Engineering Structures,Vol. 20, Nos 1-2, pp.

37-53, 1998
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0141-0296(97)00042-4 0141-0296/98 $19.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Numerical analysis of old masonry

buildings: a comparison among
constitutive models
Francesco Genna, Michele Di Pasqua and Mariarosa Veroli
Universit~ di Brescia, Department of Civil Engineering, via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy

Paola Ronca
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Structural Engineering, 20133 Milano, Italy
(Received June 1995; revised version accepted October 1996)

This paper makes reference to several constitutive models

developed for the analysis of structures made of components weak
in tension. These models are applied to the study of a real struc-
tural problem which exhibits characteristics of complexity different
from those usually found in laboratory specimens, in that it
specifically involves the influence of the construction details on the
overall structural resistance. The study of the model structure--a
part of an old Monastery whose monitoring and restoration was
entrusted to the Department of Civil Engineering in Brescia--has
been performed by coupling in situ investigations with numerical
analyses. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Kegwords: masonry structures, finite elements, plasticity, cracking

1. Introduction of elastic-plastic models for the analysis of essentially

Masonry is a heterogeneous material, whose complexity
has allowed the researchers to develop mostly empirical
constitutive models, based on experimental results often
representative of a limited range of situations. For old
masonry the correct reference to experimental results or to
models developed for modern masonry is even more diffi-
cult, since the building techniques, as well as possible sub-
sequent repair work, often extended over the centuries, sub-
stantially modify the local mean mechanical properties of
the material.
Load bearing masonry structures often exhibit some
degree of confining. An example is the multiple-leaf
masonry, quite common in old buildings. Confining effects
are to be found in buttresses, ribs and other parts added on
existing structures, over time, as a consequence of consoli-
dation work. Confinement adds to the 'global' ductility of
the material, beyond the relatively small limit of the single
components, thus incrementing the resources of the struc-
ture. Elastic-plastic analyses of masonry structures may for
this reason provide fair approximations of the stress and
strain fields, even if they fail in predicting any actual crack-
ing phenomenon. However, the appropriate choice of the
strength parameters for masonry, considered as an elastic-
plastic material, remains an open subject. Also, even if one
accepts as feasible, for the reason mentioned above, the use
brittle problems, the numerical analysis itself is still a very
difficult task. The structural effects of local geometrical
details, such as the clamping modality of blocks in the con-
nection zones or the individual shapes of blocks at the key-
stones of the arches, can hardly be taken into account by
a finite element model. The difficulty of analyzing numeri-
cally any local feature in large structures is obvious; more-
over, it is often almost impossible to proceed by splitting
the analysis into two separate steps, a first global and a
second concerning the details. As already pointed out, the
global structural behaviour of masonry is strongly coupled
with the local construction and loading modalities.
These observations suggest the opportunity of
developing appropriate constitutive models able to follow
the propagation of cracks taking into account, in an average
and possibly simple way, the mentioned peculiarities. Also,
crack initiation and propagation depends on both the local
mechanical characteristics, possibly modified by injections
or other confining techniques, and on the local geometrical
and constructional modalities. Therefore, the development
of general models in this sense is quite a difficult task, and
one must be satisfied when only the mechanical properties
of the heterogeneous material are somehow summarized
into a single set of equations able to take into account, in
an average sense, all the principal mechanical features. One
of the few examples of constitutive laws for masonry,

37
38 Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.

derived by taking into account the influence of some of the

local geometrical details, can be found in De Felice ~.
When performing the interpretation and diagnosis of
structural damage, as well as when checking for the cor-
rectness of the repair work being performed on an
important masonry structure, it may be appropriate to pro-
ceed in parallel with the numerical modeling. This, in turn,
requires the availability of different mathematical models,
each able to better reproduce a particular set of features.
r ~"~,l"r_ /~:'~'.~-. _~q' Arch
The reference to the real situation is particularly useful
when the survey of the actual conditions allows one to for-
mulate engineering assumptions about the limit states
developed by the structural elements. The best numerical I~ [ ~ "~'-"---"- L Diaphr ag m
results then make a necessary complement to the under-
standing of the statical behaviour of the structure. In prac-
tice, however, the actual choice and implementation of a
i
specific constitutive law for masonry are made problematic 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O [

by the reasons previously mentioned. The available models

are often justified in restricted bounds, and are based upon
strong assumptions, which imply either no tension 2 or
ductile/brittle behaviour with different yield conditions ~'4.
nnnnn n n n n n nn ~ n n

Figure 1 Cross-section (top) and lateral view (bottom) of the

~n n n J { n ~

I
However, models which take into account the actual frac- analyzed wall
turing behaviour, with instantaneous energy dissipation at
a nonzero load level, at the present state of development
usually fail in simulating the effect of confinement in terms
of ductility and, as already said, each model has usually
been developed and tested for particular applications and
in conjunction with special numerical procedures, thus
making it difficult to foresee their applications in a gen-
eral situation.
In this work some of these models are applied, with pos-
sible suitable modifications, within a homogeneous numeri-
cal environment, sharing the same basic rate formulation
and the same basic integration procedures. Thus, a first aim
has been that of unifying the numerical treatment of differ-
ent constitutive models. A second goal has been the com-
parison of the numerical predictions with the observed
actual state of the structure. Such comparison may be useful
to assess the sensitivity and appropriateness of each model,
and relevant data, when applied to a problem whose size
allows only a global discretization, but in which every
structural detail may play an essential role on the global Figure2 Three-dimensional discretization of the San Faus-
tino wall
behaviour.

bandwidth of the stiffness matrix within the possibilities of

2. The numerical model
the available computers. Nevertheless, the model size was
The structure under investigation is part of the monumental still quite large. Therefore, with the aim of proceeding with
complex of the San Faustino Maggiore Monastery in Bres- nonlinear analyses, the structural problem was reduced to
cia and is located on the site named 'friars' cells corridor'. a plane one, which included only the wall and the arches,
Figure 1 shows a view of the structure, a masonry wall and considered the diaphragms as elastic supports for the
about 87 m long, 8.25 m high and 30 cm thick. The wall in-plane displacements of the wall itself (Figure 3).
exhibits a static anomaly, in that it does not reach the This viewpoint required the computation of the equival-
ground, but it rests on both transversal walls ent stiffness--i.e, thickness--of the diaphragms in such a
( 'diaphragms' ), 9.60 m deep and on low rise arches, 60 cm way that the in-plane displacements of the plane model
thick, which also support the ceilings of the cells at the matched the corresponding ones given by the three-dimen-
ground floor. All these components are made of clay sional mesh. The details of this computation are given else-
masonry; the average brick size is 28 × 12 x 6 cm and the where 7. The elastic analysis of such a model indicated that
thickness of the mortar layers ranges from 1 to 2 cm. The
main construction work for this part of the complex was , , , , , x , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , I L , , , . . . . . . , , , , , , , ,

completed by the end of the XVI century ~.

The first numerical model of the structure has been a
full three-dimensional one (Figure 2), studied in the linear
elastic range by means of the 'Supersap' code 6. Owing to
the size of the problem the mesh was relatively coarse, in
F T T11
F TT
Figure3 Two-dimensional plane discretization of the San Fau-
order to keep the number of degrees-of-freedom and the stino wall
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna e t al.
(i) by comparison with the three-dimensional results, a
plane model was sufficiently accurate as far as the stress
and strain state in the wall was concerned and (ii) the high-
est significant stress values could be found in the zones
close to the supporting diaphragms where the arches have
the longest span. Also, the left end side of the wall seems
to be the most severely loaded. In fact, the left end arch
has one of the longest spans and, at the same time, it has
no restraint whatsoever to its horizontal displacement at the
left abutment. This consideration, together with the necess-
ity of further refining the mesh within the limits of the
available hardware, actually motivated the subsequent
decision of analyzing, in some detail, the behaviour only
of the part of the wall resting above the two arches at the
left end extremity of the 'friars' cells corridor'.
Two nonlinear analyses of the whole plane model of
Figure 3 have also been performed, the results of which
are reported elsewhere 8. These analyses used the elastic-
plastic 'no tension' constitutive law and a cracking model,
whose characteristics will be explained in the next section.
Their results indicated that (i) the full plane model required
far too much computing power than available to be properly
analyzed in the nonlinear range and (ii)the 'no tension'
model is utterly unrealistic for such analysis. This con-
clusion will be strengthened by the results discussed in
detail in the next sections. However, both the linear elastic
and the nonlinear results for the full model of the wall con-
firmed the opportunity of pursuing a detailed study of the
stress state in the left end part of the wall. With this goal,
a finer discretization of the first two arches at the left end
of the structure and of the above-placed wall has been
made. Such a model is shown in Figure 4. The thickness
of the three supporting diaphragms is of 3.81 m for the
lower part of the diaphragms, i.e. from the boundaries up
to the arch abutments. It reduces to 1.40 m for the upper
parts, going from the arch abutments to the corridor level,
at the lower end of the wall (i.e. the level of the extrados
at the keystone of the arches).
The problem created by the necessity of defining bound-
ary conditions for the right end vertical edge of the mesh
was tackled by means of a comparison with the results
given by the full plane model. The boundary condition for
the mesh of Figure 4 which gives the minimum error, in a
least-square sense, is the one in which only the horizontal
displacements are set to zero. This is, therefore, the bound-
[]
Figure4 Adopted finite element mesh of the left end portion
of the San Faustino wall
39
ary condition thereafter adopted. Finally, with the nonlinear
analyses in view, the three structural elements (wall, arches
and diaphragms) have been physically separated in the
numerical model, and suitable finite elements have been
introduced at their interfaces, to allow the simulation of the
behaviour of the joints between wall, arches and dia-
phragms, made by either simple support with interposed
mortar (wall on arches and wall on diaphragms) or by
clamping, brick by brick (lateral joints between wall and
diaphragms). The numerical model whose results in the
nonlinear range will be discussed in Section 5 is, therefore,
defined as follows. The geometry is shown in Figure 4. The
wall is discretized by means of 845 4-node plane stress
elements, whose stiffness matrix is integrated using a 2 x 2
Gauss grid. The stresses are computed and the constitutive
law is enforced only at the centroid of each element. The
thickness of these elements is 30 cm. The two arches are
discretized by means of 204 4-node elements as used for
the wall; their thickness is 60 cm. The stress-strain law for
these elements can be either linear elastic or elastic-plastic
or cracking, depending on the constitutive model adopted.
The three diaphragms are discretized by means of 127 4-
node elements of the same type as already defined. Their
thickness is 3.81 m for the bottom part and 1.40 m for the
top portion, from the arches abutments to the top of the
diaphragms. These elements are always considered as lineal"
elastic, since their dominant stress components are the out-
of-plane ones, not taken into account by this model for the
sake of memory saving. This is one of the strongest limi-
tations of the analyses reported herein, since the cracking
of the diaphragms is expected to play an important role on
the overall behaviour of the structure. However, since we
have used a plane model of both wall and diaphragms, with
the purpose of studying the in-plane behaviour of the wall
and the arches only, we have been forced to neglect any
nonlinearity in the diaphragm in-plane behaviour, which
would have been meaningless. Therefore, the diaphragms
have been considered essentially as elastic supports. Only
a three-dimensional model could take into full account the
cracking of the diaphragms.
Finally, the joints between the wall, arches and dia-
phragms are modeled by means of 89 interface 2-node
elements, with two active stress components: normal and
shear stress. The geometry of these elements is defined by
the position of their nodes, whose relative displacement in
the direction connecting the two nodes governs the normal
stress behaviour, and whose relative displacement in the
orthogonal direction governs the shear stress behaviour.
Their initial distance has been set equal to 1 cm. The inter-
face element behaviour is formulated, within the finite
element code, in terms of stresses and strains (as opposite
to common 'spring' elements, described in terms of forces
and displacements). The stress-strain law of the interfaces
can be both linear elastic and nonlinear, as explained in the
following sections.
The model, therefore, uses a total of 1265 finite elements
for 2734 unconstrained degrees-of-freedom. The bandwidth
of the stiffness matrix, after optimization, is 118. The
adopted material data will be described in better detail, case
by case, in Section 5. The boundary conditions at the right
edge of the wall imply no horizontal displacement; the
bases of the three diaphragms are fixed.
Finally, the loading conditions are as follows.
(1) Self weight and accidental load due to snow on the
40 Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.
central top roof, corresponding to 10800 Newton per
linear meter of the wall, placed on the top edge of the
mesh. When performing the collapse analysis the load
due to the snow has been considered as a permanent
load, and only the collapse load factor of the accidental
load on the floor slab has been computed. Only a
shakedown analysis could have tackled the problem of
simultaneously variable snow load and accidental load
on the floor slab; this analysis has not been performed.
(2) Self weight of the roof slab in the central part, corre-
sponding to 3200 Newton per linear meter of the wall
placed on a line 16.00 m above the basis of the dia-
phragms.
(3) Self weight and snow load (assumed as permanent in
the collapse analysis) on the side roof at the east side,
corresponding to 6500 Newton per linear meter of the
wall placed on a line 15.00 m above the basis of the
diaphragms.
(4) Self weight of the roof slab, cell side at the east side
of the wall, corresponding to 2600 Newton per linear
meter of the wall placed on a line 13.75 m above the
basis of the diaphragms.
(5) Self weight of the floor slab of the cells cocridor, corre-
sponding to 7500 Newton per linear meter of the wall
placed on a line 9.00 m above the basis of the dia-
phragms.
(6) Accidental load on the same floor slab, considered as
12500 Newton per linear meter of the wall placed on
a line 9.00 m above the basis of the diaphragms.
(7) Self weight of the masonry, estimated as 20000 New-
ton per cubic meter.
No actions other than the mechanical ones listed above
have been considered. Further work might as well be
devoted to the investigation of the effects of thermal load-
ing (possibly significant on such a large structure) and of
prescribed settlements of the diaphragm bases. The model
described here has been analyzed by means of the computer
code STRUPL-2 9, which can perform nonlinear analyses of
plane problems for several constitutive models.
3. The adopted constitutive models
The interface elements have been described either as linear
elastic or in terms of a M o h r - C o u l o m b friction law with
cohesion, which reads
_+T-o-tan0-k <-0 (1)
in which ~- is the shear stress, cr is the normal stress, & is
the friction angle and k is the cohesion. The direction of
incremental plastic flow here is orthogonal to the active
yield plane, and follows Koiter's rule ~° if the stress point
reaches the corner generated by the two yield planes at the
value 7 = 0. Although this description is rather poor in
terms of kinematics, owing to the excessive dilatancy intro-
duced, it leads to a much simpler numerical formulation
than a non-associated one and, for the loading levels con-
sidered, it should not lead to significant errors on stresses
and displacements. Only the collapse analysis is strongly
affected by the assumption of normality, in that it will only
provide an upper bound to the actual collapse load factor,
together with a possibly poor description of the collapse
mechanism.
This nonlinear model is piecewiselinear, thus enabling
its direct formulation in terms of the Mathematical Pro-
gramming framework introduced by Maier ~. This model
is elastic-plastic and, therefore, it does not allow the simul-
ation of fracture. However, since it is applied to interface
elements, whose widths are very small, it can be thought
of as a fair approximation of a cracking model, in that the
developed plastic strains are actually localized into zones
of small width, as far as the interface elements are con-
cerned. A different situation occurs when dealing with con-
tinuum elements.
The constitutive laws utilized to simulate the nonlinear
behaviour of the wall, discretized by means of continuum
elements, are briefly described in the sequel.
3.1. The Galileo-Rankine elastic-plastic model
According to this constitutive law the principal stresses
must not exceed a limiting value in tension, o-,, and a limit-
ing value in compression, o-~. The G a l i l e o - R a n k i n e con-
dition, in a plane stress case referred to a cartesian ortho-
gonal frame x - y , can be written as follows
~r~ = ~ , . - ~r,~r,. + ~rt(~r, + o~,) - ~ --< 0 (2)
o3, = ~ , . - o:,cr,.- o-~.(o-,+ o~,.) - ~ --< 0 (3)
where the yield stress in compression, (r~, has been taken in
absolute value. Equations (2) and (3) represent two convex,
smooth surfaces in the stress space. Their intersection, how-
ever, is a line in which the gradient is not defined. The flow
rule is associated and, in the intersection between the ten-
sile and the compressive surfaces, it follows Koiter's gen-
eralization.
3.2. The no tension elastic-plastic model
From the analytical viewpoint this is a straightforward spe-
cialization of the preceding model to the case o-~ ---* zc and
o-,---* 0. Thus, equations (2) and (3) reduce to the single
constraint
9
~,- ~r,o~,,-< 0 (4)
This equation defines a cone in the cartesian stress space,
with a singularity at the origin of the space also unsafe with
respect to the yield condition; the adopted flow-rule is, as
always in this work, associated. In practice, the no tension
model has often been claimed to be a useful tool for the
analysis of masonry structures. The argument is that the
presence of fractures causes the inability of transmitting
tensile normal stresses, therefore causing a global behav-
iour similar to that of a linear elastic material unable to
stand tensile principal stresses. A recent paper ~2, devoted
to the numerical integration of this model, shows clearly,
by means of numerical examples, that the no tension consti-
tutive law is unable to represent realistically the nonlinear
behaviour of brittle structures. This conclusion will be
strengthened by the results obtained in the present paper.
3.3. The Drucker-Prager elastic-plastic constitutive
law
The yield condition, in the elastic-perfectly plastic three-
dimensional case, is defined by the following equation
, t
\,J2 + 3 a p - c < 0 (5)
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al. 41

Parameters c and a are related to the friction angle 4, and in the direction associated to the maximum principal stress)
the cohesion k of the considered material. The symbol p and the crack opening w. The model is governed by the
identifies the hydrostatic stress and J; the second invariant fracture energy in tension of the material, %, assumed to
of the deviatoric part of the stress tensor. Several relation- be a constant material parameter, and is defined by the fol-
ships can be adopted to relate the cohesion k and the fric- lowing relationship
tion angle 4, of a geomaterial to the strength parameters a
and c of D r u c k e r - P r a g e r ' s model, depending, for instance, 2%
o-,, = o5 ~ w (7)
on the desired match with a Coulomb type criterion. In the
calculations reported herein we have adopted the follow-
ing relationships In the finite element formulation the crack opening w is
considered as 'smeared' within a finite zone of the element
2 sin 4, 6k cos & and it is, therefore, related to the strain by means of some
r-
• C --
'characteristic' length ~4. The crack is fully opened only
\/3(3 - sin4,) \;3(3 - sin4,) when the normal stress has reduced to zero; the behaviour
C C of the cracked point from then on is holonomic.
O-t= • O-c=
(1/\'3 + a) (1/,]3 - cQ 3.5. A modified De Felice elastic-plastic model
A recent work by De Felice ~ describes a constitutive law
where o-, and O-~ are the yield stresses in uniaxial tension applicable to masonry panels made of rigid blocks and lay-
and compression, respectively• In the plane stress case, ers of mortar obeying a friction law of the Coulomb type
D r u c k e r - P r a g e r ' s constitutive law reduces to a single, con- with cohesion. The De Felice model takes into account, as
tinuous yield surface, whose equation reads parameters governing the continuum, viewed as the result
of a homogeneization process, the cohesion k and friction
angle 4' of the mortar, as well as the ratio m between the
height and width of the single block. In a reference system
x - y aligned with the direction of the layers the equations
cKol, + O-,3 - c --< 0 (6) describing this model are as follows

The values of the cohesion and the friction angle can be %. + oi,, tan 4) - k --< 0 (8)
chosen so as to obtain a good match with uniaxial strength
in tension and compression; in this case, however, the pre- - % + o5, tan 4 , - k --< 0 (9)
dicted behaviour for most stress states of biaxial com- 2mo-, + (2m tan 4' + 1 )r,, +
pression will be elastic, as shown in Figure 5, which refers
to the material data used in analyses 6 and 7 of Section 5.

3.4. A tension cracking constitutive model

o; tan 4' - k
(,:5) +l

2moi~ - (2m tan cb + 1 )r~, +

--<0 (10)

