Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability

of an Unreinforced Masonry Structure Based

on Discrete-Macro Dynamic Analyses

César Chácara1(&), Paulo B. Lourenço1, Francesco Cannizzaro2,

Bartolomeo Pantò2, and Ivo Caliò2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, ISISE, University of Minho,
Guimarães, Portugal
c.chacara@pucp.pe, pbl@civil.uminho.pt
2
Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
University of Catania, Sicily, Italy
{francesco.cannizzaro,bpanto,icalio}@dica.unict.it

Abstract. UnReinforced Masonry (URM) structures experience severe damage

due to in-plane and out-of-plane mechanisms when subjected to seismic actions.
The assessment of the seismic vulnerability of URM generally requires complex
analytical procedures consisting of the application of sophisticated numerical
models. However, these models may request a high computational effort or may
present an over-simplified scheme, mainly when the out-of-plane mechanisms
are neglected. In this sense, a 3-dimensional macro-element model is here used
for a preliminary assessment of the seismic vulnerability of a URM prototype
characterized by an out-of-plane collapse mechanism. In this paper, the seismic
vulnerability of this type of constructions is investigated by means of fragility
functions in accordance with specific damage states and a given seismic input.
The structural safety assessment was conducted by means of time history
analyses with a limited computational effort. In addition, the evaluation of the
limit states is here performed by means of an alternative approach named as
Capacity Dominium based on the application of nonlinear static analyses.

Keywords: Brick masonry prototype
Dynamic nonlinear analysis

Capacity dominium
Seismic vulnerability
Fragility curves
Macro-element model

1 Introduction

The assessment of the seismic vulnerability of URM structures has become an

important topic within the earthquake engineering community since it plays a relevant
role in the decision making, risk prediction, and management of seismic hazard. Fra-
gility functions correspond to a practical statistical tool for the assessment of the
seismic vulnerability since it describes the probability of reaching or exceeding a
damage limit state due to a given intensity measure. The seismic vulnerability has been
investigated by means of judgment-based, empirical, analytical and hybrid procedures
[1]; however, it is worth noting that investigations related to URM structure are limited

© RILEM 2019
R. Aguilar et al. (Eds.): Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions,
RILEM Bookseries 18, pp. 1210–1218, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99441-3_130
 Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability 1211

[2]. Recent academic studies on masonry structures have been carried out employing
simplified structural models and analysis methods [3–7]. Nevertheless, these models
are over-simplified, and in most cases, they neglect the out-of-plane mechanisms of this
type of structures. This paper presents a preliminary assessment of the seismic vul-
nerability of a URM structure made fired clay units which is characterized by a marked
out-of-plane response. The numerical simulations for the analytical derivation of the
vulnerability or fragility functions were conducted by means of a simplified modelling
approach capable of simulating the in-plane and out-of-plane mechanisms of URM
structures. It is worth noting that this approach is capable of performing sophisticated
nonlinear analyses with a significant reduction of the computational demand. These
analyses are employed for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of the brick URM
structure. In addition, the assessment of the Limit State (LS) capacity was conducted
with an alternative approach named Capacity Dominium [8].

2 Discrete-Macro Modelling Approach

The discrete-macro modelling approach, employed in this investigation, is a simplified

numerical tool for the seismic assessment of masonry structures. The model was ini-
tially introduced by Caliò et al. [9] for masonry structures with rigid diaphragm and
extended by Caliò and Pantò [10] for the simulation of the behavior of infilled frame
structures. This approach consists of the modelling of masonry structures by means of
2-dimensional panels whose interaction with adjacent elements is ruled by interfaces as
illustrated in Fig. 1a. Each panel is composed of four rigid edges connected by hinges
and a couple of diagonal nonlinear links, whereas the interface elements are composed
of a discrete distribution of nonlinear links orthogonal to the rigid edge, denoted as
transversal links, and an additional nonlinear link along its length. The kinematics of
each element is described by 4 degrees of freedom (DOFs): three of them are associated
with the rigid body motion, and the remaining one is related to the shear deformability
of the panel. This modelling approach is able to simulate the main in-plane mechanisms
such as flexural, shear-diagonal, and shear sliding responses.
An upgrade to account for the out-of-plane response of URM structures was then
conducted, mainly consisting on the introduction of the out-of-plane DOFs and new
sets of links on a 3-dimensional panel (Fig. 1b) [11]. The interaction with adjacent
panels is still conducted by means of interfaces composed by a discretized matrix of
nonlinear links orthogonal to the surface of the interface, a single nonlinear link along
the length of the interface, and a couple of nonlinear links along the thickness of the
interface. Each 3-dimensional panel is described by 7 DOFs: six associated with the
rigid body motion, and one related to the shear deformability. Such mechanical scheme
is capable of simulating the main mechanisms of URM, namely bi-flexural, shear-
diagonal, in-plane and out-of-plane sliding, and torsion responses. The simulation of
each of these mechanisms is governed by a specific set of links. The bi-flexural
response is governed by the discretized layer of nonlinear links. The shear-diagonal and
in-plane shear-sliding responses are simulated by the diagonal nonlinear link inside the
panel, and by the single nonlinear link along the length of the interface element.
Finally, the remaining two nonlinear links rule the out-of-plane shear-sliding and
1212 C. Chácara et al.

