So far I have applied two different approaches for recognising the failures in the building.

The first one is to define the joints where the principal stresses exceed the tensile strength fwt of the masonry. This has been done through the graphical interface of SAP. The second one is to post process the results given from SAP with the help of a routine I managed to make in Matlab and use failure criteria to identify the damages. Both of them are presented in the following. It has to be noted that for both of the cases the imposed earthquake is the design spectrum for the specific area, with PGA=0.16g.

In addition, I assumed a damage index based on the percentage of the joints that have failed as shown in the following table.

Damage state DS1 Slight DS2 Moderate DS3 Substantial to heavy DS4 Very heavy/ Collapse

Damage index (%) 0-5 5-20 20-50 50-100

1. Principal Stresses The main problem with the application of the method using principal stresses was that SAP will not give you the results of the principal stresses. This because of the way the stresses of the different modes are combined in the response spectrum analysis. The through response spectrum analysis (SRSS) they are afterwards independent. Thus they cannot be combined together to produce principal stresses. I had the same problem when I used modal time history analysis.

As a result, I adopted an equivalent static analysis by applying acceleration loads for X and Y direction. I selected the acceleration load according to the modes with the highest modal ratio to X and Y direction. I calculated the first 150 modes to reach the total sum of 90% in both direction and only 4 of them had mass ration over 5%. These are shown in the following table.

Modes with modal mass over 5%

0.5x0.5 Meshing X Direction Mode 14 38 40 Period 0.081 0.042 0.0418 Y Direction Mode 16 56 Period 0.0758 0.035 Mass ratio 0.62 0.05 Mass ratio 0.59 0.073 0.0597

0.25x0.25 Meshing X Direction Mode 12 22 71 Period 0.0889 0.0654 0.0322 Y Direction Mode 11 53 Period 0.091 0.039 Mass ratio 0.59 0.0576 Mass ratio 0.53 0.0555 0.0537

The following combinations were taken into account: 1.0Gk +0.3 Qk +1 Ex+0.3 Ey 1.0Gk +0.3 Qk +1 Ex -0.3 Ey 1.0Gk +0.3 Qk -1 Ex+0.3 Ey 1.0 Gk +0.3 Qk -1 Ex- 0.3 Ey 1.0 Gk +0.3 Qk +0.3 Ex+1 Ey 1.0 Gk +0.3 Qk +0.3 Ex - 1 Ey 1.0 Gk +0.3 Qk - 0.3 Ex +1 Ey 1.0 Gk +0.3 Qk - 0.3 Ex - 1 Ey

Some of the results are shown in the following figures. Results are shown for only one of the walls, so as to compare it with the second approach. The blue areas have failed, which means that the principal stresses are over the tensile strength of the masonry (taken as fwt =0.2MPa).

The total number of joints that have failed in this wall are 13 out of 621 which is 0.02%