Failure modes prediction of masonry voussoir arches on moving supports

Dynamic characterization of progressively damaged segmental masonry arches with one settled support: experimental and numerical analyses

“…In particular, if the settled support coincides with one of the hinges, the collapse mechanism coincides with a settled three-hinged arch, i.e. a two-block mechanism that activates at the instant in which the thrust line becomes tangent to the profile of the arch in a further section [19]. With regard to segmental arches on spreading support, the typical failure mechanism usually features three symmetric hinges located alternatively according to the classical configuration intrados-extrados-intrados ( Fig.…”

“…At this stage, the position of the thrust line still lies inside the profile of the arch (even if it is close to touch the intrados in correspondence of the 11th joint from the right) confirming that the equilibrium of the structure with 10.5 cm settlement is still ensured. Afterwards, the right support is left free to slide horizontally over the clearance remaining between support and actuator (3 cm) with consequent loss of stability of the arch and activation of a pure rotational collapse mechanism when the thrust line becomes tangent to the arch profile in another point [19], presumably the 11th joint (counting from the moving support). The position of both intrados and extrados crack hinges remains unchanged throughout the development of the mechanism.…”

“…However, despite the great quantity of research devoted to the static and dynamic analysis of masonry arches, not all the aspects related to its structural behavior have been completely explored. For instance, studies on the actual response of arched structures subjected to springing settlements are still limited and mainly focused on the evaluation/prediction of the most probable failure modes for a variety of different semicircular or pointed arch geometries and settlement mechanisms [16][17][18][19][20], through analytical and/or advanced numerical procedures. Much less attention is paid to segmental masonry arches, which are indeed more prone to lateral movements of the abutments because of the higher horizontal thrust deriving from their shape (the flatter the arch, the greater the thrust).…”

Rigid block and finite element analysis of settlement-induced failure mechanisms in historic masonry wall panels

“…Therefore, there is a need for developing assessment tools for the prediction of damage that should be based on a proper H description of the masonry structure and its non-linear behaviour. A number of approaches for the prediction of settlementinduced damages were proposed in the literature that consider masonry either as an assembly of discrete blocks [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] or as a continuum medium [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. The comparison between discrete and continuous models to study masonry behaviour is also a widespread topic [20][21][22].…”

Seismic retrofit of historical masonry walls by means of natural basalt fiber strips system (BFRP). Pre-modern concepts and innovative materials

“…By means of both experimental test carried out at the CNR Ivalsa in Trento (Italy) [8] and numerical models developed through the software BrickWORK [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], the efficiency of the Bourbon building system, in its various forms and configurations, and its great adaptability to the demand for structural resilience that is required to an anti-seismic constructive element, was demonstrated, in particular regarding its response to the in-plane horizontal actions (Fig. 3).…”