PSI - Issue 44

Ylenia Di Lallo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 488–495 Y. Di Lallo et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

494

7

compares the experimental (left side) and the numerical (right side) crack patterns of the wall named as “door wall”. Particularly, Fig. 5(b) shows the deformation state of the structure corresponding to the ultimate displacement. As in the numerical analysis the structure was pushed monotonically, cracking develops in one direction only, unlike the experimental cyclic test. Notwithstanding, the crack patterns are generally well reproduced even though the damage found in the numerical model is slightly overestimated as far as the male component (masonry pier) of the ground floor is concerned, while it is moderately underestimated in the spandrels. Overall, the MUDis-based model proves able to realistically reproduce the global experimental behaviour of the wall.

Fig. 4. Experimental vs numerical: comparison between load-displacement curves

(a) (b) Fig. 5. Experimental vs numerical damage pattern: (a) final crack pattern of experimental test. From Magenes et al. (1995); (b) ultimate displacement of numerical model with MUDis procedure 4. Conclusions This work was devoted to extending the validation of a new modelling approach for the non-linear analysis of masonry buildings. The underlying hypotheses, common to typical Discontinuum Finite Element Models (D-FEM), allows modelling masonry buildings characterized by walls with periodic texture by resorting to a reduced number of multi unit elastic blocks separated by predetermined potential cracking surfaces, whose nonlinear behaviour is described by a modified composite interface model calibrated from the “Combined Cracking-Shearing-Crushing” proposed by Lourenço.