See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316643901

Definition of seismic input for out-of-plane

response of unreinforced masonry walls
Keywords: Dynamic filtering effect of URM
bu....

Conference Paper · June 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 11

2 authors:

Arun Menon Guido Magenes

Indian Institute of Technology Madras University of Pavia
56 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS 194 PUBLICATIONS 2,752 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NAM Project View project

National Centre for Safety of Heritage Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arun Menon on 03 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Definition of seismic input for out-of-plane response of unreinforced
masonry walls
Arun Menon
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, c/o. EUCENTRE, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ITALY
Guido Magenes
Associate Professor, Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ITALY

Keywords: Dynamic filtering effect of URM buildings, seismic input for out-of-plane walls, inelastic response
of primary resisting structure

ABSTRACT:
Response of URM walls to out-of-plane seismic excitation is a complex, yet usually, inadequately addressed
theme in seismic analysis. Modern seismic design codes for new masonry buildings provide dimensioning
and detailing rules that exclude out-of-plane failure even under severe seismic load. In contrast, out-of-plane
collapse of peripheral walls is a recurring mechanism in existing URM buildings. A first step towards under-
standing the phenomenon must entail estimation of the seismic demand on walls considering the dynamic fil-
tering effect of the building. Ground excitation that a URM building is exposed to is modified by the response
of in-plane walls and that of floor diaphragms before reaching the out-of-plane wall. The response accelera-
tion of the floor diaphragm is the seismic input on the out-of-plane wall which, largely comprises of energy at
the fundamental period of vibration of the building. Within linear response, resonance occurs when the out-
of-plane wall period coincides with the building’s fundamental period. Non-linear response of the building
can alter the response of a secondary system either by significantly reducing or substantially amplifying the
response compared to linear response. Interactions between the response of the primary resisting structure and
secondary elements (out-of-plane walls, non-structural elements) can be fully studied only through inelastic
dynamic analysis.
This paper deals with the development of a semi-analytical formulation to predict the seismic load to the out-
of-plane wall through parametric inelastic time-history analyses performed to different levels of displacement
ductility demand. SDOF oscillators have been employed in the parametric study implying that the global
structural response is mainly controlled by first mode characteristics. The study differs from previous ones in
that it explicitly considers the inelastic response of the primary resisting structure. Based on statistical exami-
nation of time-history analyses outputs, a formulation has been proposed for the estimation of seismic load (in
terms of spectral acceleration) on an out-of-plane wall or a non-structural element.

not designed in conformity to any code but rather to

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Seismic Response of an Out-of-Plane Wall
Response of unreinforced masonry walls to out-
of-plane seismic excitation is one of the more com-
plex, yet neglected areas of seismic analysis. All
modern codes for seismic design of new masonry
buildings usually provide dimensioning and detail-
ing regulations that make out-of-plane failure almost
improbable even under severe seismic load. On the
other hand, out-of-plane collapse of peripheral walls
is a recurrent damage mechanism in old, existing un-
reinforced masonry structures. Such structures were
a builder’s “rules of art”. Insufficiency of structural
detailing (e.g. absence of connecting ties, suffi-
ciently rigid floor diaphragms) renders such building
stock, widespread in historical centres, highly vul-
nerable to out-of-plane failure even under low inten-
sities of ground motion (Griffith et al., 2003).
Out-of-plane collapse of URM walls subjected to
seismic loads is mainly associated to excess deflec-
tion or displacement demand. Recent theoretical and
experimental research corroborates the argument
that out-of-plane stability under seismic action, es-
pecially under ultimate conditions is associated to
displacement demand (Priestley, 1985, Doherty et
al., 2002, Griffith et al., 2003) rather than attainment
of strength capacity. A first step towards looking at
this complex problem ought to envisage evaluation
of the seismic demand on walls considering dynamic
filtering effect of the building and diaphragms and
the dynamic response of the walls (Magenes, 2006).
In rectangular URM buildings subjected to
ground excitation, the pair of walls subjected to iner-
tial forces in the perpendicular (or face-loaded) di-
rection are here referred to as the “out-of-plane
wall” and the alternative pair is referred to as the
“in-plane wall”, both with regard to the orientation
of seismic excitation.
The acceleration input to out-of-plane walls at
upper levels of a building is applied by the respec-
tive floor slabs. They have characteristics different
from the ground acceleration. The seismic energy
transfer path in a URM building is illustrated in fig-
ure 1. The in-plane walls acting as shear walls re-
spond to the ground excitation with response accel-
erations that depend on height, stiffness of the wall
and tributary mass from floors and out-of-plane
walls. The response accelerations of the walls at a
given height act as input accelerations to the floor
diaphragms in the absence of torsional motions. If
the floor diaphragms are assumed to be rigid in their
plane, the accelerations and displacements at all
points along the floor will be equal to the in-plane
wall accelerations and displacements. On the other
hand, if the floor is assumed to respond as a flexible
diaphragm, the response accelerations and displace-
ments would be different from those of the in-plane
wall. The response of the floor diaphragm, therefore,
is the input acceleration to the out-of-plane wall.
Figure 1. Seismic load path in URM buildings (Priestley, 1985)
Summing up, before acting as the seismic input to
the out-of-plane wall, the ground excitation is modi-
fied by two actions: a) response of the in-plane walls
and b) response of the floor diaphragms. Conse-
quently, the input accelerations to the out-of-plane
wall at different floor levels will be of different
magnitude, they could be out of phase with the
ground motion and comprise a significantly different
frequency composition.
Under a rigid diaphragm assumption, as long as
the building response to the seismic input is within
the elastic regime, the seismic demand on the out-of-
plane wall will be a function of the demand at its
upper and lower supports. The input acceleration to
the out-of-plane wall is significantly filtered by the
stiffness of the in-plane walls and will largely com-
prise of energy at the natural period of transversal
vibration. Resonant response occurs when the period
of vibration of the out-of-plane wall coincides with
the fundamental period of vibration of the building.
With the onset of cracking, period elongation deter-
mines the response of the out-of-plane wall. A mod-
erate period shift coupled with light damping would
subject the out-of-plane wall to resonant response
with response accelerations much larger than input
accelerations. Whereas a longer period shift beyond
the resonant range for larger displacements could re-
sult in reduction of the response accelerations com-
pared to the input accelerations (Priestley, 1985).
1.2 Code-based Formulae for Seismic Force on an
Out-of-Plane Wall or Non-Structural Element
As stated earlier, almost all modern seismic design
codes for new masonry structures provide dimen-
sioning and detailing specifications that make out-
of-plane failure improbable even under severe seis-
mic loading. For example, according to Eurocode-8
(CEN, 2005), URM shear walls can have a maxi-
mum slenderness ratio (heff/teff) of 12 (which is re-
laxed to 15 for low seismicity areas) to prevent out-
of-plane failure. Stability check using dynamic time-
history analysis is avoidable as per FEMA 356
(FEMA, 2000), if slenderness ratios out-of-plane
URM walls are within specified permissible limits of
height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio for different types of
walls and different levels of seismic demand.
Most of the procedures available to compute the
seismic demand on out-of-plane walls have to be
deduced from code-based procedures to estimate the
seismic demand on non-structural components
(Tomaževiĉ, 1999). This fact is, sometimes, not ex-
plicitly stated in codes. Such code-based procedures
consider the effect of the ratio of the period of vibra-
tion of the non-structural component to the period of
vibration of the building, the overstrength or inelas-
ticity of the non-structural element or its connections
and the relative location of the non-structural ele-
ment in height. Most of these provisions are based
on the equivalent lateral force method, where the
non-structural element is designed for a horizontal
seismic force that is a fraction of its weight (Mondal
and Jain, 2005). From the design seismic forces, the
acceleration demands on the non-structural elements
can be determined by dividing by the corresponding
non-structural element mass.
The design provisions for non-structural elements
in Eurocode-8 (CEN, 2005) and the new Italian
seismic code (OPCM-3274-OPCM-3431, 2005) take
into consideration the interaction between the fun-
damental periods of vibration between the building
and the non-structural element, relative position of
the non-structural element and a ductility reduction
factor for the non-structural element. These codes al-
low a ductility reduction factor of 2.0 for exterior or
interior walls and partitions. These formulations
predict a linear variation with height of the seismic
design force on non-structural elements. For very
important non-structural elements, the codes how-
ever require a realistic modelling of the supporting
structure and connection of the non-structural ele-
ment to check the seismic response.
The New Zealand code (NZS 4203, 1992) speci-
fies seismic forces for non-structural parts and their
connections. A structural ductility multiplier ac-
counting for overstrength is utilized in the estimation
of the horizontal design earthquake load on the non-
structural part. The same ductility factor is used for
all fundamental periods implying that influence of
ductility is independent of the period of the struc-
ture, which may not be the case.
The International Building Code recommends
that the non-structural elements should be designed
for both seismic force and seismic relative displace-
ment requirements (IBC, 2003). According to these
code equations, the input acceleration is equal to the
peak ground acceleration (PGA) and that at the roof
of the building is three times the PGA.
1.3 Scope of the Current Investigation
A “secondary element” could be a non-structural
component within, attached to, or supported by the
structure and not included in the design of primary
seismic load resisting system. They could be ele-
ments of the primary system, loaded by the earth-
quake in a direction not usually considered in the de-
sign of that element, such as out-of-plane walls.
Secondary elements are normally assumed to be
attached to the primary structure at one point, which
is not always the case for peripheral walls and hence
raises a question on the suitability of these code-
based formulae to estimate seismic demand on out-
of-plane walls. This assumption implicitly considers
the seismic input at the upper and lower ends of an
out-of-plane wall to be in-phase and of the same
magnitude, when actual behaviour is not so. Interac-
tions between the response of the primary earth-
quake resisting structure and the secondary elements
can be fully investigated only through inelastic dy-
namic time-history analysis.
Non-linear behaviour of the building can alter the
response of a secondary system either by signifi-
cantly reducing or substantially amplifying its re-
sponse compared to the linear response (Chaudhuri
and Hutchinson, 2004). Inelastic behaviour of the
primary structure is not always considered (which
might be conservative) by code-based formulae
(with the exception of the New Zealand code) since
new buildings conforming to modern codes are nor-
mally designed to have minor inelastic behaviour
(e.g. as a result of design drift limits) and also since
secondary elements are typically designed without
complete knowledge of the structural characteristics
of the primary system.
The study described hereunder deals with the de-
velopment of a semi-analytical formulation to pre-
dict the seismic input for a secondary element by
means of parametric inelastic dynamic time-history
analysis using single degree of freedom (SDOF) os-
cillators for various levels of displacement ductility
demand. In the current investigation, SDOF oscilla-
tors have been employed implying that the first
mode of vibration prevails in the global inelastic re-
sponse. In masonry buildings with rigid diaphragm
action, a concentration of damage is observed, both
in post-earthquake and experimental investigations,
in the lowermost storey due to the predominant first
vibration mode profile, typically shear. The present
study differs from previous investigations in that it
explicitly considers the inelastic response of the
primary resisting structure.
2 PARAMETRIC STUDY METHODOLOGY
Seventeen SDOF oscillators with varying
strength and stiffness characteristics, representative
of a realistic range of existing URM buildings were
modelled using two numerical codes TREMURI
[Lagomarsino et al., 2006] and Ruaumoko [Carr,
2004], concurrently. After preliminary investigations
on the comparability of results obtained from the
two numerical codes, they were used to perform
non-linear dynamic time-history analyses within a
sensitivity analysis framework. The sensitivity of the
models to increasing levels of displacement ductility
demands and to different hysteretic models was ex-
amined. Ten scaled, natural strong motion records,
compatible with a Eurocode-8, type-1 elastic re-
sponse spectrum on soil type B were used for the
analyses. Ten artificial acceleration records with the
same compatibility criterion were also used in a
complementary study to analyse the effect of ground
motion characteristics on the dynamic filtering ef-
fect. Statistical averages of the results of the dy-
namic analyses were used to examine the effects of
ground motion filtration by the oscillators in terms
of transfer functions, defined in section 4.1.
The models represent URM buildings with a rigid
diaphragm assumption. Structural systems with a
shear-dominated behaviour have been employed in
the investigation. The three types of hysteretic mod-
els adopted in the parametric study were: a) a non-
linear macro-element shear model implemented in
TREMURI [Lagomarsino et al., 2006], b) the modi-
fied-Takeda and c) the Elastic-Perfectly-Plastic
(EPP) hysteresis model, the latter two implemented
in Ruaumoko [Carr, 2004]. The range of elastic pe-
riods of vibration of the primary structure spanned
from 0.04 to 1.00 second whereas the secondary
element periods range from 0 to 4.0 seconds. The
target displacement ductility demands varied from
0.40 and 0.75 (elastic) to 1.50, 2.00, 2.50, and 3.00
to 4.00 (inelastic), where displacement ductility (μΔ)
is defined as the ratio of the maximum response dis-
placement to the yield displacement.
Based on statistical examination of the results of
the time-history analyses, a formulation has been
proposed for the estimation of the seismic input of a
secondary element, in terms of spectral acceleration.
The formulation takes into account the effect of the
level of ductility demand on the primary structure.
3 ASPECTS OF THE PARAMETRIC STUDY
3.1 Structural Models for the Parametric Study
Stiffness and strength parameters of the SDOF oscil-
lators have been chosen in order to be representative
of existing URM buildings. The range of maximum
base shear capacity to weight ratio (Fmax/W) spanned
from 0.17 to 0.36 with an average of 0.25 for the
seventeen SDOF oscillators as indicated in Table 1.
Strength characteristics of the models have been ad-
justed to ensure a shear-controlled failure mode. The
capacity curves (base shear versus control node dis-
placement) of the structural models were estimated
by performing static non-linear analyses (pushover).
strength of masonry, a non-dimensional coefficient
that controls the inelastic deformation, the global
friction coefficient and a factor β that controls the
softening phase (Galasco et al., 2004). The compres-
sive strength of the masonry was assumed as 3.0
MPa and the ratio of the elastic modulus (E) to the
shear modulus (G) was maintained as 6. The drift
limit for shear controlled response was fixed at
0.4%. The post-yield softening parameter value (β)
in TREMURI was assumed to be 0.40. This parame-
ter determines the rate of stiffness degradation and is
normally assigned a value between 0.0 and 0.8. The
non-linear deformability parameter was assigned a
value of 4.0e-9. The parameter controls the extent of
deformability before the peak response and should
not be assigned a value lower than 1/G.
The program Ruaumoko is designed to produce a
piecewise time-history response function of non-
linear general 2D and 3D framed structures to
ground accelerations, ground displacements or time-
varying force excitations and for performing push-
over analysis. A wide variety of members are avail-
able to model the structural systems and a large
number of different hysteretic models are available
to model the force-displacement relationship in the
different types of members (Carr, 2004).
A

