Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic vulnerability of timber-reinforced earthen structures through T

standard and non–standard limit analysis
⁎
G. Misseria,b, C. Palazzic,d, L. Roveroa,
a
Department of Architecture, University of Florence, Piazza Brunelleschi, 6, Florence, Italy
b
Universiteti Katolik Zoja e Këshillit të Mirë, Rr. Dritan Hoxha, Tiranë, Albania
c
Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CIGIDEN), CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Chile
d
Pontificia Univesidad Catolica de Chile, Avda. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Earthen architecture represents one of the most widespread built heritage and shows many advantages from both
Earth the environmental and economic points of view. Disadvantages connected to low mechanical properties of
Abobe earthen structures are often overcome, in historical buildings, through the employment of timber elements,
Timber which can increase a box-type behaviour enabling both in-plane and out-of-plane mechanisms, facilitating
Earthquake
spread damage and avoiding disastrous collapses. In this study, overturning mechanisms that can activate during
Limit analysis
Friction
earthquakes are investigated employing the tools of limit analysis. Through the kinematic approach of limit
Tensile strength analysis, geometrical and mechanical parameters most influencing the response to horizontal actions are ana-
lysed assuming different material models for masonry, i.e. finite compressive or tensile strengths, and presence
of frictional strength. Within this framework, the presence of timber reinforcing elements is modelled providing
a reasonable analysis method and sound results. Aiming at validation, the church of San Judas Tadeo de Malloa
(Chile), built with traditional, earth-based, timber-reinforced masonries, is analysed interpreting the damage
pattern suffered after the 2010 Maule earthquake (Mw 8.8). The study adapts the robust procedures of limit
analysis to the peculiarities of earth-based structures, highlights the crucial role of timber elements in the re-
sponse to horizontal actions, especially in areas with high seismic hazard, and proves that the beneficial effect of
timber reinforcing systems can be adequately interpreted through the proposed procedure.

1. Introduction social and environmental issues. Earth-based building technologies re-

Raw earth as building technology shows great potentialities in all
possible variants, e.g. adobe, rammed earth, cob etc., because it pivots
on low-cost and non-polluting environmental resource, the soil, and
allows the construction of sustainable buildings, which naturally
guarantee a liveable environment also in harshly warm climates, [1–3].
The earth-based building culture is common in several architectural
traditions, indeed, at the end of the last century, about 30% of the
world population (50% of the developing-countries population) was
documented to live in buildings made of earth-based materials, [1].
History has given us earthen buildings of great architectural value,
some of which are also included in the UNESCO World Heritage sites
list. Thus, investigations of earth-based constructive techniques are
relevant since they concern not only preservation and enhancement of
architectural heritage sites of seductive beauty, [4–9], but also defini-
tion of appropriate mechanical models to be disseminated as well as
present in fact a valid alternative to solutions that demonstrated severe
drawbacks from the economic and environmental sustainability points
of view.
Although offering many advantages, significant limitations of
earthen materials are related to the effects induced by weathering and
earthquake actions due to the low mechanical properties, [10–14].
Concerning the resistance to compression forces, earth constructions
can guarantee adequate safety levels thanks to the use of high thickness
walls and therefore considerable masses. However, a combination of
remarkable inertial masses with around zero tensile strength makes
earth constructions very vulnerable to the actions produced by earth-
quakes, which inevitably induce bending and shear in the walls. The
result is that the orthogonal walls separate, beams of slabs slide from
original supports and collapse; as a result, walls overturn.
Among the damage modes that earth-based buildings undergo due
to earthquake actions, the out-of-plane (OOP) response is one of the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luisa.rovero@unifi.it (L. Rovero).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110663
Received 7 February 2020; Received in revised form 7 April 2020; Accepted 14 April 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Misseri, et al.
Nomenclature
α angle to the horizontal identifying triangular portions of
sidewalls in the compound overturning mechanism in
presence of reinforcements
β angle to the vertical identifying triangular portions of
sidewalls in the compound overturning mechanism
without reinforcement
γ specific weight of masonry
δ t1/t
ζ lR /H
η P1/W1
θ arctan (v/h) = staggering ratio of masonry
κ tR /b
λW1 load multiplier for the simple overturning mechanism
λP1 load multiplier for the simple overturning including added
concentrated force
λ σc load multiplier for simple overturning with simplified
treatment of limited compressive strength
λ i−μ load multiplier for the compound overturning mechanism
with cohesionless Coulomb’s failure criterion
λ i − σt load multiplier for the compound overturning mechanism
with Gallileo’s failure criterion
λt−μ load multiplier for the compound overturning mechanism
with cohesionless Coulomb’s failure criterion with the
presence of the reinforcement
λ t − σt load multiplier for the compound overturning mechanism
with Gallileo’s failure criterion with the presence of the
reinforcement
μ friction coefficient
ν σt /(Hγ )
ξ H/t
σt tensile strength of masonry
σc compressive strength of masonry
τ shear stress at wood joints
υ L/H
φ̇ virtual rotational velocity
χ p/(Hγ )
ω σc/(Hγ )
Fh,p horizontal force due to frictional restraining mechanism
most common because a low acceleration level is sufficient to trigger
them, especially when the quality of connections among walls is poor.
Effects of activated OOP mechanisms are observable as deep vertical
cracks at wall corners and out of plumbs.
The dynamic problem of an overturning wall is an open research
issue that involves complex computational procedures owing to the
changeable nature of masonry and the multifaceted treatment of the
impact problem. The procedures refined with the aim of representing
rocking masonry structures focus on the possibility of comparing si-
milar structures, such as arches and portals (lintel and abutments),
[15]; the inclusion of restraining systems, such as springs to represent
the interaction among orthogonal walls, [16], or geometrical and me-
chanical details of the impacting surface [17], as well as the condition
for mixed sliding-rocking motions, [18–20]. Complexity in modelling
the rocking motion, in addition to the marked vulnerability of masonry
buildings to earthquakes, fostered the development of simplified safety
assessment methods, which some national standard codes include for
rapid safety evaluations. In [21], a useful review of methods for the
evaluation of the OOP response of masonry is addressed.
Masonry walls can oppose to OOP overturning through the in-plane
capacity of orthogonal panels when efficient connections that are es-
sential to reduce the seismic vulnerability are available. To assess vul-
nerability of historical masonry structures against horizontal in-plane
2
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
caused by force P2
Fh,w2 horizontal force due to frictional restraining mechanism
caused by force W2
Ft resistive friction force produced at timber-to-masonry in-
terface
H height of the overturning wall
L length of the overturning wall
P1 equivalent concentrated force acting on top of the over-
turning wall
P2 equivalent resultant force of distributed load acting on the
triangular portion of side walls
P3 equivalent resultant force of distributed load acting on the
triangular portion of side walls in the reinforced config-
uration
W1 wall self-weight
W2 weight of the triangular portion of side walls in the com-
pound overturning mechanism
b thickness of sidewall
c depth of compression stress diagram at the wall base
h height of the masonry block
hR height of the timber reinforcement element
lc H/cosβ = length of the diagonal crack line for the com-
pound overturning mechanism with Gallileo’s failure cri-
terion in the unreinforced configuration
lR modular length of the timber reinforcement that results
from timber-to-timber joint failure
n number of block rows
p force per unit surface transmitted to sidewalls
t thickness of the overturning wall
t* distance between the withdrawn cylindrical hinge and the
action line of wall self-weight W1
t1 distance between the cylindrical hinge and the con-
centrated force P1
tR thickness of the timber reinforcement element
u̇⊥ virtual velocity in the direction orthogonal to the crack
line formed in the triangular portion of sidewalls
u̇ x x-direction virtual velocity forλ w1
u̇ y y-direction virtual velocity forλ w1
u̇ ∗y y-direction virtual velocity forλ σc
v overlapping length between two masonry blocks
and out-of-plane actions, it is widely acknowledged that the theory of
limit analysis, as developed by Heyman, [22], represents one of the
most reliable tools. One of the advantages of limit analysis is that me-
chanical characteristics of masonry, variable and difficult to be ob-
tained, are not indispensable. In the framework of the kinematic ap-
proach of limit analysis, modified formulations of the classical theory
enable to represent possibly the presence of frictional or tensile re-
straining mechanisms activated at crack interfaces, as well as
strengthening and retaining devices [23–26].
In earth-based masonry, timber elements are often employed to
implement devices that can provide effective connections among or-
thogonal walls. Traditional reinforcement systems based on the use of
timber are known as corner keys and ring-beams; the latter are often
named also bond-beams or collar beams. The idea underpinning this
technique is to fasten parts of a building overcoming the limited tensile
strength of the earth material and improving the box-like behaviour of
the building. Studies that efficaciously represent the seismic response of
earthen buildings when reinforced through timber elements are limited,
although the improvement to the structural safety provided by these
devices is well acknowledged, [27,28], especially concerning the effects
produced by earthquakes [29–32]. The use of timber elements is sur-
veyed among traditional earthen-building cultures all around the
world, [32–35], and is recommended by both national standards and
G. Misseri, et al.
self-building codes [36–38].
In [39,40], timber strengthening systems are deeply investigated
and catalogued. In [41], authors evaluate the contribution of timber
ring-beams through the finite-element modelling of a reference
building; different ring-beam layouts are assessed. In [42], it is de-
monstrated through finite element analyses that the presence of timber
ring-beams deeply changes the qualitative response of a Peruvian
Church. In [43], as part of a wider research program, the use of soft-
ware tools that simulate the non-linear mechanical behaviour of
earthen constructions reinforced with timber is encouraged to gain a
refined structural modelling of the dynamic response.
Nevertheless, policies supporting an earth-based built environment,
which shall pivot also on effectively strengthened traditional buildings,
can be hardly boosted if effective and simplified computational tools
are not delivered. Moreover, given the changeable nature of earth and
timber materials, assessment of their mechanical properties is a major,
all but simple, issue, which would require case-by-case investigation.
The mechanical models employed in this investigation are based on the
tools of limit analysis and are kept as simple as possible so that minimal
information is necessary to undertake a sound interpretation of the
response. To this aim, vulnerability against out of plane overturning
mechanisms is investigated through limit analysis highlighting pecu-
liarities of adobe buildings such as the relevance of frictional resistive
mechanisms, the role of limited compressive strength or slight tensile
strength and the presence of timber elements.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. After summarising the
role of timber elements in adobe buildings, Section 2, the analytical
investigation, which makes use of limit analysis, is reported in Section
3. Then, Section 4 addresses the case study of the church of San Judas
Tadeo in Malloa (Chile), which survived several strong earthquakes also
because of its adobe masonries that wisely accommodate timber ele-
ments. Conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2. Timber elements in the reinforcement of earthen structures
Traditional building cultures of several seismic prone areas, e.g.
Balkans, Near East, Maghreb, Central and Eastern Asia and South
America, have identified wood as appropriate to provide masonry
Fig. 1. (a) Representative earth-based masonry structure reinforced through ring-beams, also known as bond-beams and collar beams), and corner keys; (b) front
view of the reinforced wall; in dark grey, the in-plane overturning portion, and friction stress possibly activated in bond beams placed at intermediate level; (c) top
view of typical timber reinforcements and friction stress at timber-masonry interface possibly involved in the response; (d) simple timber-to-timber joint employed to
connect timber elements relying on shear stress.
3
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
construction with a tensile capacity necessary to counteract seismic
actions [27,32–35,40,44–47]. Timber elements inserted across wall
depth and along its length have been strengthening adobe buildings
during history [32,39,42]. Thus, this solution stood the test of time and
became tacitly acknowledged as compatible and efficient. Although
with the obvious variations linked to local building cultures, through-
masonry reinforcements provide a contrast against separation of walls,
deferring overturning by means of a chain-type action, [39,40,48,49].
A common reinforcing system consists of timber elements inserted
along top of the walls and at each slab level to form ring beams, or only
at corners to reinforce the connection between the walls, the corner
keys, as represented in Fig. 1a. These reinforcing systems are made of
longitudinal timber elements and transverse, littler elements con-
necting to the previous and constituting a sort of “ladder” placed hor-
izontally in the thickness of the wall, Fig. 1b, c. In addition to uniformly
distribute the vertical stress in the thickness of the masonry, the aim of
this technique is, in case of earthquake, to connect orthogonal walls
(preventing simple overturning), to counteract compound overturning
and enable propagation of minor and widespread fractures, [46]. Thus,
these devices are extremely beneficial to contrast both in-plane and out
of plane actions, contributing substantially to the “box-behaviour” of
the building.
The added capacity that timber elements provide to masonry de-
pends on their capacity to be connected to walls and each other.
Timber-to-masonry connections can be realised through anchors placed
across masonry. If anchors are missing or deteriorated, timber-to-ma-
sonry interfaces can rely on frictional restraining mechanisms, [48,49],
Fig. 1b, c. Also, experimental investigations showed the deep relevance
of timber-to-timber joints, based on woodcarving, and whose failure
due to shear actions, Fig. 1d, lowers the effectiveness of the reinforce-
ment system, [44,45].
3. Upper bounds to horizontal limit loads for un-reinforced earth
structures
Out of plane response of unreinforced masonry structures subjected
to horizontal loading, which is investigated in this section, denotes a
lack of “box-type” behaviour and, eventually, activation of local
G. Misseri, et al.
damage mechanisms. Limit analysis applied to masonry structures en-
ables to represent in-plane and out-of-plane local damage mechanisms
providing a robust mechanical interpretation. To model masonry, a
macro-element approach is employed here considering blocks as un-
damaged portions separated by crack lines. In this framework, a com-
patible mechanism, i.e. respectful of all the constraints and not indu-
cing interpenetration among blocks, is assumed for the system of
macroblocks and the limit equilibrium condition is imposed through the
virtual power equation. Loads induced by inertial masses, which cause
activation of a mechanism, are affected by a common multiplier whose
value is determined imposing the limit equilibrium condition.
Compatible kinematic mechanisms are identified by rotations around a
cylindrical hinge that forms without any plastic dissipation at the wall
base. In correspondence of all the other crack lines defining the mac-
roblock, different hypotheses on the behaviour of earth-based material
are assumed, and the following cases are addressed.
• Simple overturning: masonry is assumed as a rigid material with
infinite compressive strength and nil tensile strength; friction among
macro-blocks is sufficiently high to prevent sliding or twisting;
• Simple overturning with basic treatment of limited compressive
strength of masonry: this approach determines the inward move-
ment of the cylindrical hinge
• Compound overturning (wall and triangular portions of sidewalls,
see Fig. 4a) assuming Coulomb’s failure criterion: masonry is as-
sumed as a rigid material with infinite compressive strength, nil
tensile strength, and contact interfaces (of crack lines at side walls)
are governed by cohesionless Coulomb’s failure criterion (a non-
standard material is intended). In agreement with [20,50–52], and
considering crack lines as average inclinations of the discontinuous
lines determined by wall texture, friction forces are assumed to be
activated at contact interfaces of all bed joints. Radenkovick’s first
theorem ensures to find an upper bound of the real load multiplier
•
Compound overturning (wall and triangular portions of sidewalls,
see Fig. 4a) assuming a Galileo’s failure criterion: masonry is as-
sumed as a rigid material with infinite compressive strength and
limited tensile strength activated in sidewalls at crack lines whose
slope is independent from wall texture. A standard material is in-
tended, and the tensile resistive force contributes to the negative
Fig. 2. (a) Overturning of a wall of thicknesst and height H subjected to self-weight (W1) and inertial load (λ w1 W1); (b) overturning of a wall assuming limited
compressive strength, σc , which makes the plastic hinge moving inwardly of c/3; (c) overturning of a wall subject to self-weight (W1) and an additional concentrated
force (P1).
4
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
power of the system.
Limited compressive strength is not considered in the cases where
limited tensile strength is included to isolate the influence of tensile
capacity in the response. Standard materials are those that obey an
associated flow rule, i.e. a flow rule (associated with the failure cri-
terion) that requires normality between the plastic strain increment
vector and the yield surface. Non-standard materials are those for
which normality rule between plastic stain increment and yield surface
is not verified.
3.1. Simple overturning
The simple overturning of a wall can be analysed using the model
represented in Fig. 2a: self-weight, W1, and a horizontal force caused by
the acceleration of the wall mass, proportional to self-weight through
the load multiplier, λ w1, appear as the system of forces. For this con-
figuration, the value of the load multiplier has to do with geometrical
H
proportions only, i.e. slenderness ξ = t , where H and t are respectively
the height and the thickness of the wall:
H t
λ w1 W1·u̇x − W1·u̇ y = λ w1 W1φ̇ − W1φ̇ = 0
2 2 (1a)
where φ̇ is the assigned virtual rotational velocity, u̇x and u̇ y are the x-
(horizontal) and y- (vertical) virtual velocities. Hence,
t 1
λ w1 = =
H ξ (1b)
3.2. Simple overturning with basic treatment of limited compressive strength
Modified approaches to limit analysis can envisage that compressive
strength of masonry is limited and crushing phenomena in the vicinity
of the plastic hinge can occur. The limited compressive strength as-
sumption would be less relevant for stone or brick masonries but could
be worth considering for earth-based masonries. Limited compressive
strength can be considered in a simplified manner assuming a linear
distribution of compressive stress at the wall base. The maximum value
of stress at the overturning edge is the value of compressive strength, σc ,
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

