Open Access
Open access
Applied Sciences (Switzerland), volume 13, issue 2, pages 972

Numerical Assessment of Interacting Structural Units on the Seismic Damage: A Comparative Analysis with Different Modeling Approaches

Mattia Schiavoni 1
Ersilia Giordano 1
Francesca Roscini 2
Francesco Clementi 1
1
 
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, and Architecture, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131 Ancona, Italy
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2023-01-11
scimago Q2
SJR0.508
CiteScore5.3
Impact factor2.5
ISSN20763417
Computer Science Applications
Process Chemistry and Technology
General Materials Science
Instrumentation
General Engineering
Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes
Abstract

The conservation of the historical and artistic heritage is one of the main priorities of Italian and international policy. The great variety of masonry buildings that make up this heritage is characterized by different combinations of materials and construction techniques. Then, several damage scenarios could be observed as a result, requiring appropriate retrofitting interventions. A rather accurate structural behavior analysis, especially for horizontal load conditions, allows for elaborating a correct seismic assessment. Albeit there are various numerical tools available to examine them, each one’s process starts by means of certain assumptions that could not be applied indiscriminately. This paper aims to compare two different types of modeling techniques to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. To achieve this goal, an earthquake-damaged complex in Central Italy was chosen as a case study. The structure was modeled using a finite element (continuous) and a distinct element (discontinuous) method. Both approaches underwent a nonlinear dynamic analysis using the strong motions recorded during the 2016 seismic sequence. The results show that both approaches can evaluate the weak structural points. However, in some cases, the distinct element method appeared more accurate in reproducing the cracks.

Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6

Publishers

2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex | MLA
Found error?