4.7 Article

Topology Optimization of the FRP for strengthening of masonry barrel vaults

期刊

ENGINEERING FAILURE ANALYSIS
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107390

关键词

Topology Optimization; Finite Element Analysis (FEA); Masonry; Structural Strengthening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the effect of optimal reinforcement arrangements on masonry vaults. Numerical models were created and validated to compare the effectiveness of different strengthening procedures using carbon or glass fibre-reinforced fabric materials. Results showed that the intrados was more effective than the extrados, and carbon fibre-reinforced fabric material was generally more effective than glass fibre-reinforced fabric material. The research demonstrates the possibility of achieving high efficacy with significantly less material and provides practical suggestions.
Composite materials are commonly used to preserve historical structures for future generations. The optimum use of composite materials in strengthening masonry buildings and structural elements is a critical issue that needs solutions. This study aimed to determine the effect of optimal reinforcement arrangements on masonry vaults. Numerical models were created using a 3D macro modelling approach and validated with experimental and numerical data from the literature. The study compared the effectiveness of three strengthening procedures using carbon or glass fibre-reinforced fabric materials on masonry vaults under different loads, aiming to determine the most effective procedure, material type, and amount. Results showed that the intrados strengthening procedure was more effective than the extrados, and carbon fibre-reinforced fabric material was generally more effective than glass fibre-reinforced fabric material. The research demonstrates that using significantly less material can still achieve high efficacy. Additionally, the article presents various suggestions for practical situations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据