Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Sergio LAGOMARSINO
Dipartimento di Ingegneria delle Costruzioni,dellAmbiente e del Territorio Universit degli Studi di Genova sergio.lagomarsino@unige.it
Stefano PODESTA
Sonia RESEMINI
Chiara CALDERINI
Serena CATTARI
Emanuela CURTI
IL LORO DANNEGGIAMENTO O CROLLO PUO PORTARE PERDITE IN TERMINI MATERIALI (PERDITA DI UNITA EDILIZIE, DI INFRASTRUTTURE, DI SERVIZI) ED UMANI (PERDITA DI VITE UMANE). QUANDO IL TERREMOTO INVESTE COSTRUZIONI DI VALORE STORICO-ARCHITETTONICO, IL LORO DANNEGGIAMENTO O CROLLO PUO PORTARE PERDITE CULTURALI (PERDITA DELLA COSTRUZIONE, PERDITA DI AFFRESCHI O APPARATI DECORATIVI)
IRPINIA 1980
OBBIETTIVI GENERALI
AREA EUROPEA
AMERICA SETTENTRIONALE
OSSERVAZIONE DANNI
SPERIMENTAZIONE
MODELLAZIONE
PIERS
SPANDRELS
FLEXURAL MECHANISMS PRESENT STRAIGHT CRACKS AT THE CORNERS OF PIERS AND SPANDREL BEAMS, INSTEAD OF DIAGONAL CRACKS
fascia
maschio
MASCHI
nodo FASCE
Z Y X
TREMURI: Research version: Galasco A., Lagomarsino S., Penna A.,2002, Programma di calcolo TREMURI: Analisi sismica 3D di edifici in muratura, Universit di Genova ; Commercial version: 3Muri Program release 4.1.0 (http://www.stadata.com)
J Mx My
I Mx My
Z Y X
Flexible diaphragms
V/W
Modello D Modello A
Uroof [mm]
Fase I
Fase II
Fase III
Ref: Cattari S., Lagomarsino S.,2006, Non linear analysis of mixed masonry and reinforced concrete buildings,1st ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland.
LINEA 1 EDIFICI IN MURATURA, Tema 1 Edifici in aggregato 1.1 Classificazione tipologica e meccanismi di danno Attivit svolta da UNIGE (resp. Sergio Lagomarsino) e UNIPV (resp. G.Magenes)
MODELLI 3D
Z Y
SAM II (UNIPV)
TREMURI (UNIGE)
LINEA 1 EDIFICI IN MURATURA, Tema 2 Edifici misti muratura-c.a. 2.3 Modellazione e criteri di verifica Attivit svolta da UNIGE (resp. Sergio Lagomarsino) e UNIPV (resp. G.Magenes) 9 Analisi delledificio in Capri : 9 Ipotesi :assenza di cordoli di piano (per le fasce:HP=0) 9 Analisi in direzione X (distribuzione triangolare): ripartizione nelle varie pareti Legenda:
1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000
V [N]
Linee tratteggiate: UNIPV Linee continue: UNIGE P3- muratura P1- muratura P5- telaio c.a. P6- telaio c.a.
N4 E17 E31 E32 n42 n43 E18 E19 E33 n44 E20 E34 E35 N8 N3 E9 n39 E11n40E13 n41 E15 N7
800000 600000
N20 n75 n65 165 N66 P188 162 N62 P183 159 N56 P177 N55 160 163 166 N67 P185 N63 P181 N58 P179 N57 161 164 167 n68 n76 N24 E128 n64 n74 N23 E126 n60 n72 N22 E124 n59 n71 N21
E26
E27
E28
E29
E30
E127 N19 n73 n61 E125 N18 n70 n54 E123 n53 N17 n69
P3
N6 N5
N2
E1
n34
E3 n36E5
n38
E7
P5
E21 N1
E22 n33
E23 n35
E24 n37
E25
N12
N15
E72
n49
E74
n50
E76
N11
E85
E86
E87
E88
P1
N14
E66
n46
E68
n48
E70
N10
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
E81 N13
E82 n45
E83 n47
E84 N9
25
20
15
10
10
15
20
25
2.5
Time [s] 12 14 16 18 20
* d max =
d e,max TC * + d e,max 1 ( q 1 ) * q T
* d max = d e ,max = S De (T * )
The actual behaviour of existing masonry buildings is between two limit cases
SIMPLIFIED MODELS (suggested by FEMA 306): strong spandrel-weak pier - weak spandrel-strong pier
strong spandrel - weak pier
V base
Existing buildings
U control node
Strengthened buildings Invasive and ineffective interventions: substitution of timber floors with r.c. slabs
Increasing of displacement capacity Increasing of energy dissipation due to damage in spandrel beams (shaking table test by Benedetti et al. 2001). sustainable repair: piers are bearing loads elements while spandrel are secondary elements.
