PSI - Issue 78

Alina Elena Eva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 387–394

391

Table 1. Mechanical parameters of materials. Element Density [kg / m 3 ]

Young’s Modulus [MPa]

Poisson’s Ratio [-]

Brick

1624 1750 1900

10500

0.15 0.15 0.30 0.30

Mortar

2100 2954 6500

Masonry

Lintel

700

Fig. 3. Numerical damage for each panel a) Stress 0.1 MPa (d1); b) Stress 1 MPa (d2), b) Stress 4 MPa (d3).

Fig. 4. Variation of deformation under dead loads. a) ε 22 in health conditions; b) ε 22 at the end of the unloading of a 3 mm displacement, c) ε 22 at the end of the unloading of a 6 mm displacement.

applied to the top surface of the panel to mimic the e ff ects that the rest of the fac¸ade could transmit to it. As the compressive stress at the top of the panel increased, di ff erent types of damage were observed: at 0.1 MPa, the panel exhibited flexural damage (d1); at 1 MPa, shear damage occurred (d2); and at 4 MPa, the damage was due to compres sive crushing (d3) (see Fig. 3). To account for the di ff erent damage conditions, a large number of smart bricks were embedded in the panel to ensure uniform coverage. Strain data were collected only under dead-load, that is, after the seismic action was removed, simulating the post-event monitoring of a real masonry panel. A significant change was observed in the vertical component of the elastic strain tensor after unloading ( ε 22), (see Fig. 4). These variations can be e ff ectively detected by the smart bricks, which remained within the elastic range of their mechanical response in the numerical analyses.