REVIEW ON NONLINEAR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL

MASONRY STRUCTURE

VINAY SHIMPI-1a, MADAPPA V. R. SIVASUBRAMANIAN-2b, S. B. Singh-3c

a
JRF-MoES Project, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Puducherry, Karaikal 609609,
India, E-mail: vinay.nitpy@gmail.com
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Puducherry, Karaikal 609609,
India, E-mail:madappa@nitpy.ac.in
c
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani 333 031, India, E-mail:
sbsingh@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in;

ABSTRACT —This review paper is written aiming at enhancing readers’

knowledge towards computational modelling of historical masonry structures for
nonlinear seimic analysis. It addresses previous studies about the methodologies
adopted for determining the mehanical properties of materials, different modelling
strategies and finite element modelling of historical masonry structures from
literature. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the appropriate strategies and
methodologies for analytical modelling of structure suitable for nonlinear seismic
analysis.

Keywords — Computation, Modelling, Nonlinear, Masonry.

INTRODUCTION

India is known for its asthetic monuments and historical structures. Most of the
historical structures are made of rigid masonry structures. Recent seismic activities
like 2015 Nepal Earthquake and 2017 Uttarakhand Earthquake near Himalayan
region threaten the life span of the historical structures. Appropriate nonlinear
seismic analyses are required to understand the performance and to enhance the life
span of the historical structures[1]. In general, nonlinear seismic analyses of
historical masonry structures are unpredictable owing to degradable material
properties, hidden flaws presented on structure and brittle in nature [2]. However,
identifying an appropriate hybrid approach is needed at present for siesmic analysis
of historical structure. This paper studies, investigations conducted by the
researchers available in litrature regarding methodology and approach for modelling
the masonry structure for the numerical seismic performance of the historical
masonry structures.

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS

Mechanical modelling is primary step in numerical simulation of any structure.

Unrealistic results may be obtained because of adapting inaccurate mechanical
 Method Test
Sn. Ref. Material E ρ ʋ
adopted Structure

Italian NTC The San Masonry 1500 1800 -

Castellazzi 2008 Code Felice sul
1. Reinforce 1800 1800 -
G. et.al guidelines had Panaro
been followed. fortress d masonry
for numerical simulation.
Timber 8000 415 -

- Poisson’s ratio of material

Terrain 935 2000 -
Laboratory test
were Brick 5000 1820 0.15
Abruzzese Huzhu
2. performed
L. et.al Pagoda
from samples Mortar 700 2000 0.20
of site.
Brick 3000 1850 0.15
mortar
Theory of Masonry
joint 2800 1800 0.15
The
Lorenco et.al
Milani G. “Matildea
3. [8] and OPCM Filler 930 1800 0.15
et.al ” bell
2005 code was
tower
referred.
Table 1: Description of mechanical properties

Timber 4000 600 0.15

Lab testing and Cathedral Stone 5000 2025 0.2

also followed of the
4. Ip K. et.al
NZSEE Blessed
Timber 11000 700 0.3
guidelines. Sacramen
accurate mechanical property of the materials, because of the fact that masonry
properties[3]. In case of historical masonry structure it is very difficult to find

structure exhibits very complex nature such as, in bonding, the true material

E – Young’s Modulus of material in MPa, ρ – mass density of material in kg/m3, ʋ

common value of the mechanical properties and methodologies used by the studies
behaviour, joint behaviour and geometry characteristics [4]. Table 1 represents some
STRATEGIES USED IN NUMERICAL MODELLING FOR MASONRY STRUCTURES

Proper modelling of the joints and elements can help in predicting reliable results.
To make calculation easier, majorly three modelling strategies have been used by
researchers, i.e. macro-modelling, micro-modelling, homogenization. Macro-
modelling does not differentiate elements like mortar and joint, the average effect of
material will be taken into account for the formulation [9]. Galasco A. et.al [10]
divided elements into two layers, one was inferior another was superior, both layers
were encoporated with bending and axial effects. Milani G. et.al [11] incorporated
units, mortar, and unit mortar joint in macro-model using the mechanical properties
determined from experimental data. Micro-modelling represents the mortar joint and
units differently. Usually joints are reduced to interfaces in order to limit the
computation efforts [12]. Due to meshing of brick and mortar separately, this
approach becoume more tidious while computations [12]. Roca P. et.al [13] assumed
masonry as group of elastic blocks bonded with fracture/slip lines. Mortar material,
mortar joint and unit-mortar interfaces were lumped to discontinuous elements.
Acito M. et.al [14] treated different bodies and joints as boundary conditions. This
modelling method was applied because of dominating discontinues behaviour of the
structural elements. In homogenization approach, the mortar and brick does not
represented distinctively but the mechanical behaviour and pattern is considered in
nonlinear analysis [15]. Homogenization includes a Representative Element Volume
(REV) which forms a whole structure by assembling an equivalent orthotropic
fictitious material for bricks and mortar elements [16]. Milani G. et.al [17] presented
a rigid homogenized plastic plate model constituted by block in irregular textures
with random assamblage of bricks. Brick and mortar assembly were subtituted in
REV model with equivalent material through compitible identification procedure
which belongs to homogenization family.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1: Modelling startegies used for masony structures, (a) Macro-modelling,
(b) Micro modelling, (c) Homogenization modelling

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES

The orthotropic behaviour of masonry requires very high and time consuming
computation for nonlinear dynamic analysis. M. Betti et.al [18] used ANSYS for
modelling the historical structure. Solid65 (three dimensional eight noded
isoparametric element) [19] element was used for walls, shell43 (isoparametric two-
dimensional element with four nodal points) [19] element was used vault. Trusses
were modelled with Beam44 (one-dimensional two noded isoparametric elements)
elements. H. Bilgin et.al [20] used SAP2000 for modelling walls nonlinear shell
elements and floors as rigid diphragm [21]. The anisotropic behaviour of masonry
was modelled with two different stress strain curve on wall connections. Shear
resistance was taken by material nonlinearity curve. M. Valente, G. Milani [22] used
ABAQUS for finite element modelling. In built Concrete Damage Plasticity Model
(CPD) [23] was used for modelling masonry. Drucker Prager strength criteria has
been used by CDP model with the modification of factor represented as K c, which
is ratio of distance between hydrostatic axis of maximum compression and maximum
tension. The dilatation angle has been assumed equal to 10 degrees in CDP model.
K. Ip et.al [7] used LS-DYNA. Major elements were modeled by solid elements
along with fine meshing. More refined meshes were used for intersecting areas and
high stress areas. Integrated beams and shells were used for roofs, slabs in bell tower.
soil structure interaction was not considered here, therefore high coefficient of
friction was provided at the bottom to prevent sliding. Lagomarsino S et.al
[24]applied equivalent frame for FE modeling of masonry structure trough
TREMURI. The structure had divided into three parts; one was vertical elements,
horizontal elements and the joints and intersections. The nonlinearity was assumed
only on piers and spandrels. Orthotropic membrane element was adopted for
modeling of the floors, and timber floors were adopted as an equivalent flexible
membrane.

CONCLUSION

Based on the litrature survey about the study of modelling of historical masonry
structures for nonlinear seismic analysis following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The investigations showed that the material properties can be determined
accurately by the experimental testing, but in the absence of the
experimentation, codal provisions can be referred.
2. Macro-modelling is the popular choice of the researchers because of the
simplicity in computations. But for accuracy as needed, homogenozation
modelling can be used for numerical simulation.
3. Presently, there are many special purpose, more accurate finite element
programs are available for modelling of masonry structure. However, usage
of commercial software packages are emphazised in litrature because of
their simplicity in nature.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is fully supported by Siesmology Division, Ministry of Earth Sciences

(MoES), Govt. of India, sponsored research project grand (Ref.
MoES/P.O/(Siesmo)/1(296)/2016) sanction to the co-authors. The main supervisor
of the entire investigation is the second author.

REFERENCES

1. D'Altri A.M., Castellazzi G., Miranda S.D., & Tralli A., Seismic-induced
damage in historical masonry vaults: A case-study in the 2012 Emilia
earthquake-stricken area. Jour. of Build. Engg., 13: 224–243, 2017.
2. Fagundes C., Bento R., & Cattari S., On the seismic response of buildings
in aggregate: Analysis of a typical masonry building from Azores. Structures
10:184–196, 2017.
3. Milani G., Casolo S., Naliato A., & Tralli A., Seismic assessment of a
medieval masonry tower in northern Italy by limit, nonlinear static and full
dynamic analyses. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 6: 489–
524, 2012.
4. Castellazzi G., D’Altri A. M., Miranda S.D., & Ubertini F., An innovative
numerical modeling strategy for the structural analysis of historical
monumental buildings. Engineering Structures, 132: 229–248, 2017.
5. Abruzzese D., Miccoli L., & Yuan J., Mechanical behavior of leaning
masonry Huzhu Pagoda. Cultural Heritage, 10: 480-486, 2009.
6. Milani G., Bertolesi E., Quasi-analytical homogenization approach for the
non-linear analysis of in-plane loaded masonry panels. Construction and
Building Materials, 146: 723–743, 2017.
7. Ip K., Lester J., Brown A., Seismic Non-Linear Analysis of Damaged
Historic Buildings: Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch. 2016
New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Technical Conference,
April 2016.
8. Lourenço P.B., Rots J., A multi-surface interface model for the analysis of
masonry structures. J Eng Mech ASCE; 123(7):660–8, 1997.
9. Pietruszczak S, Ushaksarei R., Description of inelastic behavior of structural
masonry. Int J Solids Struct; 40:4003–4019, 2003.
10. Galasco A, Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Resemini S. Non-linear seismic
analysis of masonry structures. In Proceedings 13th WCEE, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, Aug 2004.
11. Milani G., Casolo S., Naliato A., & Tralli A., Seismic assessment of a
medieval masonry tower in northern Italy by limit, nonlinear static and full
dynamic analyses. Int. J. Archit. Herit., 6: 489–524, 2012.
12. Block P., Lachauer L., Three-dimensional (3D) equilibrium analysis of
gothic masonry vaults, Int. J. Archit. Herit., 8 (3):312–335, 2013.
13. Roca P., Cevera M., Garlup G., & Pela L., Structural analysis of masonry
historical construction: classical and advanced approaches, Arch Comput
Methods Eng, 17: 299–325, 2010.
14. Acito M., Chesi C, Milani G, Torri S. Collapse analysis of the Clock and
Fortified towers of Finale Emilia, Italy, after the 2012 Emilia Romagna
seismic sequence: Lesson learned and reconstruction hypotheses.
Construction and Building Materials;115:193-213, 2016.
15. Valente M., Milani G., Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by
means of simplified approaches and standard FEM, Constr. Build. Mater.
108: 74–104, 2016.
16. Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S., Damage models for the seismic response of
brick masonry shear walls. Part I: The mortar joint model and its
applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn; 26:423–439, 1997.
17. Milani G., Lourenço P.B., Monte Carlo homogenized limit analysis model
for randomly assembled blocks in-plane loaded. Comput Mech; 46(6):827–
49, 2010.
18. Betti M., Vingoli A., Numerical assessment of the static and seismic
behaviour of the basilica of Santa Maria all’Impruneta (Italy). Construction
and Building Materials, 25:4308–4324, 2011.
19. ANSYS Elements Reference, Release 11.0, SAS IP Inc., US, 2007.3
20. Bilgin H., Korini O., Seismic capacity evaluation of reinforced masonry
residential buildings in Albania. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 3753–
3764, 2012.
21. CSI, SAP2000 V-15: Integrated finite element analysis and design of
structures basic analysis reference manual, Berkeley, California (USA),
Computers and Structures Inc, 2011.
22. Valente M., Milani G., Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by
means of simplified approaches and standard FEM, Constr. Build. Mater.
108: 74–104, 2016.
23. Abaqus®. Theory manual, version 6.14, 2014.
24. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. TREMURI program: An
equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry
buildings. Engineering Structures, 56:1787–1799, 2013.