I U S S: Assessment of Existing Mixed R.C. - Masonry Structures and Strengthening by R.C. Shear Walls

I.U.S.S.
Istituto Universitario Università degli

di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MIXED R.C. - MASONRY

STRUCTURES AND STRENGTHENING BY R.C. SHEAR
WALLS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
CASOLI DAVIDE
Supervisor: Dr GUIDO MAGENES
December, 2007
The dissertation entitled “Assessment of existing mixed r.c. – masonry structures and
strengthening by r.c. shear walls”, by Casoli Davide, has been approved in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Guido Magenes …… … ………
Andrea Penna………… … ……
Alessandro Galasco…… … ……
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The present study is carried out following the new Italian seismic code (OPCM 3431)
procedures, which, up to now, show a certain scarcity of indications about the seismic safety
evaluation of building with mixed structure, in particular, about the interaction criteria
between different earthquake resisting systems. The present study aims to the accomplishment
of a two goals. The first one is the reliability evaluation of quite simplified engineering tools,
such as monotonic pushover analyses with rough elasto plastic constitutive law implemented
for elements, in such a way to balance the necessities of an accurate simulation of the
structural response, moderate computational effort, and outcomes of easily comprehension;
this is done through the comparison with more refined elements non linear constitutive laws
(i.e. Macroelement for masonry, Takeda for reinforced concrete), and more complex non
linear analyses (cyclic pushover, dynamic non linear). The second goal is the proposal of a
retrofitting design method of general validity, which, starting from the performance obtained
by the original structure, has the force based design feature, namely an uncertain inelastic
displacement capacity prediction. This topic is faced through the choice of a pretty simple
case study, for which it is believed to be reasonable the adoption of the above mentioned
simplified hypothesis.
i
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................vi
1. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................1
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING..........................................................................................4
2.1 General consideration ................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 The “equivalent frame”....................................................................................................5
2.2 Bilinear masonry elements modelling........................................................................................7
2.2.1 Differences between the two constitutive law .................................................................8
2.2.2 Resistance criterions for masonry walls...........................................................................9
2.3 Macroelement modelling .........................................................................................................13
2.4 Resistance criterion for spandrels ............................................................................................16
2.5 Concrete elements modelling...................................................................................................17
2.5.1 Flexural strength ............................................................................................................17
2.5.2 Shear strength.................................................................................................................18
2.5.3 Deformability.................................................................................................................18
2.6 Effects of interaction between the non linear elements and criteria of seismic design............20
2.7 Loadings...................................................................................................................................21
2.7.1 Seismic action ................................................................................................................21
2.7.2 Gravity loads..................................................................................................................22
2.7.3 Loadings combination....................................................................................................22
2.8 Pushover and Non linear static analysis procedure..................................................................23
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING ............................................................................................25
ii
Index
3.1 Material properties ...................................................................................................................27

3.2 Reinforced concrete elements ..................................................................................................28
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE .....................................................................31
4.1 Damage state of elements at collapse – Bilinear Models.........................................................33
4.1.1 Model 1 - Andil Wall.....................................................................................................34
4.1.2 Model 2 TreMuri............................................................................................................37
4.2 Damage state of elements at collapse – Model 3 TreMuri (Macroelement)............................39
5. STRENGTHENING DESIGN ........................................................................................................40
5.1 Constant yield displacement hypothesis (Design n°1).............................................................42
5.2 Constant stiffness hypothesis (Design n°2) .............................................................................43
5.3 Effective stiffness of concrete element ....................................................................................44
6. ASSESSMENT OF THE RETROFITTED STRUCTURE.............................................................61
6.1 Bilinear models ........................................................................................................................62
6.1.1 Reinforced structure n° 1 – Code provision concrete stiffness ......................................64
6.1.2 Reinforced structure n° 1 – Effective concrete stiffness................................................66
6.1.3 Reinforced structure n°2 ................................................................................................68
6.2 Reinforced structure n°1 – Macroelement models...................................................................70
6.2.1 Reinforced structure n°1 (Code provision concrete stiffness )– Macroelement ...........71
6.2.2 Reinforced structure n°1 (Effective concrete stiffness )– Macroelement .....................73
6.3 Comments ................................................................................................................................75
7. CYCLIC PUSHOVER ANALYSES...............................................................................................76
7.1 General consideration on Hysteretic models for reinforced concrete elements.......................77
7.1.1 Bilinear Takeda model...................................................................................................78
7.2 Cyclic pushover analyses of the original structure ..................................................................80
7.3 Cyclic pushover analyses of the reinforced structure ..............................................................82
8. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................87
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................90
APPENDIX A Reinforced concrete walls design n°2 – Equal stiffness hypothesis ..............................1
iii
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Equivalent frame members..........................................................................................5
Figure 2. Members modelling.....................................................................................................7
Figure 3. Constitutive law – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right) ....................................................8
Figure 4. Member deformability – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right) ..........................................8
Figure 5. Flexural behaviour.......................................................................................................9
Figure 6. Flexural strength domain...........................................................................................10
Figure 7. Shear behaviour .........................................................................................................10
Figure 8. Shear strength domain (diagonal cracking)...............................................................11
Figure 9. Shear strength domain (shear sliding) .......................................................................13
Figure 10. Macroelemento kinematic model ............................................................................14
Figure 11. (a) Cyclic vertical displacement-rotation interaction with (red line) and w/o toe
crushing (blue dots) in Penna [3]; (b) Rocking panel with (red line) and without (blue
line) crushing. ...................................................................................................................14
Figure 12. Spandrels behaviour ................................................................................................16
Figure 13. Concrete member flexural hypothesis .....................................................................17
Figure 14. Ritter Morsh mechanism .........................................................................................18
Figure 15. Plan of the building .................................................................................................25
Figure 16.Sections of the building ............................................................................................25
Figure 17. Portion of the building under investigation .............................................................26
Figure 18. Reinforcement details..............................................................................................26
Figure 19. Identification of beam sections................................................................................28
Figure 20. R.c. sections.............................................................................................................30
Figure 21. Andil Wall members identification .........................................................................33
iv
Index
Figure 22. Members identification............................................................................................40

Figure 23. Constant yield displacement approach ....................................................................42
Figure 24. Constant stiffness approach.....................................................................................43
Figure 25. Effective stiffness ....................................................................................................44
Figure 26. Effective element stiffness ......................................................................................44
Figure 27. Effective sectional stiffness.....................................................................................45
Figure 28. Cyclic pushover curve – comparison between models............................................81
Figure 29. Cyclic pushover curve (Takeda model) – shear distribution - ................................81
Figure 30. Cyclic pushover curve – EPP model for concrete ...................................................83
Figure 31. Cyclic pushover curve – EPP model for concrete – shear distribution ...................83
Figure 32. Cyclic pushover curve – Takeda model for concrete ..............................................84
Figure 33. Cyclic pushover curve – Takeda model for concrete – shear distribution ..............84
Figure 34. Cyclic pushover curve – Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in Total
Base shear .........................................................................................................................85
Figure 35. Cyclic pushover curve – Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in wall 22
base shear ..........................................................................................................................85
v
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1. Masonry properties ..................................................................................................27
Table 3.2. Concrete properties ..................................................................................................27
Table 3.3. Steel properties ........................................................................................................27
vi
Chapter 1. Overview
1. OVERVIEW
The problem of the seismic assessment and retrofit of existing buildings, amongst which a
great number are unreinforced masonry, has become by now one of the main topic of interest
in the world of construction, also due to progressive relative reduction of new construction
activity, with respect to interventions on existing structures.
The topic itself is extremely complex, due to the enormous variability of structural forms and
materials that can be found in countries with a long history of civilization such as in Europe.
Such complexity constitutes a great hindrance to a strict codification of methodologies and
approaches, such as may be possible with new designs. Considering specifically masonry
buildings, such a diversity of structural forms and materials is enormous from country to
country, but first of all, such structural forms very often do not lend themselves to be
approached with the same engineering criteria used for reinforced concrete or steel
construction.
That’s why Europeans national codes on the seismic design/assessment of masonry buildings
have shown until recent times a rather heterogeneous, apparently even contradictory approach
to the problem, especially regarding the seismic design load levels, which show wide
variations from country to country, not necessarily consistently correlated with different
levels of seismic hazard. In fact, the seismic assessment process is made of different steps that
cannot be analyzed independently from each other: for instance, the definition of the seismic
input depends on the methods and criteria that are being used for the analysis (linear, non
linear, modal with response spectrum…) and safety checks (strength criteria, deformation
criteria, allowable stresses or limit state approach…). Most codes are based on a strength
approach, closer to the traditional way of thinking of the practicing engineer, despite seismic
assessment being conceptually better described by a displacement/deformation approach.
Also, masonry design practices are still characterized by a rather high level of empiricism and
are strongly influenced by the local traditions.
1
Chapter 1. Overview
The adoption of Eurocodes is an important occasion to rationalize the design/assessment

approaches, but extreme care should be paid in codifying the procedures to avoid inconsistent,
contradictory or unrealistic results. In particular, in such rationalization, made according to
quantitative, engineering criteria, following a common language as for other structural
typologies, it is essential to interpret correctly all the basic elements of the design and safety
assessment procedures, to adapt them properly to masonry structures, and it is mandatory to
verify that the analytical procedures do not produce results that contradict experience and
experimental evidence.
In May 2003 a new national seismic code was issued in Italy (OPCM 3274). The new code
had been conceived as a document of transition from the previous national seismic code,
dated 1996, towards the final adoption of Eurocode 8, and to this end, many elements of it had
been included, among which the limit state formulation and the recommended q-values for
masonry buildings. The attempt of transposing Eurocode 8 part 3 (CEN-EN 1998-3) to the
Italian reality presented a series of novelties that in part were a serious progress towards a safe
and rational approach to assessment, and in part were not compatible with the reality of the
problem, due to the impossibility to extend concepts and procedures which would be
appropriate for other types of structures such as r.c. or steel framed buildings to masonry.
Besides the definition of rational criteria for global assessment, an important problem appears
to be the approach to buildings with mixed structures, for which very limited research has
been carried out so far. In fact from the early 20th-century the spreading of reinforced
concrete technology caused the birth of mixed solutions starting from existing structures, in
order to satisfy requirements mostly related to functional purposes: masonry structures
subjected to internal demolishment, column insertions. Functional and not only structural
aspects inspired the development of hybrid masonry-RC configurations. A significant number
of such buildings is present on the Italian territory and in general in European countries. The
variety of all these cases causes a difficulty not only in the typological classification but also
in the coding of structural schemes: therefore the investigation of the vulnerability of this
class becomes worth.
2
Chapter 1. Overview
Nevertheless, despite the spreading of this typology, very little is known about their seismic
behaviour, since very little research has been carried out, especially experimental, and the
scientific studies on the combined-system structures above described are almost absent,
because of the previously mentioned structural variety, but also because of the problem
concerning the mutual interaction: also the recent codes, both international and national (EC8
2004 – OPCM no.3431 2005 § 8.5.), provide only brief explanations not only about the
structural idealization but also concerning the seismic-safety criteria. Moreover, although
there is a well-established background focused on the non-linear analysis of masonry
structures and RC frames, the set of numerical and experimental instruments for the study of
their interaction effects is limited. As a consequence, codes provide little support to the
designer besides suggesting methodological principles, in fact, although in principle only
nonlinear models could give a reasonable estimate of the seismic behaviour of such structures,
code makers must realize that nonlinear models for such structures still must be developed
and, if available, must be validated against experimental results. On the other hand, the use of
elastic analysis in structures, in which the deformation capacity of different structural
elements can differ by large amounts, may cause a total unreliability of methods based on the
use of a single q-factor.
In this dissertation, a case study is presented, which consists in a structural system made of
peripheral masonry walls and internal isolated reinforced concrete columns, for which,
according to the Italian code, the assessment is carried out, and the retrofitting by the insertion
of additional r.c. walls, in order to reduce the seismic vulnerability .
In this context, in the masonry’s idealization as equivalent 3D frame, a formulation and

implementation of non linear elements is proposed in order to model RC columns, beams and
walls; the main aim is to investigate the overall seismic behaviour, keeping into account of the
different properties of resistance and stiffness of the structural modelled (RC and masonry)
elements.
3
Chapter 2. Description of the modelling
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING

2.1 General consideration
In general, masonry buildings are complex, three-dimensional structures, in which all the
elements cooperates in the resistance to the applied loads; the experience coming from the
observation of damages in real buildings and experimental tests allows the introduction of
some simplifications of the behaviour, in the analysis and the design process, in order to
overcome this complexity. The global behaviour of the building under seismic excitation is
governed by any single element response, but mainly by the level of connection among them:
walls are the resistant elements with respect to vertical and horizontal loads, while the slabs
contributes to distribute the actions among them and to avoid local failure.
In particular, for the walls, is possible to distinguish two types of mechanisms: out of plane
and in plane ones. The firsts are mainly local phenomenon of single facades or parts of them,
which often occurs in heritage buildings due to the low level of connection between
orthogonal walls and between walls and slabs; usually it is possible to avoid them by
localized interventions, such as the building behaviour is similar to that of a “rigid box” under
seismic loading, in which the walls show just an in plane response.
4
The presence of good connections among parts of the building, in fact, restrains the out of
plane failure of walls, and lets the development of in plane mechanisms, which are much
stronger and ductile.
2.1.1 The “equivalent frame”

Under the above mentioned hypothesis the building shows a global response, characterized by
hyper static behaviour, which allows the analysis of the structure as an equivalent hyper static
frame .
Figure 1. Equivalent frame members
5
In such a frame walls are the bearing elements, while the floors, apart from sharing vertical
loads to the walls, are considered as planar stiffening elements, on which the horizontal
actions distribution between the walls depends (in the extreme case of rigid slab, the
distribution is proportional to the wall stiffness and position, through the rigid body
kinematics); the local flexural behaviour of the floors and the walls out-of-plane response are
not computed because they are considered negligible with respect to the global building
response, which is governed by their in-plane behaviour.
A frame-type representation of masonry walls consists in the subdivision of each wall into
piers and spandrels (coupling masonry beams), connected by rigid zones (nodes): earthquake
damage observation shows, in fact, that only rarely (very irregular geometry or very small
openings) cracks appear in these areas of the wall: because of this, the deformation of these
regions is assumed to be negligible.
This modelling is carried out with two software, Andil Wall and TreMuri, which are able to
describe the non linear behaviour of the structure with different levels of accuracy, due to
different hypothesis about the response of the masonry components: in particular TreMuri can
model masonry elements according to two different constitutive behaviour, “bilinear
element” and “macroelement”. The Andil Wall modelling and the bilinear element version
of TreMuri have the common feature that they follow the minimum code requirements, so
they can be defined as bilinear modelling, while the “macroelement” version of TreMuri
provides a more refined non linear representation of the behaviour. These aspects are faced in
details in the following paragraphs.
6
2.2 Bilinear masonry elements modelling

According to the OPCM, the elements are characterized by a bilinear elasto- plastic
behaviour, with an equivalent limit elastic strength, elastic and ultimate displacement defined
as a function of the flexure and shear response. Therefore, resistance criterions based on
forces and moments are adopted.. The stiffness matrix of the structure, in the elastic part,
related to the cracked stage, assumes the same form of the element of a frame, with shear
deformability, so it is known once E, G, and sectional sizes are defined..
Figure 2. Members modelling
A linear elastic behaviour is assumed until one of the possible failure occurs:
• flexural failure, when the acting moment on one of the extreme sections reaches Mu; in
this section a plastic hinge is placed;
• shear failure, when the acting shear on one of the extreme sections reaches Vt
The post-elastic behaviour is assumed to be plastic, until a maximum deformation, whose

value is defined depending on the type of failure, over which the strength of the element
becomes null.. The code defines this value in terms of horizontal relative displacement of the
sections δ, as a percent of the deformable height Heff (punto 11.5.8.1 Pareti murarie)
Flexural failure Shear failure
Existing buildings 6‰ Heff 4‰ Heff
7
2.2.1 Differences between the two constitutive law

The two software show also some differences: in the Andil Wall modelling the elements are
characterized by an elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour, while in TreMuri (“bilinear element”
version) the constitutive law has an unloading branch ( with secant stiffness) which let also a
cyclic pushover analysis .
Tu
δu
δ
Figure 3. Constitutive law – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right)
Moreover, while in TreMuri model the ductility control is carried out just in terms of
maximum drift, in the Andil Wall model, in order to take into account any rigid displacement
or rotation, the deformation parameters are evaluated in terms of chord rotation θ, which is the
sum of the flexural deformation φi and the shear one γ (θi = ϕi + γ ), and whose limit values
is θu, fixed by the code for the ratio δu/Heff .
Figure 4. Member deformability – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right)
Finally, while TreMuri considers the actual stiffness of the slab, while Andil Wall assumes
the rigid diaphragm hypothesis.
8
2.2.2 Resistance criterions for masonry walls

(a) Flexural strength
a) b)
Figure 5. Flexural behaviour
Flexural failure is due to the crushing in the compressive part at the extreme sections: due to
wide horizontal cracks the walls tends to overturns like a rigid body. The ultimate moment Mu
is calculated assuming a null tensile strength of the masonry and a non linear compressive
stress distribution. For a rectangular section the equation is:
 l 2 ⋅ t ⋅ σ0   σ 
M u =   ⋅ 1 − 0 
 2   κ ⋅ fd  ,
being:
l length in the considered direction (D in the picture);
t thickness in the orthogonal direction ;
P
σ0 σ0 =
mean normal stress, related to the total area of the section, l ⋅ t , being P the axial
load; if P is a tensile load, the code impose null flexural resistance ( M u = 0 );

κ resistance reduction coefficient, which takes into account the degradation due to cyclic
loadings ( κ = 0.85 );
fd
design compressive strength in the vertical direction; which is assumed to be, for non
fk
fm =
linear analysis, the mean value, α mc (being α mc an appropriate coefficient applied to the
f fk
characteristic value ( α mc = 0.7 )), divided by the confidence factor. f d = m =
FC α mc .FC
9
Figure 6. Flexural strength domain
(b) Shear strength
Two failure mechanisms are adopted: the first one consists in wide diagonal cracks along the
height of the panel, which may cross the mortar or the bricks depending on the relative
resistance of the components and the mean compressive stress. The second consists in
horizontal cracks (typically in the mortar layers when the bricks have regular shape).
a) b)
Figure 7. Shear behaviour
A shear failure by diagonal crack occurs when the macroscopic principal tensile stress reaches
f
a limit value td , assumed to be the conventional tensile strength of the masonry. This
criterion is expressed by the following equation (punto 11.5.8.1 Pareti murarie’O.P.C.M.),
which gives the shear resistance Vt of masonry panel:
f td ⋅ l ⋅ t σ0
Vt = 1+
β f td
,
being:
10
f td
design tensile strength by diagonal crack; which is assumed to be, in case of non linear
f tk
f tm =
analysis, equal to the mean value, f tm
( α mv , being α mc an appropriate coefficient applied
to the characteristic one f tk ; α mv = 0.7 ) divided by the confidence factor FC :

f tm f tk
f td = =
FC α mv ⋅ FC
;
l length in the considered direction ;
t thickness in the orthogonal direction ;
P
σ0 σ0 =
mean normal stress, related to the total area of the section, l ⋅ t , being P the axial
load;
β hl
coefficient related to the shape ratio of the panel (being h the heigth); which is
assumed to be :
1.5 for h l ≥ 1.5

β = h l for 1.0 < h l < 1.5
1.0 for h l ≤ 1.0

Figure 8. Shear strength domain (diagonal cracking)
The alternative criterion is based on the Coulomb theory ;in which the unitary shear strength
is expressed by:
τ = c + µ ⋅σ ,
being:
11
c shear strength contribution given by the cohesion of the material in the absence of
compressive load;
µ bond coefficient
σ compressive stress.
Following this approach, the shear strength Vt of the panel can be expressed as the unitary
strength τ , multiplied by the area of the panel, computed under the hypothesis of no tensile
strength.
The sectional shear strength Vt is expressed by the following equation (punto 8.2.2.2 Taglio):
Vt = l ′ ⋅ t ⋅ f vd
,
being:
l′ length of the compressive part in the considered direction;
t thickness in the orthogonal direction;
f vd
design shear strength ; which is assumed to be, in case of non linear analysis, equal to
the mean value f vm , which is f vm = f vm0 + µ ⋅ σ n , being:

f vk 0
f vm0 =
f vm0
shear strength of the material in the absence of compressive load, α mv ,
µ bond coefficient, assumed to be 0.4;

P
σn σn =
mean normal stress, related to the compressive part of the section l′ ⋅ t .
f vd ′
f vm , lim = 1.4 ⋅ f bm ′
f bm
The value of should never be greater than (being the mean
f bk′
′ =
f bm
compressive strength of the masonry in the horizontal direction, α mv , in which f bk′ is the
characteristic value), nor greater than 2.2 MPa.

Assuming a linear distribution of the compressive stress, the reacting length l’, in the case of
eccentric compression ( e ≥ l 6 ), could be expressed as:

  1 e 
l ' = β ⋅ l = 3 ⋅  −  ⋅ l
  2 l 
While in the case of e < l 6 , it is β = 1, being the whole section under compressive stress
( l' = l )
12
Figure 9. Shear strength domain (shear sliding)
According to the previous equations, the flexural strength Mu of a panel of given geometrical
and mechanical properties change as a function of the axial load P, while the shear strength Vt
in the Coulomb approach depends also on the flexural action M.
2.3 Macroelement modelling

The software TreMuri allows a more refined modelling of the masonry elements non linear
behaviour, through the “macroelement”, a bi-dimensional element which is able to capture the
shear response in the central part and the flexural response in the edges, according to the
experimental evidence. Such modelling is able to represent the two main in-plane masonry
failure modes: shear sliding mechanism and its evolution, controlling the strength
deterioration and the stiffness degradation, and rocking mechanism, with toe crushing effect.
In fact, the macro element is divided into three sub-structures: two layers, inferior 1 and
superior 3, in which the bending and axial effects are concentrated and are rigid for shear,
and the central part 2 which suffers shear-deformations and presents no evidence of axial or
bending deformations .Being w the axial displacement, u the transversal ones, and φ the
rotations; u1=ui , u2=uj, w1= w2=δ, φ1=φ2= Φ, the model is characterized by 8 degrees of
freedom: 6 displacements of the extreme nodes (ui, wi, φi, uj, wj, φj ), the axial displacement
and rotation of the rigid body (δ,Φ).
13
Figure 10. Macroelemento kinematic model
The overturning mechanism, which happens because the material does not show tensile
strength, is modeled by a mono-lateral elastic contact between 1 and 3 interfaces. The
constitutive equations between the kinematic variables w , ϕ and the correspondent static
m b
≤
quantities n and m are uncoupled until the limit condition n 6 , for which the partialization
effect begins to develop in the section.
The macro-element used in the program to assemble the wall model keeps also into account
the effect (especially in bending-rocking mechanisms) of the limited compressive strength of
masonry. Toe crushing effect is modelled by means of phenomenological non-linear
constitutive law with stiffness deterioration in compression: the effect of this modelling on the
cyclic vertical displacement-rotation interaction is represented in figure.
80
Base shear [kN]
60
w
40
20
-20
ϕ -40
-60
-80
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Top displacement [mm] (b)
Figure 11. (a) Cyclic vertical displacement-rotation interaction with (red line) and w/o toe crushing (blue
dots) in Penna [3]; (b) Rocking panel with (red line) and without (blue line) crushing.
14
The panel shear response is expressed considering a uniform shear deformation distribution
ui − u j
γ = +φ
h in the central part 2 and imposing a relationship between the kinematic
ui u j T = −T j
quantities , and φ , and the shear stress i . The cracking damage is usually located
on the diagonal, where the displacement take place along the joints and is represented by an
inelastic deformation component, which is activated when the Coulomb’s limit friction
condition is reached.
15
2.4 Resistance criterion for spandrels

The masonry spandrels play a primary role in multi-storey walls response, if certain
conditions subsist: in fact the coupling effect given by the spandrels is a function of the
compression in the horizontal direction, because this gives the flexural strength which
prevents the overturning mechanism. It is also very important, in general, the presence of
tensile resistant elements, like girders or chains, which, opposing to this mechanism, cause the
increase of compression and the formation of a diagonal strut mechanism which helps the
coupling effect on the walls. Under these condition the possible failure mechanism are the
same of those of the wall and for which the same failure criterions are allowed.
Figure 12. Spandrels behaviour
In many models the evaluation of the horizontal compression on spandrels is very uncertain,
often underestimated, so the code shows an alternative criterion, which is not based on the
effective axial load, but on the tensile strength of the horizontal elements :

Vt = h ⋅ t ⋅ f vd 0


M = H p ⋅ h ⋅  Hp 
 u 1 − 
 2  κ ⋅ f hd ⋅ h ⋅ t 
being:
h height of the section of the spandrel;

t thickness of the section of the spandrel;
f vd 0
design shear strength of the material in the absence of compressive load, which can be
f mv 0
assumed equal to the mean value ;
Hp
minimum value between the tensile strength of the horizontal element and 0.4 ⋅ f hd ⋅ h ⋅ t ,
f hd
being f hm =thef hkdesign horizontal compressive strength which can be assumed equal to the mean
value α mc
16
2.5 Concrete elements modelling

These elements are modelled like six degrees of freedom elements, with a limited strength and
elastic perfectly-plastic behaviour. The elastic behaviour takes into account the flexural and
shear contribution through E, G and the sectional geometry (neglecting the reinforcement
contribution).According to the OPCM, the resistant mechanism are: flexure (with or without
axial load), which is ductile, for each end of the element with the formation of a plastic hinge,
and shear, which is brittle.
2.5.1 Flexural strength

The N-M domain is built fixing a failure deformed shape, and then, through constitutive laws
of the materials, calculating the resultant sectional forces.
Figure 13. Concrete member flexural hypothesis
N s = σ s As
N s' = σ s' As'
M rd = N c d c + N s d s + N s' d s'
N c = βξαf c bd
N = N c + N s + N s'
17
2.5.2 Shear strength

The calculation of the shear strength is carried out according to the Ritter Morsh model of the
cracked element.
Figure 14. Ritter Morsh mechanism
Vsdu ≤ 0.3 f cd bw d
diagonal strut verification:
Vsdu ≤ Vcd + Vwd
web reinforcement verification: Vcd = 0.6 f ctdbw d
0 .9 d
Vwd = Asw f ywd
s
2.5.3 Deformability
The flexural deformation capacity is defined as the chord rotation θ of the extreme section
with respect to that of zero moment. The elements instead have no plastic deformation
capacity due to shear failure, since this mechanism is assumed to be brittle, hence, when shear
due to equilibrium with the extreme moments is greater than shear capacity, the element is
assumed to be collapsed. The ultimate value θu, over which the element loses the flexural
capacity, is calculated in a different way by the two software :
(a) TreMuri θu estimation.

0.225 f yw
1  max(0.01; ω ' )  L (αρ ix )
θu = υ
0.016(0.3 )  fc  ( V ) 0.35 25 fc
(1.25100 ρ d )
γ el  max(0.01; ω )  h
In which:
υ is the normalized axial load
ω and ω’ are the mechanical reinforcement ratio
ρ is the geometrical transversal reinforcement ratio
α is the confinement factor, evaluated as:
s h  ∑ bi 
2
 s h 
α = 1 − 1 −  1 −
 2b0  2h0  6h0 b0 
18
(b) AndilWall θu estimation.
1   0,5 × L pl 
θu = θ y + (φu − φ y ) × L pl × 1 − 
1,5   LV 
In which:
θ y is the yielding chord rotation
φu is the ultimate curvature capacity
φu is the yielding curvature
Lpl is the plastic hinge length, evaluated as:
f ym
db ×
L pl = 0,1 × LV + 0,17 × h + 0,24 × FC
f cm
FC
19
2.6 Effects of interaction between the non linear elements and criteria of seismic
design
In the proposed model, the interaction among the non linear elements is derived only by their
differences in terms of stiffness, in fact combined failure criteria are not considered. Therefore
the non linear analyses (static and dynamic) are more suitable to keep into account these
effects, like as the force’s redistribution and the following phases which marks the
development in the non linear range of the elements.
A first critical issue is the choice of the general seismic design approach, based on force or on
displacement. About the proposed criteria, for example in the OPCM 3431/2005, concerning
the non linear static procedures, they appear quite different for the RC or masonry structures.
The performance acceptability is based on limit states in terms of global target displacement
on the capacity curve, which refers to the overall condition of the building. For the masonry
structures the state of every element is checked during the analysis comparing the actual
forces and drifts with the correspondent ultimate values: when an element collapses its
contribute is cancelled making the redistribution of the forces on the elements that are still
“active” (fact that may causing softening on the pushover curve). On the contrary for the RC
structures the state examination of each member is made later corresponding at point which
represents the seismic demand on the capacity curve performed by the pushover analysis: in
fact the collapse of the element (for example caused by the overcoming of .u) doesn’t keep
into account during the analysis, possible softening phenomena are only ascribable to second
order effect. The criterion proposed (according to the OPCM 3431/2005 §8.5) is to adopt the
approach used for the main structural system, represented in the case of the considered mixed
structures by the masonry: as a result of this choice, the reason to introduce directly in the
formulation on the non linear RC elements the limits of resistance and collapse, so the
structural check of the elements is made directly during the analysis. It is obvious that the
lawfulness of this assumption can be doubted for limit cases of the classification of the “main
structural system”. The focus of this procedure is the identification of the “performance
point”, obtained from the intersection between the capacity curve, correctly transformed into
equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, and the elastic spectrum appropriately
reduced.
20
2.7 Loadings
2.7.1 Seismic action

