Outline

Ingegneria Sismica

Ingegneria Sismica

Out-of-Plane Seismic Response of Masonry Façades Some Comparisons Among Full Dynamic and Pushover Analysis

, Siro Casolo. and , Giuseppina Uva. “Out-of-Plane Seismic Response of Masonry Façades Some Comparisons Among Full Dynamic and Pushover Analysis.” Ingegneria Sismica Volume 28 Issue 3: -, doi:….

Abstract

Within the framework of the seismic risk assessment of monumental masonry buildings, we focus on the analysis of out–of–plane mechanisms which actually represent the most recurrent collapse mode for the façade of churches or basilicas. A full non-linear dynamic analysis is performed by adopting a rigid body and spring model (RBSM), where damage is entirely ascribed to the out-of-plane flexural behaviour. A phenomenological description of the cyclic response of the masonry material is provided in the definition of the constitutive prescriptions, including plastic energy dissipation and mechanical damage. Then, a comparison is made with a non-linear static pushover analysis, which is performed by means of the same RBSM under quasi-static loading, incrementally applied. The generalized force–displacement curve and the ultimate limit displacement capacity are evaluated, comparing them with the seismic displacement demand. As a case study, the church of Rosario in Guastalla was chosen, that was damaged by the Emilia Romagna Earthquake in 1987. A number of analyses have been performed, by adopting artificially generated accelerograms with different destroying potential, in order to investigate the correlation between the damage indicators obtained with the two procedures. The two methodologies showed a good agreement in the evaluation of the seismic response for low-medium seismic demands, even if NSPs tends to overestimate the damage, especially for high seismic levels.

Related Articles

E. Brunesi1, S. Peloso1, R. Pinho1,2, R. Nascimbene3
1EUCENTRE, European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
2Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr), University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 3, Pavia 27100, Italy
3Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy
R. Arvind1, M. Helen Santhi1, G. Malathi2, Huseyin Bilgin3
1School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3Civil (Structural) Engineering, Epoka University, Tirana / Albania
Ali Ekber Sever1, Yakup Hakan Aydin2, Pinar Usta Evci1
1Department of Civil Engineering, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
Hayri Baytan Ozmen1, Esra Ozer2
1Department of Civil Engineering, Usak University, 64200 Usak, Turkey
2Department of Civil Engineering, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, 60250 Tokat, Turkey
Hamid Beiraghi1, Abolfazl Riahi Nouri2
1Department of Civil Engineering, Mahdishahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahdishahr, Iran
2Department of Civil Engineering, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran