Nonlinear analysis of out‐of‐plane masonry façades: full dynamic versus pushover methods by rigid body and spring model

Abstract

SUMMARY The paper proposes a systematic comparison between two methods of analysis that are well established in the field of earthquake engineering: nonlinear dynamic analysis and nonlinear static procedure (NSP), applied to the out‐of‐plane seismic response of two masonry façades representative of many ancient Italian churches. The comparison is based on extensive numerical analyses, which focus on the flexural and torsional mechanisms, while the in‐plane damage mechanisms and the possible detachment between the façade and the lateral walls because of a poor connection have been presently disregarded. The computations, both in the static and in the dynamic field, are based on a rigid body and spring model specifically implemented for this issue, computationally efficient and equipped with a realistic model of damage and hysteresis at the mesoscale. An innovative aspect of this study is the heuristic modelling of three‐wythe masonry, to include some typical texture effects on the macroscale nonlinear response. For each façade, two different masonry textures were considered, performing extensive dynamic analyses that offered a detailed overview about the performance under earthquakes of different intensities. In parallel, NSP and the classical N2‐based seismic assessment were applied. A critical discussion and comparison of the results of the two methods is presented to rationally appraise limits and opportunities. In particular, flexural and twisting out‐of‐plane mechanisms were clearly appraised in the dynamic field, whereas NSPs were not always able to describe the collapse, because they missed the partial failures determined by higher vibration modes, as could be expected. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Seismic Modelling and Analysis of Masonry Building in Aggregate: A Case Study

“…. ) and collect much more detailed data [14][15][16][17][18]. It is evident anyway that the results provided at a large scale (both regional and urban) have only a relative validity within the considered set of buildings (which shall be sufficiently "homogeneous" regarding the typological, structural and constructive aspects).…”

Further Developments of a Simplified Modelling of Infilled Frames for Reinforced Concrete Buildings

“…Through this approach, it is possible to model the masonry panels at the "macro-scale" through a kinematic that takes into account the specific effects of masonry texture. It has been fruitfully applied, in the last few years, for modeling the behavior of masonry structures both in-plane and out-ofplane [21,22], allowing to perform the vulnerability assessment for whole masonry buildings [23,24,25]. The connection between the rigid blocks occurs by means of two axial springs (indicated with Kx or Kz, depending on the direction) and a shear spring (Kh, Kv, depending on configuration) arranged along each of the common sides between the blocks at a distance equal, respectively, to bx and bz.…”

Time-History Seismic Analysis of Masonry Buildings: A Comparison between Two Non-Linear Modelling Approaches

“…Dealing with the analysis methods, the largest part of them can be divided into three main categories: (i) the modal analysis, usually based on linear models, combined with the concept of structural behavior factor q to account for the energy dissipation effects; (ii) the non-linear static analysis (pushover); and (iii) the non-linear time-history analysis [5][6][7]. The first method is commonly adopted in the professional context, to verify the compliance of the performance level with the one required by the technical standards.…”