Using the applied element method for modelling calcium silicate brick masonry subjected to in‐plane cyclic loading

Abstract

Summary The response of calcium silicate unreinforced masonry construction to horizontal cyclic loading has recently become the focus of experimental and numerical research, given its extensive use in some areas of the world that are now exposed to induced earthquakes (eg, north of the Netherlands). To assess the seismic behaviour of such construction, a relatively wide range of modelling methodologies are available, amongst which the discrete elements approach, which takes into account the intrinsic heterogeneity of a brick‐mortar assembly, can probably be deemed as the most appropriate computational procedure. On the other hand, however, since discrete elements numerical methods are based on a discontinuum domain, often they are not able to model every stage of the structural response adequately, and because of the high computational burden required, the analysis scale should be chosen carefully. The applied element method is a relatively recent addition to the discrete elements family, with a high potential for overcoming the aforementioned limitations or difficulties. Initially conceived to model blast events and concrete structures, its use in the earthquake engineering field is, of late, increasing noticeably. In this paper, the use of the applied element method to model the in‐plane cyclic response of calcium silicate masonry walls is discussed and scrutinised, also through the comparison with experimental results of in‐plane cyclic shear‐compression tests on unreinforced masonry walls.

Distinct element modelling of the in‐plane cyclic response of URM walls subjected to shear‐compression

“…Nevertheless, especially in the case of CS1, where the experimental energy dissipation was unusually high, the dissipation was not fully captured. This is a common issue in numerical modelling of rocking masonry walls even using other modelling approaches, eg, Penna et al and Malomo et al The response of CS2 has reproduced appropriately, despite slight differences in reference to the final dissipated energy and ductility. The numerical model of CS3 was able to predict the initial cohesive strength peak, as well as the cyclic dissipated energy and ultimate capacity.…”

“…Thus, it is worth mentioning that the stiffness parameter k i should be intended as a simplified conventional index. Also note that the energy dissipated at each cycle was evaluated by locating the minima of the work function and calculating by iterative integrations the area under the curve, as reported in Malomo et al 78 The results are summarised in Figure 13, where the data are organised in terms of aspect ratio λ r (ie, slender or squat piers) and masonry type (ie, CS or CL):…”

Seismic vulnerability of roof systems combining URM gable walls and timber diaphragms

“…Despite the lateral support provided by the connection with the timber structure, the development of such mechanism can be facilitated from the extensive cracking occurring from earlier stages of testing at the locations of the L-shaped connectors (see cracking pattern in Figure 5) rather than the development of two-way bending mechanisms. 17,44 The allowed OOP displacement was limited by the achieved global diaphragm drift.…”

“…Furthermore, advanced numerical simulations adopting the discrete elements approach for the evaluation of the seismic performance of terraced-houses (considering their actual geometry) discourage the possibility of a local mechanism in the gables. 17,44…”

“…The tests presented in this paper are part of a wide experimental campaign (see also other studies 12,13 ) with the aim of improving the analytical and numerical prediction of damage in URM buildings or part of them (eg, previous studies [14][15][16][17]. Sections 2 and 3 present the geometry and the experimental seismic performance of the tested roof configurations, respectively.…”