General description

S.T.A. DATA srl - C.so Raffaello, 12 - 10126 Torino, Italy

+39 011 6699345 - fax +39 011 6699375 skype: simonetta.verdi
Version: 4
3
Index
0
3Muri - Analysis for Masonry Structures 5
................................................................................................................................... 6 The FME method (Frame by Macro Elements)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Structural ductility
.......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Box behaviour
.......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Behaviour of the walls to the earthquake
.......................................................................................................................................................... 13 The macroelement theoretical model
.......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Rigid and deformable floors: a theory that needs to be discredited
.......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Regular and irregular structures
.......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Editing the equivalent frame
.......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Mixed structures: R.C., steel, and wood elements
.......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Non-linear analysis (push-over)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Reference Code
......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Europe
......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Italy
......................................................................................................................................... 22
Technical Norms for Construction - D.M. 14 January 2008
......................................................................................................................................... 23
Ordinanza O.P.C.M. 3274 / 3431 - 3 maggio 2005
................................................................................................................................... 23
ULS Checks
................................................................................................................................... 23
SLD Checks
......................................................................................................................................... 23
Technical Norms - D.M. 16 January 1996
......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Switzerland
......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Automatic analysis of loads and seismic action computation
Computation phases 25
................................................................................................................................... 26 Phase 1: Insertion of the structure
.......................................................................................................................................................... 27 The drawing area
.......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Direct importation of the geometry
.......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Tracing the walls
.......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Structural elements
......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Superficial vertical elements
......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Linear vertical elements
......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Linear horizontal elements
.......................................................................................................................................................... 37 The structural reinforcements
......................................................................................................................................................... 37 R.C and steel reinforcements
......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Reinforced masonry
......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Masonry walls reinforced with FRP
.......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Levels and floors
......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Deformable floors
......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Floors
......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Masonry - RC composite floor
......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Brick vaults
......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Balconies
.......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Materials Database
......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Existing material
.......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Load analysis
......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Load types
.......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Openings (doors and windows)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 47 External constraints and foundations
.......................................................................................................................................................... 48 2D and 3D display
4
.......................................................................................................................................................... 48 Lesion simulation
................................................................................................................................... 49 Phase 2: Analysis
.......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Non-linear static analysis
......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Automatic mesh construction for the model
......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Analysis execution
......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Operating speed
.......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Local static checks
.......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Modal Dynamic Analysis
................................................................................................................................... 52 Phase 3 Results
.......................................................................................................................................................... 52 Non-linear static analysis
......................................................................................................................................................... 52 Brief presentation
......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Presentation of the details
......................................................................................................................................... 54
Deformation strain curve
......................................................................................................................................... 55
Numeric results
......................................................................................................................................................... 57 Evolution of damage
......................................................................................................................................................... 57 3D presentation of the damaged model
......................................................................................................................................................... 58 Foundations Analysis
.......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Local static checks
.......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Dynamic modal analysis
................................................................................................................................... 60 Report
FME method checks 61
................................................................................................................................... 62 Experimental tests
Comparing FME method with POR and FEM
method 64
................................................................................................................................... 64 The POR method
................................................................................................................................... 65 The FEM method
................................................................................................................................... 67 The FME method
................................................................................................................................... 73 Comparison of the POR and FEM methods
................................................................................................................................... 75 Comparison of the FME and FEM methods
Bibliography 78
0
5
3Muri - Analysis for Masonry Structures
3Muri is a computation program for analysis of masonry structures that uses non-linear
(pushover) and static analysis.
One of the strengths of 3Muri is its innovative computation method (FME) that is able to
correctly evaluate the behaviour of masonry structures and provide all the information
that a designer needs to carefully examine the structure.
Shortly, 3Muri examines large and small structures in masonry and mixed materials
(with elements in R.C., steel or wood) such as beams, columns and R.C. walls.
3Muri can be used for designing new structures as well as for examining existing
structures through their degree of seismic vulnerability.
Through examination of the actual behaviour of structures it is possible to make
changes to improve earthquake safety through reinforcing existing masonry, inserting
new masonry elements, reinforced masonry or insertion of reinforcements with FRP.
3Muri offers a drawing area for insertion of the structure with intuitive controls, as well
as a solver for creation of computation models and their solutions, and a post-
processor for immediate presentation of the results and creation of the computation
report.
6
The FME method (Frame by Macro Elements)
In order to formulate a theoretical model able to take in all aspects of the masonry
structural behaviour, it is necessary to consider:
a link able to correctly describe the behaviour of the materials (masonry, concrete,
steel) which are subject to the seismic action, and takes into account the specific
failure modalities;
a model able to schematize the entire structure taking in the global characteristics
and the interaction of the various elements: walls and floors;
the requirements imposed by the Code.
Various methods have been proposed in the technical literature for seismic calculation
of masonry structures (POR method, finite element method, equivalent frame method
with macroelements), becoming more and more refined and precise.
3Muri uses the FME method (Frame by Macro Elements), which is the most advanced
available in the sector of masonry calculation, which is inspired by the equivalent frame
with macroelements method.
The FME method derives from the observation of the true behaviour of buildings
damaged by earthquakes and takes into account the different types of damage
mechanisms.
3Muri was born by a joint project between S.T.A. DATA, which has always searched for
innovative solutions, together with the research group headed by Professor Sergio
Lagomarsino, from the Construction Technique department at the University of Genova.

Along with other specialists (engineer Andrea Penna and engineer Alessandro Galasco -
Eucentre, Pavia and engineer Serena Cattari - University of Genova) they have finalized
the theoretical aspects of 3Muri using, among other things, laboratory experiments and
analysis on real structures.
To use a program knowledgeably, it is necessary to understand its constituent
elements. The short notes that follow will indicate the model chosen by 3Muri,
highlighting the most important aspects.
7
Structural ductility
The new anti-seismic code highlights that ductility is the most important factor for
evaluating a structure's capacity to resist seismic actions.
Ductility is the capacity of a structure to deform at an almost-constant load, passing the
elastic phase and dissipating the energy transmitted by the seismic waves through
attrition and hysteresis phenomena.
While for certain types of structures (R.C., steel, wood) it is still possible to perform
computations using elastic analysis (using the q factor which synthetically expresses
the structure's ductile capacity), this method is not easily applied to masonry
structures.
To be more precise, the q method can be applied but with very careful criteria, because
hight values for seismic actions are obtained and consequently structures with
excessively large dimensions.
For this reason, theoretical and experimental research has created analyses that allow
valuation of the structure's effective behaviour when the elastic phase has been
passed.
The consequence is the choice of ductility as the parameter for decision making.
Ductility means displacement: in fact, ductility is defined as d
u
/d
e
, who is the ratio
between the maximum structural displacement before collapse and the elastic limit
displacement. Hence, it is necessary to evaluate both of the values.
8
The result of the 3Muri analysis is a diagram of this type:
Base force curve -- displacement of the control node
The curve indicates the ration between the base seismic force and the displacement of
the a particular node, called the control node, which is generally positioned at the high
point of the structure.
The curve shows the structure's behaviour as the load grows. This can be divided into
three phases:
Phase 1: elastic. Initial behaviour is mainly elastic and displacement is proportional to
the forces.
Phase 2: progressive deterioration. Due to passing of the elastic phase of the
individual elements (piers and spandrel beams) which constitute the structure, the
progressive reduction of the forces' growth is highlighted, until the maximum level of
resistance. Hence, the descent follows as failure of the elements spreads.
Phase 3: collapse. Once a conventional limit is exceeded (80% of the value of the
maximum resistance point) the structure is considered to have collapsed. Hence, it is
reached the Ultimate Limit State (ULS), which for NTC 08 coincides with the SLV, which
is the Lifesaving Limit State.
Is so obtained the Offered Displacement, which is the maximum displacement that the
structure can reach before collapsing.
This value is compared with the Requested Displacement, that is the displacement
required by code, based on the location and the structure's characteristics (Nominal Life
and Use Class). Requested Displacement is automatically calculated by the program.
The structure passes the check if:
Offered Displacement > Requested Displacement
The same logic is used for computation of the Damage and Operational Limit States.
Global check of the structure
If the disparity is true, the structure has passed globally and is not necessary to
perform additional analyses, even if there are additional elements in combination with
the masonry (R.C., steel, wood).
9
The check is global, as for every displayed element is evaluated the behaviour beyond
the elastic phase, taking into account its contribution in combination with the plastic
phase and collapse. What is important is that the structure, as a whole, provides a
Displacement that is greater than the Required Displacement.
However, if the structure does not reach the Requested Displacement, 3Muri provides
information about the critical areas in which it is necessary to make changes in order to
improve the structure's behaviour.
10
Box behaviour
Masonry structures have demonstrated good earthquake resistance. However, it is
necessary that they meet certain fundamental hypotheses that will be listed below.
Hence, the software must take these characteristics into account in order to create a
model that is as similar as possible to reality.
Box behaviour
Walls are a fundamental element and for the particular nature of masonry they
manifest good behaviour on their floor, while their behaviour outside the floor can be
ignored.

