2-D non-linear seismic analysis of a historical masonry building in

Ferrara
Vincenzo Mallardo, Roberto Malvezzi
Department of Architecture, University of Ferrara
mlv@unife.it, roberto.malvezzi@unife.it

Enrico Milani, Gabriele Milani

Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara
mlnnrc@unife.it, gmilani@ing.unife.it

Keywords: masonry, seismic, non-linear

ABSTRACT In this paper, the seismic behaviour of an important masonry Renaissance palace in
Ferrara is investigated. A 2-D in-plane inelastic analysis of the main front is presented and three
different 2-D models are critically compared.

1. INTRODUCTION
The restoration and conservation of the built heritage are key issues for highly civilized
countries. At this aim, in the last decade, several efforts in the development of new numerical tools
for the analysis of historical structures have been done [1].
In particular, great interest is focused on masonry buildings, since they represent an important
percentage of the total European built heritage. Furthermore, the complex behaviour at failure of
masonry structures, due both to brickwork heterogeneity and to the brittle behaviour of mortar
joints, requires particular attention.
On the other hand, many national codes, as for instance the recent Italian OPCM 3274 [2],
require sophisticated inelastic studies for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of historical
masonry structures.
In this framework, in the present paper an important masonry Renaissance palace located in
Ferrara (Italy) is studied in the inelastic range under seismic loads making use of FE packages.
The building, called “palazzo Renata di Francia” is located in the northern part of the country,
classified by the Italian code in seismic area. The palace has two storeys, the ground floor and the
first (called ‘nobile’) floor, organised around a central square courtyard. On the ground floor there
is an arcade creating, on three sides of the court, an access corridor to the service rooms, while on
the fourth side a great loggia connecting the courtyard to a large park at the rear is located.

Figure 1: Geometry of the main façade of “Palazzo Renata di Francia”

It must be pointed out that a global analysis is meaningful for masonry structures in which a
good level of connection is guaranteed between the bearing elements; if such connections are not
reliable, a structural analysis performed on every wall as separated by the remaining structure and
under the action of vertical and seismic loads directly applied is more realistic and, at least, must
accomplish a global analysis.
For this reason, here the main façade of the palace is taken into consideration (see Figure 1). A
detailed comparison between three different 2-D non linear models is discussed. The first model
relies on a equivalent frame approach, in agreement with the OPCM 3274 [2] requirements. The
second model consists in a 2D elasto-plastic with damaging FE analysis [3] conducted by means
of the ADINA FE commercial code. Finally, in the third model an analysis at collapse is
conducted by means of a homogenised limit analysis model [4] [5]. As authors experienced, all the
models give both similar failure mechanisms and total ultimate shear at the base.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS

For the analysis, three different models are investigated. The first one is based on an
“equivalent frame” approach in accomplishment with the new Italian Seismic Code [2]. A FE
model is built considering each wall pier as a beam element in which the in-plane behaviour is
modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic. In particular, the OPCM takes into consideration two main
failure conditions: “in-plane rocking” failure and “shear failure with diagonal cracking”. The
evaluation of the rocking strength is based on a simple equilibrium statement which neglects the
tensile resistance of the bed joints, whereas the shear strength is evaluated according to the
Turnsek Kacovic formulation [6]. The type of failure occurring depends on the first limit value
which is reached, either ultimate bending moment or ultimate shear.
The horizontal masonry element of a wall, called spandrel wall, can be modelled in the same
way of the piers; such beams are usually placed at the floor level. Rigid offsets can be introduced
at the intersection between piers and spandrel walls in order to take into account the higher
stiffness of the masonry.
The non-linear analysis has been stopped when one pier has reached its ultimate displacement.
The displacement of a control point (point A in Figure 1) versus the corresponding total shear is
diagrammed in the so-called capacity curve. The results are obtained by using the commercial
software Aedes Pce 5.0. The equivalent frame model is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Equivalent frame model.

The Young modulus E, the cohesion t0 and the compressive strength are respectively 1650,
0.12 and 2.2, all values in MPa. The loads considered in the analysis are the vertical actions (self-
weight and live load) and the seismic action. The seismic action is introduced by the application of
a set of equivalent horizontal loads distributed linearly along the height.
In the second analysis, a two-dimensional homogeneous plane stress model is developed in the
software ADINA context. The numerical model chosen is the model described in [3] which
basically employs two features, a strain softening for the weakening of the material under
compression, failure envelopes which involve cracking in tension and crushing in compression.
The adopted mesh is represented in Figure 3 where eight-nodes isoparametric elements are
involved. The mechanical properties used in the analysis are the following: initial E equal to 1650
MPa, crushing stress limit fc equal to 2.2 MPa, crushing strain ec equal to 0.002, ultimate stress fu
equal to 1.8 MPa, ultimate strain eu equal to 0.0035, tensile limit ft equal to 0.1 MPa, Poisson ratio
equal to 0.2.

Figure 3: Adina discretisation.

The last analysis is based on an upper bound limit analysis approach combined with
homogenisation. The anisotropic homogenized failure surface for masonry is provided making use
of an admissible and equilibrated model originally presented in [4]. For the example at hand,
bricks are assumed of dimensions 55x250x120 mm and infinitely resistant, whereas joints are
assumed 10 mm thick with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (cohesion c = 0.1 MPa and friction
angle Φ = 20° ) with compressive cut-off f c = 2.2 MPa. The structural kinematic model is based
on the formulation by Sloan and Kleeman [7], consisting in a triangular discretization of the 2D
domain, Figure 4, and in the introduction of discontinuities of the velocity field along the edges of
adjacent triangles. For each element, two velocity unknowns per node are introduced, i.e. the
velocity field is assumed linear inside each element, with constant strain rate field. Jumps of
velocities at interfaces are supposed to vary linearly. It can be shown that the problem can be set as
a linear programming in which the internal dissipated power is minimized. The final collapse
multiplier furnishes the maximum percentage of the vertical load beared by the structure as
seismic action.

Figure 4: Homogenised limit analysis discretisation

3. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In Figure 5 the force-displacement curve, i.e. the total
shear force versus the control point displacement, is presented
for the described models. The correspondent failure
mechanisms are presented in Figures 6, 7, 8. The results of the
models C and L present common features in terms both of
ultimate strength and of failure mechanism. Such a collapse
mechanism is determined by the rocking of the first three piers
with the consequent failure of the spandrel walls. The ultimate F = equivalent frame model
shear values are: 6000 kN for the model C, 5640 kN for the C = continuous model
model L. On the other hand, the results related to the model F L = limit analysis.
show that the ultimate strength is 20% lower (equal to 4500
kN) and that the behaviour results to be less fragile. The curve
Figure 5: Capacity curves
is stopped when the first pier reaches its ultimate displacement; such a limit value occurs in the
first left pier. Furthermore, the value of the ultimate strength depends strongly on the size of the
rigid offset assumed. In the present analysis the rigid zone is spanned on the entire intersection
pier-spandrel as shown in Figure 2 by a thicker line.

Figure 6: Plastic hinges for the model F; blu=bending, red=shear.

Figure 7: Cracks pattern for continuous model C. Red arrow means cracked zone.

Figure 8: Model L: total plastic dissipation, contour plot.

References
[1] Ramos L, Lourenço PB, Modeling and vulnerability of historical city centers in seismic areas:
a case study in Lisbon. Engineering Structures, 26, 2004, 1295-1310.
[2] O.P.C.M. 3274, 20/03/2003, Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione
sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica [in
Italian] & O.P.C.M. 3431/05 09/05/2005, Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni all'OPCM
3274/03 [in Italian].
[3] Bathe KJ, Walczak J, Welch A, Mistry N, Nonlinear analysis of concrete structures, Computer
& Structures 32(3-4), 1989, 563–590.
[4] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls. Part I: failure
surfaces, Computers and Structures, 84, 2006, 166-180.
[5] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls. Part II:
structural examples, Computers and Structures, 84, 2006, 181-195.
[6] Turnšek V, Cacovic F, Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls,
Proc. Of the 2nd Int. Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke on Trent, 1971, 149-156.
[7] Sloan SW, Kleeman PW, Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous velocity fields,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 127(1-4), 1995, 293–314.