Applsci 11 00942

applied
sciences
Article
A Tool for the Rapid Seismic Assessment of Historic Masonry
Structures Based on Limit Analysis Optimisation and
Rocking Dynamics
Marco Francesco Funari *, Anjali Mehrotra and Paulo B. Lourenço
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal;

amehrotra@civil.uminho.pt (A.M.); pbl@civil.uminho.pt (P.B.L.)
* Correspondence: marcofrancesco.funari@civil.uminho.pt
Featured Application: Rapid seismic assessment of historic masonry structures.
Abstract: This paper presents a user-friendly, CAD-interfaced methodology for the rapid seismic
assessment of historic masonry structures. The proposed multi-level procedure consists of a two-
step analysis that combines upper bound limit analysis with non-linear dynamic (rocking) analysis
to solve for seismic collapse in a computationally-efficient manner. In the first step, the failure
mechanisms are defined by means of parameterization of the failure surfaces. Hence, the upper
bound limit theorem of the limit analysis, coupled with a heuristic solver, is subsequently adopted to
search for the load multiplier’s minimum value and the macro-block geometry. In the second step,
the kinematic constants defining the rocking equation of motion are automatically computed for the
refined macro-block model, which can be solved for representative time-histories. The proposed
methodology has been entirely integrated in the user-friendly visual programming environment
offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grasshopper, allowing it to be used by students, researchers and practicing

structural engineers. Unlike time-consuming advanced methods of analysis, the proposed method
Citation: Funari, M.F.; Mehrotra, A.;
allows users to perform a seismic assessment of masonry buildings in a rapid and computationally-
Lourenço, P.B. A Tool for the Rapid efficient manner. Such an approach is particularly useful for territorial scale vulnerability analysis
Seismic Assessment of Historic (e.g., for risk assessment and mitigation historic city centres) or as post-seismic event response (when
Masonry Structures Based on Limit the safety and stability of a large number of buildings need to be assessed with limited resources).
Analysis Optimisation and Rocking The capabilities of the tool are demonstrated by comparing its predictions with those arising from
Dynamics. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942. the literature as well as from code-based assessment methods for three case studies.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030942
Keywords: nelder-mead method; upper bound limit analysis; visual programming; rocking dynam-
Received: 24 December 2020 ics; nonlinear dynamic analysis
Accepted: 18 January 2021
Published: 21 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
In the last decade, impressive advancements have been made with respect to the
iations. preservation of the structural integrity of historic masonry structures [1].
In the literature, there are several advanced methods of analysis that can be imple-
mented in both numerical methods or analytical tools [2]. The majority of such studies
address the structural analysis and safety problem of masonry structures by using numer-
ical models based either on the Finite Element Method (FEM) [3–5] or Discrete Element
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Method (DEM) [6].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
In the case of FE models, the masonry is typically modelled following either a contin-
distributed under the terms and
uum approach (designated as macro-modelling) [7] or discretizing explicitly both units
conditions of the Creative Commons
and joints (designated as micro-modelling). In the case of DE models, the masonry is
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// typically modelled as the assemblage of rigid blocks inter-connected through interfaces
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of a given stiffness, which makes it possible to capture their large displacement response
4.0/). and the opening and closing of joints [6]. It is worth noting that both of these methods
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030942 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 2 of 22
require a large set of input parameters [8] and can be time-consuming and computationally
expensive in the case of modelling failure, which becomes even more relevant in the case
of dynamic analysis.
Hence, powerful analytical tools based on the theorems of limit analysis can be an ap-
propriate alternative. The main advantage of limit analysis approaches is that they require
less knowledge of the mechanical behavior of materials and are, therefore, more practical.
Specifically, the Upper Bound theorem of limit analysis is a useful tool for the rapid
assessment of historic masonry structures [9]. However, the computation of the load
multiplier depends on the macroblocks’ geometry that strongly influences the assessment
of their structural integrity. Therefore, multiple (theoretically infinite) failure mechanisms
need to be considered to evaluate the minimum of the kinematically compatible load
multipliers [10]. Some researchers proposed using optimization routines that solve the
minimization problem that is constrained under specific hypotheses [11].
Casapulla et al. [12,13] proposed a macro-block model coupled with a simplified
procedure for predicting the collapse load and the failure mechanism of in-plane loaded
masonry walls with non-associative frictional contact interfaces. The same authors [14]
have recently revisited the previous macro-block approach implementing the frictional
resistance computation.
Funari et al. [14] implemented a novel two-step analysis method in a visual program-
ming environment, which can manage the data arising from both non-linear static or
dynamic analysis to detect the most likely collapse mechanism through the Control Surface
Method (CSM). In this framework, the macro-block geometry’s parameterization allows
for the exploration of the domain of possible solutions using the upper bound method of
limit analysis coupled with an optimization tool based on Genetic Algorithms.
Due to their relatively low computational cost, upper bound limit-analysis procedures
have been implemented in building codes [15,16] in order to provide rapid verifications
of the stability of masonry structures subjected to earthquakes. Such approaches include
both strength and displacement based procedures, which, while rapid, tend to incorpo-
rate limited dynamic effects and thus yield predictions that are generally on the more
conservative side [17] and that can consequently result in expensive, and occasionally un-
necessary, retrofitting solutions. As an alternative, non-linear dynamic analysis, whereby
the equations of motion of the macro-blocks are directly integrated, could be used to
more accurately model the dynamic behaviour of these masonry structural assemblies.
Specifically, by modelling the macro-block as a SDOF system undergoing rocking motion,
better agreement has been found with experimental results, with substantially less scatter
presented as compared to the corresponding code-based predictions [17].
Equations of the motion for single rigid prismatic blocks rocking on rigid interfaces
(assuming no bouncing or sliding) were first derived by Housner [18]. Since then, equations
of motion have been derived for more complex geometries such as masonry spires [19]
and for more complex mechanisms such as facades subjected to additional masses due
to floors and roofs, thrusts from vaults, and the restraining influence of tie-rods [20–23].
Equations have also been derived for mechanisms with two and three elements in the
kinematic chain, including cracked wall sections [23], arches [22], and symmetric [23,24]
and asymmetric [25] portal frames. Furthermore, through linearization of the equations of
motion about the point of unstable equilibrium, local dynamic equivalence can be derived
between more complex rocking systems and the single rocking block [25]. Consequently,
the dynamic response of the different mechanisms (single, two and multi-block) can be
approximated using the same general linearized equation of motion.
Still, derivation of these equations of motion can be challenging, especially for struc-
tures with complex geometries, or mechanisms involving more than one element in the
kinematic chain. To that end, a CAD-interfaced analytical tool for the non-linear dynamic
analysis of masonry collapse mechanisms was developed by Mehrotra and DeJong [26].
The tool can directly derive and solve the equation of the motion for any user-defined struc-
tural geometry. The broad applicability of this tool was demonstrated by the analysis of a
the kinematic chain. To that end, a CAD-interfaced analytical tool for the non-linear dy-
namic analysis of masonry collapse mechanisms was developed by Mehrotra and DeJong
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 [26]. The tool can directly derive and solve the equation of the motion for any 3 ofus-
22
er-defined structural geometry. The broad applicability of this tool was demonstrated by
the analysis of a variety of masonry structures such as churches [26] and monumental
houses [27]. However, to perform the dynamic rocking analysis following this method-
variety of masonry structures such as churches [26] and monumental houses [27]. However,
ology, the exact collapse mechanism needs to be defined a priori, which requires in-field
to perform the dynamic rocking analysis following this methodology, the exact collapse
surveys/site inspections and ultimately, depends extensively on user experience and en-
mechanism needs to be defined a priori, which requires in-field surveys/site inspections
gineering judgment.
and ultimately, depends extensively on user experience and engineering judgment.
The main aim of this paper is to develop a novel, multi-level integrated modelling
The main aim of this paper is to develop a novel, multi-level integrated modelling
procedure that uses a combination of upper bound limit analysis [14,28] and non-linear
procedure that uses a combination of upper bound limit analysis [14,28] and non-linear
dynamic (rocking) analysis [26] for the seismic collapse assessment of any user-defined
dynamic (rocking) analysis [26] for the seismic collapse assessment of any user-defined
structural configuration. In the first step, parametric modelling of the macro-block ge-
structural configuration. In the first step, parametric modelling of the macro-block geome-
ometry is conducted, enabling exploration of the domain of possible solutions using the
try is conducted, enabling exploration of the domain of possible solutions using the upper
upper bound method of limit analysis. A heuristic solver based on the Nelder-Mead
bound method of limit analysis. A heuristic solver based on the Nelder-Mead method [29]
method
is [29]toisrefine
then used then used to refineofthe
the geometry thegeometry of the
macro-blocks macro-blocks
and search for theand search for
minimum the
value
minimum value of the load multiplier. Once the macro-block (i.e., collapse
of the load multiplier. Once the macro-block (i.e., collapse mechanism) has been defined, mechanism)
has digital
the been defined,
tool thenthe digital tool
computes then computes
the kinematic the defining
constants kinematictheconstants defining
corresponding the
(rock-
corresponding
ing) equation of(rocking) equation
motion, which canofbemotion,
solved which
for fullcan be solved forThe
time-histories. fullresponse
time-histories.
of the
The response of the structure is provided both in terms of the full time-history
structure is provided both in terms of the full time-history response as well as in the response
form
as the
of wellmaximum
as in the predicted
form of the maximum
rotation. predicted of
An overview rotation. An overview
the proposed analysisofprocedure
the proposed
can
analysis
be foundprocedure
in Figure 1.can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Overview
Figure 1. Overview of
of the
the proposed
proposed multi-level
multi-level analysis
analysisprocedure.
procedure.
The
The proposed
proposed methodology
methodology has
has been
been entirely
entirely integrated
integrated into
into aa user-friendly
user-friendly visual
visual
programming
programming environment that allows the user to easily connect data from
environment that allows the user to easily connect data from different
different
sources while keeping a clear understanding of the relationships between them thanks to
sources while keeping a clear understanding of the relationships between them thanks to
the flowchart-like representation of the different components of the code. The procedure
the flowchart-like representation of the different components of the code. The procedure
is made available using the environment offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grasshopper [30],
is made available using the environment offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grasshopper [30],
which is well known by students, researchers, and practicing structural engineers. Un-
which is well known by students, researchers, and practicing structural engineers. Unlike
like other more time-consuming advanced methods of analysis, the proposed method
other more time-consuming advanced methods of analysis, the proposed method allows
allows the users to perform a seismic assessment of masonry buildings in a rapid and
the users to perform a seismic assessment of masonry buildings in a rapid and computa-
computationally-efficient manner, while simultaneously providing more accurate predic-
tionally-efficient manner, while simultaneously providing more accurate predictions
tions than simplified/code-based methods. Such an approach is particularly useful for
than simplified/code-based methods. Such an approach is particularly useful for territo-
territorial scale vulnerability analysis (e.g., for risk assessment and mitigation in historic
rial scale vulnerability analysis (e.g., for risk assessment and mitigation in historic city
city centres) or as post-seismic event response (when the safety and stability of a large
number of buildings need to be assessed with limited resources).
The paper is organized as follows. The theoretical background of the proposed
methodology is described in Section 2, while Section 3 reports its numerical implemen-
tation. The three benchmark case studies conducted using the proposed methodology,
including the code-based assessment according to the Italian building code are presented
in Sections 4 and 5. The relevant conclusions are finally discussed in Section 6.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 4 of 22
2. Methodology
In this section, the theoretical background of the proposed multi-level approach is
described. First, the geometry of the collapsed macro-block is obtained by using a heuristic
solver coupled with the Upper Bound theorem of limit analysis. Subsequently, the macro-
block is considered as geometry data input to compute the kinematic constants defining
the corresponding rocking equation of motion.
2.1. Upper-Bound Limit Analysis

The Upper bound limit analysis proposed is theoretically based on the mechanical
model developed in Reference [31], which has been implemented into a visual environment
in Reference [14]. According to Heyman’s no-tension model, masonry is considered to have
an infinite compression strength and no capability to resist tension [9]. Load multipliers
are computed, taking into account the friction at contact interfaces. The load multiplier λ,
leading to the collapsed macro-brock, is obtained by using the principle of virtual work:
n n n
λ ∑ Wi δ( x,y),i − ∑ Wi δ(z),i − ∑ Freal,s δ(x,y),s = 0 (1)
i =1 i =1 s =1
where Wi are the inertia forces arising from floors and roofs as well as the self-weight of
the masonry walls, δ( x,y,z) are the virtual displacements of the point in which the forces are
applied, Freal,s are the real frictional forces computed as a weighted value as a function of
the inclinations of the crack line [32], i.e.,:

αc
Freal,s = Fmax,s 1 − (2)
αb
where αc is the actual crack inclination αb is the crack inclination upper threshold (which
depends by the geometry of the block [31]) and Fmax,s is the frictional force computed under
the hypothesis of maximum frictional i.e.,:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Fmax,s = Wi,s (αb ) f c (3)
5 of 23
where Wi,s (αb ) is the weight of the macroblock OAB (Figure 2) and f c is the friction coefficient.
Figure
Figure2.2.Schematic
Schematicrepresentation
representationof
of the
the cracks
cracks line. α
αb:b :inclination
inclinationof
ofthe
thehalf-unit
half-unit shape;
shape; α
αc:c :actual
actual
crack
crackinclination.
inclination.
Theminimum
The minimumloadloadfactor
factorcapable
capableofofactivating
activatingthethefailure
failuremechanism
mechanismisiscomputed
computed
throughan
through anoptimization
optimizationroutine
routinethat
thatvaries
variesthe
theinclination
inclinationofofthe
thelines
linesthat
thatsimulate
simulatethe
the
cracked surfaces. As reported in Reference [31], the crack inclination, which represents
cracked surfaces. As reported in Reference [31], the crack inclination, which represents
thevariable
the variableofofthe
the optimization
optimizationprocedure,
procedure, must
mustrespect
respect the
the conditions
conditions of
of geometric
geometric
compatibility depending on the dimensions of the blocks. Hence, 𝜆 is obtained by solv-
ing the following constrained minimization problem.
𝑙
min 𝜆: ≤ tan𝛼 ≤ tan𝛼 (4)
2𝑛ℎ
where 𝑙, ℎ, 𝑛 are the brick length, the brick height and the number of vertical brick rows,
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 5 of 22
compatibility depending on the dimensions of the blocks. Hence, λ is obtained by solving

the following constrained minimization problem.

l
min λ : ≤ tan αc ≤ tan αc (4)
2nh
where l, h, n are the brick length, the brick height and the number of vertical brick rows,
respectively.
2.2. Non-Linear Dynamic (Rocking) Analysis

Once the geometry of the collapsing macro-block is defined, the rocking dynamic
analysis can be performed. Following the approach presented in Reference [20], the rocking
equation of motion assumes the following general linearised form:
..
Iφ − K
e eu.. g + M
e(φ − φcr ) = − B e (5)
where e I is the moment of inertia of the macro-block computed about the axis of rotation
(hinge), K e is the rotational stiffness of the structure, φ is the rotation, while φcr is the
critical (unstable equilibrium) rotation of the macro-block, about which the equation of
motion is linearised in order to obtain dynamic equivalence with the single rocking block.
Additionally, M e is the moment due to external static forces (if any), while B eu.. g is the
moment provided by the ground motion.
Through the following transformation of variables (where g is the acceleration due
to gravity):
K
e
θ=φ (6)
gBe
Equation (5) can be re-written as:
.. !
.. ug
θ = p2eq θ−e
λ− (7)
g
where peq is the equivalent rocking frequency parameter and e λ is an approximation of

the load multiplier that activates the mechanism (i.e., not explicitly taking into account
frictional forces) as opposed to the minimum frictional load multiplier λ as defined in the
..
previous sub-section. In this work, rocking is defined to initiate when u g > ge λ.
Note that both peq and λ are the equivalent rocking parameters defining the rocking
e
equation of motion, and depend on the kinematic constants e I, K,
e B,e M e and φcr , which
in turn are dependent on the geometry of the macro-block(s) and the type of mechanism
taking place (i.e., single/two/multiple block). For more detailed (i.e., mechanism-specific)
expressions of these terms, the reader is directed to Reference [26].
Furthermore, the rotation θov upon the exceedance of which the macro-block will
overturn and collapse also needs to be computed. As in the case of peq and e λ, this rotation
depends only on the kinematic constants:
e 1

e−M
θov = φcr K (8)
gB
e
Numerical integration of the equation of motion is then conducted using the explicit
Runge-Kutta method of order 5(4), whereby the error is controlled assuming the accuracy
of the fourth-order method, while steps are taken using the formula with fifth-order
accuracy. The solution procedure is iterative: starting from a given set of initial conditions,
the algorithm computes the rotation and angular velocity at each time-step, which are
subsequently used as input (i.e., the initial conditions) for the following time-step. In the
case of impact, the energy dissipated by the block(s), which results in a reduction in angular
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 6 of 22
velocity, is accounted for through the coefficient of restitution η COR , which depends both
on the block geometry as well as on the type of rocking (i.e., one-sided or two-sided). More
detailed expressions for this term can also be found in Reference [26].
3. Numerical Implementation
The multi-level analysis described above is implemented within the visual program-
ming environment offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grasshopper. The proposed method is
compartmentalised into clusters, where each group performs logical functions.
The first step of the visual script is devoted to importing the geometry of the structure
that the user wants to investigate (BLOCK 1, Figure 3). This step of the procedure may be
performed by following different approaches, i.e., parametric modelling of the structure,
importing of the NURBS geometry previously modelled in Rhino3D or importing of the
geometry directly using laser scanning. The same group of the visual script contains a
series of components devoted to the setting of parameters required: friction coefficient,
dimensions of the blocks, specific weight and the position of the rotational hinge (whereas
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x
itsFOR PEERwith
height REVIEW
respect to the ground is assumed as a variable). In the same group, the user
has to define the geometry of the openings, if present.
Figure 3. FlowFigure 3. Flow chart representation

chart representation oftwo-step
of the proposed the proposed two-step analysis.
analysis.
The second group The second

is formed groupby is formedofby
a series a series of Grasshopper
Grasshopper componentscomponentsable to splitable to sp
the structure by structure
means ofbycrack meanslinesofwhich
crackdefine
lines which define of
the geometry thethegeometry
collapsing ofmacro-
the collapsing
block (BLOCKro-block
2, Figure(BLOCK
3). This2,group
Figurecontains
3). This agroup seriescontains
of sliders that allow
a series the visual
of sliders that allow the
program to cover a broad
program to range
cover of macro-block
a broad range of geometries
macro-block according
geometries to the geometrical
according to the geom
constraints defined in Equation
constraints defined (3).inThese sliders
Equation (3).correspond
These sliders to unknown
correspond variables
to unknownin thevariables
optimization procedure.
optimization procedure.
The subsequent The group (BLOCKgroup
subsequent 3, Figure
(BLOCK 3) contains
3, Figure an 3)ad-hoc
containsprogrammed
an ad-hoc C# programm
component, which component, which formulates the principle of virtual work of theoutput
formulates the principle of virtual work of the problem. The problem.of The out
this cluster is the calculated load multiplier (BLOCK 4, Figure 3). In this work,
this cluster is the calculated load multiplier (BLOCK 4, Figure 3). In this work, to to solve the
minimisation problem reported in
the minimisation Equation
problem (4), thein
reported Nelder–Mead
Equation (4),method is adopted method
the Nelder–Mead [33]. is ad
The Nelder-Mead [33].method (NMM) is amethod
The Nelder-Mead commonly (NMM) appliedis a numerical
commonlymethod appliedused to findmethod u
numerical
the minimum find or maximum
the minimum of anorobjective
maximum function in a multidimensional
of an objective space. The
function in a multidimensional spac
NMM component (BLOCK 5, Figure 3) is linked to the parameters
NMM component (BLOCK 5, Figure 3) is linked to the parameters that define the geometry
that define the
of the collapsing macroblocks
etry (inclination
of the collapsing of the cracks)
macroblocks and theofload
(inclination the multiplier
cracks) andthat thehas
loadto multipli
be optimised. has to be optimised.
Once the geometryOnceofthe thegeometry
macro-block (i.e.,macro-block
of the the collapse (i.e.,
mechanism) and its
the collapse associated and its a
mechanism)
minimum loadated multiplier
minimumλ have beenmultiplier
load obtained usingλ have thebeen
optimisation
obtainedprocedure
using thedescribed,
optimisation proc
a GhPython script (the Python interpreter component for Grasshopper)
described, a GhPython script (the Python interpreter component follows (BLOCK 6,
for Grasshoppe
lows (BLOCK 6, Figure 3). This component takes as input the macro-block geomet
hinge location, and automatically extracts the required geometric properties (su
volume, centroid and moment of inertia) defining the kinematic constants, wh
turn, are used to compute the parameters defining the rocking equation of motion
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 7 of 22
Figure 3). This component takes as input the macro-block geometry and hinge location,
and automatically extracts the required geometric properties (such as volume, centroid and
moment of inertia) defining the kinematic constants, which, in turn, are used to compute
the parameters defining the rocking equation of motion. For a more detailed description of
how the script works, the readers are directed to References [14,26].
The rocking equation of motion can then be solved for full time-histories, (BLOCK 7,
Figure 3) for both harmonic and random, i.e., earthquake, ground motions. Note that in
the case of the latter, the corresponding ground motion records would need to be provided
as user-defined input (BLOCK 8, Figure 2).
The solution of the equation of motion requires additional Python packages such as
NumPy [34] and SciPy [35], which are not available in IronPython, which is the imple-
mentation of Python used by Rhino and by extension, Grasshopper. Thus, to make the
proposed modelling strategy work within the Grasshopper environment, a GH Python
Remote
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEERcomponent
REVIEW [36] was added to the cluster (BLOCK 7), as it provides a connection to 8
an external instance of Python through which the required NumPy and SciPy functions
can be executed.
4. Validation4.ofValidation of the Upper-Bound