image from Touliatos, 1996
In order to have adequate global resistance, it requires connection between walls and
between walls and floors. That's the box behaviour, which offers a resistance that is
greater than the sum of the elements taken individually.
Outlining with 3Muri
3Muri creates the structure through the definition of the walls taken from the plans.
Construction of the model occurs by identifying the walls that are considered to be significant.
This phase requires the designer's attention because it is necessary to identify the
elements that are truly effective for the structure's global resistance.
The model that is created is three-dimensional:
11
12
Behaviour of the walls to the earthquake
The observation of the walls after the seismic event has allowed classification of
behaviours that are constantly repeated.
Three types of failure can be identified. These vary based on the geometry, the
characteristics of the materials, and the constraint conditions:
shear failure:
failure due to compression bending and edge crushing;
flow failure.
In addition failure occurs in well-defined areas, that is on portions of masonry that are
delimited by the openings.

Shear failure mechanism Failure mechanism due to compression
bending and edge crushing
From these observations, the hypothesis that the behaviour of walls can be
represented by macroelements: masonry portions.
Walls can be divided into elemental components: piers, spandrel beams and rigid
elements. In particular the "pier" elements are disposed on the sides of openings, the
"spandrel beams" are found above and below openings. The remaining masonry that
does not border on openings and hence is contained, can be considered infinitely rigid
with respect to the other elements and is modelled with infinite rigidity (black lengths).
Theoretical and experimental research has confirmed that the behaviour of piers and
spandrel beams, while involving superficial elements, can be seen as equivalent to a
linear element.
Hence, connecting these elements, the frame schema is obtained and logically called
the equivalent frame.

Mesh that represents subdivision into "macroelements" Identification of the "equivalent"
frame
The equivalent frame allows the behaviour of masonry structures to be well
represented. It also simplifies analysis as it reduces the degrees of liberty with respect
to other models, for example the superficial finished elements, saving computation
times too.
3Muri automatically creates the "mesh", that is the division into piers, spandrel beams
and rigid elements even for complex walls, and it performs the non-linear analysis in
order to determine maximum displacement.
13
The macroelement theoretical model
The reduction of superficial elements (piers and spandrel beams) in linear elements has
required attentive analysis and extremely in-depth theoretical studies
Here you will find a synthesis of the resulting model, based on the FME method. It uses
a particular type of finished element with non-linear behaviour, the so-called
"sandwich."
Let's consider a wall of width b and thickness s, consisting of three parts: axial
deformability is concentrated in the two extremity elements, of infinitesimal thickness D,
infinitely rigid to shearing actions. The tangential deformability is situated in the central
body, of height h, which, vice versa is non-deformable axially and flexionally.
Hence, the complete cinematic model for the macro-element must examine the three
degrees of liberty for the nodes i and j, and those of the interface.

The link described above is completed by the insertion of a collapse mechanism:
following the specifications found in the applicable code, 3Muri defines the maximum
acceptable deformation (drift) for the wall due to shearing and compression-bending
mechanisms.
If these values are exceeded, the panel is no longer considered able to support
horizontal actions. Hence, it's resistance capacity is reduced or eliminated.
The element is replaced with a truss, still able to transmit normal forces but with zero
resistance to seismic actions.
hp
Dp
hm
Dm

The load-bearing structure is modeled as an assembly of deformable vertical and
horizontal walls: each wall is schematized through a frame model, as specified in the
code, identifying vertical masonry piers and masonry beams (architraves or floor
spandrel beams) connection through portions that are considered rigid.
For additional information, see the attached bibliography.
14
Rigid and deformable floors: a theory that needs to be discredited
As we have already noted, the 3D model of the structure is composed of walls and
floors.
Their purpose is to transmit horizontal forces to the various walls; in addition, the
presence of tie beams on the masonry influences the behaviour of these walls.
Rigid floor Flexible floor
As highlighted in the figure, the floor with the greater rigidity is able to transmit forces
to the masonry more effectively with respect to a floor with greater flexibility. This
characteristic becomes even more evident when the elastic phase is passed,
preventing that the failure of the central wall would lead in a failure of the entire
structure. In the case of a rigid floor, the lateral walls are able to "cooperate."
For this reason technical manuals frequently request infinitely rigid floors on their floor
and well connected to the masonry.
This is generally true however it is not always necessary, especially when changes
need to be made to existing structures to create such conditions.
In fact, in the case of recovery interventions or earthquake adaptations, replacement of
wood or similar floors with R.C. floors leads to an increase in mass with the increase of
seismic actions. In addition, the job of removing and installation of the new structures
can be very difficult.
An infinitely rigid floor is certainly not an obligation, for however useful it can be; what
is really necessary is to correctly evaluate the behaviour of the structure with the true
rigidity of the floor and the real conditions.
For this reason 3Muri models floors with superficial finished elements with membrane
behaviour, just able to transmit forces on their level, assigning rigidity parameters and
examining the most recurrent types, including vaults.
In addition, floors can have anisotropic behaviour to take into account various rigidities
in the two main directions. This character is usually found in the case of floors with
timber and brick.
Framework of floor elements with anisotropic membrane behaviour.
15
Regular and irregular structures
In the case of irregular structures, which can include: incomplete or staggered floors,
openings aren't regularly repeated, materials are not homogenous, foundations are at
varying elevations, structures in R.C., steel, wood, etc. are present...
3Muri is able to construct a frame that is able to bring together the engineering aspects
of the problem.

Even in complex cases, the mesh creator is able to model the structure taking into
account the irregularities.
Automatic creation of the "equivalent" frame
Automatic creation of the "equivalent" frame for a complex wall
16
Editing the equivalent frame
In rare cases, it may be necessary to manually intervene in order to modify the
automatic proposal provided by 3Muri.
In these cases, there are powerful tools available which allow these changes to be
made.
Options for manually modifying the equivalent frame
Example of manual modification of the equivalent frame
17
Mixed structures: R.C., steel, and wood elements
3Muri allows examination of masonry structures with the presence of additional types
of resistant elements, as illustrated in the figure.
3Muri examines non-linearity of the masonry along with that of other structural
elements (columns, beams, tie rods, R.C. walls) made of other materials such as R.C.,
steel, and wood.
A non-linear R.C. element is an element with six degrees of liberty, with limited
resistance and elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour.
During modelling, it is possible to take into account significant dishomogenity or
discontinuity of thickness, height, or in the materials used in the masonry elements.
For each element the linear elastic behaviour is determined directly by the computation
of the shear and bending rigidity contributions. These are computed based on the
mechanical and geometric properties (Young elastic module E, shear module G, and the
geometry of the beam): when computing these factors, reference is made only to the
section in cement, ignoring the contribution of the reinforcement, while taking into
account the reduction to the rigidity due to cracking.
The various contributions are assembled in the elastic rigidity matrix for the individual
element.
The resistance limits, relative to the failure mechanisms in consideration coincide with
the last value. This is because the elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour hypothesis is in
effect without hardening.
18
Non-linear analysis (push-over)
3Muri studies the "global" behaviour of the structure through non-linear analysis and
the check on displacement, bettering the point check.
The designer has an instrument which allows him/her to investigate structural
behaviour in detail, identifying them most critical aspects.
Following the latest Code specifications and the most advanced research, the structural
response is described in terms of displacement rather than forces, considered the
increased sensitivity to damage for the imposed displacement.
Non-linear static analysis (pushover) characterizes the earthquake resistance system
through capacity curves.
It's a "static" analysis in that the external force is applied to the structure statically and
"non-linear" due to the behavioural model used for the structural resistance elements,
which pass from the elastic phase to the plastic phase and then into failure.


The image illustrates the force-deformation curve, carrying the displacement of a
significant point of the structure (control node) according to the X axis and the
corresponding forces according to the Y axis. Hence, the curve represents how the
structure behaves globally in response to the increase in load, highlighting the non-
linear behaviour.
These curves are intended to represent the envelope of the hysteresis cycles produced
during the seismic event and can be considered to be an indicator of the post-elastic
behaviour of the structure. Push over analysis was created as a simplification of
dynamic non-linear analysis. It obtains the same results, but with less work and quicker
calculation.
Push over analysis can be considered to be the envelope of the maximum points of the
curve highlighted by the dynamic non-linear analysis.
The FME approach (Frame by Macro Element) allows the number of degrees of freedom
to be limited. In this way the structural response for complex masonry can be
represented with a relatively simple level of computation.
Computation times are reduced, allowing rapid operation and simulation of various
hypotheses and solutions.
Non-linear static analysis (push-over) allows the structure to be analyzed in all the
19
phases that occur between the initial application of the seismic load to the structure's
complete collapse.
The figures below illustrate the various phases in which computation occurs.
Phase 1:
In phase 1 the structure is not subject to loads and it is necessary to identify the
control node. This is a point usually found on the highest floor, which serves as a
reference point for the construction of the force-deformation curve. 3Muri automatically
finds the median of the displacement values for the floor.
Phase 2:
In this phase the forces are applied, which will then be increased step by step.
Phase 3
As the loads grow, some elements will be damaged, passing from the elastic phase to
the plastic phase, that is the limit of the elastic behaviour.
Phase 4:
As the forces continue to grow, the phase will change again from plastic to actual
failure.
In this case, the element is no longer considered to be active in contrasting the
horizontal seismic loads, while it is still functional for vertical loads.
Here, a vertical truss is inserted.
Phase 5:
The collapsed elements will increase, as the pier elements and spandrel beams reach
their limit state.
Phase 6:
At the end, the structure will collapse when the force curve at the base-displacement
reaches a value of 80% of the maximum value reached.
20
This criteria varies from code to code.
Applied loads
Two types of horizontal loads are applied: gravitational loads maintained constant and
a system of horizontal forces which, keeping unvaried the ratio relative to the forces
themselves, are increased so as to allow the horizontal displacement of a control point
on the structure to grow monotonically until the structure collapses.
There are two conditions assumed for the horizontal forces: loads proportional to the
height of the floor and proportional to the first node to vibrate.
The computation algorithm has been optimized to obtain the analysis rapidly, even for
structures with notable dimensions.
21
Reference Code
The 3Muri program is distributed in various languages and with various codes.
The "Standard" version of the program contains several modules. The others are
available for purchase.
: Modules contained in the Standard version of the program
: Modules not contained in the Standard version of the program. To use these
modules, contact your distributor to purchase the necessary license.
22
Europe
The reference seismic code is Euro Code 8.
Italy
o
Technical Norms for Construction 08 - D.M. 14 January 2008
o
Technical Norms for Construction 05 - D.M. 14 September 2005
o
Ordinance 3274 as modified by O.P.C.M. 3431 - 3 May 2005
The above-mentioned code calls for computation of seismic vulnerability parameters in
accordance with the specifications of O.P.C.M. 3362 - 8 July 2004.
o
Technical Norms for Construction in seismic zones - D.M. 16 January 1996
Technical Norms for Construction - D.M. 14 January 2008
The specifications in this code present the following peculiarities:
Seismic load: The definition of the spectrums through the seismic load is no longer
linked to the zones but to the geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude), according to
that indicated in the "reference lattice" based on the indications found in Annex A of the
Technical Norms.
Limit Conditions: The limit conditions to be considered are as follows (section 3.2.1. of
the Technical Norms):
Life saving Limit State (SLV)
Damage Limit State (DLS):
Operational Limit State (SLO)
23
Ordinanza O.P.C.M. 3274 / 3431 - 3 maggio 2005
In accordance with the requirements of earthquake code OPCM-3274, two different
checks are necessary. One with regards to the Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and one with
regards to Damage Limit States (DLS).
ULS Checks
The masonry elements mobilize their resistance until the reach the maximum shear drift
value or compression bending. When this value is reached, the resistance provided by
that element is decreased. Progressive damage causes a decrease in its shear limit
value on the push-over curve. When this value reaches 80% of the shear limit value,
the ultimate displacement value is obtained ("offered" by the building).
Here there is a shift from the building's push-over curve to the associated simple
oscillation curve. IN this way the period of the equivalent system can be calculated,
which, through the spectrum provided by code, permits computation of the maximum
displacement value requested by the seismic event ("request" of the seismic event).
The controls
Dmax (from the seismic event) < Du (of the building)
2. q*<3
indicate that the check has been satisfied correctly.
q* indicates the ratio between the elastic response force and the yield force of the
equivalent system.
In addition to the parameters necessary to perform this check, the program also
computes the value of the acceleration limit at collapse. This generates the value for
the displacement requested by the spectrum equal to the ultimate.
SLD Checks
The maximum SLD displacement (Dd) is the lowest value between:
Displacement corresponding with the maximum base shear.
Displacement that generates the ultimate level drift (value given in the code).
The maximum displacement according to the code is obtained reducing acceleration by
a factor equal to 2.5.
The check is satisfied following the procedure below:
Dmax (from the seismic event to SLD) < Dd (of the building)
Technical Norms - D.M. 16 January 1996
According to the indications in the code, it is necessary to check the structural
resistance. This is equivalent to checking that the structure is able to withstand the
seismic actions required under the code.
The program computes the value of the seismic load for the modelled building and
compares it with the maximum load that can be supported by the building
corresponding to the value of the apex of the capacity curve.
The check will be satisfied if:
Fh (seismic load requested by the code) < Fu (maximum building load)
Switzerland
The reference codes are:
o
SIA 2018
o
SIA 266
o
SIA 261
o
SIA 260
24
Automatic analysis of loads and seismic action computation
Once the structure's characteristics have been inserted, along with the relative loads
distributed on the floors, the first step is to analyze the loads assigning the associated
loads to the walls.
Then 3Muri calculates the seismic actions on the structure, through forces on the nodes
on the equivalent frame.
Computation of the seismic forces is computed automatically, based on the code used.
In particular, with reference to NTC 08, values for computation of the seismic
parameters based on the zone where the structure is located are used:
25
Computation phases
As you can see in the following template, operations for inserting data and checks on
the results can be divided into three main phases: Input, Analysis, Checks.
General flux of the data
Define geometry
The geometric characteristics of the structure, that is the placement of the walls and
the height of the floors in the plan, constitute the foundation for insertion of the
"structural objects" found in the next phase.
The geometric data, mainly segments, are inserted directly in drawing mode or by
tracing a DXF or DWG file.
Structural characteristics
The structure is composed of "structural objects" which determine the resistant
elements.
The objects are mainly vertical masonry walls with possible reinforcements (tie rods, tie
beams, columns), floors for the distribution of horizontal actions and linear elements
(beams, columns) made from various material types (R.C., steel, wood).
Every object is characterized by its material and additional geometric parameters
(thickness, inertial characteristics, resistance properties).
Reinforcement parameters are requested for R.C. structures as non-linear analysis is
performed for these elements.
Define equivalent frame
Starting from the geometry and the inserted structural objects, the data for the 3Muri
analysis model are derived: the equivalent frame
The result of this analysis is the creation of a mesh which schematizes piers, spandrel
beams, beams, tie-beams and columns. These elements can still be manually modified
according to particular requires.
Non-linear analysis
The analysis is conducted increasing the loads in monotonic mode, and then deriving
the horizontal displacement of the structure.
Once the conventional displacement is exceeded, which is calculated automatically, the
structure is considered to have collapsed; we can then construct the horizontal force-
horizontal displacement curve, which represents the offered capacity curve, that is the
behaviour of the structure with changes to the horizontal loads.
Note that this curve is independent of earthquakes, as it is a characteristic intrinsic to
the structure, a function of the geometry and resistance characteristics of the materials.
26
Phase 1: Insertion of the structure
Construction of the model is performed interactively, introducing the structure visually
with the ability to control the data and the results at all times.
The first phase calls for a completely visual insertion of the structure using "structural
objects": masonry panels, beams and columns made of R.C., steel, wood, masonry, tie
rods, tie beams.
The fundamental parameters for the "push-over" analysis are automatically calculated.
For example, the flexibility of the floors is calculated taking into account the various
types possible (wood, steel and brick, in simple or crossed R.C., vaults, etc.).
The model is completed with the loads introduced directly to the floors, the constraints
and the characteristics of the terrain.
27
The drawing area
The drawing area includes a vertical bar on the left side for the drawing commands and
three plates which represent the various input and analysis phases, that is the logical
sequence for the required operations.
Drawing command bar
Drawing area for geometry insertion
This area allows insertion of plans, subdividing the model in walls.
Commands for constructing the geometry
Drawing area for insertion of Structural Objects
In this area you can insert the characteristics of various structural objects (walls,
beams, columns, openings, balconies).
Commands for insertion of Structural Objects
28
Direct importation of the geometry
To speed up model construction, it is possible to import an architectural project or a
survey of the existing structure of a building using a DXF or DWG file. This can then be
used as a basis to work on, directly changing the plans for the various floor levels.
Survey of an existing structure
29
Tracing the walls
3Muri traces the walls starting from the architectural design or from direct insertion
using its CAD commands. The walls represent the vertical resistant element in the
masonry.
Through this operation, the vertical resistant elements are identified that are able to
counteract seismic actions through their "box" behaviour.
After this, it is possible to subdivide each wall into sub-elements. In this way they can
be differentiated by thickness, material or other property.

Tracing the walls

Identification of the walls
Additional subdivision to take into account various masonry types
30
Structural elements
Once the walls and levels have been defined, you can insert the resistant structural
elements.
3Muri considers mixed structures, examining the most common "structural objects" such
as walls, beams, columns and floors.
Superficial vertical elements
These are:
simple masonry panels with possible differentiation of material type and thickness
at the openings;
Full panel
Panel with opening

31
Panel with differentiation of material type and thickness
32
with tie beams made of R.C., steel, wood;
Panel with R.C.tie beams
Panel with steel.tie beams
33
Panel with wood tie beams
mixed masonry are provided.
34
35
Linear vertical elements
These are:
masonry, R.C., steel and wood columns.
Linear horizontal elements
These are:
R.C., steel and wood beams;
tie rods.
These elements can be positioned from masonry to masonry or placed on intermediate
column.
Provision of masonry panels with steel , R.C. and wood beams
36
Masonry panel with tie rod
37
The structural reinforcements
The structural model may also include elements that are subject to different types of
reinforcements.
In particular it may be necessary to insert new elements in order to adapt seismically
the structure which has not reached the level of security required.
Through an examination of the damaged elements, it's possible to identify areas which
require reinforcement.
R.C and steel reinforcements
3Muri makes the connection between masonry elements with vertical and horizontal
elements in R.C., steel and wood.
38
It is possible to introduce septa placed between masonry panels
For a widespread reinforcement can be inserted into steel frames arranged horizontally
and vertically.
39
Reinforced masonry
The reinforced masonry can increase significantly the ductility of the structure;
3Muri provides for the distribution of the layers of steel in concentrated areas or
widespread.
Panel with reinforced masonry
40
Masonry walls reinforced with FRP
To increase ductility and reinforce local damaged areas, you can use strips in FRP.
3Muri provides for the distribution of the strips in FRP in concentrated areas or
widespread.
Panel with FRP strips.
41
Levels and floors
The structure is subdivided into levels containing the datapoint elevation z. The levels
include the floors, which can belong to the same level if their elevation does not vary
significantly.
Buildings that have consistent elevations can easily be recreated by duplicating already
defined levels.
Structures with multiple levels
Deformable floors
3Muri includes the most frequently used types and automatically calculates the
necessary values starting from the geometry. It also takes into account the
conservation state and the actual disposition (e.g. if they are actually toothed by the
masonry or not).

For each type, the program requests the parameters for automatic computation of the
structure's characteristics.
For example, for wood structure, the parameters in the figure below are requested.
42
Floors
All types of floors are parametric, with automatic computation of the values used for
computation.
Wood floors

with overlapped planks and a simple or double floor with overlapped planks and an R.C. slab
Iron beams and hollow flat blocks Iron beams and vaults

Masonry - RC composite floor
The user can introduce a masonry-RC composite floor in the model.
Brick vaults
Also in this case, once the geometry and the materials have been defined, the program
calculates the weight and rigidity characteristics that will be used in the analysis.

Dome vault Cross vault Ribbed vault

Barrel vault Barrel vault with domed heads
43
Balconies
Balconies are also taken into account, based on where they are placed. However, they
contribute only in terms of mass.
The template for data insertion allows the user to define the geometry and the
requirements of anti-earthquake code for correct attribution of the parameters.
44
Materials Database
In order to speed up insertion of the elements, the program has a database of the
most commonly used materials.
It is possible to use the references found in the code, using a series of windows which
allow you to identify the correct parameters.
Alternatively, you can decide to directly insert the values.
Existing material
To define existing materials, you can use a series of parameters that use the code
45
In this window you can use the specifications found in the Code.

Type of masonry Knowledge Level
The values for the characteristics are automatically provided.
If you are working with a knowledge level of 3, the experimental values from the tests
will be requested.
After having defined the material characteristics, it is possible to define improvement
parameters according to that indicated in the code.
In the update window for masonry materials properties, there is a link to the
indications found in the code (OPCM 3274) with regards to masonry.
46
Load analysis
Loads are introduced directly on the floors.
The self-weight of the masonry is automatically calculated. The floor's loads, subdivided
in permanent and variable, are automatically divided between the masonry they rest
on, according to their true placement, either mono or bidirectional.
Load types
These are the various types of loads available:
concentrated on the floors
concentrated on the walls
linear on the floors
linear on the walls
distributed on the floors and the balconies
The loads are represented visually as in the figure below:
47
Openings (doors and windows)
After having defined all of the masonry elements, it is possible to interrupt structural
continuity through insertion of doors and windows, using the opening command.
During the next mesh phase (definition of the piers) of spandrel beams and rigid
elements, the program will evaluate the influence of the openings and determine their
effects.
In the same template doors and windows can be inserted
External constraints and foundations
The program automatically inserts constraints to the model's foundation. In addition,
elastic-type constraints are added, able to simulate interaction with the ground.
Constraints include all the various types with elastic parameters for elastic constraints.
Continuous R.C. foundations are included.
48
2D and 3D display
The program allows display of the building model through the plans for the various
floors and the elevation of the individual walls. In this way the model can be quickly and
effectively checked. It is also possible to view the structure in 3D, with the possibility of
rotation.


Using the various filters it is possible to select and unselect parts of the structure
(walls, floors, beams and columns), filtering in this way the objects that are displayed.
Lesion simulation
Lesions and grafting can be included in the model using appropriate constraints
conditions, that is reductions in the structural continuity.
49
Phase 2: Analysis
Once the data has been inserted, it is possible to move on to analysis of the entire
structure as indicated in the schema.
Area for computation and presentation of results.
After data insertion, the computation is performed and the results are displayed.
Commands for analysis and displaying of results
This is subdivided into two phases.
Phase 1 - Definition of the equivalent frame
Using the 3Muri model the data for the equivalent frame are derived, starting from the
geometry and the inserted structural objects.
After the analysis a mesh is created, which schematizes piers, spandrel beams, beams,
tie-beams and columns. These elements can also be manually modified if the situation
requires.
Phase 2 - Non-linear analysis
The analysis is conducted increasing the loads in monotonic mode and then deriving the
horizontal displacement of the structure.
Once the conventional displacement is exceeded, which is calculated automatically, the
structure is considered to have collapsed. The horizontal force-horizontal displacement
curve can be constructed, which represents the capacity curve or the behaviour of the
structure with changes to the horizontal loads.
Note that this curve is independent of earthquakes as it is a characteristic intrinsic to
the structure, just a function of geometry and resistance characteristics of the
materials.
50
Non-linear static analysis
The main analysis performed by 3Muri is non-linear static analysis (push-over).
Automatic mesh construction for the model
Once the structural geometry of the building is defined (like the assembly of masonry
walls), an algorithm will find the connections between these and automatically identify
piers, spandrel beams and nodes.
The program allows the equivalent frame to be determined automatically. It subdivides
the masonry walls into rigid elements, piers, and spandrel beams; then creates the
structure to be analyzed.
Thanks to a highly-evolved mesh program, even highly complex situations are taken
into examination and the results are always correct.
The above figure represents the geometric model inserted by the user, following automatic mesh creation, and identification of
piers, spandrel beams, rigid elements, and presentation of the equivalent frame.
The structure introduced above is automatically schematized with the equivalent frame,
taking into account the openings and the walls that touch the external constraints, with
automatic determination of piers, spandrel beams and rigid elements.
51
Analysis execution
The program provides for 24 load conditions. This means there are 24 push-overs to
take into account for the earthquake according to X and Y in the two directions and the
accidental eccentricity required by the norm. In this phase the computation is
performed using the code chosen.
Distribution of the seismic forces is proportional to the mass or the first node to vibrate.
The weight bearing capacity curve can be traced by referring to the displacement of a
specific control node or the median displacement of the floor. The figure below shows
the list of analyses required.

Operating speed
3Muri contains an optimized computational engine that allows processing of a medium-
sized structure (3-4 levels) in just a few minutes.
Thanks to FME method modelling, the number of unknowns taken into consideration is
significantly less than with other methods.
Local static checks
This module performs local static checks.
The program uses the meshes already created to perform the non-linear analysis,
adapting the equivalent frame theory to perform static checks in the linear field.
Modal Dynamic Analysis
This is an area dedicated to computation of modal forms and the parameters
associated with them.
When the appropriate button found in the analysis bar is pushed, you can define the
number of modal forms desired:
52
Phase 3 Results
Area for presentation of results.
Once the computation has been performed, the results can be displayed.
Commands for analysis and displaying of results
As indicated in the scheme, the check is performed by comparing the displacement
requested and the displacement that is offered.
If this value is not met, then it is possible to create changes that improve the
structure's capacity.
Non-linear static analysis
The results of the non-linear static analysis are presented in overview mode for the
various analyses performed, and in detailed mode for each individual analysis.
Brief presentation
This window allows you to see the results summarized.
Each line shows the results of the analysis. They are green if the check passed, red if
not.
53
In addition, values for the following are shown:
requested displacement for ultimate limit state and damage limit state
offered displacement for ultimate limit state and damage limit state
q* = factor of structure computed

u
= degree of vulnerability for the ultimate limit state

e
= degree of vulnerability for the damage limit state
54
Presentation of the details
For each analysis, the push-over curve and the outline of the bilateral equivalent
system are shown in the window. Based on the user defined code, the corresponding
conditions to be satisfied are shown.
Any parameter of the construction's response can be examined in order to provide
adequate understanding of the structure's behaviour. This data is necessary in order to
better design any necessary changes for improving the seismic response.
Presentation of the results takes place in 4 areas:
zone 1: Front view of the interested wall is seen;
zone 2: numeric results are shown;
zone 3: the general deformed plan based on the load steps is shown. In addition,
the wall seen in zone 1 is highlighted;
zone 4: the force-deformation curve relative to the entire structure is shown.
Deformation strain curve
The result of the "Non-linear static analysis" is the curve shear to the base-displacement
relative to a control node.
From that obtained curve, the bilinear equivalent is defined and a global seismic check
of the building is performed.
55
The limit of the curve on the right indicates the displacement provided by the structure.
The red vertical bar identifies the minimum displacement required by the code. If this
value is less than the right limit of the curve, then the structure has passed the check.
However, if the structure does not pass, it is possible to provide for improvements
through plating or injections or inserting new elements in different materials (for
example R.C. walls, beams, columns, tie beams or tie rods).
Working in this way, it is no longer necessary to check each individual element as their
contribution is implicitly taken into account in the analysis of the entire structure.
The 3Muri model, through study of the elastic-plastic behaviour of the elements, allows
evaluation at any moment of the conditions of the individual elements as well as the
global structure.
Hence, the check is provided in performance terms, that is the capacity of the structure
to undergo displacement in excess to that required by code.
Numeric results
The result window shows all the values (nodal displacements, reaction, columns forces,
etc.) for the various walls that make up the structure, for each substep of the analysis.

In this window each value can be selected. The results can be exported for use in other
programs, such as Word and Excel.
You can also see the deformation alignment, both for the plan and the wall. The change
in color highlights the state of advancement of the damage in the various
macroelements.
By observing the colors found in the damaged wall map, it is easy to understand which
macroelements are damaged and the cause of the damage (shear, compression
bending, etc.).
It is also possible to examine the tendency towards damage for all non damaged
elements, making it easy to determine whether they become plastic due to shearing or
compression bending.
56
This type of visualization is not only for masonry elements but also for reinforced
cement, steel or wood.
This instrument is extremely useful for managing any changes that need to be made to
existing structures, as it is very simple to identify the areas in which intervention is
needed.
57
Evolution of damage
After having performed the push-over analysis it is possible to display the progress of
the damage to the structure, following the course of the selected load.
In fact, by moving the cursor that indicates the load's history, you can see the
animation of the damage as it propagates through the structure.
In the images, from left to right and from top to bottom, you can see the variation in
the state of the elements. They begin whole and move to the plastic state, then finally
collapse.
The color map, as seen in the figure below, indicates the meaning of each color.
The drawing created by the program allows you to see the configuration of the floors'
deformation as well as for the individual walls at each load step. In this way, the level
of damage for the macroelements is highlighted. The numeric results of the analyses
are listed in a table (frequency of the modal analysis, node displacement, etc.).
It is also possible to export the results in text or Excel format.
For each dynamic analysis you can obtain a temporal history of the node displacements
or the other significant parameters for the analysis (interfloor drift, damage and failure
of elements, forces), automatically identifying the maximum and minimum values.
3D presentation of the damaged model
To obtain a clear representation of the structural damage, it is possible to show the
evolution in 3D mode. In this way, it is possible to highlight the parts and the level of
damage reached.
58

These representations highlight the elements that reached failure.
In this way, it is easy to understand the failure mechanisms and make changes with
targeted reinforcements.
Displaying the structure as transparent and showing only the failed elements, makes it
easier to identify the individual points where the structure is weak.
Foundations Analysis
The foundations analysis results can be displayed for each substep of the analysis.
For each of these is shown the tension in contact with the soil (foundation-ground) of
the current step, and the maximum value between the first step and that
corresponding to the displacement value equal to Dmax.
59
Local static checks
Checks relative are performed for the following areas:
o
Slenderness check: (2.2.1.3. D.M.87)
o
Load eccentricity check: (2.2.1.2. D.M.87)
o
Vertical loads check: (2.4.2.2. D.M.87)
Video that presents the results
Dynamic modal analysis
After the calculation of dynamic modal we can look the presentation of results.
In the table at the bottom right is presented the list of modal forms.
The table gives the following data:
o
Mode: Numeric identifier for the modal form
o
T[s]: Fundamental period
o
mx[kg]: Participating mass direction X
o
Mx[%]: Percentage of participating mass direction X
o
my[kg]: Participating mass direction Y
o
My[%]: Percentage of participating mass direction Y
o
mz[kg]: Participating mass direction Z
o
Mz[%]: Percentage of participating mass direction Z
60
Report
After having performed the analysis, the report manager will be able to produce the
final document.
The data are extrapolated from the the computational data according to specifications
that the user can personalize.
Using the tree on the left, the user can decide which parts will be included in the report.

The final document can be seen in preview and then exported in various standard
formats (.doc, .html, .pdf, .xls).
61
FME method checks
In order to verify the reliability of the theoretical solution, the damages suffered by the
City Hall of Castelnuovo Belbo after the earthquake in Monferrato in 2000 were
compared with the damage predictions calculated by 3Muri.
The calculated numeric results compare with optimal approximation to the image of the
damages that were actually suffered. This indicates the capacity of 3Muri to examine
reality in a way that no other program has done to date.
At the left the damages suffered by the actual structure on the ground and first floor
can be seen. On the right are the damages predicted by 3Muri.
The image of the damages caused by the earthquakes match almost completely with
the analysis performed with 3Muri.
62
Experimental tests
Real scale models were created at various research centers and then brought to failure
using dynamic loads.
Again in these tests, the theoretical analysis performed with 3Muri overlaps with the
experimental data.
63
64
Comparing FME method with POR and FEM method
The FME method is fairly recent, although it derives from studies and research
performed in the last few decades.
Below you will find a comparison with the methods used before: POR method and FEM
method.
The POR method
The first method to be examined is the POR, which was developed in the 1980s, a
period when computers were not yet widely used.
One of the objectives of this method was to make possible to use incremental collapse
analysis, despite the difficulties associated with manual computation.
For this reason the structure is schematised in an extremely simplified way, taking into
account only the resistance of the vertical masonry elements (1), (2), (3) as in the
figure below, without examining the true rigidity of the horizontal masonry spandrel
beams.
The decision to take the floor as having infinite rigidity (as a connection system
between the various masonry walls, instead of a replacement for the actual rigidity of
the floor and spandrel beam system), means using a computation model in which the
vertical masonry elements are considered to have rotation impeded at their extremities.

