In-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and jacketed brick masonry walls

Churilov, Sergey; Dumova-Jovanoska, Elena

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.03.006

Cited by 54 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar trend of the energy dissipation was obtained in [7], which is comparable as the input material characteristics of the masonry structure are quite similar [1,2,7]. The ratio between dissipated and input energy was in the range from 14 to 49%.…”

Section: Energy Dissipationsupporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Damage indicators for unreinforced masonry building walls subjected to seismic actions

Ademović¹,

Oliveira²

2017

Gra Mat Konst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UVODSeizmička aktivnost u Bosni i Hercegovini (BiH) uzrokovana je postojanjem dubokih, lateralnih i reverznih rasjeda. Tektonska aktivnost ovog područja povezana je i s činjenicom da drugi po veličini pojas (Alpski pojas) prelazi preko Bosne i Hercegovine, a proteže se od Himalaja, preko Irana Turske i Grčke [1,2,3,4]. Prema evromediteranskoj seizmičkoj mapi rizika, BiH se svrstava u zemlje sa srednjim stepenom seizmičkog rizika, s vršnim ubrzanjem tla (PGA) u rasponu od 0,08 do 0,24 g, dok je jugozapadni dio zemlje okarakterisan visokim rizikom (PGA>0,24 g).Konstrukcija koja je prikazana u ovom članku (vidjeti sliku 1) karakteristična je za široko područje Zapadnog Balkana, građena pedesetih i šezdesetih godina prošlog stoleća. Više detalja o tipologiji same konstrukcije može se naći na drugim mjestima [1,2,3,4]. Ova vrsta nearmirane (URM) obične zidane konstrukcije izgrađena je od industrijskih opečnih elemenata, ali bez vertikalnih sekrlaža. Osjetljivost ovih konstrukcija povezana je s njihovom velikom visinom, lokacijom nosivih zidova koji se nalaze uglavnom samo u jednom pravcu i činjenicom da nema vertikalnih armiranobetonskih (AB) serklaža. Razaranje ove vrste zgrada dobro je dokumentovano nakon zemljotresa u Skoplju 1963. godine (prikazano na slici 2).

show abstract

Section: Energy Dissipationsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Sličan trend disipacije energije dobijen je u [7], što je uporedivo s obzirom na to što su karakteristike ulaznih podataka -u vezi s karakteristikama materijala zidane konstrukcije -prilično slične [1,2,7]. Odnos između disipirane i ulazne energije kreće se u opsegu od 14% do 49%.…”

Section: Energy Dissipationunclassified

Damage indicators for unreinforced masonry building walls subjected to seismic actions

Ademović¹,

Oliveira²

2017

Gra Mat Konst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some basic flexural and shear mechanical parameters of the masonry type considered in these analyses are reported in Table . In this regard, the authors only note that the shear strain γ 0 of both masonry types (particularly that of type A) is higher than the values reported in Churilov et al and Magenes and Calvi but justified by the experimental response and necessary to obtain the desired accuracy. Referring to the diagonal links of both masonry types (A and B), τ cr / τ 0 = 0.45, τ u / τ 0 = 0.50, γ y = 0.5 γ 0 , γ R = 5 γ 0 , r f,un = −0.15, r f,re = −0.10, and r d,re = 0.50 (Figure B).…”

Section: Model Validationmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…The Young modulus E m and the compression strength f c of masonry have been obtained from the results of the laboratory tests conducted in Pavia (Table ) while the peak strength strain ε 0 has been calculated as 2 f c / E m in keeping with the mechanical behaviour of the material model used for masonry. In accordance with past compressive tests, the strain ε R corresponding to the residual stress is assumed equal to four times the peak strain ε 0 whereas the residual stress is fixed equal to 0.3 times the peak strength. In addition, the tensile strength of masonry ( f t ) in the vertical load direction (orthogonal to the bed joints) has been assumed equal to 1/20 of the corresponding compression strength ( f c ) while the (equivalent) tensile strength in the horizontal direction (parallel to the bed joints) has been determined considering a zig‐zag failure surface characterised by tensile failure in the vertical joints and sliding in the horizontal joints .…”

Section: Model Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new macromodel for the assessment of the seismic response of infilled RC frames

Pantò

Rossi

2019

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Numerous research studies have proved that numerical models aiming at an accurate evaluation of the seismic response of RC framed buildings cannot ignore the inelastic behaviour of infills and the interaction between infill and frame elements. To limit the high computational burden of refined non‐linear finite element models, in the latest decades, many researchers have developed simplified infill models by means of single or multiple strut‐elements. These models are low time‐consuming and thus adequate for static and dynamic analyses of multi‐storey structures. However, their simulation of the seismic response is sometimes unsatisfying, particularly in the presence of infill walls with regular or (particularly) irregular distributions of openings. This paper presents a new 2D plane macro‐element, which provides a refined simulation of the non‐linear cyclic response of infilled framed structures at the expense of a limited computational cost. The macro‐element consists of an articulated quadrilateral panel, a single 1D diagonal link, and eight 2D links and is able to model the shear and flexural behaviour of the infill and the non‐linear flexural/sliding interaction between infill and surrounding frame. The proposed macro‐element has been implemented into the open source software OpenSees and used to simulate the response of single‐storey, single‐span RC infilled frame prototypes tested by other authors. The above prototypes are selected as made of different masonry units and characterised by full or open geometric configuration.

show abstract

“…For instance, some authors have employed vulnerability curves based on intensity and damage probability matrices [18] and structural damage assessment as measured by the index developed by Park and Ang [19]. Rossetto and Elnashai [20] have proposed vulnerability functions for European RC buildings based on empirical evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Areas of Moderate Seismicity and Assessment of Strategies for Structural Improvement

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Moderate magnitude seismic events have occurred during the last decade in non-seismic areas and have highlighted that many existing buildings do not sufficiently resist these types of events. The objective of this work is to illustrate that most buildings dating from 2002-2010 constructed from wide beams, which were designed to previous earthquake resistance codes, do not offer a satisfactory seismic behaviour, and to identify which structural attributes can best help alleviate this problem. In this work the effect of a real earthquake of medium magnitude (Lorca, 2011) on buildings of three, five and eight stories with unidirectional frames of wide-beam concrete was assessed. The methodology included non-linear static (pushover) analyses and dynamic response simulations with the aim to understand the effect on the seismic performance of changing some of the geometrical and material parameters. Maximum displacements and capacity curves for the top floor of a set of representative buildings were evaluated and compared. In particular, capacity curves obtained from non-linear static (pushover) analysis are compared for different building configurations, as well as the maximum displacements obtained through non-linear dynamic analysis. This paper highlights the seismic vulnerability of buildings constructed between 2002 and 2010 and the results indicate that a higher density of infill walls (walls whose bricks are not part of the main structure) is the feature that most significantly improves the seismic behaviour of the structures analysed. Moreover, counterintuitively, incorporating stronger concrete and reinforcing steel and using alternative column arrangements only have a small positive effect on the seismic behaviour of these types of buildings.

show abstract

In-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and jacketed brick masonry walls

Cited by 54 publications

References 4 publications

Damage indicators for unreinforced masonry building walls subjected to seismic actions

Damage indicators for unreinforced masonry building walls subjected to seismic actions

A new macromodel for the assessment of the seismic response of infilled RC frames

Structural Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Areas of Moderate Seismicity and Assessment of Strategies for Structural Improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About