the Upper-Bound Limit Analysis Limit Analysis Procedure
Procedure
Inthe
In this section, thisproposed
section, the proposed methodology
methodology is evaluated
is evaluated using using
three case three The
studies. case studies
first case study, which involves a masonry wall without openings [31],
first case study, which involves a masonry wall without openings [31], is used to validate is used to val
the upper bound limit analysis procedure implemented in the
the upper bound limit analysis procedure implemented in the visual program-interface. visual program-inter
The second and Thethird
second
caseand third involve
studies case studies involvewall
a masonry a masonry wall with
with openings andopenings
a churchand a ch
geometry
geometry inspired inspired
by that of Sanby that of
Nicolò diSan Nicolò di Capodimonte
Capodimonte (Camogli,
(Camogli, Genova, Genova, Italy).
Italy).
4.1. Solid Masonry WallMasonry

4.1. Solid Loaded In-Plane
Wall Loaded in-Plane
A masonry wall loaded in
A masonry its loaded
wall plane isinfirst considered
its plane is firsttoconsidered
validate the to suitability
validate theof suitabili
the proposedtheprocedure.
proposedThe geometry
procedure. Theof the wall, as
geometry ofwell as theasloading
the wall, well asconfiguration,
the loading configura
are taken in agreement
are taken inwith those reported
agreement with those inreported
Reference [31]. In the
in Reference present
[31]. In theexample,
present example
two kinds ofkinds
blocks ofare considered.
blocks FigureFigure
are considered. 4a,b show the masonry
4a,b show pattern
the masonry for mfor
pattern =m 1 = 1 and
and m = 0.5, respectively
0.5, respectively(where m ismthe
(where unitunit
is the aspect ratio
aspect of the
ratio blocks
of the [31]).
blocks A friction
[31]). A friction coeffi
coefficient equal
equalto to
0.75 is considered.
0.75 is considered. Figure
Figure5a shows
5a showsthethe
optimisation process,
optimisation which
process, is is base
which
based on 20 iterations of the Nelder- Method-Optimisation component [37].
20 iterations of the Nelder- Method-Optimisation component [37]. During the first During the
first generation of theofsolution,
eration the solver
the solution, the starts
solverrandomly. At each At
starts randomly. succeeding generation,
each succeeding generation
the result tends to converge
result to the value
tends to converge to thethat minimises
value the load the
that minimises multiplier under the
load multiplier under the
constraints imposed in Equation (3).
straints imposed in Equation (3).
Figureand
Figure 4. Geometry 4. Geometry and load configurations:
load configurations: (a) m = 1; (b) m(a)
=m0.5.= 1; (b) m = 0.5.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 8 of 22
Figure 4. Geometry and load configurations: (a) m = 1; (b) m = 0.5.
Figure 5.
Figure 5. (a)
(a) Load
Load multiplier
multiplier vs.
vs. Iterations
Iterations for
for m
m == 11 and
and mm== 0.5
0.5 and
and comparison
comparison with the reference
with the reference value
value arising
arising from
from the
the
micro-block model [38]. (b) Geometry representation of the failure mechanism at the last iteration.
micro-block model [38]. (b) Geometry representation of the failure mechanism at the last iteration.
Considering a numerical approximation of two digits, the solver converges, after few
iterations, in 2 s with an Intel® Core™ i7–6700HQ processor. In the case of m = 1, the
proposed solution scheme computes a load multiplier equal to 0.25, whereas the micro-
model approach [38] computed a value of 0.27. When m = 0.5, the NMM solver converges
to a value of the multiplier equal to 0.47, which is slightly lower than the one arising
from [38] (0.49). It is worth noting that in both the analysed cases, the load multipliers
computed using the proposed macro-block approach are slightly lower than those arising
from the micro-block approach. These conservative results are in agreement with the
concept of the macro-block approach, which allows users to get an estimation of the seismic
safety of the structures while significantly reducing the computational cost.
The same considerations can be made from the point of view of the geometry of the
failure mechanism, see Figure 5b. In particular, when m = 1, the collapsed macro-block is
unable to mobilise any friction forces ( Freal,s → 0 ). Instead, when m = 0.5, the collapsed
macro-block is characterised by an angle placed at an intermediate position among the
three different cracks detected within the micro-block model [31,38].
4.2. Masonry Wall with Openings Loaded in-Plane

The second case study aims to investigate the capabilities of the proposed model on a
masonry wall with openings. The geometry, the boundary conditions, and the mechanical
parameters are taken in agreement with Reference [39], which integrated a computer
procedure to determine the collapse using a non-standard limit analysis where the masonry
was modelled as a discrete system of rigid blocks. The masonry wall is subjected to a
gravity load and a horizontal uniform lateral load as a factor of the unit weight. The
structural model, as well as the failure mechanism obtained by using the non-associative
friction solution in Reference [39], are reported in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6b, the
crack pattern is mainly featured by the overturning of an assemblage of rigid blocks which
assume the structural behavior of a macro-block.
Based on both engineering judgment and in-situ observations after earthquake
events [40], cracks follow openings as they are the weakest part in a wall. Under seismic
action, the stresses on the openings’ corners assume the highest values and the corners are
usually attractors for crack initiation.
the masonry was modelled as a discrete system of rigid blocks. The masonry wa
subjected to a gravity load and a horizontal uniform lateral load as a factor of the
weight. The structural model, as well as the failure mechanism obtained by using
non-associative friction solution in Reference [39], are reported in Figure 6. As show
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 Figure 6b, the crack pattern is mainly featured by the overturning of 9an of 22
assemblag
rigid blocks which assume the structural behavior of a macro-block.
Figure 6. (a)
Figure 6. (a) Geometry andGeometry and Load configurations;
Load configurations; (b) failure
(b) failure mechanism mechanism
obtained obtained
by using by using non-
non-associative friction solu-
tion [39]. associative friction solution [39].
In literature, Based
there are onfew research
both works, based
engineering on theand
judgment macro-block approach [32,40],
in-situ observations after earthqu
analysing cases in which there are openings in the masonry wall. Casapulla
events [40], cracks follow openings as they are the weakest part in a wall. et al. [32]
Under sei
investigated action,
the roletheof stresses
the openings in the rocking mechanism of masonry wall ends.
on the openings’ corners assume the highest values and the cor
Their model areconstrains
usuallythe lower crack
attractors fixedinitiation.
for crack a priori as strictly related to the width of the
pier and height ofInthe lower spandrel. For instance,
literature, there are few research theworks,
analytical
based model developed
on the in
macro-block appro
Reference [32], considers only the inclination of the crack above the openings as a variable
[32,40], analysing cases in which there are openings in the masonry wall. Casapulla e
of the failure [32]
mechanism. Realistic
investigated the collapse mechanisms
role of the openingsinclude
in the that the crack
rocking crossingofthe
mechanism masonry
lower spandrel (below the opening) may change its inclination, as well as the possibility
that the crack, concerning to the considered opening, involves the upper spandrel varying
its starting point. Despite other analytical models [31,32], the proposed formulation is
able to cover these cases by managing a larger set of variables and improving the research
panorama in which the cracks could propagate. For that purpose, the proposed visual
program is implemented by a C# component, which is adopted to take into account the
constraints that the cracks inclinations must respect.
Figure 7a shows the optimisation process, which is based on 20 iterations of the
Nelder- Method-Optimisation component [37]. The solver converges to a value of 0.21,
after less than 10 iterations, in 3 s with an Intel® Core™ i7-6700HQ processor. As shown in
Figure 7b, the geometry of the obtained failure mechanism is in good agreement with those
arising from the micro-block approach (see Figure 5b) [39]. The load multiplier obtained
at the end of the optimisation procedure is 20% more conservative than that computed in
Reference [39], which is reasonable given the level of simplification and the large size of
the masonry units when compared to the size of the piers and spandrels.
To clarify the advancements brought by the proposed approach, a comparison between
the limit analysis model (Model*) developed in Reference [20] and the one proposed here
(Model) is reported in Figure 8. The main difference between Model* and Model are the
constraints about the position of the lower and upper cracks, which, in the present case,
are removed by allowing the optimization problem to cover a larger set of kinematically
compatible solutions. The results reveal how the proposed Model can obtain a lower value
of λ, whereas Model* computes a load multiplier which is not conservative if compared
with that arising from the micro-block approach.
Nelder- Method-Optimisation component [37]. The solver converges to a value of 0.21,
after less than 10 iterations, in 3 s with an Intel® Core™ i7-6700HQ processor. As shown
in Figure 7b, the geometry of the obtained failure mechanism is in good agreement with
those arising from the micro-block approach (see Figure 5b) [39]. The load multiplier
obtained at the end of the optimisation procedure is 20% more conservative than that
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 10 of 22
computed in Reference [39], which is reasonable given the level of simplification and the
large size of the masonry units when compared to the size of the piers and spandrels.
Figure 7.7. (a)

Figure (a)Load
Loadmultiplier
multipliervs.
vs.Iterations
Iterationsand
and comparison
comparison with
with thethe reference
reference value
value arising
arising fromfrom a micro-block
a micro-block model
model [39].
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
[39].
(b) (b) Geometry
Geometry representation
representation of theof the failure
failure mechanism
mechanism at theat theiteration.
last last iteration.
To clarify the advancements brought by the proposed approach, a comparison be-

tween the limit analysis model (Model*) developed in Reference [20] and the one pro-
posed here (Model) is reported in Figure 8. The main difference between Model* and
Model are the constraints about the position of the lower and upper cracks, which, in the
present case, are removed by allowing the optimization problem to cover a larger set of
kinematically compatible solutions. The results reveal how the proposed Model can ob-
tain a lower value of 𝜆, whereas Model* computes a load multiplier which is not con-
servative if compared with that arising from the micro-block approach.
Figure
Figure 8.8. (a) Load multiplier
multiplier vs.
vs. Iterations
Iterationsand
andcomparison
comparisonwithwiththe
the values
values arising
arising from
from thethe reference
reference micro-block
micro-block model
model [39]
[39]
and and alternative
alternative limitlimit analysis
analysis formulation
formulation of Reference
of Reference [31].[31]. (b) Geometry
(b) Geometry representation
representation of the
of the failure
failure mechanism
mechanism at
at the
the last iteration.
last iteration.
4.3. Church Loaded out-of-Plane

4.3. Church Loaded
The third caseOut-of-Plane
study is a masonry church characterised by a plan having the form of
The Cross.
the Latin third case
Thestudy is a masonry
3D model church
of the church, andcharacterised by aparameters,
the mechanical plan havingare thetaken
form in
of
the Latin Cross.
agreement The 3D
with those model of
reported inthe church, [41]
Reference and (Figure
the mechanical parameters,
9a). In particular, theare taken3D
*.dwg in
agreement with
model has those reporteddownloaded
been in Reference [41] (Figure
from 9a).the In particular, the *.dwglink
following 3D
model has been downloaded from the following link https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ycxvmj77x5/1.
ycxvmj77x5/1.
In the present work, the failure mechanism generated by the seismic action activated
along the direction perpendicular to the façade (i.e., out of plane) is considered. Figure 9b
shows the reference failure mechanism obtained by using a non-associative friction solution
and micro-block modelling [41].
Figure 10a shows the results of the optimisation process. Considering a numerical
approximation of two digits, the solver converges to a value of 0.21, after less than 10 it-
erations, in 5 s with an Intel® Core™ i7–6700HQ processor. It is worth noting how the
geometry of the failure mechanism is in agreement with that obtained by adopting a
micro-block model and a non-associative friction flow rule (Figure 10b). The proposed
macro-block model also shows excellent prediction in terms of the load multiplier, which is
5% more conservative than the one obtained using the micro-block approach.
Figure 9. (a) Geometry configuration; (b) failure mechanism obtained by using non-associative
friction solution for load configuration given Reference [41].
4.3. Church Loaded out-of-Plane
The third case study is a masonry church characterised by a plan having the form of
the Latin Cross. The 3D model of the church, and the mechanical parameters, are taken in
agreement with those reported in Reference [41] (Figure 9a). In particular, the *.dwg 3D
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 11 of 22
model has been downloaded from the following link
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ycxvmj77x5/1.
Figure 9. (a)
Figure
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Geometry
9. (a) configuration;
Geometry (b) failure
configuration; mechanism
(b) failure obtained
mechanism by using
obtained non-associative
by using non-associative
12 of 23
friction solution
friction forfor
solution load configuration
load given
configuration Reference
given [41].
Reference [41].
along the direction perpendicular to the façade (i.e., out of plane) is considered. Figure 9b
shows the reference failure mechanism obtained by using a non-associative friction solu-
tion and micro-block modelling [41].
Figure 10a shows the results of the optimisation process. Considering a numerical
approximation of two digits, the solver converges to a value of 0.21, after less than 10 it-
erations, in 5 s with an Intel® Core™ i7–6700HQ processor. It is worth noting how the
geometry of the failure mechanism is in agreement with that obtained by adopting a mi-
cro-block model and a non-associative friction flow rule (Figure 10b). The proposed
macro-block model also shows excellent prediction in terms of the load multiplier, which
is 5% more conservative than the one obtained using the micro-block approach.
Figure 10. (a)

Figure 10. (a) Load
Load multiplier
multiplier vs.
vs. Iterations
Iterations and comparison with
and comparison with the reference value
the reference value arising
arising by
by using
using aa non-associative
non-associative
friction solution [41]. (b) Geometry representation of the failure mechanism at the last iteration.
friction solution [41]. (b) Geometry representation of the failure mechanism at the last iteration.
5. The Step towards Full Dynamic Seismic Assessment Tools

5. The Step towards Full Dynamic Seismic Assessment Tools
In this section, the results of the proposed upper-bound limit analysis tool for the
In this section, the results of the proposed upper-bound limit analysis tool for the
masonry wall with openings and the church presented in the previous section are eval-
masonry wall with openings and the church presented in the previous section are evaluated
uated towards full dynamic seismic assessment procedures through comparisons with
towards full dynamic seismic assessment procedures through comparisons with predictions
predictions of thestatic
of the equivalent equivalent static displacement-based
displacement-based procedure ofprocedure
the Italianof the Italian
building codebuilding
[15,16],
code [15,16],
while the while
influence the influence
of ground of ground (pulse
motion characteristics motion characteristics on
vs. non-pulse-type) (pulse vs.
dynamic
non-pulse-type) on dynamic
response is also investigated. response is also investigated.
5.1.
5.1. Code
Code Based
Based Assessment
Assessment According
According toto the
the Italian
Italian Building Code
Once
Once the load multipliers
multipliers and
and mechanisms
mechanismsof ofthe
thecase
casestudies
studieshave
havebeen
beencomputed,
computed,a
aforce-based
force-basedand
andequivalent
equivalentstatic
staticdisplacement-based
displacement-basedassessment
assessment was
was conducted,
conducted, using
the
the procedure
procedure defined in the Italian building code [16,17]. [16,17]. The code-based assessments
were performed
performed for the so-called
so-called life-safety
life-safety limit
limit state
state (SLV)
(SLV) in the code, which typically
corresponds
corresponds to a return period of 475 years.
Regarding
Regarding the
the force-based
force-based assessment,
assessment, the the code
code defines the acceleration capacity as
the
the spectral
spectral acceleration
acceleration of
of mechanism activation 𝑎a0∗∗,, which
mechanismactivation which is
is computed
computed by using the
following equation:
following
λg
a0∗ = 𝜆𝑔
e
∗ (9)
𝑎 =e CF
∗
∗
(9)
𝑒 𝐶𝐹
where 𝜆 is the load multiplier that activates the rocking mechanism (Section 2.2), 𝑔 is
the acceleration due to gravity, CF is the confidence factor (which is here assumed equal
to 1.00) and 𝑒 ∗ is the participating mass fraction related to the effective participating
mass M*. The latter two parameters are computed using the following equations:
∑ 𝑊𝛿
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 12 of 22
where eλ is the load multiplier that activates the rocking mechanism (Section 2.2), g is the
acceleration due to gravity, CF is the confidence factor (which is here assumed equal to
1.00) and e∗ is the participating mass fraction related to the effective participating mass M*.
The latter two parameters are computed using the following equations:
(∑in=1 Wi δx,i )2
M∗ = (10)
g ∑in=1 Wi δx,i
2
gM∗
e∗ = (11)
∑in=+1m Wi
where Wi and δx,i are defined in Section 2.1.
The corresponding acceleration demand is equal to the PGA ag multiplied by the soil
factor S, in order to get the maximum acceleration expected on the site, divided by the
behavior factor q, which is typically equal to 2 for masonry buildings. Here, the objective is
to determine the PGA a g,FB for which this safety criterion is violated, which is found by
setting the demand and capacity equal to each other, resulting in:
qa0∗ qe
λg
a g,FB = = ∗ (12)
S Se CF
In the case of the displacement-based procedure, the ultimate displacement capacity
dSLV ∗ is defined as 40% of the displacement d0 ∗ , which would cause the structure to
overturn. Specifically, d0 ∗ is computed as the spectral displacement, which corresponds to
the null value of the spectral acceleration. Thus:
dSLV ∗ = 0.4d0 ∗ (13)
The corresponding displacement demand ∆d is then computed by evaluating the

elastic spectral response acceleration Se at the equivalent secant period of the mechanism
TSLV with the latter calculated at dSLV ∗ . The acceleration aSLV ∗ , corresponding to this
displacement, is obtained from the capacity curve generated for each mechanism (see
Figure 11). The control points adopted to generate these curves were selected to coincide
with the centroid of the macro-blocks. As Figure 11 illustrates, the curves are linear for
both mechanisms and are defined by a0∗ and d0∗ , where d0∗ is the overturning displacement
of the structure, as defined above. The displacement demand ∆d can thus be calculated as:
Ts2
∆d = gSe ( Ts ) (14)
4π 2
where: s
dSLV ∗
Ts = 1.68π (15)
aSLV ∗
In the present study, the displacement demand is computed by means of the 5%
damped elastic response spectrum, as defined in Eurocode8 [42]. Note that Eurocode8
recommends two different design spectrums–Type 1 for high and moderate seismicity
regions and Type 2 for low seismicity regions and near field earthquakes. The Type 1
spectrum was used for these analyses as the church is located in Italy, which is a zone
more prone to moderate magnitude earthquakes at closer distances. The most common,
intermediate, ground type B, was assumed (very dense sand or gravel or very stiff clay,
with a soil factor S that increases the PGA by 20% with respect to the rock base). Moreover,
as 5% damping is assumed, the damping correction factor η is set to 1. The parameters
overturn. Specifically, 𝑑 ∗ is computed as the spectral displacement, which corresponds
to the null value of the spectral acceleration. Thus:
∗ ∗
𝑑 = 0.4𝑑 (13)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942

The corresponding displacement demand Δ is then computed by evaluating 13 theof 22
elastic spectral response acceleration 𝑆 at the equivalent secant period of the mecha-
nism TSLV with the latter calculated at 𝑑 ∗ . The acceleration 𝑎 ∗ , corresponding to this
displacement, is obtained from the capacity curve generated for each mechanism (see
Figure 11).
defining theThe control points
spectrum adopted to generate
are summarized in Table these curves
1, while thewere selecteddescribing
equations to coincidethe
with the are
spectrum centroid
givenofby:
the macro-blocks. As Figure 11 illustrates, the curves are linear for
both mechanisms and are definedby 𝑎∗ and 𝑑 ∗ , where ∗
𝑑 is the overturning displace-
ment of the structure, as defined above. The displacement demand Δ can thus be cal-
T
Se ( T ) = a g ∗ S 1 + (η ∗ 2.5 − 1) 0 ≤ T ≤ TB (16)
culated as: TB
𝑇
Se ( T ) = a g ∗ΔS ∗=η ∗ 2.5
𝑔𝑆 (𝑇 )TB ≤ T ≤ TC (14) (17)
4𝜋
where: TC
Se ( T ) = a g ∗ S ∗ η ∗ 2.5 ∗ TC ≤ T ≤ TD (18)
T
𝑑 T∗ T
Se ( T ) = a g ∗𝑇S =
∗ η1.68𝜋
∗ 2.5 𝑎∗ C C
∗ TD ≤ T (15) (19)
T2
Figure Capacity
11.11.
Figure curves
Capacity ofofthe
curves thetwo
twoinvestigated
investigatedcase
case studies (blue
(blue for
forthe
thewall
wallwith
withopenings
openings and
and black
black forfor
thethe church).
church).
InParameters
Table 1. the present study,
used the displacement
to define the Eurocode8 demand
response is computed by means of the 5%
spectrum.
damped elastic response spectrum, as defined in Eurocode8 [42]. Note that Eurocode8
Parameter two different
recommends S design Tspectrums–Type
B (s) TC1(s)for high and TD moderate
(s) seismicity
η
regions
Valueand Type 2 for
1.2 low seismicity
0.15 regions and near
0.5 field earthquakes.
2.0 The Type
1.0 1
spectrum was used for these analyses as the church is located in Italy, which is a zone
more prone to moderate magnitude earthquakes at closer distances. The most common,
intermediate, ag,DB , for
The PGA ground which
type theassumed
B, was displacement-based
(very dense sandsafetyor criteria
gravel or is very
violated, is then
stiff clay,
found by setting the displacement demand
with a soil factor S that increases the PGA by 20% ∆ d equal to the displacement capacity
with respect to the rock base). Moreo- dSLV ∗
and
ver,solving for a g . Table
as 5% damping 2 reports
is assumed, the PGAs
the damping for which
correction the ηsafety
factor check
is set to 1. Theof parame-
the Italian
building codethe
ters defining is violated,
spectrum using both linearinkinematic
are summarized analysis
Table 1, while (force-based
the equations assessment)
describing the
and non-linear
spectrum kinematic
are given by: analysis (displacement-based assessment). For the masonry wall
with openings, the PGAs obtained from both the force-based and displacement-based
methods compare reasonably well. However, for the church mechanism, the displacement-
based procedure predicts a PGA which is almost double that obtained from the force-based
approach. This is most likely due to the larger scale of the church, which makes it less
vulnerable to collapse than the smaller scale masonry wall. This scale effect is partly
accounted for by the displacement-based procedure, but not by the force-based approach,
which instead relies only on the slenderness of the mechanism.
Table 2. Comparison of peak ground accelerations (PGAs) for which the Italian code safety check is
violated using both the force-based and displacement-based procedures.
Mechanism ag,FB (g) ag,DB (g)

Masonry wall with openings 0.33 0.35
Church 0.27 0.48
force-based approach, which instead relies only on the slenderness of the mechanism.
Table 2. Comparison of peak ground accelerations (PGAs) for which the Italian code safety check is
violated using both the force-based and displacement-based procedures.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 Mechanism ag,FB (g) ag,DB (g) 14 of 22
Masonry wall with openings 0.33 0.35
Church 0.27 0.48
In order to further evaluate the building scale effects, a parametric analysis in terms
In order to further evaluate the building scale effects, a parametric analysis in terms
of scale factor (SF) was performed for the church. To this end, the following values of the
of scale factor (SF) was performed for the church. To this end, the following values of the
scale factors are considered: SF = 1; SF = 1/2; and SF = 1/3. From a comparison of the
scale factors are considered: SF = 1; SF = 1/2; and SF = 1/3. From a comparison of the ca-
capacity curves, as illustrated by Figure 12, it can be seen that the displacement capacity is
pacity curves, as illustrated by Figure 12, it can be seen that the displacement capacity is
significantly influenced by the scale of the macro-block, whereas the value of a∗ remains
significantly influenced by the scale of the macro-block, whereas the value of 𝑎∗ 0 remains
constant for all the macro-block configurations. It is also noted that the displacement
constant for all the macro-block configurations. It is also noted that the displacement
capacity is rather large when the scale increases, which raises some doubts over the
capacity is rather large when the scale increases, which raises some doubts over the ca-
capacity of the structure to withstand such a displacement level before disintegration.
pacity of the structure to withstand such a displacement level before disintegration.
Figure12.
Figure Comparisonininterms
12.Comparison termsofofcapacity
capacitycurves
curvesofofthe
thethree
threeidealized
idealizedconfigurations.
configurations.
Table 3 reports the PGAs for which the safety check of the Italian building code is
violated using the non-linear kinematic analysis for all the three idealized configurations.
This result further illustrates how the seismic safety evaluation, performed following the
displacement-based assessment, is influenced by the building scale, whereas the force-
based method is independent of the scale and instead depends entirely on the slenderness
of the macro-block.
Table 3. Comparison in terms of PGAs—SF for witch the Italian building code is violated using both
the force-based and displacement-based procedures.
SF ag,FB (g) ag,DB (g)

1 0.48
1/2 0.27 0.24
1/3 0.17
5.2. Comparison of Rocking Analysis Results with Code-Based Assessment Procedures

In this section, dynamic analyses are conducted on the collapse mechanisms to provide
a preliminary demonstration of the ability of the proposed tool to address safety and to
compare the same with code-based procedures. To that end, full time-history analyses
are performed for a set of both artificial and recorded accelerograms. In the case of the
former, the program SIMQKE_GR [43], which provides a graphical interface to the program
SIMQKE-1 [44], was used to generate a set of ten code-compatible artificial accelerograms
(Figure 13), using as input the 5% damped Eurocode8 elastic response spectrum, as defined
in the previous sub-section. Each record has a total duration of 20 s, while the average
duration of the intense phase of the ground motion is 14 s. In the case of the recorded
accelerograms, a set of 100 ground motions were obtained from the PEER NGA-West2
Ground Motion Database [45] (Figure 14), also scaled to the 5% damped response spectrum
as defined above. The set of analysed ground motions comprise 50 different pulse-type
and 50 different non-pulse type records, with an average close to the code spectrum and
average durations of the intense phase of 13 s and 20 s, respectively. Additionally, as both
mechanisms are assumed to undergo one-sided rocking, each accelerogram is run with
while the average duration of the intense phase of the ground motion is 14 s. In the case
of the recorded accelerograms, a set of 100 ground motions were obtained from the PEER
NGA-West2 Ground Motion Database [45] (Figure 14), also scaled to the 5% damped
response spectrum as defined above. The set of analysed ground motions comprise 50
different pulse-type and 50 different non-pulse type records, with an average close to the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 15 of 22
code spectrum and average durations of the intense phase of 13 s and 20 s, respectively.
Additionally, as both mechanisms are assumed to undergo one-sided rocking, each ac-
celerogram is run with reversed polarity as well, resulting in a total of 20 (artificial ac-
celerogram) + 200as(recorded
reversed polarity accelerogram)
well, resulting analyses
in a total of beingaccelerogram)
20 (artificial conducted for each(recorded
+ 200 mecha-
nism.
accelerogram) analyses being conducted for each mechanism.
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Acceleration
Accelerationresponse
responsespectra
spectra(in
(ingrey)
grey)ofofthe
theartificial
artificialground
groundmotions
motionsused
usedininthe
the non-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
non-linear dynamic analyses. The target spectrum is shown in black (scaled here to ag = 1.0 g),16while
of 23
linear dynamic analyses. The target spectrum is shown in black (scaled here to ag = 1.0 g), while the
the average of the spectra is indicated in red.
average of the spectra is indicated in red.
Figure 14. Acceleration

Acceleration response
response spectra
spectra (in
(in grey)
grey) of the different recorded ground motions used in the analyses for the
(a) pulse type and (b) non-pulse type records.
(a) pulse type and (b) non-pulse type records. The The target
target spectrum
spectrum isis shown
shown in
in black
black (scaled
(scaled here
here to
to aagg =
= 1.0
1.0 g),
g), while
while the
the
In ordertotoevaluate
In order evaluate
the the predictions
predictions of theof theantool,
tool, an equivalent
equivalent static displace-
static displacement-based
ment-based analysis
analysis is also is also for
conducted conducted for each
each ground ground
motion motion
record, record,
using, using,
in this case,inthe
thisactual
case,
the actual spectrum
response response spectrum for each accelerogram.
for each accelerogram. Additionally,
Additionally, to better the
to better compare compare
demand-the
demand-capacity ratiosfrom
capacity ratios obtained obtained from theresults
the code-based code-based results
to those from theto those from
non-linear the
dynamic
non-linear dynamicthe
(rocking) analyses, (rocking)
maximum analyses, theθmax
rotations maximum
predictedrotations
by the tool𝜃 werepredicted
normalisedby the
by
tool were normalised
the equivalent by the equivalent
code-mandated code-mandated
maximum allowable rotationmaximum
θov,c , whichallowable
is simply rotation
equal to
𝜃40%, , of θov (where
which is simply is defined
θov equal of 𝜃 (where
in Equation
to 40% (8)). 𝜃 is defined in Equation (8)).
5.2.1. Masonry
5.2.1. Masonry Wall
Wall Loaded
Loaded in in its
Its Plane
Plane with
with Openings
Openings
In the
In the case
caseof
ofthe
thein-plane
in-planeloaded
loaded masonry
masonrywall with
wall openings,
with the kinematic
openings, constants
the kinematic con-
of the mechanism are first calculated using the Python script in Grasshopper
stants of the mechanism are first calculated using the Python script in Grasshopper [30]. [30]. The
kinematic constants are then used to determine the equivalent rocking parameters
The kinematic constants are then used to determine the equivalent rocking parameters p eq , λ
e
and
peq, 𝜆 COR
η defining the rocking equation of motion, which are listed in Table 4.
and ηCOR defining the rocking equation of motion, which are listed in Table 4. NoteNote that
that the coefficient of restitution ηCOR is negative due to one-sided rocking being assumed
for this mechanism.
Table 4. Masonry wall with openings. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython
script.
−1
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 16 of 22
the coefficient of restitution η COR is negative due to one-sided rocking being assumed for
this mechanism.
Table 4. Masonry wall with openings. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython script.
peq (s−1 ) λ (rad)

e ηCOR
1.55 0.20 −0.61
In the first set of analyses, the rocking equation of motion was solved by scaling the
suite of ground motions to ag = 0.35 g for both the artificial and recorded accelerograms, as
this was the PGA predicted to cause collapse by the displacement-based code approach. In
the case of the artificial accelerograms, a comparison between the code-based predictions
and those obtained from the rocking analyses revealed the code to consistently be the
more conservative of the two (Figure 15, positive polarity indicated in black, negative
in white). Specifically, using the actual response spectra for each accelerogram, the code
predicted collapse in 70% of the cases (points lying above the solid horizontal line), while
the maximum response predicted by the rocking model never exceeded 7.5% of θov,c or
3% of θov .
Figure
Figure15.
15.Masonry
Masonrywall with
wall openings.
with Comparison
openings. Comparisonof theofcode-based (equivalent
the code-based static)static)
(equivalent and and
rocking
rocking(non-linear
(non-lineardynamic)
dynamic)demand-capacity
demand-capacity ratios
ratios for the different
for the different artificial
artificialaccelerograms
accelerograms(scaled
(scaled
to ag =to ag =g).
0.35 0.35 g).
Similar
Similartrends
trendswere
werealso
also observed
observed in in the case of of the
therecorded
recordedaccelerograms.
accelerograms.Specif-
Spe-
cifically,
ically, ininthe
thecase
caseofofboth
both pulse
pulse and
and non-pulse type motions, motions, the the code
codepredicted
predictedlarger
larger
demandsthan
demands thanthetherocking
rockingmodel
modelinin100% 100%ofofcases
cases(i.e.,
(i.e.,all
allpoints
pointslying
lyingabove
abovethe
thedashed
dashed
lineininFigure
line Figure16).16). In the
In the casecase of pulse-type
of pulse-type motions
motions in particular,
in particular, the code
the code predicted
predicted col-
collapse in 54% of the cases, while the maximum response predicted
lapse in 54% of the cases, while the maximum response predicted by the rocking model by the rocking model
neverexceeded
never exceeded66% 66%ofof𝜃θov,c
, or or 26%
26% of of 𝜃θov . However,
However, in in the
the case
caseofofthe
thenon-pulse-type
non-pulse-type
motions,the
motions, the code
code only predicted
predictedcollapse
collapseinin26%26% of of
thethecases, while
cases, the maximum
while the maximum response
re-
predicted
sponse by the rocking
predicted by themodel
rockingnevermodel
exceeded 38%exceeded
never 38% ofofθov𝜃. Nevertheless,
of θov,c or 15% , or 15% ofin
𝜃both
. Nevertheless,
cases, it can beinseen
boththat
cases,theitcode
can is
bemuch
seen more
that the conservative
code is much thanmore
the rocking model,
conservative
and the
than thatrocking
the PGAmodel,
of 0.35and
g is that
insufficient
the PGA to of
cause
0.35rocking collapse. to cause rocking col-
g is insufficient
lapse. Thus, in a second set of analyses, the scaling of the ground motion was progressively
increased until complete rocking collapse occurred, with collapse in this case being defined
as θ = π/2. As the recorded ground motions are less conservative than the artificial ground
motions, only the former are considered. From these analyses, it was found that for the
masonry wall with openings, a minimum PGA of 0.50 g is required for at least one record
to cause collapse, with the PGA having to be increased to 1.30 g for 50% of the recorded
accelerograms (average of pulse and non-pulse type records) to cause complete overturning
of the structure (Figure 17), which is 3.7 times higher than the code-based prediction of
(scaled to ag = 0.35 g).
Similar trends were also observed in the case of the recorded accelerograms. Spe-
cifically, in the case of both pulse and non-pulse type motions, the code predicted larger
demands than the rocking model in 100% of cases (i.e., all points lying above the dashed
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 17 of 22
line in Figure 16). In the case of pulse-type motions in particular, the code predicted col-
lapse in 54% of the cases, while the maximum response predicted by the rocking model
never exceeded 66% of 𝜃 , or 26% of 𝜃 . However, in the case of the non-pulse-type
motions,
0.35 the code
g. These only
results predicted
clearly collapse
indicate in 26%
the need of the cases,
for sounder whilesafety
code-base the maximum
approaches re-
sponse predicted by the rocking model never exceeded 38%
such as the one proposed here. Additionally, the pulse-type ground motions wereof 𝜃 , or 15%
found toof
𝜃 . Nevertheless,
have in both effect
more of a destructive cases, on
it can
the be seen that
rocking the code
response is much
(which moreillustrated
was also conservativeby
than the
Figure 16),rocking model, andthe
thus highlighting that the PGAofof
sensitivity the0.35 g is insufficient
rocking to cause
model (as well as the rocking col-
code-based
lapse. to an extent) to ground motion characteristics.
model
record to cause collapse, with the PGA having to be increased to 1.30 g for 50% of the
recorded accelerograms (average of pulse and non-pulse type records) to cause complete
overturning of the structure (Figure 17), which is 3.7 times higher than the code-based
prediction of 0.35 g. These results clearly indicate the need for sounder code-base safety
approaches such as the one proposed here. Additionally, the pulse-type ground motions
were found to have more of a destructive effect on the rocking response (which was also
Figure16.
16.Masonry
Masonrywall
wallwith
with openings.
openings. Comparison of the code-based (equivalent static) and rocking (non-linear dy-
Figure
namic) demand-capacity
illustrated
ratios for
byComparison
both
Figure
(a) pulse
of the
16),
and
thus
(b)
code-based
non-pulse
(equivalent
highlighting
type recorded
static)
the sensitivity
ground
and rocking
ofmotions, (non-linear
the rocking
scaled
model
to a
dynamic)
(as well as
g = 0.35 g.
demand-capacity ratios for both (a) pulse and (b) non-pulse type recorded ground motions, scaled to ag = 0.35 g.
the code-based model to an extent) to ground motion characteristics.
Thus, in a second set of analyses, the scaling of the ground motion was progressively
increased until complete rocking collapse occurred, with collapse in this case being de-
fined as θ = π/2. As the recorded ground motions are less conservative than the artificial
ground motions, only the former are considered. From these analyses, it was found that
for the masonry wall with openings, a minimum PGA of 0.50 g is required for at least one
Figure 17. Masonry wall with openings. Variation of number of collapses predicted using rocking
Figure 17. Masonry wall with openings. Variation of number of collapses predicted using rocking
dynamics with PGA, for both pulse and non-pulse type recorded ground motions.
dynamics with PGA, for both pulse and non-pulse type recorded ground motions.
The solution time for each of these rocking analyses was also recorded, and it was
The solution time for each of these rocking analyses was also recorded, and it was
found that, when using an Intel® Core™ i7-6700HQ processor, solutions are obtained in an
found that, when using an Intel® Core™ i7-6700HQ processor, solutions are obtained in
average of 9 s.
an average of 9 s.
5.2.2. Church Loaded Out-of-Plane
5.2.2. Church Loaded out-of-Plane
In the case of the church, the collapse mechanism found through the upper bound limit
In thewas
analysis casethat
of the church, the (OOP)
of out-of-plane collapse mechanism
failure found with
of the façade through the upper
the partial bound
overturning
limit analysis
of the wasas
side walls that of out-of-plane
well. The equivalent (OOP) failure
rocking of the façade
parameters withfor
computed thethis
partial over-
mechanism
turning of the side walls as well. The equivalent rocking parameters computed for
by the GhPython script are listed in Table 5. Note that the coefficient of restitution η COR thisis
mechanism by the GhPython script are listed in Table 5. Note that the coefficient
again negative due to one-sided rocking being assumed for this mechanism as well. of res-
titution ηCOR is again negative due to one-sided rocking being assumed for this mecha-
nism as well.
Table 5. Church. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython script.
peq (s−1) 𝝀 (rad) ηCOR