Summary of the characteristics of the POR method
Simplified model, numerically easy and can be used to do manual calculations
Infinitely rigid floors
Does not allow for spandrel beam damage mechanisms
Over-estimates structural rigidity
Extremely-underestimates structural ductility
65
The FEM method
A masonry construction can be analysed by making the walls discrete elements, using
the surface finished elements with classic FEM programs.
Due to this, the analysis increases in significance with the level of detail of the mesh.
Hence it is "mesh dependent" and heavily conditioned by the operations which define
the model.
This type of analysis is much more burdensome in computational terms and can only be
done with automatic calculation programs.
In the case in which a non-linear constituent law is considered for the material, this
method can take into account the proper degradation of the masonry, reducing the
resistance of the damaged elements.
Definition of the parameters requires precise knowledge about the masonry material
and a level of detail that is not explicitly noted in the codes, whose evaluation can only
be found through carful experimental analysis.
If these parameters are lacking, or if the evaluation if not performed correctly, it means
that the "pushover" curve obtained through the non-linear static analysis will not take
into account the descending length formed due to the structural damage.
The code defines the maximum value in correspondence with a 20% decline in the
shear value with respect to the maximum value.
Hence, it is not possible to define the collapse, in accordance with that required by the
code.
Results of analyses of this type will provide maps which highlight the localized tension
level of the masonry.
A tension point value that exceeds the limit value does not represent failure of the
masonry panel.
In fact, resistance criteria for the masonry elements depend on the value of the force
characteristics that do not have a direct correspondence with the tension state. Hence,
they don't consider the effects of the tension points, but also possible redistribution
due to non-linear behaviour and degradation.
Hence, it is necessary to revise the modelling results, through median and integration
operations, in order to perform the analysis correctly and consistently.
66
Summary of the characteristics of the FEM method
Dependence on mesh analysis (mesh dependent) and computation times that are
heavily reliant on model dimensions. For large models computation time can be notable.
Point definition of material constituent laws is difficult to achieve
The Code does not contain all the parameters necessary to define non-linear
behaviour and degradation. Without these values it is impossible to consistently
apply the resistance criteria and the displacement limits associated with the
degradation of global resistance on the capacity curve.
In order to apply shear resistance and bending criteria to the masonry, it is
necessary to integrate the node effects on the individual masonry elements, at least
in order to check and verify the results obtained with the non-linear constituent
model.
In face, the Code does not offer explicit reference to modelling of the panels through
creating discrete objects for surface elements. Instead, it suggests using an
equivalent frame model with piers, masonry beams and, if necessary, other structural
elements in R.C. and steel.
67
The FME method
The Code provides some general considerations on the ways of modelling structures
with the intention of global seismic analysis.
For existing buildings in normal masonry, some details are indicated and some concepts
are suggested for modelling.
The reference model is a three-dimensional equivalent frame, in which the walls are
interconnected with horizontal partitions on the floors.
In the specific case of a masonry structure, the wall can be schematized as a frame in
which the resistant elements (piers and spandrel beams) and the rigid nodes are
assembled.
Coupling beams in normal masonry or piers are modelled only if the designer holds that
they are adequately toothed by the walls.
Dividing the walls into vertical lengths corresponding to the various floors, and knowing
the location of the openings, then the portion of masonry, masonry piers and floor
lengths (where the deformability and damage is concentrate) is automatically
determined. This can be verified by observing damage caused by real earthquakes or
through experimental and numerical simulations.
Hence piers and spandrel beams are modelled with finished two-dimensional
macroelements, that represent the masonry panels with two nodes with three degrees
of freedom each (ux, uz, roty).
The remaining portions of the wall are considered as rigid two-dimensional nodes with
finite dimensions, to which the macro-elements are connected. The macro-elements
transfer the actions along the level's three degrees of liberty, at each incident node.
When describing a single wall, the nodes are identified by a pair of coordinates (x,z) on
the floor of the wall. The degrees of freedom which they possess can only be ux, uz,
roty (two-dimensional nodes).
Thanks to the division of elements into nodes, the wall model becomes completely
comparable to that of a frame plan.

Structural modelling also requires the possibility of inserting beams, identified in the
level by the position of the two edge nodes.
In addition to the presence of actual beams (architraves or r.c. tie beams), the model
assumes the presence of tie rod structures. These metallic structures completely lack
bending rigidity and lose all effectiveness if they are compressed. This detail adds an
additional non-linear element to the model.
Code includes performance character among its assumptions: indications about
modelling modality and elements check constitute a reference for reliable non-linear
modelling.
Code requires formulation of the mechanisms, which are considered to be bending
response as well as shear response: the compression-bending mechanism is rigorously
examined, considering the effective redistribution of the compression due to both
section choking and reaching of the maximum compression resistance. The last
displacement associated with the compressive-bending mechanism is determined
based on the maximum drift value expected for this mechanism: 0.6%.
The shear mechanism is described by the Mohr-Coulumb model which, through the
Gambarotta-Lagomarsino joint, is able to collect the progressive degradation of the
element's resistance and rigidity through the descriptive quantities of the damage.
68
The ultimate shear deformation is determined based on the maximum drift value
expected in the code: 0.4%.
In this way, the structure is modelled by assembly of the level structures: the walls and
the horizontal structures, both lacking bending rigidity outside of the level.
The model created makes the structure's spatial behaviour clear. In this way, mass and
rigidity are distributed to all the three-dimensional degrees of liberty. At the same time,
it locally takes into account the individual degrees of liberty of the levels (two-
dimensional nodes).
Connection nodes, belonging to a single wall, maintain their degrees of liberty at the
local reference level. Nodes that belong to more than one wall (localized in the
incidences of the walls) must have degrees of liberty in the overall reference (three-
dimensional nodes).
Predictions for changes
Thanks to this modelling technique, it is possible to identify structural weak points
through colored mapping. Each color is associated with a level of localized degradation.

Structural degradation of each individual wall, as a consequence of the progressive
loading of the structure, is highlighted through the damage map shown for each wall.
The above figure shows the color table which identifies the various levels of damage for
the structural elements (walls, columns, tie beams, beams, R.C. walls), according to the
level reached.
The following figures shows various levels of degradation for the structure based on
the load level reached.

69


70
Thanks to this instrument, it is possible to identify the points where changes can be
made, in order to perform targeted changes.
Mixed structures
One of the characteristics aspects of this type of modelling is the possibility to examine
structures in mixed materials, where the presence of R.C., wood, or steel provides a
notable contribution to the structure's resistance.
While the resistance of R.C. structural elements is almost always higher than masonry
elements, this computational procedure provides the possibility of monitoring the failure
sequence of the various elements, independent of the structural typology and the
material. In this way, their contribution to the total resistance can be subtracted when
they fail.
The designer has the possibility to escape the limitations of the POR method, having
the possibility to take into account the resistance contribution of the various structural
elements outside of the masonry.
71
Automatic calculation of accidental eccentricity
Once the building plan has been defined, accidental eccentricity as required under code
is automatically computed. This leads to the creation of a table for computation of the
24 load conditions, exactly as required by the code.
72
Summary of the characteristics of 3Muri's FME method
Equivalent frame modelling with all the specifications required by code
Modelling elements, piers and spandrel beams, allow direct computation of forces in
order to compare them with the limit values provided in the code.
Can examine mixed structures (masonry, beams, columns, R.C. walls, steel and
wood) with non-linear behaviour for all elements.
Modelling of equivalent frame walls allows spatial assembly of the walls, connecting
them through deformable elements to simulate the effective rigidity of the floors.
Reading the results is simple and intuitive: the cause of local and global damage due
to shear or compression bending can be identified, so effective changes to
consolidate the structure can be made.
The speed of non-linear computation is notable, and the model dimensions impact
only slightly on time.
73
Comparison of the POR and FEM methods
Calculating a building using elements with blocked rotation and infinitely rigid floors
(POR Method) generally means over-estimating rigidity and under-estimating structural
flexibility.
Consider for example a three-storey masonry building without tie beams on the floor
levels, representative of many existing buildings.


The comparison between the models is not exactly a comparison between the POR
method and the equivalent frame method: POR analyzes the individual floors
individually and then "overlaps" the response.
The above diagram illustrates flexibility values that are much smaller, in addition to the
greater rigidity of the model with impeded rotation rigid planks with respect to the real
one (deformable and evaluated with 3Muri).
The red curve (in the middle of the other two) corresponds to a structure whose floor
has been stiffened by tie beams, whose behaviour is intermediate between the two
extreme instances seen above.
From this, the comparison between the two codes can be seen:
74
Applicability of the POR method, according to the Circular of 30-07-1981
The POR computational method is found in the appendix of the circular from 30-07-1981
and is considered to be a simplified method applicable only in clearly defined conditions,
illustrated in the code:
75
"In the case of thick walls operating for the most part shearing, which can generally be
considered to be buildings of a limited height (2 or 3 floors) and with spandrel beams on the
floors between lines of continuous openings and very rigid overlaps and with sufficient
resistance, collapse generally occurs due to shear failure of the vertical masonry elements
(spandrel beams) and the checks can be carried out using the POR procedure (illustrated in
detail in the appendix)."
However, when the precedent requirements are not satisfied:
"Buildings that are relatively high (4 or more floors) or with insufficient rigidity or spandrel
beam on the floors' resistance, generally collapse with a preventive shear failure of the
spandrel beams on the floors, followed by the masonry spandrel beams due to the
combined effects of shear and bending." Hence, the check should be conducting using a
computational method that takes into account the predictable collapse modality.
The walls can be checked schematizing them as floor frames."
The more generic computational method, already specified in the 1981 circular, for all
the cases in which the simplified method (POR) was not applicable, guides the designer
to use the new method of computation which has now been adopted in the Code.
The computation method described requires modellation of the floor frames, which is
currently used in the macroelement theory found in 3Muri software.
Observations
The choice to use rigid slabs (POR method) was demonstrably restricted in NTC 08.
The POR method presupposes modelling of the masonry beams as infinitely rigid. In this
way, the possibility that they could be damaged or fail is excluded: not only is this not
consistent with the the actual behaviour of constructions but the method also does not
provide the forces that operate on these elements and does not allow them to be
checked.
In contrast to the equivalent frame method, POR method does not allow analysis to be
performed on equilibrium, either locally or globally.
Analyzing the single floor response for the construction separately means that it is not
possible to evaluate the variation in vertical actions connected to the application of
horizontal forces. It also isn't possible to guarantee equilibrium in the passage
between one spandrel beam and the corresponding one on the floor above.
In addition to the aspects connected to passing (or not) the checks specified in various
codes, it is a good idea to point out how equivalent frame analysis (macroelement) is
able to simulate real responses in a more accurate manner. In this way, it provides a
more trustworthy and informed evaluation of the most effective consolidation method.
Comparison of the FME and FEM methods
Let's reexamine the problems of analysing the finished elements with respect to a
macroelement model.
Large computation times due to a steady computational burden.
The Code makes explicit reference to equivalent frame models, both when dealing
with analysis methods (8.1.5), and when specifying how to perform checks (8.1.6 and
8.2.2). In fact, it always refers to masonry or structural elements.
In the Code, the checks are performed in terms of forces characteristics (N, T and M)
and not in terms of point tension to the masonry: analysis for finished elements
requires successive integration of all the masonry elements since the resistance
criteria provided by the code is expressed in global terms for the wall.
A detail analysis, similar to the finished element analysis, requires point constituent
links defined by a number of parameters that is greater than those provided by the
Code. In this way, the designer is forced to define them arbitrarily or using careful
experimental analysis.
Even the final examination of the results can become difficult or unclear, in the case of
the finished elements method. It also requires a great degree of experience and
specific skills.
76
Hence, examining these factors, it becomes clear just how complex it is to perform a
check using the continuos FEM model while respecting Code specifications.
Due to the difficulties that it creates, this modelling strategy is appropriate for
specialised analysis of particular or monumental structures (churches, towers, masonry
bridges), but it is not appropriate for the daily needs of accuracy, speed and simplicity
of results-reading (very practical needs for engineering).
77
78
Bibliography
Abrams D.P.,1996, Effects of scale and loading rate with tests of concrete and masonry
structures, Earthquake Spectra,12,1.
Abrams D.P.,1997, Response of unreinforced masonry buildings, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering,1,1.
Abrams D.P., Calvi G.M. (eds.), 1994, Proc. of the US-Italy workshop on Guidelines for
seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings, Technical
Report NCEER-94-0021, Pavia.
Abrams D.P., Costley A.C., 1995, Dynamic response of unreinforced masonry buildings
with flexible diaphragms, NCEER Technical Report, Urbana-Champaign.
Anthoine A., Magonette G., Magenes G., 1995, Shear compression testing and analysis
of brick masonry walls, Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vienna.
Benedetti D., Carydis P., Pezzoli P., 1998, Shaking table tests on 24 simple masonry
buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 27, 1.
Braga F., Dolce M., 1982, Un metodo per l'analisi di edifici multipiano in muratura
antisismici, Proc. 6th I.B.Ma.C., Roma.
Braga F., Liberatore D., 1991, Modeling of seismic behaviour of masonry buildings, Proc.
9th I.B.Ma.C., Berlino.
Brencich A., Lagomarsino S., 1997, Un modello a macroelementi per l'analisi ciclica di
pareti murarie, Atti dell'8 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, Taormina.
Brencich A., Penna A., 1999, Una procedura a macroelementi per lanalisi sismica di
pareti in muratura con orizzontamenti in cemento armato, Atti del 9 Convegno
Nazionale ANIDIS, Torino.
Cattari S., Curti E., Galasco A. , Resemini S., 2005, "Analisi sismica lineare e non lineare
degli edifici in muratura: teoria ed esempi di applicazione secondo OPCM 3274/2003 e
3431/2005", E100 collana Edilizia-Progettare e costruire, Esselibri-Simone Editore,
Napoli, pp.176, ISBN 88-513-0305-3.
Clough R.W., Penzien J., 1993, Dynamics of structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Costley A.C., Abrams D.P., 1995, Dynamic response of unreinforced masonry buildings
with flexible diaphrams, NCEER Technical Report, Urbana-Champaign.
Dadovici V., Benedetti D., 1994, Proc. of the Italian-French symposium on Strengthening
and repair of structures in seismic areas, Nizza.
Faccioli E., Pessina V. (eds.), 1999, The Catania Project - Earthquake damage scenarios
for a high risk area in the Mediterranean, CNR-GNDT, Roma.
Faccioli E., Pessina V., Calvi G. M., Borzi B., 1999, A study on damage scenario for
residential buildings in Catania city, Journal of Seismology, 3, 3.
Galasco A., Lagomarsino S., Penna A., 2001, Analisi sismica a macroelementi di edifici in
muratura, Atti del 10 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, Potenza e Matera.
Gambarotta L., Lagomarsino S., 1996, Sulla risposta dinamica di pareti in muratura, in
Gambarotta L. (ed.) La meccanica delle murature tra teoria e progetto, Atti del
Convegno Nazionale, Messina.
Galasco A., 2001, Analisi a collasso e risposta dinamica di pareti in muratura soggette
ad azione sismica, Tesi di Laurea, Universit di Genova.
Galasco A., Lagomarsino, S. and Penna, A., 2002, TREMURI Program: Seismic Analyser of
3D Masonry Buildings, University of Genoa.
Galasco A., Lagomarsino S., Penna A., Resemini S., 2004, Non-linear Seismic Analysis of
Masonry Structures, Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1-6
Agosto 2004, Vancouver.