PSI - Issue 70

Chaitra Shree V. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 67–73

70

Fig. 2. FEA results showing distribution of (a) load and (b) stress on masonry wall The FEA results (Fig. 2) clearly illustrate the deformation and stress mechanisms in the masonry wall. The load contour (Fig. 2a) reveals a smooth gradient, indicating uniform displacement transfer across the surface. The stress plot (Fig. 2b) highlights localized high-stress zones along the diagonal, suggesting shear band formation or failure onset paths. These findings are consistent with crack propagation patterns observed in similar masonry structures. Table 2 summarizes the key response parameters obtained from the simulation and compares them with theoretical estimates. Table 2. Summary of Load-Carrying Capacity and Failure Parameters Parameter Value (ANSYS DP Model) Analytical Estimate (MATLAB) Peak Lateral Load (kN)

162.4 8.7 26.4 2.3 Diagonal shear cracking 22.1 5.70%

153.6 — — — Diagonal cracking expected

Lateral Displacement at Peak (mm) Initial Lateral Stiffness (kN/mm) Crack Initiation Displacement (mm) Dominant Failure Mode

Residual Load at Failure (kN) Shear Capacity (% deviation)

— —

Fig. 3. lateral load vs. displacement curve FEA result From Table 2, ANSYS DP model identifies the dominant failure mode as diagonal shear cracking, the analytical estimate using MATLAB predicts diagonal cracking. This apparent variation arises primarily from the level of detail captured by each method. The ANSYS simulation, being a finite element-based model, captures stress redistributions and crack propagation paths more precisely, thus identifying the shear-dominant nature of the diagonal cracks. In