Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

An equivalent frame model for seismic analysis of masonry

and reinforced concrete buildings
Y. Belmouden *, P. Lestuzzi
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, ENAC-IS-IMAC, EPFL, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 13 August 2007; received in revised form 29 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007
Available online 19 December 2007

Abstract

In this paper a novel equivalent planar-frame model with openings is presented. The model deals with seismic analysis using the Push-
over method for masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Each wall with opening can be decomposed into parallel structural walls
made of an assemblage of piers and a portion of spandrels. As formulated, the structural model undergoes inelastic flexural as well
as inelastic shear deformations. The mathematical model is based on the smeared cracks and distributed plasticity approach. Both zero
moment location shifting in piers and spandrels can be evaluated. The constitutive laws are modeled as bilinear curves in flexure and in
shear. A biaxial interaction rule for both axial force–bending moment and axial force–shear force are considered. The model can support
any shape of failure criteria. An event-to-event strategy is used to solve the nonlinear problem. Two applications are used to show the
ability of the model to study both reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry structures. Relevant findings are compared to analytical
results from experimental, simplified models and finite element models such as Drain3DX and ETABS finite element package.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic evaluation; Unreinforced masonry; Reinforced concrete; Structural wall; Equivalent frame

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. A model for structural walls with openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1. Description and hypotheses of the structural model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2. Formulation of a structural wall model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3. A nonlinear analysis of framed structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4. Pushover analysis of a RC building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1. Description of the structural model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2. Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5. Pushover analysis of an URM building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1. General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2. Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 21 693 6382; fax: +41 21 693 47 48.
E-mail addresses: youssef.belmouden@epfl.ch (Y. Belmouden), pierino.lestuzzi@epfl.ch (P. Lestuzzi).

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.10.023
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53
1. Introduction
Earthquakes are considered to be the major cause of
structural failure of buildings in Europe. Despite their rar-
ity and moderate intensity, earthquakes in the interior of
northwest and central Europe have the potential to cause
extensive damage and associated financial losses, due to
the vulnerability of the local building stock. The mitigation
of earthquake hazard involves the collaboration of many
specialists with different tasks. One of these topics is struc-
tural engineering providing and advancing the knowledge
for earthquake resistant construction. However, a problem
arises for existing buildings analysis. In this context, in the
few last decades, technical advances have been made in
seismic engineering and particularly in the seismic vulnera-
bility assessment of existing buildings. The vulnerability
assessment focuses on the study of the extent of damage
for different earthquake scenarios.
In almost all countries, the majority of the building
stock is classified as existing buildings. This is why exten-
sive assessment of such structures is motivated since they
have been generally designed to resist gravity loads. Never-
theless, the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings
designed against wind loads, is found to be very low.
This paper makes a contribution to the seismic vulnera-
bility assessment of existing buildings through the develop-
ment of a simplified analytical model. The need for such
models is always motivated by first, the large amount of
structures that should be analyzed in a very short time
and second, the search for optimal solutions for structural
retrofitting.
For vulnerability assessment purposes, the analysis of a
large number of existing buildings requires relatively simple
approaches that are capable of representing their essential
characteristics. The models should be able to evaluate the
ultimate strength, maximum displacements and the failure
modes. Different models are developed based on analytical
and finite element approaches [1]. The analytical models
are found to be very simple to use and require lesser
amount of data. However they are very limited, particu-
larly for large building analysis in terms of structural
behavior (coupling effect, distribution of the nonlinearity,
modes of failures prediction). The performed analysis show
that they are conservative and are not able to represent all
features of such buildings [2]. On the other side, finite ele-
ment approach is a powerful tool for seismic analysis but it
is time consuming and requires a large amount of data.
Moreover, refined models based on either discrete or con-
tinuum approaches suffer from the strong mesh-depen-
dency and require numerous parameters that may not be
directly extractable from structural analysis. Hence, these
models are very sensitive to the parameter calibration that
affects closely the reliability of the results and the analysis
stability (lack of convergence, flip-flop occurrence, sudden
load falling, and so on). With such methods it is not possi-
ble to treat a stock of buildings. Thus, these methods are
cumbersome due to the high analytical skills required for
41
their numerical implementation and they are restricted only
to practitioners with a high level of knowledge.
A widely used model for structural analysis is the linear
(beam-column element) finite element or the equivalent
frame models. Despite of some limitations in the equivalent
frame model, it is very attractive in comparison to complex
finite element models [1,3–5]. Moreover, they have shown
satisfactory results particularly for RC structures. In this
context, the proposed model is based on beam-column ele-
ment and distributed of nonlinearity approaches. It is
adapted to analytical methods without use of finite element
method.
In this paper, the developed model deals with the seismic
vulnerability assessment of existing multistoried buildings.
2. A model for structural walls with openings
2.1. Description and hypotheses of the structural model
The mathematical model can represent solid walls,
frame structural elements (made in beams and columns),
coupled walls and perforated walls (or framed walls) [6].
The model can represent different openings. However, the
vertical axis should lie through all vertical piers elements
as well as for the horizontal axes that should lies through
all spandrels.
The structural model consists of an assemblage of verti-
cal plane walls with openings that form a single perforated
wall. Each structural wall is made of pier elements with or
without rigid offsets and a portion of spandrels such that
there are two kinds of individual walls: exterior walls and
interior walls (Fig. 1). The length of these parts of span-
drels is equal to the zero moment length, and can be
updated at each step depending on the bending moments
at the spandrel ends.
In the equivalent frame models that are based on finite
element method, nonlinear flexural springs (lumped plastic-
ity) are inserted into the model at the ends of the piers and/
or spandrel elements. These elements are defined in terms
F
hi
lsp
F
hp
Opening
Rigid zone
Deformable
part Li
Edge wall Intermediate wall Edge wall
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of equivalent frame model for planar
walls with openings.
42 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

