The models were run in Abaqus/Standard specifying a direct method -for equation
solver- with full Newton solution technique. The total displacement load is applied in 1s,
having a minimum increment size of 0.01 s with a maximum of 0.5 s. The maximum
number of increments is 2000. Non linear geometric effects are considered for the
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

139
analysis of equilibrium even though they are not expected to affect the results of such a
stiff wall. Two control parameters are also specified, the automatic stabilization for a
dissipated energy fraction of 0.001, and the adaptive stabilization with maximum ratio of
stabilization to strain energy of 0.1.

a) Top displacement= 1 mm b) Top displacement= 4 mm

c) Top displacement= 6 mm d) Top displacement= 10 mm




Figure 6.33. Evolution of maximum principal stresses in the adobe wall subjected to a horizontal top
displacement. Concrete damaged plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
6.5 CONCRETE DAMAGED PLASTICITY: MODELLING THE CYCLIC BEHAVIOUR
The finite element model used for the pushover analysis in Abaqus/Standard was then
used for calibration of parameters for cyclic behaviour. The idea is to calibrate the
damage factors d
t
and d
c
(which control the closing of cracking and reduces the elastic
stiffness during unloading), and the stiffness recovery
t
w and
c
w , for tension and
compression respectively, to reproduce the behaviour of adobe masonry under reversal
loads. The tensile and compression strength are kept as 0.04 and 0.30 MPa, respectively.
According to Abaqus 6.9 SIMULIA [2009], it was seen from experimental tests on
concrete that the compressive stiffness can be recovered upon crack closure as the load
changes from tension to compression. On the other hand, the tensile stiffness is not
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

140
recovered as the load changes from compression to tension once crushing micro-cracks
have developed. This assumption is kept for the adobe masonry. The sequence of applied
displacements consists two cycles for top displacement of 1 mm and one cycle for top
displacements of 2, 5 and 10 mm, as shown in Figure 6.34. In the experimental test, each
displacement limit was repeated twice.
2
-2
0
1
-1
1
-1
-10
10
-5
5
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time step (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

Figure 6.34. History of static horizontal displacement load applied to the numerical model.
6.5.1 Calibration of stiffness recovery and damage factors
Since no data tests exist for adobe masonry under reversal loads, stiffness recovery and
damage factors were assumed. The idea was to numerically represent the closing of
cracking during the change of tension to compression by selecting appropiate damage
factors. The numerical force-displacement curves are compared with the results of the
cyclic experimental test. By default, Abaqus assigns
c
w = 1 and
t
w = 0, which indicate full
stiffness recovery when the integration point is under compression stress, and no
stiffness recovery when it is subjected again to tensile stress (see Figure 5.18). Much
attention was given to the tensile behaviour rather than to the compression one because it
seems that the tension controls the global response of the in-plane adobe walls. As Table
6.6 to Table 6.16 show it is not possible to reach zero crack displacement when the load
changes from tension to compression -also with large values of the tensile damage
factors- so a residual crack deformation remains when the load is revearsed.
Table 6.6. Proposed compression damage factor: Dc-1.
Damage factor
c
d
Plastic strain (mm/mm)
0.00 0.000
0.30 0.002
0.80 0.006

Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

141
Table 6.7. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-1.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.85 0.125
0.90 0.250
0.95 0.500

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.8. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-2.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.90 0.250
0.95 0.350

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.9. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-3.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.000
0.90 0.250
0.95 0.500

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.10. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-4.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.70 0.100
0.85 0.200
0.95 0.375

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

142
Table 6.11. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-5.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.75 0.100
0.85 0.250
0.95 0.500

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.12. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-6.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.000
0.90 0.250

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.13. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-7.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.80 0.100
0.90 0.200
0.95 0.300

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.14. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-8.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.000
0.85 0.125
0.90 0.500
0.95 0.650

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

143
Table 6.15. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-9.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.00
0.90 0.250
0.95 0.400

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Table 6.16. Proposed tensile damage factor: Dt-10.
Damage factor
t
d
Plastic disp. (mm)
0.00 0.000
0.60 0.050
0.80 0.100
0.85 0.150

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack displacement (mm)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile curve
Degradated stiffness
for unloading

Figure 6.35 shows the results of the 21 models run in Abaqus under cyclic loading.
Models 1 to 4 show the effect of stiffness recovery in tension and compression without
taking into account damage factors. The unloading branch beyond 5 mm and the loading
branch for 10 mm do not match well the experimental curve. The numerical branches
seem to dissipate more energy that the experimental one. Models 5 to 7 show the
influence of damage factors with variation of the stiffness recovery; these models show
some improvement matching the experimental results with respect to the previous
models, especially the loading branch for 10 mm of displacement. However, due to
convergence problems, none of the models reached the last displacement cycle. It is
preliminarily concluded that the inclusion of damage factors allows a better
approximation of the actual test results. The best result was obtained with
c
w 0.5 =
(Model 6). Models 8 to 12 analyze the influence of the tensile damage factor. In these
cases
c
w is kept at 1. It is seen that the compression stiffness recovery is needed to match
the experimental results, especially for the loading branch at 10 mm. Models 13 to 17
analyze the variation of the compression recovery stiffness from 0.70 to 0.90 and the
tensile damage factors. It is seen that lower values of
c
w should be used for a better
match with the experimental result in combination with the tensile damage parameter
from Table 6.7 or Table 6.8. The unloading branch after the 5 mm displacement still
shows large residual deformations for a lateral load equal to 0 kN, which is not in
agreement with the experimental observations. It is understood that this phenomena
depends basically on the tensile damage factors applied to the masonry; however, special
attention should be paid to the selection of
t
d values in order to avoid convergence
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

144
problems. Models 18 to 21 maintain the tensile damage factor specified in Table 6.7,
which are close to the ones specified in Table 6.9, but with a variation of the compression
stiffness recovery from 0.5 to 0.8. The best match is obtained with Model 20, which
considered
c
w 0.6 = , despite the large residual deformations.
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 1

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 2

a)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0, no damage factor b)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0.9, no damage factor
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 3

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 4

c)
c
w = 0.75,
t
w = 0, no damage factor d)
c
w = 0.5,
t
w = 0, no damage factor
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 5

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 6

e)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
c
d =Table 6.6,
t
d =Table 6.7 f)
c
w = 0.5,
t
w = 0.5,
c
d =Table 6.6,
t
d =Table 6.8
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

145
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 7

g)
c
w = 0.5,
t
w = 0.5,
c
d = Table 6.6,
t
d = Table 6.9
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 8

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 9

h)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 i)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.10
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 10

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 11

j)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.11 k)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.12
Figure 6.35. Comparison of the experimental and numerical cyclic behaviour of the adobe wall taking
into account variability in the recovery stiffness and damage factors, in tension and
compression. Horizontal load applied on the left part of the top concrete beam.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

146
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 12

l)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.13
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 13

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 14

m)
c
w = 0.9,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 n)
c
w = 0.9,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.9
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 15

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 16

o)
c
w = 0.9,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.14 p)
c
w = 0.8,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.4
Figure 6.34. Continuation. Comparison of the experimental and numerical cyclic behaviour of the
adobe wall taking into account variability in the recovery stiffness and damage factors,
in tension and compression. Horizontal load applied on the left part of the top concrete
beam.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

147
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 17

q)
c
w = 0.7,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.8
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 18

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 19

r)
c
w = 0.8,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 s)
c
w = 0.7,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 20

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 21

t)
c
w = 0.6,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 u)
c
w = 0.5,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7
Figure 6.34. Continuation. Comparison of the experimental and numerical cyclic behaviour of the
adobe wall taking into account variability in the recovery stiffness and damage factors,
in tension and compression. Horizontal load applied on the left part of the top concrete
beam.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

148
A new cyclic analysis was performed in Abaqus considering a variation of the zones
where the load displacements are applied. In the previous cases the load was applied at
one vertical edge of the top concrete beam (Figure 6.28b), which can be good for a
monotonic test but probably not good representative for a cyclic one. The same load
pattern was later applied at both vertical edges of the top concrete beam and part of the
adobe masonry, as shown in Figure 6.36, in order to simulate better the experimental test
(see Figure 3.9). The results of the parametric study are shown in Figure 6.37 and
demonstrate some improvements for the numerical results.

Figure 6.36 Finite element model of the adobe wall considering both ends of the top concrete beam
for application of the cyclic horizontal displacement. Concrete Damaged Plasticity
model, Abaqus/Standard.
Models 22 to 25 evaluate the variation of the tensile damage factors. Again, the needs to
reduce the compression stiffness when the stress goes from tension to compression are
observed to match the experimental curve, especially for the loading branch at 10 mm
displacement. The new tensile factors specified in Table 6.15 and Table 6.16 do not show
improvement in the reduction of residual deformations for unloading.
Models 26 to 28 consider the tensile damage factors given in Table 6.7 and consider
compression stiffness factors from 0.50 to 0.80. The best results are obtained with
models 27 and 28, concluding that the compression stiffness factors
c
w should be
specified between 0.5 and 0.6. The tensile damage factor can not be significantly different
from those given in Table 6.7 or Table 6.9; otherwise, convergence problems may stop
the analysis before the last stage, always in Abaqus.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