Table 1: SDOF system characteristics.

INITIAL ELASTIC PERIOD (secs)

MODEL Fmax/W
Ruaumoko Tremuri Theoretical
M1 0.36 0.038 0.036 0.038
M2 0.31 0.047 0.046 0.047
M3 0.17 0.082 0.080 0.082
M4 0.18 0.120 0.114 0.120
M5 0.21 0.154 0.147 0.154
M6 0.25 0.225 0.215 0.225 C
M7 0.25 0.319 0.303 0.319
M8 0.27 0.368 0.350 0.368
M9 0.24 0.411 0.399 0.411
M10 0.26 0.484 0.470 0.484
M11 0.26 0.539 0.520 0.539
M12 0.27 0.610 0.607 0.610
B
M13 0.25 0.654 0.657 0.654
M14 0.25 0.716 0.734 0.716 Figure 2. Hysteresis models studied here A) modified Takeda
M15 0.26 0.780 0.808 0.780 B) Shear sliding (friction) C) Elastic-Perfectly Plastic (EPP).
M16 0.24 0.854 0.885 0.854
M17 0.24 0.952 0.997 0.952 Two different hysteretic rules have been adopted
to represent the inelastic behaviour of the element in
3.2 Numerical Codes and Hysteretic Models Ruaumoko. The modified Takeda degrading stiff-
In TREMURI, the macro-element shear model is a ness hysteresis rule (Otani, 1974) developed to rep-
macroscopic representation of a continuous model resent reinforced concrete members, has been used
(Gambarotta and Lagomarsino, 1996) where pa- in the current investigation. The hysteresis rule de-
rameters are directly related to mechanical proper- fined by the unloading stiffness (α) and the reload-
ties of the masonry. Apart from geometrical charac- ing stiffness (β) have been defined as 0.5 and 0.0,
teristics, the macro-element is defined by six pa- respectively (values normally used for bridge piers
rameters: shear modulus, axial stiffness, shear and wall structures), producing a thin loop. Unload-
ing is as per Emori and Schnobrich (1978). The
unloading and reloading stiffness parameters have
been calibrated to fairly match the shear-controlled
hysteretic behaviour of a URM building. The simple
Elastic-Perfectly-Plastic (EPP) stiffness degradation
hysteresis rule with a zero post-yield stiffness has
also been adopted for the current investigation.
3.3 Seismic Input
3.3.1 Natural accelerograms
An ensemble of 10 natural strong motion records
from Californian earthquakes, scaled to match the
design response spectrum defined by the EC-8 for a
soil class B with an equivalent PGA of 0.36 g was
used in the current investigation. The ensemble is
representative of ground motion with a 10% prob-
ability of exceedance in 50 years. This level matches
the design response spectrum according to the Inter-
national Building Code for a soil class C defined as
two-thirds of the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) spectrum and to the BSE (Basic Safety
Earthquake) level-1 earthquake according to NE-
HERP for soil classes C-D. For the EC-8 elastic de-
sign spectrum, the limits of the constant acceleration
spectral branch are 0.15 and 0.5 seconds and the
constant displacement response commences from
2.0 seconds. The soil coefficient is 1.2 for type B.
1.50
1.25
Spectral Acceleration (g)
6.7 to 7.3 and hypocentral distances varying from
13.9 to 25.8 km (Pampanin et al., 2002). The Loma
Prieta record in the set was alone scaled in time for a
better match with the target response spectrum.
3.3.2 Ductility-based scaling of records
To perform time-history analyses, the strong motion
records have been individually scaled so as to ensure
that the SDOF oscillators are taken into the non-
linear range and to a preset level of displacement
ductility. The scaling has been performed so as not
to alter the shape of the mean acceleration response
spectrum of the ten records. Scaling of the records
has been done to achieve different levels of dis-
placement ductility demand on the oscillators.
Scaling has been performed with the use of exist-
ing relationships between displacement ductility
demand μΔ and ductility reduction factor Rμ. (Fajfar,
1999). Ductility reduction factor due to energy dis-
sipation of ductile structures is different from the
code specified reduction factors (behaviour or re-
sponse modification factor) which include over-
strength apart from energy dissipation.
Since a classification of the numerical analyses
based on displacement ductility has been adopted,
estimation of the yield displacement of the oscilla-
tors is one of the preliminary steps. The yield dis-
placement has been determined from the capacity
curves of the oscillators by the substitute structure
approach, where the SDOF capacity curve is re-
Mean Mean + 1 sd placed by an equivalent bilinear envelope of the lat-
Mean - 1 sd EC-8, Soil Type B
eral force-displacement response. The maximum
base shear determines the location of the horizontal