Fema 306 Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings - 1998
ROCKING
B.
1) Lesione passante tra giunti e blocchi
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
1) RAPPORTI GEOMETRICI DEI PANNELLI (H/D)
Anthoine et al. 1995 MAGGIORE RESISTENZA MAGGIORE DISSIPAZIONE ENERGETICA COMPORTAMENTO FRAGILE DIMINUZIONE DELLA RIGIDEZZA (DANNEGGIAMENTO) DIMINUZIONE DELLA RESISTENZA NELLA FASE POST-PICCO (SOFTENING) MINORE RESISTENZA MINORE DISSIPAZIONE ENERGETICA COMPORTAMENTO DUTTILE
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
PARAMETRI CHE DETERMINANO LA RISPOSTA
2) VINCOLI DI ESTREMITA
Magenes 2000
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
PARAMETRI CHE DETERMINANO LA RISPOSTA
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
PARAMETRI CHE DETERMINANO LA RISPOSTA
4) ORIENTAMENTO TESSITURA
MASCHI
FASCE
MANCANZA DI SPERIMENTAZIONE
(Genovese 2004)
IN WHICH POINT/SECTION IS CALCULATED? (REFERENCE SECTION) WHICH TYPE OF STRESS IS CONSIDERED? (NORMAL, TANGENTIAL, PRINCIPAL?)
Ref.: Calderini C, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S. (2009). In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38(2), 243-267.
FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR
Failure modes: Rocking and/or Crushing
c =
k2 r (1 2 k1r )
fm
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MASONRY
REFERENCE STRESS
BASE SECTION HIGHEST NORMAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION OF THE REFERENCE STRESS ON THE BASIS OF THE BEAM THEORY k1r depends on slenderness and boundary conditions of the pier k2r depends on assumed stress distribution at the compressed toe
=V/P
c = k1d
REFERENCE STRESS
1 k1s c + y k1s
SHEAR STRENGTH OF MASONRY (xy plane)
k1d 1
Function of the slenderness
k1s
Function of the assumed constitutive law
c
c
c 1 1 +
1 1 +
y 2 c = I = + ( k1d ) + 2 2
REFERENCE STRESS
ft
CENTRAL SECTION HIGHEST MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS CALCULATION OF THE REFERENCE STRESS FUNCTION OF THE SLENDERNESS
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES
ISSUES OF INTRINSIC NATURE : reliability of the hypotheses of the model
? ?
In wich amount the actual stress distribution differs from the simplified one assumed in the criteria considering that a transition from the elastic to the non-linear range may occur The reliability of the choice to etablish the maximum shear capacity of the pier referring only some specific point/section (like as base section for Rocking/Crushing or point at the centre for Diagonal Cracking) A set of parametrical analyses on piers subjected to static in-plane loading, with different combination of aspect ratios and different levels of axial loads has been performed
ISSUES OF EXTRINSIC NATURE : Conditions for the proper use of the criteria in the verification methods
Choice of the most suitable criteria: each criterion provides a mechanical interpretation of a specific failure mode, its suitability is related to the actual occurence of the predicted failere mode Analysis experimental tests provided in literature (Vasconcelos 2005 and Bosiljkov et al. 2003)
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES A set of parametrical analyses with different combination of aspect ratios of the piers and different levels of axial loads has been performed. The finite element method, together with a non linear constitutive model for masonry (Calderini and Lagomarsino 2008) has been adopted. The model was developed with a micromechanical approach, considering the plane stress hypothesis and neglecting the mechanical resistance of the head joints (thus assuming them as geometrical discontinuities). 3 configurations of piers characterized by slenderness = 0.65 , 1.35 , 2 A fixed-fixed boundary condition was imposed. Increasing horizontal discplacements at the top and constant axial loads were applied.
H = 0.85
Pier 1 = 0.65
D = 1.35
Pier 2 = 1.35
D=1
H=1
Pier 3 =2
D=1
Range of the axial load applied such to cause a mean vertical stress varying between the values 0.050.8 of the masonry compressive strength fm. The mechanical properties assumed correspond to the ones characterizing the racking tests conducted in Ispra by Anthoine et al. (1995).
Masonry pattern
H=2
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Evolution of the stress distribution for the fixed value of the vertical compression y = 0 .6 MPa: Transition to the first phase (elastic) to the non linear one Force-displacement curves = 0.65 = 1 .35 =2
x/ y
First phase Second phase Elastic phase: x component is quite moderate, almost neglegible 0.1 = 1 .35 0.1 Proceeding to the inelastic response , it progressively passes to compression ( the entity of this effect 0 pseudo-diagonal cracks 0 diminishes for increasing values of y/fm and incresing values of slenderness -0.1 For =0.65 and =1.35 after -0.1 the attainment of Drift=0.05 % Drift=0.2 % -0.2 -0.2 the maximum resistance it is possible to clearly = 0.65 -0.3 -0.3 This phenomenon occurs because, as a fall consequence recognize in the central section a sudden in -0.4 of the spread of tensile flexural cracking -0.4 corrispondence ofthethe activated pseudo- at the end section the pier gradually -0.5 -0.5 starts to behave as an diagonal cracks 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 strut 0 0.25equivalent 0.5 0.75 1 x/D x/D x/D
x component stress
x/ y
x / y
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Evolution of the stress distribution for the fixed value of the vertical compression y =0 .6 MPa: Transition to the first phase (elastic) to the non linear one Force-displacement curves = 0.65 = 1 .35 =2
component stress
0.8 0.4
0.8 0.4 0 0
k1d = 1.15
x/D
0.5 0.75 1
k1d = 1.33
0 0.25
k1d = 1.48
0.25
x/D
0.5
0.75
x/D
0.5
0.75
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Evolution of the stress distribution for the fixed value of the vertical compression y =0 .6 MPa: Transition to the first phase (elastic) to the non linear one Force-displacement curves = 0.65 = 1 .35 =2
y component stress
y/fm
In recognize a strong progressive 0.2the case of Pier 3 it is possible to 0.2 reduction of the effective un-cracked section length The -0.2 ratio y/fm in the compressed toe results -0.2 far from the unity, even fot the highest drift value considered. However if the V-u curve is analysed, it can -0.4 -0.4 be evidenced that, following up the tensile flexural cracking at the base of -0.6 pier, relevant increases in drift actually -0.6 the correspond to very low increases in the resistance the strength predicted represent an -0.8 -0.8 0 0.25 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 asympthotic limit! 0.5
0
y/fm
x/D
y/fm
x/D
x/D
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Evolution of the stress distribution for the fixed value of the vertical compression y =0 .6 MPa: Transition to the first phase (elastic) to the non linear one Force-displacement curves = 0.65 = 1 .35 =2
The POINT AT THE CENTER of the pier is a correct assumption as point reference for the DIAGONAL CRACKING
The BASE SECTION is a correct assumption as section reference for the ROCKING failure
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Comparison between the numerical and analytical failure domains
= 0.65
/fm
= 1 .35
/fm
=2
/fm
Legend:
Eq. (1) - Rocking fm= 6.2 MPa
y/fm
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
Mixed Behaviour Good correlation from both qualitative (failure mode occurred) and quantitative (predicted value of Vu) points of view
y/fm
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
y/fm
0.6
0.8
Eq. (3) - Diagonal Cracking c = 0.18 MPa = 0.45 Eq. (4) - Diagonal Cracking fbt = 1.85 MPa Eq. (3) - Bed Joint Sliding c = 0.23 MPa = 0.58 Eq. (5) - Diagonal Cracking ft = 0.22 MPa Num. results Rocking Num. results Diagonal Cracking th. joints Num. results Diagonal Cracking th. blocks Num. results Mixed behaviour*
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER: DISCUSSION OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES Comparison between the numerical and analytical failure domains
= 0.65
/fm
= 1 .35
/fm
=2
/fm
Legend:
Eq. (1) - Rocking fm= 6.2 MPa
y/fm
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
y/fm
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
y/fm
0.6
0.8
Good correlation from both qualitative (failure mode occurred) and quantitative (predicted value of Vu) points of view
Eq. (3) - Diagonal Cracking c = 0.18 MPa = 0.45 Eq. (4) - Diagonal Cracking fbt = 1.85 MPa Eq. (3) - Bed Joint Sliding c = 0.23 MPa = 0.58 Eq. (5) - Diagonal Cracking ft = 0.22 MPa Num. results Rocking Num. results Diagonal Cracking th. joints Num. results Diagonal Cracking th. blocks Num. results Mixed behaviour*
Predicted value of Vu :
The Bed Joint Sliding never occurred in the numerical analyses; actually many experimental research programs and earthquake damage assessments showed that the Diagonal Cracking has a fundamental relevance . Moreover the Bed Joint Sliding prevision prevails only for very slow values of the ratio y /fm and in most of the cases the related shear strength results comparable with that predicted considering a Rocking failure The good correlation is obtained with Mann and Mller model rather than the one of Turnek and aovi. It is mainly related to the good agreement between the hypotheses which it is based on (the masonry examined can be classified as anisotropic). However the Turnek and aovi model could lead to strong underestimations for higher values of y /fm
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF PIER Experimental results from Vasconcelos (2005) Effect of distinct masonry patterns of increasing cahoticity
WS Pier
WI Pier
WR Pier
0.5 0.4
0.5 0.4
0.5 0.4
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
= 0.04 + 0.3 y
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
= 0.35 y
= 0.11 + 0.19 y
0.25 0.5 0.75
y(MPa)
1.25 1.5
y(MPa)
1.25 1.5
y(MPa)
1.25 1.5
Experimental results Eq. (1) - Rocking Eq. (3) - Bed Joint Sliding Eq. (3) - Diagonal Cracking Eq. (5) - Diagonal Cracking
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF SPANDREL BEAMS Typical behaviour showed by masonry panels subjected to in-plane loading: Rocking Sliding Shear Failure Diagonal Cracking
Sub-vertical cracks
Due to interlocking phenomena at the interface between the end-section of spandrel and the Sliding on a horizontal plane contiguous masonry
Diagonal crack
Resistance criteria :
In the case of Rocking it is possible distinguish two cases as a function of the hypothesis assumed for the acting axial force N: 9 Case 1 (N known): spandrel behaviour is assumed like that of a pier
rotated to 90 (the ultimate limit state is obtained by failure at the compressed corners
9 Case 2 (N unknown): a response as equivalent strut is presupposed only in the case of the presence of another tensile resistant element coupled to the spandrel (such as r.c. beam or tie-rod) ; otherwise the resistance of spandrel is assumed identically null.
Mu =
Nd N 1 2 dtf cu
Mu =
dH p Hp 1 2 0.85 f hu dt
Diagonal Cracking failure mode Existing buildings: In both cases, due to the moderate values of axial load acting on spandrels (Case 1) or to the lack of coupled tensile resistant elements (Case 2), Rocking tends to prevail over Diagonal Cracking much more frequently than that testified by earthquake damage observation in existing buildings or in experimental campaigns Due to the unconsistent hypotheses adopted in models a large number of historicalexisting buildings are assessed as unsafe according to current seismic codes It seems reasonable to assume that masonry spandrels supply further unknown resources with regard to the flexural response
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL FAILURE OF SPANDREL BEAMS Due to orientation of mortar joints, an equivalent tensile strength for masonry can be assumed
a) tensile failure of the block
ftu , a ' = x =
b) shear failure of the horizontal mortar joints
fbt 2
g y x
y h x b
f tu ,b ' =
x y 2 y
0 .5
The strength increase is remarkable in particular for low values of N, which is the case of spandrel beam elements
Increasing =ftu/fcu 0 .4
Mu/Mlim
0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 - 0 .2 0 0 .2
= 0 .1
cu
N /N
0 .4
u
0 .6
0 .8
Ref.: Cattari S., Lagomarsino S. (2008). A strength criterion for the flexural behaviour of spandrels in un-reinforced masonry walls, Proc. of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Ammorsamento =2
Ammorsamento =4
V [kN]
V [kN]
200
200 150 100 50 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 pressoflessione C&L_a4 eta=0.067_a4_incastro simulazione sperimentale_N=0 eta=0.04_a4_incastro
1000
1200
1400
1600
N [kN]
N [kN]
Squat spandrel
Phase A: opening of head joints in tense corners after the attainment of the maximum tensile value of x at the end sections of spandrel Slender spandrel
Phase B: the spandrel gradually starts to behave as an equivalent strut with the formation of a diagonal crack
Rocking failure
COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA 9 Experimental test performed at University of Trieste (Gattesco et al. 2008)
Different spandrel have been tested varying the lintel typology (wooden lintel or flat masonry arch) with and without strengthening (performed by inserting a steel tie)
Experimental set-up
Response obtained in case of spandrel without strengthening with wooden lintel Comparison with the model proposed in Cattari&Lagomarsino 2008 200
175 150 125 V [kN] 100
75
50 N [kN]
100
150
200
250
300
Esempio di applicazione
9Analisi in direzione X
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0 0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03 0,035 0,04 0,045 0,05
N15
n67
N23
N31
N11
N15
n67
N23
N31
N11
N15
n67
N23
N31
N11
N15
n67
N23
N31
N11
68
69
70
71
72
68
69
70
71
72
68
69
70
71
72
68
69
70
71
72
N14
49
n66
51
N22
52
N30
54
N10
N14
49
n66
51
N22
52
N30
54
N10
N14
49
n66
51
N22
52
N30
54
N10
N14
49
n66
51
N22
52
N30
54
N10
63
64
65 50
66 53
67
63
64
65 50
66 53
67
63
64
65 50
66 53
67
63
64
65 50
66 53
67
48 N13 n65
48 N9 N13 n65
48 N9 N13 n65
48 N9 N13 n65
N21
N29
N21
N29
N21
N29
N21
N29
N9
90
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
PARAMETRI CHE DETERMINANO LA RISPOSTA
c=0.46
Giuffr 1993
Pareti media snellezza (H/D = 1.5)
c=0.31
Giuffr 1993
Pareti media snellezza (H/D = 1.5)
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
PARAMETRI CHE DETERMINANO LA RISPOSTA
RESISTENZA A COMPRESSIONE E TRAZIONE DEI BLOCCHI RESISTENZA A COMPRESSIONE E A TRAZIONE DEI BLOCCHI COESIONE E RESISTENZA A TRAZIONE DEIDEI GIUNTI COESIONE E RESISTENZA A TRAZIONE GIUNTI
GEOMETRIA INTERNA
DATTRITO DEI DEI GIUNTI COEFFICIENTE COEFFICIENTE DI ATTRITO GIUNTI MALTA DEBOLE
O ALLINTERFACCIA
PARAMETRI GLOBALI: PARAMETRI GLOBALI RESISTENZE A COMPRESSIONE DELLA MURATURA RESISTENZA A COMPRESSIONE DELLA MURATURA RESISTENZE A TRAZIONE DELLA MURATURA RESISTENZA A TRAZIONE DELLA MURATURA RESISTENZE A TAGLIO DELLA MURATURA RESISTENZA A TAGLIO DELLA MURATURA MALTA FORTE DEFORMABILITA GLOBALE DEFORMABILITA GLOBALE
PARAMETRI SIGNIFICATIVI
1) RAPPORTI GEOMETRICI DEI PANNELLI (H/D) 2) VINCOLI DI ESTREMITA 3) SOLLECITAZIONI NORMALI DI COMPRESSIONE 4) ORIENTAMENTO TESSITURA 5) GEOMETRIA E TESSITURA DEI BLOCCHI 6) PARAMETRI MECCANICI DEL MATERIALE MICROSTRUTTURA ATTRITO ANISOTROPIA
SCALA MACROMECCANICA
SCALA MICROMECCANICA
MAIN FEATURES
CONTINUUM MODEL SIMPLIFIED MICROMECHANICAL APPROACH ANISOTROPIC DAMAGE LAWS MONOTONIC AND CYCLIC LOAD PATHS NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN FEM CODES
ASSUMED HYPOTHESES
PLANE STRESS CONDITION MORTAR JOINTS IDEALIZED AS INTERFACES UNIFORM STRESS ON THE INTERFACES RUNNING PATTERN MORTAR HEAD JOINTS AS GEOMETRICAL DISCONTINUITIES
GEOMETRICAL FEATURES
ANGLE OF INTERLOCKING
Head joint
Bed joint
= 63.43
= 45
= 33.69
= tg 1 2
t h
h+t b+t
x b
GEOMETRICAL FEATURES
CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS
CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS
=
MEAN STRAIN TENSOR PLANE STRESS HYPOTHESIS:
?
= { x
[ ]
MEAN STRESS TENSOR
} ; = { x
T
= C1 + m + b
HOMOGENIZED ELASTIC CONTRIBUTION HOMOGENIZED INELASTIC CONTRIBUTION OF MORTAR JOINTS HOMOGENIZED INELASTIC CONTRIBUTION OF BLOCKS
DEFINED BY MEAN OF ELASTIC HOMOGENIZATION TECHNIQUES (Anthoine, 1995; Gambarotta & Lagomarsino, 1997; Cecchi e Rizzi, 2001)
u m( i ) = xm( i )
1 2 5 6 8
y m( i )
3
7 9
JOINTS a JOINTS b
u m ( 2 ) = u m( 7 )
u m( 3 ) = u m ( 6 )
u m ( a ) = u m( 2 ) = u m( 7 ) u m ( b ) = u m( 3 ) = u m ( 6 )
xm( a ) b+t
; my( a ) = +
tot xy yx m ( a ) = m( a ) + m( a )
; 2( h + t ) xm( a ) y m ( a ) = + ; 2(h + t ) b + t
ym( a )
m
m = m( a ) + m( b )
tan m( a ) m( b ) m( a ) + m( b ) m = + + tan m( a ) m( b ) m( a ) m( b )
NORMAL STRAINS
1. m( a ) 0;
m( b ) 0
(Y) (X)
2. m( a ) m( b )
Tot
mxy (a )
Admitted
mxy (b)
+
x m ( a )
=
x m ( b )
tot m =0
tot m
x m >0
x m (a) > 0 x m (b) > 0 x x m ( a ) > m( b)
mxy (a )
Admitted
mxy (b)
+
x m ( a ) x m ( b )
=
tot m >0
tot m
x m >0
mxy (a )
Admitted
mxy (b)
+
x m ( a ) x m ( b )
=
tot m >0
tot m
x m >0 x x m ( a ) = m ( b )
mxy (a )
Admitted
mxy (b)
xy mxy (a ) = m(b)
+
x m ( a ) x m ( b )
=
tot m >0
tot m
x m =0
x m (a) > 0 x m (b) < 0 x x m ( a ) < m(b )
NOT Admitted
mxy (a )
mxy (b)
+
x m ( a ) x m ( b )
=
tot m >0
x m <0
