Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Damage assessment of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to

blasting induced ground excitations
Hong Hao a,*, Guo-Wei Ma b, Yong Lu a
a

Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
b
Centre for Composite Material, University of Delaware, Newark, NJ, USA
Received 10 October 2000; received in revised form 27 December 2001; accepted 27 December 2001

Abstract
This study investigates the effect of infill masonry on damage to reinforced concrete frames subjected to underground explosion
induced ground motion. A two-storey reinforced concrete bare frame and frames with different masonry infill patterns are analysed.
A continuum material model is applied to the masonry panels. The orthotropic elastic properties, strength envelope and damage
threshold of the masonry are homogenised by analysing a representative volume element. A fracture indicator and a plastic indicator
are defined respectively for monitoring concrete damage and plastic flow of reinforcement of the frame. Numerical results based
on the current study show that the infill masonry affects not only the damage level but also the damage pattern of the frames.
Empirical regulations for inhabited building distance (IBD) in underground ammunition storage design are examined. It is found
that the empirical damage criterion for surface structures on an underground explosion site is rather conservative for modern
reinforced concrete structures, but it appears to be reasonable for the masonry infill in the frame. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Infilled frame; Structural damage; Masonry; Reinforced concrete (RC); High frequency ground motion

1. Introduction
The frameinfill systems are used throughout the
world as they provide an economical means to enclose
and partition space that suits various usage. The infill
masonry is seldom included in numerical calculations of
structural response because masonry panels are normally
considered as secondary structures and including them
introduces some unwanted analytical complexities.
However, the significant effects of the infilled masonry
on structural responses of frames have been realised by
many researchers [1]. Neglecting such effects are
deemed to lead to inadequate assessment of the structural
damage of infilled frames subjected to intensive
ground motions.
Masonry is a two-phase material with regular distribution of mortar joint and brick. The discrete element

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-9380-1825; fax: +61-8-93801018.

E-mail address: hao@civil.uwa.edu.au (H. Hao).

method (DEM) [2] is the most commonly used simplification method in simulating the behaviour of joints and
bricks. However, it is computationally very expensive if
an entire structure is analysed, and thus not applicable to
the analysis of large-scale structures [3]. In conventional
numerical analysis of frameinfill systems, the masonry
infill is usually modelled using either an equivalent strut
model [Fig. 1(a)] or a refined continuum model [Fig.
1(b)] [1]. The former method is simple and computationally attractive but is theoretically weak. First, identifying the equivalent nonlinear stiffness of the infill
masonry using diagonal struts is not straightforward,
especially when there exist some openings, such as doors
or windows, in the wall. It is also not possible to predict
the damaged area of masonry either. The latter method
based on continuum modelling can provide an accurate
computational representation of both material and
geometry aspects if the material properties and the
sources of nonlinearity of the masonry are carefully
homogenised. Most of the laboratory tests on masonry
are intended to measure the equivalent deformational
properties which are applicable to the continuum model

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - X

800

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

response and damage of a structure are dependent predominantly on inherent structural properties. These
empirical relations, however, do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the site and structures
concerned. For these reasons, and considering the fact
that conducting field blasting tests is not only very
expensive, but may not be feasible owing to safety and
other environmental constraints, a more reliable numerical assessment of structural damage caused by blasting
ground motions is necessary.

Fig. 1. Material model of masonry. (a) Diagonal strut model; (b) continuum model.

[4,5]. However, these test data are highly scattered and

the material properties of masonry depend on numerous
factors which are not readily catered for. Homogenisation of masonry remains to be an important issue in a
continuum simulation.
The objective of this study is to investigate the
response of RC structures subjected to underground
explosion induced ground motion, to assess structural
damage and examine the effects of infill masonry on
overall structural performance. The ground motion under
consideration is derived from a numerically simulated
underground explosion [6], and it represents typical
close-in blasting ground motions with very high dominant frequency (in the order of 50 Hz and higher) and
vibration amplitude (tens of gs and higher). The duration, however, is much shorter (a small fraction of 1 s)
than commonly encountered seismic motions. Responses
of structures to such motions are thus different from
those induced by a seismic ground motion. The commonly used damage assessment methods based on storey-drift and deformation of structures under seismic
motion are not directly applicable in this case. In the
present study, damage assessment methods for infill
masonry and reinforced concrete structures based on
continuum mechanics are introduced first. The infill
masonry properties are obtained based on a homogenisation process of a representative volume element [7].
The numerical results are then used to examine the safe
inhabited building distance (IBD) to underground
explosion. In the current practice, the required IBD from
an underground storage facility and underground construction blasting is generally based on empirical
relations derived from actual observations of damage in
low-rise masonry-like structures [810]. These empirical
relations are generally believed to be rather conservative,
and a conservative estimation of IBD obviously will lead
to unnecessary increase of land use for construction of
underground ammunition storage facilities. Furthermore,
it is commonly understood that underground stress wave
propagation is highly site dependent, and the dynamic

2. Continuum model of masonry

Representative volume element (RVE) of masonry is
often used to homogenise the equivalent material properties of masonry [11,12]. It can provide a valuable dividing boundary between the discrete model and the continuum model. The present study employs the material
properties as homogenised by the numerical analysis of
masonry [7]. The RVE is analysed by considering the
individual material properties of mortar and brick. The
brick size is 225 mm in length and 75 mm in height and
the mortar thickness is 10 mm. Basic material properties
of the RVE used in the present study are listed in
Table 1.
2.1. Elastic properties
The elastic modulus matrix of masonry can be
expressed as

1
E1

n12

0
E1

n12 1
[K0]
E1 E2

1
G

(1)

in which the directional moduli E1, E2, n12 and shear

modulus G depend on the elastic moduli of mortar (Em,
nm) and brick (Eb, nb) and on parameters characterising
the geometry of the masonry. The homogenised elastic
moduli of the masonry with the present configuration
and material properties are compared with the results
based on analytical formulae proposed by other
researchers on an empirical basis, in Table 2. It is noted
that Pande I [13] prediction is based on calculations
using a single layer masonry unit with perpendicular
joints alone; Pande II is based on an analysis of stacked
layers of masonry units with perpendicular joints and
bed joints [13]. The analytical solution, given by Singh
[14], relates a transversely isotropic continuum characterisation of the medium to the properties of the joint

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

801

Table 1
Physical parameters for brick and mortar
Brick

Mortar

Youngs modulus (Eb)

Shear modulus (Gb)
Poissons ratio (nb)
Compressive strength
Tensile strength

11,000 MPa
4580 MPa
0.20
52 MPa
2.6 MPa

Youngs modulus (Em)

Shear modulus (Gb)
Poissons ratio (nb)
Compressive strength
Initial cohesion

2200 MPa
1100 MPa
0.20
14 MPa
1.2 MPa

Table 2
Elastic moduli of masonry

Present study
Pande I [13]
Pande II [13]
Singh [14]

E1 (MPa)

E2 (MPa)

G (MPa)

n12

7899
9543
8680
9894

6276
11,068
7676
6217

2884
4036
3071
3350

0.31
0.173
0.176
0.180

and the intact material in the medium. It can be observed

that the empirical predictions show scattering of the
values of elastic moduli. The single layer model results
in inconsistent predictions of the two Youngs moduli,
which may not be applicable to continuum analysis of
masonry. Generally speaking, the horizontal Youngs
modulus (E1) corresponding to the direction parallel to
the bed joint is larger than that (E2) in the direction perpendicular to the bed joint line. This is reasonable
because the volume ratio of mortar along the direction
perpendicular to the bed joint is larger than the ratio in
the other direction. The shear modulus obtained is generally much smaller than the Youngs moduli. It is also
noted that the Poissons ratio employed in the present
study, based on the numerical analysis of RVE [7], is
larger than the previous values (Table 2). This is because
in the present study the Poissons ratio is calculated to
correspond to the state at two-thirds of the ultimate stress
on the stressstrain curve of the RVE, where minor nonlinearity of masonry may be expected. The empirical
values, however, are calculated based on initial elastic
properties of mortar joints and bricks. For a similar reason, the two Youngs moduli and the shear modulus
from the numerical simulation for the present study show
smaller values as compared to the empirical predictions.
2.2. Strength envelope
The qp plot is commonly used for a geomaterial,
such as rock, concrete or soil, etc. [15], in which p is
hydrostatic stress, given by:
1
p (s1 s2 s3)
3
and q is equivalent shear stress, given by:

(2)

Fig. 2. Strength points in qp plane.

(s s )
2
1

(s2s3)2 (s3s1)2

(3)

where s1, s2 and s3 are the principal stresses. The

masonry strength envelope based on the simulated
strength points under various loading conditions can be
divided into three different parts in the qp plane, representing three different failure modes, as schematically
illustrated in Fig. 2 [7]. The first part with positive
hydrostatic pressure p0 leads to mode I failure due to
mortar tension; the third part with pp1, when the compression is very high, corresponds to brick compressive
failure (mode III); whereas the second part is associated
with mode II shear failure of mortar and brick induced
by a combination of shear and compression. This piecewise linear model defines the equivalent material
strength in a continuum model. The parameters of the
piecewise model corresponding to the brick and mortar
properties described above are listed in Table 3.

Table 3
Strength parameters of masonry (MPa) (Notation given in Fig. 2)
pt

qc

p1

p2

q1

q2

0.4

1.0

5.4

32

16.2

48

802

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

2.3. Extensional damage threshold

Apparent stiffness degradation of the RVE in a tensile
stress state may be found from the calculated results.
The threshold tensile strains of the equivalent material
that correspond to the ultimate tensile stresses can also
be obtained. Thus, the horizontal and vertical threshold
strains are determined using the uniaxial tensile stress
strain curves of the RVE under horizontal and vertical
tension, respectively, while the equivalent threshold
strain is calculated as the square root of the sum of the
square of the two directional threshold strains. The average horizontal, vertical and equivalent threshold strains
so obtained are 2.01104, 1.98104 and 2.23104,
respectively. These average threshold strains can be used
in the continuum damage modelling of masonry [7].
Fig. 3.

Stressstrain curves with different damage parameters.

2.4. Continuum constitutive relationship of masonry

Based on the homogenised material properties, a plastic damage constitutive relation of masonry at the macro
level can be presented as
Q F
[E]e
[E]eD
{s}
{s}T D
ep
e
[E] [E]D
F
Q
A
[E]eD
T
{s}
{s}

(4)

{ds} [E]{de}

where [E]ep is the elastoplastic incremental material

matrix; F is the yield function at the macro level which
has been obtained as a piecewise function on the pq
plane; Q is a plastic potential function which is identical
to the yield function if an associated flow rule is applied;
A is a stiffness hardening factor; and [E]eD is the damaged
elastic matrix, which can be expressed as
[E]eD (1Dm)[E]0

(5)

in which [E] is the initial anisotropic elastic modulus

matrix equal to [K0] given in Eq. (1). The initial material
constants in [E]0 have been obtained as listed in Table
2. The damage scalar Dm in Eq. (5) can be estimated as
Dm 1eb(e

+e+)/e+
0 0

of reinforcement, and the bond between the reinforcement and concrete. Nonlinearity and failure of concrete
and reinforcement, both considered here as continuum
media, depend on the local stresses or strains. The
material model with separate treatments of concrete and
reinforcement is formulated in the form of a modulus
matrix as

(6)

where e+ is the equivalent tensile strain of masonry, b

is a damage parameter, and e0 is the threshold tensile
strain. Normalised uniaxial stressstrain curves corresponding to different values of the damage parameters,
b, are shown in Fig. 3. In the present study, the equivalent threshold strain 2.23104 as given in Section 2.3
together with the damage parameter b 0.5 is used in
the calculation of masonry damage.
3. Fracture indicator and plastic indicator of
reinforced concrete
The deformation of a RC component depends on the
material properties of concrete and reinforcement, ratio

(7)

where {ds} and {de} represent the incremental stress

and strain vectors, respectively. The modulus matrix is
built up at each increment and consists of contributions
from the concrete and the reinforcement. The concrete
model focuses on its tensile behaviour which is of the
greatest importance for the global nonlinear behaviour
of the RC component. The undamaged modulus of
reinforced concrete is given by
[E] [E]c [E]s

(8)

in which [E]c and [E]s are the stiffness matrices of concrete and reinforcement, respectively. Assuming that
perfect bond exists at both elastic and inelastic deformation states, failure of the reinforced concrete component can then be distinguished either by damage of concrete or yielding of reinforcement.
A double scalar damage model was proposed by Mazars [16] to evaluate the damage of materials which have
unequal tensile and compressive strength. The present
study uses a similar damage model with double scalars,
Dt and Dc, which correspond respectively to damage
measured under uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive states of stress of the concrete. The two scalars are
defined as
Dt 1ea

+(e +e+)/e+
0 0

and Dc 1ea

(e

e
0 )/e0

(9)

in which a+ and a are the damage parameters associated with the two damage scalars; e0 and e
0 are threshold strains under uniaxial tension and compression.

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Below the threshold strains, the concrete is assumed to

behave elastically so that no damage occurs. e and
e are the equivalent tensile and compressive strains
given by

e +

(e )
3

(e ) and e
+ 2
i

2
i

(10)

where ei is the positive principal strain, the superscript

(+) means it vanishes if it is negative. e
i is the negative
principal strain and it vanishes if it is positive.
The damage scalar consists of two parts, namely Dt
due to tension damage and Dc due to compression damage based on Mazarss theory [16], and it is given by:
0, at ac 1
D atDt acDc, D

(11)

where at and ac are balancing coefficients characterising

tension and compression, respectively. They are estimated according to the equivalent tensile and compressive strains [16]. Thus, the current matrix of damaged
material may be represented by
[E]c (1D)[E]c0

(12)

A bilinear yield model is employed for the reinforcement

in the present study. In the elastic stage, the modulus of
reinforcement is equal to its Youngs modulus, Es
Es1; whereas Es Es2 (Es2 being the hardening modulus)
if normal stress exceeds its yield stress s0. Unloading
and reloading follow the initial elastic loading path.
Fracture of the reinforced concrete will occur at a
rather low level of tensile strain. It can be characterised
by defining a fracture indictor as illustrated in Fig. 4.
The reinforced concrete component is considered to
remain at an elastic state if the equivalent tensile strain
e is less than the threshold tensile strain e0 of the
concrete (region I in Fig. 4). When e exceeds e0 but
is less than the steel yield strain es0 (region II in Fig. 4),
the reinforced concrete is at the stage of micro-fractur-

Fig. 4.

Fracture indictor of RC component.

803

ing. Micro-cracks occur in the concrete at this stage, but

these cracks may be regarded as insignificant because
the deformation of the concrete is restrained by the
reinforcement. Macro-fracturing and larger cracks occur
when the equivalent tensile strain exceeds the yield
strain of the reinforcement (region III). The fracture indicator determined by the equivalent tensile strain divides
the nonlinear deformation into three stages. It can provide a good indication of whether a local failure or a
global failure of the RC component has occurred. It
should be noted that this fracture indicator is based on
the assumption of perfect bond between concrete and
reinforcement, i.e., no slippage would occur. In practice,
large cracks might occur before the yielding of reinforcement as the bond stress reaches its corresponding
strength.
For reinforcement, a plastic indicator is used to identify whether a plastic flow has occurred. It is determined
by the effective plastic strain as shown in Fig. 5. It varies
irreversibly from 0 to 1 with an increase in the effective
plastic strain from the threshold plastic strain to the ultimate strain. The ultimate strain depends on the ductility
ratio of the reinforcement. When the fracture indicator
reaches 1, the reinforced concrete is at the plastic flow
phase instead of the fracturing phase. The plastic indicator shows the state of the reinforcement and a non-zero
value of the plastic indicator means that the concrete is
fully cracked and has lost its tension capacity. The
maximum value 1 of the plastic indicator indicates complete local failure at the location where a localised plastic
hinge has formed.

Fig. 5.

Plastic indicator of RC component.