1.00 branch of the bilinear curve along the ordinate. The

initial branch of the bilinear curve is a straight line
0.75
from the zero intercept that intersects the horizontal
branch and bisects the original capacity curve such
0.50
that the areas under and above the curve are of equal
0.25
areas. The reading of the abscissa at the intersection
of the two branches of the bilinear curve gives the
0.00 yield displacement of the oscillator.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Structural Periods (seconds) 3.3.3 Synthetic records
Rclosest Duration Unscaled
A suite of ten artificial accelerograms compatible
Event Mw Station
(km) (s) PGA (g) with the same target elastic response spectrum was
Superstition 6.7 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent. 13.9 40.0 0.258
Hills’87 6.7 Plaster City 21.0 22.2 0.186 also used in a complementary study. The spectrum
6.7
6.7
Beverly Hills 14145 Mulhol
Canoga Park – Topanga Can
19.6
15.8
30.0
25.0
0.415
0.356
compatible records were generated using the code
Northridge’94
6.7 LA – Hollywood Stor FF 25.5 40.0 0.231 SIMQUAKE, a program for artificial motion genera-
Loma Prieta’89
6.7
6.9
Sunland – Mt. Gleason Ave
Hollister Diff. Array
17.7
25.8
30.0
39.6
0.157
0.279
tion [Carr, 2004]. The method used by the program
Cape
7.1 Fortuna Fortuna Blvd 23.6 44.0 0.116 is based on the fact that any periodic function can be
Mendocino’92
Landers’92 7.3 Desert Hot Springs 23.3 50.0 0.154 expanded as a series of sinusoidal waves. By fixing
7.3 Yermo Fire Station 24.9 44.0 0.152
an array of amplitudes and generating different ar-
Figure 3. Mean acceleration response spectrum of natural re- rays of phase angles different motions with the same
cords along with scatter compared to EC-8 elastic spectrum general appearance are obtained. The code uses a
and characteristics of the records (after Pampanin et al., 2002). random number generator to produce strings of
phase angles with uniform likelihood in the range
These records are free of any near-fault effects between 0 and 2π. These records were also individu-
such as directivity and were generated from earth- ally scaled to specific target ductility levels.
quakes with moment magnitudes varying from Mw
4 INELASTIC TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS
4.1 Definition of the Transfer Function
The transfer function is defined analytically from the
floor response spectra derived from the acceleration
response histories from the non-linear time-history
analyses. The transfer function aims at representing
the amplification or attenuation of the spectral accel-
eration experienced by a secondary element attached
to the primary seismic resisting system, as a function
of the ratio of the periods of vibration of the secon-
dary element to that of the primary structure. This
function represents the modification of spectral re-
sponse expected by secondary elements that are very
stiff to very flexible with respect to the primary
structure, within the same definition (or plot).
The trace of the transfer function is anchored to
1.0 (or ~ 1.0) for very rigid secondary elements (as
T/T1 tends to zero) and descends asymptotically to
zero for very flexible elements (as T/T1 tends to in-
finity). The peak of the transfer function for elastic
response is detected clearly at T/T1 = 1.0, whereas
for inelastic response the region of amplification in
response is spread over a wider region depending on
the level of inelastic demand on the primary system.
10
9 0% Damping
8 5% Damping
7 cillator T1 to represent the transfer function as a
6
Amplification
the amplification ratio tends to one. While for a very
flexible element (or a long natural period, T of the
secondary element), the secondary element is almost
unaffected by the response of the primary supporting
structure and the amplification ratio tends to zero.
Resonance occurs when the forcing period is equal
to the natural period of the secondary element.
In the current work, for elastic response, the
transfer function at each structural period Ti of the
secondary element is defined as Sae,o/Sae,i(T1). Sae,i re-
fers to the ordinates of the 5% damped elastic accel-
eration response spectrum of the input ground mo-
tion and Sae,o to the 5% damped elastic response
spectrum produced from the acceleration response
time-history from the time-history analysis. T1 is the
initial elastic period of the SDOF oscillator (primary
resisting system) and Sae,i(T1) is the spectral accel-
eration at T1 from the input 5% damped elastic ac-
celeration response spectra.
For inelastic response, the transfer function at
each Ti of the secondary element is calculated as
Sae,o/Sa,i(T1). Sa,i refers to the ordinates of the 5%
damped isoductile acceleration response spectra of
the input ground motion and Sae,o refers to the ordi-
nates of the 5% damped elastic response spectra
produced from the acceleration response history
from the non-linear time-history analyses. Sa,i(T1) is
the spectral acceleration at T1 from the input 5%
damped inelastic acceleration response spectra.
The structural period Ti in both the cases, is then
divided by the initial elastic period of the SDOF os-
function of the period ratio Ti/T1.

5 10% Damping 3.00

EL
2.50 IN
4 1
Transfer Functions

IN
2
2.00
IN
3 20% Damping 3
1.50 IN
4
2 70% Damping IN
1.00 5

1 0.50

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 T/T
1
Period ratio, T/T1
Figure 5. Transfer functions from time-history analyses (THA)
Figure 4. Amplification of ground motion for steady-state har-
using the Takeda hysteresis model for SDOF oscillator M1 for
monic excitation.
all levels of ductility demand.
Morphologically, the transfer function resembles
6
the amplification of response from steady-state elas- EL
tic behaviour where the amplification depends on the 5 IN
1
Transfer Functions

ratio of the vibration periods and the level of damp- 4

IN
2
IN
ing (as shown in Figure 4). Under seismic response, 3 IN
3

the amplification is less as the forcing function is IN

4

transient instead of steady-state harmonic. 2 5

For a given oscillator period (T1, which is the 1

forcing period), for very short natural periods (T) of 0

the secondary element or for a rigid element, the re- 0 10 20 30
T/T
1
40 50 60 70

sponse is same as that of the primary structure and

Figure 6. Transfer functions – Takeda – M3 - all μΔ.
 7 6
EL EL
6 IN1 5 IN1
Transfer Functions

Transfer Functions
5 IN2 IN2
4
IN3 IN3
4
IN4 3 IN4
3
IN5 IN5
2
2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10
T/T1 T/T1

Figure 7. Transfer functions – Takeda – M5 - all μΔ. Figure 12. Transfer functions – Takeda – M12 - all μΔ.

6 6
EL EL
5 IN 5 IN
1 1
Transfer Functions

Transfer Functions
IN IN
2 2
4 4
IN IN
3 3
3 IN 3 IN
4 4
IN IN
2 5 2 5

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8
T/T T/T
1 1

Figure 8. Transfer functions – Takeda – M7 - all μΔ. Figure 13. Transfer functions – Takeda – M13 - all μΔ.

6 6
EL EL
5 IN1 5 IN
1
Transfer Functions

Transfer Functions

IN2 IN
2
4 4
IN3 IN
3
3 IN4 3 IN
4
IN5 IN
2 2 5

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
T/T1 T/T
1

Figure 9. Transfer functions – Takeda – M8 - all μΔ. Figure 14. Transfer functions – Takeda – M14 - all μΔ.

6 6
EL EL
5 IN 5 IN
1 1
Transfer Functions

Transfer Functions

IN IN
2 2
4 4
IN IN
3 3
3 IN 3 IN
4 4
IN IN
2 5 2 5

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
T/T T/T
1 1

Figure 10. Transfer functions – Takeda – M9 - all μΔ. Figure 15. Transfer functions – Takeda – M15 - all μΔ.

6 6
EL EL
5 IN 5 IN
1 1
Transfer Functions

Transfer Functions

IN IN
2 2
4 4
IN IN
3 3
3 IN 3 IN
4 4
IN IN
2 5 2 5

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T/T T/T1
1

Figure 11. Transfer functions – Takeda – M11 - all μΔ. Figure 16. Transfer functions – Takeda – M17 - all μΔ.
4.2 Interpretation of Numerical Results tion of stiffness and period with increasing ductility
demand.
In the preceding plots in Figures 5-16 (from time-
Regression of data from non-linear time history
history analyses using Takeda hysteresis), transfer
analyses (shown in Figure 18) establishes the fol-
functions for various levels of ductility are illus-
lowing relationship between displacement ductility
trated based on increasing oscillator period (T1).
and the ratio Teff/T1 (effective post-yield period to
The transfer functions for very rigid primary
the initial elastic period).
structures are close to the input ground motion’s ac-
Teff
celeration response spectrum (Figures 5 and 6). As = k ∗ μΔ , where k = −0.192 ln(μ Δ ) + 1.00 Eq. 1
the structure becomes flexible (increasing values of T1
T1), effect of the input ground motion reduces and The relationship is bound by the condition of
effect of interaction of the dynamic response of the elastic response, i.e. when the displacement ductility
secondary element with that of the primary structure is equal to 1.0,
becomes evident (as seen in Figures 7-16). Teff
With increasing levels of ductility demand, the = [− 0.192 ln(1.0 ) + 1.00]∗ 1.0 = 1.0 Eq. 2
T1
appearance of a second peak in the transfer function
plot becomes evident for semi-rigid and flexible 4

Acceleration [m/s2]
primary structures. The presence of a second peak in
2

the transfer function is attributable to the amplifica- -2

tion of dynamic interaction (resonance) around an

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time[s]

effective post-yield stiffness (or period of vibration)

4

Acceleration [m/s2]
2

of the oscillator during the inelastic cycles. 0

The appearance of the second peak is evident in -2

-4

the analysis performed using both TREMURI and

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Ruaumoko, i.e., irrespective of the hysteretic model 4

Frequency [Hz]

used (as shown in Figure 19). In order to confirm 2

that the observed phenomenon is not due to the 0

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [s]
30 35 40 45 50

characteristics of the natural ground motion records, 50 100 150 200 250

the time-history analysis was carried out using syn-

Figure 17. Spectrogram (time-frequency plot) of the response
thetic records and transfer functions were subse- acceleration time-history from dynamic inelastic analysis.
quently derived. As observed in Figure 20, the trans-
fer functions even here, rather clearly, showed the
2.00
formation of the second peak. It was therefore in-
1.90
ferred that the appearance of the second peak was
1.80
linked to the inelastic behaviour rather than the spe-
1.70
cific characteristics of the chosen ground motion.
1.60
T eff /T 1

1.50
4.3 Identification and Definition of an Effective
1.40
Inelastic period
1.30
Subsequent to the identification of formation of the 1.20
second peak in the transfer functions, it was essential 1.10
to investigate the reason behind its formation. The 1.00
post-yield inelastic “effective” period of the SDOF 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
oscillator is identified by signal processing of the re- μΔ

sponse acceleration time-histories using Spectro-
grams (time-frequency analysis) and Short-Time-
Fourier-Transform (STFT) In STFT, the time-
frequency resolution is fixed over the entire time-
frequency space by preselecting a window length.
Therefore, a resolution in seismic data analysis be-
comes dependent on the user specified window
length (Sinha et al., 2006).
The time-frequency plot aids in identifying ine-
lastic structural cycles rich in relevant frequency
content as shown in Figure 17. STFT performed
over these inelastic cycles helps in identifying an ef-
fective post-yield period in the selected inelastic
phase. The procedure is repeated for all the accelera-
tion response histories in order to identify the varia-
Figure 18. Scatter of the ratio Teff/T1 with respect to the dis-
placement ductility demand and the regression curve repre-
sented by “k”.
4.4 Comparison of TREMURI and Takeda
In Figure 19, the transfer functions estimated from
the time-history analysis using TREMURI with the
typical masonry shear-sliding hysteresis is compared
with those using the modified Takeda hysteresis in
Ruaumoko. For different levels of displacement duc-
tility demand, the basic form of the transfer function
is apparently similar irrespective of the two different
hysteresis rules. The appearance of the second peak
is evident in the TREMURI analyses as well.
 6.00
EL
ciated with relative motion of the structure to the
5.00 M13 - TREMURI EL_1 ground and the viscous damping energy in the struc-
IN_1 ture) in the analysis using the modified Takeda rule
Transfer Functions

4.00 IN_2
IN_3
are much higher than those using the EPP rule. This
3.00 IN_4 is attributable to the degree of stiffness degradation
IN_5 offered by the Takeda hysteresis and the lack of the
2.00
same in the EPP rule. This explains the lower ampli-
1.00 fications in the transfer function using the modified
Takeda rule.
0.00
EPP_A.E.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 250
EPP_D.E.-K.E.
T/T1 TAK_A.E.
6.00 200 TAK_D.E.-K.E.
EL
5.00 M13 - TAKEDA IN_1
150

Energy
Transfer Functions

IN_2
4.00
IN_3
100
IN_4
3.00
IN_5
50
2.00

1.00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.00
Time (seconds)
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
T/T1
Figure 21. Comparison of energies using the modified Takeda
Figure 19. Comparison of transfer functions from time-history and the Elastic-Perfectly Plastic hysteresis (AE: applied en-
analyses using TREMURI and Takeda hysteresis models. ergy, DE: damping energy, KE: kinetic energy).

4.6 Comparison of natural and synthetic records

4.5 Comparison of Takeda and EPP hysteresis
In Figure 22, the transfer functions estimated from
In the following figure, the transfer functions esti- the time-history analysis using synthetic records are
mated from the time-history analysis using the EPP compared to those with the natural records.
hysteresis rule is compared to those using the modi-
fied Takeda rule (both in Ruaumoko) for the same 6.00
cm1or lan1or lan2or

level of displacement ductility demand and for two 5.00

lp5
nor5or
nor2or
nor10or
nor3or
sup2or

different initial periods (T1 = 0.54 s). The seismic sup3or Average
Transfer Function

4.00
energy plots of time-history analysis using the two NATURAL RECORDS - M10
different hysteretic rules are compared in Figure 21. 3.00

7.00 2.00

EPP 1.00
6.00
TAKEDA
Transfer Function

0.00
5.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
T/T1
4.00

3.00 6.00
sim1 sim2 sim3
sim4 sim5 sim6
2.00 5.00 sim7 sim8 sim9
sim10 Average
Transfer functions

1.00 4.00 SYNTHETIC - M10

0.00 3.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00

T/T1
1.00
Figure 20. Comparison of transfer functions using the Modified
Takeda hysteresis and the Elastic-Perfectly Plastic hysteresis. 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

