2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic testing of as-built clay brick unreinforced masonry parapets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding the three cavity-wall specimens, for which a higher number of large-amplitude tests was available, the experimental response in Tomassetti et al 33 falls within the range of Equations (20)- (22). The performance of these damping models was further investigated by considering the PWs tested by Giaretton et al 55 The specimens considered hereinafter are P4-(B) and P7-(C), both having h = 1180 mm, b = 230 mm, and width equal to 1200 mm. Only the tests with a harmonic motion exciting already cracked specimens are considered.…”
Section: Comparison With Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the three cavity-wall specimens, for which a higher number of large-amplitude tests was available, the experimental response in Tomassetti et al 33 falls within the range of Equations (20)- (22). The performance of these damping models was further investigated by considering the PWs tested by Giaretton et al 55 The specimens considered hereinafter are P4-(B) and P7-(C), both having h = 1180 mm, b = 230 mm, and width equal to 1200 mm. Only the tests with a harmonic motion exciting already cracked specimens are considered.…”
Section: Comparison With Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 In a study by Al Shawa et al, 9 the force-based and the displacement-based methods were benchmarked against results obtained from shake table tests and from non-linear time history analyses performed by a numerical and an analytical model calibrated on the tests. [13][14][15][16] In this paper, the commercial software UDEC 6.0 is used for the numerical simulations. The force-based and displacement-based method were conservative in 95% and 88% of the tested configurations, respectively.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9-12 These two phenomena have been observed to play a key role in the response of out-of-plane loaded walls undergoing bending and rocking. [13][14][15][16] In this paper, the commercial software UDEC 6.0 is used for the numerical simulations. Many other studies have shown the capability of this and other software packages based on the discrete element method to handle random rocking motions, close-to-collapse situations, and strongly non-linear dynamics, which are the main features of the rocking response 8,17 ; see literature [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] among others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, unsecured URM parapets represent a safety hazard to both building occupants and nearby pedestrians. Several studies have addressed the rocking response of cantilever walls (Housner 1963, Lam et al 1995, Griffith et al 2003, Al Shawa et al 2012, Derakhshan et al 2014; findings relevant to URM parapets have been discussed in Giaretton et al (2016b). To mitigate the hazard of URM parapets, some authorities have enforced ordinances requiring them to be secured or removed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%