The seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings with cavity walls is a relevant issue in many countries, such as in Central and Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China and several other countries. A cavity wall consists of two separate parallel masonry walls (called leaves) connected by metal ties: an inner loadbearing wall and an outer veneer having mostly aesthetic and insulating functions. Cavity walls are particularly vulnerable structural elements. If the two leaves of the cavity wall are not properly connected, their out-of-plane strength may be significantly smaller than that of an equivalent solid wall with the same thickness.The research presented in this paper focuses on a mechanical model developed to predict the failure mode and the strength capacity of metal tie connections in masonry cavity walls. The model considers six possible failures, namely tie failure, cone break-out failure, pull-out failure, buckling failure, piercing failure and punching failure. Tie failure is a predictable quantity when the possible failure modes can be captured. The mechanical model for the ties has been validated against the outcomes of an experimental campaign conducted earlier by the authors. The mechanical model is able to capture the mean peak force and the failure mode obtained from the tests. The mechanical model can be easily adopted by practising engineers who aim to model the wall ties accurately in order to assess the strength and behaviour of the structures against earthquakes. Furthermore, the proposed mechanical model is used to extrapolate the experimental results to untested configurations, by performing parametric analyses on key parameters including a higher strength mortar of the calcium silicate brick masonry, a different cavity depth, a different tie embedment depth, and solid versus perforated clay bricks.
Objective: There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece particle (FFP)-type respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping healthcare professionals safe. Design: Prospective, bench-to-bedside. Setting: A primary care-based study using FFP-2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+ (20 samples), Maco Pharma ZZM002 (14 samples)), FFP-2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ (six samples) and San Huei 2920V (16 samples)) and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016 (10 samples)). Interventions: All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (17 min at 121°C with 34 min total cycle time) and subsequently tested up to three times whether these respirators retained their integrity (seal check and pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3–5.0 µm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test. Results: We tested 33 respirators and 66 samples for filter capacity. All FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the decontaminated FFP-3 respirators showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after one, two and three decontamination cycles (0.3 µm: 99.3%±0.3% (new) vs 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6; p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920 V had 95.5%±0.7% at baseline vs 92.3%±1.7% vs 90.0±0.7 after one-time and two-time decontaminations, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5%±0.7% at baseline and 60.3%±5.7% after one-time decontamination (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice. Conclusion: This small single-centre study shows that selected FFP-2 respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.
MULTIFILE
