Seismic numerical investigation on historical centres compounds: a new modelling technique of structural units

  • Antonio FormisanoEmail author
  • Alfredo Massimilla
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Masonry


Historical centres are often constituted of a series of masonry building compounds very vulnerable to earthquakes, whose static non-linear behaviour is not predicted by building codes. This paper propose a simplified modelling approach to predict the seismic response of structural units into masonry building compounds. This approach is based on the equivalent frame method modelling, a technique easy to be implemented within finite element method calculation programs. The modelling technique has been applied to investigate constructions representative of Southern Italy building aggregates erected during the past decades. Firstly, the whole aggregates have been modelled and analysed in order to evaluate the seismic behaviour of structural units having intermediate, heading and corner positions. Later on, the seismic response of these structural units has been assessed by modelling the single units as isolated structures with appropriate boundary conditions to consider, in a simplified way, their position in the aggregate and, therefore, the influence of other constructions. Finally, comparison of the achieved results has been carried out in order to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed analysis approach.


Historical centres Masonry building aggregates Equivalent frame method Pushover analysis Simplified modelling 



  1. 1.
    D’Ayala D, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9:81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramos LF, Lourenco PB (2004) Modeling and vulnerability of historical city centers in seismic areas: a case study in Lisbon. Eng Struct 26(9):1295–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binda L, Saisi A (2005) Research on historic structures in seismic areas in Italy. Prog Struct Mater Eng 7(2):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Senaldi I, Magenes G, Penna A (2010) Numerical investigations on the seismic response of masonry building aggregates. Adv Mater Res 133–134:715–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Da Porto F, Munari M, Prota A, Modena C (2013) Analysis and repair of clustered buildings: case study of a block in the historic city centre of L’Aquila (Central Italy). Constr Build Mater 38:1221–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Formisano A, Mazzolani FM, Florio G, Landolfo R (2010) A quick methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry aggregates. In: COST ACTION C26: urban habitat constructions under catastrophic events—proceedings of the final conference, pp 577–582Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM (2015) Numerical calibration of an easy method for seismic behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building aggregates. Adv Eng Softw 80:116–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maio R, Vicente R, Formisano A, Varum H (2015) Seismic vulnerability of building aggregates through hybrid and indirect assessment techniques. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):2995–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Formisano A, Castaldo C, Mazzolani FM (2013) Non-linear analysis of masonry building compounds: a comparison of numerical and theoretical results. In: Proc. 14th int. conf. on civil, structural and environmental engineering computing, civil-comp proceedings, p 102Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Formisano A (2017) Theoretical and numerical seismic analysis of masonry building aggregates: case studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). J Earthq Eng 21(2):227–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Formisano A (2017) Local- and global-scale seismic analyses of historical masonry compounds in San Pio delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). Nat Hazards 86(2):465–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(11):1091–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clementi F, Gazzani V, Poiani M, Lenci S (2016) Assessment of seismic behaviour of heritage masonry buildings using numerical modelling. J Build Eng 8:29–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quagliarini E, Maracchini G, Clementi F (2017) Uses and limits of the equivalent frame model on existing unreinforced masonry building for assessing their seismic risk: a review. J Build Eng 10:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2014) Comparative analysis on the seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct 61:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartoli G, Betti M, Biagini P, Borghini A, Ciavattone A, Girardi M, Lancioni G, Marra AM, Ortolani B, Pintucchi B, Salvatori L (2017) Epistemic uncertainties in structural modelling: a blind benchmark for seismic assessment of slender masonry towers. ASCE’s J Perform Constr Facil 31(5):04017067-1–04017067-18Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2008) Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 vol 10 code. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(3):467–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milani G, Beyer K, Dazio A (2009) Upper bound limit analysis of meso-mechanical spandrel models for the pushover analysis of 2D masonry frames. Eng Struct 31(11):2696–2710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calderoni B, Cordasco EA, Guerriero L, Lenza P (2008) Experimental analyses of yellow tuff spandrels of post-medieval buildings in the Naples area. AIP Conf Proc 1020:824–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2008) Seismic response of masonry plane walls: a numerical study on spandrel strength. AIP Conf Proc 1020:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beyer K, Mangalathu S (2013) Review of strength models for masonry spandrels. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):521–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cundari A, Milani G (2013) Homogenized and heterogeneous limit analysis model for the pushover analysis of ancient masonry walls with irregular texture. Int J Archit Heritage 7(3):303–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Calderoni B, Cordasco EA, Lenza P, Pacella G (2011) A simplified theoretical model for the evaluation of structural behavior of masonry spandrels. Int J Mater Struct Integr 5(2–3):192–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI) (2014) SAP2000 v17.3.0 structural analysis program. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakamura Y, Derakhshan H, Griffith MC, Magenes G, Sheikh AH (2017) Applicability of nonlinear static procedures for low-rise unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct 137:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations