Non linear static analysis of masonry structures Simplified equivalent frames and accurate models

R. Sabatino & G. Rizzano

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno Via Ponte Don Melillo, 84084 Fisciano (SA) - Italy

ABSTRACT The achievement of performance-based earthquake engineering for the seismic assessment of buildings has lead to the application of a number of non-linear static procedures. Different strategies of modelling have been adopted for masonry structures; nevertheless, due to the complex non-linear behaviour of masonry panels, the choice of the appropriate model is a matter of paramount importance, as many aspects must be taken into account in order to achieve a balance among the complexity of the model itself, the computational effort and the accuracy of the obtained results. Within this framework, the equivalent frame model, despite its strong simplifications, can be considered as an effective way to predict the structural response of masonry structures, provided that the main issues of this method are carefully investigated. This paper deals with the elaboration of the software FREMA, purposely developed by the authors, aimed at predicting the force-displacement curves of masonry walls subject to in-plane forces, modelled by means of equivalent frames. The computer program herein proposed has been validated by means of a comparison with experimental and numerical results available in literature. Keywords: Masonry walls, Finite Elements, Equivalent Frames, Non-linear static analyses, Pushover Curve

1. INTRODUCTION The adoption of performance-based earthquake engineering concepts has lead to the application of a number of non-linear static procedures in the seismic assessment of buildings - the coefficient method (ASCE, 2000), the capacity spectrum method (ATC, 1996; Freeman, 1998), the N2 method (Fajfar, 1988) - which generally require the comparison of the seismic demand with the building capacity in terms of displacements. This comparison can be achieved by substituting the actual building response with an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator (Shibata, 1976). The definition of the displacement capacity can be achieved by means of a non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis) by subjecting the structure to a distribution of increasing lateral loads (describing the seismic forces). As far as masonry structures are concerned, this can be achieved in several ways. A first approach is represented by the finite elements method: the masonry constitutive elements (units, mortar) are discretized into a certain number of finite elements; suitable constitutive non-linear laws are adopted and the model can thus be a very powerful analysis tool. At the same time its drawbacks are represented by the high computational effort, which can make its adoption unsustainable for professional practice, and by some issues like the potential mesh-dependency and the somehow difficult calibration of the input parameters. A second approach is based on the adoption of equivalent frames, a model very common to structural engineers. The structure is described by an assemblage of vertical and horizontal elements: the first ones (piers) are the vertical resistant elements for both dead loads and seismic forces; the horizontal ones (spandrels) are secondary elements able to couple the piers in case of seismic loads. Piers and spandrels are connected by means of rigid offsets and each element is modelled by proper constitutive laws in order to take into account mechanical non-linearity. This approach introduces strong simplifications, and hence its accuracy clearly depends on the consistency between the adopted

hypotheses and the actual structural problem. From these preliminary remarks it is clear that, in order to deal with a large stock of buildings (for instance as in the case of the vulnerability assessment of existing buildings), the adoption of FEM models becomes unsustainable from the practical point of view and the equivalent frame model can be an effective tool if its main issues are carefully taken into account. This paper makes a contribution to the seismic analysis of masonry buildings by proposing the software FREMA - Frame Equivalent Masonry Analysis - (Rizzano & Sabatino, 2010), purposely developed by the authors, devoted to the non-linear static analysis of masonry walls undergoing both dead and seismic loads.

2. THE COMPUTER CODE FREMA 2.1. Main features of the proposed model The equivalent frame approach is not novel for the analysis of masonry structures (Tomazevic, 1978; Magenes & Della Fontana, 1998; Penelis, 2006; Roca et al., 2005), but its actual potentialities have not yet been extensively studied, particularly for non-linear applications. In the following, a brief description of the main assumptions of the proposed model is given. The model is able to describe any kind of masonry walls undergoing in-plane loads. If the geometry of a given masonry wall is sufficiently regular, especially with regard to openings distribution and piers alignment, a multi-storey masonry wall can thus be idealized by an equivalent frame made up by piers, spandrels and rigid offsets. In the current state of the model development, the rigid offsets extension follows the proposal made by (Dolce, 1991). The analysis is performed under displacement control, as this is the only effective way to predict the complete force vs. displacement curve (pushover curve) of the whole wall, as requested by the nonlinear static procedures previously cited. An important feature of the proposed model is represented by the spread plasticity approach. In literature mechanical non-linearity has been traditionally modelled considering rotational springs located at the end of piers and shear springs located at the mid-span of spandrels. In this work, a different approach is adopted: every structural element (pier or spandrel) is discretized into a certain number of slices, and each slice is modelled in terms of moment-rotation and shear-displacement curve. In this way, by properly combining the contributions of each slice (depending on the actual state of stress) the overall behaviour of the whole element is thus derived.
d
D

N M

N M
D

()

()

Figure 2.1. Compressive stress-strain law. Uncracked and cracked masonry panel cross-section.

2.2. Constitutive laws of piers The flexural behaviour of piers has been expressed in terms of a moment-curvature law starting from the generalized uniaxial compressive stress-strain relationship:

= A + B d d d

(2.1)

where is the compressive stress corresponding to the strain and d is the maximum uniaxial masonry compressive strength corresponding to the maximum strain d, A, B and C are shape coefficients depending on the actual stress-strain relationship. In this paper the values A=2, B=-1, C=2 (Hendry, 1998) have been adopted. The relations between the bending moment M, the axial force N and the curvature have been obtained (Fusier, 1993) for a masonry panel of thickness t and length D considering the well-known equilibrium (Fig. 2.1) and deformation compatibility equations, leading to two different sets of equations for uncracked and cracked section (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. Moment-curvature relationships for cracked and uncracked section

= k1 ( 2 1) + k2 C +1 ( 1)

Uncracked section

C +1

(2.2)

C + 1 C +2 1 + k2 C +1 ( 1) C +1 + k2 ( 1) C + 2 C+2 2

2 3 1 = k1 ( 2 1) + k1 3 ( 1) + 2 3

(2.3)

Cracked section

= k1 2 + k2 C +1
= k1 2 + k1 3 + k2 C +1 + k2 C +2 C+2 2 3 2
1 2 1 C +1

(2.4) (2.5)

In Eqn 2.2-2.5 =x/D is the normalised neutral axis, =N/Dtd is the normalised axial stress, =M/Dt2d is the normalised bending moment and k1 and k2 are two coefficients depending on the curvature :

B D A D k1 = ; k2 = C +1 d 2 d

(2.6)

The shear behaviour of piers has been modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic, with the ultimate shear given by the relation (for brick masonry piers):

Vu = Dt u with u = min( s ; ws ; b )

(2.7)

where s is the shear stress corresponding to failure with sliding along bed joints (Magenes & Calvi, 1997), ws and b are the shear stresses related to failure with diagonal cracking, due either to the head joint collapse or to the brick failure respectively (Mann & Mller, 1980), see Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Shear stresses corresponding to piers shear failure mechanisms Sliding along bed joints

s =

Diagonal cracking, head joints collapse

ws

1.5c + p c 1+ 3 v p c + p = 1+ v
f bt p 1+ 2.3(1 + v ) f bt

(2.8)

(2.9) (2.10)

Diagonal cracking, bricks collapse

s =

For irregular masonry piers, where no regular brick pattern can be found, the ultimate shear of piers have been computed according to (Turnsek & Cacovic, 1970; Turnsek & Sheppard 1980). In Eqn. (2.8)-(2.10) c is the cohesion, the friction coefficient, p the average compressive stress, v=M/VN the shear coefficient, fbt the brick tensile strength. The shear collapse corresponds to the attainment of the ultimate drift u=0.4% of the deformable height of the pier, according to the Italian Building Code (M.I.T., 2008). 2.2. Constitutive laws of spandrels The flexural behaviour of spandrels is a major issue in equivalent frame models. Spandrels, in fact, play a fundamental role in the overall behaviour of the frame for the coupling effect between piers (and then for the piers boundary conditions). Considering that crushing and sliding failure cannot occur in spandrels (Cattari & Lagomarsino, 2008), in this work two failure mechanisms have been taken into account, namely rocking and diagonal cracking. As far as rocking is concerned, a constitutive elastic-perfectly plastic law has been considered. According to the Italian Building Code (M.I.T., 2008) two different cases can occur, see Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Spandrels rocking resistance criteria according to Italian Building Code 1. (The axial force N acting on the spandrels in known) Spandrels can be regarded as 90-rotated piers. Nh N 1 Mu = h is the spandrel height, t the spandrel thickness, =0.85 for 2 f d ht rectangular stress block distribution, fd is the compressive strength of masonry in vertical direction. 2. (The axial force N acting on the spandrels is not known) Hp is the lesser between the tensile strength of a resistant H ph Hp 1 Mu = element (such as a r.c. ring beam or a tie rod) and 0.4fhdht, f ht 2 where fhd is the compressive strength of masonry in horizontal hd direction.

(2.11)

(2.12)

It is worth observing that, if no tensile-resistant element is present, spandrels have no rocking resistance, according to Eqn. 2.12. This is a very conservative hypothesis, and can lead to a strong underestimation of the actual strength of the wall. Conversely, Eqn. 2.11 still gives a very low spandrel rocking resistance, due to the moderate values of axial force generally acting on spandrels. In this model, in order to better predict spandrels strength, a further model has been taken into account, first developed by (Kasten & Schubert, 1985; Schubert & Weschke, 1986) and then applied by (Cattari & Lagomarsino, 2008) on a series of numerical simulations. This model, which can be applied only to brick masonry, assumes that interlocking phenomena between bed and collar joints at the interface between piers and spandrels can define an equivalent strut provided with an equivalent tensile strength ftu given by:

f c + p f tu = min bt ; 2

(2.13)

being fbt the brick tensile strength, c the cohesion, the friction coefficient, p the average compressive strength acting on the spandrel (which has been taken as the 65% of the average compressive stress acting on the adjacent piers), = 2y/ x (where x and y are the brick dimensions). The introduction of a spandrel constitutive law, provided with both strength in tension and compression, defines a new flexural resistance domain (Cattari & Lagomarsino, 2008), which has been introduced in the code FREMA. In this way, the proposed model is able to consider, for spandrel flexural behaviour, both the Italian Building Code provisions and the above described model. As it will be seen, a suitable model for the spandrel behaviour has a striking influence on the overall behaviour of masonry walls. As far as diagonal cracking is concerned, spandrels have been modelled as elastic with a brittle failure at the attainment of the ultimate shear strength Vu and with a residual strength of Vu (in the following

analyses, the value =0.25 has been adopted) with:

Vu = f vd 0 ht
where fvd0 is the shear resistance of the spandrel.

(2.14)

3. PRELIMINARY VALIDATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL The code herein proposed has been preliminarily validated by means of an extensive comparison with experimental results and accurate FEM simulations available in literature. A first comparison has been performed between the FREMA model and a very detailed experimental test, performed by (Calvi & Magenes, 1994) at the University of Pavia, Italy (Fig 3.1a). A full scale, two-storey masonry building prototype, having a plan of 6.00 x 4.40 m, has been tested by first imposing vertical constant loads to the floors (total loads: 248.8 kN at first floor and 236.8 kN at second floor) and then applying imposed cyclic displacements at floor levels, in order to achieve a uniform load pattern (i.e. a distribution of forces proportional to the seismic weights of the structure). The building prototype contains an almost independent shear wall in-plane loaded (hereafter referred to as Pavia Door Wall), which has been modelled by means of the FREMA code. The material properties (Calderini et al., 2009; Calvi & Magenes, 1994; Magenes et al., 1995) adopted for the equivalent frame analysis are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Mechanical parameters adopted for the numerical simulations Pavia Door Wall Masonry Young modulus Shear modulus Compressive strength Shear Strength Brick Units Tensile Strength Aspect ratio Mortar joints Cohesion Friction coefficient E G fwc fvd0 fbt c [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] 1400 480 6.20 0.18 1.22 4:1 0.23 0.58 Via Martoglio Wall 1600 300 6.00 0.16 1.00 0.15 0.50 Via Verdi Walls (A, B, D) 1500 250 2.40 0.13 2.00 0.20 0.50

Fig. 3.1b depicts the comparison between the monotonic envelope of the experimental test, the prediction of the FREMA code, and the predictions provided by the equivalent frame model proposed by (Magenes et al., 2000) - i.e. the SAM code the Tremuri software (Galasco et al., 2002) and the FEM accurate model proposed by (Calderini et al. 2009). In Fig. 3.1b is also depicted the prediction of the FREMA code considering, for the spandrels, the model proposed by the Italian Building Code (Eqn. 2.11). It is clear from the comparison that the cautionary approach proposed by Eqn. 2.11 can lead to a very conservative prediction of the behaviour of the wall; hence it is fundamental to provide spandrels with a correct model. On top of that, the comparison clearly shows a satisfactory agreement between the proposed model, the experimental result and the predictions provided by the other models. It is worth stressing that the slight strength overestimation, common to all depicted models, can be explained considering that the experimental curve has been obtained as the monotonic envelope of the cyclic test, hence it represents the lower bound of the actual monotonic response. Fig. 3.2 depicts (a) the experimental damage pattern compared with (b) the pattern predicted by the FREMA model and (c) by Tremuri software.