The transfer function using the EPP hysteretic T/T1

rule show slightly higher amplification compared to Figure 22. Comparison of transfer functions using natural and
that of the modified Takeda rule. As seen from the synthetic records.
energy plots, the strain energies (applied energy to
the structure minus the kinetic energy of mass asso-
 The thin grey lines correspond to the individual are defined using a harmonic response-type formula
time-history analyses whereas the thick line is the based on the initial elastic period of the primary
average transfer function for the set. The scatter in structure T1 and its effective post-yield period of vi-
the time-history analyses is appreciably more with bration Teff, respectively.
the natural records. The forms of the transfer func- The relationship between the initial elastic period
tions are comparable and the appearance of the sec- of vibration of the structure T1 and an effective post-
ond peak can be identified in the transfer functions yield period Teff has been investigated and the semi-
using artificial records as well. The amplification in empirical formula (Eq. 1) dependent on the dis-
the transfer function plot is over a wider period placement ductility demand is used in the analytical
range for the synthetic records and this is attribut- formulation.
able to the typically unrealistic energy content in The two dynamic interaction components are
synthetic records. combined using the proportionality coefficients DT1
and DTeff. The proportionality coefficients DT1 and
DTeff are clearly dependent on the displacement duc-
5 FORMULATION TO PREDICT SEISMIC tility demand on the primary structure in the formu-
INPUT lation. The “input ground motion component” in the
formulation is combined with the “dynamic interac-
Based on inferences from the parametric inelastic tion component” through a proportionality coeffi-
seismic analyses, the seismic input for a secondary cient C. Coefficients DT1, DTeff, coefficients of the
element is predicted using a semi-analytical formu- harmonic function (α, a and β) and Teff are the duc-
lation that takes into consideration the displacement tility-dependent terms in the formulation.
ductility demand (which can be directly related to The formulation captures the physical interpreta-
the structural behaviour factor) in terms of spectral tion of the filtering effect of the URM building
acceleration. rather elegantly. For secondary element attached to a
rigid primary resisting structure, the contribution to
⎧⎪ ⎛T ⎞ ⎪⎫ the seismic input to the secondary element is princi-
S ae ,o (T ) = {S ae ,i (T ) ∗ C}+ ⎨S a ,i (T1 )* TFhar ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ * DT1 ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎪⎭ pally from the “input ground motion component”,
Eq. 3 the “dynamic response component” diminishes and
⎧⎪ ⎛ T ⎞ ⎫⎪
( )
+ ⎨S a ,i Teff * TFhar ⎜ ⎟
⎜ Teff ⎟ Teff ⎬⎪
*D
the response spectrum resembles that of the input
ground motion. On the other hand, as the primary re-
⎪⎩ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭
sisting structure becomes more flexible, the contri-
⎛T ⎞ 1 bution from the “dynamic interaction component”
TFhar ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = Eq. 4
⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎛ ⎛ T ⎞ α ,a ⎞
2
2 starts increasing with a simultaneous reduction from
⎜1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ + ⎛⎜ βζ T ⎞⎟ the “input ground motion component”.
⎜ ⎜T ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ T ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 1⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 1⎠ A residual contribution from the input ground
⎛ T ⎞ motion component has been consistently observed
1
TFhar ⎜ ⎟= Eq. 5 for all the models (different T1) and for all levels of
⎜ Teff ⎟ 2
⎝ ⎠ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞
α ,a ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
2 displacement ductility demand. This contribution
⎜ ⎜ T ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ T ⎟
⎜1 − ⎜ T ⎟ + ⎜ βζ T stabilises to approximately 10% beyond T1 of 0.25
⎜ ⎝ eff ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ eff ⎠ seconds (as represented by Equation 7).
For purely elastic response of the primary resist-
⎧⎪ S (T ) ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ ⎛T ⎞ ⎫⎪
TF = ⎨ ae ,i * C ⎬ + ⎨TFhar ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ * DT1 ⎬ ing structure, the “dynamic interaction component”
⎪⎩ S a ,i (T1 ) ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ ⎝ T1 ⎠ ⎪⎭ is constituted only by the “elastic dynamic response
Eq. 6
+⎨
( )
⎧⎪ S a ,i Teff ⎛ T
* TFhar ⎜
⎞
⎟ * DT
⎫⎪ component” and the “inelastic dynamic response
⎬ component” is equal to zero. As the inelastic re-
⎪⎩ S a ,i (T1 ) ⎜ Teff ⎟ ⎪⎭
eff
⎝ ⎠ sponse increases, the contribution from the “inelastic
C = x + (1 − x )* e − AT1 x = 0.10 Eq. 7 dynamic response component” increases with a si-
multaneous decrease in the “elastic dynamic re-
Teff = k μ Δ T1 Eq. 8
sponse component”.
Equation 3 gives the spectral acceleration ex-
The formulation (Equations 3-8) is made up of pected on the secondary element. The dynamic in-
two components that are superimposed and charac- teraction components are calculated using Equations
terise the contributions from the input ground mo- 4 and 5. The proportionality coefficient C is defined
tion and the dynamic interaction between the pri- using Equation 7 and the effective post-yield period
mary resisting structure (idealised by the in-plane Teff is defined using Equation 8. The “true” transfer
shear response) and secondary element. The “dy- function is evaluated in analytical terms, as per the
namic interaction component” is in turn separated original definition (in § 4.1), in Equation 6.
into the “elastic dynamic response component” and
the “inelastic dynamic response component” which
6 COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL AND SEMI- 1.40
ANALYTICAL MODEL TRUE Sa,o (T)
1.20
CALC Sa,o (T)
In Figures 22-26, the predictions of the spectral ac- 1.00 M13
celeration expected on the secondary element using

Sa,o (g)
0.80
the semi-analytical formulation is compared to the
numerical analysis for various ductility classes. The 0.60

error in the predictions have been quantified at sec- 0.40

ondary element periods T = 0 seconds, T = T1 sec- 0.20

onds, T = 2 seconds and T = 4 seconds.
0.00
1.20 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

TRUE Sa,o (T) T (s)

1.00
CALC Sa,o (T)
Figure 25. Oscillator M13 and ductility class V (μΔ = 3.0-4.0)
0.80 M1
Sa,o (g)

1.60
0.60
TRUE Sa,o (T)
1.40
CALC Sa,o (T)
0.40
1.20 M16
0.20
1.00

Sa,o (g)
0.00 0.80
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
T (s) 0.60

0.40
Figure 22. Comparison of predicted spectral accelerations to
those from the numerical analysis for SDOF oscillator M1 and 0.20
ductility class I (μΔ = 1.0-1.5).
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
0.70
TRUE Sa,o (T)
T (s)
0.60 CALC Sa,o (T)
Figure 26. Oscillator M16 and ductility class IV (μΔ = 2.5-3.0)
0.50 M3

0.40 As seen in Table 2, the percentages of error in the

Sa,o (g)

0.30
prediction is well below 10% for the indicators at T
= 0 seconds, T = T1 seconds, T = 2 seconds. The er-
0.20
ror is the prediction at T = 4 seconds is apparently
0.10 much higher, but the values of the spectral accelera-
0.00
tion themselves are quite small in this range.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Apart from being mainly ductility demand de-
T (s) pendent, the proportionality coefficients DT1 and
DTeff are also slightly sensitive to the variation of the
Figure 23. Oscillator M3 and ductility class II (μΔ = 1.5-2.0) initial period of vibration of the building. Neverthe-
less, despite neglecting the variation of these con-
1.40 stants with respect to the initial period, the errors in
TRUE Sa,o (T) the prediction at wall periods at T = 0 seconds, T =
1.20 CALC Sa,o (T) T1 seconds, T = 2 seconds are still well under 15%.
1.00 M6 This formulation seems to produce satisfactory re-
0.80 sults up to a wall period of 2 seconds.
Sa,o (g)

0.60
Table 2: Error in the prediction by the semi-analytical formula.
0.40
T1 ERRORS (%)
0.20 μΔ MODEL
(sec) T=0 T = T1 T = 2.0 T = 4.0
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
I M1 0.038 5.1 -4.8 -0.2 -0.2
T (s)
II M3 0.082 12.4 1.8 6.3 31.2
III M6 0.225 -2.2 0.9 2.3 75.3
Figure 24. Oscillator M6 and ductility class III (μΔ = 2.0-2.5) V M13 0.654 3.6 1.0 2.4 79.0
IV M16 0.854 4.2 8.4 -0.7 63.1
7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Seismic input to a secondary element (out-of-plane
wall, non-structural component, etc.) is defined by a
semi-analytical formulation that explicitly considers
the inelastic response of the primary system (in
terms of displacement ductility demand that can
eventually be related to the “structural behaviour
factor”) in terms of the spectral acceleration.
The proposed formulation superimposes an “input
ground motion component” and a “dynamic interac-
tion component” between the primary structure (ide-
alised by shear response) and the secondary element.
The latter is further separated into the “elastic dy-
namic response component” and the “inelastic re-
sponse component”, related respectively to the initial
period T1 and a post-yield effective period Teff, and
combined using proportionality coefficients depend-
ent on the displacement ductility demand. The rela-
tionship between T1 and Teff is represented using a
semi-empirical formula dependent on the μΔ. The er-
rors in the prediction of the spectral acceleration at
wall periods T = 0, T = T1 and T = 2 seconds, is well
within 15% compared to the numerical results.
The formulation can be considered valid up to a
secondary element period of T = 2 seconds beyond
which an error correction term might be required.
The current parametric study and the formulation
have been based on time-history analyses using ac-
celeration records compatible with an elastic re-
sponse spectrum for stiff soil. There is the need to
investigate the effect of soft soil on the dynamic fil-
tering effects of URM buildings.
The current investigation is based on evaluation
of the acceleration spectra. The study has to be ex-
tended to evaluate transfer functions in terms of the
displacement spectra and validate the semi-
analytical formulation for the same.
The parametric study developed on SDOF oscil-
lators, implicitly considers a first mode shape in the
inelastic response for the URM structure. This is a
rather acceptable assumption for 3-4 storied existing
URM buildings, common in Italy. Nevertheless, in
taller and more flexible structures, effects of higher
modes in the response are not insignificant, hence,
variation and distribution of accelerations demands
on the secondary elements over the height of a struc-
ture have to be investigated and accounted for. In a
following stage, the parametric study will be ex-
tended to multi-degree-of-freedom systems.
URM buildings with rigid diaphragms and shear-
dominated behaviour were assumed in the current
study. Influence of flexible floor diaphragms on the
dynamic filtering effect needs to be investigated.
REFERENCES
Carr, A.J., 2004. RUAUMOKO Computer Program Library,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand.
View publication stats
CEN–EN–1998-1, 2005. Eurocode-8 Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic ac-
tion and rules for buildings.
Doherty, K., Griffith, M.C., Lam, N., Wilson, J., 2002. Dis-
placement based seismic analysis of out-of-plane bending
of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 833-850.
Emori, K., Schnobrich, W.C., 1978. Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Frame-Wall Structures for Strong Motion Earth-
quakes, Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Se-
ries No. 434, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
Fajfar, P., 1999. Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic
Demand Spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 28, pp. 979-993.
FEMA 356, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seis-
mic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency, Washington D C.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Resemini, S., 2004.
Non-linear Seismic Analysis of Masonry Structures, Pro-
ceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA.
Gambarotta L., Lagomarsino, S., 1996. On Dynamic Response
of Masonry Panels, Proceedings of the National Confer-
ence “La meccanica delle murature tra teoria e progetto”,
Messina, (ed.) L. Gambarotta (in Italian).
Griffith, M.C., Magenes, G., Melis, G., Picchi, L., 2003.
Evaluation of Out-of-Plane Stability of Unreinforced Ma-
sonry Walls Subjected to Seismic Excitation, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, Spl. issue 1, pp. 141-169.
Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., 2006. TREMURI
1.0.6: Seismic Analysis Program for 3D Masonry Build-
ings, University of Genoa and EUCENTRE.
Magenes, G., 2006. Masonry building design in seismic areas:
Recent experiences and prospects from a European stand-
point, Keynote lecture 9, Proceedings of the 1st European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Mondal, G., Jain, S.K., 2005. Design of Non-Structural Ele-
ments for Buildings: A Review of Codal Provisions, The
Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.79, No.8, pp. 22-28.
NZS 4203, 1992. New Zealand Standard – Code of Practice for
General Structural Design and Design Loading of Build-
ings, Vol. 1 Code of Practice.
NZS 4203, 1992. New Zealand Standard – Code of Practice for
General Structural Design and Design Loading of Build-
ings, Vol. 2 Commentary.
Otani, S., 1974. SAKE A Computer Program for Inelastic Re-
sponse of RC Frames to Earthquakes, Report UILU-Eng-
74-2029, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., Priestley, M.J.N., 2002. Re-
sidual Deformations in the Performance-Based Seismic As-
sessment of Frame Structures, ROSE Research Report
2002/02, IUSS Press, Pavia, ITALY.
Priestley, M.J.N., 1985. Seismic Behaviour of Unreinforced
Masonry Walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Soci-
ety for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 191-
205.
Ray Chaudhuri, S., Hutchinson, T.C., 2004. Distribution of
Horizontal Peak Floor Acceleration for Estimating Non-
Structural Element Vulnerability, Proceedings of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada.
Satish Sinha, Partha S. Routh, Phil D. Anno, John P. Castagna,
2006. Spectral decomposition of seismic data with continu-
ous-wavelet transform, Geophysics, Vol. 70, pp 19-25.
Tomaževiĉ, M., 1999. Earthquake-resistant design of masonry
buildings, Series on innovation in structures and construc-
tion, Vol. 1, Imperial College Press, London.