2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implementation and validation of a strain rate dependent anisotropic continuum model for masonry

Abstract: A newly developed strain rate dependent anisotropic continuum model is proposed for impact and blast applications in masonry. The present model adopted the usual approach of considering different yield criteria in tension and compression. The analysis of unreinforced block work masonry walls subjected to impact is carried out to validate the capability of the model. Comparison of the numerical predictions and test data revealed good agreement.Next, a parametric study is conducted to evaluate the influence of t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The explicit solver suffers from a time-step solution bias since considerable small-time increments are required to avoid a system misrepresentation. Although its use is recommended for many problems due to its stability-as fast-dynamic problems or when interface contact exists [111][112][113][114]-, an explicit solver may lead to long and prohibitive processing times and to larger disk storage space when conducting a seismic assessment study of a masonry structure. In converse, an implicit procedure allows larger time increments with the setback that a converged solution must be found for each iteration; however, this is well handled by the macro-element due to its robustness, as is demonstrated next in Section 4.3.…”
Section: Implicit Vs Explicit Fe Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The explicit solver suffers from a time-step solution bias since considerable small-time increments are required to avoid a system misrepresentation. Although its use is recommended for many problems due to its stability-as fast-dynamic problems or when interface contact exists [111][112][113][114]-, an explicit solver may lead to long and prohibitive processing times and to larger disk storage space when conducting a seismic assessment study of a masonry structure. In converse, an implicit procedure allows larger time increments with the setback that a converged solution must be found for each iteration; however, this is well handled by the macro-element due to its robustness, as is demonstrated next in Section 4.3.…”
Section: Implicit Vs Explicit Fe Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The deformation of the studied parapets has been recorded in a node located 580 mm above the base and deviated 250 mm from the center. The static material properties and the rate-dependency issue is addressed for all the formulations; for the macroscopic model in (Rafsanjani et al 2015a), for the mesoscopic model in (Rafsanjani et al 2015b), and for the two-scale model in (Silva et al 2017a). To guarantee the consistency and representativeness of the comparison, the models used the same analytical expressions for the DIFs.…”
Section: Sheffield University Parapet Wallmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only qualitative data, such as localised damages, cracks, and penetration of the impactor, were recorded. Whilst the quantitative data recording for deformation and crack widths measurement can be facilitated by additional measuring accessories (Acharya et al, 2017; Burnett et al, 2007; Hao and Tarasov, 2008; Kader et al, 2021; Rafsanjani, 2015; Rafsanjani et al, 2015), flexibility of changing impactor mass, velocity and scaling of samples for realistic horizontal impacts are the major challenges for the available testing facilities. In addition, studies on global response of infrastructure to credible impacts to minimise damages and potential causalities through appropriate retrofitting is important.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%