Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings U
Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings U
Abstract: This paper presents research concerning the numerical simulation of existing masonry
buildings when subjected to pushover analysis. A nonlinear static analysis is undertaken using the
commercial software ABAQUS standard, in which masonry structures are modelled using damage
mechanics. To validate the chosen input parameters, this study compares two different approaches
for static nonlinear modelling, the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Equivalent Frame Method
(EFM), for a simple masonry building. The two methods are compared using the guidelines from
Part 3 of Eurocode 8. This study identifies the advantages and disadvantages of various modelling
approaches based on the results obtained. The results are also compared in terms of capacity curves
and damage distributions for the simple case study of a masonry building created to compare nu-
merical methods. Subsequently, nonlinear pushover analyses with ABAQUS (FEM) were performed
on the North Tower of Monserrate Palace, Portugal, in which the material parameters were cali-
brated by considering the results of dynamic characterisation tests conducted in-situ. Regarding the
circular body of Monserrate Palace, the damage distribution of the structure is analysed in detail,
aiming to contribute to the modelling of such structural configurations through the Equivalent
Frame Method.
Keywords: numerical nonlinear analysis; pushover seismic assessment; damage mechanics; existing
masonry buildings; dynamic characterisation
Citation: Gonçalves, M.; Ponte, M.;
Bento, R. Seismic Assessment of
Existing Masonry Buildings Using
Damage Mechanics. Buildings 2024, 1. Introduction
14, 2395. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Not only in underdeveloped countries but also in industrialised nations, the masonry
buildings14082395
construction typology is extensively employed in construction practices and makes up a
Academic Editor: Nerio Tullini sizeable share of the stock of residential and commercial buildings. According to [1], the
Received: 24 June 2024
percentage of masonry buildings in some Asian countries is around 90%, in South Amer-
Revised: 24 July 2024
ica it is around 70%, and in some countries in Europe it passes the mark of 60%. However,
Accepted: 30 July 2024 masonry has been losing market share globally despite being a sustainable construction
Published: 2 August 2024 choice due to its thermal and acoustic efficiency, fire resistance, durability, and simple
construction technology. The primary cause of this is the emergence of new, less vulner-
able options for low- to medium-rise structures, including steel and reinforced concrete,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
which are less susceptible to earthquakes than masonry structures in seismic zones. Even
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. so, masonry construction is still widely used in areas susceptible to earthquakes [2].
This article is an open access article Portugal, a country with a medium to high seismic hazard, is now facing a housing
distributed under the terms and crisis due to the significant influx of people into large cities [3]. With the rising cost and
conditions of the Creative Commons reduced construction of new properties, there has been a growth in the rehabilitation of
Attribution (CC BY) license existing buildings, typically masonry structures. Standardisation and the growing eco-
(https://creativecommons.org/license nomic interest in this activity resulted in the publication of Decree-Law No. 95/2019,
s/by/4.0/). which introduced significant changes, including repealing national structural regulations
in favour of the Structural Eurocodes and the imposition of seismic vulnerability reports
for rehabilitation interventions.
A large part of the built masonry stock is composed of old structures with enormous
walls of weak bricks or stones, weak mortar, and weak connections between orthogonal
walls and floors. Because of these characteristics and the common presence of flexible di-
aphragms that are only sporadically attached to walls, old masonry structures typically
exhibit localised out-of-plane damage mechanisms [4]. Unlike ancient masonry buildings,
modern structures have limited wall thicknesses and a regular brick-masonry layout. In-
dependently of the type of masonry, it is necessary to guarantee strong floor-to-wall con-
nections and rigid floors in order to ensure that box behaviour is used to accomplish the
global seismic response [5].
Existing structures in seismic regions, especially those with a high level of anticipated
seismic risk, are increasingly required to undergo seismic assessment. Due to their low
tensile strength, low ductility, and limited energy dissipation capacity, unreinforced ma-
sonry structures have a significant seismic susceptibility, as demonstrated by previous
seismic occurrences [6]. The building structures have a comparatively poor level of seismic
safety compared to the requirements of the current standard earthquake engineering prac-
tice.
The significant seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings is also a result of the ab-
sence of seismic design guidelines, as these structures were frequently created primarily
for vertical loads. Research studies have been conducted to enhance masonry structural
systems under seismic actions and develop guidelines and tools for their seismic design
[7,8]. However, experimental tests are costly and time-consuming. Therefore, different nu-
merical approaches have been developed to represent the complex behaviour of masonry
structures and perform advanced computational nonlinear analyses.
It is well-recognised that nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most accurate method for
simulating and evaluating a structure’s seismic reaction. However, because of the intri-
cacy of its use in engineering practice, it necessitates a high level of expertise, a significant
investment in computational time, and a high calibration cost for the cyclic constitutive
laws. The seismic input employed in the dynamic analysis significantly impacts the re-
sponse of structures. Moreover, the absence of uniform verification protocols makes it
challenging to assess a building’s seismic reaction based solely on dynamic analysis re-
sults. However, because the material response is significantly nonlinear, regardless of the
low amount of loading, linear elastic analysis does not accurately describe the behaviour
of a masonry construction. Consequently, nonlinear static (pushover) analysis has been
frequently chosen for the seismic design and assessment of structures.
In earthquake engineering, pushover analysis is a widely used method and one of
the most adequate instruments for determining the seismic safety of any structure, new
or old. It must be implemented correctly and adhere to several requirements. Numerous
methods exist for implementing and applying pushover analysis, considering factors like
force versus displacement control, different load patterns, higher mode inclusion, and
adaptive load patterns. As a result, the parameters selected directly impact the outcomes.
The type of lateral load applied, whether a force or a displacement, is crucial to the accu-
racy of pushover techniques [9]. The goal is to determine a capacity curve that most closely
resembles the seismic behaviour of the structure.
Many practices follow the general method of considering a pushover analysis fin-
ished if a capacity curve is established to consider the capacity up until a minimum 20%
reduction in the maximum obtained base shear. An alternative strategy is to consider the
point at which a single pier or a subset of piers reach certain drift thresholds and then
activate a soft-storey mechanism in a wall/level. When performing pushover analysis,
nonlinear static procedures are the most practical way to determine the target displace-
ment of structures (i.e., the maximum inelastic displacement requirement corresponding
to a particular level of seismic activity).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 3 of 22
Nevertheless, the methods are mostly suitable for standard buildings, and their re-
sponse does not account for higher mode impacts. Included in the Eurocode 8 [10], the N2
technique [11] is a nonlinear static procedure that produces findings acceptable for steel-
framed and reinforced concrete structures, often categorised as medium- to high-period
structures. Concerns have been raised about the method’s capacity to estimate findings
for short-period masonry constructions accurately [12]. The fundamental nonlinear static
procedure assumes that a building experiences gradual, monotonic lateral loading, which
changes the building’s displacement response. Moreover, a nonlinear static procedure
transforms a multi-degree-of-freedom structure into a single-degree-of-freedom system,
in which the primary translational mode shape alone determines the dynamic behaviour.
Using sophisticated and precise methods [13] is essential when considering that
many built-stock structures are part of the historical and architectural legacy [14,15]. This
essay’s subjects are masonry towers, regular bell towers, fortifications, and chimneys.
Nonetheless, by considering the commonalities and the universal method of pushover
analysis implementation, practitioners can apply many of the treated elements of numer-
ical techniques to a wide variety of structural typologies.
Masonry towers are extremely unusual structural typologies, and like all historical
masonry projects, they are usually designed to support only vertical loads [16,17]. There-
fore, they are anticipated to be highly vulnerable to seismic events, and special consider-
ation should be given to their seismic assessment in the context of a preservation strategy.
The two primary factors contributing to the anticipated high susceptibility are the poor
mechanical qualities of the masonry material under strain and the geometric characteris-
tics, such as apertures, imperfections, and slenderness.
Estimating the uncertain factors (material properties and boundary conditions) influ-
encing the structural behaviour is crucial, regardless of the analytical methodology em-
ployed [18]. To identify the seismic vulnerabilities in a historical structure, a multidisci-
plinary approach using cutting-edge research and simulations is often advised [19–21]. A
thorough approach to seismic safety would involve progressing from sophisticated nu-
merical models, including in-plane and out-of-plane local studies, to diagnostic examina-
tions.
As previously discussed, at the moment, the use of nonlinear analysis to perform
structural design is gaining popularity among structural designers. The possibility of us-
ing several different structural software packages (ABAQUS [22], ADINA [23], ANSYS
[24], ATENA [25], DIANA [26], 3DEC [27], 3Muri [28], HiSTrA [29]) and a set of structural
design guidelines [30,31] supports extra confidence in their use by structural engineers.
The use of nonlinear analysis is not intended to solve simply supported beams but com-
plex structures with unknown stress distributions, which are found in the case of masonry
buildings [32].
The abovementioned software systems use three methodologies to perform nonlin-
ear analyses, classified as macro-, simplified, and detailed micro-modelling, as discussed
by several authors in the literature [33–35]. In macro-modelling, masonry is represented
as a homogeneous continuous medium without differentiation between the units, making
it highly attractive due to its lower computational requirements. Simplified micro-model-
ling defines masonry units but excludes mortar joints by lumping them in discontinuous
elements. This method leads to a good compromise between computational effort and
accuracy. On the other hand, detailed micro-modelling considers the definition of all ma-
sonry elements (units, mortar, and unit–mortar interfaces), which leads to a high compu-
tational load for large-scale structures. A very widely used macro-modelling approach in
masonry structures is the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) because of its simplicity in
terms of input requirements and very low computational consumption. The method was
developed specifically to represent masonry behaviour; however, due to its simplicity, it
is limited in terms of representing irregular geometries, such as curved surfaces, and only
analyses in-plane behaviour. Even so, this method has been applied to large-scale histor-
ical masonry structures with overall good results [36–38]. Within the macro-modelling
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 4 of 22
Even though some works have already been carried out, applying nonlinear static
analysis for existing heritage masonry buildings and considering out-of-plane mecha-
nisms and circular façades still requires more development towards defining simplified
methods that are attractive to practitioners. This work planned to fill this knowledge gap
by providing outputs with the ABAQUS standard, which offers a wide range of modelling
tools for simulating the nonlinearity of masonry buildings. The numerical simulations ob-
tained some important information on the seismic assessment of masonry towers. There-
fore, structural designers can readily apply the discoveries presented here for more real-
istic and accurate outcomes.
compressive strength, the average shear strength without axial action, and the safety fac-
tor. Following Part 3 of Eurocode 8, a knowledge level factor of 1.2 was used. During non-
linear static analysis, materials undergo cracking and stiffness loss. Therefore, the Young’s
modulus was reduced by 50% in the EFM model. The roof was also modelled as a hori-
zontal timber floor, but its weight was applied with linear loads at the top-floor external
walls supporting the roof timber structure. The material properties for the timber were
defined as pine, according to LNEC’s N2 Datasheet [51], with an average density of 580
kg/m3, a mean Young’s modulus (𝐸𝐸) = 12,000 MPa, a mean shear modulus (𝐺𝐺) = 750
MPa, and a mean tensile strength parallel to the fibres (𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 ) = 18 MPa. The floor-structure
equivalent shear modulus was calculated according to New Zealand norms (NZSEE-2006)
and the experimental tests performed by Giongo et al. (2014) [52], resulting in a 𝐺𝐺𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 11
MPa.
𝜸𝜸𝒎𝒎 [Safety
𝑬𝑬 [GPa] 𝑮𝑮 [MPa] 𝒘𝒘 [kN/m3] 𝒇𝒇𝒎𝒎 [MPa] 𝛕𝛕 [MPa]
Factor]
Stone masonry 1 0.33 19 2.0 0.017 1.5
Brick masonry 1.2 0.40 18 2.6 0.138 1.5
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Figure 2. Modelling in ABAQUS: (a) floors; (b) interior walls; (c) exterior walls; (d) 3D model; (e) FE
model with tetrahedral mesh.
damage was applied for one model with both compressive and tensile damage set to a
maximum of 0.7.
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Constitutive relation for (a) compressive and (b) tensile behaviour (retrieved from [36]).
Table 2. Mechanical properties for the stone and brick masonry used in ABAQUS.
2.2.4. Loads
Two types of load distribution were applied (see Figure 4): a uniform load propor-
tional to the mass and a pseudo-triangular load, usually associated with equivalent hori-
zontal static forces, where it is assumed that, during an earthquake, higher floors present
higher acceleration.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Applied forces (in yellow): (a) horizontal uniform mass load (b) and triangular mass load
with ABAQUS.
need to balance the accuracy of the results and reasonable time-consuming analyses in
such large models.