see Fig. 2b, as, for example, suggested by Italian standards, [53,54].
Then, the resultant of reacting forces and the position of the plastic
hinge moves towards the mouth of crack, and the y-direction virtual
velocity of self-weights become:
t c
u̇ y∗ = φ̇ ·t ∗ = φ̇ ·⎛ − ⎞
⎝2 3⎠ (2)
where, c = 2W1/(σc L) , σc is the compressive strength of masonry, and L
is the length of the overturning wall. Setting the non-dimensional
coefficient ω = σc /(Hγ ) , where γ is the specific weight of masonry, the
related expression of the load multiplier can be written as:
1 4
λ σc = ⎛1 − ⎞
ξ⎝ 3ω ⎠ (3)
As an alternative, a constant distribution of stress can be assumed to
consider limited compressive strength of masonry. This results in an
easier computation in case of non-rectangular cross sections, as pro-
posed in [42]. Plots of Fig. 3a show the change in the load multiplier of
a wall subjected to simple overturning, λW1 series in solid line, or as-
suming limited compressive strength through the simplified metho-
dology reported before, series indicated by λ σc , for different values of ω .
Little values of ω can be associated with greater compression levels at

Fig. 3. Load multiplier curves plotted over coefficient ξ for the simple overturning, influence of compressive strength and additional forces; curves of the load
multiplier λW1 and (a) assuming a limited compressive strength, λ σc ; (b) for a fixed value of coefficients δ and ω , curves of load multiplier λP1 for different values of
coefficient η ; (c) for a fixed value of coefficient η and ω , curves of load multiplier λP1 for different values of coefficient.δ

5
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

the foot of the wall (e.g. higher walls, multiple storeys). Load multiplier
λ σc becomes closer to the value of slenderness, i.e. λW1, when the value
of ω = σc /(Hγ ) increases, which implies that masonry shows high
compressive strengths and approaches the ideal behaviour. For a given
masonry wall, i.e. fixed H , γ and ξ = H / t , the increase in the load
multiplier due to the role of compressive strength (hinge withdraw) can
be read as the vertical distance between the curves of Fig. 3a.
In addition to self-weights, real walls are subjected to additional
forces, for example due to further dead loads. For an added con-
centrated force, P1, applied on top of the wall prone to overturn, Fig. 2c,
the load multiplier can be expressed through the following expression:
1 4
λP1 = ⎛1 − + 2δη⎞
ξ (1 + 2η) ⎝ 3ω ⎠ (4b)
Fig. 3b shows that for masonries with low compressive strength
(ω = 12) and good slab positioning (δ = 0.75), load multiplier curves
are nearly indifferent to loading conditions; even strong overloading
conditions (η = 0.4) does not change the response significantly.
However, overloading in earth construction are generally very low if
compared to self-weights, and in this case (ω = 12, η = 0.05), good
slab positioning (δ) become less relevant, as shown in Fig. 3c.
3.3. Compound overturning with cohesionless Coulomb’s failure criterion

λP1 =
P1t1 + W1 ( t
2
−
c
3 )
H If good connections at wall corners are present, portions of sidewalls
P1H + W1 2 (4a)
can keep attached to the overturning wall. In this case, an in-plane
response is activated in sidewalls, and the mechanical model of ma-
Then, setting the following non dimensional coefficients η = P1/W1;
sonry determines the failure condition at the crack lines.
δ = t1/ t , where t1 represents the distance between the concentrated force
Often crack lines pass through joints, rather than blocks, and show a
and the hinge, Fig. 2c. Expression (4a) can be expressed through the
stair-shaped outline. Thus, slope to the vertical of cracks in sidewalls
following:
can be related to the staggering ratio of masonry through an angle,

Fig. 4. (a) Overturning mechanism of a wall with good quality of interlocking with the orthogonal ones; possible restraining mechanisms: cohesionless Coulomb’s
failure criterion with frictional capacity expressed at all bed joints identifying the crack and (c) Galileo’s failure criterion.

6
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

θ = arctan(v/h) , where v is overlapping length between two blocks, and Fh,p = pbn vμ (6)
h, height of block, detail A of Fig. 4a. The same figure shows a com-
where p is a force per unit surface. Within a macro-block approach, as
pound overturning mechanism where crack lines defining portions of
that adopted here, Eqs. (5) and (6) can be expressed equivalently as:
side walls are identified by angle β and the staggering ratio of masonry
is identified through angle θ . H(Htanθ + t)
Fh,w2 = γ bμ
Experimental investigations reported in [55] show that pure over- 2 (7)
turning mechanisms (without sliding) occur when crack slopes β in
Fh,p = pHtanθ bμ (8)
walls orthogonal to that which is overturning approache the staggering
angle, θ . Direct observation and dedicated investigations [19,46,55] where it is assumed that the overlapping length v = t , thickness of the
show also that when instead crack slopes β are close to the vertical, overturning wall, for the sake of simplicity; if v ≠ t , the overlapping
gross relative displacements at crack edges are horizontal and relative length, v , which could anyway be related to the thickness by means of
displacements in the vertical direction are negligible. Thus, sliding, an added non-dimensional coefficient, should appear in Eq. (7) in place
rather than overturning, is the governing failure mechanism that can be of the thickness t . Since Fh,w2 increases linearly with the height of the
associated to cohesionless friction at interfaces. Hence, the closer to the wall, it is applied at one third of the height, while Fh, p , constant in-
staggering-ratio angle, θ , is the crack slope β , the less relevant will be dependently form the weight of the wall, Fig. 4b, is applied at mid-
the frictional restraining mechanism. height, [19].
For earth-based structures, sliding phenomena can occur since the The added system of forces due to frictional mechanisms induces a
interface quality among blocks, i.e. bed joints, can be deteriorated, as stabilising power to the system. Referring to Fig. 4a and b the expres-
showed by experimental campaigns and numerical analyses, sion for the load multiplier, assuming symmetric geometry and load
[14,56–60]; so, the assumption of unbounded friction can be ques- distribution, is:
tionable.
To represent the interface behaviour characterised by cohesionless
λ i−μ =
t
(
W1 4 + W2 t +
H tan β
3 ) + P (t +
2
H tan β
2 )+F H
h,w2 3
H
+ Fh,p 2
friction, masonry can be modelled as a non-standard material for which H 2
W1 4 + 3 W2H + P2 H (9a)
the vector representing the plastic flow is not orthogonal to the failure
domain since the dilatancy angle is zero, [52]. Application of limit where W1 = HLtγ , W2 = (bγ H2tanβ )/2 ,
P2 = (pLHtanβ )/2 and p is the
analysis to non-standard materials is still possible although unicity of surface load; for simplicity, it is assumed that t = b , i.e. that orthogonal
the solution is lost. Indeed, Radenkovick’s first theorem extends the walls show the same thickness, which is plausible; the following non-
application of limit analysis to non-standard materials ensuring that the dimensional coefficients are set ξ = H/t , υ = L/H, χ = p/(Hγ ) , then:
load multiplier found will be always smaller than that associated to the
correspondent standard material obeying to the same failure criterion, λ i−μ
[61,62]. 3υ + 2μ (1 + ξ tanθ (1 + 3χ )) + tanβ (6 + 6υχξ + ξ (2 + 3υχξ )tanβ )
=
In this framework, contribution of friction can be modelled as an ξ (3υ + (4 + 6υχξ )tanβ )
added system of forces (not affected by the load multiplier) acting in the (9b)
direction opposed to that of the earthquake action, and proportional to
From Eq. (9a) it is seen that the power of horizontal loads is de-
self-weights and overburden loads through the friction coefficient. The
creased by Fh,w2 and Fh,p , which are evaluated assuming that in all the
horizontal force offered by friction and due to self-weight depends on
bed-joint interfaces frictional forces are activated. Activation of all
the compression level found at each block interface:
frictional interfaces is not generally true in real mechanisms, so the load
n multiplier λ i − μ provides an upper-bound to the real mechanism, i.e.
n(n + 1)
Fh,w = ∑ iVγμ = 2
Vγμ same β , in which friction contribution is not activated at all, or only at
i=1 (5) some interfaces, as thoroughly discussed by Casapulla and co-authors in
[50–52,55].
where n is the number of block rows, V = bhv is the volume of masonry Fig. 5 shows the λ i − μ load multiplier curves plotted over crack slope
over each interface, with b , thickness of the considered wall, see Fig. 4a, β for different values of the friction coefficient and for values of the
γ is the specific weight of masonry and μ is the friction coefficient, [19]. non-dimensional coefficients typical of standard masonry: medium
The contribution offered by friction due to overburden loads is constant compression levels at wall base, χ = 0.4 ; slenderness of walls near to
along wall height and depends on the total number of interfaces: the threshold recommended by Eurocodes 6 and 8, ξ = 10 ; and

Fig. 5. Load multiplier curves for the un-reinforced configuration plotted over angle β . The simple overturning of the façade, λ w1, is compared to the compound
overturning assuming for the masonry material of side-walls a cohesionless Coulomb’s friction failure criterion, λ i − μ series; or a Galileo’s failure criterion, λ i − σt series,
for different values of the tensile strength or friction coefficient assuming the following non dimensional coefficients: ξ = 10 , υ = 2 , χ = 0.4 , tanθ = 0.7 , ν = σt 0.0166 .
Superposed to the plots of the load multiplier curves, the minimum value assumed by each curve of the series λ i − μ , and λ i − σt is reported with, respectively, circle and
square markers.

7
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

Fig. 6. Overturning mechanism of a wall assuming the presence of timber reinforcements: (a) simple overturning, sliding at timber-masonry interface; compound
overturning assuming (b) cohesionless Coulomb’s failure criterion with frictional capacity expressed at all bed joints identifying the crack and (c) Galileo’s failure
criterion.

8
G. Misseri, et al.
moderate superposition length of blocks, tanθ = 0.7 . Together with the
plots of the load multipliers, the minimum value taken by the each of
the curve is indicated with circle markers to highlight the mechanism
layout most likely to form. For increasing values of the friction coeffi-
cient, the minimum values showed by the curves are reached for in-
creasing values of the angle β . The minimum value of the curve λi − μ
assuming zero friction coefficient, solid curve in Fig. 5, is reached for a
null values of the angle β and clearly coincides with the value of λ w1.
To each minimum value, λi − μ , of the dashed-line curves (indicated
by the circle markers of upper series), the range of admissible solutions
can be read as the distance to the solid-line curve. Indeed, points of the
solid-line curve vertically aligned with each marker represent me-
chanisms with the same geometry (angle β ) and for which by Fh,w2 and
Fh,p are zero. The minima of the dashed curves are found for crack
slopes near to the vertical, similarly to outcomes reported in [19].
Minimum values obtained for the load multiplier λi − μ are below or far
below the friction coefficient considered. The value of friction coeffi-
cient indeed coincides with the value of the load multiplier for a pure
sliding mechanism of the wall assuming activation of frictional resistive
mechanisms at all bed-joint interfaces. Thus, overturning mechanisms
are more prone to occur.
3.4. Compound overturning with Galileo’s failure criterion (limited tensile
strength)
Provided good connections among orthogonal walls, so that com-
pound overturning mechanisms can occur, the mechanical model em-
ployed in this section includes limited tensile strength of masonry. In
earth-based masonries, blocks and joints are made of substantially the
same material (earth employed for mortar is sieved finely), enabling, if
periodical maintenance is ensured, good cohesion properties. For this
reason, block units are more prone to crack in earth-based masonry
than in stone and brick masonry. In order to evaluate tensile restraining
actions, a Galileo failure criterion, ∞ ≤ σ ≤ σt , is adopted here, given its
simplicity, and an associated plastic flow is intended for the material.
Then, it is assumed that a compatible velocity field, exists. Due to
tensile failure, on walls orthogonal to that which is overturning, a crack
line, identified by points A and B in Fig. 4c with unknown inclination β
to the vertical and length l c = Hsecβ , will form. In the direction or-
thogonal to the crack, a discontinuity in the displacement velocity will
be recorded between the overturning and the fixed part. For a virtual
velocity φ̇ assigned to the hinge, velocity in the direction orthogonal to
the crack will be u̇⊥ = φ̇ (x + tsinβ ) , Fig. 4c. Then, a constant tensile
stress distribution, σt , with equivalent force resultant Fσt = σt tHsecβ
placed in the middle of the crack line l c is assumed to be in equilibrium
with the applied loads. Due to the virtual velocity field u̇⊥ , the
equivalent tensile restraining force Fσt contributes to the negative
power, i.e. caused by stabilizing forces, and from the balance of virtual
power follows the expression for the load multiplier, assuming sym-
metric geometry and load distribution:
λ i − σt =
t
W1 4 + W2 (
H tan β
3
+ )
t + P2 (
H tan β
2 )
+t + Fσt(H sec β
2
+ t sin β
H 2
W1 4 + W2 3 H + P2 H
where ((Hsecβ )/2 + tsinβ ) represents the virtual velocity u̇⊥ in lc /2 for a
given virtual velocity φ̇. Then, setting the following non-dimensional
coefficients: ξ = H/t , ν = σt /(Hγ ) , υ = L/H, χ = p/(Hγ ) , the load
multiplier can be expressed:
3(2νξ + υ) + 6(1 + 2ν + ξυχ )tanβ + ξ (2 + 6ν + 3ξυχ )tan2 β
λ i − σt =
ξ (3υ + (4 + 6υχξ )tanβ )
(10b)
Fig. 5 shows variations of the load multiplier λ i − σt in terms of the
crack inclination β for values of the employed non-dimensional coef-
ficients typical of standard masonry (see comments at the end of Section
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
3.3). The set of curves enables the comparison between the added
contribution offered by friction or tensile strength with respect to the
response of a rigid material with no tensile strength and no friction
resistance. Together with the plots of the load multiplier functions in
terms of the crack angle β , the minimum value taken by the each of the
curve, square markers, is superposed also for the non-zero tensile
strength material. The comparison highlights the remarkable increase
of the minima estimation when even a small tensile strength, consistent
with the experimented values reported in [14], is assumed for the given
set of non-dimensional coefficients.
4. Upper bounds to horizontal limit loads of earth structures
reinforced with timber
Failure modes and related response models in case of timber-re-
inforced earthen masonry structures are analysed in this section. As
previously introduced, effectiveness of timber elements in the re-
inforcement of earthen structures relies on the proper functioning of the
connections among elements, i.e. timber-to-timber and timber-to-ma-
sonry. Timber-to-timber joints constitute often the weakest connection
level, [44,45]. In fact, the joint capacity relies on the shear strength in
the direction parallel to the fibre of the wood on a reduced surface of
the longitudinal timber element, see Fig. 1. As per surveyed by the
authors during field activities, [46], failure of timber-to-timber joints
induces a discontinuity in the reinforcement and can ease response
mechanisms into masonry walls. The sub-portion of the longitudinal
timber element that separates due to timber-to-timber joint failure is
thus considered as the modular length of the reinforcement, lR, inter-
acting with masonry. Assuming that timber-to-timber joint failure has
occurred, failure mechanisms are considered accordingly in view of
reasonable conservation states of the structure and the reinforcement
system. In particular, the following types of mechanism are in-
vestigated.
• Simple overturning with sliding of longitudinal timber elements
hindered by timber-to-masonry frictional interfaces, i.e. no proper
anchoring of the reinforcement.
• Compound overturning with cohesionless Coulomb’s and Galileo’s
failure criteria for sidewall masonries; timber-to-masonry connec-
tions are considered effective and the outline of side walls triangular
portions are constrained by the modular length of the reinforce-
ment.
It is noted that the presence of one reinforcement device, composed
of two longitudinal elements and placed on top of each side-wall, is
consdiered. It is possible to evaluate the presence of more reinforce-
ment devices also composed of more than two elements very directly
with any relevant changes in the framework of the model.
4.1. Simple overturning with sliding of timber elements
) Simple overturning mechanism, modified owing to the presence of
timber reinforcement elements, is firstly analysed assuming a poor-
conservation scenario, that is, timber-to-masonry connections (anchors)
(10a)
are missing or ineffective, and good interlocking at wall corners cannot
be ensured. In other words, simple overturning occurs since the long-
itudinal, modular length timber elements slide from their original po-
sition. In this case, it can be assumed that overturning is hindered by
resistive friction forces, Ft , produced at wood-masonry interfaces of
each sidewall, Fig. 6a. The resistive friction force at timber-masonry
interfaces depends on the dimensions of the restraining device:
Ft = 2μ ptR lR (11)
where tR is the thickness of the longitudinal timber element, lR is the
modular length of the reinforcement and p is the added surface load,
Fig. 6a.
9
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

On top of sidewalls, an added concentrated force P3 = plR L/2 related

to surface dead loads, i.e. p, and modular length of the timber elements,
t
W1 4 + W2 ( lR
3 )
+ t + P3 ( lR
2 ) (
+ t + Fh,w2 H − 3 lRtanα + Fh,p
2
)
see Fig. 6a, is also assumed. Then, assuming symmetric geometry and
λt − μ =
(H − lRtanα
2 )
load distribution, the load multiplier can be expressed through the
following:
H
W1 4 + W2 H − ( lRtanα
3 )+PH 3

(13a)

λt =
t
W1 4 + P3
lR
2(+t + ) Ft H
where for simplicity it is assumed that t = b , W2 = γ and Fh,w2 blR2 tanα/2 ,
H
W1 4 + P3H (12a) and Fh,p are expressed by Eqs. (7) and (8); then, setting ξ = H/t ,
υ = L/H, χ = p/(Hγ ) the load multiplier can be expressed as:
Then, setting the following non-dimensional coefficients, ξ = H/t ,
υ = L/H, χ = p/(bγ ) and κ = tR /b , the load multiplier can be expressed 3(υ + ζξ (2 + ζξ ) υχ + 2μ (1 + tanθξ + 2tanθξχ )) + 2ζ
as: (3ζ + 3ζ 2ξ − μ (2 + tanθξ (2 + 3χ )))tanα
λt − μ =
υ
ξ (3υ (1 + 2ζξχ ) − 2ζ 2 (tanα − 3)tanα ) (13b)
ξ
+ ζ (8κμ + (2 + ζξ ) υ) χ
λt =
υ + 2ζξυχ (12b) Next, the non-zero tensile strength is considered to evaluate the
resistive forces opposing to the collapse mechanism in correspondence
of crack-lines at sidewalls, see Fig. 6c. For a given virtual velocity φ̇ at
the hinge, the velocity in the direction orthogonal to the crack is
4.2. Compound overturning with cohesionless Coulomb and Galileo failure u̇1 ⊥ = φ̇ (x1 + t cosα) and u̇2 ⊥ = φ̇ x2 , see Fig. 6c. The constant tensile
criteria stress distribution provides equivalent force resultants equal to
F1 σtR = σt t (H − lR tan α) and F2 σtR = σt t (lR sec α) , placed in the middle
If the anchoring system of ring beams or corner keys is effective, a of the crack length portions, see Fig. 6c, and subjected, in those posi-
compound overturning mechanism is activated. In this case, it is as- tions, to velocities respectively equal to
sumed that the fracture originates at the end of the modular length of u̇1 ⊥ = φ̇ ( lR sec α 2 + t cosα) and u̇2 ⊥ = φ̇ 2(
H − lR tan α
)
. Then, similarly to Eq.
the timber element, lR , see Fig. 6b and the slope to the horizontal that (10a), from the balance of virtual power and assuming symmetric
the fracture forms can be identified through the angle α , see Fig. 6. geometry and load distribution, the load multiplier assumes the fol-
Accounting for friction resistive mechanisms and assuming symmetric lowing form:
geometry and load distribution, the multiplier expressed by Eq. (9b) for
the unreinforced configuration becomes:

Fig. 7. Load multiplier curves for the timber reinforced configuration. The simple overturning of the façade, λ w1, is compared to the simple overturning hindered by
frictional forces at the timber-masonry interface, λt series; the compound overturning assuming, for the masonry material of side-walls, a cohesionless Coulomb’s
friction failure criterion, λt − μ series; or a Galileo’s failure criterion, λt − σt series, for different values of the tensile strength or friction coefficient assuming the following
non dimensional coefficients ξ = 10 , υ = 2 , χ = 0.4 , tanθ = 0.7 , ν = σt 0.0166 and κ = 0.1 and (a) α = 0.9 plotted over ζ ; (b) ζ = 0.5 plotted over α . Superposed to the
plots of the load multiplier curves, the minimum value assumed by each curve of the series λt − μ , and λt − σt is reported with, respectively, circle and square markers.

10
G. Misseri, et al.
t
W1 4 + W2 ( lR
3 )
+ t + P2
lR + t
2
+ F1 σtR ( lR sec α
2 )
+ t cosα
H − lR tanα ⎞
+ F2 σtR ⎛
⎝ 2 ⎠ adobe masonries of the church. The damage pattern due to the 2010
λ t − σt = H 2
W1 4 + W2 3 H + P2 H
Then, setting ν = σt /(H γ ) , ξ = H/t and υ = L/H, ζ = lR /H, the load
multiplier can be expressed as:
(3(4ζν + 2νξ + υ + ζξ (2 + ζξ ) υχ ) + 6ζ 2νξ Sec[α ]2
+ 2ζ Tan[α ](3ζ + ζ 2ξ − 6νξ + 3ζνξ Tan[α ]))
λt−σ t =
(ξ (3υ + 6ζξχ + 6ζ 2 Tan[α ] − 2ζ 3Tan[α ]3 ))
Fig. 7 represents load multiplier curves expressed by Eqs. (12), (13)
and (14) compared to the value of λ w1, for values of non-dimensional
coefficients typical of masonry (see comments at the end of Section
3.3). Minimum values taken by each curve are highlighted through
markers. The horizontal axis of Fig. 7a, ζ , identifies the modular length
of the timber element related to the wall height. It is noted that for fixed
wall height, increasing length of the timber element provides a rapid
increase in the load multiplier, independently from the approach
adopted to model its influence. It is worth underlining also the nearly
negligible influence of the friction coefficient for the λt series (i.e.
sliding of the reinforcement): dashed lines are nearly superposed; the
strong influence of tensile strength on the λt − σt series is observable.
Fixing a value for the timber element length, Fig. 7b, minimization
provides, in the case of non-zero tensile strength, substantially the same
mechanism layout, i.e. square markers are vertically aligned. For the
mechanisms minimised assuming the presence of frictional restraining
forces, the load multiplier assumes substantially stable values in-
dependently from the width of α angle, i.e. portions of side walls in-
volved, and friction coefficient; hence, the parameter mainly influen-
cing the value of the load multiplier is the timber reinforcement length.
Minimum values obtained for the load multiplier λt − μ (circle mar-
kers Fig. 7) are, especially for low values of the friction coefficient,
higher or much higher than the value of the friction coefficient con-
sidered. Thus, sliding mechanisms could provide lower load multipliers.
5. The case study of San Judas Tadeo de Malloa
In this section, the church of San Judas Tadeo de Malloa in Chile is
Fig. 8. Malloa church: (a) lateral elevation and plan, (b) wooden gable without plaster, and (c) roofing system.
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
depicted, and its seismic vulnerability is investigated. The aim is to
provide a reasonable assessment of the beneficial contribution in facing
strong earthquakes of the original timber elements that reinforce the
(14a) Maule earthquake (Mw 8.8) shows clearly the interaction that occurred
between masonry and timber elements recognizable as, for example,
coupled displacements along the cracks.
Also, the thickness-to-height ratio of the wall of the façade, which
coincides with λW1 = t / H = 0.196 and indicates a minimum seismic
vulnerability threshold since it represents the fraction of self-weight –
in the horizontal direction – sufficient to overturn the wall, is much
(14b) lower than the expected horizontal acceleration at ground. Depending
on the soil type and structure factor chosen, [53,63], ineed, the ex-
pected fraction of gravity acceleration in the horizontal direction for
this site and building type can be evaluated between 0.36 and 0.5.
Thus, the survived façade wall could not sustain horizontal acceleration
levels recorded without relying on further stabilising effects beyond
mass distribution. The presence of timber elements within masonries
shall be considered in this regard.
5.1. Construction phases and materials
San Judas Tadeo is the church of the community of Malloa, which is
a rural village of 12,000 inhabitants located in the Cachapoal Province,
Bernardo O'Higgins region (VI), 113 km south of Santiago. The first
building was erected in 1635 and was completely destroyed by the
1647 Santiago earthquake (estimated Mw8.5) [64], a new building was
erected in 1662. The current building was founded in 1845, and from
2011 it is in the list of the Chilean built heritage [65], as it is re-
presentative of the Colonial style of the Chilean central valley [46]. The
single-nave plan, oriented north-east south-west, is 45.1 m long, in-
cluding presbytery and choir, and 9.9 m wide with a maximum roof
height of 9.92 m, (Fig. 8). A sacristy adjacent to the west wall, and two
additional service areas, located respectively on the north and east
walls, constitute additional units, built after 1845 in successive phases.
5.2. Timber reinforcing systems
The four-whythe, English bond adobe masonry of the nave is re-
inforced by three courses of ring beams placed at different heights, and
11
G. Misseri, et al.
by corner keys, placed at wall-to-wall intersections, Fig. 9. Lower ring
beams are placed at 1.8 m and 2.7 m from ground level, the highest is at
trusses support level. The corner keys of the façade are placed in the
middle of the space left between the two highest ring-beams. Both the
ring-beams and the corner keys are shaped like a ladder and consist of
longitudinal elements with an average cross-section of 0.15 × 0.15 m
and transversal elements placed every 0.8 m with cross-section ap-
proximately 0.05 × 0.1 m.
5.3. Out-of-plane response of the church façade
The damage scenario considered in the current investigation is the
out of plane overturning of the main façade. The mechanism activated,
as denoted by the formation of deep cracks, but no collapse was re-
corded. Through-depth diagonal cracks are visible on walls orthogonal
to the façade, while cracks revealing separation at wall intersection
were not surveyed; thus, the facade kept connected to portions of
sidewalls, Fig. 10. Also, in correspondence to the end of the brick
basement wall, a tiny horizontal crack from the inside of the façade was
surveyed; and this can plausibly witness the position of the cylindrical
horizontal hinge. This crack pattern suggests the activation of a me-
chanism that involved the façade and triangular portions of the long-
itudinal walls. In general, the shape of the macro-element involved in
the compound overturning, in the case of masonry with timber re-
inforcement, depends on several factors, such as: quality and typology
of masonry, presence of opening, effectiveness of the upper ring-beam,
presence of corner keys. For the façade of the church of Malloa, thor-
ough site investigations revealed that the shape of triangular portions of
sidewalls (orthogonal) involved in the compound overturning de-
pended on the upper ring-beam that produced an effective reinforce-
ment for a length equal to the modular length of the longitudinal timber
element, since proper timber-to-masonry anchoring devices were pro-
vided. Reasonably, the mechanism triggered because the end-to-end
connections of the longitudinal elements of the upper ring-beam failed
for sliding, shear or simply weak uplift, Fig. 11, and the wood joints
failure eased crack initiation. Inclination to the horizontal of the crack
defining the triangular portions on side walls surveyed on site is equal
to α = 0.518 rad≅30°.
Fig. 12 shows the load multiplier curves for the Malloa church with
the related minimum values highlighted by markers for the expressions
provided in Eqs. (9), (10), (13) and (14). Considering the masonry of
the Malloa church as unreinforced, Fig. 12a, estimations offered in-
cluding friction and tensile strength move closer owing to the pecu-
liarity of the masonry walls, which are stocky (υ = 1.5378, ξ = 5.1) with
deeply interlocked blocks (tanθ = 2.33) and bear substantially self-
weights only ( χ = 0.01). Fig. 12a shows also that load multiplier curves
take minimum values for crack slopes β close to the vertical and far
from the staggering ratio angle (θ = 1.165 rad≅66.77°), to which angle
β can be directly compared to.
Fig. 9. (a) Corner keys between rear and sidewalls of Malloa church, Chile; (b) scheme of corner keys; (c) bond beams running along the façade; (d) scheme of bond
beams.
12
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
If the contribution of the reinforcement is considered and the actual
characteristics (ζ = 0.81 and κ = 0.1) of the timber elements are in-
cluded, Fig. 12b, the minimum can be searched with respect to the
crack inclination to the horizontal, i.e. angle α of Fig. 6b, c. The
minimum values related to the contribution of friction, circle markers
on the dashed series of Fig. 12b, provide more unsafe estimations
compared to the minimum values obtained assuming the contribution
of the tensile strengths. Raising of the curves including friction con-
tribution is connected to the high stockiness and staggering ratio
(ξ = 5.1, tanθ = 2.33) and low compression levels due to dead loads
( χ = 0.01) of the Malloa masonry compared to the reference masonry
assumed in Sections 3 and 4, (ξ = 10; χ = 0.4; tanθ = 0.7). Inclination
of crack slopes to the horizontal characterising mechanism layouts and
identified through angles α (values in brackets of column λt − μ in
Table 1 and abscissa of circle markers in Fig. 12b) are basically coin-
cident or very close to the staggering ratio angle, θ . Indeed, the com-
plementary angles of α provide inclination of the crack to the vertical,
which can be compared to the staggering angle of the Malloa church
masonry, θ = 1.165 rad≅67.77°. For μ = 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4, the com-
plementary angles of α obtained minimizing Eq. (13) are respectively
1.176 rad≅67°, 0.833 rad≅48° and 0.670 rad≅38°. Although offering
reasonable mechanism layout (i.e. compared to that surveyed), values
of the complementary angles of α are close to the staggering angle, thus
the effect of friction could be less relevant, and, values of the load
multiplier offer a non-conservative estimation of the vulnerability.
The mechanism layouts predicted including the contribution of
tensile strength, dotted series and square markers in Fig. 12b, are also
very close to the staggering ratio angle; for σt = 0.01, 0.02 and
0.04 MPa, the complementary angles of α are respectively
1.149 rad≅66°, 1.026 rad≅59° and 0.7979 rad≅46°. In this last case,
however, the predicted mechanism layouts are reasonable, and values
of the load multipliers are coherent with the expected acceleration
range. It is worth mentioning that values of tensile strength assumed
should be regarded as a plausible estimation of the material cohesion
and can be considered reasonable for an historical adobe masonry.
6. Concluding remarks
The investigation on vulnerability against out of plane mechanisms
in earth buildings made it possible to draw some conclusions.
Limit analysis is proved to be able to well represent the behaviour of
earth-based buildings, either timber-reinforced or unreinforced, when
hit by earthquakes. In particular, the effect of friction at masonry-to-
masonry and timber-to-masonry interfaces is represented assuming a
non-associated flow for the material. Also, limited tensile strength is
included to define the contribution to the negative power of the system
within a standard material framework. A simplified approach is con-
sidered also for the case of limited compressive strength.
The novelty of the current investigation is that the role of timer
G. Misseri, et al. Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663

Fig. 10. Out of plane overturning of the façade: (a), (b) vertical cracks denoting detachment from bell tower and lateral chapel, and (c) internal and external diagonal
cracks denoting in-plane response of sidewalls.

Fig. 11. Timber-to-timber joints: (a) hooked scarf, (b) halved; and (c) failure of a hooked scarf joint in the Malloa church.

Fig. 12. Load multipliers for the Malloa church assuming the following non-dimensional coefficients: = 1.5378, ξ = 5.1, χ = 0.01, ν = σt 0.009, tanθ = 2.33, γ = 15; (a)
considering an UR reinforced configuration and (b) including the parameters of the timber reinforcement.

13
G. Misseri, et al.
Table 1
Load multipliers for the compound overturning of the façade of the Malloa
church, assuming: hinge placed at ground level, H = 7.4 m, L = 11.38 m,
t = 1.45 m, and timber reinforcement elements of dimensions tR = 0.15 m,
hR = 0.15 m and lR = 6 m. Values in parenthesis represent the angle β or α to
which is associated the minimum value of the load multiplier.
UR structure Structure reinforced with Relevant mechanical
timber parameter
Simple overturning λW1 = 0.196
Compound overt. with Coulomb’s failure crit.
λ i − μ (β ) λt − μ (α ) μ
→ 0.196 (→0) → 0.196 (→0) 0 [4] Boostani A, Fratini F, Misseri G, Rovero L, Tonietti U. A masterpiece of early Islamic
0.4127 (0.1273) 0.8089 (0.3934) 0.2
0.5087 (0.2204) 0.9494 (0.7373) 0.3
0.5980 (0.3036) 1.0325 (0.9006) 0.4
Compound overt. with Galileo’s failure crit.
λ i − σt ( β ) λ t − σt (α ) σt
0.3131 (0.001) 0.4213 (0.3586) 0.01
0.4294 (0.033) 0.5448 (0.4988) 0.02
0.6564 (0.0909) 0.7728 (0.5749) 0.04
elements, which were employed for generations all around the world
and are crucial for the response of earthen structures during earth-
quakes, is modelled considering the influence on mechanism layout and
load multiplier. Sensitivity analysis of each load-multiplier case is
carried out to highlight the most influencing parameters.
For reference unreinforced masonries, taking into account the con-
tribution of friction provides mechanism layouts for compound over-
turning in which the portions of sidewalls involved are limited. Taking
into account the limited tensile strength provides wider portions of
sidewall involved in the mechanism and much higher load multipliers.
As concerns modelling of timber reinforcements, the effect of the
failure of timber-to-timber joints was shown to be one of the causes that
eased of activation of local mechanisms in the façade and sidewalls of
the case study, the Malloa church. Based on these observations, failure
of timber-to-timber joints was taken as a precondition to introduce
further deepening of the investigation, isolating the parameter modular
length of the reinforcement system.
It was shown that when proper anchoring of the reinforcement is
not provided, frictional forces exerted at the timber-masonry interface
can still be beneficial, although with limited advantages. The increase
in the capacity against out-of-plane overturning of timber-reinforced
walls was expressed relating geometry of timber elements with respect
to masonry characteristics (geometrical and mechanical). Geometrical
characteristics of timber reinforcement was shown to be crucial in the
modelling the response. In particular, the modular length of the timber
reinforcement system is one of the most relevant factors in providing a
rapid decrease of the vulnerability against overturning.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
G. Misseri: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. C. Palazzi:
Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. L. Rovero: Supervision, Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
14
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110663.
References
[1] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction: a comprehensive guide. London: ITDG
Publishing; 1994.
[2] Minke G. Building with earth. Design and technology for a sustainable architecture.
Basel: Birkhäuser; 2006.
[3] Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S. Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future eco-
efficient construction. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:512–9.
architecture: The Noh-Gonbad Mosque in Balkh, Afghanistan. J Cult Heritage
2018:1–9.
[5] Baglioni E, Fratini F, Rovero L. The characteristics of the earthen materials of the
Drâa valley’s architecture. J Mater Environ Sci 2016;7:3538–47.
[6] Baglioni E, Rovero L, Tonietti U. Drâa valley earthen architecture: construction
techniques, pathology and intervention criteria. J Mater Environ Sci
2016;7:3499–508.
[7] Rovero L, Tonietti U.. The Jiayuguan Fortress: structural consistency and safe-
guarding programs. In: Earthen architecture: past, present and future, valencia, 11.
09.'14-13.09.'14, CRC Press/Balkema, vol. 1; 2015. p. 327–332.
[8] Rovero L,Tonietti U. Structural behaviour of earthen corbelled domes in the
Aleppo’s region. Mater Struct 2012; 45:171–84, ISSN:1359-5997.
[9] Gamrani N, Chaham KR, Ibnoussina M, Fratini F, Rovero L, Tonietti U, et al. The
particular ‘‘rammed earth’’ of the Saadian sugar refineryof Chichaoua (XVIth cen-
tury, Morocco): mineralogical, chemical and mechanical characteristics. Environ
Earth Sci 2012;66(1):129–40.
[10] Briccoli Bati S, Rovero L, Tonietti U. Experimental analysis for compressive strength
evaluation of earthen materials. In: Terra 2008: the 10th international conference
on the study and conservation of earthen architectural Heritage. Getty Publications;
2011. p. 253.
[11] Fratini F, Pecchioni E, Rovero L, Tonietti U. The earth in the architecture of the
historical centre of Lamezia Terme (Italy): characterization for restoration. Appl
Clay Sci 2011;53(3):509–16.
[12] Liberotti G, Rovero L, Stipo G, Tonietti U. Mechanical investigation on adobe
samples belonging to the archaeological site of Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey). J
Mater Environ Sci 2016;7:3656–66.
[13] Bove A, Misseri G, Rovero L, Tonietti U. Experimental and numerical analyses on
the antiseismic effectiveness of fiber textile for earthen buildings. J Mater Environ
Sci 2016;7(10):3548–57.
[14] Miccoli L, Garofano A, Fontana P, Müller U. Experimental testing and finite element
modelling of earth block masonry. Eng Struct 2015;104:80–94.
[15] DeJong MJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG. Dynamically equivalent rocking structures.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(10):1543–63.
[16] Giresini L, Sassu M. Horizontally restrained rocking blocks: evaluation of the role of
boundary conditions with static and dynamic approaches. Bull Earthq Eng
2017;15(1):385–410.
[17] Mehrotra A, DeJong MJ. The influence of interface geometry, stiffness, and crushing
on the dynamic response of masonry collapse mechanisms. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2018;47(13):2661–81.
[18] Misseri G, DeJong MJ, Rovero L. Experimental and numerical investigation of the
collapse of pointed masonry arches under quasi-static horizontal loading. Eng Struct
2018;173:180–90.
[19] Casapulla C, Argiento LU. In-plane frictional resistances in dry block masonry walls
and rocking-sliding failure modes revisited and experimentally validated. Compos B
Eng 2018;132:197–213.
[20] Casapulla C, Maione A. Free damped vibrations of rocking rigid blocks as uniformly
accelerated motions. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2017;17(06):1750058.
[21] Sorrentino L, D’Ayala D, de Felice G, Griffith MC, Lagomarsino S, Magenes G.
Review of out-of-plane seismic assessment techniques applied to existing masonry
buildings. Int J Architect Heritage 2017;11(1):2–21.
[22] Heyman J. The stone skeleton. Int J Solids Struct 1966;2(2):249–79.
[23] Barsotti R, Bennati S. Assessment of the in-plane shear capacity of masonry panels
by elementary mechanical models. Eng Struct 2018;175:678–89.
[24] Caporale A, Luciano R. Limit analysis of masonry arches with finite compressive
