PSI - Issue 44

6

A. Viskovic et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 1348–1355 A. Viskovic et al. / Structural Integri y Procedia 00 (2022) 0 0–000

1353

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 3a) Sample masonry column. Fig. 3b) Numerical model (prism). Fig 3c) Stress resultants and displacements. The line of action of the stress resultants ( ) and ( ) orthogonal to the symmetry planes of the masonry prism are shown in Fig. 3c. In the figure the displacement ( Dx) and ( Dy ) of the free to move faces of the prism are reported as well. Finally, the capitol letter ( S ) stands for imposed displacement and ( N ) is the related compressive force in the sense of the work. 5. Results The main results achieved with this first phase of numerical analyses are discussed hereafter and reported in the following figures. Three cases were investigated and compared, namely: unconfined (UC orange line), confined with Nylon ribbons (NC red line) and confined with Dyneema ribbons (DC blue line) aiming at evaluating the increase of column capacity when strengthened with hooping systems in textiles material. In the comparison above it should be considering that the two hooping system are endowed with quite different material properties, Tables 3. So that one can expect different capacities associated with the relevant system. A first important result is shown in Fig. 4 where the compression force N is plotted against the imposed displacement S. It easy to see that whatever the hooping system be, NC or DC, the increase of load carrying capacity is of about twice the maximum N sustainable in the UC case. It is also interesting to observe that the curves N-D share the same trend that is not changed by the hooping system.

Fig. 4. Vertical force vs imposed displacement.