PSI - Issue 44

Corrado Chisari et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 1108–1115 Corrado Chisari et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

1114

7

Table 3. Other parameters for CDP model representing mortar.

Dilation Angle Eccentricity f b0 /f c0 K

Viscosity Parameter

10°

0.1

1.16

0.67 0.0

3.3. Results The results of the simulations for the unreinforced and reinforced arches are reported in terms of force-displacement plots and collapse mechanisms in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Results of the numerical simulations in terms of force-displacement plot and deformed shapes: (a) unreinforced arch, (b) ordinary mortar reinforcement, and (c) FRLBM reinforcement.

As evidenced by the curves, the results obtained by the numerical models are generally close to those obtained from experimental tests. UR and RI2 plots are well reproduced by the simulations in terms of strength and ductility. UR1 strength is also captured but some differences are evident as far as stiffness and post-peak behaviour are concerned. This may be due to several factors, including the difficulty in modelling some pre-existing damage in mortar due to shrinkage which was observed before starting the test. To this aim, strength of reinforcing mortar was decreased to 1.0 MPa to better capture the peak strength, while the residual strength was not affected by this parameter. Regarding the collapse mechanism, it is generally characterised by the creation of four cracks, alternate between intrados and extrados. The position of the intermediate cracks is not always equal to those observed in the experimental tests, and in particular the sliding crack seen in RI2 is not reproduced by the numerical model, which shows instead the detachment of reinforcement near the load application point. Since the collapse mechanism is strongly influenced by the properties of mortar-arch interaction, further investigations are needed to correctly capture the experimental behaviour.