Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Fig. 3. Prototype building located in Benevento: A picture (left) and the plan of a storey (right).
M. Rota et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1312–1323 1315
Table 1
Parameters derived from calibration based on experimental results.
G (MPa) fv o (MPa) µ (–) G c (– ) β (–) δ(%)
T1-1 500 0.105 0.06 8 0.3 0.78
T1-2 500 0.105 0.06 10 0.2 0.72
T1-3 500 0.16 0.05 4 0.3 0.52
T1-4 500 0.15 0.05 6 0.2 0.6
T2-5 700 0.13 0.05 8 0.4 0.56
T2-6 750 0.2 0.08 6 0.3 0.6
Min 500 0.105 0.05 4 0.2 0.52
Max 750 0.2 0.08 10 0.4 0.78
the results are available in the literature. Among others, the tests
carried out by Faella et al. [26] have been selected. They consist in
in-plane cyclic shear-compression tests carried out on specimens
made of cement mortar and tuff units obtained from demolished
buildings erected in Naples in the last 2 centuries.
Fig. 4. 3D view of the building model. Tests have been performed on three types of masonry piers, all
with 1250 × 1300 × 500 mm (h × l × t) dimensions, differing for
in this work is based on the effective macro-element approach the applied axial load and the constructive details:
which allows an accurate modelling strategy of masonry buildings
at a reasonable computational burden. This model is implemented • The first type (T1) is a double-wythe wall made of roughly
in the program TREMURI. The software and the algorithms embed- dressed tuff blocks, without through stones connecting the
ded in it are described in detail in several literature works (e.g. external wythes and with incoherent filling material in
[14,22–24]). between.
The program is based on the nonlinear macro-element model • The second type (T2) consists of a monolithic wall made of tuff
proposed by Gambarotta and Lagomarsino [25], further modified units similar to those of type one.
by Penna [14], representative of a whole masonry panel (pier or • The third type (T3) consists of panels of the first type, injected
spandrel beam). The software allows to perform nonlinear seismic with cement mixture and will not be considered in this work.
analyses of unreinforced masonry buildings using a set of analysis The tests, carried out at the ISMES laboratory of Bergamo,
procedures: incremental static analysis (Newton–Raphson) both have been performed in displacement control by imposing a cyclic
with force or displacement control, 3 pushover analysis and 3D
horizontal displacement at the top of the wall and measuring the
time history dynamic analysis using the Newmark integration
horizontal force. The vertical axial force was either equal to 130
method and Rayleigh viscous damping.
kN (σ = 0.2 MPa) or 325 kN (σ = 0.5 MPa), while the imposed
A view of the 3D model of the building is shown in Fig. 4.
displacement has been incremented by 0.5 mm every three cycles.
3D modelling of the building is based on the identification
Each test has been stopped when the wall has shown evidence of
within the construction of the seismically resistant structure,
critical damage.
constituted by walls and floors. The walls are the bearing elements,
All the tests carried out on the first two types of walls have
while the floors, apart from sharing vertical loads to the walls,
been simulated with the program TREMURI in order to identify
are considered as planar stiffening elements (flexible diaphragm
meaningful ranges of variation for the different model parameters.
modelled by orthotropic 3–4 nodes membrane elements) on which
With the aim of obtaining the desired parameter ranges, different
the horizontal action distribution between the walls depends.
cyclic pushover analyses were carried out, playing with the model
The model is based on the hypothesis that the seismic response
parameters until a good fit of the experimental tests’ results was
of the building is governed by a global box-type behaviour, assum-
ing that local mechanisms (mainly out-of-plane) are prevented by obtained. A plot of the cyclic force–displacement curves obtained
appropriate structural details and/or connecting devices (e.g. tie form the experimental tests with the nonlinear model results
rods or tie beams). With this assumption, the local flexural be- superimposed is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the different tested
haviour of the floors and the local wall out-of-plane response are specimens.
not computed because they are considered negligible with respect Based on the comparison with experimental results, it has
to the global building response, which is governed by their in- been possible to calibrate only the parameters related to shear
plane behaviour. This is acceptable for this type of building, where failure modes, since all experimental specimens failed in shear.
stiff diaphragms and low height/thickness ratios for the walls ren- In particular, the following parameters have been obtained: shear
der out-of-plane response a secondary phenomenon. Notice that a modulus G, initial shear resistance for zero compression (cohesion)
global seismic response is possible only if vertical and horizontal fv o , friction coefficient µ, nonlinear shear deformability ratio Gc ,
elements are properly connected. softening parameter β , ultimate shear drift δv . The results of the
A frame-type representation of the in-plane behaviour of nonlinear identification are summarised in Table 1.
masonry walls is adopted: each wall of the building is subdivided The missing parameters, which cannot be directly obtained
into piers and lintels (2-nodes macro-elements) connected by rigid from cyclic tests, have been derived from the indications reported
areas (panel nodes). in Annex 11.D of the OPCM 3274 [17]. For tuff masonry with good
quality mortar and lack of through stones the following ranges of
4.3. Identification of mechanical parameters’ ranges values for the different parameters are suggested:
• Compressive strength of masonry: 1.2 < fm < 1.8 MPa
The first step for implementing a Monte Carlo simulation is • Young modulus in compression: 1350 < E < 1890 MPa
identifying realistic ranges of variation for the various parameters • Specific weight: w = 16 kN/m3 .
needed for the numerical model.
The building under study is made of tuff masonry. For this type In case of transversal connections, the compressive strength
of material, several experimental tests have been carried out and range can be corrected in:
1316 M. Rota et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1312–1323
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental test results (grey thin curve) and numerical
Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental test results (grey thin curve) and numerical
simulations (black thick curve) for the different tested specimens: T1–4, T2–5, T2–6
simulations (black thick curve) for the different tested specimens: T1–1, T1–2, T1–3
from top to bottom.
from top to bottom.
Table 3
Parameters used in the stochastic analyses.
E (MPa) G (MPa) fm (MPa) fv o (MPa) µ (–) Gc (–) β (– ) δv (%) δf (%)
Mean 1620 625 1.95 0.1525 0.065 7 0.3 0.65 0.8
Std. dev. 135 62.5 0.375 0.02375 0.0075 1.5 0.05 0.065 0.08
Table 4
First cracking parameters derived from experimental tests.
δs (%) δy (%)
T1-1 1.72 0.65
T1-2 1.99 1
T1-3 1.62 1.07
T1-4 1.60 1.16
T2-5 2.05 0.68
T2-6 1.69 0.85
Min 1.60 0.65
Max 2.05 1.16
Table 5
Parameters used in the stochastic analyses.
δs (%) δy (%)
Mean 1.825 0.905
Std. dev. 0.1125 0.1275
Fig. 7. Results of the second set of stochastic pushover analyses, with identification
The force distribution proportional to the first vibration mode has
of the mean and mean plus or minus one standard deviation curves.
been selected. If a uniform force distribution is applied, it is very
likely that damage would be concentrated at the first storey of
the building. The assumption of a modal distribution, i.e. inverse
triangular forces, should be more coherent with the results of time
history analyses. Another assumption embedded in the performed
analyses consists in neglecting damage in the spandrel beams for
the individuation of the limit states of interest. The reason is that
the model has been calibrated on experimental tests on masonry
piers, while results concerning spandrel beams were not available
(as it is usually the case). It should be noticed that in any case
this procedure has a methodological purpose: in order to obtain
more definitive results all the assumptions should be better tested
and the other options of force distribution and direction of analysis
should be explored.
In some cases, results of pushover analyses may be strongly
affected by the choice of the control node; however, this is not an
issue for this building, since floors are rigid and hence any node at
the top storey can be assumed as the control one [28]. Fig. 8. Identification of global damage states based on the second set of pushover
Two different sets of stochastic pushover analyses have been analyses.
carried out, each one consisting of 1000 analyses. In the first set
the geometry was assigned, the materials were assigned to each However, the dispersion associated to the ultimate limit state (80%
macro-element, but the mechanical properties were considered as of the maximum shear) is slightly increased.
random variables varying within the ranges defined at the previous Fig. 7 shows the pushover curves obtained from the second set
section. In the second set, not only are the mechanical parameters of analyses, just to give an idea of the variability observed in the
random variables, but also the material associated to each macro- results. Also the mean pushover curve and the mean plus or minus
element is randomly selected from a predefined library of mate- one standard deviation are shown in the same figure.
rials. In particular, 30 different materials have been defined for From each pushover curve it is possible to identify two global
the 165 structural elements of the model. Each material is charac- limit states, one corresponding to the attainment of the maximum
terised by values of the mechanical parameters randomly selected base shear resistance, the other corresponding to the ultimate con-
from the intervals. In each analysis, materials are redefined. The dition, identified by a value of base shear deterioration correspond-
number of analyses performed for each of the two sets (1000) was ing to 20% of the maximum base shear. Since a set of 1000 analyses
considered sufficient, since convergence of each input and output is available, it is possible to define a distribution of values for these
variable to the corresponding mean value and stabilisation of the two limit states. Both the mean value and the mean plus or mi-
standard deviations were observed. nus one standard deviation values obtained form the analyses are
The comparison of the pushover curves obtained for the two identified in Fig. 8 by vertical lines.
sets of stochastic analyses shows that the mean curve is not so In order to derive a probability density function associated to
different in the two cases. However, the dispersion in the base damage state DS2, it has been necessary to define a relationship
shear is more reduced in the second case, up to the failure range of (obviously in probabilistic terms) between the global displacement
the curves; after this point the dispersion is larger than in the first of the structure and the corresponding maximum drift observed in
case. Moreover, the dispersion associated to the maximum force the elements. The results for the performed analyses are reported
limit state is significantly reduced in the second set of analyses. in Fig. 9, in which also the mean and the mean plus or minus one
1318 M. Rota et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1312–1323
the figure. Such areas correspond to the integral of the joint prob-
ability distributions.
The probability density functions associated to each of the four
considered damage states have hence been determined. They are
summarised in Fig. 11.
Fig. 10. Scheme of the procedure used for the identification of drift-dependent limit state probabilities.
M. Rota et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1312–1323 1319
Fig. 12. Spectrum-compatible real accelerograms used for time history analyses.
1320 M. Rota et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1312–1323
Fig. 14. Comparison of standard deviation values obtained with mean mechanical
parameters and 7 accelerograms, with stochastic parameters and only 1 accelero-
gram and combining the two cases.
Fig. 13. Comparison of the mean response spectrum of the selected records and
the code spectrum.
Fig. 17. Derivation of the fragility points for a PGA = 0.25 g, from convolution of pdf of limit states and complementary CDF of demand.
providing the program STAC used to perform Monte Carlo [17] OPCM 3274. Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20
simulations. Marzo 2003: Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione
sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni
The financial support of the Reluis Project (Line 10) ‘‘Definition in zona sismica. GU n. 72 del 8-5-2003, with further modifications in OPCM
and development of databases for risk evaluation and emergency 3431. 2005 [in Italian].
management and planning’’ is also acknowledged. [18] Rossetto T. Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of reinforced con-
crete building populations. Ph.D. dissertation. London: Imperial College; 2004.
Finally, the manuscript has benefited from the thorough re- [19] Rubinstein RY. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. New York: Wiley;
views of two anonymous reviewers. 1981.
[20] Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P. Methods for seismic reliability analysis of
References structures. Pavia (Italy): IUSS Press; 2004.
[21] Zárate F, Hurtado J, Oñate E, Rodríguez J. STAC program: Stochastic analysis
[1] Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL. Processing Italian damage data to derive computational tool, CIMNE, Centro Internacional de Métodos Numéricos en
typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earth Eng 2008;28:933–47. la Ingeniería. Barcelona, España: 2002.
