PSI - Issue 62

6 G.Miceli,R.Romanello,M.Iafrate,G.Tramontana,F.Foria,M.Cuomo,L.Contrafatto,S.Gazzo,G.Ferlito Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

Gabriele Miceli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 416–423

421

Fig. 8. Collapse mechanisms in the longitudinal and transverse direction.

Table 2. Material Characteristics

Material type

Young’s modulus

Poisson Ratio Unit weight Fracture energy of Tension Function

[N/mm 2 ] ͳǡʹͷ ∙ 10 ͻ ͹ǡͷͲ ∙ 10 ͻ ʹǡʹ͵ ∙ ͳͲ ͳͳ 9,00 ∙ ͳͲ ͺ 8,84 ∙ ͳͲ ͺ ͳǡʹͺ ∙ 10 ͻ ʹǡͳ͵ ∙ 10 ͻ

[N/mm 3 ] 1,80 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 2,00 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 2,00 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 1,45 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 2,00 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 2,09 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ 2,15 ∙ ͳͲ Ͷ

[/]

[N/mm]

0,20

20

Masonry

Matrix

0,30

50

Embedded truss

0,30

/

0,20

/

Fill (tuff)

1 st layer of PS soil

0,35

/

2 nd layer of PS soil

0,33

/

3 rd layer of PS soil

0,35

/

4.3. Analysis results As an example, the results of the longitudinal pushover analysis are shown in Figure 10 , in terms of displacement (Fig.9 (a)), compressive stresses (Fig.9 (b)), tensile stresses (Fig.9 (c)), plastic status (Fig.9 (d)) and crack status (Fig.9 (e)).

Fig.9. Example of output data for longitudinal pushover Following the indications of the NTC regulation, as a result of the pushover analysis, the capacity curve ( Fig.10 ) was determined for each of the investigated cases. The curve represents the trend of the resulting shear force at the base of the piers as a function of the displacement of the control point.