PSI - Issue 44

Ernesto Grande et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 582–589 Grande et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

587

6

250

wJ model noJ model Del Vecchio et al. (2016)

200

CO 2 nd floor right column DS 2 nd floor right column DL 2 nd floor right column First crack 1 st floor right joint First crack 1 st floor left & 2 nd floor right joints Max strength 1 st floor right joint First crack 2 nd floor left joint Max strength 1 st floor left joint Max strength 2 nd floor right joint

150

100 Vb [kN]

50

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Disp [mm]

Figure 3. Results of the pushover analysis for both the “noJ” and “wJ” modelling approaches.

This outcome is more evident in Figure 4, where the rotations of the four springs representing the joints are plotted in terms of V b - θ curves . It can be noticed the large deformation capacity of the springs of the first floor, in contrast to the rotations exploited by the springs of the second floor. The points corresponding to the attainment of the first crack strength and the maximum strength of the joints are also represented with the same notation used in Figure 3. It can be noticed that the deformation capacity is not fully exploited by the left spring of the second floor level, which does not achieve the rotation corresponding to τ max .

100 120 140 160

1 st floor right spring 1 st floor left spring 2 nd floor right spring 2 nd floor left spring First crack 1 st floor right joint First crack 1 st floor left & 2 nd floor right joints Max strength 1 st floor right joint First crack 2 nd floor left joint Max strength 1 st floor left joint Max strength 2 nd floor right joint

0 20 40 60 80

Vb [kN]

-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

θ [rad]

Figure 4. Rotation contributions of the four shear springs.