0% found this document useful (0 votes)
12 views22 pages

Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings U

This paper investigates the seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings using damage mechanics through numerical simulations and pushover analysis. It compares the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) for modeling masonry structures, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. The study includes detailed analyses of the North Tower of Monserrate Palace, focusing on damage distribution and the calibration of material parameters based on in-situ tests.

Uploaded by

spacemonkey8297
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
12 views22 pages

Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings U

This paper investigates the seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings using damage mechanics through numerical simulations and pushover analysis. It compares the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) for modeling masonry structures, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. The study includes detailed analyses of the North Tower of Monserrate Palace, focusing on damage distribution and the calibration of material parameters based on in-situ tests.

Uploaded by

spacemonkey8297
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Article

Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings Using


Damage Mechanics
Miguel Gonçalves, Madalena Ponte and Rita Bento *

CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-004 Lisboa, Portugal;


miguelvgoncalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (M.G.); madalenaponte@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (M.P.)
* Correspondence: rita.bento@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

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

Buildings 2024, 14, 2395. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082395 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings


Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 2 of 22

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

approach, it is important to highlight the Discrete Macro-Element Model (DMEM) intro-


duced by Caliò et al. (2012) [39]. Originally, this element was designed to simulate the
nonlinear in-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls. It was subsequently up-
graded for application to monumental masonry buildings, enabling the simulation of both
in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour [40]. The DMEM strategy was recently implemented
in commercial software that is able to automatically perform safety verification processes
[29].
Another widespread approach for the modelling of masonry structures is the Finite
Element Method (FEM), which offers the possibility of performing either macro- or micro-
modelling. Macro-modelling is, again, the most commonly used approach due to its al-
ready mentioned benefits; plus, with the FEM, there is the possibility of considering the
out-of-plane behaviour of walls, the damage propagation is much more detailed, and it is
possible to model highly irregular structures. However, it is also worth noting that when
compared to the EFM, the FEM, even when using the macro-modelling approach, requires
the introduction of material parameters that are usually unknown to the engineers of ma-
sonry structures, and the time-consuming and computational efforts increase signifi-
cantly. Therefore, for the modelling of masonry structures, the FEM is mainly applied to
highly irregular or complex structures where the EFM cannot be used [14,41]. In addition,
lately, simplified micro-modelling approaches have started to be adopted as an alternative
to detailed micro-modelling, such as Discrete Element Modelling (DEM). Different au-
thors have demonstrated it to be a suitable tool for the assessment of masonry structures,
presenting studies with regular and irregular structures, including curved surfaces, and
even the application of retrofitting techniques [42–44]. Moreover, some authors have
started to compare the described approaches applied with different software to irregular
masonry structures [38,45], which is essential for practitioners when deciding which
methodology to apply.
The work presented here emphasises methods that any Finite Element Method (FEM)
software could use to conceptualise a nonlinear static analysis of rubble stone masonry. It
examines how shape, material characteristics, and load patterns affect results. Given the
high likelihood of brittle collapse in regular masonry constructions, one might anticipate
that realistic simulation behaviour will show some discernible softening. In this context,
the use of numerical simulations becomes extremely important. The total modelling and
analytical procedure is complex due to the unique properties of the masonry material,
which include a brittle failure in shear and a relatively low tensile strength [46]. Full 3D
solid elements have been used to perform static nonlinear analyses of existing masonry
walls [47], in which brittle material behaviour was modelled using damage mechanics
[36].
The main purpose of this study was to carry out a seismic safety assessment of a
simple masonry building using the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) with 3Muri [28] and
the Finite Element Method (FEM) with ABAQUS standard commercial software [22]. The
aim was to explore and compare modelling approaches, identifying the advantages and
disadvantages of the two software packages. The seismic safety analyses were performed
according to the earthquake assessment requirements of Part 3 of Eurocode 8 [48], apply-
ing the pushover methodology.
In addition, pushover analyses were carried out on the North Tower of Monserrate
Palace, a structure of notable architectural value with a circular profile, using the Finite
Element Method. This model was calibrated using the results of dynamic characterisation
in-situ tests of the structure. A detailed analysis of damage distribution in the circular
tower was also performed to investigate thoroughly how damage propagates throughout
the circular structure under various loading scenarios. This study aimed to advance the
modelling of similar structural configurations through the EFM. By scrutinising the dam-
age distribution, insights can be gained into the behaviour of the tower’s components and
their interactions, thus enhancing the accuracy and reliability of structural predictions us-
ing the EFM.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 5 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.