m( k ) = m( k )cmn H + m( k ) m( k )
STRESS HEAVISIDE LOCAL FUNCTION
m(a) m( a )
m(b)
m(b)
m( k ) = m( k )cmt m( k ) f m( k )
x y
ANGLE OF INTERLOCKING
m( a ) = y + tan m( b ) = y tan
x m( a ) = + tan x m( b ) = tan
CHARACTERISTIC STRESS
1 DAMAGE
R
Rc
A
d = Y R ( ) 0
ENERGY RELEASE RATE THOUGHNESS FUNCTION
Y
B C
(R-CURVE APPROACH)
0
c = 1
R()
2 FRICTION
s = f + 0
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
FRICTION
FLOW LAW:
, * = v
0
WHERE:
v=
f f
1
BI
0 J -0.5
0.5 0
R S F ND G
AH
KU
TL
-1
M
y INCREASED
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-1.5
-0.5
Q
-1 -4 -3
OE
x > 0
E
0 1
-2
-1
2 0.5
0 -0.5 -1 -4
x < 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
= 0
2 1
= 22.5
2 1
= 45
2 1
100
TEST TYPE
Fx (kN)
Experimental
0 ux (m) 0.015 -0.015
0 ux (m)
Numerical
0.015
100 50
Fx (kN)
Experimental
Numerical
REFERENCE: Anthoine, A., Magonette, G. and Magenes, G., Shear compression testing and analysis of brick masonry walls. G. Duma ed. Proc. 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol.3, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1657-1662, 1995.
EXPERIMENTAL
d = 6 mm
d = 6 mm
d = 6 mm
APPLICAZIONE - 2
c=0.46
Giuffr 1993
Pareti media snellezza (H/D = 1.5)
c=0.31
Giuffr 1993
Pareti media snellezza (H/D = 1.5)
c=0.43
c=0.32
4-NODE NON-LINEAR SHELL ELEMENTS ARE EMPLOYED. (4 NODES - 5 GAUSS POINTS THROUGH THE THICKNESS) THE MODEL IS DEVELOPED UNDER THE HYPOTHESIS OF PLANE STRESS. HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYMENT OF SHELL ELEMENTS WITH MORE THAN ONE GAUSS POINT THROUGH THE THICKNESS ALLOWS TO DESCRIBE THE OUT-OF-PLANE BEHAVIOUR OF THE ELEMENTS IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY, AS A SUCCESSION OF PLANE STATES.
APPLICATIONS:
OUT-OF-PLANE LOADED WALLS BUSSANA CHURCH VICOFORTES DOME
xi yi yj xj xk
yk
SOUTH
WEST
NORTH
EAST
EXTERNAL VIEW
SOUTH
WEST
NORTH
EAST
Mj Vj Pj
Piers Spandrels Rigid connections
Modelling scale
The stiffness is computed on the basis of geometric and mechanical properties of panel (Young modulus, shear modulus, panel Mechanical parameters of the single geometry). Strength parameters may be related constituents of masonry (blocks and mortar to the single constituents or to the masonry as a function of the criterion adopted. Drift values joints) have to be defined. are defined as a function of the failure mode occurred on the basis of available experimental tests or literature data.
C D
G. M. Calvi, G. Magenes, Experimental research on response of URM building system. D. P. Abrams, G. M. Calvi eds. Proc. U.S.-Italy workshop on guidelines for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings, State University of New York at Bufalo, NCEER-94-0021, 3-41/57, Pavia, 1994.
n28
t23 E9
n25
t24 E10
n29
Modelling scale
E4
E5
E6
n26
E7 t21
n24
E8 t22
n27
E1
E2
E3
n21
n22
n23
Non-linear beam model - Elasto-plastic constitutive law with secant stiffness Constitutive law for masonry formulated by degradation. The resistance criteria adopted Calderini and Lagomarsino [10]. are: for the Rocking, that proposed in the Italian Code [4]; for the Diagonal Cracking, the criterion proposed by Mann and Mller [18].
Constitutive law
Fx (kN)
Experimental test FEM Eq. frame - Reduced stiffness Eq. frame - Full stiffness 15 20 25
dx (mm)
EQUIVALENT FRAME
49 n25 50 n29
FEM
44
45
46
n26
47
n24
48
n27
41
42
43
n21
n22
n23
dx = 15 mm
4
1 0.75
5
1 0.75 1 0.75
dh/h
dh/h
dh/h
0.5 0.25 0
0.5 0.25 0
Bending (kN)
150
-150
Bending (kN)
150
-150
Bending (kN)
150
S
1
1 1
2
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
dh/h
dh/h
0.5
0.5
dh/h
-150 0 150
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0 -150
Bending (kN)
150
Bending (kN)
-150
Bending (kN)
150
Pier 5
Pier 6
N-N0 (kN)
dx (mm) Pier 1
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 2
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 3
10
15
120 80
N-N0 (kN)
dx (mm)
10
15 0
FEM
dx (mm)
10
15 0
dx (mm)
10
15
Pier 5
Pier 6
M-M0 (kN m)
dx (mm) Pier 1
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 2
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 3
10
15
100 50
M-M0 (kN m)
dx (mm)
10
15
dx (mm)
10
15
dx (mm)
10
15
Pier 5
Pier 6
T-T0 (kN)
80 60 40 20 0 0
dx (mm) Pier 1
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 2
10
15 0
dx (mm) Pier 3
10
15
120 100
T-T0 (kN)
80 60 40 20 0 0 5
dx (mm)
10
15 0
FEM
dx (mm)
10
15
dx (mm)
10
15
Il problema importante anche nelledilizia monumentale, per la presenza di pareti snelle o poco connesse
= amax / g
- UniNA-b
FORMULE ANALITICHE DI IMMEDIATO UTILIZZO PER IL CALCOLO DELLAZIONE SISMICA CHE ATTIVA IL MECCANISMO DI DANNO NEL PIANO E FUORI DAL PIANO Muratura a macro-blocchi rigidi con giunti attritivi (comportamento non-standard). Approccio cinematico in analisi limite Valutazione in forma chiusa di maggioranti e minoranti dei moltiplicatori di carico Operativamente la procedura prevede i seguenti passaggi: 1. valutazione delle massime resistenze attritive, nel piano e fuori dal piano, lungo le lesioni considerate nel meccanismo in esame; 2. valutazione del massimo moltiplicatore cinematico e della geometria del meccanismo corrispondente, basata sullipotesi di attivazione delle massime resistenze attritive lungo le lesioni; 3. valutazione del minimo moltiplicatore cinematico relativo alla stessa geometria di meccanismo, basata sullipotesi di resistenze attritive nulle lungo le stesse lesioni.
UniPV
C2
3 1
C3
C1
Step 0
Step 1
Step i
displacement
- UniPV
ABACHI E FORMULE APPROSSIMATE PER LA VERIFICA AD AZIONI FUORI DEL PIANO DI MURI TENENDO CONTO DEGLI EFFETTI GEOMETRICI DEL SECONDO ORDINE Mediante simulazioni numeriche non lineari statiche si sono prodotti abachi e formule semplificate per il calcolo del momento resistente ridotto (tenendo conto degli effetti geometrici del secondo ordine) di muri soggetti a compressione e flessione fuori piano.
N Htop
h/2
w = ma
W/2
K0
N+W
Hbot
u=instability
- Roma3
dal Donghi
- UniPD
3T
4T
5I
6I
7IT
8IT
- UniGE
Conversione della pushover in spettro di capacit di un sistema equivalente a 1 s.d.o.f. (accelerazione e spostamento spettrale)
a*
a0* a'0 (b)
a =
*
n +m i =1 *
n+m
g = * e
d = dk
Pi x,i
i =1 n+m i =1
Valutazione della domanda in spostamento spettro sovrasmorzato o rigidezza secante (a) (spostamento ultimo 0.4 d0)
x,k
Pi
9 8 7 5 4 3 2 1 0
du*=0.4 d'0*
d*
d'0*
d0 *
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2
Period T (s)
0.4
0/ lim
0.6
0.8
(a)
0/ lim
(b)
- Roma1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
200
400
600
SPv0-4 (cm)
UniBAS
Mappa del Funzionale di Ribaltamento di blocchi in oscillazione Bilatera % =0,8 sisma: Irpinia; Sito: Sturno- 23/11/80; comp. Nord - Sud
0,98 0,90 0,83 0,75 0,68 0,60 0,53 b [m] 0,45 0,38 0,30 0,23 0,15
0.975 0.900 0.825 0.750 0.675 0.600 0.525 0.450 0.375 0.300 0.225 0.150 6.5 8 5.75 7.25 8.75 9.5 11 14 17 20 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 23 10.25 11.75 13.25 14.75 16.25 17.75 19.25 20.75 22.25 23.75 24.5 0.075 b [m]
0,08 4,5 5,3 6,0 6,8 7,5 8,3 9,0 9,8 10,5 11,3 12,0 12,8 13,5 14,3 15,0 15,8 16,5 17,3 18,0 18,8 19,5 20,3 21,0 21,8 22,5 23,3 24,0 24,8
-0,10--0,09 0,00-0,01 -0,09--0,08 0,01-0,02 -0,08--0,07 0,02-0,03 -0,07--0,06 0,03-0,04 -0,06--0,05 0,04-0,05 -0,05--0,04 0,05-0,06 -0,04--0,03 0,06-0,07 -0,03--0,02 0,07-0,08 -0,02--0,01 0,08-0,09 -0,01-0,00 0,09-0,10
-0.20--0.18 0.00-0.02 -0.18--0.16 0.02-0.04 -0.16--0.14 0.04-0.06 -0.14--0.12 0.06-0.08 -0.12--0.10 0.08-0.10 -0.10--0.08 0.10-0.12 -0.08--0.06 0.12-0.14 -0.06--0.04 0.14-0.16 -0.04--0.02 0.16-0.18 -0.02-0.00 0.18-0.20
Diagramma di ribaltamento, Sturno N-S, coefficiente di restituzione in accordo col principio di conservazione del momento della quantit di moto.
2.75 2.5
w= g/a max
2.25 2
b 95 = 1.93 S max
bu = 1.93S M ax R =0,972
2
assenza di oscillazioni
b 50 = 1.41 S max
ribaltamento
(probabilit superiore al 50%)
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
SMax [m]
- Roma3 - Roma1
Prove sperimentali su tavola vibrante di pareti murarie sollecitate fuori dal piano
Campione fessurato
Le prove dinamiche eseguite su tavola vibrante mostrano una significativa capacit sismica delle pareti sollecitate fuori dal piano, anche in assenza di ammorsature ai muri ortogonali Si riscontrata la notevolissima efficacia di interventi tradizionali come gli incatenamenti, capaci di garantire un buon comportamento anche nei confronti di registrazioni fortemente distruttive.
Campione incatenato
- UniGE
Sv,max
B H
- UniGE
Sv,max B / H
Esprimendo in analiticamente lintersezione tra la curva di capacit (lineare decrescente) e lo spettro di risposta (nel tratto a velocit costante) si ottiene la stessa dipendenza funzionale tra la velocit spettrale e le dimensioni della parete.
Tarcento (UD)
?
Accelerogramma di input per la cella
Accelerogramma al suolo
T2 2 Tr n (T ) = 2 r =1 T T2 r
h = 0 ( T r ) r
2
(z )
T 0 .0 2 T 1 + D 2 ( s ) T r Tr h = 0 ( T r ) r
2 r
T Tr
(z )
T T 1 0 .0 2 + Tr Tr
D ( s )
T > Tr
- UniGE
D
35
A
F E D
2
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0
40
10
0.5
1.0
T [s]
1.5
2.0
25 20 Sa[m/s ] 15 10 5 0
C
Sa[m/s ]
2
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0
60 50
B A
0.5 1.0 T [s] 1.5 2.0
0.0 25
20 Sa[m/s ] 15 10 5 0 0.0
0.5
1.0
T [s]
1.5
2.0
C
Sa[m/s ]
40
2
30 20 10
0.5
1.0
T [s]
1.5
2.0
T [s]
1.5
2.0
Formulazione analitica
- UniGE
(z )
T 0 .0 2 T 1 + D 2 ( s ) T r Tr h = 0 ( T r ) r
2 r
T Tr
(z )
T T 1 + 0 .0 2 Tr Tr
D ( s )
T > Tr
Esempio di applicazione
Isolato dal resto della fabbrica; Danneggiamento principalmente concentrato nella cella e composto da lesioni evidenti.
Esempio di applicazione
Sulla base del danneggiamento rilevato sono stati analizzati due differenti meccanismi di collasso
Meccanismo 1
Meccanismo 2
Applicando il Teorema dei Lavori Virtuali stato possibile valutare il moltiplicatore orizzontale 0 dei carichi e la sua evoluzione al crescere dello spostamento di un punto di controllo dk (baricentro del corpo 2). La curva di capacit stata ottenuta trasformando il moltiplicatore in accelerazione spettrale a* e dk in spostamento spettrale d* secondo quanto proposto nellOPCM 3431/05.
Esempio di applicazione
Applicando il Teorema dei Lavori Virtuali stato possibile valutare il moltiplicatore orizzontale 0 dei carichi e la sua evoluzione al crescere dello spostamento di un punto di controllo dk (baricentro del corpo 2). La curva di capacit stata ottenuta trasformando il moltiplicatore in accelerazione spettrale a* e dk in spostamento spettrale d* secondo quanto proposto nellOPCM3431/05.
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0
Meccanismo 1
Meccanismo 2
a [m/s ]
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Il meccanismo 1 risulta maggiormente vulnerabile sia in termini di accelerazione di attivazione, sia in termini di duttilit.
Esempio di applicazione
Determinazione della PGA al suolo corrispondente allo stato limite ultimo della cella.
Sa [m/s2]
8 6 4 2 0 0.00
Curva di capacit
0.04
0.08
Sd [m]
0.12
0.16
0.20