The finite element model used in this study did not include contact elements.
Figure 5. Top floor view of the deformed shape for the first vibration mode in the X and Y direc-
tions.
800
3Muri Uniform −X
700 Abaqus Uniform −X (d=0)
Abaqus Uniform −X (d=0.7)
600 3Muri Triangular +Y
Abaqus Triangular +Y (d=0)
Basal Force [kN]
500
Abaqus Triangular +Y (d=0.7)
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement [cm]
Additionally, there was a notable variation in the capacity for deformation of the
structure, with higher values in ABAQUS in the Y direction. This discrepancy occurred
primarily because, in 3Muri, the damage was concentrated on a single floor F, whereas in
ABAQUS the damage was distributed along the height of the walls in the Y direction, as
is discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.4. The differing behaviour in terms of capacity of
deformation observed in the X direction was influenced by the higher stiffness values in
ABAQUS; this difference would nearly disappear if the Young’s modulus of the masonry
walls were reduced in this software. In the ABAQUS curves, both with and without the d
variable, only minor differences were observed due to some convergence errors in both
cases. However, in the X direction, the case with damage showed a significant decrease,
explained by the materials’ different capacities for redistributing loads.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 11 of 22
Shear Failure
Figure 7. Damage in 3Muri with a uniform −X load distribution: main façade; back façade; interior
wall.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8. Damage in ABAQUS with a uniform −X distribution for the main façade, back façade, and
interior wall: (a) plastic deformation; (b) compressive damage; and (c) tensile damage.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 12 of 22
Shear Failure
Figure 9. Damage in 3Muri with a triangular +Y distribution: main façade; secondary façade; inner
wall.
(a)
(b)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 13 of 22
(c)
Figure 10. Damage in ABAQUS with a uniform +Y distribution for the main façade, back façade,
and interior wall: (a) plastic deformation; (b) compressive damage; and (c) tensile damage.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000 Type I
Type 2
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
−X (3muri) −X (Abaqus) −X (d=0.70) Y (3muri) Y (Abaqus) Y (d=0.70)
(a)
Entrance Tower Connection
(b)
Ground floor First floor Second floor
(c)
First floor Second floor Roof
Table 5. Experimental and numerical fundamental frequencies obtained with ARTeMIS and
ABAQUS, respectively.
2500
Uniforme X
Triangular X
Uniforme −X
2000 Triangular −X
Uniforme Y
Triangular Y
Basal Force [kN]
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement [cm]
Figure 15. Capacity curves of the Palace for both types of loads in the X and Y directions.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 16. Equivalent plastic strains (PEEQs) for the triangular distribution −X direction for (a) south
and (b) north views; the +X direction for (c) south and (d) north views; and the +Y direction for (e)
east and (f) west views.
4. Conclusions
The first part of the study compares two modelling approaches in modelling a hypo-
thetical masonry structure: the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) and the Finite Element
Method (FEM). The main conclusions regarding the approaches are as follows:
The EFM demonstrated simplicity and efficiency in the modelling process, with tools
facilitating the import of plans from other software. 3Muri stands out for its ability to
independently perform modal and nonlinear analyses;
Only 3Muri’s model (EFM) underwent the safety verification process, taking only a
few minutes to analyse all directions;
ABAQUS (FEM) showcased its ability to model a complex geometry. However, even
with imports from BIM models, it was less efficient than the other two software pack-
ages and took around a week to complete a nonlinear analysis;
ABAQUS (FEM) faced challenges in defining loads on flexible floors or masses rep-
resenting nonstructural elements, which 3Muri could easily handle;
ABAQUS (FEM) requires the definition of many variables to describe masonry be-
haviour when subjected to compression and tension, which are usually unknown. In
3Muri (EFM), this problem does not arise, thanks to its effective handling of material
inputs, as defined in the Italian norm [50];
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 19 of 22
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.B.; Methodology, R.B.; Software, M.G.; Validation, M.P.
and R.B.; Experimental Tests, M.P. and M.G.; Investigation, M.G., M.P. and R.B.; Writing—original
draft M.G.; Writing—review and editing, M.P. and R.B.; Supervision, M.P. and R.B. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by FCT, Portugal’s National Funding Agency for Science, Research,
and Technology, through the SFRH/BD/145571/2019 doctoral grant and the UIDB/04625/2020 grant
from the CERIS research unit. The authors are grateful for the Foundation for Science and Technol-
ogy's support through funding UIDB/04625/2020 from the research unit CERIS
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04625/2020).
Data Availability Statement: Data may become available upon substantiated request.
Acknowledgments: Special thanks to Eng. Francesco Trovatelli for aiding in the ABAQUS numeri-
cal model development, and Eng. Mário Arruda for his expert opinion on the FEM and assistance
in the paper’s development.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 20 of 22
References
1. Jaiswal, K.; Wald, D.; Porter, K. A Global Building Inventory for Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Management. Earthq.
Spectra 2010, 26, 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3450316.
2. Aşıkoğlu, A.; Vasconcelos, G.; Lourenço, P.B.; Pantò, B. Pushover analysis of unreinforced irregular masonry buildings: Lessons
from different modelling approaches. Eng. Struct. 2020, 218, 110830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110830.
3. Januário, J.F.; Cruz, C.O. The Impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis on Lisbon’s Housing Prices. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2023, 16, 46.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010046.
4. Greco, A.; Lombardo, G.; Pantò, B.; Famà, A. Seismic Vulnerability of Historical Masonry Aggregate Buildings in Oriental Sicily.
Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1553075.
5. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of macro-element
models and cost analysis. Eng. Struct. 2014, 64, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.014.
6. Lourenço, P.B.; Mendes, N.; Ramos, L.F.; Oliveira, D.V. Analysis of Masonry Structures without Box Behavior. Int. J. Archit.
Herit. 2011, 5, 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2010.528824.
7. Graziotti, F.; Tomassetti, U.; Kallioras, S.; Penna, A.; Magenes, G. Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building.
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 5329–5364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0185-8.
8. Miglietta, M.; Damiani, N.; Guerrini, G.; Graziotti, F. Full-scale shake-table tests on two unreinforced masonry cavity-wall build-
ings: Effect of an innovative timber retrofit. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 2561–2596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01057-5
9. Pintucchi, B.; Zani, N. Effectiveness of nonlinear static procedures for slender masonry towers. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 2531–
2556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9595-z.
10. EN 1998-1; Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for
Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
11. Fajfar, P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq. Spectra 2000, 16, 573–592.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
12. Guerrini, G.; Graziotti, F.; Penna, A.; Magenes, G. Improved Evaluation of Inelastic Displacement Demands for Short-Period
Masonry Structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017, 46, 1411–1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2862
13. Asteris, P.G.; Moropoulou, A.; Skentou, A.D.; Apostolopoulou, M.; Mohebkhah, A.; Cavaleri, L.; Rodrigues, H.; Varum, H. Sto-
chastic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Structures: Concepts, Modeling and Restoration Aspects. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 243.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9020243.
14. Ciocci, M.P.; Sharma, S.; Lourenço, P.B. Engineering simulations of a super-complex cultural heritage building: Ica Cathedral
in Peru. Meccanica 2018, 53, 1931–1958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-017-0720-3.
15. Clementi, F.; Gazzani, V.; Poiani, M.; Lenci, S. Assessment of seismic behaviour of heritage masonry buildings using numerical
modelling. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 8, 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.09.005.
16. Peña, F.; Lourenço, P.B.; Mendes, N.; Oliveira, D.V. Numerical Models for the Seismic Assessment of an Old Masonry Tower.
Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1466–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.027.
17. Zanotti, F.L.; Boscato, G.; Ceravolo, R.; Russo, S.; Gentile, S.; Pecorelli, M.L.; Quattrone, A. Dynamic Investigation on the
Mirandola Bell Tower in Post-Earthquake Scenarios. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-
9970-z.
18. Bartoli, G.; Betti, M.; Monchetti, S. Seismic Risk Assessment of Historic Masonry Towers: Comparison of Four Case Studies. J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001039.
19. Lemos, J.V. Discrete Element Modeling of Masonry Structures. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2007, 1, 190–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050601176868.
20. Marra, A.M.; Salvatori, L.; Spinelli, P.; Bartoli, G. Incremental Dynamic and Nonlinear Static Analyses for Seismic Assessment
of Medieval Masonry Towers. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001022.
21. Sarhosis, V.; Milani, G.; Formisano, A.; et al. Evaluation of Different Approaches for the Estimation of the Seismic Vulnerability
of Masonry Towers. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 1511–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0258-8.
22. Dassault Systèmes, 3DS-SIMULIA. ABAQUS Unified FEA-3DEXPERIENCE R2022, version 2022; Dassault Systèmes, 3DS-SIM-
ULIA: Johnston, RI, USA, 2018. Available online: http://www.3ds.com (accessed on 29 July 2024).
23. Adina R&D Inc. ADINA—Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis; Adina R&D Inc.: Watertown, MA, USA, 2017. Avail-
able online: http://www.adina.com/index.shtml (accessed on 29 July 2024).
24. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Structural Mechanics; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2015. Available online: http://www.ansys.com/
(accessed on 29 July 2024).
25. Cervenka Consulting. ATENA—Nonlinear Analysis Software; Cervenka Consulting: Prague, Czech Republic, 1990. Available
online: https://www.cervenka.cz/products/atena/ (accessed on 29 July 2024).
26. DIANA. Advanced Finite Element Analysis Solutions; DIANA FEA BV: Hague, The Netherlands, 2020.
27. Itasca Consulting Group Inc. Three Dimensional Distinct Element Code, Version 7.00; Itasca Consulting Group Inc.: Minneapolis,
MN, USA, 2019. Available online: https://docs.itascacg.com/3dec700/3dec/docproject/source/3dechome.html (accessed on 29
July 2024).
28. STA DATA. 3Muri Project, version 14.0; STA DATA: Torino, Italy, 2023. Available online: https://stadata.com/en/3-muri-project/
(accessed on 29 July 2024).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 21 of 22
29. HiSTrA. HiSTrA Arches & Vaults; Gruppo Sismica, Smart Structural Solutions: Catania, Italy, 2024. Available online:
https://www.grupposismica.it/en/software-category/histravaults-en/ (accessed on 29 July 2024).
30. Arruda, M.R.T.; Deividas, M.; Vadimas, K. State of the art on structural reinforced concrete design guidelines with nonlinear
analyses. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2023, 31, 4154–4168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2192214.
31. FIB. FIB Bulletin No. 45—Practitioners’ Guide to Finite Element Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures; CEB-FIP: Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2008; p. 347.
32. Brencich, A.; Morbiducci, R. Masonry Arches: Historical Rules and Modern Mechanics. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2007, 1, 165–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050701312926.
33. Lourenço, P.B. Computational Strategies do Masonry: Parameter Estimation and Validation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1997.
34. Roca, P.; Cervera, M.; Gariup, G.; Pelà, L. Structural Analysis of Masonry Historical Constructions. Classical and Advanced
Approaches. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2010, 17, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9046-1.
35. Cattari, S.; Calderoni, B.; Caliò, I.; Camata, G.; de Miranda, S.; Magenes, G.; Milani, G.; Saetta, A. Nonlinear modeling of the
seismic response of masonry structures: critical review and open issues towards engineering practice. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022,
20, 1939–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01263-1.
36. Malcata, M.; Ponte, M.; Tiberti, S.; Bento, R.; Milani, G. Failure analysis of a Portuguese cultural heritage masterpiece: Bonet
building in Sintra. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 115, 104636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104636.
37. Angiolilli, M.; Lagomarsino, S.; Cattari, S.; Degli Abbati, S. Seismic fragility assessment of existing masonry buildings in aggre-
gate. Eng. Struct. 2021, 247, 113218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113218.
38. Cattari, S.; Magenes, G. Benchmarking the software packages to model and assess the seismic response of unreinforced masonry
existing buildings through nonlinear static analyses. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 1901–1936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-
01078-0.
39. Caliò, I.; Marletta, M.; Pantò, B. A new discrete element model for the evaluation of the seismic behaviour of unreinforced
masonry buildings. Eng. Struct. 2012, 40, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.039.
40. Cannizzaro, F.; Pantò, B.; Lepidi, M.; Caddemi, S.; Caliò, I. Multi-Directional Seismic Assessment of Historical Masonry Build-
ings by Means of Macro-Element Modelling: Application to a Building Damaged during the L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy). Build-
ings 2017, 7, 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7040106.