We have studied the San Faustino wall by means of a true

cracking model, presently able to follow only mode I crack
opening with no ductility and, therefore, not yet optimal for
o~,. tan & - k (&) +1 --<0 (11)
its application in the general loading condition presented
by the problem under study• The crack opening detection This model is quite appropriate for the so called 'dry'
function coincides with the tensile branch of the already masonry assemblies, for which it can take into account the
described G a l i l e o - R a n k i n e model, equation (2). As soon significant effect of the block shape, and in which the actual
as the stress at a point touches the yield surface, a cohesive strength of the blocks themselves may be non-influent, if
crack model ~3 is followed at that point, defined in terms of the failure is related to rigid body motion along the block
a linear relationship between the normal stress O-, (the stress interfaces. However, it can also be adopted for the case of
old masonry structures when, as verified on specimens
0.5 taken from our wall, the clay blocks exhibit a superior
strength with respect to that of the mortar. In any case, in
order to obtain a constitutive model with strength para-
0
meters comparable with the preceding ones, we have modi-
fied the De Felice criterion by adding three planes, which
-0.5 close the yield domain. Two of them cut the uniaxial com-
pressive values of both o~, and O-,. to a prescribed limit, in
I
such a way that the compressive strength of the blocks can
-I.0 somehow be taken into account.
A third plane cuts the uniaxial value of o~ in tension to a
-1.5 --
prescribed limit. This has the purpose of limiting the tensile
values of the horizontal stress in the presence of large nega-
tive values of O-,.. A homogenized condition based on a fric-
-2.0 I I 1 I tion model, such as that proposed by De Felice, allows far
-2.0 -I .5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5
too large positive values of oi~ when o~, assumes large nega-
Figure 5 D r u c k e r - P r a g e r yield d o m a i n f o r a plane stress case tive values. Figure 6 shows a view of the resulting yield
in the principal stress crr~ . space. Strength p a r a m e t e r s are: domain. The planes marked by numbers 1 - 4 are those
cohesion k = 0.23 MPa, friction angle 4,= 56 ° defined by equations ( 8 ) - ( 1 1 ) .
42 Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.
(~x . -7".
Oy 1 the yield function, and by vector r collecting the dis-
Figure 6 Modified De Felice yield domain: planes marked by
1-4 correspond to the actual De Felice yield domain
(equations (8)-(]])); plane 5 enforces the condition ~rv>~r~;
plane 6 enforces the condition ~rx -> ~rc;plane 7 enforces the con-
dition ~rx <- ~rt
4. The adopted integration scheme
4.1. The elastic-l)lastic piecewiselinear case
We start by summarizing the formulation of rate plasticity
and its integration scheme, for the case in which the yield
condition at all the control points of a discretized structure
is piecewiselinear. This is the case, in the problem here
studied, when the De Felice yield condition is prescribed
for all the plane stress elements used to model the wall;
the interface elements are in any nonlinear case governed
by a priori piecewiselinear yield conditions.
The adopted rate formulation is based on the following
equations:
( 1 ) rate compatibility
= Bfi (12)
in which B is the small displacement compatibility
matrix, collecting, in the appropriate order, the deriva-
tives of the element shape functions computed at the
integration points; e is a vector collecting all the strain
components at all the integration points of the finite
element assembly and vector u contains the unknown
nodal displacements. The superimposed dot indicates a
rate quantity;
(2) rate equilibrium
f 13)
VB~& dV = f¢
in which o" is the vector of total stresses at the inte-
gration points of the finite element mesh. The inte-
gration symbolically represents also the assembly oper-
ation, which allows to relate the rate of 'internal forces',
at the left-hand side of (13), to the rate of the prescribed
external actions, defined by vector F;
(3) elastic-pe .rfectly plastic constitutive law
= D£~ = D(t~ - t~P) (14)
which represents the elastic part of the constitutive law,
governed by the matrix of the elastic moduli, D;
<b = N'or - r (15)
which represents a piecewiselinear, perfectly plastic
yield condition, governed by matrix N, containing the
components of the gradients to all the planes defining
tances of the various planes from the origin of the
stress space;
kP= NA (16)
X ~ 0 (173
the associated flow rule. Vector Jt contains the so called
'plastic multipliers', i.e. the moduli of the plastic strain
rates t~,p, whose direction is that of the gradient to the
yield surface. The plastic part of the constitutive law is
completed by the following set of constraints:
&(~r) -< 0 (18)
in the whole structure
& = N t& < 0 (19)
only in the plastic part of the structure, where (hk(~r) = 0
&' a = 0 (20)
which represents the consistency condition enforcing
the loading/unloading alternative at every control point
of the structure.
Equations ( 1 2 ) - ( 2 0 ) can be combined, by means of some
algebra, in order to obtain the rate formulation actually
solved into the adopted code, which has as basic unknowns
the plastic multipliers A only. This formulation is as if)l-
lows ~5
+=I)-A~.; +-<0; ,~>0; 6',~:0
(21 a,b,c,d)
The symbol 6 represents the known term, defined as
I~ = N'DBK..,' f¢ (22)
where Ke~ is the assembled elastic stiffness matrix. Matrix
A is defined as follows
A = -N~(DBK~I I B~D - D ) N (23)
Equations (21) express a so-called Linear Complementarity
Problem (LCP). Its solution can be obtained on the basis
of an algorithm, described for instance in Franchi and
Genna t6, which takes advantage of the physical meaning of
all the terms involved and which essentially amounts to the
inversion of matrix A, plus a few other steps required only
when the inversion of A furnishes a solution A which does
not comply with the constraint (21c). In the implemented
algorithm matrix A is constructed one row and column at
a time, following the integration scheme and, therefore, its
inversion, at every integration step, is quite inexpensive.
Also, the computer storage is kept limited to the minimum
necessary, since the dimension of the LCP is only that cot-
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.
responding to the size of the plastic zone at every load-
ing step.
The integration scheme for a rate problem governed by
piecewiselinear yield surfaces is quite simple, because all
the rate quantities arising from the solution of problem (21 )
are constant during a step, which, starting from a given
plastic zone, ends when a new stress point touches the yield
surface. During each loading step the problem is in effect
linear and, therefore, explicit integration rules apply exact-
ly:
AA=AAt; Ao'=&At; Ae=kAt; Au=fiAt
In all these finite step relationships the time increment At
is a result of the analysis, since it must be computed as the
external load multiplier which first brings a stress point to
touch a yield plane safe at the beginning of the step. This
computation can be symbolically expressed as follows:
n ~ o . i -- ri } plane to the yield surface is computed at the contact point
At = mini Ati - n~&~ Ab -> 0
where subscript i refers to quantities pertaining to a single
integration point. The stress increment o'i can be easily
computed once the rate solution h. of the LCP (21) has
been obtained.
Thus, the integration scheme essentially consists of:
(i) the inversion of submatrix A corresponding to the plas-
tic zone at the beginning of the .step and the subsequent
evaluation of the rate quantities A,&; (ii) the computation
of the stepsize At; (iii)the update of the variables; and
(iv) the solution of an elastic problem which furnishes a
new row and column of matrix A according to its definition,
equation (23). We have been very schematic in describing
the procedure, extensively reported.elsewhere 9. It may be
worth noting that the choice of a A rate formulation also
allows for a precise detection of plastic collapse, which
occurs when submatrix A, on adding a new row, becomes
singular and a corresponding admissible mechanism can
be found w.
4.2. The elastic-plastic nonlinear case
The scheme adopted to integrate the general, nonlinear,
vector valued yield functions utilized in the analyses takes
the most possible advantage from the rate formulation
based on LCP (21). In fact, the incremental problem solved
at each integration step is precisely that LCP, in which
matrix N, containing the direction cosines of the gradients
to the yield planes (for a piecewiselinear yield condition)
is constructed, for the nonlinear case, step by step, by
means of a suitable, local, a posteriori linearization pro-
cedure, based on Hodge's ideas .8 and extensively described
in Genna et a l . 19"2°. Figure 7 schematically illustrates the
main points of such procedure, based on the definition of
an approximate yield surface, homotetical to the exact one
and governed by a yield stress increased by a small toler-
ance parameter r/.
The behaviour at an integration point is elastic until the
stress point first touches the approximate, outer yield func-
tion, whose equation is
,#[¢r,~ro(l + rt)] = 0
43
(24) V ~( a,o o)
~[o,%(l+rl)] = 0
Figure 7 Schematic representation of the t w o step integration
scheme, based on a tolerance band around the yield domain.
Steps A o l and ~-~r3 are of stable loading; step A~2 is of neu-
tral equilibrium
This step corresponds to the stress increment indicated by
vector Ao5 in Figure 7. At the end of this step the tangent
(25)
er~, defined by the gradient vector n~ = [0q~/0o'],,=,,. At
this moment a corrector procedure is needed, in order to
bring the stress point close to the exact yield surface and
to allow it to further move without violating the approxi-
mate one. This step is governed by a rate problem formally
similar to the LCP (21), in which the known term is
replaced by a prescribed decrease rate of the plastic resist-
ance at that point. Thus, the external actions are kept fixed
(F' = 0) and the tangent plane n~ is shifted towards the exact
yield surface, together with the stress point, which must
remain at yield, lying on that plane until the plane itself
becomes tangent to the exact yield surface q~(o',o-o)=0.
This step corresponds to the development of plastic strain
rates which remain constant as long as the normal nt
remains constant. Its amplitude, therefore, can be obtained
by an explicit integration, which will define the stress
increment marked as Ao'2 in Figure 7. Now it is possible
to increase again the external loads, and the rate problem
is again given by the LCP (21), in which matrix N contains
the components of all the gradient vectors active for the
structure, both those arising from piecewiselinear yield
functions and those generated by the linearization pro-
cedure just sketched. The plastic strain rates at all the active
points have constant direction as long as the next stress
point touches again the outer, approximate yield surface.
Therefore, another finite increment Aer3 can be computed
by means of explicit formulae and the procedure continues
as already described.
This scheme corresponds to an automatic subincrement-
ation algorithm, based on a sequence of two steps both
driven by precisely formulated rate problems, which admit
a unique solution as long as softening is ruled out and the
structure has not reached the plastic collapse 19. The error
on the yield condition and flow rule is governed a priori by
the tolerance parameter value "q; the scheme is applicable to
any yield function with the same characteristics of accuracy
and it does work for generic, vector-valued yield functions,
since the loading-unloading alternatives arising from the
presence of corners are taken care of during the solution
of the LCP (21). More details about both the theoretical
bases and the application of this algorithm can be found in
Franchi and Genna t6, Hodge ~8, Genna ~9, and Genna and
Pandolfi 2°.
44
4.3. The tension cracking case
The integration scheme for the softening model shares sev-
eral similarities with that described in the preceding subsec-
tion ~4. The behaviour at an integration point is considered
elastic until the stress point meets an approximate G a l i l e o -
Rankine yield criterion in tension. Thereafter, a fictitious
crack law t3 is enforced at that point, which governs the
crack opening until the normal stress (r,, has been reduced
to zero. The integration of such law is performed by means
of a sequence of stable loading and neutral/unstable loading
steps, each governed by a well-defined rate problem. The
choice between stable, neutral or unstable is made on the
basis of a suitable stability check, illustrated with the help
of Figure 8. Both pictures in Figure 8 refer to the same
cohesive model at the same integration point
(equation (7)). Equation (7) is represented as a solid line.
The dashed line represents the same equation, referred to
an approximate value of the yield stress in tension,
tr~(l + rt). The behaviour is elastic until the approximate
yield limit is first reached.
From then on, the stress point is forced to follow a piece-
wiselinear path always lying, if no elastic unloading is
detected, between the solid and the dashed lines in the
cohesive crack model of Figure 8. The way this can happen
depends on the outcome of the stability test. When, during
the loading history, a stress point has arrived to touch on
the approximate cohesive crack law, the external loading
agents are stopped (~" = 0), and a decrease rate of the yield
stress at that point is prescribed, as a known term of the
LCP (21). The solution of such an LCP provides a vector
of plastic multipliers Jr, which can be used to compute the
value of the crack opening rate, ~', at the cracking point.
This value, in turn, is compared to the limit value vi:~,, given
by the cohesive crack law (7). If ~i, --< (v~ml,the crack open-
ing is stable and the step is of neutral loading, driven just
by the decrease of plastic resistance at the cracking points
(stable behaviour in Figure 8). If ~" > v;'~,.... the cracking
process cannot occur either for increasing or for constant
loads. The loads are reversed and a new rate solution of
the LCP (21) is computed with a known term defined by
reversed rate forces. The cracking point, though, is forced
to stay 'at yield', i.e. its stress state stays on the plane
whose resistance is decreasing. For the duration of this step
there is no crack opening, only a decrease of both loads and
plastic strength (unstable behaviour in Figure 8). Figure 9
sketches the corresponding path of the stress point, together
(I n an
at(1 +11) o t ( l +TI)
~:,'~........
. that of the elastic analysis;
• if, < ~bl" ~b ?,, .......~, . .
at at
~ . . W > Wli m
..~N~ ~'.:" ~'-,~ .
" . w > Wli m
o, - - , @ ,. Gf ~ "'''"~
w w
Stable bebaviour Unstable behaviour
Figure 8 Crack opening path and stability tests according to
t h e implemented integration scheme. Steps corresponding to
horizontal lines are of stable loading with stable crack opening;
s t e p s corresponding to vertical lines are of unstable loading,
with no crack opening, strength decrease and simultaneous
load d e c r e a s e ; s t e p s corresponding to inclined lines are of neu-
tral equilibrium crack opening, with no external force increment
and simultaneous decrease of strength
Numerical analysis o f old masonry buildings: F. Genna e t al.
Figure 9 Schematic representation of stress path in the stress
space corresponding to the progress from first yielding to com-
plete crack opening. The shaded zone is the safe yield domain
after the complete crack opening
with the motion of the tangent plane, in the stress space.
The crack is fully opened when the normal stress has been
reduced to zero; in the stress space this corresponds to hav-
ing reduced to zero the distance of the plane tangent to the
initial contact point on the yield surface. From then on the
yield domain at that point is limited by that plane, which
crosses the origin of the stress space.
Such an algorithm possesses several important features,
described in detail in Franchi and Genna J4, which the reader
is referred to for more information. Its implemented version
still relies on an elastic-perfectly plastic G a l i l e o - R a n k i n e
condition for crack initiation detection, in such a way that
an incorrect response is predicted tbr stress states in which
shear dominates. Therefore, the results presented here may
be not fully realistic. Also, such a scheme, in conjunction
with a conventional, compatible finite element formulation,
is unable to catch local phenomena such as the width of
the cracking zone, even if this is given as input data -~t. Rem-
edies to this problem are under study 2:.
5. Results of the analyses
The results reported in this section refer to the following
set of analyses:
(1) linear elastic analysis; on the adopted workstation its
execution required about 20 s of computer time;
(2) elastic-plastic analysis with the G a l i l e o - R a n k i n e
constitutive model for the wall and arches, and linear
elastic interfaces. Its execution time was 5000 times
(3) elastic-plastic analysis with the Drucker-Prager
constitutive model for the wall and arches, and linear
. elastic interfaces. Its execution time was 5200 times
that of the elastic analysis;
t,
(4) elastic-plastic analysis with the no tension constitutive
model for the wall and arches, and linear elastic inter-
faces. Its execution time was 6700 times that of the
elastic analysis;
(5) nonlinear analysis with the tension cracking constitut-
ive model for the wall and arches, and linear elastic
interfaces. Its execution time was only 430 times that
of the elastic analysis, owing to the smallness of the
predicted cracking zone;
(6) elastic-plastic analysis with the D r u c k e r - P r a g e r
constitutive model for the wall and arches, and e l a s t i c -
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.
plastic interfaces with the Coulomb normal stress-
shear stress constitutive law, with zero cohesion. Its
execution time was 6000 times that of the elastic analy-
sis;
(7) elastic-plastic analysis with the De Felice constitutive
model for the wall and arches, and elastic-plastic inter-
faces with the Coulomb normal stress-shear stress
constitutive law, with zero cohesion. Its execution time
was only 190 times that of the elastic analysis; the
computing time reduction is entirely due to the piece-
wiselinearity of the yield condition for the whole
model;
(8) collapse analysis with the De Felice constitutive model
for the wall and arches, and elastic-plastic interfaces
with the Coulomb normal stress-shear stress constitut-
ive law, with zero cohesion. Its execution time was
12000 times that of the elastic analysis.
All the results shown in this section, figures and tables
included, will be presented in Newton and millimeters
units.
5.1. Analysis number 1: elastic analysis
The material data used for describing the elastic properties
of the masonry are as follows: Young's modulus E = 5000
MPa and Poisson's ratio v = 0.20. The material has been
considered as homogeneous and isotropic; the numerical
values have been chosen on the basis of compression tests
performed on wall specimens. The results of the elastic
analysis have been used only as a guideline for judging the
goodness of the discretization and for choosing the strength
parameters needed by the nonlinear analyses. The peak ten-
sile stress is here of about 1 MPa, but the meaningful
maximum values are about 0.4 MPa. In the most part of
the wall the tensile stresses are within the range
0.03 + 0.15 MPa. The compressive values reach peaks of
about - 2 MPa. Their meaningful maximum values are of
-1.3 MPa and the most part of the wall is subjected to com-
pressive principal stresses whose absolute value is lower
than 0.5 MPa. The peak values of all the stress, strain and
displacement components, for all the analyses herein
reported, are summarized in Table 1 and visualized, for
ease of comparison, in Figure 10. The elastic results pro-
vide relatively small stress values, if one neglects the peak
values at the corners of the openings, site of localized
cracking in reality. Despite such a low stress state, the wall
exhibits actual cracking, whose typical pattern in one por-
tion of the wall above a long-span arch is depicted in
Figure 11, taken from Ronca and Castiglioni 7. Therefore,
the strength parameters required by global models for a
nonlinear analysis need to be quite low, if one wants to
detect 'yielding'. Also, the elastic analysis pinpoints the
weakness of the left portion of the structure, supported by
an arch lacking a horizontal thrust at its left abutment.
For the purpose of this work, however, the elastic analy-
sis gives the following indications:
(1) the extension of the zone undergoing tension suggests
the possibility of cracking, even if, in a global sense,
the wall seems subjected to a stress state which can
remain elastic;
(2) the tensile stress peaks at the corners of the openings
will correspond, in the nonlinear range, to sure
localized 'yielding' (cracking), which should have no
influence on the global behaviour;
45
(3) there are stress concentrations in the connection zones
between wall and vertical diaphragms. Such concen-
trations suggest detachment, which can be taken into
account by the nonlinear models;
(4) there are strong compressive stresses in the zones
where the wall is supported by the diaphragms, which
would be stronger if the detachment mentioned before
takes place. Both the wall and the diaphragms (whose
actual stress state is not computed in this analysis)
should be carefully examined in this respect. Also, the
left end diaphragm must carry the entire thrust of the
left arch, thus undergoing bending out of its plane.
Such bending, indicated by the displacement pattern
provided by all the analyses (see, for instance,
Figure 14), is very dangerous and suggests the need of
exploring the global stability of this first diaphragm.
The overall picture is rather uncertain since, already judg-
ing from the linear elastic results, one might conclude that
the wall cannot withstand the service loads without crack-
ing, even if localized. Therefore, further nonlinear analyses
appear mandatory.
5.2. Analyses number 2, 3, 4 and 5: nonlinear analyses
with linear elastic interface elements
Here we analyze results given by different constitutive
models with comparable values of strength parameters,
whose choice has been guided both by the few suggestions
found in literature about old masonry 23 and by the linear
elastic results. Both these guidelines indicate that quite low
values of resistance need to be used, for characterizing the
masonry as a homogeneous material, in order to correctly
predict its nonlinear behaviour. Therefore, the adopted
material data are as follows:
• for the Galileo-Rankine model: uniaxial strength in ten-
sion ~rt=0.3 MPa; uniaxial strength in compression
~r~ = 1.0 MPa;
• for the Drucker-Prager model: cohesion k = 0.2 MPa;
friction angle 4~ = 35 °. These values correspond, accord-
ing to the Drucker-Prager criterion, to uniaxial strength
parameters o-t = 0.28 MPa and o-~ = 0.77 MPa, similar to
those used for the Galileo-Rankine condition;
• for the cracking model: uniaxial strength in tension
~rt = 0.3 MPa; fracture energy % = 0.02 N/mm. This last
value has just been guessed, in the absence of other evi-
dence, as about 1/5 of that suggested for plain concrete.
The choice of a low value for the fracture energy,
together with the large size of the problem, should mag-
nify possible local instability phenomena due to sudden
energy release when cracking occurs.
Figure 12 shows the principal plastic strains for the four
different constitutive models adopted. It is immediately
apparent that three of the four plots illustrated by Figure 12
are similar to each other, whereas the fourth one
(Figure 12c), referring to the results of the no tension
model, corresponds to a completely different situation, in
which the plastic zone practically encompasses the whole
structure. The other models indicate only a small set of
plastic elements. The largest plastic strains, for the no ten-
sion model, seem to develop in a vertical band close to the
left edge of the wall, as well as into the whole opening zone
and into the totality of the two arches. The displacements
46 Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.

.~_.o_
X XO X X XO X X XO X X XO X
tu .__~" 0 0 ~
• . ~ ":,~ . "7 "7 '-:,~ . '7. . .
o ~ O ~ o O ~ OoOoOoOd OoOoOoOo~r-.
I I I I I I I I I I I I

9 999 99 ~99 99
t~
X X x X x X x X x X x X x X x

OoOoOoO~ o OoOoOo O d O o O 6 O o ~
I I I I I I I I I I I

9
0 0 o ~9O o 0' o °~ ~ o O ~ o
~ X~ ~ ~ X X X~ X
X X X~ X X x X X~ X
,,~'1=

~_~._
OoO~ooo~ o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o
I I I i l l I [ I I I I I

v ~ o~E~oOOo~
X X XxX X x X x X x X x
0
• ~ 8 ~
0 ooo~OoO~ d o odd o d o d o d o d o ~
(,.) I I I I I

c
g
c'~) X X XxX x X x X x X x X X
~ 0 ~ 0 ~
• ~ . ~ ~ = ~~ .
~ .
~
t- °d°d ~ o o OoOo O o O o O o O o ~
O I I I I I I I I I I
r-

oo0ooooo oooooo0 ,
•o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

5 ,~m-~.=_ o~o~ooo~
I I I I
o 9 o 9 o I ; o o ,. ooooo,
I I
oo
I I

N
.~_ ~ 0 ~ o O~0 ~ ~ ~' vo O o ~~ o' ~ '~
I o ¢0
X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X X

. ~ o ~ o
OoO~OoO~ OoOoOoOo o d o d o o O o ~
t49n'-~ u I I I I I I I I i I I I

'' o~oo0
o X x X x X x X X
~ ~ ,
ffl
~ o o ~ o o ~ ddOdOdOdO~
w to I I I I

> O.
0,.
E E
13_

~.~.~x oo
• . o~.E x ¢--
0.0o
~. c -IZ

~o EEaa2_
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al. 47

There are quite high compressive stress values, up to a peak

of - 4 . 0 MPa, as a consequence of the important stress redis-
e~
tribution needed in order to define resistance mechanisms
implying only compression. All these features are absent
in the other results and the actual shape of the structure,
inspected in situ, does not correspond to the distributed
cracking implied by the plastic strain pattern shown in
Figure 12. Taking into account all these considerations and
.r.~ also recalling the results of previous analyses performed on
the whole wall model, which gave similar results 8, one must
conclude that the no tension model cannot provide any indi-
cation about the actual stress and strain state of a large
brittle structure.
[ ] Princ. max strain [ ] Princ. min strain The Galileo-Rankine, Drucker-Prager and cracking
models, with comparable values of the strength parameters,
give predictions fairly similar to each other. The corre-
sponding plots of principal plastic strains share several fea-
tures, the most notable being the high concentration of plas-
tic strains in the zone close to the connection between the
wall and the diaphragms. This is a consequence of the stress
~ -~ ~, .-- gradient thereby existing if both a perfect clamping
between wall and diaphragm and unlimited ductility are
assumed. Of course, neither of these two assumptions is
~.~. valid; therefore, such a result cannot be taken as a correct
.=
indication of the real behaviour. A remedy to this false pre-
diction is taken in the analyses later in this section. The
displacements predicted by the two elastic-plastic models
are about twice the elastic values, the Drucker-Prager
model resulting more flexible. The cracking model, which
cannot catch crisis in compression owing to the present
81 limitations of the code, gives results quite similar to the
elastic ones. Cracking is predicted only at the connections
between wall and diaphragms and at the opening corners.
The arches remain within the elastic range. It is important,
however, to observe that, despite the large size of the struc-
ture and the relatively low value used for the masonry frac-
ture energy, %-, no sign of local/global instability is given
Max horiz, displ. [ ] Max vert. displ. by this analysis. This fact gives more ground to the ductile
elastic-plastic results. In summary, these analyses indi-
Figure 10 Comparison of peak results for the different analysis cate that
of the San Faustino wall. Top: principal stresses; middle: princi-
pal plastic strains; bottom: peak horizontal and vertical displace-
ments (i) the adopted strength parameters are too prudential,
especially in the compressive range;
(ii) the prediction of a diffused crisis of the wall in the
zone of its connections with the diaphragms must be
removed by means of the introduction of a nonlinear
behaviour for the interface elements;
(iii) the no tension model must be rejected as a useful
tool for such problems;
(iv) the Drucker-Prager model seems preferable to the
Galileo-Rankine one, in view of its better prediction
of yielding for stress states associated to principal
values of opposite signs (see the different crisis
modalities of the arches abutments in Figure 12). It
is, however, very difficult to choose the strength
parameters for the Drucker-Prager model in such a
way as to correctly predict the behaviour under both
uniaxial and biaxial stress states. A better model
Figure 71 Surveyed pattern of cracks in one portion of the San could be implemented, defined by the intersection of
Faustino wall
two Drucker-Prager surfaces with independent
strength parameters;
predicted by this model are almost an order of magnitude (v) the cracking model is, in principle, the most appro-
higher than the elastic ones, at large difference with the priate, but it should be implemented in conjunction
other three results (see Table 1 and Figure 10). They are with a cracking detection surface more accurate than
due to the extremely high level of predicted plastic strains. a Galileo-Rankine one. Also the compressive and
48 Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al.

[] []

(a) (b)

[!iii!! !!-i;iiiii [] []

_1
(c) (d)

Figure 12 Principal plastic strain directions and magnitudes (with different scales) as computed in analyses 2 (Galileo-Rankine,
Figure 12a), 3 (Drucker-Prager, Figure 12b), 4 (no tension, Figure 12c) and 5 (tension cracking, Figure 12d)

shear fracturing behaviour should be considered and
the possibility of pre-cracking ductility should be
taken into account. All of these topics are the subject
of work in progress.
5.3. Analyses number 6 and 7: nonlinear analyses with
nonlinear inte.rface elements
These analyses try and take into account the suggestions
given by the previous results and attempt at confining into
the interface elements the plastic strains caused by the high
shear stresses in the connection zones. The interface
elements have, therefore, been modeled by a Coulomb fric-
tion law with no cohesion. The adopted friction angle has
been cb = 50 °, in such a way as to allow the transmission of
relatively high shear stresses in the presence of compressive
normal stress. The wall itself has been described by means
of the Drucker-Prager model. Following the suggestions
given by the previous results, the strength parameters have
been slightly modified with respect to the first set of analy-
ses and are: cohesion k = 0 . 2 3 MPa and friction angle
~b=56 ° . Such values correspond, according to the
Drucker-Prager model, to uniaxial resistances
o-~= 0.2 MPa and ~r,. = 1.5 MPa, i.e. to the yield domain
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 13 shows the principal plastic strains thus
obtained, extremely localized around the corners of the
openings and at the intrados of the keystone of the left
arch. As expected, yielding is not predicted anymore in the
Numerical analysis o f old m a s o n r y buildings: F. Genna e t al. 49

x / ///..-.- . . . . . 11111111-

~-~,zl llllI-Illll L 1 1 1 I-IE~\\~.,I-F.9///-.~ i

---~'--~,~ IIIIIIIIII I~.-'1----,II-:.'-\\\II II-11.II~.4 L
_5'
5

J Figure 75a Isostatic lines for stresses (i.e. lines connecting the
Figure 13 Principal plastic strain directions and magnitudes as
computed in analysis number 6 (Drucker-Prager for the plane directions of principal stresses) as computed in analysis num-
elements and Coulomb with no cohesion for the interface ber 6 (see Figure 13). Isostatic lines of tension, only where ~, _> 0
elements)

portion of the wall where it is connected to the diaphragms.

In these zones the nonlinearity shows as detachment
between both wall and diaphragms and wall and arches.
t ....... "'tlttlt'"'[[ [ g" i4 II
I
li.--~-----.\~. "- }~

i///~--\\\N I
.~ X X .~ I

X X X X ~k
xl

Such phenomenon is displayed in Figure 14, which shows Z II/.~--\\\\\\llllllll\\\\\\\\~|l

the deformed shape of the structure. The detachment i I/./ \\N\~,~HIII#I //\\\\\\\\\//
between the wall and the left arch also has a notable effect
on the stress field in the above wall, since the load applied
at the floor slab of the friars' cells corridor cannot be sup-
ported by the arch below and results almost completely
applied to the lower edge of the wall itself. This is con-
firmed by the analysis of the principal stress pattern, shown
in Figure 15, typical of a simply-supported panel with dis-
tributed load applied to its lower edge. Figure 15b also evi-
dences a large zone of biaxial tension in the zone above
the openings in the left part of the wall, where the direction
of the minimum principal stresses are not plotted, thus indi-
cating positive minimum principal stresses. The ditherings
of the principal stresses, shown in Figure 16, illustrate com-
Figure 15b Isostatic lines of compression, only where or, < 0
pressive stresses quite similar to the elastic ones; only the
arches seem more loaded in compression. The tensile
stresses are quite high in the opening zones, as well as in These results can be taken as a fair approximation of the
limited portions of the arches. Only the left arch, however, real stress and strain state of the wall, in a global sense.
yields in tension at its keystone intrados. Nothing can be said, judging from this analysis, about local
cracking phenomena such as, for instance, those visible in
iili~ II situ in correspondence of the holes dug for supporting the
j•__l
L
I I I I I I I Illlll
I
I
i
IIlll
44444 roof wooden beams. Also, it is worth repeating that no ther-
,r I I
I
Ill,,i
lil
IIII
I b-'z'i'~'4
IIIIIII
I I I I I I
IIlll
I/Ill
I.,x-./.-P"O,J
IIIII
Illll
V I\\~1
I I
II
i I mal loading effect has been considered and no foundation
settlement has been prescribed. Despite these simplifi-
cations, the analysis illustrated is able to predict a strain
~\(ll
pattern and a plastic zone which appears plausible also by

N comparison with the actual cracking pattern.

A final incremental analysis has been performed in order
to check the results given by the recently proposed yield
condition of De Felice, modified as explained in Section 3.
The strength parameters values adopted are as follows:

• De Felice yield condition for the wall: k = 0.2 MPa,

Figure 14 Displaced mesh as computed in analysis number 6
(see Figure 13). Displacements are magnified by a factor of 600
(;6 = 45 °, m = 0.2, o-t = 0.2 MPa, crc = 1.5 MPa;
• De Felice yield condition for the arches: k = 0.18 MPa,
4) = 45 °, m = 5.0, crt = 0.2 MPa, o-c = 1.5 MPa;
• Coulomb yield condition for the interfaces: k = 0 ,
4) = 45 °.
50 N u m e r i c a l analysis o f old m a s o n r y buildings: F. Genna e t al.

Ii 0.2
Prll
0.17
0,14
0.11
0.0!
0.0!
o0.Ot

Figure 16a Dithering of m a x i m u m principal stresses as computed in analysis number 6 (see Figure 13)

win Prln

l ii:
-o:l
-0.I

Figure 16b Dithering of minimum principal stresses as computed in analysis number 6 (see Figure 13)

The obtained results, represented in Figures 17 20, are
quite similar to the previous ones, thus confirming the
soundness of the homogeneization procedure employed to
derive the De Felice equations. Here the plastic zone is
slightly increased, with larger plastic strains at the keystone
intrados of the left arch and at the abutments of the right
arch. The peak displacements are slightly lower than in the
previous analysis. The pattern of the isostatic lines in the
right part of the wall seems more oriented towards that of
a panel with load applied on the top edge. This could be
explained by the sort of 'intermediate' behaviour, between
arch and beam, of the right arch, which also shows signs
of yielding at the abutments.
5.4. Analysis number 8: collapse analysis
A final analysis has been performed with the purpose of
finding the collapse load multiplier for the uniformly dis-
tributed load applied to the floor slab at the friars' cells
corridor, and by considering all the other actions as dead
load. The adopted constitutive law for the wall has been
the De Felice one; the strength parameters are the same as
in the last analysis.
The collapse load multiplier, thus obtained, is cq~ ~ 12.
The corresponding plastic zone is depicted in Figure 21,
which shows the complete collapse of the left arch. Note
that such collapse occurs without implying any failure of
the supporting left diaphragm, considered as linear elastic.
Numerical analysis o f old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al. 51

The real collapse, therefore, might occur for a different

I-1 E3 mechanism than the one here foreseen, at a different load
level. Figure 22, which illustrates the computed collapse
mechanism, confirms that the weakness of the structure lies
in the lack of support of the thrust of the left arch, even if
the right arch and the opening zone of the wall are included
in such a mechanism. The lack of restraint at the left abut-
ment of the left arch is, thus, the main structural problem
for this wall. One might even be surprised by the high value
found of the collapse load. Besides what has already been
said about the lack of consideration of a possible instability
of the diaphragms, however, care has to be taken in judging
these results because the value, ab ~ 12, has been found
by using an associated constitutive law. Masonry structures
may collapse with mechanisms which, in reality, are more
likely a consequence of non-associativity. The collapse load
multiplier found by means of an associated flow law is,
therefore, just an upper bound of the true collapse load fac-
Figure 17 Principal plastic strain directions and magnitudes as tor and it is also difficult to estimate how good or bad such
c o m p u t e d in analysis number 7 (modified De Felice for the bound is.
plane elements and Coulomb with no cohesion for the inter-
face elements)
6. Conclusions
The results illustrated cannot be considered as fully
- H I II lIlI Illlll I Illlll I I
I~111
I I I
[ P.'~IIZI I
III! realistic, since they do not take into account the actual
cracking effects. These, however, with the evidence of the
Illl~ ~/; ".'d I l
II~ll IIIII I IIII IIIII I I results provided by analysis number 4 (tension cracking),
k IIIIII
k] k/ \ / i
IIII
l\ll
IIIII
VI\\\I
I I do not seem to cause any instability for this problem. Also,
the isostatic lines, shown in Figures 15 and 19, indicate the

N
Figure 18 Displaced mesh as c o m p u t e d in analysis number 7
(see Figure 17). Displacements are magnified by a factor of 600
presence of some degree of confinement which, as said,
adds ductility to the average structural behaviour. There-
fore, it is possible to conclude that the elastic-plastic
results are useful for giving a quantitative evaluation of the
stress state of the San Faustino wall. The critical points are,
according to the obtained results, the opening corners (not
relevant to the global behaviour), the keystone of the left
arch (not inspectionable on the real structure) and, in gen-
eral, all the connections between wall and elements below
it. The pattern of the isostatic lines in the wall suggests also,
without predicting it in a quantitative way, the possibility of
important crack openings in the direction of the com-
pression lines in the zone above the openings. Such
phenomena could be caused also by a damage occurring to
the diaphragms, which cannot be taken into account by the

t/ . . . . . _ .~\\ .~ I I I I~l
I""-~ - ~ \ \ k ///// ....... //-~-'~ ....
I I/~\\\ ~\
~"-~ frill gill L.~'-"" I E ' ~ \ % ~ ' 1 - - ~ 9 . / . . ' I / ~ I~ IIIll \\\\\\
/ I I I i l / t \ \ \.k\.\
_- ~ ~ . ~\,x~\i11L.,l~i(rl I U- /.//.e~./ " ~ . N , x ~ l l l l l l l L /. / . / I \ \ \ \ N .\

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Figure 19a Isostatic lines for stresses as c o m p u t e d in analysis II
II
number 7 (see Figure 17). Isostatic lines of tension, only
where m ~> O
Figure 19b Isostatic lines of compression, only where m~ < 0
52 N u m e r i c a l analysis o f old m a s o n r y buildings: F. Genna et al.

I ligRzPrls
mE 0.2
m- 0.17
0.14
~ - 0.11
D~ - 0.08
0.0e
B t oT M

Figure 20a Dithering of maximum principal stresses as computed in analysis number 7 (see Figure 17)

Mitt Pril
Ii ii l
lit
l -OA

Figure20b Dithering of m i n i m u m principal stresses as computed in analysis number 7 (see Figure 17)

plane stress model, utilized here for computer memory
reasons.
Owing to the lack of reliable strength parameter values
for the masonry as a homogeneous material, quite low
values need to be adopted with respect to those obtained
from simple 'uniaxial' tests or from tests on the compo-
nents alone. This effect may be linked with the so-called
'size effect', predicted by fracture mechanics theory. The
problem of the choice of strength parameters remains, how-
ever, an open subject. Finally, we wish to stress, once more,
the importance of performing analyses which take into
account the actual cracking characteristics of the problem.
Only when instability phenomena can be ruled out, can the
elastic-plastic results be considered as reliable. An accurate
cracking analysis, however, without predefinition of the
cracks themselves, for a structure of this size is an awesome
numerical task. Also, a good crack opening detection func-
tion needs to be available. All these considerations are the
motivation for work in progress, in which an accurate
cracking model is being implemented in a parallel comput-
ing environment together with an element-by-element for-
mulation which would allow remeshing in the zone
undergoing strain localization. This appears to be the most
promising way for analyzing brittle structures of large
size numerically.
Numerical analysis of old masonry buildings: F. Genna et al. 53

: . . . :. :.: .
2 Alessandri, C. and Brebbia, C. A. 'Strength of masonry walls under
static horizontal loads: boundary element analysis and experimental
.. F-I:: : ! El.: tests', Engng Anal, 1987, 43, 118-134
3 Lotfi, H. R. and Benson Shing, P. 'Interface model applied to fracture
of masonry structures', ASCE J. Struct. Engng, 1994, 120(1), 63-80
• . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Sekender Ali, Sk. and Page, A. W. 'Finite element model for masonry
• . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . ,

• , .... ~tJl II lobs ..... •

.- • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . .
subjected to concentrated loads', ASCE J. Struct. Engng, 1988,
114(8), 1761-1784
:l i. i: :::ill
• o'o .

5 Mezzanotte, G. and Mariani Travi, L. (Eds) San Faustino a Brescia.

•;" i,::
Figuro27 Principal plastic strain directions and magnitudes at
collapse (analysis n u m b e r 8; same material data as in analysis
n u m b e r 7, see Figure 77)
'[I IIII I
~,'~.'~1
II
II
Figure 22 Collapse mechanism as c o m p u t e d in analysis num-
ber 8 (see Figure21). The scale is meaningless
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the Italian Ministry of
University and Scientific and Technologic Research
(MURST). The third author acknowledges a scholarship
granted by the EULO organization, Brescia. The authors
are grateful to Professor A. Franchi of the University of
Brescia, for many helpful discussions on the topic.
References
1 De Felice, G. 'Analisi limite di strutture a blocchi modellate come
mezzi continui' (in Italian), Proc. VIII Convegno ltaliano di Mecca-
nica Computazionale, Torino, Italy, June 1994, pp. 31-36
Cronache edilizie e rilievi per il restauro (in Italian). Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Brescia, Italy, 1986
6 ALGOR Finite Element Analysis System, Processor Reference Man-
ual Ver. l l-02.RS and Modeling for Finite Element Analysis Manual,
ALGOR Interactive Systems, Inc., Pittsburgh, USA, 1993
7 Ronca, P. and Castiglioni, L. 'Lo strumento dell'analisi numerica
nelle fasi di diagnosi e di scelte progettuali per il consolidamento
conservativo di vecchie strutture (in Italian)', Proc. IV Convegno
Nazionale ASSI.R.C.CO., Prato, Italy, June 1992, pp. 591-601
8 Genna, F. and Di Pasqua, M. 'Numerical analysis of masonry struc-
tures: a comparison between 'no tension' and 'softening' constitutive
laws', Proc. VII Convegno ltaliano di Meccanica Computazionale,
Trieste, Italy, June 1993
9 Franchi, A. and Genna F. 'STRUPL-2 theoretical manual', Internal
Report, Dept Struct. Engng, Politecnico di Milano, 1984
10 Koiter, W. T. 'General theorems for elastic plastic solids', Progr.
'Jllllrll I I I 11
AppL Mech., 1967, 1, 167
Maier, G. 'Linear flow-laws of elastoplasticity: a unified general
approach', Acc. It. Lincei, Rend. Sc. Fis. Mat. Nat., 1969, VIII
XLVII(5), 266-276
12 Genna, F. 'An accurate numerical integration scheme for solving
~"411A ~\l /1\\ structural problems in the presence of a 'no tension' material', Corn-
put. Struct., 1994, 53(2), 253-273
13 Hillerborg, A., ModeEr M. and Petersson, P. E. 'Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mech-
anics and finite elements', Cement Concrete Res., 1976, 6, 773-782
14 Franchi, A. and Genna, F. 'A stable/neutral equilibrium path for the
numerical solution of elastic-plastic softening problems', Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng, 1991, 90, 921-942
15 Maier, G. 'A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplas-
ticity with interacting yield planes', Meccanica, 1970, 5, 54-66
16 Franchi, A. and Genna, F. 'A numerical scheme for integrating the
rate plasticity equations with an a priori error control', Comp. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Engng, 1987, 60, 317-342
17 Grierson, D. E., Franchi, A., De Donato, O. and Corradi, L. 'Math-
ematical programming and nonlinear finite element analysis', Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng, 1979, 17118, 497-518
18 Hodge, P. J. Jr 'Automatic piecewise linearization in ideal plasticity',
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng, 1977, 10, 249-272
19 Genna, F. 'Integration of plasticity equations for the case of Ziegler's
kinematic hardening', Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng, 1993, 109,
I 11-130
20 Genna, F. and Pandolfi, A. 'Accurate numerical integration of
Drucker-Prager's constitutive equations', Meccanica, 1994, 29,
239-260
21 Feriani, A., Franchi, A., Genna, F. and Riva, P. 'A parallel computing
element-by-element solution strategy for concrete fracture analysis',
Proc. EURO-C 1994, Innsbruck, Austria, 1994
22 Feriani, A., Franchi, A. and Genna, F. 'An element-by-element sol-
ution strategy for nonlinear structural problems in a parallel comput-
ing environment', Proc. VIII Convegno ltaliano di Meccanica Com-
putazionale, Torino, Italy, 1994
23 Andreaus, U. and Maroder, M. 'Stato dell'arte sui legami costitutivi
dei solidi murari (in Italian)', Studi e Ricerche 2/91, Dept. Struct.
Geotechn. Engng, University of Roma 'La Sapienza', 1991