149
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Di splacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 22

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 23

a)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 b)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.9
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 24

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 25

c)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.15 d)
c
w = 1,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.16
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 26

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 27

e)
c
w = 0.8,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7 f)
c
w = 0.6,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7
Figure 6.37. Comparison of the experimental and numerical cyclic behaviour of the adobe wall taking
into account variability in the recovery stiffness and damage factors, in tension and
compression. Horizontal load applied at both ends of the top concrete beam.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

150
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Experimental
Numerical model 28

g)
c
w = 0.5,
t
w = 0,
t
d = Table 6.7
Figure 6.37. Continuation. Comparison of the experimental and numerical cyclic behaviour of the
adobe wall taking into account variability in the recovery stiffness and damage factors.
Horizontal load applied at both ends of the top concrete beam.
The Model 28 (Figure 6.37g) is used for showing the cracking process. From the analysis
of the plastic strain it is seen that after the first 2 cycles of 1 mm some regions of the
adobe masonry already exceed the maximum elastic strain. This effect is seen at the
opening corners, where a concentration of tensile stresses is expected to occur (Figure
6.38a).
Figure 6.38 shows the formation process of tensile plastic strains at different values of the
top displacement load in Model 28, where the most important aspect is the formation of
the X-diagonal cracks, typical of the in-plane behaviour of masonry. The numerical
results match the failure pattern seen in the experimental test (Figure 6.14). Horizontal
cracks at the perpendicular walls are also formed due to bending.

a) Plastic strain values at the end of the 2 cycles of 1 mm
Figure 6.38. Formation process of the tensile plastic strain on the adobe wall under cyclic loads. A
non unique legend in placed each to each figure to visualize better the plastic strain.
Concrete damaged plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

151

c) Plastic strain values at the end of the cycle of 5 mm

d) Plastic strain values at the end of the cycle of 10 mm
Figure 6.38. Continuation. Formation process of the tensile plastic strain on the adobe wall under
cyclic loads. A non unique legend in placed each to each figure to visualize better the
plastic strain. Concrete damaged plasticity model, Abaqus/Standard.
Another way for interpretation of the tensile damage occurred in the adobe masonry is to
show the tensile damage factor (Figure 6.39).

Figure 6.39. Tensile damage factor for Model 28 at the end of the history of cyclic horizontal
displacement load.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

152
The tensile damage factor is a non-decreasing quantity associated with the tensile failure
of the material. In Figure 6.39, the zones which are not in blue (
t
d = 0) indicate the zones
which already are in the softening part of the tensile constitutive law and can be
interpreted as damage zones.
6.6 VIBRATION MODES
An eigenvalue analysis is done to compute the vibration modes of the model, especially in
the direction of the applied load (X-X direction). The reinforced concrete beam placed as
foundation of the wall is removed, so the total weight of the model is 100.63 kN. The
base of the wall is fully fixed. The analysis is performed with Abaqus/Standard through
the linear perturbation option and considering Lanczos method for extraction of the
frequency values. A 50% of the elasticity of modulus has been used according to Tarque
[2008] to take into account early cracking into the material. Figure 6.40 shows the
effective mass related to the first 11 vibration modes, represented here by the frequency
values. In theory the sum of all the effective masses should be equal to the total mass of
the model. It is seen that 11 modes of vibration are required to reach the 90% of the total
mass (Table 6.17), being the fundamental one the first mode.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
8.644 18.753 25.583 29.053 36.399 41.283 45.337 53.734 55.388 58.641 61.147
Frequency (Hz)
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

m
a
s
s

(
%
)

Figure 6.40. Contribution of the modes of vibration in the X-X direction until reaches the 90% of the
total mass of the model.
The deflected shapes given for each mode of vibration are shown in Figure 6.41. The first
vibration mode, which involves 74.24% of the total mass, is a translational mode; while
the others are basically out-of-plane deformations of the flange walls. This analysis
considers the use of the elastic material properties. However, the adobe material is brittle
and goes into the inelastic range very early; therefore the frequencies are expected to
shorten.
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

153

a) Mode 1. T
1
= 0.1157s b) Mode 2. T
2
= 0.0533s

c) Mode 3. T
3
= 0.0391s d) Mode 4. T
4
= 0.0344s

e) Mode 5. T
5
= 0.0275s f) Mode 6. T
6
= 0.0242s
Figure 6.41. Modes of vibration in the X-X direction.
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