41. Degli Abbati, S.; D'Altri, A.M.; Ottonelli, D.; Castellazzi, G.; Cattari, S.; de Miranda, S.; Lagomarsino, S. Seismic assessment of
interacting structural units in complex historic masonry constructions by nonlinear static analyses. Comput. Struct. 2019, 213,
51–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.12.001.
42. Morandini, C.; Malomo, D.; Pinho, R.; Penna, A. Development and validation of a numerical strategy for the seismic assessment
of a timber retrofitting solution for URM cavity-wall buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 27, 2224–2243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2022.2104960.
43. Damiani, N.; DeJong, M.; Albanesi, L.; Magenes, G.; Penna, A.; Morandi, P. In-plane response of a modular retrofit system for
URM walls using DEM. In Proceedings of the COMPDYN 2023 9th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Meth-
ods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 12–14 June 2023.
https://doi.org/10.7712/120123.10588.20683.
44. Malomo, D.; Pulatsu, B. Discontinuum Models for the Structural and Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Structures:
A Critical Appraisal. Structures 2024, 62, 106108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106108.
45. Bartoli, G.; Betti, M.; Biagini, P.; Borghini, A.; Ciavattone, A.; Girardi, M.; Lancioni, G.; Marra, A.M.; Ortolani, B.; Pintucchi, B.;
et al. Epistemic Uncertainties in Structural Modeling: A Blind Benchmark for Seismic Assessment of Slender Masonry Towers.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001049.
46. D’Altri, A.M.; Sarhosis, V.; Milani, G.; Rots, J.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Sacco, E.; Tralli, A.; Castellazzi, G.; de Miranda, S.
Modeling Strategies for the Computational Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Structures: Review and Classification. Arch. Com-
put. Methods Eng. 2020, 27, 1153–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09351-x.
47. Shehu, R. Implementation of Pushover Analysis for Seismic Assessment of Masonry Towers: Issues and Practical Recommen-
dations. Buildings 2021, 11, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11020071.
48. EN 1998-3; Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. Eu-
ropean Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
49. NP EN 1998-1; Eurocódigo 8—Projeto de Estruturas para Resistência aos Sismos. Parte 1: Regras Gerais, Acções Sísmicas e
Regras para Edifícios. Instituto Português da Qualidade: Caparica, Portugal, 2010.
50. DM 17/01/2018; Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. MIT, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2018. (In
Italian)
51. LNEC. Pinho Bravo para Estruturas. Madeira para Construção—Ficha M2; Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil: Lisbon,
Portugal, 1997.
52. Giongo, I.; Wilson, A.; Dizhur, D.Y.; Derakhshan, H.; Tomasi, R.; Griffith, M.C.; Quenneville, P.; Ingham, J.M. Detailed seismic
assessment and improvement procedure for vintage flexible timber diaphragms. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 47, 97–118.
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.47.2.97-118.
53. Riks, E. An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1979, 15, 529–551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(79)90081-7.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 22 of 22
54. Turnsek, V.; Cacovic, F. Some Experimental Result on the Strength of Brick Masonry Walls. In Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-
tional Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, 12–15 April 1970; pp. 149–156.
55. Parisse, F. Harmonized Guidelines for the Seismic Safety Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings with Box-Like Behav-
ior. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal, 2024.
56. Brandonisio, G.; Lucibello, G.; Mele, E.; De Luca, A. Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009
L’Aquila earthquake. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 693–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.021.
57. NP EN 1998-3; Eurocódigo 8—Projeto de Estruturas para Resistência aos Sismos. Parte 3: Avaliação e Reabilitação de Edifícios.
Instituto Português da Qualidade: Caparica, Portugal, 2017.
58. Bondarabadi, H.A. Analytical and Empirical Seismic Fragility Analysis of Irregular URM Buildings with Box Behavior. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal, 2018.
59. Machete, R.; Neves, M.; Ponte, M.; Falcão, A.P.; Bento, R. A BIM-Based Model for Structural Health Monitoring of the Central
Body of the Monserrate Palace: A First Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 1532.
60. Structural Vibration Solutions. ARTeMIS, Modal 7.2; Structural Vibration Solutions: Aalborg, Denmark, 2023.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.