804

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Table 4
Material constants of concrete and reinforcement
Concrete

Reinforcement

Ec
(GPa)

Gc
(GPa)

nc

Es1
(GPa)

Es2
(GPa)

Gs
(GPa)

27

14

0.2

210

21

80

4. Damage assessment of infilled reinforced

concrete frame
A two-storey reinforced concrete frame with span
length 5 m and storey height 3.3 and 3 m respectively
for the first and second storey is used to illustrate the
numerical model. All columns and beams have crosssection 230300 mm with 2% reinforcement. The elastic
parameters of concrete (Class C30 with characteristic
compressive strength equal 30 MPa) and reinforcement
(Grade S460) used in the calculations are listed in Table
4. Table 5 gives the threshold strains of the RC components that are used to characterise the failure properties
of reinforced concrete.
As the amplitude of vertical motion induced by a
nearby underground explosion is very large, the masses
concentrated at the floor level may have significant
effects on structural response. Thus, A T-shape section
as shown in Fig. 6 is assumed for beams at the two
floors. Equivalent mass density and material moduli are
estimated and lumped at the top of the equivalent rectangular beams as shown in Fig. 6. A thickness of 150
mm is assumed for the floor slab. The total flange length
of the T-beam is equal to the perpendicular span length
of the frame, assumed to be 5 m. Hence, the stiffness
and mass of the top layer of the equivalent rectangular
beam become much larger than those of the bottom
layer. The threshold strains, however, are the same as
the original ones listed in Table 5. In the present study,
a two-storey bare frame, and a group of frames infilled
in different ways such as that infilled in the first storey
only and in the second storey only, as well as that infilled
in both storeys with and without openings, are analyzed
to investigate the effects of infill masonry on the structural damage.
Ground motion induced by underground explosion is
simulated by using a commercial software [6,17]. The
charge weight used in the present study is 250 t TNT
Table 5
Threshold strains of concrete and reinforcement
e0

e0

es0

esu

0.0035

0.00035

0.002

0.02

Fig. 6. Two storey frame. (a) Frame elevation; (b) Actual T-shape
beam section and its equivalent rectangular representation.

with a 10 kg/m3 loading density (charge weight per unit

chamber volume). The charge chamber is embedded at
Dc 63 m below the rock surface. The duration of all
the stress wave is short and their peak values of velocities corresponding to different surface distances are
quite different. Fig. 7 illustrates the simulated ground
motions at 50 and 100 m surface distance. These velocity
histories will be applied as the velocity boundary at the
structural supports to excite the surface structure. It is
found that the peak velocities at 50 m surface distance
are 0.98 m/s in the horizontal direction and 0.87 m/s in
the vertical direction, while they are respectively 0.58
and 0.29 m/s at 100 m surface distance. As can be seen,
the velocities in the two directions at 50 m surface distance have similar amplitude, whereas at 100 m surface
distance the amplitude of the horizontal velocity is twice
that of the vertical one. However, the amplitudes of the
vertical components can be considered significant for
both cases, and hence they may have significant effects
on the structural response. It is also apparent that the
effects of ground motion will decrease rapidly with an
increase in surface distance due to the fast attenuation
effects.
A comparison of response spectra between a seismic
motion and the ground motion at 100 m surface distance
induced by an underground explosion is shown in Fig.

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Fig. 8.

Fig. 7. Velocity histories at different surface distances. (a) Horizontal

motion; (b) Vertical motion.

8. It can be seen that the dominant frequency of the El

Centro earthquake motion is only around 1 Hz. However, the energy of ground motion from the underground
explosion is distributed along a wide frequency band
from tens to a few hundreds Hz. Because of high frequency, preliminary analysis (results are not shown here)
has indicated very small displacement responses and storey drift. Thus the conventional damage assessment
methods based on deformation and drift as commonly
used in earthquake engineering are not directly applicable for underground explosions.
Damage contour and fracture indicator of the bare
frame excited by the ground motion at 50 m surface distance are shown in Fig. 9(a). It shows that major damage
occurs mainly in the first storey columns. The second
storey columns suffered only minor damage near the
joints, implying that the vibration level of the second
storey is smaller than that of the first storey. This is probably because the first storey of the frame acts as a filter
to the high frequency horizontal ground motion energy.
The maximum fracture indicator throughout the entire
frame is less than 1.0, which means the reinforcement
still remains at the elastic state, and hence, damage to

805

Response spectra.