[2] RISK-UE. The European risk-Ue project: An advanced approach to earthquake [22] Lagomarsino S, Penna A. A nonlinear model for pushover and dynamic analysis
risk scenarios (2001–2004). 2004. www.risk-ue.net. of masonry buildings. In: Proc. int. conf. computational and experimental
[3] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the engineering and sciences. 2003.
vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng [23] Penna A, Cattari S, Galasco A, Lagomarsino S. Seismic assessment of masonry
2006;4:415–43. structures by nonlinear macro-element analysis. In: Proc. 4th int. seminar
[4] Restrepo-Velez LF, Magenes G. Simplified procedure for the seismic risk SAHC. 2004.
assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. In: Proc. 13th WCEE. 2004. [24] Lagomarsino S, Galasco A, Penna A. Nonlinear macro-element dynamic anal-
Paper No. 2561. ysis of masonry buildings. In: Proc. ECCOMAS conf. computational methods
[5] Magenes G. Masonry building design in seismic areas: Recent experiences in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. 2007.
and prospects from a European standpoint. In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006. [25] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. On dynamic response of masonry panels’.
[6] D’Ayala DF. Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for Gambarotta L, editor. Proc. Nat. Conf. La meccanica delle murature tra teoria
traditional buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2005;3:235–65. e progetto. 1996 [in Italian].
[7] Cattari S, Frumento S, Lagomarsino S, Parodi S, Resemini S. Multi-level proce- [26] Faella G, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Comportamento sperimentale di pannelli
dure for the seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings: The case in muratura di tufo sottoposti ad azioni orizzontali di tipo ciclico. In: Proc. 5th
of Sanremo (north-western italy). In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006. it. conf. earthquake engineering. 1991 [in Italian].
[8] Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method [27] ENV 1998-3 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng — Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings.
2006;4:391–413. [28] Galasco A, Lagomarsino S, Penna A. On the use of pushover analysis for
[9] Bothara JK, Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Khare RK, Maniyar MM. Seismic perfor- existing masonry buildings. In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006. Paper No. 1080.
mance and financial risk of masonry houses. ISET J Earthq Technol 2007; [29] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
44(3–4):421–44. Dyn 2002;31:491–514.
[10] Erberik MA. Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings con- [30] UBC Uniform Building Code. Structural engineering design provisions. In:
sidering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(3):387–405. International conference of building officials, vol. 2. 1997.
[11] Pasticier l, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M. Non-linear seismic analysis and vulner- [31] ENV 1998-1 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
ability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the sap2000 v.10 code. — Part 1: General rules. seismic actions and rules for buildings.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(3):467–85. [32] Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB, Douglas J. The selection and scaling of real earthquake
[12] Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Seismic fragility analysis of accelerograms for use in seismic design and assessment. In: Proc. ACI Int. conf.
low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):125–37. seismic bridge design and retrofit. La Jolla(California): American Concrete
[13] Galasco A, Lagomarsino S, Penna A. TREMURI program: Seismic analyses of 3d Institute; 2003.
masonry buildings. Italy: University of Genoa; 2009. [33] Dall’Ara A, Lai CG, Strobbia C. Selection of spectrum-compatible real accelero-
[14] Penna A. A macro-element procedure for the non-linear dynamic analysis grams for seismic response analyses of soil deposits. In: Proc. 1st ECEES. 2006.
of masonry buildings. Ph.D. dissertation. Italy: Politecnico di Milano; 2002 Paper No. 1240.
[in Italian]. [34] Bommer J, Acevedo AB. On the use of real earthquake accelerograms as input
[15] Tomaževic̆ M, Klemenc I. Seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls. Earthq to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 2004;8(Special Issue 1):43–91.
Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:1059–71. [35] FEMA. HAZUS earthquakes loss estimation methodology. Washington: US
[16] Tomaževic̆ M. In: Bernardini A, editor. Seismic damage to masonry buildings. federal emergency management agency; 1999.
Correlation between damage and seismic resistance of masonry walls and [36] Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Seismic reliability of RC frames
buildings. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1999. with uncertain drift and member capacity. ASCE J Struct Eng 1999;1038–47.