Seismic action is defined according to O.P.C.M. (Capitolo 3 Azione sismica). The building is
assumed to be in a seismic zone 2, for which the PGA, for a type A soil (stiff soil),
corresponding to a return period of 475 years, is a g = 0.25 g . The soil under the building is
assumed to be of type B (punto 3.1 Categorie di suolo di fondazione).
category description
Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay, at least several tens of m in
B
thickness, characterized by a gradual increase of mechanical properties with depth
The response spectrum, for structure with natural period not greater than 4 s, is defined by the
equations (punto 3.2.3 Spettro di risposta elastico):
 T 
0 ≤ T < TB S e (T ) = a g ⋅ S ⋅ 1 + ⋅ (η ⋅ 2.5 − 1)
 T B 
TB ≤ T < TC S e (T ) = a g ⋅ S ⋅ (η ⋅ 2.5 )
 T 
TC ≤ T < TD S e (T ) = a g ⋅ S ⋅ η ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ C 
 T 
 T ⋅T 
TD ≤ T S e (T ) = a g ⋅ S ⋅ η ⋅ 2.5 ⋅ C 2 D 
 T 
S soil profile factor;

η viscous damping factor (for ξ different from 5), being ξ a percent,
η = 10 (5 + ξ ) ≥ 0.55
;
Τ natural period;
TB, TC, TD natural periods which separate different branches of the spectrum.
Soil category S TB TC TD
B, C, E 1.25 0.15 0.50 2.00
21
2.7.2 Gravity loads

The unitary loads transmitted by the slabs are:
• Permanent load: Gk=3.25 kN/m2
•
Variable load (firsts two floors) –value for stores-: Qk=5 kN/m2
•
Variable load (top floor)- value for roofs-: Qk=2 kN/m2
2.7.3 Loadings combination

Ultimate limit state verification is carried out for the following combination of seismic with
other kind of loadings (punto 3.3 Combinazione dell’azione sismica con le altre azioni):
γ I ⋅ E + Gk + ∑i(ψ 2,i ⋅ Qk ,i )
being:
γI importance factor;
E seismic action for the limit state;
Gk
characteristic value of permanent loadings;
ψ 2i quasi-permanent value coefficient of the generic variable action Qi;
Qk ,i
characteristic value of the generic variable action Qi;
Seismic action effects are evaluated taking into account of the masses due to the following
gravity loadings:
Gk + ∑ (ψ
i
E ,i
⋅ Qk ,i )
being:
ψ E ,i ψ Ε,ι = ψ 2 ,ι ⋅ ϕ
combination coefficient of the variable action Qi, defined as , which takes
into account the probability that all the loadings

(ψ E ,i
⋅ Qk ,i )
partecipates to the motion.
Building use ψ 2,i Storey loadings ϕ
roof 0.20 roof 1.0

store 0.80 store 1.0
22
2.8 Pushover and Non linear static analysis procedure

The structural verification consists in the comparison between the displacement capacity and
the displacement demand. According to OPCM, no local verifications on single elements are
required, since the non linear model already takes into account strengths and displacement
capacities of single elements.
The building is subjected to a force distribution proportional to the product of masses and the
first mode of vibration deformed shape: these forces are gradually scaled with the same factor,
so that the control node displacement increases until the ultimate condition is reached. The
analysis outcome is the pushover curve, which shows on x axis the control node displacement
and in y axis the base shear; its aim is to represent the envelope of all possible hysteretic loops
generated during the motion. On this curve is pointed out the maximum strength Fmax and the
maximum displacement du, displacement capacity, defined as the one corresponding to a
strength reduction of 20% of the maximum.
The procedure is based first on the transformation of the pushover curve into the capacity
curve, representing the equivalent single degree of freedom structure, through the
participation factor Γ.
 * Fb
F = Γ
 d
d * = c
 Γ ;
Then, this curve has to be transformed in an equivalent bilinear, representing the equivalent
elasto-plastic single degree of freedom oscillator, whose stiffness k’ is defined plotting the
secant at the 70% of the maximum strength F*max, and whose yielding strength F’y is defined
imposing the equality of the areas. Given k’ and F’y, also d’y is obtained, while the equivalent
mass is: m*= ∑Ni=1(mi Φi)
At this step, being the equivalent elasto-plastic single degree of freedom system fully
characterized, the maximum response displacement is given: (punto 4.5.4.4 Risposta massima
in spostamento del sistema equivalente):
• if T*≥TC, the maximum displacement of the system is the same of that of an elastic one
with the same period:
2
 T* 
S De (T * ) = Se (T * ) ⋅  
*
d max = d e*,max = S De (T * )  2π  , while
, being
*
• if T ≤TC , the maximum displacement of the system is bigger than that of an elastic
one with the same period:
23
S e (T * ) ⋅ m*
* q* =
d  T 
*
d max = e,max
*
( )
⋅ 1 + q * − 1 ⋅ C*  ≥ d e,max
*
, being
Fy*
, the elastic
q  T 
response strength - actual strength ratio.
According to (punto 8.1.6 Verifiche di sicurezza), for masonry building, if q* exceeds the limit
*
value q = 3.0 , the verification has to be considered not satisfied. This limitation means a
* *
ductility limitation of the whole structures. In this case, assuming q = q , the response
*
displacement d max is given by:
*
d max


( ) T 
= d *y ⋅ 1 + q * − 1 ⋅ C* 
T  , being
*
d e,max = q * ⋅ d y*
Once d*max is given, the actual displacement response of the building, which has to be
compared with the displacement capacity is dmax=Γ d*m
24
Chapter 3. Description of the building
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

This building is a slaughter house located in Rome, built in 1911; it’s a rectangular shape, 19
metres wide, 65 metres long, three storey height . The earthquake resisting system consist in
the pherimetrical, and four transversal masonry walls, all of them are 75 cm thick. The gravity
loads are also carried by internal square concrete column, through a rectangular net of
concrete beams which sustain a 10 cm thick concrete slab.
Figure 15. Plan of the building
Figure 16.Sections of the building
25
There are no ring beams along the perimeter, and the connection is provided only by the 15
cm penetration of the concrete slab into the walls. Not all the building is analyzed, but just a
19 X 32 meters portion of it, which is continuous along the height and perfectly symmetric
along the X axis : the longer walls have the same windows pattern, the western wall has two
doors while the eastern one has no holes. From the original report and drawings all the
information about the concrete element reinforcement are available.
Figure 17. Portion of the building under investigation
Figure 18. Reinforcement details
26
In such building the earthquake resisting system is easily identified; it satisfies the
requirements concerning the regularity of walls geometry, the regularity and the alignment of
the openings; moreover the connection guaranteed by the slab penetration into the walls, and
the high thickness of these is considered to be sufficient to avoid local mechanism . Therefore
the above explained “frame type” modelling is considered to be pretty realistic for this case
study.
3.1 Material properties

According to OPCM, chapter 11, since an existing building reflects the technical knowledge
of the past, could have some hidden deficiencies, or could have been subjected to earthquakes,
it has an higher level of uncertainties rather than a new building. Therefore, in the analysis,
the so called confidence factors are applied to the materials properties, whose values depend
on the level of knowledge of the building. In this case the that level is assumed to be LC1, the
confidence factor is 1.35. The mechanical properties of the materials are: (OPCM, Allegati
11.D.1 11.D.2):
Table 3.1. Masonry properties
Bricks Pieni
Mortar M2
Unitary weight 18000 N/m3
Mean vertical compressive strength fcm 2 MPa
Mean horizontal compressive strength fhcm 1,5 MPa
Mean shear strength with no axial load fvm0 0,09 MPa
Bond coefficient mu 0,4
Bricks horizontal compressive strength fbc 3 MPa
Maximum shear strength fvmlin 2,2 MPa
E 2700 MPa
G 450 MPa
Table 3.2. Concrete properties
Type C 25/30
Mean compressive strength fcm 33 MPa
Characteristic compressive strength fcm 25 MPa
Mean shear strength τrm 0,3 MPa
Mean tensile strength fctm 2,6 MPa
Ultimate deformation εcu 3,5‰
E 30000 MPa
G 12000 MPa
Table 3.3. Steel properties
Type Feb 32K

Characteristic yielding and ultimate strength fyk=fuk 320 MPa
27
Ultimate deformation εcu 1%

Elastic modulus E 210000 MPa
3.2 Reinforced concrete elements

The “net” consists in four primary beams, in the shortest direction and with an higher depth,
and five secondary ones, in the orthogonal direction, three of which are supported directly by
the primary beams. The concrete slab is reinforced in the shortest direction of the building.
For beams, seven different type of sections are used in the modelling, while columns sections
just change at each storey.
5 5
1 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
1 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
6 6
7 7
7 7
6 6
5 5
Figure 19. Identification of beam sections
28
SECTION TYPE 1 SECTION TYPE 2

Beff Beff
2 Ø12 + 4 Ø18 4 Ø12 + 4 Ø18 + 1 Ø16

10
10
closed stirrups closed stirrups
Ø7 / 30 cm Ø7 / 30 cm
55
55
2 Ø20 2 Ø20
25 25

Beff Beff
4 Ø12 + 3 Ø16+ 2 Ø18 4 Ø12 + 6 Ø16
10
10

Ø7 / 30 cm Ø7 / 30 cm
45
45
2 Ø16 2 Ø16
25 25
29

Beff Beff
2 Ø14 + 2 Ø22 4 Ø14 + 2 Ø20 + 4 Ø24
10
10
Ø7 / 30 cm Ø7 / 30 cm
65
65
2 Ø24 2 Ø24
25 25
SECTION TYPE 7 GROUND STOREY COMUMN

Beff Vertical bars: 8Ø20
Stirrups/ties: Ø10/ 10 cm
2 Ø14 + 2 Ø22
50
10
closed stirrups
Ø7 / 30 cm
65
50
2 Ø24
25
FIRST STOREY COMUMN SECOND STOREY COMUMN

Vertical bars: 8Ø16 Vertical bars: 8Ø14
Stirrups/ties: Ø10/ 11 cm Stirrups/ties: Ø10/ 13 cm
45
40
45
40
Figure 20. R.c. sections
30
Chapter 4. Assessment of the existing structure
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE

All the analyses are carried out in the weakest direction of the building, Y, which is the
shortest one; no accidental eccentricity is applied to the seismic force, and the cracked
stiffness of the element is assumed to be half of the gross one, for both concrete and masonry.
In order to investigate deeply the non linear response of the structure, three different
modelling are carried out: one with Andil Wall and two with TreMuri.
In the firsts two models , masonry elements are modelled as bilinear, according to the OPCM
instructions, while in the third model these are modelled through the “macroelement”. In this
last case the following masonry property are adopted: Eeff=1500 MPa, Geff=300 MPa,
fcm=1,48 MPa, fvom=0,12 MPa. δlim= 0,6 %. All these models consider, as ring beams, the
portion of slab inside the walls (10 x 15 cm).
Summarizing:
MODEL Software Constitutive law

1 AndilWall
Bilinear
2
TreMuri
3 Macroelement
31
PUSHOVER CURVE
500.000
Model 2
400.000
Bilinear Model 2
Base shear (daN)
300.000
Bilinear Model 1
200.000
Model 1
100.000
Model 3
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
Top displacement (cm)
Since the firsts two models follow the code modelling, the bilinearization is carried out:
Capacities Demands
MODEL
Fy (daN) dy (cm) K (daN/m) T (s) du (cm) q dmax (cm)
1 450394 1,22 3,68*10^7 0,39 4,28 3,35 4,92
2 439000 1,19 3,69*10^7 0,44 3,49 4,24 5,4
From the observation of the curves, it is pretty evident how the bilinear models capture the
non linear response in a similar way, except to the difference in the ultimate displacement
capacity estimation. This is due to a different coupling effect given by the spandrels
(resistance criterion are different due to the rigid slab assumption made by AndilWall), which
is lower in AndilWall: this fact affects pretty much the equivalent frame global stiffness, in
such a way that the torsional effect is amplified, and the higher nodes rotation modifies the
elements drift calculation; therefore, ultimate centroidal displacement becomes higher. In all
cases, the verifications are not satisfied in terms of minimum strength (q>3) and maximum
displacement (dmax>du).
32
4.1 Damage state of elements at collapse – Bilinear Models

In the followings, the state of damage of each element at failure is shown: while AndilWall
results are summarized in tables, TreMuri ones are shown in pictures, in which elements are
coloured depending on the state of damage.
Figure 21. Andil Wall members identification
The term “FAILURE” means that ultimate relative displacement is reached, while the term
“PLASTIC” means that the maximum strength is reached, and the element is subjected to
plastic deformation. The term “NO DAMAGE” means that the element is in the elastic stage.
33
4.1.1 Model 1 - Andil Wall

The ultimate condition is reached for a storey mechanism at ground floor (the squattest wall
Y8, and wall Y1 have reached their maximum strength), and first floor (also wall Y3 is in the
plastic range); moreover plastic hinges have formed in three columns. Among the horizontal
elements, all the masonry spandrels have reached their maximum flexural strength, while
most of the concrete beams are still in the elastic range. None of the reinforced concrete
elements have failed for shear.
VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Floor Elem. State of Damage Floor Elem. State of Damage Floor Elem. State of Damage
1 X1 NO DAMAGE 2 X1 NO DAMAGE 3 X1 NO DAMAGE
1 X12 PLASTIC FLEX 2 X12 PLASTIC FLEX 3 X12 NO DAMAGE
1 Y1 PLASTIC FLEX 2 Y1 PLASTIC SHEAR 3 Y1 NO DAMAGE
1 Y10 PLASTIC FLEX 2 Y10 PLASTIC FLEX 3 Y10 NO DAMAGE
1 Y2 NO DAMAGE 2 Y2 NO DAMAGE 3 Y2 NO DAMAGE
1 Y3 NO DAMAGE 2 Y3 PLASTIC FLEX 3 Y3 PLASTIC FLEX
1 Y8 PLASTIC SHEAR 2 Y8 PLASTIC SHEAR 3 Y8 NO DAMAGE
1 Y9 NO DAMAGE 2 Y9 PLASTIC FLEX 3 Y9 NO DAMAGE
HORIZONTAL REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS

1 C1 PLASTIC FLEX 2 C1 PLASTIC FLEX 3 C1 PLASTIC FLEX
1 C10 NO DAMAGE 2 C10 NO DAMAGE 3 C10 NO DAMAGE
34

1 C4 NO DAMAGE 2 C4 PLASTIC FLEX 3 C4 PLASTIC FLEX
1 C44 NO DAMAGE 2 C44 NO DAMAGE 3 C44 PLASTIC FLEX
1 C45 PLASTIC FLEX 2 C45 NO DAMAGE 3 C45 NO DAMAGE
35
HORIZONTAL MASONRY SPANDRELS

36
4.1.2 Model 2 TreMuri

A quite similar damage distribution take place at collapse in this model, with storey
mechanism (the largest wall got the ultimate drift for shear) and plastic hinges in concrete
columns. The deformed shape shows a typical shear behaviour of the building, with higher
relative displacement at the bottom. From the plan view deformed shape, it can be observed
that pretty small torsional effects take place, and the slab works almost as a rigid diaphragm.
37
38
4.2 Damage state of elements at collapse – Model 3 TreMuri (Macroelement)

The damage pattern and the deformed shapes of the structure modelled with the macroelement
are pretty similar to the bilinear ones.
N16 185
27 N52 186
28 N44 187 N36 188 N28 189
29 N20 190
30 N4 N12 152
13 N56 153
14 N48 154
15 N40 155
16 N32 156
17 N24 157
18 N8
84 85
41
92 94
93
N15 179
23 N51 180
24 N43 181 N35 182 N27 183
25 N19 184
26 N3 N11 146
7 N55 147
8 N47 148
9 N39 149
10 N31 150
11 N23 151
12 N7
82 83
40
89 91
90
N14 173
19 N50 174
20 N42 175 N34 176 N26 177
21 N18 178
22 N2 N10 140
1 N54 141
2 N46 142
3 N38 143
4 N30 144
5 N22 145
6 N6
80 81
39
86 88
87
N13 N49 N41 N33 N25 N17 N1 N9 N53 N45 N37 N29 N21 N5
N4 135 N60 136 N68 137 N76 138 N84 139 N8 N64 473 N105 474 N102 475 N98 476 N95 477 N91 478 N60
16 17 18 19 20
33 34 35 36 37 38 P556 P555
N3 130 N59 131 N67 132 N75 133 N83 134 N7 N63 467 N104 468 N101 469 N97 470 N94 471 N90 472 N59
11 12 13 14 15
27 32 P548 P541
28 29 30 31
N2 125
2 N58 126
4 N66 6127 N74 128
8 N82 10129 N6 N62 461 N103 462 N100 463 N96 464 N93 465 N89 466 N58
21 22 23 24 25 26 P540 P539
1 3 5 7 9
N1 N57 N65 N73 N81 N5 N61 N99 N92 N57
N88 527 N156 528 N153 529 N149 530 N146 531 N142 532 N84
P551 P552
P1
N87 521 N155 522 N152 523 N148 524 N145 525 N141 526 N83
P5
P545 P544
P6
N86 515 N154 516 N151 517 N147 518 N144 519 N140 520 N82
P4 P10 P11 P7 P12 P13 P2
P8 P535 P536
P9 N85 N150 N143 N81
P3
39
Chapter 5. Strengthening design
5. STRENGTHENING DESIGN
The retrofit consists in the design of two reinforced concrete shear walls, symmetrically
placed and equally sized, (the existing structure already has an appreciable symmetry) in
order to enhance the global strength of the structure. Walls dimensions are constant for all the
three storeys, and they are placed along the external columns axis, in order to provide the
maximum torsional stiffness.
In the following picture a number is assigned to each element in order to simplify member
identification.
1 2 3 4 5 6
16 22 17 18 21
r.c. wall r.c. wall
15 7
20 19
14
13 12 11 10 9 8
Figure 22. Members identification
40
The goal of the design is obviously the attainment of the code requirements, through a
strength enhancement which reduce the displacement demand of the design earthquake.
Such requirements consist in the response peak displacement estimation equation, under the
well known equal energy hypothesis (being the period T* lower than 0,5 seconds): this
consists in the modification of the peak displacement of the corresponding elastic SDOF
system, of equal initial stiffness and unlimited strength, equating the energy absorbed by the
inelastic (elastic-perfectly plastic) oscillator, on a monotonic displacement to peak response,
to the energy absorbed by the elastic one.
du =
( )
S De T * 
( T 
)
⋅ 1 + q * − 1 ⋅ C*  , being
*
q  T 
*
q =
( )
S e T * ⋅ m*
, and
Fy*
2
T* 
( )
S De T *
( )
= S e T ⋅ 
*
 , the equality becomes:
 2π 
2
T* 
 
 2π    S e T * ⋅ m* ( )  TC 
du = ⋅  1 +  − 1 ⋅ 
m*    F *  T* 
y  
*
Fy
In this equality the three main features of an earthquake resisting system appear: strength
(Fy), stiffness (K) and ultimate displacement capacity (du). The procedure implies the
solution of the equality, in which the strength is the only unknown, being the other two
parameters dependant on a simplified hypothesis. Once the strength increment is known, this
is equally shared between the two walls. In the following, the strengthening design is carried
out following two approach, each based on a simplified hypothesis.
Strengthening design is carried out only for Model 2 (Bilinear TreMuri).
41
5.1 Constant yield displacement hypothesis (Design n°1)

The first design approach consists in find out the necessary strength, in order to let the
ultimate displacement capacity (du) of the original structure be high enough to sustain the
design earthquake, assuming that the strengthening would not change the yield displacement.
This means that the reinforced structure would keep the ductility unchanged. In the equality,
the stiffness of the reinforced system (unknown) appears as a function of the strength
(K=Fy/dy ), so that this is the only unknown.
Idealized elastic structure

F
Original structure
Strengthened structure
F'y
Fy
Dy Du Dmax D
D'y D'u=D'max
Figure 23. Constant yield displacement approach
42
5.2 Constant stiffness hypothesis (Design n°2)

The second design approach consists in find out the necessary strength, in order to let the
plastic displacement capacity (∆p=du-dy) of the original structure be high enough to sustain
the design earthquake, assuming that the strengthening would keep the stiffness constant..
Actually, the above mentioned hypothesis is pretty strong, since walls of similar sizes
probably affect the stiffness pretty much.
F
Idealized elastic structure
O riginal structure
Strengthened structure
F'y
Fy
Dy D 'y Du D 'u=D 'm ax D m ax D

Figure 24. Constant stiffness approach
43
5.3 Effective stiffness of concrete element

Given their sizes, concrete walls affect pretty much the global reinforced structure response,
therefore, concrete element stiffness becomes an important issue. Actually, the assumption
made by the code (cracked stiffness half of the gross one) is pretty rough; in fact, according to
the experimental evidence, this is a strength dependent property, and so it is affected by the
axial load and by the amount of reinforcement, instead of being just a geometrical property, as
it is considered in the traditional elastic approach.
Figure 25. Effective stiffness
In the followings, the effective stiffness is calculated in two ways. In the first as a element
property, calculating yielding shear over yielding displacement ratio: while the shear strength
comes equilibrium (the element fails for flexure), yielding displacement comes from the
double integration of the curvature trend along the height, being assumed a displacement with
null nodal rotation. Yielding curvature, according to the experimental evidence, is a constant
property
Mu
Tu Mu
Tu
Mu Dy
Mu
Tu
Figure 26. Effective element stiffness
44
In the second way the stiffness is calculated as a sectional property, through the ratio of “first
yielding” moment over “first yielding” curvature; in a moment curvature constitutive curve
bilinearization the “first yielding” point lays on the elastic branch, and it is defined as that, at
which tensile reinforcement yields, or concrete extreme compression fibres attain a strain of
0.002, whichever occur first. “First yielding” moment is calculated with equilibrium equation
assuming a linear elastic behaviour of materials, while “first yielding” curvature comes, of
course, from geometric relationship.
Figure 27. Effective sectional stiffness
45
Chapter 5.Strengthening design
CALCULATIONS
EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPERTIES - Bilinear 3Muri Model
H := 12.95 building heigth (m)
m := 1867596 total equivalent mass (kg)
Γ := 1.301 first mode partecipation factor
Equivalent bilinear MDOF system properties:
Fy_M := 4390000 (N) dy_M := 0.0119 (m) du_M := 0.0349 (m)
Equivalent bilinear SDOF system properties:
Fy_M dy_M du_M

Fy_S := dy_S := du_S :=
Γ Γ Γ
Fy_S 8
K := K = 3.689 × 10 Stiffness (N/m)
d y_S
m
T := 2 ⋅ π ⋅ T = 0.447 Natural period (sec)
K
∆ p_S := du_S − d y_S ∆ p_S = 0.018 Plastic deformation capacity (m)
RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Zone 2 - Soil type B
ag := 0.25 Peak ground acceleration (g)
S := 1.25 Soil amplification factor
TB := 0.15 TC := 0.5 TD := 2
SAe := ag⋅ 9.81⋅ S⋅ 2.5 Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

2
Sde := SAe⋅  
T
 Spectral displacement (m)
 2⋅ π 
46
DESIGN N° 1 - Constant yield displacement assumption -

F := 1000
 2 
  m⋅ d y_S 
 
 2 ⋅ π ⋅ 
 F 
     SAe⋅ m  
  2⋅ π  TC 
Fy_Sn_d1 := root SAe⋅ ⋅ 1 +  − 1 ⋅  − d u_S , F
 S Ae⋅ m   F  m⋅ d y_S  
  2 ⋅ π ⋅  
 F  F  
6
Fy_Sn_d1 = 6.328 × 10 SDOF strength (N)
Fy_Mn_d1 := Fy_Sn_d1⋅ Γ Fy_Mn_d1 = 8232653 MDOF strength (N)
Fy_Mn_d1 − Fy_M 6
Vbase_d1 := Vbase_d1 = 1.921 × 10 Base shear assigned to
2
the r.c. walls (N)
DESIGN N° 2 - Constant stiffness assumption -
  T 
2 
    
  2 ⋅ π  ⋅ 1 +  SAe⋅ m  TC F
Fy_Sn_d2 := root SAe⋅  − 1 ⋅  − − ∆ p_S , F
 SAe⋅ m   F  T K 
 
 F 
6
Fy_Sn_d2 = 8.482 × 10 SDOF strength (N)
Fy_Mn_d2 := Fy_Sn_d2⋅ Γ Fy_Mn_d2 = 11035259 MDOF strength (N)
Fy_Mn_d2 − Fy_M 6
Vbase_d2 := Vbase_d2 = 3.323 × 10 Base shear assigned to
2
the r.c. walls (N)
47
DESIGN ACTIONS ON WALLS

Once the base shear is known, design actions distributions on walls are based on simplified
hypothesis.
For moments, a linear trend, with point of contraflexure at the 65% of the height, is assumed.
For shear, a force distribution proportional to the first mode deformed shape is assumed.
 4.3   4.3 
hs :=  4.35  Interstorey heigth (m) zi :=  8.65  Storey altitude (m)
   
 4.3   12.95 
Vbase_d1⋅ zi
2 4
M base_d1 := M base_d1 = 1.662 × 10 Base moment (kNm)
1000
design n°1
Vbase_d2⋅ zi
2 4
M base_d2 := M base_d2 = 2.874 × 10 Base moment (kNm)
1000
design n°2
M base_d1 3
M I_d1 := ⋅ hs M I_d1 = 8.262 × 10 First floor moment (kNm)
zi 1
2 design n°1
M base_d2 4
M I_d2 := ⋅ hs M I_d2 = 1.429 × 10 First floor moment (kNm)
zi 1
2 design n°2
3
M II_d1 := M I_d1 M II_d1 = 8.262 × 10 Second floor moment (kNm)
design n°1
4
M II_d2 := M I_d2 M II_d2 = 1.429 × 10 Second floor moment (kNm)
design n°2
48
1 
ws :=  1  Adimensional mass distribution
 
 0.5 
 →
 425.313 
Vbase_d1 (
ws⋅ zi )
Feqk_d1 := ⋅ Feqk_d1 =  855.571  Equivalent static force
1000 ws⋅ zi  
 640.442  vector. Design n°1 (kN)
 →  735.511 
Vbase_d2 (
ws⋅ zi )  3

Feqk_d2 := ⋅ Feqk_d2 =  1.48 × 10  Equivalent static force
1000 ws⋅ zi
 3 vector. Design n°2 (kN)
 1.108 × 10 
3
VI_d1 := Feqk_d1 + Feqk_d1 VI_d1 = 1.496 × 10 First floor shear (kN)
3 2
design n°1
3
VI_d2 := Feqk_d2 + Feqk_d2 VI_d2 = 2.587 × 10 First floor shear (kN)
3 2
design n°2
VII_d1 := Feqk_d1 VII_d1 = 640.442 Second floor shear (kN)

3
design n°1
3
VI_d2 := Feqk_d2 VI_d2 = 1.108 × 10 Second floor shear (kN)
3
design n°2
49
Reinforced concrete walls design follows the OPCM provision for ductility class
"A" walls, in terms of geometry, steel reinforcement amount, and strength
verification. In the followings, the design is shown only for reinforced structure n°
1 - equal yield displacement hypothesis - . Design n°2 will be shown in the
appendix
MATERIALS PROPETIES OF R.C. WALLS
CONCRETE C30/37 (EC2):
3
fck := 30⋅ 10 kN /m2 Charateristic compressive strength
3
fctk := 2 ⋅ 10 kN /m2 Charateristic tensile strength
3
τ Rd := 0.32⋅ 10 kN /m2 Design shear strength
3
Ecm := 32000⋅ 10 kN /m2 Elastic modulus
γ c := 1.6 Partial factor of safety

fck Design compressive strength
fcd :=
γc
ε co := 0.002 Strain at maximum strength
ε cu := 0.0035 Ultimate strain
STEEL (Feb 44k):

3
fyk := 430⋅ 10 kN /m2 Charateristic tensile strength
3
Eym := 200000⋅ 10 kN /m2 Elastic modulus
γ s := 1.15 Partial factor of safety
ε su := 0.01 Ultimate strain

fyk Design tensile strength
fyd :=
γs
fyd
ε y := Yield strain
Eym
Eym
α :=
Ecm
50
WALLS SECTION GEOMETRY:

b := 0.35 Depth (m)
l := 6.3 Width (m)
d1 := 0.04 Cover (m)
d := l − d 1 Effective section height (m)
3
b⋅ l
Igross := Gross moment of inertia (m 4)
12
2 2 2 2
π ⋅ 0.010 π ⋅ 0.012 π ⋅ 0.014 π ⋅ 0.016
φ10 := φ12 := φ14 := φ16 :=
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
π ⋅ 0.018 π ⋅ 0.02 π ⋅ 0.022 π ⋅ 0.025
φ18 := φ20 := φ22 := φ25 :=
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
π ⋅ 0.026 π ⋅ 0.028 π ⋅ 0.032 π ⋅ 0.04
φ26 := φ28 := φ32 := φ40 :=
4 4 4 4
WALLS ACTIONS:
Acting moments (kNm):

4
M sd := M base_d1 M sd = 1.662 × 10 Ground floor
3
M sd_1 := M I_d1 M sd_1 = 8.262 × 10 First floor
3
M sd_2 := M II_d1 M sd_2 = 8.262 × 10 Second floor
Acting shears (kN):

Vbase_d1
Vsd := 3
1000 Vsd = 1.921 × 10 Ground floor
Vsd1 := VI_d1 3
Vsd1 = 1.496 × 10 First floor
Vsd2 := VII_d1
Vsd2 = 640.442 Second floor
51
Walls moment capacities are calculated under the usual concrete sections hypothesis, taking
into account of all the bars contribution.
GROUND FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd := 2264 kN Axial load
4 Moment
M sd = 1.662 × 10 kNm
Nsd
ν :=
b ⋅ d⋅ fcd ν = 0.055 Normalized axial load
VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN:
Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 7 kkc2 := 26 .. 32 kk := 8 .. 25
1 1
Asi := 2⋅ φ20 Asi := 2⋅ φ20 Asi := 2 ⋅ φ10 1 6.28·10-4 1 0.04
kkc1 kkc2 kk 2 6.28·10-4 2 0.24
3 6.28·10-4 3 0.44
4 6.28·10-4 4 0.64
Bars coordinate vector (m): 5 6.28·10-4 5 0.84
hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32 6 6.28·10-4 6 1.04
zi := 0.04 7 6.28·10-4 7 1.24
1 8 1.57·10-4 8 1.44
zi := zi + 0.2 9 1.57·10-4 9 1.64
hh hh− 1 10 1.57·10-4 10 1.84
zi := 3.26 11 1.57·10-4 11 2.04
17
12 1.57·10-4 12 2.24
zi := zi + 0.2 13 1.57·10-4 13 2.44
hh1 hh1− 1
14 1.57·10-4 14 2.64
15 1.57·10-4 15 2.84
Asi = 16 1.57·10-4 zi = 16 3.04
17 1.57·10-4 17 3.26
18 1.57·10-4 18 3.46
19 1.57·10-4 19 3.66
20 1.57·10-4 20 3.86
21 1.57·10-4 21 4.06
22 1.57·10-4 22 4.26
23 1.57·10-4 23 4.46
24 1.57·10-4 24 4.66
25 1.57·10-4 25 4.86
26 6.28·10-4 26 5.06
27 6.28·10-4 27 5.26
28 6.28·10-4 28 5.46
29 6.28·10-4 29 5.66
30 6.28·10-4 30 5.86
31 6.28·10-4 31 6.06
32 6.28·10-4 32 6.26
52
q := 1 .. 32
r := 1.1 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal
to that coming from force equilibrium equation.
Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture
ε su  ε su 
ε si := ⋅  r − zi
 if  ⋅  r − zi  < ε y
q d−r  q d − r  q
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  r − zi  > ε y
d − r  q
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  r − zi  < −ε y
d − r  q
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.67⋅ r⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi⋅ Eym⋅ ε si − Nsd , r ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 1.104 neutral axis depth (m)
ε su
⋅ x = 0.002141 extreme concrete fiber strain
d−x
→ l
M rd := b ⋅ 0.67⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  ⋅ x + Eym Asi⋅ ε si ⋅  − zi
l 0.67
2
−
2 
( ) 2 
4
M rd = 1.789 × 10 Moment capacity (kNm)
HORIZONTHAL BARS DESIGN φ 10 bars every 15 cm
s := 0.15 bars step (m)

2 ⋅ φ10 −3
ρ w := ρ w = 3.491 × 10 horizonthal bars geometric
(b − 2⋅ d1 + 0.02 + 0.01)⋅ s ratio
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd 3
Vsd := Vsd⋅ 1.2⋅ Vsd = 2.482 × 10 Design shear value (kN)
M sd
Compressive strut mechanism verification
 fck  3
Vrd2 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ f ⋅ b⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2 = 7.276 × 10 kN
 1000⋅ 200  cd
53
Tensile resistant mechanism verification:
∑Asi⋅100
ρ tot% := ρ tot% = 0.527 vertical bars geometric ratio
b⋅ l
( )
Vcd := τ Rd⋅ 1.2 + 0.4⋅ ρ tot% ⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vcd = 796.405 Concrete contribution (kN)
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd := 2⋅ φ10⋅ fyd ⋅ Vwd = 2.206 × 10 Steel contribution (kN)
s
3
Vrd3 := Vcd + Vwd Vrd3 = 3.002 × 10 Shear capacity (kN)
Horizonthal slippage verification:
∑Asi
3
Vdd := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅ Vdd = 1.087 × 10 Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
Vfd := 0.25⋅ fcd⋅ ⋅ l⋅ b Vfd = 1.823 × 10 Compressive concrete
d
contribution (kN)
3
Vrds := Vdd + Vfd Vrds = 2.909 × 10
Shear capacity (kN)
FIRST FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd_1 := 1420
Axial load (kN)
M sd_1 = 8262 Moment (kNm)
Nsd_1
ν :=

kkc1 := 1 .. 7 kkc2 := 26 .. 32 kk := 8 .. 25
Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ14 Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ14 Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ10

kkc1 kkc2 kk
54
Bars coordinate vector (m):
hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32
zi_1 := 0.04
1
zi_1 := zi_1 + 0.2
hh hh− 1
zi_1 := 3.26
17
zi_1 := zi_1 + 0.2
hh1 hh1− 1
qq := 1 .. 32
rr := 0.831 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
ε su  ε su 
ε si_1 := ⋅  rr − zi_1  if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  < ε y
qq d − rr  qq  d − rr  qq
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  > ε y
 d − rr  qq
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  < −ε y
 d − rr  qq
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.67⋅ rr⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi_1⋅ Eym⋅ ε si_1 − Nsd_1 , rr ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 0.828
neutral axis depth (m)
ε su
⋅ x = 0.00152
d−x extreme concrete fiber strain
→ l
M rd_1 := b ⋅ 0.67⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  ⋅ x + Eym Asi_1⋅ ε si_1 ⋅  − zi_1
l 0.67
2
−
2 
( )2 
4
M rd_1 = 1.148 × 10 Moment capacity (kNm)

bars step (m)
s := 0.2
2 ⋅ φ10 −3
( b − 2 ⋅ d1 + 0.014 + 0.01 ⋅ s ) ratio
55
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd_1
Vsd_1 := Vsd1⋅ 1.2⋅ 3
M sd_1 Vsd_1 = 2.495 × 10 Design shear value (kN)

 fck  3
Vrd2_1 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ f ⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2_1 = 7.276 × 10 kN
 1000⋅ 200  cd

fctk 3
Vcd_1 := 0.6⋅ ⋅ b⋅ d Vcd_1 = 1.643 × 10 Concrete contribution (kN)
γc
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd_1 := 2 ⋅ φ10⋅ fyd⋅ Vwd_1 = 1.655 × 10 Steel contribution (kN)
s
Vrd3_1 := Vcd_1 + Vwd_1 3

Vrd3_1 = 3.298 × 10 Shear capacity (kN)
Vdd_1 := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅

∑Asi_1 Vdd_1 = 667.22 Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
Vfd_1 := 0.25⋅ fcd⋅ ⋅ l⋅ b Vfd_1 = 1.368 × 10 Compressive concrete
d
contribution (kN)
3
Vrds_1 := Vdd_1 + Vfd_1 Vrds_1 = 2.035 × 10
Shear capacity (kN)
Not verified !!
SECOND FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd_2 := 577 Axial load (kN)

Moment (kNm)
M sd_2 = 8262
Nsd_2
ν :=
kkc1 := 1 .. 7 kkc2 := 26 .. 32 kk := 8 .. 25
Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ14 Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ14 Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ10

kkc1 kkc2 kk
56

hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32
zi_2 := 0.04
1
zi_2 := zi_2 + 0.2
hh hh− 1
zi_2 := 3.26
17
zi_2 := zi_2 + 0.2
hh1 hh1− 1
qqq := 1 .. 32
rrr := 0.648 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
ε su  ε su 
ε si_2 := ⋅  rrr − zi_2  if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  < ε y
qqq d − rrr  qqq  d − rrr  qqq
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  > ε y
 d − rrr  qqq
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  < −ε y
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.67⋅ rrr⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi_2⋅ Eym⋅ ε si_2 − Nsd_2 , rrr ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 0.647
ε su
d−x
→ l
M rd_2 := b ⋅ 0.67⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  ⋅ x + Eym Asi_2⋅ ε si_2 ⋅  − zi_2
l 0.67
2
−
2 
( )2 
3
M rd_2 = 9.278 × 10 moment capacity (kNm)

2 ⋅ φ10 −3
ρ w := ρ w = 2.671 × 10
( )
b − 2 ⋅ d1 + 0.014 + 0.01 ⋅ s
57
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd_2
Vsd_2 := Vsd2⋅ 1.2⋅ Vsd_2 = 863.108 Design shear value (kN)
M sd_2
 fck  3
Vrd2_2 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ fcd⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2_2 = 7.276 × 10
 1000 ⋅ 200 

fctk 3
γc
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd_2 := 2 ⋅ φ10⋅ fyd⋅ Vwd_2 = 1.655 × 10 Steel contribution (kN)
s
Vrd3_2 := Vcd_2 + Vwd_2 3

Vdd_2 := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅

∑Asi_1 Vdd_2 = 667.22
Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
d
contribution (kN)
3
Vrds_2 := Vdd_2 + Vfd_2 Vrds_2 = 1.735 × 10
Shear capacity (kN)
58
EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS
In the following, the flexural element effective stiffness is calculated, assuming a deformed shape
with null nodal rotation. This implies a moment distribution with zero value in the midspan.
 3.522 × 107 
12⋅ Ecm⋅ Igross
 
kel := kel = 3.402 × 10 
 7 traslational elastic stiffness (kN/m)
3  
hs
 3.522 107 
 × 
εy
Φ y := 2⋅ yield curvature
l
 1.829 × 10− 3 
hs
2  
Dy := Φ y⋅ Dy = 1.872 × 10 
 − 3 yield displacement (m)
6  
 1.829 × 10− 3 
 
 Mrd   1.789 × 104 

 
 
M u :=  M rd_1  M u = 1.148 × 10 
 4 flexural strength (kNm)
 
M   9.278 × 103 
 rd_2   
 8.321 × 103 
2⋅ Mu
 
TR := TR = 5.279 × 10 
 3
hs   shear strength due to flexure mechanism(kN)
 4.316 × 103 
 
 4.55 × 106 
 
TR
keff := keff = 2.82 × 10 
 6 traslational equivalent stiffness (kN/m)
Dy  
 6
 2.359 × 10 
keff  0.129 
ζ := ζ =  0.083  effective over elastic stiffness ratio
kel  
 0.067 
59
Actually, after a preliminary pushover analysis, it is pointed out that the above designed
reinforced concrete walls get the shear failure when the structure is still in the loading stage,
before reaching the plastic plato; therefore the horizontal reinforcement is enhanced until
inelastic deformations take place.
Summarizing, the amount of reinforcement of r.c. walls is, for each reinforced structure:
Ground floor First floor Second floor

Sizes (m) Vert. bars Vert. bars Vert. bars
Hor. Hor. Hor.
bars bars bars
b l Ends Web Ends Web Ends Web
Design 0,35 6,3 14Φ20 Φ10/20 Φ12/12 14Φ14 Φ10/20 Φ12/15 14Φ14 Φ10/20 Φ10/20
n°1 cm cm cm cm cm cm
Design 0,45 6,3 14Φ22 Φ22/20 Φ14/10 14Φ20 Φ20/20 Φ12/10 14Φ18 Φ18/20 Φ12/20
n°2 cm cm cm cm cm cm
And the effective stiffness of concrete walls in comparison to code provision: in reinforced
structure n°1 this is calculated as element property, in reinforced structure n°2 this is
calculated as sectional property.
Ground floor First floor Second floor

Code assumption 50%
Reinforced structure n°1 12,9% 8,3% 6,7%
Reinforced structure n°2 18,2% 14,9% 11,5%
It is pretty clear that the assumptions made in design n° 2 lead to a much more conservative
retrofitting design. In fact, assuming that the stiffness would not change, the displacement
demand reduction relies only on the strength enhancement, with a global ductility reduction;
moreover, such hypothesis of doubtful reliability, lead to the contradiction of a stronger and
stiffer reinforcement. In the first case instead, the displacement demand reduction relies also
on the stiffness increase, keeping the ductility constant. It is evident, from the physical point
of view and from the observation of the response peak displacement estimation equation, that
as long as the strength and stiffness are high, as the ultimate displacement demand becomes
lower. Finally, apart from the strict code requirement satisfaction, since it is universally
recognized that in seismic engineering the ductility is the most important tool, a conceptually
correct retrofitting should ever raise the ductility .
60
Chapter 6. Assessment of the retrofitted structure
6. ASSESSMENT OF THE RETROFITTED STRUCTURE

In the followings, pushover analyses of the reinforced structure are carried out, in order to
find out how the above designed shear walls affect the whole structure non linear response,
relating to the previsions made in the design phase. Further, the influence of the concrete
elements stiffness is investigated , using both the code indication (50% of the gross stiffness)
and the “strength dependant” stiffness, as suggested by the literature. In particular, for the
strengthened structure n°1 (equal yield displacement approach), both the methods are used,
while for the strengthened structure n°2 (equal stiffness approach), the latter is used. Finally,
strengthened structure n°1 is modelled also with the Macroelement
This is done only by the TreMuri software.
61
6.1 Bilinear models
PUSHOVER CURVE
1.300.000
Reinf.-equal stiffness
1.200.000
1.100.000
Orig. 3Muri
1.000.000
Bilinear Orig. 3Muri

900.000
800.000
Reinf.-equal displacement
Base shear (daN)
700.000
600.000 Bil. Reinf-equal

displacement
500.000
Bil.Reinf.-equal stiffness
400.000
300.000 Reinf.-equal displacement-

effective stiffness
200.000
Bil. Reinf.-equal
100.000 displacement-effective
stiffness
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5
Top displacem ent (cm )
In the following, the numerical values of the bilinear curves, and the design earthquake
demands are shown, in comparison with original structure ones.
Capacities Demands
Fy (daN) dy (cm) K (daN/m) du (cm) µ q dmax (cm)
Original 439000 1,19 3,69*10^7 3,49 2,93 4,24 5,4
Reinforced n° 1 912000 1,2 7,58*10^7 6 5 1,92 3,1
(stiffness code provision)
Reinforced n° 1 894000 2,3 3,89*10^7 5,46 2,37 1,97 5
(effective stiffness)
Reinforced n° 2 1250000 3,3 3,78*10^7 5,25 1,59 1,4 4,9
62
In the following table it is pointed out the percentage variations in strength, stiffness, and
ductility, due to the assessment, with respect to the original structure, in order to find out if
the initial hypothesis are satisfied.
PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS OBTAINED

Fy K µ
R. n° 1
107% 105% 70%
(stiffness code provision)
R. n° 1
103% 5,4% -19%
(effective stiffness)
Reinforced n° 2 184% 2,4% -45%
In the first and in the last cases, the assumptions made in the design stage are quite satisfied,
in fact, while in the first the yield displacement dy almost does not change, in the last the
stiffness enhancement is close to zero. The second case instead does not follow the initial
hypothesis of constant yield displacement, and has a very low stiffness increase, similarly to
the last case. Actually, both in the second and in the last case, the initial stiffness is increased
pretty much, but the behaviour shows a strong non linearity already in the loading stage, that
puts the bilinear stiffness down: this feature is due to the low values of concrete walls
stiffness, of the same order of magnitude of masonry elements, given by the “strength
dependant” approach, which make the structure sensitive to the masonry piers behaviour, so
that the curve assumes a sort of tri linear shape. The first case shows instead a strong linearity
in the elastic stage, while in the inelastic stage lays on an horizontal straight line, so that the
whole curve is close to a bilinear elasto-plastic curve. In all models, code verifications are
satisfied.
The shear distribution among the walls in each storey, as the roof displacement increases, is
shown, for each model, in the following graphs
63
6.1.1 Reinforced structure n° 1 – Code provision concrete stiffness
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 M uri)
1.000.000
TOT
900.000
22
800.000
21
700.000
7
Base shear (daN)
600.000
14
500.000
16
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
Roof displacement (cm)
800.000
TOT
700.000
22
600.000
I storey shear (daN)
21
500.000
400.000 7
300.000 14
200.000
16
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
64
350.000
TOT
300.000 22
21
250.000
II storey shear (daN)
200.000
14
150.000 16
100.000
50.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
D=0,92 cm D=1,1 cm
D=1,2 cm D=1,53 cm
65
6.1.2 Reinforced structure n° 1 – Effective concrete stiffness
1.000.000
TOT
900.000
22
800.000
700.000 21
Base shear (daN)
600.000
7
500.000
400.000 14
300.000
16
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri)
800.000
TOT
700.000
22
600.000 21
7
500.000
14
400.000
16
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
66
350.000
TOT
300.000
22
21
250.000
200.000
14
150.000 16
100.000
50.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
D=1,05 cm D=1,47 cm
D=2,95 cm D=3,54 cm
67
6.1.3 Reinforced structure n°2
1.400.000
TOT
1.200.000 22
21
1.000.000
7
Base shear (daN)
800.000 14
16
600.000
400.000
200.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
1.200.000
TOT
22
1.000.000
21
7
800.000
14
600.000 16
400.000
200.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
68
500.000
TOT
450.000
22
400.000
21
350.000
7
300.000
14
250.000
16
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
D=0,95 cm D=1,43 cm
D=3,85 cm D=4,45 cm
69
6.2 Reinforced structure n°1 – Macroelement models

In the following picture, the macroelement models of the original structure and reinforced
structure n°1 (in both the concrete stiffness estimation versions) are shown in comparison
with the bilinear models. It is clear how, until a certain displacement, when the masonry
elements get their maximum strength, the curves are pretty closed.
PUSHOVER CURVE
1.000.000
Orig. 3Muri
900.000
800.000 Reinf .-equal

displacement
700.000
Reinf .-equal
600.000 displacement-
Base shear (daN)
ef f ective
stif f ness
500.000
Original-
Macroelement
400.000
300.000 Reinf .-equal

displacement-
Macroelement
200.000
Reinf .-equal
100.000 displ-eff
stif f ness-
Macroelement
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5
Top displacem ent (cm )
70
6.2.1 Reinforced structure n°1 (Code provision concrete stiffness )– Macroelement
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri - MACROELEMENTO)
1.000.000
TOT
900.000
800.000 22
700.000
21
Base shear (daN)
600.000
500.000
7
400.000 14
300.000
16
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri - M ACROELEM ENTO)
800.000
TOT
700.000
22
600.000
21
500.000 7
14
400.000
16
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
71
400.000
TOT
350.000
22
300.000 21
7
250.000
14
200.000
16
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
N64 481 N106482 N10335 N99 36 N95 483 N91 484 N60
N12 164
13 N56 165
14 N48 166
15 N40 167
16 N32 168
17 N24 169
18 N8
S547
41
N63 477 N105478 N10233 N98 34 N94 479 N90 480 N59
N11 158
7 N55 159
8 N47 160
9 N39 161
10 N31 162
11 N23 163
12 N7
S546
40
N62 473 N104474 N10131 N97 32 N93 475 N89 476 N58
N10 152
1 N54 153
2 N46 154
3 N38 155
4 N30 156
5 N22 157
6 N6
S545
39
N61 N100 N96 N92 N57

N9 N53 N45 N37 N29 N21 N5
D=1,13 cm D=2,81 cm
N12 164
13 N56 165
14 N48 166
15 N40 167
16 N32 168
17 N24 169
18 N8 N16 19727 N52 19828 N44 199 N36 200 N28 20129 N20 20230 N4
84 85
41 92 94
93
N11 158
7 N55 159
8 N47 160
9 N39 161
10 N31 162
11 N23 163
12 N7 23
N15 191 N51 192
24 N43 193 N35 194 N27 195
25 N19 196
26 N3
82 83
40
89 91
90
N10 152
1 N54 153
2 N46 154
3 N38 155
4 N30 156
5 N22 157
6 N6 19
N14 185 N50 186
20 N42 187 N34 188 N26 189
21 N18 190
22 N2
80 81
39
86 88
87
N9 N53 N45 N37 N29 N21 N5
N13 N49 N41 N33 N25 N17 N1
D=3,35 cm D=6,75 cm
72
6.2.2 Reinforced structure n°1 (Effective concrete stiffness )– Macroelement
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri - MACROELEM ENTO)
1.000.000
900.000 TOT
800.000
22
700.000
21
Base shear (daN)
600.000
500.000 7
400.000
14
300.000
16
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5
800.000
TOT
700.000
22
600.000
21
500.000 7
14
400.000
16
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5
73
PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri - M ACROELEMENTO)
350.000
TOT
300.000
22
250.000 21
7
200.000
14
150.000 16
100.000
50.000
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5
27
N16 197 N52 198
28 N44 199 N36 200 N28 201
29 N20 202
30 N4 N12 164
13 N56 165
14 N48 166
15 N40 167
16 N32 168
17 N24 169
18 N8
84 85
92 94 41
93
N15 191
23 N51 192
24 N43 193 N35 194 N27 195
25 N19 196
26 N3 N11 158
7 N55 159
8 N47 160
9 N39 161
10 N31 162
11 N23 163
12 N7
82 83
40
89 91
90
N14 185
19 N50 186
20 N42 187 N34 188 N26 189
21 N18 190
22 N2 N10 152
1 N54 153
2 N46 154
3 N38 155
4 N30 156
5 N22 157
6 N6
80 81
39
86 88
87
N9 N53 N45 N37 N29 N21 N5
N13 N49 N41 N33 N25 N17 N1
D=2,39 cm D=2,57 cm
N12 164
13 N56 165
14 N48 166
15 N40 167
16 N32 168
17 N24 169
18 N8
N64 481 N106482 N103 35 N99 36 N95 483 N91 484 N60
41
S547
N11 158
7 N55 159
8 N47 160
9 N39 161
10 N31 162
11 N23 163
12 N7
N63 477 N105478 N102 33 N98 34 N94 479 N90 480 N59
40
S546
N10 152
1 N54 153
2 N46 154
3 N38 155
4 N30 156
5 N22 157
6 N6
N62 473 N104474 N10131 N97 32 N93 475 N89 476 N58
39
S545
N9 N53 N45 N37 N29 N21 N5
N61 N100 N96 N92 N57
D=3,88cm D=4,84 cm
74
6.3 Comments
From the observation of the deformed shapes it is evident that the global response, in all
models is heavily conditioned by the reinforced concrete walls. These elements, due to their
geometry and to the presence of steel reinforcements introduce a typical a vertical cantilever
behaviour, with higher relative displacement on the top: this is clearly visible, comparing the
deformed shapes with those of the original structure. Such behaviour affects also the damage
distribution, and floor shear sharing with masonry elements, which, on the contrary, have a
shear dominant feature, with higher displacement on the bottom. As a matter of fact, masonry
elements reach their maximum strength ( walls 14-16 for flexure, wall 7 for shear) at higher
floors before than lower floors, and their relative contribution to the storey shear becomes
higher at upper floors.
Another common feature among the models is that, in the loading stage, wall 22 carries higher
load than wall 21; this is due to the position of centre of stiffness, which is closer to wall 21:
the building tends to rotate around a point close to that, therefore wall 22 is subjected to an
higher displacement, and so, being the walls equally sized and reinforced, carries an higher
load, until they reach their maximum strength (wall 22 before wall 21).
As it was pointed out before, model 1 curve (reinforced walls designed with equal yield
displacement criterion – code provision for concrete) has a similar elasto-plastic shape. Due to
their high stiffness value, concrete walls are much more loaded than masonry ones, and get
the plastic hinge almost simultaneously; once that happens all the load increment is carried by
wall 7, which, in few steps, reach its maximum resistance as well. In model 2 and 3 instead
(effective concrete stiffness), the shear sharing is much more balanced (the stiffness values
are of the same order of magnitude), and masonry element reach their maximum strength
much before concrete ones: in this cases the displacement gap between masonry and concrete
failure is so high that the curve shows an high non linearity, with a similar tri-linear shape.
The macroelement versions of the first two models have a curve very close to the bilinear
one’s until about 2 centimetres of top displacement, after wall 7 shear failure in bilinear
models, over which the masonry macroelement is still in the increasing branch. With this
modelling it can also be observed the softening of masonry walls, implemented in the
macroelement constitutive law, once they reach their peak resistance.
75
Chapter 7. Cyclic Pushover analyses
7. CYCLIC PUSHOVER ANALYSES

In order to represent in a realistic manner the actual behaviour of a structure under a seismic
motion, a simple pushover analysis is not enough, since it applies just a monotonic increasing
static load, while the actual physical phenomenon implies also motion reversal: a cyclic
pushover analysis is an effective tool, since it implies outcomes of simpler interpretation and
less computational effort than non linear dynamic analyses. In fact it consists in cyclic
increasing static load, through the imposition of a certain cyclic displacement history; in this
way it is possible to capture the hysteretic behaviour, and the dissipative capacities which are
the theoretical background on which all the assumption made in simpler analyses are based.
Finally, through these load reversals, it is also possible to capture structural asymmetries.
At this degree of investigation only a refined modelling makes sense, so only the
macroelement model is used for masonry panels. For concrete element are used both the
rough elastic-perfectly plastic and the Takeda constitutive law.
76
7.1 General consideration on Hysteretic models for reinforced concrete elements

Hysteretic models for r.c. element are derived by extracting common feature from resistance
deformation relations observed in laboratory tests of members with similar properties; these
models, of course, have to be able to express resistance deformation relations under any
loading histories, including load reversals.
General hysteretic characteristics can be summarized:
• Stiffness changed due to flexural cracking of concrete and tensile yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement
• When a deflection reversal is repeated at the same newly attained maximum

deformation amplitude, the loading stiffness in the second cycle is lower than that in
the first one, although the resistance at peak displacement is almost identical. This
reduction in stiffness is attributable to the formation of new cracks, and Bauschinger
effect on longitudinal reinforcement.
• Average peak to peak stiffness of a complete cycle decreases with previous maximum
displacement.
• The resistance at peak deflection is almost the same for the two successive cycles in
the member dominated by flexural behaviour
77
7.1.1 Bilinear Takeda model

Among the many models available in the literature, one of the most known is the Takeda one,
which can be stated in many versions depending on the level of complexity. In the following
it is shown the version chosen for the case study, through a concrete section numerical test.
TAKEDA HYSTERETIC MODEL
140
120
100
Moment (kNm)
80
60
40
20
0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03 0,035 0,04
Rotation (rad)
• primary curve is made bilinear simply choosing the cracking point to be the origin of
the hysteretic plane
140
120
100
Moment (kNm)
80
60
40
20
0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03 0,035 0,04
Rotation (rad)
• unloading stiffness degradation with the maximum deformation amplitude:

−α
φ
k r = k max
φy
78
150
100
Moment (kNm) 50
0
-0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
-50
-100
-150
Rotation (rad)
• first reloading branch to the opposite yielding point
150
100
50
Moment (kNm)
0
-0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
-50
-100
-150
Rotation (rad)
150
100
50
Moment (kNm)
0
-0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
-50
-100
-150
Rotation (rad)
• response point moves toward the peak of the immediately outer hysteretic loop
79
So, after many cycle, the model assumes the following shape.
150
100
50
Moment (kNm)
0
-0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
-50
-100
-150
Rotation (rad)
7.2 Cyclic pushover analyses of the original structure

The original structure is analyzed for the following cyclic top displacement history:
Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Displacement(cm) 0,5 -0,5 1 -1 1,5 -1,5 2 -2 2,5 -2,5 3 -3
Cycle 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Displacement.(cm) 3,5 -3,5 4 -4 4,5 -4,5 5
CYCLIC DISPLACEMENT
4
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
-2
-4
-6
Cycle number
80
CYCLIC PUSHOVER CURVE
600.000
Monotonic
400.000
200.000
Base shear (daN)
Takeda
0 model for
concrete
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-200.000
EPP model
-400.000 for concrete
-600.000
Figure 28. Cyclic pushover curve – comparison between models
600.000
Monotonic
400.000
200.000
Base shear (daN)
Wall 7
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
-200.000
-400.000
Concrete
column
-600.000
Figure 29. Cyclic pushover curve (Takeda model) – shear distribution -
81
In the first graph the cyclic pushover curve of the structure is shown comparing the two
different modelling for concrete: elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive law and “Takeda” one: it
can be observed that the curves are very closed, as the reinforced concrete elements do not
affect pretty much the response; the only difference is the anticipate global collapse at 4,5 cm
in EPP case. It can also be observed that the monotonic curves envelopes the cyclic ones.
In the second one it is shown the relative contribution of wall 7 and of a concrete column to
the total base shear: it can be observed how the latter contribution is negligible, and wall 7
draws typical shear failure hysteretic loops.
7.3 Cyclic pushover analyses of the reinforced structure

Among the reinforced structure models, the second case is analyzed (reinforced walls
designed with equal yield displacement criterion – code provision for concrete), for a cyclic
top displacement history of larger amplitude :
Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Displacement(cm) 0,5 -0,5 1 -1 2 -2 3 -3 4 -4 5 -5 6 -6 7
CYCLIC DISPLACEMENT
4
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
-2
-4
-6
-8
Cycle number
82
1.000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
Base shear (daN)
200.000
Total
0 Monotonic
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 wall 22
-200.000
-400.000
-600.000
-800.000
-1.000.000
Figure 30. Cyclic pushover curve – EPP model for concrete
300.000
200.000
100.000
Base shear (daN)
wall 7
0
wall 22
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-100.000
-200.000
-300.000
Figure 31. Cyclic pushover curve – EPP model for concrete – shear distribution
83
1.000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
Base shear (daN)
200.000
Total
0 Monotonic
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 wall 22
-200.000
-400.000
-600.000
-800.000
-1.000.000
Figure 32. Cyclic pushover curve – Takeda model for concrete
300.000
200.000
100.000
Base shear (daN)
wall 22
0
wall7
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-100.000
-200.000
-300.000
Figure 33. Cyclic pushover curve – Takeda model for concrete – shear distribution
84
1.000.000
800.000 Total
Takeda
600.000 model
400.000
Base shear (daN)
Monoto
200.000 nic
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
-200.000
Total
-400.000 EPP
model
-600.000
-800.000
-1.000.000
Figure 34. Cyclic pushover curve – Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in Total Base shear
300.000
200.000 wall 22
Takeda
Base shear (daN)
100.000
0 wall 22
EPP
-10 -5 0 5 10
-100.000
-200.000
-300.000
Figure 35. Cyclic pushover curve – Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in wall 22 base shear
85
From the observation of the graphs, it is pretty clear that the reinforced concrete walls govern
the global structure response, therefore, differently from the original structure, the elastic-
perfectly plastic constitutive law for concrete element is undoubtedly too rough to capture the
actual hysteretic behaviour, as it draws cycles of excessive amplitude, in comparison to the
experimental data. Once again it is pretty clear that masonry elements are subjected to a shear
failure mechanism, whose main feature is the strength decay as displacements increase, with
appreciable dissipative cycles. Finally, the cyclic response shows how the structure is
symmetric as the cycles shows the same shape both in positive and in negative quadrant.
86
Chapter 8. Final considerations
8. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
As it was pointed out at the beginning, an important problem is the approach to buildings with
mixed structures, for which very little literature is available nowadays, and whose variety
causes difficulty in the typological classification and in codification of methodologies.
Therefore this topic has been faced, in this dissertation, through the choice of a fairly simple
case study, for which it is reasonable the adoption of some simplifications at different steps of
the process.
In fact this consists in a regular rectangle, without any geometrical articulation, neither in
plan, nor along the height. The openings pattern is regular, being all of them aligned along
horizontal and vertical axis, though implying an appreciable eccentricity. Moreover, the wall
thickness and the masonry properties are constant anywhere, and the interstorey heights are
pretty much the same. Also reinforced concrete elements are placed in a regular configuration,
and oriented in same masonry walls axis. Finally, a net of very stiff concrete beams, with 10
cm thick slab, provides the connection among the vertical elements.
With respect to the actual physical phenomenon, it is practice, in masonry building seismic
engineering, to separate the response versus the so-called “first damage mode” mechanisms,
which involve usually out-of plane damage, to the “second mode” mechanisms, which are
associated to in-plane response of walls. In fact, “first mode” mechanism are also classified as
“local mechanisms”, in the sense that they are usually associated to the local response of
structural elements, which could in turn generate a global collapse, but can be studied without
recurring to a global structural model of the whole structure. A global model of the structure
is instead needed when the resistance to horizontal actions is provided by the combined effect
of floor diaphragms and in-plane response of walls. The first important assumption in this
work, is that, due to its geometrical properties and constructing techniques, local out of plane
mechanism are likely prevented, and therefore only a global analysis of the building is
meaningful.
87
The second simplification concerns the earthquake resisting system modelling: the building is
in fact modelled, at least at first steps, as an equivalent tri-dimensional hyper static frame,
made of macro-elements, characterized by a rough bilinear elasto- plastic constitutive law,
with an equivalent limit elastic strength, elastic and ultimate displacement defined as a
function of the flexure and shear response. Such a simplified modelling was developed from
the consideration that, if a sufficient plastic deformation capacity in the piers is assumed, the
distribution of internal forces at ultimate is basically governed by strength of members and by
equilibrium; their initial elastic stiffness is therefore not as important as the definition of
suitable and sufficiently accurate strength criteria, and simple bi-linear (elasto-plastic)
constitutive laws can yield effective results, even when compared with more refined nonlinear
finite elements analyses, or experimental results. Hence this modelling implies a moderate
computational effort, maintaining idealizations and obtaining results of easily comprehension,
but comparable with those of more sophisticated analysis. Of course, the reliability of such a
simplified modelling is based on a widespread geometrical and mechanical regularity.
About the seismic safety criterion, according to the OPCM 3431/2005 §8.5, the main
structural system approach is adopted, represented in this case by masonry: the performance
acceptability is therefore based on ultimate limit state global target displacement on the
capacity curve, which refers to the overall condition of the building. The state of every
element is checked during the analysis, comparing the actual forces and drifts with the
correspondent ultimate values: when an element collapses, its contribute is cancelled making
the redistribution of the forces on the elements that are still “active”. Since in this building are
easily identified two distinct earthquake resisting systems, a regular masonry “box”, and a
three-dimensional reinforced concrete frame, it is believed to be reasonable the application of
different strength and deformation criteria, without any combined failure criteria.
Once the original structure had been assessed, a strengthening design has been carried out, in
order to let it be able to sustain the design earthquake: this has been done sizing two identical
reinforced concrete walls, acting therefore on the global structural response, in such a way to
amplify the capacities and reduce the earthquake demands. The walls have been designed
with a force based approach, whose goal is the achievement of the minimum strength
enhancement, necessary to satisfy the ultimate displacement estimation equation; in this
equality the macroscopic properties of the equivalent single degree of freedom system appear:
mass, strength, stiffness, displacement capacity. Assuming that the mass increment is
negligible, two different hypothesis, about the reinforced structure stiffness and ductility, have
been done in order to find out the strength: the first one consists in constant ductility, while
the second one in constant stiffness. Given the base shear on each walls, the actions (moments
and shears) have been allocated through two different hypothesis: a linear trend of moment,
along the height, with null moment point placed at two third of the height, and a force
distribution proportional to the first mode deformed shape, to calculate the design shears.
88
In the sixth chapter, pushover analyses on the reinforced structure have been carried out, in
order to find out how the assumptions made in the design stage were correct. At this stage it is
also investigated the concrete flexural cracked stiffness influence, comparing code provision
with those suggested by the literature. The most evident feature of the new structure is the
cantilever behaviour introduced by the reinforced concrete walls: the deformed shapes shows
higher displacement on the top, in comparison with those of the original structure, with higher
displacement on the bottom, typical of a shear response; such behaviour affects also the
damage distribution among the elements, in a way that masonry elements get the failure at
upper floors before than lower ones. In all cases, such walls implies a considerable stiffness
increase, even when strength dependant values for flexural stiffness are adopted, in such a
way that design hypothesis n °2 (constant stiffness) seems untruthful. In particular, when
strength dependant values are adopted, (the reliability of this approach has still to be checked
in case of mixed structure) the concrete walls contribution is delayed with respect to masonry
ones, in such a way that the curve shows an high level of non linearity (almost trilinear), and
the curves bilinearization loses its physical meaning, in summarizing the actual response.
In all three cases the total strength estimation is pretty correct, but, as it is recognized in a
force based design, there is no control on the ultimate displacement capacity, hence on the
ductility. It is believed that the reliability of the procedure adopted in this work, before
assuming a general worth, has to be checked in more complex cases, where all the above
mentioned assumptions may lose their plausibility.
89
References
REFERENCES
CEN [2001] Eurocode 1: Actions On Structures, Part 1-1: General Actions – Densities, self-weight,
imposed loads for buildings, prEN 1991-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2003] Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, prEN 1996 – 1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General
rules,seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Fardis, M. [2005] Design of concrete buildings for earthquake resistance, classnotes, ROSE School,
Pavia, Italy.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A. [2002] TREMURI Program: Seismic Analyser of 3DMasonry
Buildings, University of Genoa, Italy.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A. [2006] “On the use of pushover analysis for existing masonry
buildings”, Proceedings of 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Nicoletti, M., Lamonaca, G., Nicoletti, M., Spina, D.,
Margheriti, C., Salcuni, A. [2005] “Identificazione ed analisi non lineare degli edifici in muratura
dell’Osservatorio Sismico delle Strutture, Proceedings of 11th National Conference “l’Ingegneria
Sismica in Italia”, Genova, Italy, (CDROM – in Italian).
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Resemini, S. [2004] “Non-linear Seismic Analysis of
Masonry Structures”, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada.
Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. [1996] “On dynamic response of masonry panels”, Proceddings of
National Conference “Masonry mechanics between theory and practice”, Messina, Italy (in
Italian).
Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. [1997] “Damage Models for the Seismic Response of BrickMasonry
Shear Walls. Part II: The Continuum Model and Its Applications”, EarthquakeEngineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 26, pp. 441-463.
Macchi, G., Magenes, G. [2002] Le strutture in muratura, UTET, Italy..
Magenes, G., Della Fontana, A. [1998] “Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings”,
Proceedings of the British Masonry Society, 8, pp. 190-195.
90
References
OPCM, no. 3274 [2005] Primi elementi in materiali di criteri generali per la classificazione sismicadel
territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sísmica, come
modificatodall’OPCM 3431 del 3/5/05 (in Italian), Italy.
Penna, A. [2002] “A macro-element procedure for the non-linear dynamic analysis of
masonrybuildings”, Individual study. Ph.D. Disseration, Politecnico de Milano, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] “Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake engineering”, The ninth Mallet-Milne
lecture, London
Priestley, M.J.N., Paulay, T. [1992] Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy..
Tomazevic M. [2000] Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press,
London
91
APPENDIX A.Reinforced concrete walls design n°2 - Equal stiffness hypothesis
APPENDIX A: Reinforced concrete walls design n° 2 - Equal

stiffness hypothesis
WALLS SECTION GEOMETRY:
b := 0.45 Depth (m)
l := 6.3 Width (m)
d1 := 0.04 Cover (m)
d := l − d 1 Effective section height (m)
3
b⋅ l
Igross := Gross moment of inertia (m 4)
12
d1
δ 1 := Cover over effective heigth ratio
d
Acting moments (kNm):
M sd := 28740 Ground floor
M sd_1 := 14290 First floor
M sd_2 := 14290 Second floor
Acting shears (kN):
Vsd := 3323 Ground floor
Vsd1 := 2587 First floor
Vsd2 := 1108 Second floor
1
GROUND FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd := 2264 Axial load (kN)

4 Moment (kNm)
M sd = 2.874 × 10
Nsd
ν :=
kkc1 := 1 .. 7 kkc2 := 26 .. 32 kk := 8 .. 25 1 1
1 7.6·10-4 1 0.04
Asi := 2⋅ φ22 Asi := 2⋅ φ22 Asi := 2 ⋅ φ22
kkc1 kkc2 kk 2 7.6·10-4 2 0.24
3 7.6·10-4 3 0.44
4 7.6·10-4 4 0.64
Bars coordinate vector (m): 5 7.6·10-4 5 0.84
6 7.6·10-4 6 1.04
7 7.6·10-4 7 1.24
hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32
8 7.6·10-4 8 1.44
zi := 0.04 9 7.6·10-4 9 1.64
1 10 7.6·10-4 10 1.84
zi := zi + 0.2 11 7.6·10-4 11 2.04
hh hh− 1
12 7.6·10-4 12 2.24
zi := 3.26 13 7.6·10-4 13 2.44
17
14 7.6·10-4 14 2.64
zi := zi + 0.2
hh1 hh1− 1 15 7.6·10-4 15 2.84
Asi = 16 7.6·10-4 zi = 16 3.04
17 7.6·10-4 17 3.26
18 7.6·10-4 18 3.46
19 7.6·10-4 19 3.66
20 7.6·10-4 20 3.86
21 7.6·10-4 21 4.06
22 7.6·10-4 22 4.26
23 7.6·10-4 23 4.46
24 7.6·10-4 24 4.66
25 7.6·10-4 25 4.86
26 7.6·10-4 26 5.06
27 7.6·10-4 27 5.26
28 7.6·10-4 28 5.46
29 7.6·10-4 29 5.66
30 7.6·10-4 30 5.86
31 7.6·10-4 31 6.06
32 7.6·10-4 32 6.26
2
q := 1 .. 32
r := 1.3 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
ε su  ε su 
ε si :=  if 
⋅  r − zi ⋅  r − zi  < ε y
q d−r  q d − r  q
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  r − zi  > ε y
d − r  q
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  r − zi  < −ε y
d − r  q
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.8⋅ r⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi⋅ Eym⋅ ε si − Nsd , r ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 1.307 neutral axis depth (m)

ε su
d−x
→ l
M rd := b ⋅ 0.8⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  − 0.4⋅ x + Eym Asi⋅ ε si ⋅  − zi
l
2 
( ) 2 
4
M rd = 2.906 × 10 Moment capacity (kNm)
2⋅ φ12 −3
( b − 2 ⋅ d1 + 0.022 + 0.012 ⋅ s ) ratio
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd 3
Vsd := Vsd⋅ 1.2⋅ Vsd = 4.033 × 10 Design shear value (kN)
M sd
3
 fck  3
Vrd2 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ f ⋅ b⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2 = 9.355 × 10 kN
 1000⋅ 200  cd
∑Asi⋅100
ρ tot% := ρ tot% = 0.858 vertical bars geometric ratio
b⋅ l
3
(
Vcd := τ Rd⋅ 1.2 + 0.4⋅ ρ tot% ⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l) Vcd = 1.12 × 10 Concrete contribution (kN )
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd := 2⋅ φ12⋅ fyd ⋅ Vwd = 3.971 × 10 Steel contribution (kN )
s
3
Vrd3 := Vcd + Vwd Vrd3 = 5.091 × 10 Shear capacity (kN )
∑Asi
3
Vdd := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅ Vdd = 2.274 × 10 Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
Vfd := 0.25⋅ fcd⋅ ⋅ l⋅ b Vfd = 2.775 × 10 Compressive concrete
d
contribution (kN )
3
Vrds := Vdd + Vfd Vrds = 5.049 × 10 Shear capacity (kN )
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS:

Asi
1 −4
ρ 1 := ρ 1 = 2.699 × 10 Tensile reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
Asi
32 −4
ρ 2 := ρ 2 = 2.699 × 10 Compressive reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
31
∑ Asi
z
z =2 −3
ρ v := ρ v = 8.097 × 10 Web reinforcement geometric ratio,
b⋅ d
supposed uniformly distribuited
Tension steel yielding hypothesis
Nsd Nsd
Ay := ρ 1 + ρ 2 + ρ v +
b⋅ d ⋅ fyk
( )
By := ρ 1 + ρ 2 ⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v⋅ 1 + δ 1 +
b ⋅ d⋅ fyk
2 2
ξ y_y := α ⋅ Ay + 2 ⋅ α ⋅ By − α ⋅ Ay ξ y_y = 0.221 normalized neutral axis depth
fyk −4
ψ y_y := ψ y_y = 4.407 × 10 yield curvature
(
Eym⋅ 1 − ξ y_y ⋅ d )
4
Eccessive concrete compressive strain hypothesis: "Apparent yielding"

1.8⋅ fck
ε c_y := Compressive concrete strain
Ecm
Nsd
Ac := ρ 1 + ρ 2 + ρ v −
b ⋅ d ⋅ ε c_y⋅ Eym
(
Bc := ρ 1 + ρ 2 ⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v⋅ 1 + δ 1 )
2 2
ξ y_c := α ⋅ Ac + 2 ⋅ α ⋅ Bc − α ⋅ Ac ξ y_c = 0.197 normalized neutral axis depth
ε c_y −3
ψ y_c := ψ y_c = 1.367 × 10 yield curvature
ξ y_c⋅ d
−4
(
ψ y := min ψ y_y , ψ y_c ) ψ y = 4.407 × 10 Actual yield curvature
ξ y := ξ y_y
Effective stiffness:
 2
ξ y  Eym  
3 ξy  1 + δ1 ρv 
EIeff := b ⋅ d ⋅ Ecm⋅ ⋅ − + ⋅ ( 1 − ξ y) ⋅ ρ 1 + ( ξ y − δ 1 ) ⋅ ρ 2 + ⋅ ( 1 − δ 1 ) ⋅ ( 1 − δ 1 )
 2  2 3  2  6  
EIeff
= 0.182
Ecm⋅ Igross
FIRST FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd_1 := 1420
Axial load (kN)
Nsd_1
ν :=

kkc1 := 1 .. 3 kkc2 := 30 .. 32 kk := 4 .. 29
Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ20 Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ20 Asi_1 := 2 ⋅ φ20

kkc1 kkc2 kk
5

hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32
zi_1 := 0.04
1
zi_1 := zi_1 + 0.2
hh hh− 1
zi_1 := 3.26
17
zi_1 := zi_1 + 0.2
hh1 hh1− 1
qq := 1 .. 32
rr := 1.23 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
ε su  ε su 
ε si_1 := ⋅  rr − zi_1  if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  < ε y
qq d − rr  qq  d − rr  qq
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  > ε y
 d − rr  qq
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  rr − zi_1  < −ε y
 d − rr  qq
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.67⋅ rr⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi_1⋅ Eym⋅ ε si_1 − Nsd_1 , rr ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 1.229
ε su
⋅ x = 0.00244
d−x extreme concrete fiber strain
→ l
M rd_1 := b ⋅ 0.67⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  − ⋅ x + Eym Asi_1⋅ ε si_1 ⋅  − zi_1
l 0.67 
2 2 
( 2 
)
4
M rd_1 = 2.36 × 10 Moment capacity (kNm)

bars step (m)
s := 0.12
2 ⋅ φ12 −3
( b − 2 ⋅ d1 + 0.02 + 0.012 ⋅ s) ratio
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd_1 3
Vsd_1 := Vsd1⋅ 1.2⋅ Vsd_1 = 5.126 × 10
M sd_1 Design shear value (kN)
6
 fck  3
Vrd2_1 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ f ⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2_1 = 9.355 × 10 kN
 1000⋅ 200  cd

fctk 3
γc
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd_1 := 2 ⋅ φ12⋅ fyd ⋅ Vwd_1 = 3.971 × 10 Steel contribution (kN)
s
Vrd3_1 := Vcd_1 + Vwd_1 3

∑Asi_1
3
Vdd_1 := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅ Vdd_1 = 1.879 × 10 Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
d
contribution (kN)
3
Vrds_1 := Vdd_1 + Vfd_1 Vrds_1 = 4.489 × 10 Shear capacity (kN)
Not verified!!
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS

Asi_1
1 −4
ρ 1_1 := ρ 1_1 = 2.23 × 10 Tensile reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
Asi_1
32 −4
ρ 2_1 := ρ 2_1 = 2.23 × 10 Compressive reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
31
∑ Asi_1
z
z=2 −3
ρ v_1 := ρ v_1 = 6.691 × 10 Web reinforcement geometric ratio,
b⋅ d
Tension steel yielding hypothesis
Nsd_1 Nsd_1
Ay_1 := ρ 1_1 + ρ 2_1 + ρ v_1 +
b ⋅ d⋅ fyk
( )
By_1 := ρ 1_1 + ρ 2_1⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v_1 ⋅ 1 + δ 1 +
b ⋅ d ⋅ fyk
2 2
ξ y_y_1 := α ⋅ Ay_1 + 2⋅ α ⋅ By_1 − α ⋅ Ay_1 ξ y_y_1 = 0.198 normalized neutral axis
depth
fyk −4
ψ y_y_1 := ψ y_y_1 = 4.28 × 10 yield curvature
(
Eym⋅ 1 − ξ y_y_1 ⋅ d )
7
1.8⋅ fck
ε c_y := Compressive concrete
Ecm
strain
Nsd_1
Ac_1 := ρ 1_1 + ρ 2_1 + ρ v_1 −
b⋅ d ⋅ ε c_y⋅ Eym
(
Bc_1 := ρ 1_1 + ρ 2_1⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v_1 ⋅ 1 + δ 1 )
2 2
ξ y_c_1 := α ⋅ Ac_1 + 2⋅ α ⋅ Bc_1 − α ⋅ Ac_1 ξ y_c_1 = 0.18 normalized neutral
axis depth
ε c_y −3
ψ y_c_1 := ψ y_c_1 = 1.502 × 10 yield curvature
ξ y_c_1 ⋅ d
−4
(
ψ y_1 := min ψ y_y_1 , ψ y_c_1 ) ψ y_1 = 4.28 × 10 Actual yield
curvature
ξ y_1 := ξ y_y_1
Effective stiffness
2
 1 + δ 1 ξ y_1 
ξ y_1
C_1 := Ecm⋅ ⋅
− 
2  2 3 
3 Eym  ρ v_1  
EIeff_1 := b ⋅ d ⋅ C_1 + ⋅ ( 1 − ξ y_1) ⋅ ρ 1_1 + ( ξ y_1 − δ 1 ) ⋅ ρ 2_1 + ⋅ ( 1 − δ 1) ⋅ ( 1 − δ 1 )
 2  6  
EIeff_1
= 0.149
Ecm⋅ Igross
SECOND FLOOR:
DESIGN ACTIONS
Nsd_2 := 577 Axial load (kN)
Nsd_2
ν :=

kkc1 := 1 .. 3 kkc2 := 30 .. 32 kk := 4 .. 29
Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ18 Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ18 Asi_2 := 2 ⋅ φ18
kkc1 kkc2 kk
8

hh := 2 .. 16 hh1 := 18 .. 32
zi_2 := 0.04
1
zi_2 := zi_2 + 0.2
hh hh− 1
zi_2 := 3.26
17
zi_2 := zi_2 + 0.2
hh1 hh1− 1
qqq := 1 .. 32
rrr := 0.977 This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to
ε su  ε su 
ε si_2 := ⋅  rrr − zi_2  if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  < ε y
qqq d − rrr  qqq  d − rrr  qqq
 ε su 
ε y if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  > ε y
 ε su 
−ε y if  ⋅  rrr − zi_2  < −ε y
(
x := root b ⋅ 0.67⋅ rrr⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd + Asi_2⋅ Eym⋅ ε si_2 − Nsd_2 , rrr ) Force equilibrium equation
x = 0.977
ε su
d−x
→ l
M rd_2 := b ⋅ 0.67⋅ x⋅ 0.85⋅ fcd⋅  ⋅ x + Eym Asi_2⋅ ε si_2 ⋅  − zi_2
l 0.67
2
−
2 
( )
2 
4
M rd_2 = 1.824 × 10 moment capacity (kNm)

2 ⋅ φ10 −3
ρ w := ρ w = 1.973 × 10
( )
b − 2 ⋅ d1 + 0.018 + 0.01 ⋅ s
SHEAR VERIFICATION:
M rd_2 3
Vsd_2 := Vsd2⋅ 1.2⋅ Vsd_2 = 1.698 × 10 Design shear value (kN)
M sd_2
9
 fck  3
Vrd2_2 := 0.4⋅  0.7 −  ⋅ fcd⋅ b ⋅ 0.8⋅ l Vrd2_2 = 9.355 × 10 kN
 1000⋅ 200 

fctk 3
γc
0.9⋅ d 3
Vwd_2 := 2 ⋅ φ10⋅ fyd ⋅ Vwd_2 = 1.655 × 10 Steel contribution
s
(kN)
Vrd3_2 := Vcd_2 + Vwd_2 3 Shear capacity (kN)
Vrd3_2 = 3.767 × 10
∑Asi_1
3
Vdd_2 := 0.25⋅ fyd⋅ Vdd_2 = 1.879 × 10 Vertical bars contribution (kN)
x 3
d
contribution (kN)
3
Vrds_2 := Vdd_2 + Vfd_2 Vrds_2 = 3.952 × 10 Shear capacity (kN)
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS

Asi_2
1 −4
ρ 1_2 := ρ 1_2 = 1.807 × 10 Tensile reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
Asi_2
32 −4
ρ 2_2 := ρ 2_2 = 1.807 × 10 Compressive reinforcement geometric ratio
b⋅ d
31
∑ Asi_2
z
z=2 −3
ρ v_2 := ρ v_2 = 5.42 × 10 Web reinforcement geometric ratio,
b⋅ d
Yielding of the tension steel

Nsd_2 Nsd_2
Ay_2 := ρ 1_2 + ρ 2_2 + ρ v_2 +
b ⋅ d⋅ fyk
( )
By_2 := ρ 1_2 + ρ 2_2⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v_2 ⋅ 1 + δ 1 +
b ⋅ d ⋅ fyk
2 2
ξ y_y_2 := α ⋅ Ay_2 + 2⋅ α ⋅ By_2 − α ⋅ Ay_2 ξ y_y_2 = 0.17 normalized neutral
axis depth
fyk −4
ψ y_y_2 := ψ y_y_2 = 4.139 × 10 yield curvature
(
Eym⋅ 1 − ξ y_y_2 ⋅ d )
10

1.8⋅ fck
ε c_y := Compressive concrete
Ecm
strain
Nsd_2
Ac_2 := ρ 1_2 + ρ 2_2 + ρ v_2 −
b⋅ d ⋅ ε c_y⋅ Eym
(
Bc_2 := ρ 1_2 + ρ 2_2⋅ δ 1 + 0.5ρ v_2 ⋅ 1 + δ 1 )
2 2
ξ y_c_2 := α ⋅ Ac_2 + 2⋅ α ⋅ Bc_2 − α ⋅ Ac_2 ξ y_c_2 = 0.161 normalized neutral axis
depth
ε c_y −3
ψ y_c_2 := ψ y_c_2 = 1.674 × 10 yield curvature
ξ y_c_2 ⋅ d
−4
(
ψ y_2 := min ψ y_y_2 , ψ y_c_2 ) ψ y_2 = 4.139 × 10 Actual yield curvature
ξ y_2 := ξ y_y_2
Effective stiffness:
2
ξ y_2  1 + δ 1 ξ y_2 
C_2 := Ecm⋅ ⋅ − 
2  2 3 
3  Eym  ρ v_2  
EIeff_2 := b ⋅ d ⋅ C_2 +
 2 
( ) ( )
⋅  1 − ξ y_2 ⋅ ρ 1_2 + ξ y_2 − δ 1 ⋅ ρ 2_2 +
6
( ) ( )
⋅ 1 − δ 1  ⋅ 1 − δ1 
EIeff_2
= 0.116
Ecm⋅ Igross
11

I U S S: Assessment of Existing Mixed R.C. - Masonry Structures and Strengthening by R.C. Shear Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I U S S: Assessment of Existing Mixed R.C. - Masonry Structures and Strengthening by R.C. Shear Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.U.S.S.

Istituto Universitario Università degli

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MIXED R.C. - MASONRY

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Supervisor: Dr GUIDO MAGENES

Guido Magenes …… … ………

3.1 Material properties ...................................................................................................................27

Figure 22. Members identification............................................................................................40

The adoption of Eurocodes is an important occasion to rationalize the design/assessment

In this context, in the masonry’s idealization as equivalent 3D frame, a formulation and

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING

2.1.1 The “equivalent frame”

Figure 1. Equivalent frame members

2.2 Bilinear masonry elements modelling

Figure 2. Members modelling

The post-elastic behaviour is assumed to be plastic, until a maximum deformation, whose

Flexural failure Shear failure

Existing buildings 6‰ Heff 4‰ Heff

2.2.1 Differences between the two constitutive law

Figure 3. Constitutive law – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right)

Figure 4. Member deformability – Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right)

2.2.2 Resistance criterions for masonry walls

load; if P is a tensile load, the code impose null flexural resistance ( M u = 0 );

Figure 6. Flexural strength domain

(b) Shear strength

to the characteristic one f tk ; α mv = 0.7 ) divided by the confidence factor FC :

Figure 8. Shear strength domain (diagonal cracking)

the mean value f vm , which is f vm = f vm0 + µ ⋅ σ n , being:

µ bond coefficient, assumed to be 0.4;

characteristic value), nor greater than 2.2 MPa.

eccentric compression ( e ≥ l 6 ), could be expressed as:

Figure 9. Shear strength domain (shear sliding)

2.3 Macroelement modelling

Figure 10. Macroelemento kinematic model

2.4 Resistance criterion for spandrels

Figure 12. Spandrels behaviour

h height of the section of the spandrel;

2.5 Concrete elements modelling

2.5.1 Flexural strength

Figure 13. Concrete member flexural hypothesis

2.5.2 Shear strength

Figure 14. Ritter Morsh mechanism

(a) TreMuri θu estimation.

υ is the normalized axial load

ω and ω’ are the mechanical reinforcement ratio

ρ is the geometrical transversal reinforcement ratio

α is the confinement factor, evaluated as:

(b) AndilWall θu estimation.

θ y is the yielding chord rotation

φu is the ultimate curvature capacity

φu is the yielding curvature

Lpl is the plastic hinge length, evaluated as:

2.7.1 Seismic action

S soil profile factor;

2.7.2 Gravity loads

2.7.3 Loadings combination

into account the probability that all the loadings

Building use ψ 2,i Storey loadings ϕ

roof 0.20 roof 1.0

2.8 Pushover and Non linear static analysis procedure

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

Figure 15. Plan of the building