Fig. 1. Discrete macro modelling approach: mechanical schemes of the (a) 2-dimensional, and
(b) 3-dimensional panels.

torsion responses. A reliable simulation of these mechanical schemes requires a proper

calibration procedure, as briefly described hereafter.

2.1 Calibration Procedure of the Nonlinear Links

The calibration of the transversal links is based on a fiber approach. The surface of each
interface element is discretized into a grid of m  n traces related to two half fibers of
masonry (see Fig. 2a). Each fiber is governed by an equivalent link whose initial
stiffness is related to Young’s modulus E of the masonry material, the effective length
L, and influence area As of the corresponding fiber. The tensile Fty and compressive Fcy
yielding forces are associated with the tensile ft and compressive fc strengths of the
material and to area As. In addition, the post-peak behavior is ruled by a fracture energy
approach in which the tensile and compressive softening branches are characterized by
exponential and parabolic curves, respectively (see Fig. 2b).
The cyclic behavior of the transversal links corresponds to the hysteretic model
introduced by Takeda [12] in which the unloading cycles are ruled by a coefficient
denoted as b, which ranges between 0 and 1. b equal to 0 corresponds to unloading
cycles described by an initial stiffness (BC and EF in Fig. 2b), whereas as b equal to 1
is associated with unloading cycles oriented to the origin (segments KO and LO).
Intermediate conditions are represented by segments GH and IJ. In this regard, tensile
and compressive responses may be characterized by independent unloading cycles
(different unloading coefficients bt and bc). Once the direction of the force is inverted, a
reloading phase, oriented to the maximum value of the backbone curve achieved in the
previous cycles, begins. On the other hand, the slipping and deformability of URM
structures along the mortar joints are simulated by three additional nonlinear links
placed at each interface. The calibration of the elastic response of the in-plane sliding
link is based on the assumption of a rigid behavior. Since the out-of-plane sliding links
do not only simulate the out-of-plane shear sliding but also the torsion response,
stiffness and mutual distance are calibrated enforcing the equivalence with the
 Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability 1213

Fig. 2. Transversal nonlinear links: (a) fiber calibration procedure, and (b) backbone curve and
cyclic behavior.

corresponding continuous medium. The frictional phenomena that describe the

behavior of the sliding links are governed according to a Mohr-Coulomb criterion
considering a yielding force Fy associated with the current confinement condition. The
confinement condition is considered as the equivalent current axial force N acting on
the interface. It is worth noting that each sliding link is characterized by an influence
area, corresponding to the entire and half surfaces of the interface for the in-plane and
out-of-plane links, respectively (see Fig. 3a, b). The cyclic constitutive law of these
links is ruled by unloading and reloading cycles with initial stiffness (See Fig. 3c).

Fig. 3. Sliding nonlinear links: (a) in-plane, (b) out-of-plane sliding links, and (c) elasto-plastic
hysteretic model.

The overall in-plane shear response of URM structures is partially contributed by

the formation of diagonal cracks as a consequence of limited tensile strength, which
can be simulated by the diagonal link. The calibration in the linear elastic field is based
on an equivalence of the discrete element with a finite portion of masonry (see Fig. 4a).
The initial stiffness of this link is related to the shear modulus G of the masonry
1214 C. Chácara et al.

material, and to the geometry of the panel. On the other hand, two suitable constitutive
models may be employed in the nonlinear field, namely Mohr-Coulomb, and Turnsek
and Cacovic [13], respectively. Both criteria account for the confinement action as the
resultant force of the interface elements surrounding the macro-element. Furthermore,
the cyclic law that simulates the hysteretic response is governed by the Takeda model
[12], in which the unloading cycles are ruled by the initial stiffness (see Fig. 4b).

Fig. 4. Transversal nonlinear links: (a) fiber calibration procedure, and (b) backbone curve and
cyclic behavior.

3 Brick Masonry Prototype

The case study was a masonry structure based on an English bond arrangement made of
fired clay bricks and hydraulic clay mortar. Such structure had a U-shape configuration
consisting of a main gable wall connected to two return walls with an equal thickness
of 0.235 m. The main gable wall was characterized by a length of 3.50 m, a height of
2.75 m, and presented a window opening. Both return walls presented 2.50 m and
2.25 m of length and height, respectively. The specimen presented an asymmetry
consisting of a window opening at one of the return walls (see Fig. 5a). The structure
was not characterized by a box behavior due to the absence of a rigid diaphragm. The
dynamic response of the brick masonry prototype was previously investigated in the
static [14, 15] and dynamic [15] nonlinear fields by means of this modelling approach
(Fig. 5b).
The proposed approach was validated in the static and dynamic nonlinear fields
through a comparison with a detailed FE approach. Regarding the static analyses, a
horizontal mass proportional force was applied orthogonally to the main gable wall (Y
direction). As illustrated in Fig. 5c, the results from these static analyses are presented
by means of pushover curves (load factor vs. the horizontal displacement at the top of
the tympanum), showing a good agreement in terms of maximum load capacity and
post-peak behavior. On the other hand, the structure was subjected to a uniaxial
accelerogram, considering a Rayleigh viscous damping (ratio of 5%). The results
obtained by means of the proposed simplified approach (see Fig. 5d), which entails a
significant reduction of the computational effort, are in good agreement in terms of
maximum load capacity and displacement with the FE model [15].
 Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability 1215

Fig. 5. Out-of-plane assessment of URM structure: (a) brick masonry prototype, (b) macro-
model, comparison in terms of (c) pushover curves in positive and negative directions, and
(d) hysteretic response

4 Seismic Vulnerability

A preliminary assessment of the seismic vulnerability of the prototype was conducted

by means of fragility curves obtained from the results of nonlinear dynamic analyses.
As stated, fragility curves are used to evaluate the probability of reaching or exceeding
a certain Limit State (LS) in accordance with an Intensity Measure (IM). The fragility
curves are defined by a normal cumulative distribution function Ф, characterized by a
mean value h and a standard deviation b. The IM selected for this investigation cor-
responds to the Peak Ground Acceleration PGA, whereas two limit states are consid-
ered, namely the Significant Damage and the Near Collapse Limit States. The definition
and the assessment of the LS are here performed through an alternative approach named
Capacity Dominium as better explained in the following sub-section.

4.1 Capacity Dominium

For URM structures with box behavior, the definition of Near Collapse LS is usually
associated with the collapse mechanism and the corresponding inter-story drift [16–19].
However, when the out-of-plane response is prevalent, the definition of a unique
ultimate drift representative of the structural collapse becomes an empiric or arbitrary
choice. For this reason, an alternative and more rational procedure for the definition of
the structural capacity is needed. In this study, a 3D Capacity Dominium, based on
conducting a set of pushover analyses with an incremental angular step is employed to
identify the LS. For this purpose, sixteen pushover analyses were conducted on the
macro-element model (with an angular step equal to 22.5°). On each capacity curve, a
proper limit state capacity has to be identified. The Italian code [19] considers a Life
1216 C. Chácara et al.

Safety LS equivalent to the Near Collapse LS in EC8-Part3 [16] when a structure

experiences a 20% reduction of its maximum shear capacity. Considering this reduc-
tion, the pushover curves were plotted backwards, at an equal distance from the origin
and along their corresponding angle. Subsequently, the curves were connected by
means of patches aiming at the construction of a basket domain (see Fig. 6a). The
Capacity Dominium for a Near Collapse LS is defined by the effective horizontal
displacement in the basket domain (red area in Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6. Seismic vulnerability: (a) basket domain and pushover curves, (b) CD for Significant
Damage LS, (c) assessment of dynamic response, and (d) fragility curves associated with Type 1
and Type 2 seismic inputs.

4.2 Fragility Curves

The seismic vulnerability of this prototype was assessed by nonlinear dynamic analyses
and the application of 3-component artificial accelerograms based on the elastic
response spectrum Type 1 and Type 2 considering the area of Lisbon, Portugal and a
soil type A [20]. Over 840 accelerograms were generated using the software SIMQKE
[21] and processed using the software LNEC-SPA [22] by means of a bandpass Fourier
filter of 0.20 Hz. In addition, 280 analyses were conducted on the brick masonry
prototype considering eight values of PGA ranging from 0.45 g to 0.80 g. The fragility
curves were built based on the number of analyses (events) that reached or exceeded a
certain LS. The dynamic response was evaluated by means of the Capacity Dominium
for a Near Collapse LS. As shown in Fig. 6c, if the history of displacements is placed
outside the Capacity Dominium, the event has exceeded the LS. As illustrated in
Fig. 6d, it was evidenced that, from this preliminary assessment, there is a low
 Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability 1217

uncertainty associated with the seismic vulnerability of this structure, especially for a
Type 2 seismic input. It is worth noting that geometric and mechanical parameters
presented a deterministic value, and the only uncertainty was focused on the artificial
accelerograms.

5 Final Considerations

The seismic vulnerability of a URM structure (brick masonry prototype) has been
investigated by means of analytical fragility functions. The numerical model, based on
a macro-element approach, was validated by comparing its results with the ones
obtained from a FE model evidencing a significant reduction of computational demand.
Dynamic nonlinear analyses were conducted on a masonry prototype by the application
of 3-component artificial accelerogram. Two types of elastic response spectrums (far-
and near-field earthquakes) were used for the generation of artificial accelerograms. On
the other hand, the definition of the LS and the corresponding assessment of the
dynamic response were conducted by means of a Capacity Dominium which required
the application of a set of pushover analyses in different directions. From the prelim-
inary analytical fragility curves, it was evidenced a low uncertainty regarding its
seismic vulnerability for both types of seismic input (especially Type 2). This behavior
may be associated with the generation of each type of artificial accelerograms since
they are based on a single elastic response spectrum and they are characterized by the
same frequency content. The uncertainty was only focused on the seismic input,
keeping geometric and mechanical properties with deterministic parameters. It is also
worth noting that a more detailed investigation which considers additional uncertainties
related to material and geometric properties is an on-going work.

Acknowledgments. The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the
Peruvian Institution Innovate Perú/FINCyT (Fondo para la Innovación, Ciencia y Tecnología)
through the PhD grant BECA-1-P-078-13.

References
1. Cundall PA (1971) A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in
blocky rock systems. In: Symposium on rock fracture (ISRM), Nancy, France
2. Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2010) A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves
for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses. Eng Struct 32:1312–1323
3. D’Ayala D (2005) Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for traditional
buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 3:235–265
4. Cattari S, Frumento S, Lagomarsino S, Parodi S, Resemini S (2006) Multi-level procedure
for the seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings: the case of Sanremo (North-
Western Italy). In: 1st european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology
(ECEES), Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 September 2006
5. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the
vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:421–444
1218 C. Chácara et al.

6. Erberik MA (2008) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering
in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(3):387–405
7. Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2009) Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise
unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 1:125–137
8. Cannizzaro F, Pantò B, Lepidi M, Caddemi S, Caliò I (2017) Multi-directional seismic
assessment of historical masonry buildings by means of macro-element modelling:
application to a building damaged during the L’Aquila earthquake (Italy). Buildings 7(4)
9. Caliò I, Marletta M, Pantò B (2012) A new discrete element model for the evaluation of the
seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct 40:237–338
10. Caliò I, Pantò B (2014) A macro-element modelling approach of Infilled Frame Structures.
Comput Struct 143:91–107
11. Pantò B, Cannizzaro F, Caliò I, Lourenço PB (2017) Numerical and experimental validation
of a 3D macro-model for the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
walls. Int J Archit Heritage. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1325539
12. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. J Struct Div 96(12):2557–2573
13. Turnsek V, Cacovic F (1971) Some experimental result on the strength of brick masonry
walls. In: 2nd international brick masonry conference, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, vol 149-56
14. Cannizzaro F, Lourenço PB (2017) Simulation of shake table tests on out-of-plane masonry
buildings. Part (VI): discrete element approach. Int J Archit Heritage 11(1):125–142
15. Chácara C, Lourenço PB, Cannizzaro F, Pantò B, Caliò I (2017) Seismic assessment of an
unreinforced masonry structure subjected to out-of-plane dynamic excitations by means of a
discrete macro-modelling approach. In: 3rd international conference on protection of
historical constructions, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–15 July
16. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3: general rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, Design Code EN 1998-3 (2005), Brussels, Belgium
17. NZSEE (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in
earthquakes, New Zealand
18. ATC, FEMA-306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall
buildings: basic procedures manual, Washington DC, USA
19. NTC 2008, Decreto Ministeriale 14/1/2008 (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni.
Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportations
20. NP EN 196-8, Eurocode 8 (2010) Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings-Portuguese Institute for Quality,
Portugal
21. Gasparini DA, Vanmarcke EH (1976) SIMQKE, a program for artificial motion generation:
user’s manual and documentation. Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, USA
22. Mendes L (2008) LNEC-SPA: signal processing and analysis tools for civil engineers.
Portugal Patent, Lisbon