of moment–rotation laws. Translational shear springs are numerical problems. The flexural behavior is modeled
added at each pier and spandrel at mid-points. These as a moment-curvature law that is based on an equilib-
springs are expressed in terms of shear force–displacement rium statement in a cross-section.
laws. However, the occurrence of yielding is unlikely along 5. The present formulation deals with a Pushover analysis.
spandrel spans and piers heights. For that reason, nonlin- It is based on the well-known event-to-event strategy. A
earity should be distributed along the clear pier height simplified algorithm for systems with interaction effect is
and clear spandrel length. Thus, the proposed model is presented through an equilibrium correction at each step
based on the spread nonlinearity approach. Each pier of calculation. The analysis is performed by a force-con-
and spandrel can be discretized into a series of slices [7] trolled technique. The change of sign in a structural ele-
while cross-sections are considered as homogeneous. The ment is permitted only in the elastic range. In the
structural element behavior is monitored at the center of inelastic range, this leads to stoppage of the analysis.
the slices [7] while bending moments are evaluated at slice 6. The structural wall is a planar structure (two-dimen-
ends. sional). However, the sum of all capacity curves, on
The mechanical model undergoes flexural as well as the basis of the equal top displacement assumption, per-
shear deformation. In the current formulation, the model mits to analyze an entire building and to develop capac-
only considers a biaxial interaction between axial forces– ity curves.
bending moments (N–M) and axial forces–shear forces
(N–V) only. The so-called shifting of the primary curve 2.2. Formulation of a structural wall model
technique is used in a simple manner [8]. The axial force
is evaluated in a simple manner based on initial axial forces The structural walls, composed in an assemblage of piers
plus vertical shear forces produced in spandrels at joints. A and spandrels, are modeled as an equivalent frame struc-
triaxial interaction rule, (N–M–V), is not currently consid- ture. Rigid offsets can be added at the top and/or the bot-
ered. At present, only interaction curves that represents tom of the piers, or the left side and/or right side of
bending moment or shear force interaction with regards spandrels. The storey rotations and lateral displacements
to a compressive axial force are considered. The major fea- are calculated so that flexural and shear deformations
tures of this model are summarized as follows: can be considered. It should be noted that only in-plane
deformations and rotations of the entire walls are consid-
1. All previous attempts to use simplified models based on ered. In the following a general method for structural anal-
static equilibrium method, always consider a constant ysis of a multistory building is given. The wall base is
zero moment location [9–14], and others. The wall for- considered as fixed. The storey moment–lateral force for-
mulation herein permits the capture of the coupling mulation of a structural wall element is expressed by:
effect in elevation due to the nonlinearity distribution
in both piers and spandrels. Thus, the zero moment fM bs g ¼ ½K Frame fP g ð1Þ
location in both piers and spandrels can be mitigated fP g ¼ ½LP–T ½LT–F fF g ð2Þ
2 3
during the nonlinear analysis. B1 C 1 0 0 ... 0 0 0
2. In the current development, the variation of the axial 6A B C2 0 ... 0 0 0 7
6 2 2 7
vertical loads are considered for piers only and they 6 7
6 0 A3 B3 C3 ... 0 0 0 7
are based on an over-simplified approach. The axial 1 6 7
½K Frame  ¼ 6 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
loads on piers are updated based on the initial axial 6 .. . . . . . . . 7
6 7
forces at each storey plus the shear forces developed 6 7
40 0 0 0 ... AN 1 BN 1 C N 1 5
on spandrel ends.
3. The nonlinearity is treated using a smeared plasticity 0 0 0 0 ... 0 AN BN
approach [7]. Thus, the piers and spandrels are discret- ð3Þ
ized into finite homogenized slices [15]. Variable sections P n ¼ Dn T n1 þ En T n ð4Þ
can be specified over either spandrels or piers. In pier
elements the axial forces can increase or decrease. In {Mbs} represents the base storey bending moments vector,
that case, the pier slices can shift either from elastic- [KFrame] is the equivalent frame stiffness matrix, {P} is the
to-plastic or from plastic-to-elastic state depending on reduced shear forces vector, [LP–T] is the reduced storey
the axial force distribution. shear forces–storey shear force transformation matrix,
4. The model can take into account both flexural and shear [LT–F] is the storey shear force–applied lateral force trans-
behavior in the inelastic range. The interaction effect can formation matrix in absence of vertical distributed loads,
be defined by using experimental and phenomenological {F} is the lateral load pattern vector. The equivalent frame
models. These equations are considered as failure crite- matrix and the reduced shear forces vector are defined by
ria that can be defined by points and linear segments. the expressions An, Bn, Cn, Dn, and En (with n = 1, N; N is
The non linear constitutive model for both flexural the number of storeys) (Eqs. (3), and (4)) such as
and shear behavior is considered as a bilinear envelop 1
An ¼ ðk sp
eq;n1 Þ ð5Þ
curve with a very small post-yield stiffness to avoid
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53 43
! Z
2 1 1 X
m¼Nslices gm
ð1  nÞndn
Bn ¼  sp þ sp þ p ð6Þ bflx
n ¼ hn ð18Þ
k eq;n1 k eq;n k n m¼1 gm1 K v ðnm Þ
1 X Z
C n ¼ ðk sp
eq;n Þ ð7Þ m¼Nslices gm
n2 dn
cflx
n ¼ hn ð19Þ
hn1 m¼1 gm1 K v ðnm Þ
Dn ¼ sp ð8Þ Z
k eq;n1 1 X
m¼Nslices gm
dn
! d shr
n ¼ ð20Þ
1 1 hn m¼1 gm1 K d ðnm Þ
E n ¼ hn p þ sp ð9Þ
k n k eq;n
Herein, the expressions (17)–(20) are formulated for pier
The equivalent stiffness of a spandrel for an individual elements; hn is the storey height at level ‘n’, n is a
structural wall ‘i’ at level ‘n’ (Fig. 2) is: normalized variable. gm1 and gm are the left side and the
For an interior wall: right side coordinates of a slice respectively; Nslices is the
! number of slices in a wall element, nm = 0.5(gm1 + gm)
sp 1 1 represents the slice centre at which the slice behavior is
k eq;n ¼ þ spandrel ð10Þ
cspandrel
i1 ai ðnÞ
monitored. The same expressions are also used for the cal-
culation of the nonlinearity redistribution coefficients in the
For a left side exterior wall: spandrels with respect to their zero moment lengths L0R
spandrel 1 and L0L (Fig. 2). The redistribution coefficients are then
k sp
eq;n ¼ ðai ÞðnÞ ð11Þ
discretized such that a structural element is decomposed
For a right side exterior wall: into finite slices [7]. The inter-storey rotations between level
spandrel 1 ‘n’ and ‘n-1’, for a given single wall, omitting the index ‘i’
k sp
eq;n ¼ ðci1 ÞðnÞ ð12Þ for clarity, are given by:
The equivalent stiffness of a pier for an individual struc- hn  hn1 ¼ ðbpier þ apier pier
þ cpier
n n ÞM n1;n þ ðbn n ÞM n;n1
tural wall element at level ‘n’ is:
ð21Þ
1
k pn ¼ ðcpier
n þ bpier
n Þ ð13Þ M sp M sp
n;tot n1;tot
hn  hn1 ¼  ð22Þ
The superscripts ‘p’ and ‘sp’ mean pier and spandrel ele- k sp
eq;n k sp
eq;n1
ments respectively. The superscripts ‘flx’ and ‘shr’ mean
flexure and shear respectively. The nonlinearity redistribu- M sp sp
n;tot and M n1;tot represent the total bending moment

tion coefficients are defined as follows: developed in spandrels at the nth and n  1th level respec-
sp
tively (Fig. 2). k sp eq;n and k eq;n1 represent the equivalent stiff-
shr
an ¼ aflx
n  dn ð14Þ ness of spandrels at the nth and n  1th level respectively
bn ¼ bflx shr
n þ dn ð15Þ (Fig. 2) for an individual wall ‘i’.
shr The lateral story-displacements for each individual wall,
cn ¼ cflx
n  dn ð16Þ
in a given section yj, are given as follows:
X
m¼Nslices Z gm 2 Z yj Z yj
ð1  nÞ dn
aflx
n ¼ hn ð17Þ vðy j Þ ¼ hj1 y j þ vðnÞðy j  nÞdn þ dðnÞdn ð23Þ
m¼1 gm1 K v ðnm Þ
0 0

The term ‘level’ means the centre-line (or the neutral axis)
L0 R ,i ,n L0 L ,i +1,n of the spandrels between two adjacent storeys that form the
L0 L ,i ,n
pier-to-spandrel joints. The wall curvatures and shear
M n ,n −1 M Rsp,i ,n deformations are expressed as follows:
M n ,n +1
Level n

M Lsp,i ,n L 0 L ,i +1,n −1 vðnÞ ¼ MðnÞ=K v ðnÞ ð24Þ

Tn L 0 L ,i ,n −1 L 0 R ,i ,n −1 hn dðnÞ ¼ T ðnÞ=K d ðnÞ ð25Þ
M n −1,n M n −1,n − 2 M Rsp,i ,n −1
Level n-1
M(n) is the bending moment and T(n) is the shear force in a
M Lsp,i ,n −1 L 0 L ,i +1,n − 2
Tn −1 hn −1 slice, Kv(n) and Kd(n) are the flexural and shear stiffness of
M n − 2 , n −3 M Rsp,i ,n − 2
a slice, respectively. The curvatures are assumed linear over
M n − 2,n −1
Level n-2 each slice.
M Lsp,i ,n − 2 Moreover, the equilibrium equation at a rigid joint is
L0 R ,i ,n − 2
L0 L ,i ,n − 2 formulated as follows:
Wall i Span i Wall i+1
X X
M piers ¼ M spandrels ð26Þ
Fig. 2. Moment diagrams in an equivalent frame model and decompo-
sition into simplified individual wall element. L0L,i,n and L0R,i,n are the left The pier-to-spandrel joint equilibrium for an individual
side and right side zero moments lengths for the wall ‘i’ at level ‘n’. wall ‘i’ (Fig. 2) is expressed as follows:
44 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

M sp
n;tot ¼ ðM n;n1 þ M n;nþ1 Þ ð27Þ S1
Slice elastic before loading (state k-
k-1)

M sp
n;tot ¼ M sp
L;i;n þ M sp
R;i1;n ð28Þ Compression Slice yields after loading (state k)

S 2(k ) = S 2−y(k )
For a left side exterior wall ‘i’:
Equilibrium
M sp sp
R;i1;n ¼ k eq;R;i1;n hn ð29Þ correction k S1(k )
T sp
R;i1;n ¼ M sp
R;i1;n =L0R;i1;n ð30Þ
ΔS1(k ) ↑
For a right side exterior wall ‘i’:
k −1
M sp sp
L;i;n ¼ k eq;L;i;n hn ð31Þ
S1(k −1)
T sp sp
L;i;n ¼ M L;i;n =L0L;i;n ð32Þ ΔS 2(k ) ↓

L0R,i,n and L0L,i,n define the zero moment location for the c
S 2−y(k −1) S 2(k ) = S 2−y(k ) S 2(k −1) S 2+y(k ) S 2+y(k −1) S 2
ith spandrel element at the nth level, M sp sp
L;i;n and M R;i1;n
are their corresponding spandrel ends bending moments Tension
in the span ‘i’ (Fig. 2). The initial values for zero moment
Fig. 3. General representation of an interaction process between S1 and S2
locations are calculated according to the relative stiffness
parameters.
between spandrels and the adjacent piers. For an interior
wall, the expressions from Eqs. (29) to (32) are considered
simultaneously. event factors. The occurrence of an event depends on the
yield surfaces function and yielding limit states for all slices
3. A nonlinear analysis of framed structures in flexure and in shear (see Figs. 3 and 4).

In the following, a simplified approach of the Pushover 4. Pushover analysis of a RC building

method based on the event-to-event strategy is presented
(Table 1). In this method, the event factor for the entire
frame subjected to the predefined lateral load pattern is cal-
culated such as ak = Min(aki , i = 1, Nwall), Nwall is the
number of parallel individual walls. A wall event factor,
aki , is calculated for the nominal event plus the tolerance
[7]. A wall event factor is extracted from the lowest slice
4.1. Description of the structural model
A three-dimensional multistoried building made in RC
structural walls is studied (Fig. 5). The structure was mod-
eled on both Drain3DX [16] using a fiber beam element
(type 15) and ETABS [17] using a point hinge beam ele-

Table 1
Flow chart of the proposed ‘Pushover’ analysis for the equivalent planar-frame model
Step 1 Structural modeling: Frame geometry, lateral loads pattern {F}, initial compressive axial loads on piers N, failure criterion (N–M) and (N–V).
Step 2 Slices state initialization: Yielding bending moments and yielding shear forces, elastic stiffnesses, event overshoot tolerances, initial values for
zero moment locations L0Land L0R.
Step 3 For each individual structural wall i = 1, Nwall: (ak = 1)
3-1 Apply a load increment ak{DF}
3-2 Having Lspan;k1
0L , Lspan;k1
0R ,Nk1 and M k1 y , and T y
k1

3-3 Calculate an, bn and cn

3-4 Form [KFrame]1, and {DP}
3-5 Solve Eq. (1)
3-6 Calculate {DMbs} and {DT}
3-7 Extract the bending moments at the top of all storeys
3-8 Calculate the total bending in spandrels DM sp n;tot , for n = 1,N (Eq. (26))
3-9 Calculate Dhn  Dhn1, for n = 1,N (Eqs. (21) and (22))
3-10 Calculate DM sp sp sp sp
R;i1;n , DM L;i;n , DT R;i1;n and DT L;i;n , for n = 1,N (Eqs. (29)–(32))
3-11 Calculate the lateral displacementsDv(Eq. (23))
3-12 Calculate the event factor for the entire frame (parallel walls) ak
3-13 Adjust and update the applied lateral force, the storey rotations, the lateral displacements, the bending moments and shear forces, S,
and their corresponding deformations, D, (slice curvatures and slice distortions) in both piers and spandrels: Sk = Sk1 + akDSk,
Dk = Dk1 + akDDk
3-14 Update axial loads on piers and spandrels by force equilibrium:Nk
3-15 Equilibrium correction using Nk: determine corrected yielding states M ky and T ky for the next iteration (Figs. 3 and 4)
3-16 With respect to the current yielding limits (Fig. 3), update the shear and/or flexural stiffness of the yielded slices (Fig. 4): Determine
the updated slice stiffnesses
3-17 New estimation of Lspan;k 0 using spandrel ends bending moments
3-18 Check for structural stability: Quit the analysis if the structure becomes unstable (significant loss of stiffness), or if a given pier is
subjected to a tension axial load. Otherwise perform the next iteration, k + 1 (go to step 3-1)
Step 4 Plot the capacity curve for the entire structure
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53 45

Bending moment
PL PL
k −1
M >M y
PL PL M > M yk
EL 3 step k − 1
M = M yk −1 +δ M tol M ≥ M yk −1
EL PL
EL M yk −1
M > M yk 2 step k
EL Equilibrium EL
correction M < M yk −1
EL EL M yk

EL EL M ≤ M yk 1
M ≥ M yk
PL
M < M yk −1
EL EL
M = M yk −1 + δ M tol M > M yk
PL PL
Curvature
M > M yk −1 M > M yk
PL PL
For : N ↑ and M ↓
M > M yk −1 M > M yk
PL PL

Fig. 4. Bending moment redistribution and the equilibrium correction in

the case of a compressive axial force loading.
Fig. 6. Plan view of a RC wall section with fiber discretization on
Drain3DX model (dimensions in m).

top and bottom storeys. In the equivalent frame model

(EFM), the nonlinear behavior for each slice is defined
by a moment-curvature relationship in compression only.
The analysis performed on Drain3DX was force-con-
trolled. On the other hand, the analysis performed on
ETABS was displacement controlled in the presence of a
given lateral load pattern. The adopted load pattern repre-
sents the distribution of inertia forces corresponding to the
first mode of vibration.

4.2. Application

The building studied herein is a six storey torsionally

balanced reinforced concrete structure with a total height
Fig. 5. Plan view of the RC structure. equal to 6.0 · 3.4 m and a total floor area equal to

ment. The fiber beam is a nonlinear finite element model in

flexure but linear elastic in shear. The behavior of fibers is
defined by a stress–strain relationship for both steel and
concrete materials. The use of fibers to model cross-sec-
tions accounts rationally for axial force–biaxial bending
moments (Fig. 6). A detailed description of the element is
given in the reference including related capabilities,
assumptions and limitations [16]. In this application, an
elastic perfectly plastic model was adopted for steel fibers.
However, a parabolic–rectangular stress block was
adopted for concrete material. The floor was modeled as
a grid system using the elastic linear beam element type
17 [16]. A validation of the finite element type 15 against
experimental results can be found in the reference [2].
On the other side, ETABS provides a flexural point
hinge finite element model (PHFE) called P-M2-M3. This
model considers an interaction between two-way moment
curves and axial forces. Since the structural model behaves
in the in-plane direction (Z-direction, Fig. 5), the point
hinge model performs with a biaxial interaction rule. The
hinges are located at the ends of all beam elements, at Fig. 7. A view of the structural model developed on ETABS.
46 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

30.0 · 18.0 m2 (Fig. 7). The floor is of a grid-type with RC Moment

slab. In the case studied, the spandrels consist of beam ele-
ments representing a grid floor with underbeams. For esti-
mating the stiffness of the floors with underbeams, the
effective width of the floor slab is calculated according to
the rules suggested by Bachmann and Dazio [18]. The sec- Mu
Elastic plastic
ond moment of inertia of the floor section is equal to
0.0262 m4 [11]. My Bilinea
r

The floor load carried by each wall is equal to 188 kN,

300 kN and 900 kN for walls ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’, respectively. φ y = φ y'
Mu
The resulting normal forces acting on each floor level are My
summarized as follows: the axial forces acting on walls
A1, A2, and A3 at the 6th floor are equal to 211 kN,
324 kN, and 924 kN, respectively, while for lower levels,
these forces are equal to 235 kN, 347 kN, and 947 kN,
respectively. Three cases are investigated to study the axial φ y' φ y Curvature

force redistribution and the axial force–bending moment
interaction rule. They are: (1) rigid-floor-type structure
with 100% of the floor stiffness, IFloor, (2) semi rigid-
floor-type with 50% IFloor and (3) flexible floor-type with
10% IFloor. For each floor-type model, two cases were stud-
ied for the EFM and four cases for the PHFE model on
ETABS. The case studies are defined as follows:
1. PHFE M1 and M2: Bilinear and elastic–plastic
moment–rotation law respectively, without (N–M)
interaction,
2. PHFE M3 and M4: Bilinear and elastic–plastic
moment–rotation law respectively, including (N–M)
interaction,
3. EFM 1 and EFM2: Without and with (N–M) interac-
tion, respectively.
In this simulation, the spandrels represent the floor
beams that were elastic linear. Thus, the zero moment
lengths were chosen to be at the middle of the span length,
without rigid offsets, and kept constant during the analysis.
The material properties were defined by the tensile strength
of concrete, the compressive strength of concrete, the steel
maximum strength, the concrete Young modulus and the
steel elastic modulus that are equal to 5 MPa, 45 MPa,
500 MPa, 37,500 MPa, and 210,000 MPa, respectively.
Additional details on the material properties are found in
[11,19].
Fig. 8. Bilinear idealization of the moment-curvature law.
beams are neglected on both ETABS and Drain3DX
models.
With regards to the biaxial failure criteria used herein
(Fig. 9), the hinge yielding in both PHFE model and slices
of the EFM depends closely on the axial load. For low
axial loads, the yielding of the sections is delayed, while
for high axial loads the yielding is anticipated. These mech-
anisms are closely related to the axial load redistribution,
the floor stiffness and wall coupling. Hence, the global
response of the structure is affected (elastic stiffness, struc-
tural displacement, damage occurrence).
Figs. 10–12 display capacity curves for the three floor-
type models analyzed by Drain3DX, ETABS and the pro-
posed EFM. The (N–M) interaction effect increases with
the total base shear. The (N–M) interaction has small effect
in the first stage of the analysis. As the floor stiffness
increases, the force redistribution capacity of the structure
increases, the normal forces increase, and then the effect of
(N–M) interaction becomes significant. When axial force is
still small, the (N–M) interaction is negligible. In other
5000
0
Tension

For the EFM, the walls at each storey are discretized

-5000
into 20 slices over a storey height. The EFM necessitates
Axial force (kN)

moment-curvature laws that are considered idealized for -10000

Compression
both elastic perfectly plastic and bilinear curves (Fig. 8). -15000
For the RC wall section, the mechanical properties
-20000
(Fig. 8) are summarized as follows: The yielding moment,
My, the ultimate moment, Mu, the first yield curvature, -25000
/0y , the nominal curvature for a bilinear idealization, /y,
-30000
and the ultimate curvature, /u, are equal to 3034 kN m, 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
4786 kN m, 1.648 m1, 2.60 m1, and 28.5 m1, respec- Bending moment (kNm)

tively. On ETABS, only yielding moments should be spec- Fig. 9. Axial force–bending moment interaction law for RC wall sections
ified for the flexural hinges since the yielding rotations are defined by linear segments and extracted from ETABS according to the
calculated by the program. The axial deformations of the Eurocode design code [17].
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53 47

30000
Fiber model
100%Ipl

Fiber model
25000 50%Ipl

Fiber model
10%Ipl
20000
Total base shear (kN)

PHFE model M1

PHFE model M2
15000

50%IFloor PHFE model M3

10000
PHFE model M4

10%IFloor
EFM1
5000

EFM2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3

Roof lateral displacement (m)

Fig. 10. Capacity curves for rigid-floor-type model.

30000
Fiber model
100% Ipl

Fiber model
25000 50% Ipl

Fiber model
10% Ipl
20000
Total base shear (kN)

PHFE model M1
100%IFloor

PHFE model M2
15000

PHFE model M3

10000
10%IFloor PHFE model M4

5000 EFM1

EFM2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3

Roof lateral displacement (m)

Fig. 11. Capacity curves for semi rigid-floor-type model.

words, the (N–M) interaction rule has no effect for flexible the EFM is compared only to the elastic perfectly plastic
floor-type structures (Fig. 12). This application tends to PHFE model.
demonstrate the ability of the EFM, in comparison to In the first steps of analysis, the diagram of moments
ETABS’s results, to reproduce the interaction between (elastic diagram), correspond to the relative stiffness
the floor stiffness, the structural wall coupling, the force between beam-floors and walls. However, as the nonlinear-
redistribution, and the failure criteria on the global ity grows, the wall element stiffness decreases while the
response of the building. beam-floor stiffness remains elastic linear. This means that
The order of occurrence of the plastic hinges can be the shape of the moment diagram tends gradually to a
obtained for all the steps of the displacement control from frame-type moment diagram. When a plastic hinge forms
a pushover analysis. The collapse sequence at ultimate state at a given wall base in the EFM, the bending moment
is presented in the Figs. 13 and 14 [20]. The comparison remains constant at this slice. Generally, as the load
should be drawn in term of general behavior of the struc- increases, the zero moment location shifts to the mid-storey
ture, not in terms of exact location of the hinges. Note that, height as explained above. The plastic hinge presented
48 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

18000
100%IFloor Fiber model
100% Ipl
16000
Fiber model
50%IFloor 50% Ipl
14000
Fiber model
10% Ipl
Total base shear (kN)

12000
PHFE model M1

10000
PHFE model M2

8000
PHFE model M3

6000
PHFE model M4

4000
EFM1

2000
EFM2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3
Roof lateral displacement (m)

Fig. 12. Capacity curves for flexible floor-type model.

Fig. 13. Plastic hinges sequence for rigid-type floor and with no (N–M) Fig. 14. Plastic hinges sequence for rigid-type floor and with (N–M)
interaction. Right: PHFE model at Droof = 0.1348 m case M2. Left: EFM1 interaction. Right: PHFE model at Droof = 0.2094 m case M4. Left: EFM2
case for Droof = 0.149 m. case for Droof = 0.209 m.
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53 49


a1 N þ b 1 N 2
f ðN ; V Þ ¼ MIN V 
c1 þ N

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V þ a2 þ b2 N V  a3 1 þ b3 N 6 0 ð34Þ

Two constants a and b are required for flexure failure cri-

teria, while nine constants ai, bi and ci (for i = 1, 3) are re-
quired for shear failure criteria [21–23]. N is the axial
compressive load acting on a pier element. The same failure
criteria can be found in many other procedures for ma-
sonry assessment [12–14, 24] and others). These equations
deal with elastic perfectly plastic models in terms of mo-
ment–rotation and shear force–displacement laws. In this
study, the behavior of the spandrel is assumed to be elastic
linear both in flexure and shear.

5.2. Application

A full-scale two-storey unreinforced masonry tested at

the Pavia University was chosen for model validation
Fig. 15. Geometry of the model building. 6.435
5.7525
1.365
5.5069
herein corresponds to the step for which the EFM achieves 5.07
its ultimate state under force control.
2.7625 1.235 2.1088
For an elastic perfectly plastic moment rotation model
without (N–M) interaction, the EFM behaves as a point 3.835
hinge model with lumped plasticity. The use of force inter- 3.398
action permits modeling the effect of the axial redistribu- 2.99
1.69
2.5314
tion on the yielding capacity of the structure. Figs. 13
2.145
and 14 show the difference in the number of hinges and
the yielded slices when the (N–M) interaction was acti- 2.5314
vated. The results extracted from capacity curves and struc- 0.94 0.94
tural damage assessment point out that the use of force
redistribution in simplified models is necessary in particular
for existing building analysis more than for structural P1 P2 P3
design.
Fig. 16. Elevation view of the wall D and geometry (in m). Exterior walls
length and axial loads on the bottom and top levels are equal to 1.15 m,
5. Pushover analysis of an URM building 56 kN, 26.9 kN, respectively. Interior wall length and axial loads on the
bottom and top level are equal to 1.82 m, 133 kN, and 64.5 kN,
5.1. General assumptions respectively.

The proposed model can be used also for URM struc-

1000
tures modeling. The URM piers and spandrels are subdi-
900
vided into a series of slices. The slices represent an
800
homogeneous bricks and mortar one-phase material. As
700
known, the masonry material is a weak isotropic material
Axial force (kN)

with very limited ductility. Thus, the softening behavior 600

is very burdensome for computation and causes failure of 500

convergence particularly when the analysis is force-con- 400

trolled. The post-peak behavior with softening is beyond 300 Exterior walls
the scope of this model. The yield criteria considered are 200
Interior walls

expressed for flexure (Eq. (33)) and for shear behavior 100
(Eq. (34)) according to the Magenes model [21–23] as 0
follows: 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Bending moment (kN)
2
f ðN ; MÞ ¼ M þ aN þ bN 6 0 ð33Þ
Fig. 17. Flexural criteria for rocking mode of failure in piers.
50 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

[21–23]. This structure has been extensively studied in liter-
ature. A remarkable feature of this structure, is that the
axial load in piers varies during the experimental test.
The variation of the axial load in the considered structure
is exploited to study the sensitivity of the model to the axial
force variation on piers. The structural model is subjected
to increasing lateral forces that are applied at the floor lev-
els, keeping a 1:1 ratio between the force at the first and the
second floor. In this application the door wall D (Figs. 15
and 16) was chosen because of no flange effect is
considered.
The elastic properties of the structure used in the model
are summarized as follows:
500
450
400
Mode 3
350
Axial force (kN)
The maximum compressive strength of a masonry prism
orthogonal to the mortar bed, fm, is equal to 7.9 MPa [23],
the shear modulus (Geff = 90fm) is equal to the effective
value. For full data see Ref. [23].
In the current application, The (N–M) interaction is
shown in Fig. 17. However, the (N–V) interaction was
not activated. In fact, it was found that axial forces in
the second storey are confined to the first failure mode
domain of validity (Fig. 18) since the variation in axial
forces for this storey is very low. The second and third
modes of failures are not activated. However, despite
the variation in axial forces in the first storey, they are
confined to the second failure mode domain of
occurrence during the analysis (Fig. 18). Hence, an elas-
tic perfectly plastic model without (N–V) interaction is
used.
The use of rigid offsets is a crucial issue in equivalent
frame modeling. The dimensions of rigid offsets in piers
are calculated based on an empirical approach proposed
Vshear mode1
by Dolce [25]. In this study, full rigid offsets are considered.
The capacity curves (total base shear versus top lateral dis-

Vshear mode2
300
Vshear mode3
placement) are developed for different cases (Table 2,
250 Minimum Shear
Appendix 1).
200 In the light of the obtained results, the following recom-
Mode 2
150 mendations are made:
100
1. The effect of the axial force–bending moment, (N–M),
50
Mode 1 interaction is showed by the cases ‘1’ and ‘2’. As dis-
0 played in Fig. 19, as axial compressive load increases,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
flexural strength of the piers also increases with regards
Shear force (kN)
to the failure criteria (Fig. 17).
Fig. 18. Shear failure criteria for piers only. Mode 1: (cs) shear failure 2. The nonlinear effect of shear mechanism is illustrated
along bed-joints at the end section cracked in flexure; Mode 2: (ws) by cases ‘3’ and ‘4’ in the absence of rigid offsets, and
diagonal cracking at the centre of the panel due to mortar joint failure;
by cases ‘7’, ‘8’ and ‘9’ in the presence of rigid offsets
Mode 3: (b) diagonal cracking at the centre of the panel due to brick
failure. (Fig. 20). As expected, the contribution of shear

160
Experiment

140 Case 3

Case 2
Case 1, 4 and 6
120
Case 5
Total base shear (kN)

100

80 Experiment

Case 1

Case 2
60
Case 3

Case 4
40
Case 5

Case 6
20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Roof lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 19. Capacity curves of the wall D with no rigid offsets.

 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53 51

180
Case 8

160
Experiment
Case 12
140

Total base shear (kN)

120

100 Experiment
Case 7

80 Case 8
Case 9
Case 10
60
Case 11
Case 12
40
Case 13

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Roof lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 20. Capacity curves of the wall D with rigid offsets.

F
F

F
F
S S

S: Shear S
cracks
S
S

F: Flexural
cracks

F F F

Fig. 21. Crack patterns from the experimental test of the URM building
(at failure state (top displacement equal to 24 mm)).
Fig. 22. Crack patterns from numerical results at 17 mm.

mechanism tends to decrease the capacity of the struc-
ture due to the occurrence of shear damage. This feature
is successfully captured by the simplified model.
3. As displayed in Figs. 19 and 20, the rigid offsets have
a significant effect on the global response not only on
stiffness, but also on strength capacity of the structure
[6,15,22]. This is expected as the horizontal element
stiffness closely affects the contribution of the frame
mechanism to structural response (cases ‘10’, ‘11’
and ‘12’). The capacity curves obtained from EFM
(case ‘12’) versus PHFE model (case ‘13’) are
satisfactory.
4. In cases ‘12’ and ‘13’, the two capacity curves are close
to a certain extent in spite of the smeared approach in
the EFM. Both cases ‘5–6’, and ‘12–13’, show the com-
parison of the modeling performance, including shear
effect and (N–M) interaction rule and using either the
EFM and the PHFE model with or without rigid zones.
Due to the coupling effect, the resulting crack patterns
displayed by the numerical simulation are different on the
left and right sides (Figs. 21 and 22). On the other hand,
the crack pattern predicted by the EFM is symmetrical
(Fig. 23). The shear cracks on spandrels were not obtained
since the spandrels were modeled as elastic linear. It is clear
that the numerical results should be more accurate, in com-
parison to the EFM, since both the axial deformation and
axial force redistribution were not considered in the EFM.
The axial force and deformation are crucial issues when
using failure criteria for the plastic hinge formation and
52 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

c c crack approach suffers from a few limitations. The smeared

F F
c
F F
F should be taken when modeling dual buildings as frame-
S
F F F
Fig. 23. Crack patterns from analytical results (on the EFM) F: flexural
crack in one slice, S: shear crack over a pier.
damage occurrence. Moreover, in comparison to the test
crack pattern, the numerical and analytical results were
extracted at 17 mm while the tests represent a crack pattern
at 24 mm. Also, the shear failure was neglected in the lintels
in both models. These are the reasons for the lack of match
between the experimental, the analytical and the numerical
crack patterns.
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a simplified formulation of an
equivalent frame model. The model permits to consider
many relevant features of structural behavior such as struc-
tural wall coupling, zero moment location shifting, axial
force–bending moment interaction, axial force–shear force
interaction, and failure modes prediction. However, in the
case of URM buildings, it is well known that smeared
crack model is enable to represent effectively the rocking
and bed joint sliding mode of failures.
For the development of capacity curves, the obtained
results from the proposed model show good agreement
with experiment and numerical results (Figs. 19 and 20).
The model has proven its capability to satisfactorily predict
the maximum strength. The calculated maximum strengths,
in particular for the masonry structure (in the range of 9%),
could be judged as good results since the model is based on
simplified approaches in comparison to finite element mod-
els. However, the post-peak behavior with softening is not
yet obtained since the model is force-controlled. Care
wall structures in particular with respect to the initial zero
moment lengths assumption. In all cases, obtained results
should be considered from an engineering point of view
as is generally done for all simplified existing models.
It is evident that the failure mode identification is a chal-
lenging task even if finite element models are used. This
feature is sensitive to various analysis parameters such as
the modeling of shear mechanisms, the lateral load pattern
and force redistribution capabilities. The proposed model
works well for RC structure. However, it requires further
improvements for URM structural modeling (displacement
control, variation of axial force in spandrels, multilinear
models with softening).
Finally, the proposed model is formulated in order to
extract capacity curves with damage identification. It can
be implemented readily using any programming platform.
The model can be used to assess URM structures, RC
structures as well as dual structures that are commonly
adopted in many countries.
Acknowledgements
This work is a part of a project dealing with seismic
vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing
buildings in Switzerland. The project was supported by

Table 2
Case studies for both EFM and PHFE models
Case Model type Rigid zone in pier Rigid zone in spandrel (N–M) failure criteria V shear effect Maximum strength ratio (*) (%)
1 PHFE – – – – 20.1
2 PHFE – – · – 15.5
3 EFM – – · – 10.7
4 PHFE – – – · 21.7
5 PHFE – – · · 22.4
6 EFM – – · · 20.5
7 EFM · (with 2Em) – · · 9.9
8 EFM · (with 2Em) – · – +18
9 EFM · (with 4Em) – · · 9.9
10 EFM · (with 10Em) – · · 9.0
11 EFM · (with 2Em) · (with 2Em) · · 8.5
12 EFM · (with 10Em) · (with 10Em) · · 7.1
13 PHFE · (with 10Em) · (with 10Em) · · 9.3
Legend: PHFE: point hinge finite element model, EFM: equivalent frame model, (–) option considered, (·) option not considered, (*) the maximum
strength ratio = analytical/experimental maximum strengths %, Em is the masonry Young Modulus.
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53
the Federal Office for the Environment, FOEN (Depart-
ment of the Environment, Transport, Energy and
Communications). This financial support is gratefully
acknowledged.
Appendix 1
See Table 2.
References
[1] Tzamtzis AD, Asteris PG. FE analysis of complex discontinuous and
jointed structural systems: part 1: presentation of the method – A
state-of-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 2004:1.
[2] Belmouden Y, Lestuzzi P. Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing
buildings in Switzerland. Applied Computing and Mechanics Labo-
ratory. Structural Engineering Institute. Ecole Polytechnique Fédé-
rale de Lausanne. Research Report No 6, April 2006.
[3] Roca P, Molins C, Marı́ AR. Strength capacity of masonry wall structures
by the equivalent frame method. J Struct Eng 2005;131(10):1601–10.
[4] Salonikios T, Karakostas C, Lekidis V, Anthoine A. Comparative
inelastic pushover analysis of masonry frames. Eng Struct J
2005;25:1515–23.
[5] Kappos A, Penelis G, Drakopoulos C. Evaluation of simplified
models for lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings. J
Struc Eng, ASCE 2002;128(7):890–7.
[6] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, vol. 1.
Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council; 1996.
[7] Belmouden Y, Lestuzzi P. Analytical model for predicting nonlinear
reversed cyclic behaviour of reinforced concrete structural walls. Eng
Struc 2007;29(7):1263–76.
[8] ElMandooh K, Ghobarah A. Flexural and shear hysteretic behavior
of reinforced concrete columns with variable axial load. Eng Struc
2003;25:1353–67.
[9] Nuray Aydinoğlu M. An incremental response spectrum analysis
procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode
seismic performance evaluation. Bull Earthquake Eng 2003;1:3–36.
[10] Kilar V, Fajfar P. Simple pushover analysis of asymmetric buildings.
Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 1997;26:233–49.
[11] Lang K. Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. PhD thesis.
Institute of Structural Engineering, Zürich, Switzerland, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, February 2002.
53
[12] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabili-
tation of buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency; 2000.
[13] FEMA 306. Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and
masonry wall buildings, basic procedures manual. Washington
(DC): The Partnership for response and recovery; 1999.
[14] Paquette J, Bruneau M. Pseudo-dynamic testing of unreinforced
masonry building with flexible diaphragm and comparison with
existing procedures. Construct Build Mater 2006;20:220–8.
[15] Penelis GRG. An efficient approach for pushover analysis of
unreinforced masonry (URM) structures. J Earthquake Eng
2006;10(3):359–79.
[16] Prakash V, Powell GH, Campbell S. DRAIN3DX: Base program
description and user guide, UCB/SEMM-1994/07. Berkeley: Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of California; August 1994.
[17] ETABS. Integrated building design software, computers and struc-
tures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, Version 9, November 2005.
[18] Bachmann H, Dazio A. A deformation-based seismic design
procedure for structural wall buildings. In: Proceedings of the
international workshop on seismic design methodologies for the next
generation of codes, Bled/Slovenia, A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam; 24–
27 June 1997.
[19] Dazio A. Entwurf und Bemessung von Tragwandgebäuden unter
Erdbebeneinwirkung. Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH
Zürich, Bericht Nr. 254. Birkhäuser Verlag: Basel; 2000 [in German].
[20] Wilkinson SM, Hiley RA. A non-linear response history model for
the seismic analysis of high-rise framed buildings. Comput Struct
2006;84:318–29.
[21] Magenes G. A method for pushover analysis in seismic assessment of
masonry buildings. Paper 186612WCEE; 2000.
[22] Magenes G, Della Fontana A. Simplified non-linear seismic analysis
of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the fifth international
masonry conference, London; 13–15th, 1998.
[23] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In-plane response of brick masonry walls.
Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 1997;26:1091–112.
[24] Tomazevic M. Seismic resistance verification of buildings: following
the new trends, seismic methodologies for the next generation of
codes. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Balkema: Rotterdam;
1997.
[25] Dolce M. Schematizzazione e modellazione per azioni nel piano delle
pareti (Models for in-plane loading of masonry walls). Corso sul
consolidamento degli edifici in muratura in zona sismica, Ordine degli
Ingegneri, Potenza; 1989.