concrete can be regarded as minor to moderate. Beams,

however, suffer similar damage in both storeys owing
to higher beam mode vibration caused by the vertical
excitation. Fig. 9(b) shows the concrete damage and
fracture indicators of the frame excited by the motion at
100 m surface distance. The damage is minor as compared to that at 50 m surface, and this indicates that the
structural response to the ground motion decreases rapidly with an increase in the surface distance.
In the case of frames infilled with masonry quite different damage patterns are observed. Fig. 10 shows those
subjected to motion at 50 m surface distance. Fig. 10(a)
illustrates the tensile damage of the frame with masonry
infill at the second storey. As shown, major concrete
damage occurs only on the columns of the first storey.
The damage level is very similar to that of the bare frame
(Fig. 9). The two beams, however, do not suffer much
damage. This implies that the presence of masonry infill
enhances the integrity of the frame and reduces beam
damage. In other cases of the infill frames shown in Fig.
10(bd), major damage occurs again at the bottom
region of the first-storey columns. Slight concrete damage occurs in the second-storey columns. The damage
to the beams of both storeys, however, is very minor.
These results indicate that only the frame with masonry
infill in the second-storey experiences similar major
damage in columns to the first storey in the bare frame.
The other three cases exhibit different damage patterns,
with the major damage to the concrete occurring at the
base of the first-storey columns. The beams in all four
cases do not suffer much damage at all.
The damage to the masonry infill in the above frames
is shown in Fig. 11. In the case where only the second
storey is infilled [Fig. 11(a)], some moderate damage

806

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Fig. 9. Damage and fracture indicator of bare frame (TENSILE D.=damage scalar; FRACTURE=fracture indicator as defined in Section 3).
(a) 50 m surface distance; (b) 100 m surface distance.

Fig. 10. Damage of RC components of infilled frame at surface distance 50 m.

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Fig. 11.

807

Masonry damage of infilled frames at 50 m surface distance (MASONRY D.=damage scalar in masonry as defined in Section 3).

occurs at the masonry and concrete interfaces, especially

along the top and the base of the masonry infill. The
presence of the masonry infill imposes a restriction on
the beam vibration (thereby reducing the beam damage),
and as a reaction higher stress develops in the masonry
wall near its interface with the RC beam, causing damage to occur in this area. For the second type of infill
as shown in Fig. 11(b), the masonry panel experiences
major damages on all sides and at all corners, indicating
severe damage to the infill masonry leading to disintegration and probably collapse. This indicates that the
masonry is more vulnerable compared to the reinforced
concrete. Fig. 11(c) illustrates damage contours for the
case where both storeys are infilled with masonry. Major
damage to the masonry infill in the first storey frame is
again observed. Masonry on the second floor, however,
only suffers moderate damage especially at the base of
the wall. This pattern of damage indicates that the infill
wall at the first storey is more vulnerable due to the
stronger vibration at this level as mentioned earlier. The
last category deals with such frames with door and window openings present in the masonry wall. As shown in
Fig. 11(d), major damages are generated around the corners of the openings, and overall, this category appears
to be the most vulnerable with respect to masonry damage. Nevertheless, the masonry wall with openings still
enhances the frame integrity, as concrete frame damage

is reduced substantially, albeit with heavy damage to the

masonry infill.
The masonry damage of infilled frames subjected to
motions at 100 m surface distance is illustrated in Fig.
12. No masonry damage occurs when the frame is
infilled in the second storey alone [Fig. 12(a)]. Major
damage occurs only at the corners of the base of the first
storey for frames shown in Fig. 12(b,c). In Fig. 12(d),
however, major damage occurs at the corners of the base
of the first storey as well as at the corners of the openings. The areas of the damage to masonry infill are
reduced substantially as compared to those shown in Fig.
11 (50 m distance), and this indicates that damage to
masonry as well as concrete reduces rapidly with an
increase in surface distance.
The current code of practice limits the ground
vibration level in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV)
to 0.23 m/s for the safety of structures on the rock surface [10]. This limiting value was obtained from observations of damage of actual low-rise masonry buildings.
The present numerical results seem to indicate that this
allowable vibration level is probably applicable for
masonry walls with openings or walls in the first storey.
It is, however, rather conservative when applied to
reinforced concrete frames, and to masonry walls infilled
in the second storey. As presented above, reinforced concrete frames and masonry walls on the second storey

808

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

Fig. 12. Masonry damage of infilled frames at 100 m surface distance.

suffer only moderate damage when subjected to such

motions at 50 m surface distance, where the ground
motion PPV is 0.98 m/s in the horizontal direction and
0.87 m/s in the vertical direction. They suffer very minor
damage when the ground motion PPV in the horizontal
and vertical directions are respectively 0.58 and 0.28 m/s
at 100 m surface distance. In general, the infill masonry
greatly enhances the integrity of frame structures. Its
presence in such frames substantially reduces the damage to RC members although damage to the masonry
itself under high frequency ground excitations might
be severe.

5. Conclusions
This paper presented damage models for reinforced
concrete structures and masonry walls based on a continuum mechanics theory. The models were subsequently used to analyse the response and damage of
RC frames with and without masonry infill walls to
blasting ground excitations. Based on the numerical
results, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) the
influence of masonry infill on frame response depends
on the physical properties as well as the geometry of the
wall. The stability and integrity of RC frames are
enhanced with a masonry infill wall. Besides the
response level, the presence of masonry infill also alters

the damage pattern of the RC frame. Neglecting such

effects in the damage assessment of the masonry infilled
frame structures will lead to unreliable results. (2) The
current code specifications on allowable ground
vibration limit for the safety of structures is rather conservative with regard to the RC components. However,
it appears acceptable in the case of masonry infill walls
with openings. (3) Because of the high frequency feature
of blasting induced ground motions, structures do not
respond primarily at their global structural modes. As a
result, the storey drift can be very small, and hence damage assessment methods commonly used in earthquake
engineering based on storey drift may not be applicable
to assessing structures under high frequency ground
motion.
References
[1] Comite Euro-international Du Beton (CEB). RC frames under
earthquake loading, state of art report. London, UK: Thomas Telford, 1996.
[2] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. UDEC Universal district element
code, version 3.0. 1996.
[3] Lotfi HR, Shing PB. Interface model applied to fracture of
masonry structures. J. Struct. Engng ASCE 1994;120(1):6380.
[4] Page AW. The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tension
compression. Int. J. Masonry Construct. 1983;3(1):2631.
[5] Andreaus U. Failure criteria for masonry panels under in-plane
loading. J. Struct. Engng ASCE 1996;122(1):3746.

H. Hao et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 799809

[6] Hao H, Ma GW. Numerical simulation of underground

explosions and their effects on surface structures. Technical
report no. 5, NTU-LEO joint R&D project, Nanyang Technological University, 1997.
[7] Ma GW, Hao H, Lu Y. Homogenization of masonry using
numerical
simulations.
J.
Engng
Mech.
ASCE
2001;127(5):42131.
[8] Dowding CH. Blast vibration monitoring and control. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1985.
[9] Nicholls HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WI. Blasting vibrations and
their effects on structures. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 656, Washington (DC), 1971.
[10] US Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB).
Ammunition and explosive safety standards: DOD 6055.9-STD.
Washington (DC), 1996.
[11] Anthoine A. Derivation of the in-plane elastic characteristics of
masonry through homogenization theory. Int. J. Solids Struct.
1995;32:13763.

809

[12] Luciano R, Sacco E. Homogenisation technique and damage

model for masonry material. Int. J. Solids Struct.
1997;34(24):3191208.
[13] Pande GN, Kralj B, Middleton J. Analysis of the compressive
strength of masonry given by the equation fk K(fb)a(fm)b.
Struct. Eng. 1994;72(1):712.
[14] Singh B. Continuum characterisation of jointed rock masses: part
Ithe constitutive equations. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1973;10:33745.
[15] Andreev GE. Brittle failure of rock materials: test results and
constitutive models. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1995.
[16] Mazars J. A description of micro and macro scale damage of
concrete structures. Engng Fract. Mech. 1986;25(56):72937.
[17] Ma GW, Hao H, Zhou YX. Modelling of wave propagation
induced by underground explosion. Computers and Geotechnics
1998;22(34):283303.