Critical review of analytical models for the in-plane and out-of-plane assessment of URM buildings

The seismic assessment of URM buildings requires proper methods of analysis and verification procedures, which consider both out-of-plane and in-plane behavior within the ambit of the displacement-based approach. In addition to numerical models, which are able to analyze also complex structures, analytical mechanically-based models can be derived from standards and are effective to support risk mitigation policies. The facade of a two-storey URM building has been considered as simple case study, and the results in terms of %NBS provided by different standards of methods from literature are compared. Regarding the out-of-plane behavior, some possible collapse mechanisms have been considered, in order to check the different methods of evaluation of the displacement demand and definition of the ultimate capacity. For the in-plane behavior, first of all a discussion on the different failure criteria for piers and spandrels is presented, and then the response of one single pier and the adjacent spandrels is investigated, in order to check the mutual interaction. Some comments on critical issues in present standards and proposals for a new release of NZSEE are also presented.

[1]  Katrin Beyer,et al.  Review of strength models for masonry spandrels , 2013, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[2]  Serena Cattari,et al.  PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[3]  Serena Cattari,et al.  In‐plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers , 2009 .

[4]  G. Magenes,et al.  Experimental cyclic behaviour of stone masonry spandrels , 2012 .

[5]  S. Cattari,et al.  A STRENGTH CRITERION FOR THE FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR OF SPANDRELS IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS , 2008 .

[6]  Katrin Beyer,et al.  Peak and residual strengths of brick masonry spandrels , 2012 .

[7]  Katrin Beyer,et al.  Quasi-Static Monotonic and Cyclic Tests on Composite Spandrels , 2012 .

[8]  M. J. N. Priestley,et al.  EQUIVALENT VISCOUS DAMPING EQUATIONS FOR DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN , 2005 .

[9]  G. Housner.  The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes , 1963 .

[10]  M. J. N. Priestley,et al.  SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES FREE TO ROCK ON THEIR FOUNDATIONS , 1978 .

[11]  S. Cattari,et al.  MODELLING THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF UNREINFORCED EXISTING MASONRY BUILDINGS : A CRITICAL REVIEW OF SOME MODELS PROPOSED BY CODES , 2009 .

[12]  Vladimir Sigmund,et al.  Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings , 2010 .

[13]  Jacques Heyman,et al.  The stone skeleton , 1995 .

[14]  Craig D. Comartin,et al.  Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings , 2000 .

[15]  Michael C. Griffith,et al.  Review of Out-of-Plane Seismic Assessment Techniques Applied To Existing Masonry Buildings , 2016 .

[16]  Stefano Pampanin.  Controversial aspects in seismic assessment and retrofit of structures in modern times: understanding and implementing lessons from ancient heritage , 2006 .

[17]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  In‐plane seismic response of brick masonry walls , 1997 .

[18]  Sergio Lagomarsino,et al.  Seismic assessment of rocking masonry structures , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[19]  Nicos Makris,et al.  The rocking spectrum and the limitations of practical design methodologies , 2003 .

[20]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra , 1999 .