PSI - Issue 11

J.I. Gisbert et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 428–435

431

4

Author name

/ Structural Integ

rity Procedia 00

(2018) 000–000

Figure 3: U

niaxial compres

sion (left) and di

agonal compress

ion (right) FE me

shed models

2.3.

Material def he initial dat simulations a e modified to dulus between

inition a to represen nd experime achieve a be 3000 and 60 able 1: Material P Material

T

t the material nts were deve tter approxim 00 MPa were

behavior wa loped, the Yo ation to the o developed, (i

s obtained fro ung’s Modul bserved failu i) as for brick

m supplier’s us and the Un re mode: (i) f s, between 70

technical she iaxial Compr or mortar, mo 00 and 11000

ets, however essive Streng dels with Yo Mpa.

, after th had ung’s

first to b Mo

T

roperties

Young’s M 8000 4000 7000

odulus (MPa)

Poisson’s R 0.14 0.20 0,16

atio R c (MP 15 4.5 5.00

a)

R t (MPa 1.50 0.45 0.52

)

Bricks Mortar Masonry

2.4.

Failure crite

rion

2.4. T both mas

1. Drucker- P o complete t brick and m onry element

rager Rankin he material d ortar in ord s.

e ata definition er to represe

, the failure c nt the large

riterion of D differences b

rucker-Prage etween tensil

r Rankine [10 e and compr

] has been u ession behav

sed in ior in

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4: 2-D

Yield surfaces

showing Drucke

r-Prager and Ran

kine Surfaces (a)

. Linear HSD in

compression (b)

and tension (c)