4.7 Article

Limit analysis of locally reinforced masonry arches

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 271, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114921

Keywords

Limit analysis; Masonry arches; Cohesion; Conservation

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Re-search PRIN 2017 [2017HFPKZY, B88D19001130001]
  2. Progetto Grande di Ateneo bando 2021 (Advanced Methods for the Mechanical Modelling of Heritage Structures. Materials Characterization, Health Monitoring, Safety Assessment and Conservation Issues) [CUP : B85F21008380001]
  3. Fondazione di Sardegna [F72F20000320007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the influence of partial reinforcement on the structural response of masonry arches and uses an upper bound limit analysis numerical approach to compute the collapse multipliers of two different study cases. The results indicate that partial reinforcement can improve the seismic performance of masonry structures, and the numerical method employed in this study offers high accuracy and efficiency.
The use of composite on the strengthening and retrofitting of masonry structures over the past few decades has gained considerable importance. In this paper, the influence of partial reinforcement on the structural response of masonry arches is studied. An upper bound limit analysis numerical approach has been implemented to compute the collapse multipliers and reproduce the collapse mechanisms of two different study cases by increasing the cohesion value of the reinforced inter-block joints. The results thus obtained, have been compared to numerical simulation outcomes reported by other authors on the literature. The numerical approach adopted on this work, which requires few input parameters, is relatively fast in comparison to alternative numerical simulation methods, provided good agreement in terms of collapse loads and mechanisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available