Joint Layout Design: Finding the Strongest Connections within Segmental Masonry Arched Forms

Abstract

Segmental arched forms composed of discrete units are among the most common construction systems, ranging from historic masonry vaults to contemporary precast concrete shells. Simple fabrication, transport, and assembly have particularly made these structural systems convenient choices to construct infrastructures such as bridges in challenging environmental conditions. The most important drawback of segmental vaults is basically the poor mechanical behaviour at the joints connecting their constituent segments. The influence of the joint shape and location on structural performances has been widely explored in the literature, including studies on different stereotomy, bond patterns, and interlocking joint shapes. To date, however, a few methods have been developed to design optimal joint layouts, but they are limited to extremely limited geometric parameters and material properties. To remedy this, this paper presents a novel method to design the strongest joint layout in 2D arched structures while allowing joints to take on a range of diverse shapes. To do so, a masonry arched form is represented as a layout of potential joints, and the optimization problems developed based on the two plastic methods of classic limit analysis and discontinuity layout optimization find the joint layout that corresponds to the maximum load-bearing capacity.

Interlocking Joints with Multiple Locks: Torsion-Shear Failure Analysis Using Discrete Element and Equilibrium-Based SiDMACIB Models

“…According to this multisurface plasticity model, the failure of a discrete masonry assembly occurs at the contact interfaces between the blocks (joints) and/or at potential cracking discontinuities within the blocks (inner faces) [21][22][23]. Mousavian and Casapulla used this method to model 2D interlocking assemblies with arbitrary interlocking joint shapes [24]. In that paper, only the tangential resistance of the joints and the inner faces can vary while no tensile resistance at both types of failure faces is considered.…”

“…In that paper, only the tangential resistance of the joints and the inner faces can vary while no tensile resistance at both types of failure faces is considered. This method was recently extended to 3D models by Mousavian and Iannuzzo [25], where both tensile and tangential resistances of joints and inner faces are different.…”