2016
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0231-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational Modeling of Masonry Structures Using the Discrete Element Method

Abstract: In this chapter, the different modeling strategies for simulating the behavior of masonry infilled frames are investigated. Particular emphasis is given on the suitability of the Discrete Element Method (DEM) to accurately represent the mechanical behavior, strength and ductility of concrete and brickwork masonry infilled frames. Within DEM, masonry infill panels are represented by individual bricks and blocks separated by zero thickness interfaces representing mortar joints. The assumptions adopted, the numer… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For these reasons, computational methods for the structural assessment of laterally loaded masonry walls have been proposed in literature, which are not based on the no-tension model. Among these, we can cite number of Finite Element methods (FEM) applied to homogenized limit analysis [22,23], classic rigid blocks models [24][25][26], the Discrete Element Method (DEM) [27,28], the Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics (NSCD) method [29,30] and combined FEM/DEM methods [31]. Many of these methods are often computationally expensive, their practical application requires skilled users and, in some cases, the definition of a yield line pattern, which is a priori unknown.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For these reasons, computational methods for the structural assessment of laterally loaded masonry walls have been proposed in literature, which are not based on the no-tension model. Among these, we can cite number of Finite Element methods (FEM) applied to homogenized limit analysis [22,23], classic rigid blocks models [24][25][26], the Discrete Element Method (DEM) [27,28], the Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics (NSCD) method [29,30] and combined FEM/DEM methods [31]. Many of these methods are often computationally expensive, their practical application requires skilled users and, in some cases, the definition of a yield line pattern, which is a priori unknown.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It may be highlighted that a penalty approach is not followed by the adopted interface FEs [76] to phenomenologically represent the behaviour of masonry crushing. Such strategy is usually adopted in discrete element models [3,4], or advanced FE software's able to model discrete rigid bodies (e.g. [77]), to guarantee an appropriate physical contact between units.…”
Section: Application: English-bond Patternmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Advanced computational methodologies are being developed and constitute important tools for the analysis of masonry structures [2]. Approaches such as the discrete element method are quite accurate for the study of dry or weak mortar masonry structures and examples of its application can be seen in [3,4]. These follow a large deformations formulation and with a contact updating between block units, which can be rather rigid or deformable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those generally comprise analytical models, [14][15][16][17] homogeneous and discontinuous finite element models, [18][19][20][21] macroelement models, [22][23][24] as well as applied, distinct element and nonsmooth contact dynamics models. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Multistep models and CAD tools based on macromodeling approaches have been also proposed. 5,34 Among these methods, discontinuous modeling approaches appear to be particularly suitable for the analysis of the local collapse mechanisms, mainly thanks to the discretization and formulations adopted, which allow the activation and evolution of the mechanisms to be followed closely and without a-priori assumptions, making them adapted to the assessment methods included in the standards.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%