strength and externally bonded reinforcement. Compos B Eng 2012;43(8):3131–45.
[25] Misseri G, Rovero L, Stipo G, Barducci S, Alecci V, De Stefano M. Experimental and
analytical investigations on sustainable and innovative strengthening systems for
masonry arches. Compos Struct 2019;210:526–37.
[26] Cavalagli N, Gusella V, Severini L. The safety of masonry arches with uncertain
geometry. Comput Struct 2017;188:17–31.
[27] Ortega J, Vasconcelos G, Rodrigues H, Correia M. Assessment of the efficiency of
traditional earthquake resistant techniques for vernacular architecture. Eng Struct
2018;173:1–27.
[28] Costa A, Arêde A, Varum H. (Eds.). Strengthening and Retrofitting of Existing
Structures. Vol. 9. Springer; 2017.
[29] Tolles EL, Kimbro EE, Ginell WS. Planning and engineering guidelines for the
seismic retrofitting of historic adobe structures. Getty Publications; 2003.
G. Misseri, et al.
[30] Cancino C. Damage assessment of historic earthen sites after the 2007 earthquake in
Peru. Adv Mater Res 2010;133–134:665–70.
[31] D'Ayala D, Benzoni G. Historic and traditional structures during the 2010 Chile
earthquake: observations, codes, and conservation strategies. Earthquake Spectra
2012;28(S1):S425–51.
[32] Lourenço PB, Ciocci MP, Greco F, Karanikoloudis G, Cancino C, Torrealva D, et al.
Traditional techniques for the rehabilitation and protection of historic earthen
structures: The seismic retrofitting project. Int J Architect Heritage
2019;13(1):15–32.
[33] Briceño C, Moreira S, Noel MF, Gonzales M, Vila-Chã E, Aguilar R. Seismic vul-
nerability assessment of a 17th century adobe church in the Peruvian Andes. Int J
Architect Heritage 2019;13: 1:140–52.
[34] Vissilia AM, Villi M. Adobe and timber ties as main construction materials for an
historic Greek dwelling. Int J Architect Heritage 2010;4(4):295–319.
[35] Cancino C, Lardinois S, Michiels T, Balakrishnan P. Earthenarchitecture initiative
seismic retrofitting project: a bibliography. LosAngeles, CA: Getty Conservation
Institute; 2013. http://aata.getty.edu/browse.
[36] International Association for Earthquake Engineering – IAE. Guidelines for earth-
quake resitant non-engineered construction. National Information Center of
Earthquake Engineering. Kampur, India; 2004.
[37] Centro Nacional de Conservacion and Restauration, (CNCR). Cartilla Patrimonio En
Tierra, Sismo 2010, Consejo de MonumentosNacionales, Gobierno de Chile; 2010.
[38] NMAC. New Mexico State Building Code, Section 2405 – Amendment, 1982; 1982.
[39] Michiels TL. Seismic retrofitting techniques for historic adobe buildings. Int J
Architect Heritage 2015;9(8):1059–68.
[40] Ortega J, Vasconcelos G, Rodrigues H, Correia M, Lourenço PB. Traditional earth-
quake resistant techniques for vernacular architecture and local seismic cultures: a
literature review. J Cult Heritage 2017;27:181–96.
[41] Asteris PG, Chronopoulos MP, Chrysostomou CZ, Varum H, Plevris V, Kyriakides N,
et al. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Eng
Struct 2014;62:118–34.
[42] Karanikoloudis G, Lourenço PB. Structural assessment and seismic vulnerability of
earthen historic structures. Application of sophisticated numerical and simple
analytical models. Eng Struct 2018;160:488–509.
[43] Lourenço PB, Pereira JM. Recommendations for Advanced Modeling of Historic
Earthen Sites: Seismic Retrofitting Project Research. Getty Conservation Institute;
2018.
[44] Dutu A, Niste M, Spatarelu I, Dima DI, Kishiki S. Seismic evaluation of Romanian
traditional buildings with timber frame and mud masonry infills by in-plane static
cyclic tests. Eng Struct 2018;167:655–70.
[45] Vieux-Champagne F, Sieffert Y, Grange S, Polastri A, Ceccotti A, Daudeville L.
Experimental analysis of seismic resistance of timber-framed structures with stones
and earth infill. Eng Struct 2014;69:102–15.
[46] Palazzi NC, Rovero L, De La Llera JC, Sandoval C. Preliminary assessment on
seismic vulnerability of masonry churches in Central Chile. Int J Architect Heritage
2019:1–20.
[47] Abdessemed-Foufa AA, Benouar D. Investigation of the 1716 Algiers earthquake
from historical sources: effect, damages and vulnerability. Int J Architect Heritage;
2010.
[48] Vicente E, Torrealva DE. Mechanical properties of adobe masonry of historical
15
Engineering Structures 215 (2020) 110663
buildings in Peru. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural
analysis of historical constructions, Mexico City, Mexico; 2014.
[49] Torrealva DE, Vicente EF. Experimental behaviour of traditional seismic retrofitting
techniques in earthen buildings in Peru. In: Proc., 9th international conference on
structural analysis of historical constructions (SAHC2014), Mexico City, Mexico;
2014.
[50] Casapulla C, Portioli F, Maione A, Landolfo R. A macro-block model for in-plane
loaded masonry walls with non-associative Coulomb friction. Meccanica
2013;48(9):2107–26.
[51] Gilbert M, Casapulla C, Ahmed HM. Limit analysis of masonry block structures with
non-associative frictional joints using linear programming. Comput Struct
2006;84(13–14):873–87.
[52] Casapulla C, D’Ayala D. In-plane collapse behaviour of masonry walls with fric-
tional resistances and openings. In: Structural analysis of historical constructions.
Possibilities of numerical and experimental techniques. Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi; 2006. p. 1153–1160.
[53] NTC. Aggiornamento delle “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni” D.M. 17 gennaio
2018, Suppl. ord. n° 8 alla G.U. n. 42 del 20/02/2018; 2018.
[54] NTC08C.. Circolare del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, n. 617 del 2
febbraio 2009, Suppl. Ord. n. 27 alla G.U. n. 47 del 26 febbraio 2009, “Istruzioni per
l’applicazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto
ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008”; 2009.
[55] Casapulla C, Argiento LU. The comparative role of friction in local out-of-plane
mechanisms of masonry buildings. Pushover analysis and experimental investiga-
tion. Eng Struct 2016;126:158–73.
[56] Bui QB, Limam A, Bui TT. Dynamic discrete element modelling for seismic assess-
ment of rammed earth walls. Eng Struct 2018;175:690–9.
[57] Reyes JC, Yamin LE, Hassan WM, Sandoval JD, Gonzalez CD, Galvis FA. Shear
behavior of adobe and rammed earth walls of heritage structures. Eng Struct
2018;174:526–37.
[58] Silva RA, Mendes N, Oliveira DV, Romanazzi A, Domínguez-Martínez O, Miranda T.
Evaluating the seismic behaviour of rammed earth buildings from Portugal: from
simple tools to advanced approaches. Eng Struct 2018;157:144–56.
[59] Aguilar R, Marques R, Sovero K, Martel C, Trujillano F, Boroschek R. Investigations
on the structural behaviour of archaeological heritage in Peru: from survey to
seismic assessment. Eng Struct 2015;95:94–111.
[60] Illampas R, Charmpis DC, Ioannou I. Laboratory testing and finite element simu-
lation of the structural response of an adobe masonry building under horizontal
loading. Eng Struct 2014;80:362–76.
[61] Lubliner J. Plasticity theory. Courier Corporation; 2008.
[62] Sacchi G, Save M. On the evaluation of the limit load for rigid-perfectly plastic
continua. Meccanica 1968;3(3):199–206.
[63] Instituto Nacional de Normalización-INN. NCh433.Of96, Earthquake Resistant
Design of Buildings; 1996.
[64] Arias P, Fercovic G. Ficha tecnica de daño y oferta de servicios. Informe de la
Evaluación Preliminar de Daños Provocados por el sismo de 2010, Chile: Ilustre
municipalidad de Malloa, Departimento de Proyecto; 2011.
[65] Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, (CMN) Ministerio de 900 Educación. Chilean
law of monuments 17.288; 2011. http://monumentos.cl [accessed March 23,
2017].