PSI - Issue 78

Hadi Monsef Ahmadi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1745–1752

1750

4. Reinforcing the masonry wall with suggested hybrid configurations of steel web plate 4.1. Verification of a masonry wall results subjected to shear loads

Mazzolani et al. (2012) tested an unreinforced masonry (URM) wall with dimensions of 1500 × 1500 × 250 mm, constructed using bricks measuring 63 × 240 × 115 mm. The wall was subjected to lateral displacements up to 5 mm. To replicate the experimental setup, a simplified macro-model was developed in ABAQUS using shell elements. The masonry material was defined with an elastic modulus of 12 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2. Nonlinear material behavior was modeled using the concrete damage plasticity model, incorporating both compressive and tensile damage mechanisms, as recommended by Zizi et al. (2021). The numerical model was fully restrained at the base in all degrees of freedom, except in the loading direction, and clamped at the top. A mesh size of 50 mm was applied throughout the model to ensure adequate accuracy and computational efficiency, as verified through sensitivity analysis (see Fig. 5a). It is worth noting that Zizi et al. (2021) proposed a steel grid strip reinforcement masonry walls (RM) technique using S235-grade steel thickness of 5 mm, which significantly enhanced the energy dissipation capacity of URM walls. In the present study, a distinct yet complementary reinforcement approach is adopted, employing a hybrid configuration that combines rigid and ductile components. The effectiveness of this approach is validated through comparable improvements in structural performance, particularly in terms of strength, as confirmed by the envelope curves. It should be noted that a perfect bond is assumed between the reinforcement and the masonry wall. As illustrated in Fig. 5a, the grid reinforcements in this study are modeled using solid elements with tetrahedral (Tet) meshing at a size of 50 mm. These reinforcements are applied to both faces of the masonry wall and fully tied to the masonry substrate, simulating a continuous connection system. As shown in Fig. 5b, there is strong agreement between the experimental results and the finite element (FEM) analysis of the URM wall, as well as between the FEM outcomes of Zizi et al. (2021) and the present study in RM models. This consistency confirms the validity of the proposed numerical model and supports its suitability for conducting further parametric analyses. (a) (b)

Fig. 5. (a) Developed macro model FEM for RM walls and (b) comparing results.