180 160 140 total base shear [kN] 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 0.3
Experimental FREMA SAM Tremuri Italian Building Code Calderini et al.

a)

b)

0.5 0.8 1.0 top displacement [cm]

1.3

1.5

Figure 3.1. a) Pavia Door Wall Testing Scheme; b) Total base shear vs. top displacement curves

uncompressed element diagonal cracking failure

a)

b)

c)

Figure 3.2. Damage pattern: a) experimental test, b) FREMA, c) Tremuri

The proposed model is consistent with the experimental pattern, in particular it can be observed that the two external piers of the first floor collapse according to two different mechanisms, due to the different axial forces acting on the piers during the load process (the left pier collapse is due to bending, while the collapse of the right one is due to diagonal cracking). A further validation of the model has been obtained by considering the results of the so-called Catania-Project (Liberatore, 2000), a nationwide Italian research project aimed at evaluating the seismic response of two existing masonry buildings. Such buildings were analyzed by several Italian Universities, providing a wide database of numerical data. The different Research Groups (hereafter referred to as R.G.) involved in the project were the Pavia R.G., adopting the SAM code, the Genoa R.G., which used an accurate FEM model (Gambarotta & Lagomarsino, 1997), and the Basilicata R.G., adopting a no-tensile strength macro-element model with shear failure and crushing control (Braga & Liberatore, 1990). The first analyzed wall, the so-called Via Martoglio wall, has been extracted from a five-storey building; further details can be found in (Liberatore, 2000; Rizzano & Sabatino 2010). The material properties adopted for the analysis are summarized in Table 3.1. The comparison between the results provided by the different R.G. and the prediction of the FREMA is depicted in Fig. 3.3a. The comparison shows a good agreement between the proposed model and the others in terms of initial stiffness; a very good agreement with the SAM code and with the Genoa R.G. in terms of residual strength can be found, as well. Within the framework of the Catania project, three more walls extracted from the second building (the Via Verdi building) have been analyzed. The three walls (Wall A, Wall B, Wall D), characterized by very different geometrical features, have been modelled considering the material properties summarized in Table 3.3. For Walls A and D the predictions of an equivalent frame model developed with SAP2000 V.10 (Pasticier et al., 2008) are also shown. The results provided by the FREMA model agree well with the other numerical simulations, both in terms of initial stiffness and of ultimate displacements.

1200

1800 1600

1000
1400

total base shear [kN]

Total Base Shear [kN]

800

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Basilicata R.G. Genoa R.G. SAM Pasticier - SPO2 FREMA

600

400
SAM Genoa R.G. FREMA

200

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
top displacement [cm]

0.5

1.5

2.5

a)

b)

top displacement [cm]

Figure 3.3. Overall total base shear top displacement curves. a) Via Martoglio Wall; b) Via Verdi Wall A
225 200 175 500 Total Base Shear [kN] Total Base Shear [kN] 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
top displacement [cm]
Basilicata R.G. SAM FREMA

700 600

400 300 200 100 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

top displacement [cm]
Basilicata R.G. Genoa R.G. SAM Pasticier - SPO1 FREMA

a) b) Figure 3.4. Overall total base shear top displacement curves. a) Via Verdi Wall B; b) Via Verdi Wall D

CONCLUSIONS In this paper, the computer code FREMA has been presented. The code is able to perform pushover analyses of in-plane loaded masonry walls. The main features of the adopted model, in particular with regard to piers and spandrels, have been briefly illustrated. A preliminary validation of the code has been carried out; a satisfactory agreement between the proposed model and both experimental and numerical results has been found.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Mr. G. Torello for the contribution given to the development of the code FREMA as part of his graduation thesis. REFERENCES ASCE (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, American Society of Civil Engineers: Washington D.C., United States. ATC (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC-40 Report, American Technical Council: Redwod City, United States. Braga, F., Liberatore, D. (1990). A finite element for the analysis of the response of masonry buildings, Proceeding of the 5th North American Masonry Conference, Urbana, United States. Calderini, C., Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S. (2009). In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38, 243-267. Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G. (1994). Experimental research on response of URM building system, in D. P. Abrams, G. M. Calvi eds., Proc. U.S. - Italy workshop on guidelines for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings, State University of New York at Buffalo, NCEER-940021, 3-41/57, Pavia, Italy. Cattari, S., and Lagomarsino, S. (2008). A strength criterion for the flexural behaviour of spandrels in un-

reinforced masonry walls, Proc. of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China. Dolce, M.(1991). Schematizzazione e modellazione degli edifici in muratura soggetti ad azioni sismiche (Modelling of masonry buildings under seismic loads), LIndustria delle Costruzioni, 242, 44-57, (in Italian). Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M. (1988). N2 - A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings, 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto, Japan. Freeman, S.A. (1998). The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design, 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France. Fusier, F., Vignoli, A (1993). Analisi della capacit portante ultima di pareti murarie pressoinflesse (Analysis of the ultimate bearing capacity of masonry walls subject to bending and axial forces), Ingegneria Sismica, 10:2, 22-31, (In Italian). Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., and Penna, A. (2002). TREMURI Program: Seismic Analyser of 3D Masonry Bulidings, University of Genoa, Italy. Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. (1997). Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II: the continuum model and its application. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26:4, 441-462. Hendry, A. W. (1998). Structural Masonry (2nd Ed.), New York: Macmillan. Kasten, D., Schubert P. (1985). Verblendschalen aus Kalksandsteinen: Beanspruchung, rissfreie Wndlange, Hinweise zur Ausfhrung, Bautechnik, 3, 86-94 (in German). Liberatore, D. (2000). Progetto Catania: Indagine sulla risposta sismica di due edifici in muratura (Project Catania: Investigation on the seismic response of two masonry buildings). GNDT National Group for Seismic Protection: Rome, (in Italian). Magenes, G., Bolognini, D., Braggio, C. (2000). Metodi semplificati per lanalisi sismica non lineare di edifici in muratura (Simplified Methods for the non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings), GNDT National Group for Seismic Protection: Rome, Italy, (in Italian). Magenes, G., Calvi, G. M. (1997). In-plane seismic response of brick-masonry walls, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1091-1112. Magenes, G., Calvi, G. M., Kingsley, G. R. (1995). Seismic Testing of a Full-Scale, Two-Story Masonry Building: Test Procedure and Measured Experimental Response, in Experimental and Numerical Investigation on a brick Masonry Building Prototype Numerical Prediction of the Experiment, Report 3.0 G.N.D.T., Pavia, Italy. Magenes, G., Della Fontana, A. (1998). Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings, 5th International Masonry Conference, Proc. of the British Masonry Society, 8, 190-195. Mann, W., Mller, H. (1980). Failure of shear stressed masonry An enlarged theory, tests and application to shear-walls, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Load-Bering Brickwork, London, UK. M.I.T. (2008). D.M. 14.01.2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, Ministero Infrastrutture e Trasporti: Rome, Italy, (in Italian). Pasticier, L., Amadio, C., Fragiacomo, M. (2008). Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 v.10 Code, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37, 467-485. Penelis, G. (2006). An efficient approach for pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10:3, 359-379. Rizzano, G., Sabatino, R. (2010). Non-linear Static Analysis of Masonry Structures by means of Equivalent Frames Simplified Approach, 8th International Masonry Conference, Dresden, Germany (accepted for publication). Roca, P., Molins, C., and Mar, A. R. (2005). Strength Capacity of Masonry Wall Structures by the Equivalent Frame Method, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131:10, 1601-1610. Schubert, P., Weschke, K. (1986). Verformung und Risssicherheit von Mauerwerk, Mauerwerk-Kalender, Ernst & Sohn Ed., 145-159, Berlin, Germany, Shibata, A., Sozen, M.A. (1976). Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 102:1, 1-18. Tomazevic, M.(1978). The computer program POR, Report ZMRK, Institute for Testing and Research in Materials and Structures, Ljubljiana, Slovenia, 1978. Turnsek, V., Cacovic, F. (1970). Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls, Proceedings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke on Trent, UK. Turnsek, V., Sheppard, P. (1980). The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls, Proceedings of the International Research Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, Macedonia.