1

ECCM 2010
IV European Conference on Computational Mechanics
Palais des Congrs, Paris, France, May 16-21, 2010
IV European Conference on Computational Mechanics
C. Maruccio
1
, D. V. Oliveira
2
, P.B. Loureno
3
, G. Monti
4
,

1
University of Minho , Department of Civil Engineering, Azurm, 4800-058 Guimares, Portugal cmaruccio@civil.uminho.pt,
claudiomaruccio@gmail.com
2
University of Minho , Department of Civil Engineering, Azurm, 4800-058 Guimares, Portugal danvco@civil.uminho.pt
3
University of Minho , Department of Civil Engineering, Azurm, 4800-058 Guimares, Portuga pbl@civil.uminho.pt
4
Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Structural Engineering and Geotechnics Via Gramsci, 53 00197 Rome, Italy,
giorgio.monti@uniroma1.it

Nonlinear analysis of masonry structures: comparison between micro-modelling and macro-
modelling approaches
The most advanced codes dealing with the seismic assessment of existing buildings introduced
nonlinear analysis as a standard approach to evaluate the seismic performance of structures. But for
the seismic analysis of the masonry structures, there is still lack of numerical models, which have the
advantages of accurate, high- efficiency and good- convergence [1,2].

Generally, numerical models for seismic analysis of masonry structures are based on the classical
FEM formulation and the constitutive relations are satisfied at Gauss points. So fine-meshes are
always needed to gain a good agreement with experimental results and this restricts the applicability of
these models to complex problems [3].

On the other side, there are some models which over-simplify the behaviour of the material or the
structure. Masonry is modelled with truss or frame elements, where the shear behaviour of the panel is
described using an elastic-plastic bilinear law with limited ductility. These methods are quite efficient
in the computation process, but sometimes show inaccuracy because neglect the flexibility of floors,
the rocking effect of walls, the flexibility and failures of floor strips, flexural and sliding failures of
panels. This leads to considerable over-evaluations of the lateral strength [4].

In this frame, it is necessary to drastically reduce the number of DOF of the FEM models in order to
analyse complex structural configurations of buildings. This can be done by modelling each panel in
the structure through a single element. This approach leads to panel elements which represent a
compromise between classical FE and simplified methods [4].
The main objectives of the paper are first to assess the performance of a multi-fan element
implemented in the Opensees finite element program using an advanced finite element micro-
modelling approach where the material behaviour is described based on plasticity theory and second to
use the macro-modelling approach to assess the global seismic behaviour of a complex assemblage of
masonry buildings. As a case study, the model is applied to a row of buildings belonging to the
historical centre of Paganica under the Aquila earthquake. Finally, an updated constitutive model
developed in the frame of the micro-modelling approach is used to assess the effects of the application
of FRP sheets to strength a masonry facade of the building assemblage [5].



References

[1] Analysis and restoration of ancient masonry structures: guidelines and examples. Loureno P. B.,
Proceedings of Innovative Materials and Technologies for Construction and Restoration 2004; Lecce, Italy,
23-41.
[2] The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage. Croci G., J ournal of Architectural
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, December 1998, 156-157.
[3] A multi-surface interface model for the analysis of masonry structures. Loureno, P.B. and Rots J .G.,
J ournal Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 123, No. 7, 1997, pp. 660668.
[4] A Finite Element for the Analysis of the Response of Masonry Buildings under Seismic Actions. Braga, F.,
Liberatore, D., Proc. Of the 5NAMC, Urbana, U.S.A., 1990
[5] Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. Trianatafillou, T. C. (1998),
Composites for Constructions, ASCE, pp. 96-104.

2