Investigating the Reliability of Nonlinear Static Procedures for the Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper presents, firstly, an overview of the nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) given in different codes and research studies available in the literature, followed by the results achieved by the authors to evaluate the reliability of the safety level that they guarantee. The latter is estimated by adopting the fragility curve concept. In particular, 125 models of a masonry building case study are generated through a Monte Carlo process to obtain numerical fragility curves by applying various NSPs. More specifically, among the NSPs, the N2 method (based on the use of inelastic response spectra) with different alternatives and the capacity spectrum method (CSM)—based on the use of overdamped response spectra—are investigated. As a reference solution to estimate the reliability of the nonlinear static approach, nonlinear dynamic analyses (NLDAs) are carried out using the cloud method and a set of 125 accelerograms; the results are post-processed to derive fragility curves under the assumption of a lognormal distribution. The focus of this investigation is to quantify the influence that the NSP method’s choices imply, such as the criteria adopted to calculate the displacement demand of a structure or those for the bilinearization of the pushover curve. The results show that the N2 methods are all non-conservative. The only method that provides a good approximation of the capacity of the analyzed URM structures as derived from NLDAs is the CSM. In particular, bilinearization is proven to have a relevant impact on the results when using the N2 method to calculate displacement capacities, whereas the CSM method is not affected at all by such an assumption. The results obtained may have a significant impact on engineering practice and in outlining future directions regarding the methods to be recommended in codes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA), University of Genoa, Via Montallegro 1, 16145 Genoa, Italy
References (83)
Show source-provided references
1. Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 200910.1007/s10518-010-9224-4 ↗
2. Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes10.1007/s10518-018-0370-4 ↗
3. Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake10.1007/s10518-013-9496-6 ↗
4. Albanesi, T., Nuti, C., and Vanzi, I. (2002, January 9–13). State of the art of non linear static methods. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117719266.
5. Aşıkoğlu, A., Vasconcelos, G., and Lourenço, P.B. (2021). Overview on the Nonlinear Static Procedures and Performance-Based Approach on Modern Unreinforced Masonry Buildings with Structural Irregularity. Buildings, 11.10.3390/buildings11040147 ↗
6. Analysis in seismic provisions for buildings: Past, present and future10.1007/s10518-017-0290-8 ↗
7. (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings and Bridges (Standard No. EN 1998-3:2005).
8. NTC (2018). Decreto Ministeriale 17/1/2018. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
9. FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures.
10. (2014). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (Standard No. ASCE/SEI 41-13).
11. NZSEE (2024, January 26). The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (the Guidelines). Available online: http://www.eq-assess.org.nz.
12. Tomazevic, M., Bosiljkov, V., and Weiss, P. (2004, January 1–6). Structural behavior factor for masonry structures. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Available online: https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_2642.pdf.
13. Damage limitation and structural behaviour factor for masonry structures10.1080/13287982.2021.1872978 ↗
14. Latest findings on the behaviour factor q for the seismic design of URM buildings10.1007/s10518-022-01419-7 ↗
15. Application of seismic design procedures on three modern URM buildings struck by the 2012 Emilia earthquakes: Inconsistencies and improvement proposals in the European codes10.1007/s10518-019-00650-z ↗
16. Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 1: Case Studies and Design Methods10.1080/13632469.2018.1532358 ↗
17. Linear static procedures for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: Open issues in the new generation of European codes10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.003 ↗
18. Nonlinear modeling of the seismic response of masonry structures: Critical review and open issues towards engineering practice10.1007/s10518-021-01263-1 ↗
19. Seismic Performance of Historical Masonry Structures Through Pushover and Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses
20. Quantifying the effect of amplitude scaling of real ground motions based on structural responses of vertically irregular and regular RC frames10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.040 ↗
21. Evaluation of bias on the probability of collapse from amplitude scaling using spectral-shape-matched records10.1002/eqe.3172 ↗
22. Response- and probability-based evaluation of spectrally matched ground motion selection strategies for bi-directional dynamic analysis of low- to mid-rise RC buildings10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105533 ↗
23. REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1 ↗
24. Engineering ground motion record selection in the ITalian ACcelerometric Archive10.1007/s10518-011-9300-4 ↗
25. Sgobba, S., Puglia, R., Pacor, F., Luzi, L., Russo, E., Felicetta, C., Lanzano, G., D’Amico, M., Baraschino, R., and Baltzopoulos, G. (2019, January 17–20). REXELweb: A Tool for Selection of Ground-Motion Records from the Engineering Strong Motion Database (ESM). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, Italy. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333895014_REXELweb_A_tool_for_selection_of_ground-motion_records_from_the_Engineering_Strong_Motion_database_ESM.
26. Selection and spectral matching of recorded ground motions for seismic fragility analyses10.1007/s10518-022-01393-0 ↗
27. Smerzini, C., Amendola, C., Paolucci, R., and Bazrafshan, A. (2023). Engineering validation of BB-SPEEDset, a data set of near-source physics-based simulated accelerograms. Earthq Spectra.10.1177/87552930231206766 ↗
28. Numerical simulation of the seismic response and soil–structure interaction for a monitored masonry school building damaged by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake10.1007/s10518-020-00980-3 ↗
29. Parisse, F., Marques, R., Cattari, S., and Lourenco, P. (2022, January 4–9). Implications of Modelling Assumptions on the Seismic Assessment of URM Structures through FE and SE-Based Approaches. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Bucharest, Romania. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363738779_Implications_of_modelling_assumptions_on_the_seismic_assessment_of_URM_structures_through_FE_and_SE-based_approaches.
30. Effects of model uncertainty in nonlinear structural finite element model updating by numerical simulation of building structures10.1002/stc.2297 ↗
31. PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 ↗
32. Are the nonlinear static procedures feasible for the seismic assessment of irregular existing masonry buildings?10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109700 ↗
33. Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1988, January 2–6). N2-A Method for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Regular Buildings. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
34. Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method
35. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings10.1080/13632460509350568 ↗
36. Using nonlinear static procedures for seismic assessment of the 3D irregular SPEAR building10.12989/eas.2010.1.2.177 ↗
37. Pushover Analysis for Plan Irregular Building Structures10.1007/978-3-319-07118-3_13 ↗
38. Adhikari, R., and D’Ayala, D. (2019). Applied Element Modelling and Pushover Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings with Flexible Roof Diaphragm, European Community on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences.10.7712/120119.7189.19990 ↗
39. Applicability of nonlinear static procedures for low-rise unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.049 ↗
40. Lagomarsino, S., Camilletti, D., Cattari, S., and Marino, S. (2018). Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, Springer.
41. Rossetto, T., D’Ayala, D., Ioannou, I., and Meslem, A. (2014). SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk, Springer.
42. R2R-EU: Software for fragility fitting and evaluation of estimation uncertainty in seismic risk analysis10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106093 ↗
43. Lagomarsino, S., and Cattari, S. (2014). Fragility Functions of Masonry Buildings, Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6_5 ↗
44. Urlainis, A., and Shohet, I.M. (2022). Seismic Risk Mitigation and Management for Critical Infrastructures Using an RMIR Indicator. Buildings, 12.10.3390/buildings12101748 ↗
45. Follador, V., Carpanese, P., Donà, M., Alfano, S., Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S., and da Porto, F. (2023). Comparison of Fragility Sets to Assess the Effectiveness of Retrofit Interventions on Masonry Buildings in Italy. Buildings, 13.10.3390/buildings13122937 ↗
46. Empirical fragility curves for Italian URM buildings10.1007/s10518-020-00845-9 ↗
47. Mechanics-based fragility curves for Italian residential URM buildings10.1007/s10518-020-00928-7 ↗
48. Fragility based evaluation of different code based assessment approaches for the performance estimation of existing buildings10.1007/s10518-021-01292-w ↗
49. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings (Standard No. EN 1998-1:2004).
50. Advantage and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures10.1080/13632460409350498 ↗
51. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure10.1080/13632460409350504 ↗
52. Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 2: Nonlinear Modelling and Time-History Analysis10.1080/13632469.2018.1541030 ↗
53. Seismic Reliability of Code-Conforming Italian Buildings10.1080/13632469.2018.1540372 ↗
54. Modelling and Seismic Response Analysis of Italian Pre-Code and Low-Code Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Part I: Bare Frames
55. A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design10.1193/1.1586128 ↗
56. (2019). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings and Bridges (Standard No. prEN 1998-3:2019). updating September 2019.
57. Improved evaluation of inelastic displacement demands for short-period masonry structures10.1002/eqe.2862 ↗
58. Incremental Dynamic Analysis10.1002/eqe.141 ↗
59. Fragility analysis of masonry infill R.C. frame using incremental dynamic approach10.1007/s42107-023-00719-w ↗
60. Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments10.1002/eqe.876 ↗
61. Three Proposals for Characterizing MDOF Nonlinear Seismic Response10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:11(1281) ↗
62. Bayesian Cloud Analysis: Efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression10.1007/s10518-014-9692-z ↗
63. Shome, N. (1999). Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures. [Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University].
64. Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00074-2 ↗
65. Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions10.1193/1.2723158 ↗
66. Intensity measures for the seismic response prediction of base-isolated buildings10.1007/s10518-013-9431-x ↗
67. Accounting for spectral shape in simplified fragility analysis of case-study reinforced concrete frames10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.12.025 ↗
68. Eurocode 8 Compliant Real Record Sets for Seismic Analysis of Structures10.1080/13632460701457173 ↗
69. Towards the updated Italian seismic risk assessment: Exposure and vulnerability modelling10.1007/s10518-021-01065-5 ↗
70. Engineering design earthquakes from multimodal hazard disaggregation10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.001 ↗
71. Cipriano, A. (2022, December 01). Impact of Italian Ground Motion Models in Seismic Hazard Assessment: Case Studies in Near-Source Region and Volcanic Context. ING I—Scuola di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale e Territoriale. Politecnico di Milano. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10589/197115.
72. Probabilistic spectral seismic hazard assessment for Italy
73. Rapid post-earthquake damage localization and quantification in masonry structures through multidimensional non-linear seismic IDA10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110841 ↗
74. Ghosh, A.K., and Kushwaha, H.S. (2022, January 01). Sensitivity of Seismic Hazard to Various Parameters and Correlations for Peak Ground Acceleration. 1998; pp. 1–25. Available online: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:30017533.
75. Whitlock, P.A., and Kalos, M. (1986). Monte Carlo Methods, Wiley.
76. Capacity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: A probabilistic approach10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x ↗
77. Cattari, S., Degli Abbati, S., Ottonelli, D., Marano, C., Camata, G., Spacone, E., Da Porto, F., Modena, C., Lorenzoni, F., and Magenes, G. (2019, January 24–26). Discussion on data recorded by the Italian structural seismic monitoring network on three masonry structures hit by the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Crete, Greece.10.7712/120119.7044.20004 ↗
78. Nonlinear modeling of unreinforced masonry structures under seismic actions: Validation using a building hit by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake
79. TREMURI program: An equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002 ↗
80. Cattari, S., and Lagomarsino, S. (2013). Developments in the Field of Displacement Based Seismic Assessment, IUSS Press and EU CENTRE.
81. Cattari, S., Alfano, S., and Lagomarsino, S. (2023). A Practice-Oriented Proposal to Consider the Flange Effect in Equivalent Frame Modeling of Masonry Buildings. Buildings, 13.10.3390/buildings13020462 ↗
82. Circolare (2024, January 26). Istruzioni per L’applicazione dell’«Aggiornamento delle “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni”» di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 17 Gennaio 2018. G.U.S.O. n. 29 of 27/7/2018, No. 42, 21 gennaio 2019. Available online: https://www.lavoripubblici.it/normativa/20190121/Circolare-Ministero-delle-infrastrutture-e-dei-trasporti-21-gennaio-2019-n-7-18430.html.
83. Modelling Uncertainties of Italian Code-Conforming Structures for the Purpose of Seismic Response Analysis10.1080/13632469.2018.1527262 ↗