154
Table 6.17. Values of the frequency and period of vibrations of the numerical model in the X-X
direction.
Mode number % effective mass (%) Frequency (Hz) Period (s)
1 74.2347 74.235 8.64 0.1157
2 1.1936 75.428 18.75 0.0533
3 1.5037 76.932 25.58 0.0391
4 5.5291 82.461 29.05 0.0344
5 2.2419 84.703 36.40 0.0275
6 1.7464 86.449 41.28 0.0242
7 0.8635 87.313 45.34 0.0221
8 0.2657 87.579 53.73 0.0186
9 1.4834 89.062 55.39 0.0181
10 0.0286 89.091 58.64 0.0171
11 1.3749 90.466 61.15 0.0164

6.7 ENERGY BALANCE FOR QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS
The energy balance of the entire model should be checked to ensure that the time
increment is not causing instability and the solution of the model is correct. The
conservation of energy implies that the total energy E
total
should be constant and close to
zero. The total energy is given by:
total KE IE VD SD KL JD W
E E E E E E E E = + + + + + (6.9)
where E
KE
is the kinetic energy, E
IE
is the total internal energy, E
VD
is the visco-elastic
energy, E
SD
is the static energy due to stabilization, E
KL
is the loss of kinetic energy at
impact, E
JD
is the electrical energy dissipated due to flow of electrical current, and E
W
is
the work done by the externally applied loads. For this quasi static problem the E
KE
, E
VD
,
E
KL
and E
JD
are zero energy.
The total internal energy is given by:
I SE PD CD AE QB EE DMD
E E E E E E E E = + + + + + + (6.10)
where E
SE
is the recoverable strain energy, E
PD
is the energy due to plastic dissipation,
E
CD
is the energy dissipated by creep, E
AE
is the artificial energy, E
QB
is the energy
dissipated through quiet boundaries, E
EE
is the electrostatic energy, and E
DMD
is the
Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of adobe buildings

155
energy dissipated by damage. For the analysis made here the E
CD
, E
QB
, E
EE
are zero
energy.
Figure 6.42a shows the components of the total internal energy. It is seen that after 10 s
the plastic energy becomes important, which correspond to the cycles of 2 mm top
displacement. Figure 6.42b shows the components of the total energy. Here it is seen that
the static energy for stabilization has almost no influence on the total response, which is
an indication of proper finite element solution. The energy values are plotted until 29 s
because it is the total time necessary to apply the full cyclic load.
0
.
E
+
0
0
2
.
E
+
0
5
4
.
E
+
0
5
6
.
E
+
0
5
8
.
E
+
0
5
1
.
E
+
0
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
W
h
o
l
e

m
o
d
e
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
N
-
m
m
)
Internal work
Plastic dissipated energy
Elastic strain energy
Artificial strain energy
Damage dissipated energy

0
.
E
+
0
0
2
.
E
+
0
5
4
.
E
+
0
5
6
.
E
+
0
5
8
.
E
+
0
5
1
.
E
+
0
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
W
h
o
l
e

m
o
d
e
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
N
-
m
m
)
External work
Internal work
Static dissipated energy (stabilization)

a) Total internal energy b) Total energy in the model
Figure 6.42. Energy balance for Model 28, non-linear static analysis with concrete damaged plasticity
model in Abaqus/Standard. .
6.8 SUMMARY
Two finite element approaches were used for modelling the in-plane response of an
adobe wall: the discrete and the continuum approach. For the first, the combined
cracking-shearing-crushing interface model developed in Midas FEA was used. In this
case the adobe bricks are modelled with elastic properties and the inelasticity of the adobe
material is concentrated at the mud mortar interfaces. For the second one, two models
were used: the total-strain model and the concrete damaged plasticity model.
The total-strain model is used in Midas FEA, while the concrete damaged plasticity is
used in Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit. At the beginning, only a monotonic
pushover displacement was considered on the adobe walls for calibration of the adobe
material properties in Midas FEA and Abaqus/Standard. Special care was paid to the
inelastic properties. When the numerical failure pattern and the numerical force-
displacement curve matched the experimental one in a satisfactory way, another study
Sabino Nicola Tarque Ruz

156
was done in Abaqus/Standard to simulate the cyclic response on an adobe wall. This way,
damage factors and stiffness recovery in tension and compression were calibrated in view
of the complete seismic analysis of adobe walls (see Chapter 7). The cyclic response was
not able to be reproduced in Midas FEA due to difficulties in convergence for reversal
loads.