2. Model Validation for a Simple Masonry Building


The study starts with the modelling of an existing residential building using different
approaches and two software systems. The case study is a hypothesised masonry building
with a regular geometry encompassing three floors.

2.1. Modelling with the EFM


This method proposes dividing the vertical resisting elements into equivalent frames,
based on years of studies on damage to mixed and masonry structures caused by seismic
activity. This division applies to deformable elements, which are divided into piers and
spandrels (where the nonlinear response of the structure is concentrated), and nonde-
formable elements, designated as rigid nodes. The piers are responsible for bearing most
of the loads, while the spandrels limit the rotation of the piers. Both the piers and the rigid
nodes are formed due to the presence of openings, with the rigid nodes appearing be-
tween the ends of the openings and the spandrels occupying the space between the rigid
nodes. The software used in this study is called 3Muri [28].

2.1.1. Description of the Building and Seismic Characterisation


The building presents front and side façades with 0.45 m and 0.40 m thicknesses,
respectively, and side walls 0.25 m thick, while the interior walls present a thickness of
0.20 m. The interior doors throughout the building are consistent on all floors, with a
height of 2 m and a width of 1 m. However, the exterior openings vary by floor. On the
ground floor, the openings correspond to doors that are 2.5 m high and 1.35 m wide. For
the other floors, the external masonry features openings with thresholds 0.7 m high and
1.35 m wide and lintels of 0.9 m. A 3D representation of the structure can be found in
Figure 1. This building is situated in Lisbon, in Seismic Zone 1.3/2.3, on a type C site, as
defined in the Portuguese National Annex to Part 1 of Eurocode 8 [49]. Earthquakes of
type 1 and type 2 were simulated separately.

(a) (b) (c)


Figure 1. Building modelled with 3D CAD: (a) main façade; (b) back façade. Building modelled in
3Muri with spandrels, rigid nodes, and piers (c) Main Façade.

2.1.2. Material Properties and Dead Loads


The exterior walls are constructed from rubble stone masonry, while the interior
walls are made of brick masonry. The mechanical properties of the masonry were deter-
mined using the Italian NTC-2018 code [50] and are presented in Table 1. 𝐸𝐸, 𝐺𝐺, 𝑤𝑤, 𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚 , τ,
and 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 are, respectively, the Young’s and shear moduli, the specific weight, the average
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 6 of 22

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.

Table 1. Masonry mechanical properties.

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

2.1.3. Equivalent Frame Modelling


The final model is illustrated in Figure 1c, in which the green elements are the span-
drels, the blue elements are the rigid nodes, and the orange elements are the piers. The
floor elements are modelled as orthotropic membranes.

2.2. Modelling with FEM


This section describes how the numerical model was assembled with the ABAQUS
standard for the same case study.

2.2.1. Geometry Assembly


In ABAQUS, the modelling process was organised into parts based on materials. In-
itially, the exterior walls (Figure 2c) were modelled, and, subsequently, the openings were
assembled using the Cut/Extrude feature. The interior walls (Figure 2b) were modelled
floor by floor, with each part later copied to a different floor. Finally, the timber compo-
nents (Figure 2a) were designed to fit the gaps on top of the interior walls. These timber
elements were then inserted into the Assembly environment, and after performing an In-
stance/Union operation, the complete geometry of the building was obtained. The results
of this process can be observed in Figure 2d, in which all elements are continuously con-
nected in the end, being allowed to generate a conforming mesh without displacement
discontinuities between nodes. In Figure 2d,e the different colours represent the different
materials considered for the walls.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 7 of 22

(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.

2.2.2. Type of Analysis


The model used a physically and geometrically nonlinear analysis with force control
applied at all nodes that present mass due to self-weight. The geometrically nonlinear
analysis was necessary since the high vertical displacements could potentially increase the
stress in the foundations, thereby increasing the level of nonlinearity. It was expected that,
due to the brittle behaviour of the masonry structure, softening may have occurred in the
static nonlinear analysis; therefore, to control the decrease in force in the final structural
response, a variation of the arc length method known as the modified Riks algorithm [53]
was applied.

2.2.3. Constitutive Relations


The main material properties, including the density and elasticity, are the same as
the ones admitted in 3Muri. Due to the existence of high spurious modes during the modal
analysis due to the vibration of the wood floors, the mass of these was artificially reduced
to a value of 10−5 kg/m3 to prevent their existence, and the missing corresponding load was
applied to the adjacent masonry walls.
The mechanical properties of the masonry materials were assigned using the simpli-
fied Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) hypothesis. For tensile and compressive behav-
iour, the constitutive relations adopted by Malcata et al. [36] were adapted and applied to
both brick and stone masonry (Figure 3). It is important to point out that since these are
written in terms of stress vs. strain, some mesh dependency may occur, and these were
only calibrated for an average equivalent finite element size of around 20 cm. Although
methods like the Turnsek–Cacovic method [54] may provide more conservative values, a
separate tensile and compressive constitutive relation was adopted for the modelling due
to the choice limitations in the ABAQUS materials library (Table 2). This study examined
the influence of variable d, which defines the damage variable for masonry materials. The
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 8 of 22

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.

Material ε’eloc ε’cm fc [MPa] ft [Mpa]


Stone masonry 0.00125 0.003 1.67 0.025
Brick masonry 0.00135 0.0037 2.17 0.173

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.

2.2.5. Finite Element Modelling


Due to the case study’s apparent regularity, hexahedral elements (C3D8) were ini-
tially adopted. However, the analysis would not converge, and the building’s resistance
would decrease suddenly at a precocious stage due to mesh dependency. Therefore, a 10-
node modified tetrahedron with hourglass control (C3D10M) was used, as presented in
Figure 2e. This choice was related to the structure’s having better mesh generation and
fewer elements than linear solid brick elements like C3D8. Also, using C3D10M allowed
a better convergence rate than C3D8, since the latter, in some tested cases, did not con-
verge to a final solution. The maximum size of the mesh side was defined as the thickness
of the thinnest walls of the building, corresponding to the 20 cm thick brick masonry par-
titional walls. In some areas, such as window thresholds, the number of elements was
increased by reducing their size to enable linear approximations that would be unfeasible
in sections defined by just one element. The mesh size was determined considering the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 9 of 22

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.

2.3. Comparing the EFM with the FEM


The nonlinear behaviour of the structure was characterised by its capacity curve in
terms of base shear versus top displacement until the ultimate displacement.
The nonlinear analysis in 3Muri was fast and efficient. The displacement was defined
as the weighted average of the top displacements proportional to the masses of the walls.
In this software, a total of eight analyses were conducted: four uniform and four pseudo-
triangular lateral force distributions. The analyses were carried out in the X (longitudinal)
direction, along the main façade, and the Y (transverse) direction, along the side façades.
The positive directions of the building in the plan were considered in the X direction from
left to right and in the Y direction from bottom to top. In 3Muri, the ultimate displacement
was defined after the occurrence of a mechanism leading to partial or complete collapse.
The nonlinear analysis in ABAQUS required considerably more time and computa-
tional effort than in 3Muri, with each analysis taking between 3 and 5 days to complete.
Consequently, the decision was made to focus only on the conditioning cases, specifically
those with lower safety values (−X Uniform and +Y Triangular). In ABAQUS, a total of
four analyses were conducted, with two of them accounting for the damage variable (d).
To define the ultimate displacement in this software, the Italian code NTC 2018 [50] pro-
vides two options: either a displacement corresponding to 80% of the maximum resistance
of the structure or a displacement that creates an equivalent system with acceptable duc-
tility.

2.3.1. Calibration with Modal Analysis


Taking into account the fact that the EFM and the FEM use different formulations to
simulate masonry buildings, it was necessary to see if they presented the same vibration
modes to compare the structural response later. The modal analysis results showed that
the models were calibrated in the Y direction. However, in the X direction, even though
the difference in frequency values was within an admissible range (17.7% for the FEM
model), the vibration mode did not appear in the same order for both models. The FEM
model presented lower stiffness in the Y direction, while the opposite occurred for the
EFM model. The difference in results should be due to the fact that 3Muri, the EFM strat-
egy adopted in this work, does not consider the out-of-plane stiffness of the walls. As pre-
viously mentioned, if the DMEM had been used, it would have been possible to account
for both the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of the masonry walls, even though it is
framed within the simplified approaches.
Thus, the values from ABAQUS tended to describe the actual behaviour of the struc-
tures more accurately in comparison with the values obtained by 3Muri. However, since
the results of the nonlinear analyses were to be compared in this theoretical case study, it
was decided to calibrate the ABAQUS model to match the modes obtained in 3Muri.
This calibration was accomplished by initially attributing the floor’s elasticity to rigid
properties and then through various reductions in the masonry’s Young’s modulus in
ABAQUS. The reduction applied was approximately 35% of the original stiffness. The re-
sults of the calibration are shown in Table 3 and Figure 5.

Table 3. Frequencies for the first mode after the calibration.

1º Mode 3Muri (Hz) ABAQUS (Hz) Error (%)


X 3.616 4.254 17.7%
Y 3.731 3.624 −3%
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 10 of 22

1st mode 3Muri Abaqus


X

Figure 5. Top floor view of the deformed shape for the first vibration mode in the X and Y direc-
tions.

2.3.2. Capacity Curves


As can be observed in Figure 6, even with a reduction in the Young’s masonry mod-
ulus, the ABAQUS analyses exhibited higher stiffness values than the 3Muri analyses in
the elastic phase, with a significant difference in the X direction. The obtained results sug-
gest that the values of the masonry’s Young’s modulus in ABAQUS should have been
further reduced, as recently suggested by Parisse (2024) [55]. These curves illustrate that
3Muri also presents more conservative values in terms of resistance for both directions.

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]

Figure 6. Capacity curves obtained with both software systems.

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

2.3.3. Damage Distribution for Uniform Load in the −X Direction


In ABAQUS, the plastic deformations showed concentrated damage to the vertical
elements of the first and second floors, consistent with the 3Muri observations in Figure
7. Only plastic strains (maximum principal) are plotted in the model without damage, but
in the model with damage, both tensile and compressive damage fields are plotted. How-
ever, no significant damage was found on the top floor in the finite element software.
Ground-floor damage includes the propagation of vertical cracks, affecting upper floors,
and rocking in the corners. Mixed damage, combining bending and shear, was identified
in the elements, like diagonal cracks in the façade elements and the central wall, as pre-
sented in Figure 8. The perpendicular walls exhibited an out-of-plane effect on the side
walls, resembling damage from the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake [56].

Undamaged Flexural Damage

Ineffective Element Incipient Flexural Failure

Shear Damage Flexural Failure

Incipient Shear Failure Serious Crisis

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

2.3.4. Damage Distribution for Triangular Load in the +Y Direction


In 3Muri (Figure 9), the blank façades collapse at the first-floor mezzanines for the
pseudo-triangular distribution. The ABAQUS plastic deformations (Figure 10a) revealed
concentrated damage in the blank façades, indicating potential diagonal and vertical
cracks. The interior walls exhibited loaded lintels and rocking at the base of some ele-
ments. In ABAQUS, there was more concentrated damage caused by diagonal cracks on
the first floor of one blank façade, contrary to the expected behaviour observed in the other
façade.
In the ABAQUS model using the damage variable, the predominant damage ob-
served was attributed to tension (Figure 10), with localised compression damage (Figure
10b) in areas heavily loaded with tension. Analysis of elements with plastic deformations
revealed concentrated damage in the spandrels and mixed damage in the vertical ele-
ments of the ground and first floors. The results between cases with and without damage
were very close.

Undamaged Flexural Damage

Ineffective Element Incipient Flexural Failure

Shear Damage Flexural Failure

Incipient Shear Failure Serious Crisis

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.

2.3.5. N2 Method Safety Verification


N2 method results are obtained with an equivalent SDOF system, and a bilinear ca-
pacity curve, that must be established for masonry structures. The evaluation of a trans-
formation factor is necessary to define the equivalent SDOF system. Unlike 3Muri,
ABAQUS does not compute the transformation factor automatically. Instead, it must be
performed manually for each direction, which is a laborious process for intricate struc-
tures like the Monserrate Palace (Section 4).
In fact, while 3Muri automatically handles the transformation into an equivalent sys-
tem with a single degree of freedom, in ABAQUS, each step is performed by the user, re-
sulting in different coefficients of transformation (𝛤𝛤) between the software systems. Apply-
ing the transformation factor revealed close approximations between the two numerical
models. The displacements of each floor related to the vibration modes were taken into con-
sideration when calculating the mass associated with each degree of freedom. As mentioned
in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 [57] for heritage buildings, various limit states were examined; how-
ever, only the outcomes for near collapse, the most demanding limit state, are given.
The safety verification followed the proposal from Part 1 of Eurocode 8, beginning
with the bilinearisation of capacity curves and then converting the results into an equiva-
lent system with a single degree of freedom. For bilinearisation, Bondarabadi’s proposal
[58] was adopted to account for the softening of the masonry.
Afterwards, comparisons were made between the target displacement (d*t) and the
ultimate displacement (d*u) to assess the safety for both type 1 and type 2 earthquakes
according to Eurocode 8 Part 1. In the X direction, both software packages confirmed
safety, while in the Y direction, only the ABAQUS models with d considered verified
safety. It is possible to observe in Figure 11 the verification coefficient for each software
system using different load cases, in which the black line shows the point at which the
ratio complies with safety. It is possible to observe that the safety ratios for both 3Muri
and ABAQUS are similar when the same load case is compared.

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)

Figure 11. Verification of the safety of the simple masonry building.


Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 14 of 22

3. Seismic Assessment of Monserrate Palace


The Palace of Monserrate, located in Monserrate Park in the district of Sintra,
achieved UNESCO World Heritage status in 2000. Known for its architectural fusion of
Gothic, Indian, and Moorish influences, the Palace boasts three distinct towers, two of
which have a circular profile. This heritage building was tested with pushover analysis
using the ABAQUS standard with physically and geometrically nonlinear analysis.

3.1. Numerical Modelling of the Tower


Due to the circular profile of the North Tower, the decision was made to use the FEM
in the ABAQUS software instead of modelling through equivalent frames with the 3Muri
software. This choice was supported by the requirement for an appropriate mesh defini-
tion, which must be imposed by the user for such irregular structures. Furthermore, the
EFM was developed to represent regular structures; therefore, such a simplified method
may not represent curved surfaces well. The model in ABAQUS was derived from the BIM
model developed by Machete et al. (2023) [59] and was subsequently simplified to focus
solely on the structural elements (Figure 12).

Figure 12. BIM model of the analysed section of the Palace.

3.1.1. Adopted Geometry and Type of Analysis


To simplify the modelling of the structure, it was divided into three parts, as shown
in Figure 13a: one for the entrance, a second for the tower itself, and a third to represent a
part connected to the central body of the Palace. The primary challenge encountered in
this model was the representation of openings in circular regions, which was addressed
by employing temporary walls that were subsequently removed after the openings were
created. The divisions and plane parts are presented in Figure 13b and Figure 13c, respec-
tively. All these parts were merged into a final 3D model presented in Figure 13d–f.
A physically and geometrically nonlinear analysis was employed in the model, and
force control was performed at each node where self-weight is a source of mass. Given
that the high vertical displacements may raise the stress in the foundations and hence
increase the degree of nonlinearity, a geometrically nonlinear analysis was required. A
modification of the arc length approach known as the modified Riks algorithm [53] was
employed in order to regulate the decrease in force in the final structural response, as it
was anticipated that softening may have occurred in the static nonlinear analysis due to
the brittle behaviour of the masonry structure.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 15 of 22

(a)
Entrance Tower Connection

(b)
Ground floor First floor Second floor

(c)
First floor Second floor Roof

(d) (e) (f)


Figure 13. (a) Three main parts that define the model. (b) Divisions of the tower. (c) Plane parts of
the tower. ABAQUS model of the (d) North Tower, (e) the tower and entrance, and (f) the connec-
tion.

3.1.2. Material Models and Adopted Mesh


The ABAQUS material software’s simplified Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) hy-
pothesis was used to assign the mechanical properties of the masonry materials in Table
4 and Figure 3. It was used in the constitutive relations adopted by Machete et al. (2023)
[59] for compressive and tensile behaviour. It is crucial to remember that they were only
calibrated for the adopted mesh and that there may have been some mesh dependency,
as they were expressed in terms of stress vs. strain. To accommodate the complex geome-
try of the circular profile of the tower, the mesh elements assigned to this model were 10-
node tetrahedral elements (C3D10M), as shown in Figure 13b,c. Since the thickness of the
walls was greater than in the hypothetical building, the mesh average size was also
greater, around 70 cm.
The finite element model employed in this study did not incorporate contact ele-
ments.

Table 4. Adopted material properties for the Palace.

Material ε′eloc ε′cm fc [MPa] ft [MPa] E [GPa] G [GPa] ρ [Ton/m3]


Stone masonry 0.00125 0.003 2.0 5.0 1.23 0.41 2.4
Masonry 0.00135 0.0037 7.0 10 2.85 0.95 2.2
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 16 of 22

Wood in floor - - - - 1.0 - 1.0 × 10−5


Wood in wood - - - - 1.3 - 1.0 × 10−5

3.1.3. Applied Loads and Boundary Conditions


Again, two different distribution lateral load types were used: a uniform load, pro-
portional to the mass and constant throughout the building’s height, which is usually a
more demanding load, and a triangular load, typically related to similar horizontal static
forces and in which upper floors exhibit greater acceleration during an earthquake. Ac-
cording to the in-situ report, it was acknowledged that there was a near-fixed connection
and that the soil was sufficiently rigid to prevent deformation; therefore, fixed boundary
conditions were chosen.

3.2. Dynamic Characterisation Tests and Material Calibration


Initially, a dynamic characterisation test of ambient vibration was undertaken to val-
idate the material properties adopted for the Palace. Two high-sensitivity accelerometers
(±4 g) and a central data acquisition system were used. While one accelerometer was
placed in various locations on the structure to record accelerations, the other remained
fixed. ARTeMIS software [60] was used to process the data, enabling the handling of ac-
celerations by applying filters and identifying fundamental frequencies and vibration
modes. The test covered the tower under study and the central tower due to its position
as a focal point. However, for the purpose of this work, only the case-study tower was
modelled in ARTeMIS for the dynamic characterisation.
By observing Figure 14, it is possible to conclude that the deformed shape for the first
modes in the X and Y directions is very similar for both the experimental and numerical
outputs. As illustrated in Table 5, the model had 22.55% and 5% errors in the X and Y
directions, respectively, which were considered adequate to assume that the model was
calibrated. It was then possible to admit that the initially attributed elasticity and mass
density were indeed correct.

Table 5. Experimental and numerical fundamental frequencies obtained with ARTeMIS and
ABAQUS, respectively.

Mode ARTeMIS (Hz) ABAQUS (Hz) Error (%)


1st X 4.941 6.067 22.6
1st Y 4.740 4.972 4.89

Figure 14. First vibration modes with ARTeMIS and ABAQUS.


Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 17 of 22

3.3. Nonlinear Static Analysis


A total of six analyses were conducted: four for the X direction (+X and −X, with two
distributions each) and two for the Y direction (two distributions). This decision was
based on the nearly perfect symmetry characterising the structure in the Y direction. Two
options were considered to define the ultimate displacement: either the displacement
where the structure reaches 80% of its maximum resistance or when the displacement
creates an equivalent system with acceptable ductility.

3.3.1. Capacity Curves


As observed in Figure 15, the results obtained show that uniform distributions al-
ways lead to higher values of resistant capacity and lower deformation capacities. On the
other hand, the triangular force distributions display less resistance than their uniform
counterparts in every direction while exhibiting better deformation capacity. For the Y
direction, only the positive direction was simulated since the structure presents sym-
metry.

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.

3.3.2. Final Damage Distribution


The equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ), a scalar variable used to describe a material’s
inelastic deformation, indicating where damage occurs, is presented in Figure 16 for the
conditioning distribution in each direction. In the case of the Y direction, since the struc-
ture is symmetric, the equivalent plastic strain is displayed only in the positive direction.
Part of the building adjacent to the tower was hidden in Figure 16a–e for better visualisa-
tion of the damage, while in f the plat band entrance was hidden.
Generally, the damage distribution revealed a localised concentration at floor-level
1. Diagonal cracks were observed in the piers on this floor, influenced by shear behaviour.
The presence of lintels between the openings on the different floors is not evident due to
the arches. Figure 16a,b, for the −X loading direction, indicate a significant concentration
of bending damage (rocking) in the interaction between the tower and the section con-
nected to the Palace’s central tower.
In Figure 16c,d, plastic deformations are visible for the +X loading direction, outlin-
ing the formation of diagonal cracks propagating towards the corners of the openings,
indicating damage caused by shear. There is also a concentration of damage in the span-
drels between the ground floor and the first level, at the level of the entrance plat band.
In Figure 16e,f, it is possible to see the plastic deformations that lead to the formation
of diagonal cracks that propagate towards the corners of the openings, showing damage
caused by shear. It is also possible to see in Figure 16f the concentration of damage caused
by the connection to the entrance plat band and extensive diagonal cracking at the two
ground-floor piers below the plat band. In all of these studies, it was possible to observe
the plastic deformation and collapse mechanism of the arches.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2395 18 of 22

(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

 3Muri (EFM) highlights conditioning damage leading to the collapse of elements. At


the same time, ABAQUS (FEM) can display various types of damage to its elements
in more detail, but it does not directly indicate which drifts are exceeded.
It is also worth noting that the study was carried out on a hypothetical building that
was not calibrated against experimental data. In the future, a simple, real case study, cal-
ibrated against experimental data, could be used for the comparison of other methods,
including the Discrete Macro-Element Model (DMEM) approach. The DMEM, although
framed within simplified approaches, is capable of accounting for both the in-plane and
out-of-plane behaviour of masonry walls. It has recently been implemented in the HiSTrA
commercial software, which can automatically perform the safety verification process.
In the context of the study on Monserrate Palace’s North Tower, its plastic defor-
mations exhibited anticipated failure, primarily characterised by shear on the piers and
spandrels of the arch-like openings. Specifically, plastic hinges developed at these arches’
base, top, and mid-span. Some bending damage was also observed thanks to the resistance
of the entrance area and the connection to the middle body of the Palace. The option to
model different parts in ABAQUS proved beneficial for segmenting the work. However,
this software also revealed some modelling limitations, especially in creating openings in
the circular profiled body, which were solved through the required nonconventional
means. In addition, the pushover analysis in ABAQUS required approximately one week
for each direction, which may not be feasible for practitioners. Therefore, methods that
can model the irregular geometry of masonry structures in a practicable time are essential.
It is also worth noting that with the FEM, the adopted constitutive relations for the
masonry used in the damage model are limited to the chosen size of the finite element;
therefore, with different meshes, it is expected that the capacity curves will present differ-
ent structural responses that may cause stronger softening, and, hence, some mesh de-
pendency is expected. The mesh size was defined considering the requirement for accu-
rate results and reasonably time-consuming analyses. Thus, an average mesh size equiv-
alent to the smallest wall thickness was deemed sensible for studying the wall damage
propagation and the building’s overall capacity curves.
Lastly, to reduce the mesh dependency, an inverse analysis is expected to be per-
formed in the future to estimate the fracture energy to be used when modelling the global
behaviour of a masonry wall. This will allow the analysis of future models without any
mesh dependency.

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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy