Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A new discrete element model for the evaluation of the seismic behaviour
of unreinforced masonry buildings
Ivo Cali , Massimo Marletta, Bartolomeo Pant
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 May 2011
Revised 20 October 2011
Accepted 5 February 2012
Available online 31 March 2012
Keywords:
Masonry building
Unreinforced Masonry structures
In-plane masonry response
Macro-element approach
Discrete element model
Seismic vulnerability
Nonlinear masonry analysis
a b s t r a c t
The evaluation of the nonlinear seismic response of masonry buildings represents a subject of considerable importance whose resolution is nowadays a main research topic in earthquake engineering. Rened
nonlinear nite element models require a huge computational cost that makes these methods unsuitable
for practical application. In this paper an innovative discrete-element model, conceived for the simulation
of the in-plane behaviour of masonry buildings, is presented. The basic idea of the proposed approach is
to approximate the in-plane nonlinear response of masonry walls by an equivalent discrete element. This
element is able to reproduce the typical in-plane collapse behaviour of a masonry wall subjected to earthquake loading. The reliability of the proposed approach has been evaluated by means of nonlinear incremental static analyses performed on masonry structures, for which theoretical and/or experimental
results are available in the literature. The proposed computational strategy provides a relatively simple
and practical tool which could be of signicant value for the design and the vulnerability assessment
of unreinforced masonry structures in seismic areas.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The assessment of the nonlinear seismic behaviour of UnReinforced Masonry buildings (URM) represents a subject of great
importance, however it is rather difcult to solve. In order to estimate the seismic vulnerability of an existing building and to ascertain if the structure requires a seismic upgrade, a structural
engineer needs simple and efcient numerical tools whose complexity and computational demand must be appropriate for the
practical engineering purposes. However, the simulation of the
nonlinear dynamic behaviour of a masonry building represents a
challenging problem which rigorously requires the use of computationally expensive nonlinear nite element models and, above
all, expert judgment. For this reason, the seismic assessment and
subsequent rehabilitation of URM constitutes a contemporary issue in most seismic regions in which the historical masonry buildings represents a signicant number of the existing structures.
Even in the USA, the need of introducing practical approaches for
the evaluation of the seismic behaviour of URM has been recently
highlighted [13].
The different behaviour of masonry structures, compared to ordinary concrete and steel buildings, requires ad hoc algorithms
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy. Tel.: +39
(0)95 738 2255; fax: +39 (0)95 738 2249.
E-mail address: icalio@dica.unict.it (I. Cali).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.039
328
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. The basic macro-element: (a) undeformed conguration; and (b) deformed conguration.
(a)
F
(b)
F
(c)
Fig. 2. Main in-plane failure mechanisms of a masonry portion: (a) exural failure; (b) shear-diagonal failure; and (c) shear-sliding failure.
329
(a)
q
F
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Simulation of the main in-plane failure mechanisms of a masonry portion by means of the macro-element: (a) exural failure; (b) shear-diagonal failure; and (c) shearsliding failure.
(a)
u3
u4
(b)
u1
u3
u2
u4
u2
u1
Fig. 4. (a) Chosen Lagrangian parameters for the quadrilater; and (b) deformed
congurations corresponding to the activation of each degree-of-freedom.
330
(a)
(b)
void
void
void
void
Fig. 5. Masonry wall and corresponding macro-element discretizations with different mesh resolutions.
modelled through a more rened mesh composed by 48 quadrilaterals which require 192 degrees of freedoms. The use of a more rened mesh is not mandatory however in some cases can provide
more accurate results and a better description of the collapse
mechanism.
Panel k
spring 1
F
Fty1
u cy1
u cy1
L1
u ty1
L 1 /2
Fcy1
zero
thickness
L 2 /2
single spring
equivalent to springs
1 and 2 in series
F
Fty2
spring 2
u cy2
Panel k
u tu1
u cy2
u
u ty2
u tu2
Panel l
L2
Fcy2
Panel l
influence area
Eks
Kp 2
L
F cy skrc ;
ucu
L
ecu ;
2
1
F ty skrt
2a; b
L
etu
2
3a; b
utu
K p1 K p2
;
K p1 K p2
while the yielding strengths of the resultant spring are given by the
minima between the yielding strengths of the two springs in series.
Considering two springs corresponding to panels of length L1 and L2
and characterised by ultimate deformation ecu1 < ecu2 in compression and etu1 < etu2 in tension, the ultimate displacements of the
combined resultant spring is simply obtained by adding the ultimate displacement of the yielded spring to the displacement of
the other spring that behaves elastically. These displacements in
compression and in tension can therefore be expressed as:
L1
F cy1
ecu1
2
K c2
L1
F ty1
U tu etu1
;
2
K t2
U cu
where Fcy1 and Fty1 are the compressive and tensile yielding forces
of the yielded spring and Kc2 and Kt2 are the corresponding stiffnesses of the elastic spring.
The rupture behaviour of the panel is dealt with by different criteria in compression and in tension. Precisely, once the compressive ultimate displacement is reached, the spring is removed
from the model and the relevant reaction is applied as an external
force loading the corresponding panel. On the other hand, when
the tensile limit displacement is attained, although the reaction
is again re-applied to the panel, the link is not removed from the
model, since it will be able to bear further compressive loads once
the contact with the corresponding panel will be restored.
The post-yielding behaviour of each orthogonal spring can be
characterised according to different constitutive plastic models
according to the experimental results obtained at the macro-scale,
as shown in the numerical applications.
331
F lim c lrm Ao
fv fv o lc rn
fv
ft
b
r
ro
1
ft
332
where fv is the average shear stress in the wall attained at the maximum resistance, ft is the tensile strength of masonry, b is the shear
stress distribution factor (depending on the geometry of the wall
and on the value of the ratio between the vertical N and horizontal
H load), ro is the average compression stress due to vertical load N.
The calibration of the diagonal springs in the initial linear
elastic range is simply obtained by enforcing an elastic equivalence
between the panel and the corresponding masonry wall, considered as a pure shear deformable homogeneous plate with tangential modulus G, transversal area At and height h, Fig. 7. In the
homogeneous media the relationship between the shear force V,
and the top horizontal displacement d is given by
V
h
G At
V
2 cos2 a K diag
10
K diag
G At
2h cos2 a
11
In this section the proposed discrete model is employed to simulate the nonlinear response of real masonry walls and structures
for which numerical and/or experimental results are available from
previous studies. In particular, the results of an extensive experimental and numerical research on the behaviour of unreinforced
brick masonry buildings [22,23] have been considered. The rst
applications are relative to numerical simulations of experimental
results of simple masonry panels characterised by various geometrical ratios [24]. Secondly, a case study relative to a large-scale
masonry model built and tested at the University of Pavia, in the
North of Italy, is considered [23].
3.1. Case study 1: masonry panels
The rst case study considers the results of cyclic shear tests on
brick masonry walls [24] that have been considered by several
authors aiming at validating different numerical approaches [25
28]. Namely the experimental behaviour of simple piers under
xedxed end conditions with the aim to reproduce exural
and diagonal shear cracking behaviours have been analysed. The
dimensions of the squat wall, that collapsed according to a diagonal shear behaviour failure mechanism, are 100 135 cm2. The
dimension of the slender wall, which exhibited a collapse response
dominated by the rocking, are 100 200 cm2. Both the walls are
characterised by a thickness of 25 cm and have been subjected to
an initial mean compressive stress of 0.6 MPa, associated to a
constant vertical load at the top, in addition to their own weights.
Further details on the specimens and test procedures are reported
on the referenced paper [24].
The experimental results of the considered panels are reported
in Fig. 8. In particular Fig. 8a reports the exural response characterised by a moderate hysteretic energy dissipation and an almost
nonlinear elastic behaviour with negligible strength degradation.
Fig. 8b reports the shear-diagonal typical forcedisplacement
curve dominated by shear cracking with high energy dissipation
and a signicant strength and stiffness degradation.
For the simulation of the cyclic degrading hysteretic behaviour
of a masonry wall, subjected to a combination of constant vertical
load and to a sequence of lateral load reversals, the use of an idealised bi- or tri-linear resistance envelope is recommended [14].
Here the cyclic shear-diagonal behaviour of the considered walls
has been modelled with the proposed approach by means of a
single macro-element. Furthermore, the shear-diagonal behaviour
has been modelled by means of the idealised bi-linear envelope
reported in Fig. 9. The relevant parameters of the bilinear envelope
have been identied according to the following simple rules:
The initial slope of the idealised envelope is evaluated according
to a secant stiffness, that can be associated to the formation of
the cracks, called effective stiffness of the wall Ke. The latter
has been obtained by assuming the resistance at the crack limit
as a percentage (60%) of the experimental maximum resistance,
as follows:
Ke
Hcr
dcr
12
(a)
80
60
force (KN)
40
20
0
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
-20
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
KV
-40
-80
displacement (cm)
K F 12
100
40
20
-1,0
-0,5
0
-20 0,0
15
EI
h
16
80
60
force (KN)
K KF
KF K
-60
(b)
333
Ku Ko
0,5
1,0
-40
-60
-80
-100
displacement (cm)
Fig. 8. Experimental behaviour of simple piers, from Ref. [12]: (a) example of
exural response and (b) example of behaviour with diagonal shear cracking.
KI
Ko
b
17
The idealised ultimate states, determined by the maximum displacement attained during the test dmax and the corresponding
resistance Hdmax are set to be coincident to the experimental
ones.
The ratio between the resistance Hdmax at the ultimate displacement and the maximum resistance Hmax denes a strength
degradation factor Csd [14].
C ds
Hd max
Hmax
13
The slope of the envelope curve in the post-yielding behaviour is given by the kinematic hardening (or softening) parameter.
Hd max Hmax
dmax dH max
14
In order to calibrate the shear diagonal nonlinear link of the macroelement, that governs the pure shear behaviour, it is necessary to
334
Table 1
Case study 1. Mechanical characteristics of the masonry.
Flexural
Table 2
Case study 2. Mechanical characteristics of the masonry.
Shear-diagonal
Flexural
E (MPa)
rc (MPa)
rt (MPa)
G (MPa)
ft (MPa)
2100
6.20
0.1
500
0.275
1.5
0.8
Piers
Spandrels
(a)
60
force (KN)
E
(MPa)
rc
rt
ft
(MPa)
fo
(MPa)
(MPa)
G
(MPa)
(MPa)
2100
2100
6.2
6.2
0.05
0.05
500
500
0.18
0.225
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
(a)
20
0
-1,0
-0,5
-20
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
-40
-60
-80
(b)
150
100
50
0
-3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
-50
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
-100
(b)
80
150
60
100
force (KN)
1,0
100
40
20
0
-0,5
0,5
-150
displacement (cm)
-1,0
Sliding
80
40
-1,5
Shear-diagonal
-20 0,0
0,5
1,0
-40
-60
50
0
-3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
-50
0,5
1,0
-100
-80
-150
-100
displacement (cm)
Fig. 10. Numerical simulation of experimental tests on piers: (a) example exural
response and (b) example of behaviour with diagonal shear cracking.
Fig. 12. Door prototype wall. Comparison between (a) experimental and (b)
numerical cyclic tests.
(a)
(b)
void
void
void
void
Fig. 11. The door wall (a) geometric layout; and (b) equivalent mechanical scheme.
335
150
100
50
-2,5
-2,0
-1,5
-1,0
0
-0,5 0,0
-50
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
2,0
2,5
-100
-150
the damage has been controlled by a strength degradation parameter a = 0.08. The hysteretic behaviour has been dened according to the bi-linear idealisation described in the previous
subsection.
In Fig. 12 a comparison between the experimental and numerical results in terms of base shear versus the absolute value of the
top displacement is reported. By observing the maximum reached
forces and displacements as well as the exhibited hysteretic behaviour and keeping in mind that the shear-diagonal behaviour has
been calibrated according to a simple bi-linear representation,
the agreement between the experimental and numerical results
can be considered satisfactory. Fig. 13 reports a comparison between the experimental and numerical results in terms of base
shear of the wall versus the rst inter-storey drift; also in this case
the numerical prediction appears to be acceptable.
In Fig. 14 a simplied representation of the damage scenarios
predicted by the model, corresponding to the value of drift of 3%
and to the ultimate value of 4.3%, are compared with the corresponding crack patterns obtained experimentally. It is worth to notice how the proposed approach is able to grasp the progressive
distribution of damage in the wall. The used representation in
the interface allows to distinguish the reactive compressive zone
from the cracked one due to tensile forces; diagonal bars inside a
panel indicate the yielding of the diagonal springs.
The further representation of the ultimate state, reported in
Fig. 15, clearly shows the composite shear-exural failure of the
piers and the diagonal shear failures of spandrels as well as the
crack patterns due to the partialisation of the interfaces.
100
50
-2,5
-2,0
-1,5
-1,0
0
-0,5 0,0
-50
0,5
1,0
1,5
-100
-150
Fig. 14. Simplied drafts of damage scenarios corresponding to different values of the applied drifts: (a) 0.3% and (b) 0.43% (maximum drift).
336
(b)
200
160
120
rigth pier
80
40
0
0,0
40
20
Shear (KN)
(a)
constitutes a great advantage that is not common to all the simplied approaches based on a macro-element discretization. Furthermore the consistent geometry of the element makes possible the
implementation of models with an irregular distribution of the
openings and allows the implementation of models characterised
by different level of discretization associated to the mesh resolution and to the ne-tuning of nonlinear links in the interfaces. In
Fig. 17 the results of push-over analyses, performed on the door
wall of Pavia prototype, associated to different mesh resolutions
are reported. Three different mesh resolutions have been
0
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
-40
2,5
200
60
central pier
160
Shear (KN)
2,0
rigth pier
0,5
240
120
80
40
20
-20 0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,0
2,5
central pier
-60
-100
2,5
200
80
160
Shear (KN)
1,5
-20
0
0,0
1,0
120
80
left pier
40
0
0,0
40
0
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
left pier
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
-40
Fig. 16. Door prototype wall: the resultants of compressive (a) and shear forces (b) in the piers of the door wall as a function of the absolute top displacement.
337
(a) 175
(a)
150
150
175
125
100
75
mesh A
50
mesh B
25
mesh C
0
0.00
0.50
125
100
75
50
25
1.00
0
0.00
1.50
0.50
(b) 175
(b)
Base Shear (KN)
0 .10 MPa
t=
0 .20 MPa
1.50
2.00
175
150
150
125
100
75
mesh A
50
mesh B
25
0.50
1.00
1.50
displacement (cm)
Table 3
mesh resolutions.
Label
Number of macroelements
Number of degrees of
freedom
Maximum Nlink
distance (cm)
A
B
C
16
64
144
64
256
576
10
10
10
160
140
120
100
80
60
10 cm
40
20 cm
20
40 cm
1.00
1.50
100
75
50
f t= 0 .12 MPa
f t= 0 .075 MPa
f t= 0 .05 MPa
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Fig. 17. Door prototype wall: Push-over analyses associated to different meshresolutions: (a) strain-softening behaviour; and (b) strain-hardening behaviour.
0.50
125
25
mesh C
0
0.00
0 .05 MPa
t=
0
0.00
1.00
t =
2.00
Fig. 19. Door prototype wall: Push-over analyses associated to different values of
tensile strength associated to the exural (a) and to the shear-diagonal (b)
behaviours.
when strain softening models are used. For this reason with the
aim to investigate the inuence of the mesh in the numerical
simulations, in Fig. 17, for the Pavia prototype, two different comparisons have been considered according to a strain-softening and
a strain hardening shear-behaviour characterised by a = 0.08 and
a = 0.08, respectively. All the other parameters are reported in Table 2. It can be observed as, in presence of strain softening plasticity (Fig. 17a), the localisation of plastic deformation causes a mesh
dependence in the softening branch of the push-over curve, while
in presence of strain-hardening behaviour (Fig. 17b) there is a good
agreement between the results obtained by different mesh
resolutions.
With reference to the mesh A and an elasto-perfectly plastic
behaviour, in Fig. 18 the inuence of the ne-tuning of the Nonlinear Links in investigated. Namely, the results of push-over analyses
associated to different numbers of Nlinks for unit length are compared. The comparison shows that, in the analysed case, all the considered Nlinks distributions provide results in very good agreement.
3.4. Inuence of the tensile and shear strength
2.50
338
[2] Chen SY, Moon FL, Yi T. A macroelement for the nonlinear analysis of in-plane
unreinforced masonry piers. Eng Struct 2008;30:224252.
[3] Moon FL, Yi T, Leon RT, Kahn LF. Recommendations for the seismic evaluation
and retrot of low-rise URM structures. ASCE J Struct Eng
2006;132(5):66372.
[4] Penelis Gr G. An efcient approach for pushover analysis of unreinforced
masonry (URM) structures. J Earthq Eng 2006;10(3):35979.
[5] Seible F, Kingsley GR. Modeling of concrete and masonry structures subjected
to seismic loading. Experimen Numer Meth Earthq Eng; 1991.
[6] Casolo S, Pea F. Rigid element model for in-plane dynamics of masonry walls
considering hysteretic behaviour and damage. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
2007;36(8):102948.
[7] Casolo S, Sanjust CA. Seismic analysis and strengthening design of a masonry
monument by a rigid body spring model: The Maniace Castle of Syracuse.
Eng Struct 2009;31(7):144759.
[8] Loureno PB. Computations on historic masonry structures. Progr Struct Eng
Mater 2002;4(3):30119.
[9] Magenes G, La Fontana A. Simplied nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry
buildings. In: Proceedings of British masonry society, vol. 8; 1998. p. 1905.
[10] Kappos AJ, Penelis GG, Drakopoulos CG. Evaluation of simplied models for
lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng
2002;128(7):8907.
[11] DAsdia P, Viskovic A. Analyses of a masonry wall subjected to horizontal
actions on its plane, employing a non-linear procedure using changing shape
nite elements. Trans Modell Simul 1995;10:51926 [WIT Press].
[12] Braga F, Liberatore D, Spera G. A computer program for the seismic analysis of
complex masonry buildings. In: Pande GN, Middleton J, Kralj B, editors.
Computer methods in structural masonry, vol. 4. London: E & FN Spon; 1998.
p. 30916.
[13] Vanin A, Foraboschi P. Modelling of masonry panels by truss analogy part 1.
Masonry Int 2009;22(1):110.
[14] Tomazevic M. Earthquake-resistant design of masonry building. In: Elnashai
AS, Dowling PJ, editors. Series on innovation in structures and construction,
vol. 1. London: Imperial College Press; 2006.
[15] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 1997;26:1091112.
[16] Turnsek V, Cacovic F. Some experimental result on the strength of brick
masonry walls. In: Proceedings of 2nd international brick masonry conference.
Stoke-on-Trent; 1971. p. 14956.
[17] Turnsek V, Sheppard P. The shear and exural resistance of masonry walls. In:
Proceedings of international research conference on earthquake engineering.
IZIIS, Skopje; 1981. p. 51773.
[18] Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures, part 1-1: general rules for
buildings. Rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry. ENV 1996-1-1:
1995. CEN, Brussels, 1995.
[19] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Experimental study on the determination of
strength of masonry walls. Construct Build Mater 2003;17:32537.
[20] Jirasek M, Bazant Z. Inelastic analysis of structures. Wiley; 2001.
[21] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The nite element method. Solid mechanics, fth
ed., vol. 2. Butterworth Heinemann; 2000.
[22] Calvi GM, Magenes G. Experimental research on response of URM building
systems. In: Proceedings of the USItaly workshop on guidelines for seismic
evaluation and rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings. Pavia,
Technical Report NCEER-94-0021. National Centre for Earthquake
Engineering, Buffalo, 20 July 1994.
[23] Magenes G, Calvi GM, Kingsley GR. Seismic testing of a full-scale, two-story
masonry building: test procedure and measured experimental response. In:
Experimental and numerical investigation on a brick masonry building
prototype numerical prediction of the experiment, Report 3.0 G.N.D.T.
Pavia, January 1995.
[24] Anthoine A, Magonette G, Magenes G. Shear compression testing and analysis
of brick masonry walls. In: Proceedings of 10th European conference on
earthquake engineering, vol. 3. Vienna, A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995. p.
165762.
[25] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic response of
brick masonry shear walls. Part II: the continuum model and its application.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1997;26:44062.
[26] Calvi MG, Kingsley GR, Magenes G. Testing of masonry structures for seismic
assessment. Earthq Spectra 1996;12(1):14562.
[27] Calderini C, Lagomarsino S. Continuum model for in-plane anisotropic inelastic
behaviour of masonry. J Struct Eng 2008;134(2).
[28] Brenchich G, Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. A macroelement approach to the
three-dimensional seismic analysis of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of
11th European conference on earthquake engineering. Paris, A. A. Balkema:
Rotterdam 602; 1998.
[29] Marques R, Loureno PB. Possibilities and comparison of structural component
models for the seismic assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings.
Comput Struct 2011;89:207991.