Issue 18

S. Marfia et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 18 (2011) 23-33; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.18.03

5

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

4

3

a)

 [MPa] 2

1

0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

v [mm]

5

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Interface constitutive law

4

3

b)

2  N [MPa]

1

0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

s N

[mm]

5

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

4

3

c)

2  [MPa]

1

0

0

1

2

3

x 10 -4



Figure 4 : Numerical results obtained adopting the Model 2. a) Mechanical response of whole structure; b) Mechanical behavior of interface; c) Body tensile response. Maximum decohesion force The computations are performed considering the scheme and the geometry illustrated in Fig. 5. The FRP laminate (body

2  ) is bonded to a masonry support (body 1 laminate is subjected to tensile loading.

 ) made of two clay bricks separated by an unitary layer of mortar. The FRP

F

L b



40 mm



2



55 mm

1

10 mm

250 mm

250 mm

Figure 5 : Scheme of the FRP-masonry brick detachment test.

31