Numerical Modelling Approaches for Existing Masonry and RC Structures

  • Alexandre A. Costa
  • Bruno Quelhas
  • João P. Almeida
Part of the Building Pathology and Rehabilitation book series (BUILDING, volume 2)


Assessment of existing buildings making use of numerical simulation methods, even under the hypothesis of full knowledge of current conditions and materials, it is not an easy and straightforward task due to the limitations and complexities of such analysis tools. In this chapter, a discussion of different approaches for the simulation of structural response is introduced and applied to two of the most common building typologies: masonry structures and reinforced concrete frames. Following a brief introduction of the problematic, an overview of different modelling possibilities for masonry structures is presented. Afterwards, choices made during numerical modelling are discussed, based mainly on the finite element method. Moreover, the problematic of different modelling techniques is addressed, where some paths and best practices are suggested. The last section is devoted to the response simulation of reinforced concrete structures. Efficient frame elements and sectional models, which allow capturing an extended range of elastic and inelastic response, are analysed first. Strut-and-tie modelling is then recalled as a powerful analysis tool, and its application to the assessment of old buildings is studied.


Masonry Modelling strategies Finite elements Strut-and-tie Frame elements Sectional fibre analysis 


  1. 1.
    CEN (2007) EN 13791: assessment of in situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete componentsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NTC (2008) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D. M. 14 gennaio 2008, Suppl. ord. n° 30 alla G.U. n. 29 del 4/02/2008, Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori PubbliciGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CEN (2005) EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8-Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of BuildingsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ACI 214.4R-10 (2010) Guide for obtaining Cores and interpreting compressive strength results. ACI Committee 214Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilharco, T., Costa, A.A., Lopes, V., Costa, A., Guedes, J.: Assessment and intervention on the timber structure of a XVII century building in Lisbon: an example of seismic retrofitting. Revista Portuguesa de Engenharia de Estruturas II(11), 25–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binda, L., Saisi, A.: Research on historic structures in seismic areas in Italy. Prog. Struct. Mat. Eng. 7(2), 71–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oliveira, D.: Experimental and numerical analysis of blocky masonry structures under cyclic loading. PhD Thesis (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lourenço, P.B.: Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog. Struct. Mat. Eng. 4(3), 301–319 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casarin, F.: Structural assessment and vulnerability analysis of a complex historical Building. PhD Thesis, University of Trento, Trento, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orduña, A., Lourenço, P.B.: Limit Analysis as a tool for the simplified assessment of ancient masonry structures. In: International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions—SAHC01, Guimarães, Portugal, pp. 511–520 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lourenço, P.B., Milani, G., Tralli, A., Zucchini, A.: Analysis of masonry structures: review of and recent trends of homogenisation techniques. Can. J. Civil Eng. 34, 1443–1457 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sacco, E.: A non-linear homogenization procedure for periodic masonry. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, Elsevier Masson SAS 28(2), 209–222 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa, A.A., Silva, B., Arêde, A., Guedes, J., Arêde, A., Costa, A.: Experimental assessment, numerical modelling and strengthening of a stone masonry wall. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 10(1), 135–159 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lourenço, P.B., Rots, J.G.: A multi-surface interface model for the analysis of masonry structures. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 123(7), 660–668 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lagomarsino, S., Gambarotta, L.: Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part I: The mortar joint model and its applications. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 26, 423–439 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pelá, L., Aprile, A., Benedetti, A.: Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges. Eng. Struct. 31(8), 1777–1788 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mallardo, V., Malvezzi, R., Milani, E., Milani, G.: Seismic vulnerability of historical masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara. Eng. Struct. 30(8), 2223–2241 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roca, P., Massanas, M., Cervera, M., Arun, G.: Structural analysis of Küçük Ayasofya Mosque in Istanbul. IV International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions—SAHC04, Padova, Italy, pp. 679–686, (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martínez, G., Roca, P., Caselles, O., Clapés, J.: Characterization of the dynamic response for the structure of Mallorca Cathedral. V International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions—SAHC06, New Delhi, India, (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faria, R., Oliver, J., Cervera, M.: A strain-based plastic viscous-damage model for massive concrete structures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 35(14), 1533–1558 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cervera, M.: Visco-elasticity and rate-dependent continuum damage models. Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering—CIMNE, Monograph M79, Barcelona, Spain, (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faria, R., Pouca, N.V., Delgado, R.: Simulation of the cyclic behaviour of R/C rectangular hollow section bridge piers via a detailed numerical model. J. Earthquake Eng. 8(5), 725–748 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clemente, R., Roca, P., Cervera, M.: Damage model with crack localization—Application to historical buildings. Structural V International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions—SAHC06, New Delhi, India, pp. 1125–1135, (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pelá, L., Cervera, M., Roca, P., Benedetti, A.: An orthotropic damage model for the analysis of masonry structures. VIII International Seminar on Structural Masonry—ISSM 08, pp. 175–178 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silva, B., Guedes, J., Arêde, A., Costa, A.: Calibration and application of a continuum damage model on the simulation of stone masonry structures: Gondar church as a case study. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 10(1), 211–234 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mola, F., Vitaliani, R.: Analysis, diagnosis and preservation of ancient monuments: the St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. Structural analysis of historical constructions I—CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 166–188 (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meli, R., Sánchez-Ramíre, A.R.: Structural aspects of the rehabilitation of the Mexico City Cathedral. Structural analysis of historical constructions I—CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 123–140 (1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Macchi, G., Ruggeri, M., Eusebio, M., Moncecchi, M.: Structural assessment of the leaning tower of Pisa. Structural preservation of the architectural heritage, IABSE, Zürich, Switzerland, pp. 401–408 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Croci, G.: The Colosseum: safety evaluation and preliminary criteria of intervention. International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions—SAHC, Barcelona, Spain (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gonzalez, A., Casals, A., Roca, P., Gonzalez, J.L.: Studies of Gaudi’s Cripta de la Colonia Güell. International Conference on Composite Construction—Conventional and Innovative—IABSE, Rome, Italy, pp. 457–464, (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collins, M.P., Mitchell, D.: Pre-stressed concrete structures. Response Publications, Canada (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neuenhofer, A., Filippou, F.C.: Evaluation of non-linear frame finite-element models. J. Struct. Eng. 123(7), 958–966 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Calabrese, A., Almeida, J.P., Pinho, R.: Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. J. Earthquake Eng. 14(S1), 38–68 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marti, P.: Basic tools of reinforced concrete beam design. ACI J. Proc. 82(1), 45–56 (1985)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., Jennewein, M.: Toward a consistent design of structural concrete. J. Prestress Concr. Inst. 32(3), 74–150 (1987)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ali, M.A., White, R.N.: Automatic generation of truss model for optimal design of reinforced concrete structures. ACI Struct. J. 98(4), 431–442 (2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liang, Q.Q., Uy, B., Steven, G.P.: Performance-based optimization for strut-tie modeling of structural concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 128(6), 815–823 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schlaich, M., Anagnostou, G.: Stress fields for nodes of strut-and-tie models. J. Struct. Eng. 116(1), 13–23 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentz, E.C.: Section analysis of RC members. PhD Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada, (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Souza, R.M.: Force-based finite element for large displacements inelastic analysis of frames. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, US, (2000)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sezen, H.: Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, US, (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre A. Costa
    • 1
  • Bruno Quelhas
    • 2
  • João P. Almeida
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringPolytechnic of Porto, School of EngineeringPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural EngineeringUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental EngineeringEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations