2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In-plane response of masonry infill walls: Comprehensive experimentally-based equivalent strut model for deterministic and probabilistic analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5a) proposed by . This formulation is preferred because the authors also provide the calibrated parameters to apply the pivot hysteretic model, although other recent backbone models are available in literature on the basis of a large number of experimental data (Liberatore et al 2018;De Risi et al 2018). The first branch represents the elastic behaviour of the infill where anisotropy of the brick infills is reflected in the diagonal elastic modulus The post-cracking branch shows a significant reduction of stiffness and reaches the maximum IP strength…”
Section: Layout and Nonlinear Modelling Of Masonry Infillsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5a) proposed by . This formulation is preferred because the authors also provide the calibrated parameters to apply the pivot hysteretic model, although other recent backbone models are available in literature on the basis of a large number of experimental data (Liberatore et al 2018;De Risi et al 2018). The first branch represents the elastic behaviour of the infill where anisotropy of the brick infills is reflected in the diagonal elastic modulus The post-cracking branch shows a significant reduction of stiffness and reaches the maximum IP strength…”
Section: Layout and Nonlinear Modelling Of Masonry Infillsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of the shear strength (τ m0 ) is obtained via linear interpolation between the boundary values proposed in Circolare 7 [72] as a function of Young's modulus. The masonry compressive strength (σ m0 ) is calculated as σ m0 = (τ m0 /0.285) 2 and the bed joints sliding strength τ 0 is obtained from the empirical relationship τ 0 = 2/3 τ m0 [73]. The values of mechanical properties adopted in his study are reported in Table 1.…”
Section: Influence Of Modeling Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An equivalent concentric single-strut approach is adopted to represent the infill panels, following [32][33][34]. Within the RINTC project, data from [35][36][37] were elaborated in order to establish drift thresholds at cracking, peak, and collapse. The effect of openings is taken into account according to [33].…”
Section: Masonry Infill Elementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For steel, the yield strength, fy, is assumed equal to 448 and 535 MPa for GLD and SLD buildings, respectively, in order to be representative of FeB38k commercial typology between 1974 and 1980, and of FeB44k commercial typology between 1990 and 1996, respectively [8]. For masonry infill panels, material properties are assumed in order to be representative of "light" nonstructural masonry, likely present in existing RC buildings, based on the data collected in [36], assuming a masonry compressive strength fm=2 MPa, a masonry shear strength τm0=0.4 MPa, a basic shear strength of bed joints τ0=0.27 MPa, and a modulus of elasticity Em=1500 MPa.…”
Section: Materials Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%