Experimental and numerical investigation of the collapse of pointed masonry arches under quasi-static horizontal loading

Misseri, Giulia; DeJong, Matthew J.; Rovero, Luisa

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.009

Cited by 37 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason can be found in the difference between the experimental set up and the equivalent tests implemented, such as the coefficient of friction values adopted, which for the experimental set up are different between the ground and internal joints. However, the collapse multipliers obtained by ALMA 2.0 are in many cases quite close to the experimental ones and in good agreement in percentage error respect to the numerical obtained by Misseri et al (2018).…”

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Alsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…As shown in Figures 22 and 23, in many cases the collapse multipliers obtained by ALMA 2.0 are lower than the experimental ones, even if we expected higher values, as the solution for systems with dilatant associative interfaces should be an upper bounds for the solution of systems with non-associative frictional interfaces (Palmer, 1966). This is merely related to the discrepancy between the set-up tests performed by Misseri et al (2018) and the numerical analysis performed in ALMA 2.0. In particular, in the experimental test, sliding is not permitted at the base joints in contrast to the implementation in ALMA 2.0.…”

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Almentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This work focus the attention on the study of the ultimate behaviour of masonry arches of different geometries and shape, considering the presence of friction, considered by several authors (Ferris and Tin-Loi, 2001;Mousavian and Casapulla, 2020;Portioli et al, 2014;Casapulla and Maione, 2020), and comparing results with several contributes present in literature (Brandonisio et al, 2017;Calderini and Lagomarsino, 2015;Como, 2015;Misseri et al, 2018;DeJong et al, 2008). In particular, starting from (Baggio and Trovalusci, 2000), a new version of the ALMA code (Analisi Limite Murature Attritive) has been developed based on the Limit Analysis (Pepe, 2020;Pepe et al, 2019Pepe et al, , 2020a namely ALMA 2.0.…”

Section: Limit Analysis Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important contribute regarding the different collapse modalities that can occur for an arch, i.e. hinghing or sliding mechanism, is given from the work of Misseri et al (2018). Authors studied the response of pointed arches under equivalent static (horizontal) loads pointing out the main differences between the results of the analytical model proposed, based on a Limit Analysis with kinematic approach, and the outcomes of an extensive experimental campaign considering eleven models reproduced in scale (1 : 10 ratio) shown in Figure 19.…”

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Limit analysis approach for the in-plane collapse of masonry arches

Pepe

Pingaro

Trovalusci

2021

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper deals with the numerical evaluation of the in-plane collapse behaviour of unreinforced masonry arches and portals characterized by different geometries subjected to several loading conditions and modelled as assemblages of rigid blocks in contact through no-tensional and frictional interfaces. This study has been conducted using a new in-house code, which represents the updated version of the numerical procedure presented in the pioneering work of Baggio and Trovalusci (2000). The minimization problem corresponding to the Upper Bound (or kinematic) approach of Limit Analysis is written as a Linear Programming Problem solved taking advantages of the algorithms nowadays available. An important feature of the code is the capability to provide information about the sliding collapse of masonry structures, adopting the assumption of dilatancy in the analytic description of the yielding surface, permitting to overcome the classical Heyman's hypothesis which limited the investigation of collapse to only hinging modes. A key contribution of the work is the comparison of results in terms of collapse multipliers and collapse mechanisms considering different literature contributes as benchmark references. The presented study reveals the suitability of approaches based on mathematical programming and the crucial role played by sliding.

show abstract

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Alsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Almentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Limit Analysis Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Arch Analysed By Misseri Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Limit analysis approach for the in-plane collapse of masonry arches

Pepe

Pingaro

Trovalusci

2021

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The statical and dynamical behavior of different arch shapes can be rather different, nevertheless, their comparisons are not the aim of the present paper. A general method is developed for arbitrary arches, but in the numerical comparisons, only circular arches are considered.…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical model and dynamic analysis of multi degree of freedom masonry arches

Kollár

Ther

2019

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary A new model is presented for planar multi‐block arches subjected to earthquakes. The blocks are assumed to be rigid, and every interface between the blocks may split open and may close, ie, the blocks may impact to each other. During impact, both the classical Housner's approach and improved models with lower energy dissipation are considered. The arch model is verified by comparisons with the available results in the literature. Using the new model, it was found that the circular arch moves as a four‐hinge mechanism typically only at the beginning of excitation, and several cracks split open during motion; furthermore, that modeling a multi‐block arch by a single degree of freedom (SDOF) four‐hinge mechanism may significantly overestimate its collapse load. While, in accordance with the literature, the overturning curves of single blocks and arches with symmetrically located four hinges are similar; for multi‐block arches where several hinges may occur they can be very different.

show abstract