Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 2259–2271 | Cite as

Displacement capacity of masonry piers: parametric numerical analyses versus international building codes

  • Maurizio Orlando
  • Luca Salvatori
  • Paolo Spinelli
  • Mario De StefanoEmail author
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The nonlinear behaviour of masonry piers loaded in their plane is investigated by parametric numerical simulations. Each pier has a cantilever scheme, is loaded by a constant axial load and is subjected to an increasing horizontal displacement at the top. The macro-modelling approach is used to perform numerical analyses, adopting two different constitutive laws: a total strain crack model and a plastic model. The numerical model is calibrated on a block-masonry type for which experimental tests are available in literature. Parametric numerical simulations are performed by varying the aspect-ratio and the compression level, in order to assess the influence of such parameters on both shear strength and displacement capacity. By comparing numerical results with formulas of international codes, a good agreement for the shear strength is obtained, while significant differences are observed for the displacement capacity, which is influenced by both parameters. The authors propose a simple empirical formula for the displacement capacity, obtained by fitting the numerical results. The expression can be useful in the practical design for considering the influence of aspect-ratio and compression level, currently neglected by building codes.

Keywords

Masonry piers Numerical simulations Shear strength Displacement capacity Ductility 

References

  1. Anthoine A, Magonette G (1995) Shear-compression testing and analysis of brick masonry walls. In: Proceedings of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Duma, Balkema Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI 41–13 (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson RH, Amadei BP, Saeb S, Sture S (1989) Response of masonry bed joints in direct shear. ASCE J Struct Div 115:2276–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betti M, Bartoli G, Orlando M (2010) Evaluation study on structural fault of a Renaissance Italian Palace. Eng Struct 32(7):1801–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betti M, Orlando M, Vignoli A (2011) Static behaviour of an Italian Medieval Castle: damage assessment by numerical modelling. Comput Struct 89:1956–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caccetta C, Orlando M, Salvatori L, Spinelli P (2011) Resistenza e capacità di spostamento di pannelli murari: modellazione e analisi parametrica. In: WonderMasonry 2011, Firenze, pp 399–410Google Scholar
  7. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998-3, March 2005Google Scholar
  8. CEN (2006) Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures. Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. EN 1996-1-1, January 2006Google Scholar
  9. da Porto F, Guidi G, Garbin E, Modena C (2010) In-plane behavior of clay masonry walls. Experimental testing and finite-element modeling. ASCE J Struct Eng 136(11):1379–1392. doi: 10.1061/ASCEST.1943-541X.0000236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ESECMaSE (2005–2007) Enhanced safety and efficient construction of masonry structures in Europe, http://www.esecmase.org
  11. Fehling E, Stuerz J, Emami A (2007) Test results on the behaviour of masonry under static (monotonic and cyclic) in-plane lateral loads, ESECMaSE deliverable D7.1a, University of KasselGoogle Scholar
  12. Foraboschi P (2012) In-plane behavior of perforated brick masonry walls. Mater Struct. doi: 10.1617/s11527-011-9814-x Google Scholar
  13. Foraboschi P (2014) Resisting system and failure modes of masonry domes. Eng Fail Anal. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.05.005 Google Scholar
  14. Foti D (2015) A new experimental approach to the pushover analysis of masonry buildings. Comput Struct 147:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frumento S, Magenes G, Morandi P, Calvi GM (2009) Interpretation of experimental shear test on clay brick masonry walls and evaluation of q-factors for seismic design. Eucentre Research Report 2009/02. IUSS Press, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Kikuchi K, Yoshimura K, Tanaka A (1999) Effect of the presence of masonry units on the seismic behaviour of reinforced fully grouted concrete walls. In: Proceedings of 8th North American mason conference, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  17. Magenes G (2010) Earthquake resistant design of masonry structures: rules, backgrounds, latest findings. In: 8th international mason conference, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  18. Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1091–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milosevic J, Lopes M, Gago AS, Bento R (2015) In-plane seismic response of rubble stone masonry specimens by means of static cyclic tests. Constr Build Mater 82:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NTC 2008 (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. D.M. 14 January 2008, Italian Ministry of Public Works, Italy (in Italian)Google Scholar
  21. Rots JG (1997) Structural masonry: an experimental/numerical basis for practical design rules. Balkema, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Salvatori L, Marra AM, Bartoli G, Spinelli P (2013) Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance of structures and infrastructures. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference Structural safety reliability, ICOSSAR, 1799–1806, New York, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  23. Salvatori L, Marra AM, Bartoli G, Spinelli P (2015) Probabilistic seismic performance of masonry towers: general procedure and a simplified implementation. Eng Struct 94:82–95. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schultz AE, Hutchinson RS, Cheok GC (1998) Seismic performance of masonry walls with bed joint reinforcement. Proc Struct Eng World Congress, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. TNO DIANA BV (2007). DIANA user’s manual, Release 9.4, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Tomaževic M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. van Zijl GPAG (2004) Modeling masonry shear-compression: role of dilatancy highlighted. J Eng Mech 130(11):1289–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vasconcelos G (1995) Experimental investigations on the mechanics of stone masonry: characterization of granites and behaviour of ancient masonry shear walls. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minho, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  29. Zilch K, Finckh W, Grabowski S, Schermer D, Scheufler W (2008) Test results on the behaviour of masonry under static cyclic in-plane lateral loads, ESECMaSE deliverable D7.1b, Technical University of MunichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Orlando
    • 1
  • Luca Salvatori
    • 1
  • Paolo Spinelli
    • 1
  • Mario De Stefano
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.DICEAUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.DIDAUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations