See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282442291

Force-displacement curves in displacement control

Conference Paper · June 2009

CITATIONS READS

5 2,411

2 authors, including:

Fulvio Parisi
University of Naples Federico II
202 PUBLICATIONS 3,802 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fulvio Parisi on 03 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Force-displacement curves in displacement control
Nicola Augenti, Fulvio Parisi

ANIDIS2009BOLOGNA
Department of Structural Engineering. University of Naples Federico II. Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples.

Keywords: Force-displacement curves; displacement control; non-linearity; masonry.

ABSTRACT
Seismic analysis of a masonry building can be carried out via discretization of each opened shear wall in macro-
elements, which are two-dimensional elements assumed to be loaded by axial force, bending moment and shear
force. The intersection between horizontal and vertical strips obtained by extending contour lines of the openings
defines three types of macro-elements: pier panels; spandrel panels; and joint panels.
The lateral behaviour of pier panels can be analytically described through force-displacement curves, named
“characteristic curves”, and N-V strength domains. Assuming end cross-sections to be restrained by rigid spandrel
beams, characteristic curves can be defined also for each storey of a masonry shear wall.
In this paper new force-displacement curves plotted in displacement control are defined by modelling pier panels as
distributed plasticity macro-elements where the following phenomena are considered: geometrical non-linearity;
mechanical elastic non-linearity; and mechanical inelastic non-linearity.
Characteristic curves of pier panels were derived from double integration of bending curvature for different models
of reacting domain into the macro-element. Closed-form solutions were obtained for the constitutive laws
specifically proposed by Eurocode 6 and by Turnsek and Cacovic for masonry. Moreover, two numerical
procedures were formulated to define the characteristic curve of a storey.

axial force by predicting the failure mechanism

1 INTRODUCTION
The seismic behaviour of masonry buildings
can be analysed in a simplified way via
discretization of each opened shear wall in
macro-elements, named “pier panels” (vertical
structural elements), “spandrel panels”
(horizontal structural elements), and “joint
panels” (elements connecting pier and spandrel
panels themselves).
In the frame of the RAN method (Augenti
2004) force-displacement curves, also named
“characteristic curves”, depend on the strength
domains and are defined either for pier panels, or
for storeys separately. Each storey is assumed to
be a system of pier panels connected at the top by
a rigid spandrel beam (3rd type-shear walls). If
such a masonry beam is purely axially rigid, just
a translational coupling is present for each storey
(2nd type-shear walls). The characteristic curve of
a pier panel is constructed for a given value of
via N-V strength domains defined for flexure,
diagonal shear, and sliding shear.
If the pier panels are not connected by
spandrel beams (1st type-shear walls), ultimate
shear force can be simply evaluated by means of
N-V strength domains for each of them. In fact,
force-displacement relationships of both pier
panels and storeys are needed only when
kinematic compatibility must be taken into
account, i.e. equal relative displacements of the
top cross-sections of the pier panels (1st type- or
2nd type-shear walls). In the non-linear range,
such curves allow to estimate the actual shear
forces applied to different pier panels.
For a whole masonry building, if horizontal
diaphragms are assumed to be rigid in their own
plane and adequately resistant to distribute lateral
forces between different shear walls, horizontal
displacement compatibility must be considered
also for cracked spandrel beams. In this case, the
boundary conditions of pier panels change.
Force-displacement curves can be plotted
either in force control by increasing
monotonically the shear force, or in displacement
control by increasing relative horizontal
displacement of the pier panel. The limit points of
the several branches which represent different
states of a masonry pier panel are derived by the
respective strength domains defined through
stress-based or deformation-based approach for
flexural failure (Augenti and Parisi 2009a).
Section 2 deals with the analytical formulation
related to displacement-controlled characteristic
curves defined for an elastic-perfectly plastic
(EPP) σ-ε constitutive law, without considering
strain ductility of masonry. This inelastic
parameter is taken into account in section 3 to
define new displacement-controlled characteristic
curves, to be used in non-linear static analysis.
Their implementation allow to describe more
accurately the seismic behaviour of masonry
structures via capacity curves (Augenti and Parisi
2009b).
2 FORCE-DISPLACEMENT CURVES IN
FORCE CONTROL
The axial force applied to the masonry pier
panel can be expressed as Ni,j = Ri,j + Si,j, where
Ri,j is due to gravitational loads and Si,j is due to
seismic horizontal forces. Given Ni,j, the ultimate
or yielding shear force corresponding to one of
the failure modes can be evaluated via N-V
strength domains. In particular, one can predict
the values of flexural cracking shear force (Vl),
flexural yielding shear force (Ve), flexural
ultimate shear force (Vp), diagonal cracking shear
force (Vt), and sliding shear force (Va).
If Vp ≤ min{Vt,Va}, the pier panel reaches the
flexural Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the
force-displacement curve is composed by: a
linear elastic branch for 0 ≤ V ≤ Vl ; a non-linear
elastic one for Vl ≤ V ≤ Ve; and a non-linear
plastic one with hardening for Ve ≤ V ≤ Vp .
If min{Vt,Va} ≤ Vl , or min{Vt,Va} ≤ Ve, or
min{Vt,Va} ≤ Vp, shear failure occurs in the
masonry panel. Therefore, the force-displacement
is composed by:
1. a linear elastic branch and a perfectly plastic
one with available displacement ductility
μd = 1.5÷2.0, if min{Vt,Va} ≤ Vl ;
2. a linear elastic branch for 0 ≤ V ≤ Vl, a non-
linear elastic one for Vl ≤ V ≤ min{Vt,Va}, and
a perfectly plastic one with available
displacement ductility μd = 1.5÷2.0, if
min{Vt,Va} ≤ Ve ; and
3. a linear elastic branch for 0 ≤ V ≤ Vl, a non-
linear elastic one for Vl ≤ V ≤ Ve, a plastic one
for Ve ≤ V ≤ min{Vt,Va}, and a perfectly
plastic one with available displacement
ductility μd,t = 1.5÷2.0, if min{Vt,Va} ≤ Vp .
In the frame of the RAN method the force-
displacement curve plotted in force control is the
graph of a monotonic function δ(V) strictly
increasing in the closed interval whose endpoints
are zero and the horizontal displacement
corresponding to the maximum plastic shear force
of the pier panel. The function δ(V) has different
mathematical expressions in the linear elastic,
non-linear elastic, and plastic ranges. The relative
horizontal displacement of a pier panel can be
assumed as the sum of a part due to shear
deformation, δV, and of another part due to
bending deformation, δM. Thus, the function δ(V)
can be expressed as:
V ⋅H V ⋅H3
δ = δV + δ M = χ ⋅ ⋅ζ V + ⋅ζ (1)
G⋅ A ρ ⋅E⋅I M
where the coefficient ρ depends on the type of
masonry panel under consideration (it is 3 for a
cantilever-type panel and 12 for a shear-type
panel), while ζV and ζM are corrective functions
equal to unity in the linear elastic range, and
greater than unity in the non-linear elastic and
plastic ranges.
If Ve < min{Vt,Va}, by substituting Vl, Ve, and
Vu = min{Vp,Vt,Va} in Equation 1, one can get the
following respective displacements:
− δl = δ(Vl), which is the displacement capacity
of the pier panel at Linear Elastic Limit State
(LELS);
− δe = δ(Ve), which is the displacement capacity
of the pier panel at Non-linear Elastic Limit
State (NELS);
− δu,min = δ(Vp), which is the displacement
capacity of the pier panel at ULS in flexure, if
Vp ≤ min{Vt,Va};
− δu,max = μd · δ(Vu), which is the displacement
capacity of the pier panel at ULS in shear, if
Vu = min{Vt,Va} ≤ Vp .
The force-displacement is then constructed by
increasing the shear force applied at the top of the
panel with a constant step ΔV. For 0 ≤ V ≤ Vl ,
Vl ≤ V ≤ Ve , and Ve ≤ V ≤ Vp , Equation 1 allows
to plot the linear elastic, non-linear elastic, and
plastic branches of the force-displacement curve,
respectively. If the panel fails in shear, rather than
in flexure, the characteristic curve has a perfectly
plastic branch with available displacement
ductility, μd,t. In this case, Equation 1 can be
applied only for 0 ≤ V ≤ min{Vt,Va}. If
Ve < min{Vt,Va}, the total available displacement
ductility can be defined as the product of μd,t by
μd,e. This last ductility factor is defined as the
ratio between ultimate displacement in shear,
δ(Vu = min{Vt,Va}), and non-linear elastic
displacement in flexure, δe .
3 FORCE-DISPLACEMENT CURVES IN
DISPLACEMENT CONTROL
The force-displacement curve of a masonry
panel can be defined by progressively increasing
the medium bending curvature of the end cross-
sections for a given axial force. A displacement-
controlled curve is then plotted by monitoring the
maximum axial strain of the end cross-section.
Given the available strain ductility of masonry
(i.e. μ ε = εu/εe for the axial behaviour), the
displacement capacity, μd, of the masonry pier
panel can be derived through the implementation
of the σ-ε constitutive law into the double
integral extended to the reacting domain (i.e.
idealised internal strut) of the macro-element.
The force-displacement curve of a storey can
be also obtained starting from the ones of the
individual pier panels, if a shear-type behaviour is
assumed for them.
The global displacement ductility of a whole
masonry structure is directly associated with the
ductility factors of storeys, pier panels, and
material. The lateral behaviour is then well
described by the procedures proposed below for
the stress-strain relationships proposed by
Turnsek and Cacovic (1970), and by Eurocode 6
(CEN 2005).
3.1 Force-displacement curve of a pier panel
Given a shear-type pier panel and a
constitutive law for masonry, let us evaluate the
shear force V associated with a relative horizontal
displacement δ applied to the top cross-section of
the macro-element.
Aim of the formulation presented in this
section is to define a relationship V = V(δ) taking
into account not only the displacement ductility
due to incremental yielding of the end cross-
section of the panel, but also the strain ductility of
masonry, which is completely neglected in the
force-controlled construction of traditional force-
displacement curves. To this end, bending and
shear loading are analysed in separate ways. By
imposing suitable strain fields and accounting for
a complete non-linear constitutive law, one can
evaluate the relative horizontal displacement first
and the associated shear force after, via closed-
form solving of equilibrium equations in their
weak (i.e. integral) form.
Let us consider a masonry pier panel that fails
in flexure, that is Vp < min{Vt,Va}. As described
before, the force-displacement relationship can be
defined for the end cross-section without
considering explicitly sectional strains, but
accounting for LELS, NELS, and ULS. A
partially-resistant cross-section and a linear
distribution of normal stresses with a maximum
value equal to design strength multiplied by 0.85
correspond to these hypotheses. Instead, elasto-
plastic state of the cross-section corresponds to a
trapezoidal distribution of normal stresses which
gradually becomes rectangular (i.e. infinite
bending curvature), reaching the limit condition
of complete yielding of masonry. A dual
transformation of strain field is associated with
the above-mentioned evolution of normal stress
field, so the fibres that reach first the ultimate
strength of masonry undergo more and more large
strains at a constant stress, given the Bernoulli
hypothesis of linear distribution of sectional
strains. Assuming that ULS is reached in terms of
strength (stress-based approach), an EPP σ-ε
constitutive law is, de facto, implicitly adopted
for masonry, but no checks about sectional axial
strains are made (Fig. 1). Therefore, ULS defined
in terms of normal stresses does not allow to
estimate the actual limit state condition of the
cross-section. This results in large underestimates
of available strain ductility and law exploitation
of inelastic capacity.
ELS ULS
σk σk
σ
actual ULS
???
σk = f d
σ k = 0.85 f d
EC6
EPP
arctgE
ε k = 0.0020 ε u = 0.0035 ε
0.0010
μ m = 1.75
μd > μm
Figure 1. EC6 and EPP constitutive models.
Since a secant modulus E = 1000 fk is assumed
(according to Italian code), for an EPP
constitutive model yielding strain is implicitly set
at εk = 0.0010, rather than 0.0020 (CEN 2005).
As showed in Figure 1, the maximum axial strain
corresponding to full yielding of the end cross-
section is usually much lower than εu = 0.0035.
This results in large underestimates of ultimate
horizontal displacement of a masonry pier panel.
A new inelastic, post-peak branch should be displacement δ can be evaluated by varying εz,max
added to the force-displacement curve plotted in in [0, εu]. To integrate with simplified common
force control, to consider strain ductility of rules the axial strain field, an adequate coordinate
masonry. It should be defined between δ(Vp) and system has to be defined. Let us consider the
δ(εu), but only a displacement-controlled x-axis parallel to the smaller side of the panel, the
procedure allows to plot this branch. To this end, z-axis parallel to the larger one, and their origin in
a new formulation is proposed below, based on the centroid G. The bending-induced axial
the definition of a new distributed plasticity deformation can be expressed as:
macro-element. The horizontal displacement of
the pier panel is still assumed to be the sum of δV ⎛ B x ⎞
ε zM ( x ) = ε zM,max ⋅ ⎜1 − + ⎟ (3)
and δM , but only the former can be expressed as ⎝ 2 ⋅ b( z ) b( z ) ⎠
in Equation 1 by substituting the shear force
derived from equilibrium equations written for where B is the total width and b(z) is the active
each value of total maximum axial strain: one of the generic cross-section. Along the
height, the strain field can be defined as:
ε z ,max = ε z , N + ε zM,max (2)
2 ⋅ ε zM,max
which is between 0 and εu. The shear contribute ε M
z ( z) = ⋅z (4)
H
to the displacement capacity is then estimated in
approximated way and future developments could so the two-dimensional field of axial strains can
be related to the implementation of τ-γ be expressed as follows:
constitutive laws and of kinematic compatibility
2 ⋅ ε zM,max ⎛ B x ⎞
between shear and axial strains into the panel. ε ( x, z ) =
M
⋅ ⎜1 − + ⎟⋅ z (5)
The average axial strain due to axial force, εz,N, ⎝ 2 ⋅ b( z ) b ( z ) ⎠
z
H
can be evaluated as described below. The flexural
contribute to the horizontal displacement can be The horizontal displacement only due to flexural
estimated via multiple integration of axial strains deformation is thus equal to the double integral of
due to bending moment, ε zM , inside the reacting bending curvature:
domain of the pier panel. Since their distribution ⎡ 2 ⋅ ε zM,max ⎛ B x ⎞ 1⎤
along x-axis and y-axis is approximately known δM = 2 ⋅ ∫∫ ⎢ ⋅ ⎜1 − + ⎟ ⋅ z ⋅ ⎥ dxdz
(Fig. 2), the average bending curvature χ can be Ap ⎣
H ⎝ 2 ⋅ b( z ) b( z ) ⎠ x⎦
easily defined. (6)
where Ap is the mid-area of the reacting domain.
z The calculus of this integral is then the
fundamental step of the proposed formulation to
εM
z,max plot the force-displacement curve in displacement
control. In the following sections the closed-form
solving of this multiple integral is carried out
either in an approximated way, or via reduction
formulae. The latter strategy is applied for a
reacting domain with a constant width first, and
b(z) then for a reacting domain having a width defined
by a bilinear or trilinear law of variation along the
z height.
3.1.1 Approximated integration by strips
For a given cross-section of the pier panel, let
us define a local coordinate system (ξ, ζ) having
G x
its origin in the zero of the bending-induced axial
Figure 2. Distribution of sectional axial strains inside the strain plot and the ζ-axis parallel to the z-axis.
reacting domain of the macro-element. Given an infinitesimal strip dz placed at z , the
following law of variation can be considered
It is well-known that the active width of a (Fig. 3):
cross-section changes with non-linear law along ε zM,max
the z-axis, setting up a convex reacting domain ε M
(ξ , z ) = b ⋅ξ (7)
inside the panel. Given a geometrical model for
z
( z)
such a domain (i.e. a function b(z)), the horizontal
 z spreading of yielding along the masonry panel
ε Mz,max
ζ end cross-section reaches εu.
ξ form by defining another coordinate system
b(z)
z
G x
B other variable as constants. Denoting by:
Figure 3. Generic strip of a pier panel and local coordinate
system.
On the other hand, given a local abscissa ξ, the
average axial strain varies along the height of the
panel as follows:
2 ⋅ ε zM (ξ , z )
ε zM (ξ , z ) = ⋅z
H
so the bending-induced axial strain field can be
defined by the function:
2 ⋅ ε zM,max
ε zM (ξ , z ) = ⋅ξ ⋅ z
H ⋅b( z)
As a result, the double integral in Equation 6 can
be approximately solved by neglecting planar
transformation from the global coordinates to the
local ones. Therefore, the flexural contribute to
the horizontal displacement of a pier panel can be
estimated as:
ε zM,max ⋅ H
δM =
2
3.1.2 Integration by reduction formulae
Equation 10 could lead to overestimate
significantly displacement capacity of a pier
panel, because the axial force is not taken into
account. From a mathematical standpoint, this
means that the active width can be implemented
in the procedure and the planar transformation
(x, z) → (ξ, ζ) can be accounted for in the double
integration. As a result, the closed-form solving
becomes more and more difficult depending on
the adopted reacting domain and displacement
ductility of the pier panel depends also on the
given axial force.
In the following treatment such an analytical
problem is solved without considering the
after the end cross-section is failed. The collapse
criteria was changed: the pier panel is assumed to
be failed when the maximum axial strain of the
For a reacting domain with a constant width,
the integral in Equation 6 can be solved in closed-
H /2 ( x , z ). It is rotated with respect to (x, z) of an
angle α and has z -axis parallel to the axis of
symmetry of the reacting domain. This is normal
to the x -axis, so a reduction formula was used to
decompose the double integral as a product of
two one-variable integrals. These last ones were
solved from the right to the left considering the
⎛ B−b ⎞
α = arctan ⎜ ⎟ (11)
⎝ H ⎠
the horizontal displacement of a pier panel due to
bending deformation can be computed as:
4 ⋅ ε zM,max
δM = ⋅ {κ M ,1 + κ M ,2 + κ M ,3 } (12)
(8) H
being:
H2
κ M ,1 =
8
(9) H ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ b − B ) ⋅ cot α
κ M ,2 =
8
2
⎛ b ⋅ cos α − H ⋅ sin α ⎞
κ M ,3 = ln ⎜ ⎟ ⋅
⎝ b ⋅ cos α + H ⋅ sin α ⎠
⎡ H 2 ⋅ ( B − 2 ⋅ b ) b ⋅ ( B − 2 ⋅ b ) ⋅ cot 2α ⎤
⋅⎢ − ⎥
⎣ 32 ⋅ b 32 ⎦
Note that, apart from the first contribute to the
(10) horizontal displacement in Equation 10, other two
terms appear in Equation 12 and depend on the
adopted active width. The proposed formula
allows to get rapid estimates of ultimate
displacements. In such a case, the active width bu
can be simply evaluated.
The reacting domain of a pier panel can be
also modelled with a variable width, b(z), along
the height. In this case, the integration domain
depends on the state of the masonry panel, so it
can be composed by one, two or three subregions.
For 0 ≤ V ≤ Vl all the pier panel is fully resistant
to the applied lateral and axial forces and the
horizontal displacement due to bending
deformation has the same closed-form solution in
Equation 10. This depends on the fact that no
cracking occurs into the pier panel, so the active
width is equal to the geometrical one (b = B). plastic range (i.e. for Ve ≤ V ≤ Vu) the analytical
For Vl ≤ V ≤ Ve the reacting domain of a pier solution is similar to the one obtained for
panel can be assumed to be composed by two Vl ≤ V ≤ Ve by considering zl and be instead of zn
elastic subregions: an uncracked one for and bu, respectively. This means that one should
0 ≤ z ≤ zn and a cracked one for zn ≤ z ≤ H/2. Also use the coefficients βl and ζl instead of βn and ζn,
in this case, another coordinate system was respectively.
defined to solve the double integral by means of For Ve ≤ V ≤ Vu the reacting domain of a pier
reduction formulae. To simplify the analysis, the panel can be assumed to be composed by three
law of variation b(z) was assumed to be linear in subregions: an elastic uncracked one for
the upper subregion of the reacting domain. The 0 ≤ z ≤ zn; an elastic cracked one for zn ≤ z ≤ ze;
active width of the end cross-section is denoted and a plastic one for ze ≤ z ≤ H/2. In such a case,
by be at z = H/2 and it depends on the adopted the double integral can be computed as the sum
stress-strain relationship. Let us denote by: of three integrals related to the above-mentioned
z subregions of the panel, so it can be expressed as:
log t
dilog z = ∫ dt (13) δ M = 2 ⋅ ε zM,max ⋅ H ⋅
1
1− t
⎡ 4 8
⎤
the dilogarithm function (Jonquière 1889,
⎢ ( n e) ∑ i (
ζ − ζ ⋅ s 1 − 2 ⋅ ζ e ) ∑ si ⎥
⋅
Abramowitz and Stegun 1972, Lewin 1958, ⋅ ⎢ζ n2 + i =1
+ i =5
⎥
Lewin 1981, Lewin 1991) of a generic variable z. ⎢ 24 ⋅ ( B − H ⋅ β e ) 32 ⋅ ( β e − β u )2 ⎥
Its series expansion is: ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
∞
zk (17)
dilog z = ∑ 2
(14)
k =1 k where:
and the following Euler formula (1768) can be ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⋅ H ⋅ βe ⎞ 2 ⎤
applied to such a special function: s1 = 24 ⋅ B ⋅ Φ1 ⋅ ⎢dilog ⎜ ⎟ + ln B ⎥
⎣ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎦
π2 s2 = 3 ⋅ ln ( B − 2 ⋅ H ⋅ β e ) ⋅ [ Γ − 4 ⋅ B ⋅ Φ1 ⋅ ln B ]
2
− ln z ⋅ ln (1 − z ) = Li 2 z + Li 2(1 − z ) (15)
6
s3 = −6 ⋅ ln B ⋅ Γ

where Li2 z another notation of the dilogarithm
function. Denoting by be = β ⋅ B and zn = ζ ⋅ H, in
the elastic range the horizontal displacement of a
cracked pier panel due to bending deformation
{
s4 = 2 ⋅ B 2 ⎡⎣ζ e ⋅ (π 2 − 36 ) − 12 ⋅ ζ n ⎤⎦ +
+ B ⋅ H ⋅ β e ⋅ ⎡⎣54 ⋅ ζ e + ζ n ⋅ ( 42 − π 2 ) ⎤⎦ +

−6 ⋅ H 2 ⋅ β e2 ⋅ ( 3 ⋅ ζ e + 5 ⋅ ζ n )}
can be expressed as:
⎡ 3
⎤
⎢ (1 − 2 ⋅ ζ ) ⋅ ∑ λi ⎥ s5 = 8 ⋅ Φ 2 ⋅ ⎡⎣dilog ( 2 ⋅ β e ) − dilog ( 2 ⋅ βu ) ⎤⎦
δ M = 2 ⋅ ε zM,max ⋅ H ⋅ ⎢ζ 2 + i =1
⎥ s6 = ln ( 2 ⋅ β e − 1) ⋅ ⎡⎣ 4 ⋅ Φ 2 ⋅ ln ( 2 ⋅ β e ) − 4 ⋅ β e2 ⋅
2
96 ⋅ ( β − 1) ⎥
2
⎢
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ ζ e + 1) + 8 ⋅ β e ⋅ ζ e ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ βu + 1) − 8 ⋅ β u ⋅
(16) ⋅ζ e − 2 ⋅ ζ e + 1]
being:
s7 = − ln ( 2 ⋅ βu − 1) ⋅ {4 ⋅ Φ 2 ⋅ ln ( 2 ⋅ β u ) + (1 − 2 ⋅ βu ) ⋅
2

λ1 = 24 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ β ⋅ ζ − 1) ⋅ dilog ( 2 ⋅ β )
}
⋅ ⎡⎣ 4 ⋅ β e − 2 ⋅ βu ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ ζ e + 1) − 2 ⋅ ζ e + 1⎤⎦
λ2 = ln ( 2 ⋅ β − 1) ⋅ {6 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ β ⋅ ζ − 1) ⋅ lnβ 2 +
2

s8 = 4 ⋅ ( β e − βu ) ⋅ ⎡⎣ β e ⋅ ( 6 ⋅ ζ e + 5 ) − βu ⋅ (10 ⋅ ζ e + 3) +
+ 12 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ β ⋅ ζ − 1) ⋅ ln2 − 3 ⋅ [4 ⋅ β 2 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ ζ + 1) +
−2 ⋅ ζ e + 1]
−12 ⋅ β − 2 ⋅ ζ + 5]}
Φ1 = B ⋅ ζ e − H ⋅ β e ⋅ ζ n
{
λ3 = 2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ β 2 ⋅ (10 ⋅ ζ + 3) + 2 ⋅ β ⎡⎣ζ ⋅ (π 2 − 42 ) − 27 ⎤⎦ + Φ 2 = β e − 2 ⋅ βu ⋅ ζ e
+24 ⋅ ζ − π + 36} 2
Γ = 4 ⋅ B ⋅ Φ1 ⋅ ln ( 2 ⋅ H ⋅ β e ) + B 2 ⋅ ( 5 ⋅ ζ e − ζ n ) +
Numerical analyses showed that the second − 12 ⋅ B ⋅ H ⋅ β e ⋅ ζ e + 4 ⋅ H 2 ⋅ β e2 ⋅ (ζ e + ζ n )
contribute in Equation 16 may be not negligible.
When the pier panel is fully resistant in the Equation 17 allows to estimate the actual
displacement capacity; Equation 10 induces large ⎡ 17
⎤
errors especially when the axial force is high. 1 ⎢ ⎛ z,N ⎞ ⎥ ε z,N
ε 100
N = ⋅ 32 − 27 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ (19)
3.1.3 Iterative procedure 5 ⎢ ⎝ εk ⎠ ⎥ εk
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Given an axial force Ni,j, the average axial
strain εz,N can be evaluated by solving for the constitutive model proposed by Turnsek
numerically the translational equilibrium equation and Cacovic, or:
along the z-axis of the pier panel (Fig. 4).
N = a0 + a1 ⋅ ε z , N + a 2 ⋅ ε z2, N + a3 ⋅ ε z3, N + a 4 ⋅ ε z4, N + a5 ⋅ ε z5, N
(20)
PIER PANEL (i,j)
for the EC6 constitutive model, being:
Given Ni,j
a0 = 0 a1 = 9.41057 ⋅10 2
Evaluate numerically εz,N a 2 = −5.99276 ⋅10 4 a3 = −1.85647 ⋅10 8
START INCREMENTAL PROCEDURE
a 4 = 6.59051 ⋅1010 a5 = −6.63694 ⋅1012
After the average axial strain is evaluated, the
Step k : ε(k)
z,max = εz,N + Δε
incremental procedure can start. Maximum axial
ε(k)
z,min
ε(k)
z,max Evaluate numerically ε (k)
strain may be increased by summing up Δεz and
determining the shear force associated with the
z,min

horizontal displacement of the pier panel. A

b(k) ≤ B NO (k)
Evaluate the active width b numerical tolerance tolε = 10-8 and the modified
b(k) secant stiffness method can be used to get high
YES
ε(k)
z,max
rate of convergence.
For the k-th step it is not known if the top
cross-section is fully or partially resistant owing
(k)
to the applied maximum axial strain. An iterative
Evaluate δM
procedure is then needed. If the cross-section is
(k)
uncracked, the sectional strain distribution can be
Evaluate δV
defined only after the minimum axial strain has
(k)
Calculate δ(k) = δ(k)
been evaluated by solving numerically the
M + δV
(k)
Calculate shear force V
equilibrium equation:
⎡ 17 17
⎤
⎛ε ⎞ 100 ⎛ε ⎞ 100
3472 ⋅ ( ε z2,max − ε z2,min ) − 2700 ⋅ ⎢ε z2,max ⋅ ⎜ z ,max ⎟ + ε z2,min ⋅ ⎜ z ,min ⎟ ⎥
ULS NO ⎢ ⎝ εk ⎠ ⎝ ε k ⎠ ⎥⎥
ITERATE set k = k + 1 ⎢⎣
ε(k+1)
z,max = εu
N= ⎦
1085 ⋅ ( ε z ,max − ε z ,min ) ⋅ ε k
YES (21)
END
for the constitutive model proposed by Turnsek
Figure 4. Construction procedure of the force-displacement and Cacovic, or:
curve of a pier panel.
N = b0 + b1 ⋅ ε z ,min + b2 ⋅ ε z2,min + b3 ⋅ ε z3,min + b4 ⋅ ε z4,min + b5 ⋅ ε z5,min
(22)
Let us suppose that the end cross-section of the
panel is fully resistant (b = B) In this case the for the EC6 constitutive model, where the
above-mentioned equilibrium equation is: coefficients depend, in turn, on the maximum
+B 2
axial strain and are expressed by fifth-degree
polynomials. If the procedure converges towards
N =σk ⋅s⋅
−B 2
∫ f (ε ) dx z (18)
solution, the hypothesis of uncracked cross-
section is satisfied (b = B) and the axial strain
where the integrand function is the σ-ε distribution is trapezoidal. The shear force acting
constitutive law normalised with respect to the on the pier panel can be evaluated by solving the
peak strength σk (Augenti and Parisi 2009a). rotational equilibrium equation:
Denoting by N = N/Nu the axial force normalised +B 2
with respect to the ultimate one, the average axial
strain can be then obtained by solving the
M =σk ⋅s⋅ ∫ f (ε ) ⋅ x dx
−B 2
z (23)
equation:
and by using the following formula: which is based on the hypothesis of shear-type
+B 2 behaviour.
2 ⋅σ k ⋅ s If the constitutive model proposed by Turnsek
V= ⋅ ∫ f ( ε z ) ⋅ x dx (24)
H −B 2
and Cacovic is assumed, it turns out to be:
17 17
⎛ε ⎞ 100 ⎛ε ⎞ 100
550312 ⋅ ( ε z ,max − ε z ,min ) − 4050 ⋅ ε ⋅ (117 ⋅ ε z ,max − 317 ⋅ ε z ,min ) ⋅ ⎜ z ,max ⎟ − 4050 ⋅ ε z2,min ⋅ ( 317 ⋅ ε z ,max − 117 ⋅ ε z ,min ) ⋅ ⎜ z ,min ⎟
3
2
B
z ,max
ε
⎝ k ⎠ ε
⎝ k ⎠
V = ⋅
1031835 ⋅ ( ε z ,max − ε z ,min ) ⋅ ε k
2
H

(25)
while for the EC6 model it results: B 2

V=
B
H
⋅ ( d 0 + d1 ⋅ ε z ,min + d 2 ⋅ ε z2,min + d 3 ⋅ ε z3,min + d 4 ⋅ ε z4,min + d 5 ⋅ ε z5,min )
M =σk ⋅s⋅
B
∫ f (ε ) ⋅ x dx
z (31)
−b
(26) 2

The coefficients of this equation depend on the and assuming V = 2 M/H, based on the boundary
maximum axial strain. If the procedure aimed to conditions of the masonry panel.
evaluate minimum axial strain does not converge Whereas for the Turnsek and Cacovic
within the adopted maximum number of constitutive model it results:
iterations, the top cross-section of the pier panel ⎛ε
17
⎞ 100
is cracked and its active width can be derived 8100 ⋅ ( 200 ⋅ b − 317 ⋅ B ) ⋅ ⎜ z ,max ⎟ − 1100624 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ b − 3 ⋅ B )
b ε ε
⎝ k ⎠
from the translational equilibrium equation: V = ⋅ z ,max ⋅
B H 1031835 ⋅ ε k
B2 (32)
N =σk ⋅s⋅ ∫ f ( ε z ) dx (27)
B
for the EC6 stress-strain relationship the shear
−b
2 force can be expressed as:
For the Turnsek and Cacovic model such an
B ⎡⎢ 2 p1 ( ε z ,max ) ⎤
equation specializes to: V= ⋅ N ⋅ − N ⎥ (33)
( )
2
H ⎢ ε ⋅ p ε ⎥
1085 ⋅ ε k ⋅ N ⎣ z ,max 2 z ,max ⎦
b=
⎡ 17
⎤ where the following fourth-degree polynomials
⎢ ⎛ ε ⎞ 100
⎥
4 ⋅ σ k ⋅ s ⋅ 868 ⋅ ε z ,max − 675 ⋅ ε z ,max ⋅ ⎜ z ,max
⎟ ⎥ appear:
⎢ ε
⎝ k ⎠ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦ p1 ( ε z ,max ) = m0 + m1 ⋅ ε z ,max + m2 ⋅ ε z2,max +
(28)
+ m3 ⋅ ε z3,max + m4 ⋅ ε z4,max
whereas for the EC6 constitutive model one can (34)
get: p2 ( ε z ,max ) = n0 + n1 ⋅ ε z ,max + n2 ⋅ ε z2,max +
N + n3 ⋅ ε z3,max + n4 ⋅ ε z4,max
b= (29)
σ k ⋅ s ⋅ p ( ε z ,max ) being:
being: m0 = −4.90132 ⋅10 6 m1 = 1.56060 ⋅10 8
p ( ε z ,max ) = g 0 + g1 ⋅ ε z ,max + g 2 ⋅ ε z2,max + m2 = 2.90072 ⋅1011 m3 = −6.86510 ⋅1013
(30) m4 = 4.93819 ⋅1015 n0 = −5.88160 ⋅10 4
+ g 3 ⋅ ε z3,max + g 4 ⋅ ε z4,max + g 5 ⋅ ε z5,max
n1 = 2.49697 ⋅10 6 n2 = 5.80146 ⋅10 9
The coefficients of this polynomial function are:
n3 = −1.64762 ⋅1012 n4 = 1.38268 ⋅1014
g0 = 0 g1 = 4.70528 ⋅10 2
For each k-th increment of the maximum axial
g 2 = −1.99759 ⋅10 4 g 3 = −4.64117 ⋅10 7 strain due to bending deformation, both the
g 4 = 1.31810 ⋅1010 g 5 = −1.10615 ⋅1012 associated horizontal displacement δ M( k ) and shear
force V (k) can be evaluated. The displacement due
The shear force can be obtained by solving the to shear deformation can be calculated as:
rotational equilibrium equation:
V (k ) ⋅ H (k )
δ V( k ) = χ ⋅ ⋅ζ V (35)
G⋅ A
after ζV is computed. Finally, one can get the total
horizontal displacement of the pier panel at the
k-th step via Equation 1.
The procedure described above allows to plot
the force-displacement curve for a shear-type pier
panel which fails in flexure, taking into account
the horizontal displacement due to shear
deformation in a simplified way. Note that the
shear modulus in Equation 35 can be updated
step-by-step by implementing a non-linear τ-γ
constitutive law.
Another procedure may be defined by
inverting the one described above. In other terms,
for each step one can assume first that the end
cross-section is uncracked, so the active width of
the axial strain distribution can be computed. If
the absurd b > B results from Equation 28 or 29,
then the hypothesis of uncracked cross-section is
not satisfied and the minimum axial strain must
be calculated. This incremental iterative
procedure may give even smaller numerical
errors and result in higher rate of convergence.
Several numerical analyses have been carried
out to validate the proposed formulation. Figure 5
shows force-displacement curves of a tuff
masonry pier panel having the following
properties: uniaxial characteristic compressive
strength fk = 3.00 MPa; pure diagonal shear and
sliding strengths ftk0 = fvk0 = 0.30 MPa; height
H = 300 cm; width B = 250 cm; thickness
s = 70 cm. Such curves are plotted either in force
control, or in displacement control, for two values
of normalised axial force. It is clearly showed that
force-displacement curve plotted without
controlling strain ductility of masonry lead to
overestimate the lateral stiffness, the ultimate
shear, and the displacement capacity of a pier
panel. Softening behaviour becomes more and
more significant, as the axial force increases.
1200
1000
800
V [kN]
N = 0.038 - force control
600
N = 0.390 - force control
400 N = 0.038 - displacement control
N = 0.390 - displacement control
200
0 H
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d [mm]
Figure 5. Comparison between force-controlled and
displacement-controlled curves.
3.2 Force-displacement curve of a storey
Force-displacement curves can be constructed
also for a whole storey of a masonry shear wall,
through an incremental iterative procedure based
on the hypothesis of rigid spandrel beam. Given
an horizontal displacement δ∗, one can compute
shear forces on the several pier panels. Shear
resistance of the storey is assumed to be the sum
of the individual shear forces of the pier panels.
To estimate seismic capacity in terms of both
strength and displacement, let us remove the
hypothesis that the global collapse occurs when a
pier panel reaches its shear or flexural strength.
Therefore, the new force-displacement curve is
non-monotonic and completely non-linear; slope
and ordinate reductions corresponds to the
ultimate shears and displacements of the pier
panels, respectively.
Let us define the maximum displacement
capacity upon all pier panels:
{
δ u ,max = max δ p ( ε u ) i , j } j =1,..., m
(36)
Given 0 ≤ δ∗ ≤ δu,max, the maximum axial strain
due to bending deformation of each panel can be
numerically computed until the following
convergence criterion is satisfied:
δ (k ) − δ *
≤ tol δ (37)
δ*
where δ(k) is evaluated via Equation 1 and tolδ can
be assumed equal to 10-5. The maximum shear
resistance of the storey can be computed as:
m
Vi ,k = ∑ Vi , j ,k ( ε zM,max ) (38)
j =1
Since shear deformation has not yet been related
to the axial strain by compatibility conditions, its
contribute to horizontal displacement can be
estimated only after the shear force acting on the
pier panel is known. This means that δ∗ can be
computed just through a numerical procedure, so
let us assume that the given displacement δ∗ is
only due to flexural deformation. From Equation
10, at the first step it then results:
2 ⋅δ *
ε zM,max
(1)
= (39)
8
For each pier panel the axial force is known, so
the shear force V (1) applied on it can be
computed. Thus, one can get the horizontal
displacement due to shear deformation via the
following equation:
 V (1) ⋅ H (1) also for each storey of a masonry building.
δ V(1) = χ ⋅ ⋅ζ V (40) The theoretical formulas has been derived
G⋅ A
from a closed-form integration of axial strain
The horizontal displacement due to bending fields along different models of reacting domain
deformation can be computed as: inside the masonry panel. In particular, the
following phenomena have been considered:
δ M(1) = δ * − δ V(1) (41) geometrical non-linearity; mechanical elastic
so the updated value of maximum axial strain is: non-linearity; and mechanical inelastic non-
linearity. As a result, a distributed plasticity
2 ⋅ δ M(1) macro-element has been defined to describe the
ε zM,max
(2)
= (42) lateral behaviour of pier panels.
H
The proposed numerical procedures can be
It follows that, for each pier panel, recursive simply implemented in computer codes to carry
formulas to be applied at the k-th step are: out advanced non-linear seismic analyses of
masonry structures, where shear walls are
2 ⋅ δ M( k −1)
ε zM,max
(k )
= (43) discretised in macro-elements. A displacement
H control applied to construct the force-
displacement curves allows to get a better
V (k ) ⋅ H (k ) estimate of displacement capacity and, then, to
δ V( k ) = χ ⋅ ⋅ζ V (44) predict the actual seismic behaviour of a masonry
G⋅ A
structure. Nevertheless, further theoretical
δ M( k +1) = δ * − δ V( k ) (45) developments are needed to predict the contribute
of shear deformation on the displacement
The iterative procedure can be stopped when the capacity of a pier panel. A deformation-based
inequality 39 or the following convergence approach should let to estimate the actual
criterion is satisfies: ductility of the macro-element, accounting for the
constitutive laws of masonry and strain
δ M( k +1) − δ M( k ) compatibility inside the reacting domain.
≤ tol δ (46)
δ M( k )
Figure 6 shows force-displacement curves of a REFERENCES
storey plotted either in force control, or in Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A. (ed.), 1972. Handbook of
displacement control. Note that the displacement Mathematical Functions, Dover: New York, USA, 9th
capacity is largely underestimated if strain edition.
ductility of masonry is not taken into account. Augenti, N. (ed.), 2004. Il calcolo sismico degli edifici in
muratura, UTET: Turin, Italy.
Augenti, N., Parisi, F., 2009a. Influence of the constitutive
1200 law on the flexural strength of masonry panels. 13th
Italian National Conference on Earthquake
1000 Engineering. Bologna, Italy.
Augenti, N., Parisi, F., 2009b. Non-linear static analysis of
displacement control
800
force control
masonry structures. 13th Italian National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Bologna, Italy.
V [kN]

600
CEN, 2005. Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures –
400 Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced
masonry structures, prEN 1996-1-1:2005, Comité
200 Européen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium.
Jonquière, A., 1889. Note sur la série Σxn/n5. Bulletin de la
0
Société Mathématique de France, 17, 142-152.
0 1 2 3 4 5
d [mm] Lewin, L. (ed.), 1958. Dilogarithms and Associated
Figure 6. Force-displacement curve of a storey. Functions, Macdonald: London, UK.
Lewin, L. (ed.), 1981. Polylogarithms and Associated
Functions, North-Holland: New York, USA.
Lewin, L. (ed.), 1991. Structural Properties of
4 CONCLUSIONS Polylogarithms, American Mathematical Society:
Providence, USA.
The formulation proposed in this paper allows Turnsek, V., Cacovic, F., 1970. Some experimental results
to plot complete force-displacement curves of on the strength of brick masonry walls. 2nd International
masonry pier panels. Based on the hypothesis of Brick & Block Masonry Conference. Stoke on Trent,
rigid spandrel beams, these curves can be defined UK.

View publication stats