RESEARCH ARTICLE
Modeling Approaches for Masonry Structures
D. Addessi1, S. Marfia2, E. Sacco*, 2, J. Toti3
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2014Volume: 8
First Page: 288
Last Page: 300
Publisher ID: TOCIEJ-8-288
DOI: 10.2174/1874149501408010288
Article History:
Received Date: 16/5/2014Revision Received Date: 7/6/2014
Acceptance Date: 7/6/2014
Electronic publication date: 29/10/2014
Collection year: 2014
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Different scale approaches, micromechanical, multiscale and macromechanical or phenomenological, are presented to study the structural response of masonry elements. First, a micromechanical model is introduced and the masonry is considered to be a heterogeneous material, made of mortar and bricks joined by interfaces, where the mortarbrick decohesion mechanisms occur. To this end, a special interface model combining damage and friction is proposed.
Then, two multiscale procedures are presented, that consider regular arrangements of bricks and mortar, modeled by nonlinear constitutive laws which account for damage and friction effects. A homogenization technique is developed to derive two different equivalent continuum models at the macro-level, a micropolar Cosserat continuum and a nonlocal Cauchy model.
Finally, a macromechanical model, based on the adoption of a classical No-Tension Material (NTM) model, and on the presence of irreversible crushing strains, is proposed. A zero tensile strength is assumed, thus fracture strains arise when the stress is zero. Moreover, an elastoplastic model is considered for the material response in compression. Numerical applications are performed on a masonry arch and two masonry panels, by adopting the three approaches presented. Comparisons with experimental outcomes, published elsewhere, are performed.