1.19 0.16 −0.46
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 18 of 22
Table 5. Church. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython script.
peq (s−1 ) λ (rad)

e ηCOR
1.19 0.16 −0.46
In the first set of analyses, the rocking equation of motion was solved by scaling the
suite of ground motions to ag = 0.48 g for both the artificial and recorded accelerograms,
which was the PGA predicted to cause collapse by the code’s displacement-based approach.
In the case of the artificial accelerograms, a comparison between the code-based predic-
tions and those obtained from the rocking analyses again revealed the code to consistently
be the more conservative of the two (Figure 18, positive polarity indicated in black, negative
in white). Specifically, using the actual response spectra for each accelerogram, the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
code
19 of 23
predicted collapse in 60% of the cases (points lying above the solid horizontal line), while
the maximum response predicted by the rocking model never exceeded 21% of θov,c or
8.4% of θov .
Figure
Figure18.
18.Comparison
Comparisonof the code-based
of the code-based(equivalent static)
(equivalent and rocking
static) (non-linear
and rocking dynamic)
(non-linear dynamic)
demand-capacity ratios for the different artificial accelerograms, for the church (scaled totoagag==0.48
demand-capacity ratios for the different artificial accelerograms, for the church (scaled 0.48g).
g).
In the case of the recorded accelerograms, the rocking model actually predicted larger
In thethan
demands casetheofcode
the inrecorded
4% of the accelerograms,
cases for pulse-typethe rocking
groundmodel motions actually
(Figure predicted
19), which
larger demands than the code in 4% of the cases for pulse-type
could be due, in part, to the higher level of scaling employed as well as the increased ground motions (Figure
19),
slenderness of the church mechanism, as compared to the wall with openings.asMore
which could be due, in part, to the higher level of scaling employed as well the
increased slenderness of the church mechanism, as compared to
specifically, from these analyses, it was found that the code predicted collapse in 64% the wall with openings.
More
of thespecifically,
cases, whilefrom these analyses,
the rocking it was found
model predicted that the
collapse code predicted
(according collapse
to the code and not in
64% of the cases,
according while thein
to equilibrium) rocking model
2% of the cases predicted collapse
(i.e., points lying (according
to the left oftothe
thevertical
code and line
not according
in Figure 19). to equilibrium)
However, in 2% of the
the maximum cases response
rocking (i.e., points lying
never to the left
exceeded of of
51% theθov
vertical
. In the
line
caseinofFigure 19). However,
non-pulse type motions, the maximum rocking larger
the code predicted response never than
demands exceeded 51% ofmodel
the rocking 𝜃 .
Ininthe
100%case
ofof non-pulse
cases, but only type motions,
predicted the code
collapse predicted
in 44% larger
of cases, while demands
the maximumthan the rock-
response
predicted
ing model in by100%
the rocking
of cases, model never
but only exceededcollapse
predicted 58% of in 44%
θov,c or of
23% of θovwhile
cases, . Nevertheless,
the max-
for both
imum types ofpredicted
response ground motions (artificialmodel
by the rocking and recorded, pulse and
never exceeded 58% of 𝜃 , type),
non-pulse or 23% it can
of
𝜃be .seen that the code
Nevertheless, forisboth
much moreofconservative
types ground motions than the rockingand
(artificial model, and that
recorded, the and
pulse PGA
of 0.48 g istype),
non-pulse insufficient
it can beto seen
causethat
rocking
the codecollapse.
is much more conservative than the rocking
Again, in a second set of analyses
model, and that the PGA of 0.48 g is insufficient using recorded
to causeground
rockingmotion,
collapse. the scaling of the
ground motion was again progressively increased until complete rocking collapse occurred
(i.e., θ = π/2). From these analyses, it was found that for the church, a minimum PGA
of 0.63 g is required for at least one record to cause collapse, with the PGA having to
be increased to 1.40 g for 50% of the recorded accelerograms (average of pulse and non-
pulse type records) to cause the complete overturning of the structure (Figure 20), which
is 2.9 times higher than the corresponding code-based prediction of 0.48 g. Again, the
pulse-type ground motions were found to have more of a destructive effect on the rocking
19), which could be due, in part, to the higher level of scaling employed as well as the
increased slenderness of the church mechanism, as compared to the wall with openings.
More specifically, from these analyses, it was found that the code predicted collapse in
64% of the cases, while the rocking model predicted collapse (according to the code and
not according to equilibrium) in 2% of the cases (i.e., points lying to the left of the vertical
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 19 of 22
line in Figure 19). However, the maximum rocking response never exceeded 51% of 𝜃 .
In the case of non-pulse type motions, the code predicted larger demands than the rock-
ing model in 100% of cases, but only predicted collapse in 44% of cases, while the max-
imum response
response (which predicted by the rocking
was also illustrated model
by Figure 19),never exceeded 58%
thus highlighting 𝜃 , or 23%
theofsensitivity of theof
𝜃 . Nevertheless,
model for both
(and to an extent types of ground
the code-based motions
approach) (artificial
to ground and recorded,
motion pulse The
characteristics. and
non-pulse
results oncetype),
moreitindicate
can be seen that the
the need code is much
for sounder more safety
code-base conservative than such
approaches the rocking
as the
model,
one and that
proposed the PGA of 0.48 g is insufficient to cause rocking collapse.
here.
curred (i.e., θ = π/2). From these analyses, it was found that for the church, a minimum
PGA of 0.63 g is required for at least one record to cause collapse, with the PGA having to
be increased to 1.40 g for 50% of the recorded accelerograms (average of pulse and
non-pulse type records) to cause the complete overturning of the structure (Figure 20),
which is 2.9 times higher than the corresponding code-based prediction of 0.48 g. Again,
the pulse-type ground motions were found to have more of a destructive effect on the
rocking response (which was also illustrated by Figure 19), thus highlighting the sensi-
tivity of the model (and to an extent the code-based approach) to ground motion char-
Figure 19.
Figure 19. Church.
Church. Comparison
Comparison of the
of the code-based
acteristics. code-based
The (equivalent
results(equivalent
once more static) and rocking
indicate
static) and rocking (non-linear
the need dynamic)
for sounder
(non-linear demand-capacity
code-base
dynamic) safety ap-
demand-capacity
ratios for
ratios for both
both (a)
(a) pulse
pulse and
and (b) non-pulse
non-pulse
proaches
(b) type
such type
as therecorded groundmotions,
one proposed
recorded ground motions, scaledto
here. scaled toaagg== 0.48
0.48 g.
g.
Again, in a second set of analyses using recorded ground motion, the scaling of the
ground motion was again progressively increased until complete rocking collapse oc-
Figure20.
Figure Church.Variation
20.Church. Variation
ofof number
number ofof collapses
collapses predicted
predicted using
using rocking
rocking dynamics
dynamics with
with PGA,
PGA,
forboth
for bothpulse
pulseand
andnon-pulse
non-pulsetype
typerecorded
recordedground
groundmotions.
motions.
Thesolution
The solutiontime
time for
for each
each rocking
rockinganalysis
analysiswas
wasagain
againrecorded,
recorded,and it was
and found
it was that,
found
® Core™
that, when using an Intel Core™ i7-6700HQ processor, solutions are obtained in an av-of
when using an Intel ® i7-6700HQ processor, solutions are obtained in an average
10 s at
erage ofmost.
10 s at most.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a new multi-level procedure that combines upper bound limit
This paper presents a new multi-level procedure that combines upper bound limit
analysis with non-linear rocking dynamics to model seismic collapse of masonry structures
analysis with non-linear rocking dynamics to model seismic collapse of masonry struc-
in a computationally-efficient manner. The procedure has been entirely implemented
tures in a computationally-efficient manner. The procedure has been entirely imple-
within the visual programming environment offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grasshopper [30],
mented within the visual programming environment offered by Rhinoceros3D + Grass-
which would enable it to be used by both academics and practicing engineers in a fast,
hopper [30], which would enable it to be used by both academics and practicing engi-
simple and intuitive way.
neers in a fast, simple and intuitive way.
The collapse mechanisms predicted by the tool are first validated using three case
The collapse mechanisms predicted by the tool are first validated using three case
studies from the literature, comprising a masonry shear wall without openings, a masonry
studies from the literature, comprising a masonry shear wall without openings, a ma-
wall with openings and a masonry church. Good agreement was observed in terms of both
sonry wall withof
the geometry openings andmechanism
the failure a masonry church. Good
and load agreement
multiplier. was observed
Subsequently, theincollapse
terms
of both the geometry of the failure mechanism and load multiplier. Subsequently, the
collapse mechanisms of the wall with openings as well as the church were discussed with
respect to seismic safety using code-based equivalent static approaches comprising both
force and displacement-based procedures, as well as rocking dynamics.
From this study it was found that:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 20 of 22
mechanisms of the wall with openings as well as the church were discussed with respect to
seismic safety using code-based equivalent static approaches comprising both force and
displacement-based procedures, as well as rocking dynamics.
From this study it was found that:
1. The upper bound limit analysis coupled with the NMM tool is able to find the
minimum load multiplier and the associate collapse mechanism in less than 5 s.
2. The scale effect is not considered in the force-based approach, which can lead to con-
siderably different results to those obtained from the displacement-based procedure.
3. Both the displacement-based method and rocking dynamics were able to capture the
sensitivity of the response to ground motion characteristics - specifically the more
destructive influence of the pulse-type ground motions. However, the code-based
procedure tends to predict larger displacement demands than the rocking model,
which in practice may result in expensive and at times unnecessary interventions,
while also not being able to reproduce motion evolution over time.
4. The solution to the rocking equation of motion is obtained, on average, within a
maximum of 10 s, thus demonstrating the ability of the proposed tool/procedure
to conduct a large number of analyses in a time frame compatible with engineering
practice.
5. The definition of safety requires a full stochastic approach, which is the objective of
the work currently being developed by the authors.
Author Contributions: M.F.F.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Visualisation, Writing—

Original draft preparation, Validation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. A.M.: Conceptualisation,
Methodology, Software, Visualisation, Writing—Original draft preparation, Validation, Writing—
Reviewing and Editing. P.B.L.: Software, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was partly funded by project STAND4HERITAGE that has received funding
from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 833123), as an Advanced Grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Pierre Cuvilliers from Robert McNeel and
Associates for his kind help with GH Python Remote.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Jaiswal, K.; Wald, J.D. Estimating economic losses from earthquakes using an empirical approach. Earthq. Spectra 2013, 29,
309–324. [CrossRef]
2. Stepinac, M.; Kisicek, T.; Renić, T.; Hafner, I.; Bedon, C. Methods for the assessment of critical properties in existing masonry
structures under seismic loads-the ARES project. Appl. Sci. (Switzerland) 2020, 10, 1576. [CrossRef]
3. Silva, L.C.; Mendes, N.; Lourenço, P.B.; Ingham, J. Seismic Structural Assessment of the Christchurch Catholic Basilica, New
Zealand. Structures 2018, 15, 115–130. [CrossRef]
4. Fortunato, G.; Funari, M.F.; Lonetti, P. Survey and seismic vulnerability assessment of the Baptistery of San Giovanni in Tumba
(Italy). J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 64–78. [CrossRef]
5. Cascardi, A.; Micelli, F.; Aiello, M.A.; Funari, M. Structural analysis of a masonry church with variable cross-section dome. In
Brick and Block Masonry-From Historical to Sustainable Masonry, Proceedings of the 17th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference
(17thIB2MaC 2020), Kraków, Poland, 5–8 July 2020; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
6. Lemos, J.V. Discrete element modeling of masonry structures. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2007, 1, 190–213. [CrossRef]
7. Lourenço, P.B. Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2002, 4, 301–319. [CrossRef]
8. De Felice, G.; De Santis, S.; Lourenço, P.B.; Mendes, N. Methods and challenges for the seismic assessment of historic masonry
structures. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2017, 11, 143–160. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 21 of 22
9. Heyman, J. The stone skeleton. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1966, 2, 249–279. [CrossRef]
10. D’Altri, A.M.; Sarhosis, V.; Milani, G.; Rots, J.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Sacco, E.; de Miranda, S.; Tralli, A.; Castellazzi, G.
A review of numerical models for masonry structures. In Numerical Modeling of Masonry and Historical Structures: From Theory to
Application; Woodhead Publishing: Cambrdige, UK, 2019; Volume 1.
11. Chiozzi, A.; Milani, G.; Grillanda, N.; Tralli, A. A fast and general upper-bound limit analysis approach for out-of-plane loaded
masonry walls. Meccanica 2018, 53, 1875–1898. [CrossRef]
12. Casapulla, C.; Portioli, F.; Maione, A.; Landolfo, R. A macro-block model for in-plane loaded masonry walls with non-associative
Coulomb friction. Meccanica 2013, 48, 2107–2126. [CrossRef]
13. Casapulla, C.; Cascini, L.; Portioli, F.; Landolfo, R. 3D macro and micro-block models for limit analysis of out-of-plane loaded
masonry walls with non-associative Coulomb friction. Meccanica 2014, 49, 1653–1678. [CrossRef]
14. Funari, M.F.; Spadea, S.; Lonetti, P.; Fabbrocino, F.; Luciano, R. Visual programming for structural assessment of out-of-plane
mechanisms in historic masonry structures. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101425. [CrossRef]
15. Circolare n. 7 del 21 Gennaio 2019. Istruzioni per l’applicazione dell’«Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”»
di cui al DM 17 gennaio 2018. CS LL. PP. 2019, Volume 2019. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2019/02/
11/19A00855/sg (accessed on 20 December 2017).
16. Aggiornamento Delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale. 2018. Available online: https:
//www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2018/02/20/18A00716/sg (accessed on 20 December 2017).
17. Shawa, O.A.; de Felice, G.; Mauro, A.; Sorrentino, L. Out-of-plane seismic behaviour of rocking masonry walls. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 949–968. [CrossRef]
18. Housner, G.W. The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1963, 53, 403–417.
19. DeJong, M.J. Seismic response of stone masonry spires: Analytical modeling. Eng. Struct. 2012, 40, 556–565. [CrossRef]
20. Mauro, A.; de Felice, G.; DeJong, M.J. The relative dynamic resilience of masonry collapse mechanisms. Eng. Struct. 2015, 85,
182–194. [CrossRef]
21. Doherty, K.; Griffith, M.C.; Lam, N.; Wilson, J. Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-of-plane bending of unreinforced
masonry walls. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 833–850. [CrossRef]
22. De Lorenzis, L.; DeJong, M.; Ochsendorf, J. Failure of masonry arches under impulse base motion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007,
36, 2119–2136. [CrossRef]
23. Allen, R.; Oppenheim, I.; Parker, A.; Bielak, J. On the dynamic response of rigid body assemblies. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1986,
14, 861–876. [CrossRef]
24. Makris, N.; Vassiliou, M.F. Planar rocking response and stability analysis of an array of free-standing columns capped with a
freely supported rigid beam. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 42, 431–449. [CrossRef]
25. DeJong, M.J.; Dimitrakopoulos, E.G. Dynamically equivalent rocking structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43, 1543–1563.
[CrossRef]
26. Mehrotra, A.; DeJong, M.J. A CAD-interfaced dynamics-based tool for analysis of masonry collapse mechanisms. Eng. Struct.
2018, 172, 833–849. [CrossRef]
27. Porter, D.W.; Mehrotra, A.; Dejong, M.J.; Bass, A.; Guebard, M.; Ochsendorf, J. Material and seismic assessment of the great house
at casa grande ruins national monument, Arizona. J. Archit. Eng. 2020, 26, 05019007. [CrossRef]
28. Turco, C.; Funari, M.F.; Spadea, S.; Ciantia, M.; Lourenço, P.B. A digital tool based on Genetic Algorithms and Limit Analysis for
the seismic assessment of historic masonry buildings. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2020, 28, 1511–1519. [CrossRef]
29. Lagarias, J.C.; Reeds, J.A.; Wright, M.H.; Wright, P.E. Convergence properties of the Nelder-Mead simplex method in low
dimensions. SIAM J. Optim. 1998, 9, 112–147. [CrossRef]
30. McNeel, R. Grasshopper. Algorithmic Modeling for Rhino. Available online: https://www.grasshopper3d.com/ (accessed on 20
December 2017).
31. Casapulla, C.; Argiento, L.U. In-plane frictional resistances in dry block masonry walls and rocking-sliding failure modes revisited
and experimentally validated. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 132, 197–213. [CrossRef]
32. Casapulla, C.; Maione, A.; Argiento, L.U.; Speranza, E. Corner failure in masonry buildings: An updated macro-modeling
approach with frictional resistances. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 2018, 70, 213–225. [CrossRef]
33. Luersen, M.A.; Le Riche, R. Globalized Nelder–Mead method for engineering optimization. Comput. Struct. 2004, 82, 2251–2260.
[CrossRef]
34. Harris, C.R.; Millman, K.J.; van der Walt, S.J.; Gommers, R.; Virtanen, P.; Cournapeau, D.; Wieser, E.; Taylor, J.; Berg, S.;
Smith, N.J.; et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 2020, 585, 357–362. [CrossRef]
35. Virtanen, P.; Gommers, R.; Oliphant, T.E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.;
Bright, J.; et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 2020, 17, 261–272. [CrossRef]
36. Digital Structures. GH Python Remote. Available online: https://github.com/pilcru/ghpythonremote (accessed on 9 Octo-
ber 2020).
37. Gregson, S. Nelder-Mead Optimisation (EOC). 2018. Available online: https://www.eocengineers.com/en/news/digital-design-
group-tackles-classic-engineering-problem (accessed on 20 December 2017).
38. Orduña, A. Seismic Assessment of Ancient Masonry Structures by Rigid Blocks Limit Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal, 2003.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942 22 of 22
39. Portioli, F.; Casapulla, C.; Gilbert, M.; Cascini, L. Limit analysis of 3D masonry block structures with non-associative frictional
joints using cone programming. Comput. Struct. 2014, 143, 108–121. [CrossRef]
40. Casapulla, C.; D’Ayala, D. In-plane collapse behaviour of masonry walls with frictional resistances and openings. In Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions. Possibilities of Numerical and Experimental Techniques, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference,
New Delhi, India, 6–8 November 2006; Macmillan India Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2006.
41. Malena, M.; Portioli, F.; Gagliardo, R.; Tomaselli, G.; Cascini, L.; de Felice, G. Collapse mechanism analysis of historic masonry
structures subjected to lateral loads: A comparison between continuous and discrete models. Comput. Struct. 2019, 220, 14–31.
[CrossRef]
42. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions and Rules for Buildings; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
43. SIMQKE_GR. Available online: http://gelfi.unibs.it/software/simqke/simqke_gr.htm (accessed on 9 December 2020).
44. Gasparini, D.A.; Vanmarcke, E.H. SIMQKE: A Program for Artificial Motion Generation. User’s Manual and Documentation; Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1976.
45. PEER. PEER Ground Motion Database; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2014.

Applsci 11 00942

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Applsci 11 00942

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applsci 11 00942

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal;

Featured Application: Rapid seismic assessment of historic masonry structures.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030942 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

2.1. Upper-Bound Limit Analysis

compatibility depending on the dimensions of the blocks. Hence, λ is obtained by solving

2.2. Non-Linear Dynamic (Rocking) Analysis

where peq is the equivalent rocking frequency parameter and e λ is an approximation of

Figure 3. FlowFigure 3. Flow chart representation

The second group The second

4. Validation4.ofValidation of the Upper-Bound

4.1. Solid Masonry WallMasonry

Figure 4. Geometry and load configurations: (a) m = 1; (b) m = 0.5.

4.2. Masonry Wall with Openings Loaded in-Plane

Figure 7.7. (a)

To clarify the advancements brought by the proposed approach, a comparison be-

4.3. Church Loaded out-of-Plane

Figure 10. (a)

5. The Step towards Full Dynamic Seismic Assessment Tools

dSLV ∗ = 0.4d0 ∗ (13)

The corresponding displacement demand ∆d is then computed by evaluating the

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 942

Mechanism ag,FB (g) ag,DB (g)

SF ag,FB (g) ag,DB (g)

5.2. Comparison of Rocking Analysis Results with Code-Based Assessment Procedures

Figure 14. Acceleration

peq (s−1 ) λ (rad)

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

Table 5. Church. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython script.

peq (s−1) 𝝀 (rad) ηCOR

Table 5. Church. Equivalent rocking parameters calculated by the GhPython script.

peq (s−1 ) λ (rad)

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23

Author Contributions: M.F.F.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Visualisation, Writing—

You might also like