Abstract
Masonry structures, although classically suitable to withstand gravitational loads, are sensibly vulnerable if subjected to extraordinary actions such as earthquakes, exhibiting cracks even for events of moderate intensity compared to other structural typologies like as reinforced concrete or steel buildings. In the last half-century, the scientific community devoted a consistent effort to the computational analysis of masonry structures in order to develop tools for the prediction (and the assessment) of their structural behavior. Given the complexity of the mechanics of masonry, different approaches and scales of representation of the mechanical behavior of masonry, as well as different strategies of analysis, have been proposed. In this paper, a comprehensive review of the existing modeling strategies for masonry structures, as well as a novel classification of these strategies are presented. Although a fully coherent collocation of all the modeling approaches is substantially impossible due to the peculiar features of each solution proposed, this classification attempts to make some order on the wide scientific production on this field. The modeling strategies are herein classified into four main categories: block-based models, continuum models, geometry-based models, and macroelement models. Each category is comprehensively reviewed. The future challenges of computational analysis of masonry structures are also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Masonry structures represent a large part of the existing constructions in the world. A great part of the historic architectural heritage consists of monumental masonry structures (buildings, towers, castles, churches, mosques, temples, etc.). Furthermore, ordinary residential buildings are typically made of masonry in several countries. As it can be noted in Fig. 1, considerable differences appear between monumental and ordinary buildings, in terms of material, geometry and structural details.
It is well known that unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, although classically suitable to withstand gravitational loads, are sensibly vulnerable if subjected to extraordinary actions such as earthquakes. Indeed, the structural response to this kind of actions is often characterized by the arising of cracks in the masonry and/or partial (or even full) collapses even for seismic events of moderate intensity if compared to other structural typologies like as reinforced concrete or steel buildings. Cracking in masonry structures could be also caused by differential settlements of the soil under foundations. Given the heterogeneity of masonry, made of blocks usually bonded with mortar, cracks typically run along the mortar joints, although cracks through blocks may appear as well depending on the relative strength properties of the two basic components (i.e. mortar and blocks). Indeed, alternative solutions to the unreinforced one have been developed over the centuries, aimed at improving the properties of ductility and dissipation as well as the strength, as the confined or reinforced masonry. Despite that, the paper focuses only to the unreinforced masonry solution.
In the last half-century, the scientific community devoted a consistent effort to the computational analysis of masonry structures. The main objective at the basis of this topic is that, if a mechanical model is found to be able to simulate the structural response of masonry structures, it can be used to predict the structural response to extraordinary loads and, therefore, to evaluate the main weaknesses and safety of a masonry building. Although new masonry buildings can be designed and computationally analyzed, this approach has been mainly oriented to the assessment of the near-collapse behavior of existing masonry buildings, given their widespread dissemination and their weak structural response.
However, given the deep complexities and uncertainties which characterize the geometry of buildings (especially for the historic ones) and the mechanical response of masonry (highly nonlinear), the computational analysis of masonry structures is still a challenging task.
In this paper, a comprehensive review of the existing modeling strategies for masonry structures is presented and a classification of these strategies is proposed. This classification of modeling strategies for masonry structures consists of the following four categories (Fig. 2): (i) block-based models (BBM), (ii) continuum models (CM), (iii) macroelement models (MM), and (iv) geometry-based models (GBM). Although a fully coherent collocation of all the modeling approaches is substantially impossible due to the peculiar features of each solution proposed, this classification attempts to make some order on the wide scientific production on this field.
Firstly, the main mechanical and geometrical challenges of masonry structures are briefly discussed in Sect. 2. Then, the limitations and possibilities of analysis approaches (i.e. incremental-iterative analysis and limit analysis) for masonry structures are pointed out in Sect. 3. The proposed classification of modeling strategies for masonry structures is presented in Sect. 4. Each category is then comprehensively reviewed (BBM in Sect. 5, CM in Sect. 6, MM in Sect. 7, and GBM in Sect. 8) and the limitations and possibilities of each strategy are deeply discussed. In the conclusions (Sect. 9), a summary of the pros and cons and of the fields of application of each category is given and a discussion on future challenges of computational analysis of masonry structures is held.
2 Mechanical and Geometrical Issues
A reliable simulation of the mechanical response of an existing masonry structure should be based on reliable mechanical properties characterized through experimental tests and on detailed geometrical and structural surveys.
This section aims to briefly highlight the main mechanical and geometrical challenges which arise when dealing with masonry structures. Further aspects on this topic can be found in [1, 2].
2.1 Masonry Mechanical Behavior
Masonry is a very complex material from a mechanical point of view. It is composed of blocks usually bonded with mortar. Blocks are typically made of quasi-brittle materials such as building stones, fired and non-fired bricks. Blocks are assembled with a certain pattern, which is called “bond”. This makes masonry an heterogeneous material. As highlighted in [1], the term “masonry” actually refers to a very wide category of building materials (Fig. 3), with different mechanical features and peculiarities.
The overall masonry response is governed by the mechanical properties of its components (block and mortar) and the bond between them. Masonry components are generally characterized by a quasi-brittle response in tension and compression. In particular, the compressive behavior is characterized by much higher values of strength and fracture energy with respect to the tensile behavior. Beyond the nonlinearity showed by the masonry components, the bond between blocks and mortar is usually very weak, characterized by a normal stress-dependent cohesive-frictional behavior in shear and a cohesive behavior in tension (with essentially irrelevant cohesion in case of dry stone masonry), both including softening of the cohesion [2]. Therefore, the overall response of masonry is highly nonlinear.
Masonry is an anisotropic material [3]. Anisotropy can be observed in the elastic behavior (elastic anisotropy), in the strength properties (beyond the difference between compressive and tensile strengths, distinctive of quasi-brittle materials, it shows also different strengths along with different directions, i.e. strength anisotropy), and in the post-peak response (brittleness anisotropy). In particular, regular brick masonry usually shows significant anisotropic properties. Conversely, anisotropy in random stone masonry, although a significant difference in compressive and tensile strengths is always observed, could be less significant (e.g. in terms of elasticity, strengths, and brittleness) than in regular brick masonry, given the lack of periodicity in the material.
The interpretation of the mechanical behavior of masonry could be based on different scales, typically the scale of the material [3,4,5] and the scale of the structural element [6,7,8,9,10]. For both cases, the description of the mechanical behavior has to be generally defined in terms of stiffness, strength and ductility. Figure 4 shows the limit strength domains of masonry at the scale of the material (Fig. 4a) and at the scale of the pier (Fig. 4b) for plane stress states.
Failure mechanisms in masonry are usually complex and articulated. Typical failure modes of masonry at a two-block masonry assemblage scale are sketched in Fig. 5. At a structural scale, some examples of masonry failure are depicted in Figure 6.
2.2 Experimental Characterization of Masonry
The experimental characterization of masonry mechanical properties is still a challenging task. Indeed, although several experimental tests and set-ups have been proposed in the last decades, their reliability and reproducibility are still object of debate [13, 14].
Basically, the experimental characterization of masonry could be done at different scales, as shown in Fig. 7: masonry components (block, mortar and block-mortar bond), wallets (small masonry assemblages), panels (real-scale masonry walls), and buildings (full-scale masonry structures [15]).
When dealing with existing masonry buildings, in-situ tests should be used to mechanically characterize the structure [17, 18]. However, in-situ testing is usually characterized by larger difficulties and limitations than laboratory testing. This leads, in general, to greater uncertainties on the characterized mechanical properties. Even, merely non-destructive tests could be used in historic monumental buildings to guarantee their conservation and authenticity [19, 20]. To limit the invasiveness, together with experimental tests, also indirect methods have been proposed in the literature [21] to assign mechanical properties to masonry which are based on a qualitative interpretation of its main features (such as quality of mortar joints, effectiveness of in-plane and transversal interlocking, bond). Anyway, a limited mechanical information can be generally obtained on this kind of masonry structures.
2.3 Structural Details
In masonry structures, structural details play a fundamental role in the mechanical response. Indeed, the toothing between orthogonal walls (Fig. 8), the quality of connection with horizontal diaphragms, the flexibility of horizontal diaphragms, the interaction with adjacent buildings, etc., could considerably affect the structural behavior of masonry buildings [22].
In general, the structural details also depend on the historical evolution of the building, in terms of restorations, additions of parts, destination changes, damages and repairs, etc. The knowledge of these aspects could be challenging for historic structures, as they are the result of a subsequent superimposition of modifications along with the centuries. Indeed, the setting up of an effective knowledge procedure when dealing with masonry cultural heritage assets is related not only to the cost-benefit optimization (with respect to the reliability of the final outcome), but also to the minimization of invasiveness on the construction, with the aim of its conservation [23]. Beyond the traditional approaches proposed in standards or guidelines for the seismic assessment of existing buildings (e.g. at international levels, Eurocode 8 - Part 3 [24] and ASCE/SEI 41/06) or, more specifically, of heritage structures [25, 26], literature proposals to improve the knowledge phase have been recently developed [27, 28].
2.4 Geometrical Challenges
In some cases, the definition of the geometry of the structure could be challenging as well, especially for historic monumental buildings characterized by complex and irregular geometries. In these cases, an accurate geometrical and structural survey is required.
One first issue concerns the identification of the structure (i.e. the load-bearing system) within the building geometry. This non-trivial operation has to be carried out by the analyst basing on the knowledge of the building.
Another issue regards the employability of the geometry in structural analysis purposes. The geometry of these structures can be manually drawn on a computer-aided design (CAD) environment basing on the geometric survey. The CAD-based geometry can be directly used within simplified structural analysis frameworks, such as the one proposed in [29]. However, the employability of this CAD-based geometry in mesh-based structural analysis could be problematic. Indeed, the discretization process of these geometries is usually accompanied by mesh errors, compatibility problems, excessively refined meshes, etc. Several approaches which use as input 3D point clouds for the automatic mesh generation of historic building have been recently proposed in [29,30,31,33] to deal with the aforementioned issues. The development and the optimization of these methods is still an on-going process.
3 Analysis Approaches
The collapse or near-collapse response of masonry structures can be investigated following two main ways: (i) incremental-iterative analyses and (ii) limit analysis-based solutions. In this section, the main features of these two analysis approaches are briefly recalled.
3.1 Incremental-Iterative Analyses
In incremental-iterative analysis procedures, the evolution of the equilibrium conditions of a structure subjected to certain actions is investigated step-by-step. The loading and the structural response are divided into a sequence of intervals, increments or “steps”. Iterations are hence carried out to reach equilibrium within each step. These procedures allow to account for mechanical nonlinearity, which is fundamental and mandatory to be considered for a reliable assessment of the collapse and near-collapse behavior of masonry structures. Geometric nonlinearity can be accounted for as well. Although few examples of linear elastic models have been developed for the preliminary assessment of historic masonry structures [34, 35], their effectiveness in investigating the failure mode and the safety of these structure is substantially limited.
As the aim of these analyses consists in studying the collapse behavior of masonry structures, large displacements could occur and, therefore, geometrical nonlinearity could play a non-marginal role and should be included in the computations.
Incremental-iterative analyses could be classified in nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic (time history) analyses:
-
(1)
Nonlinear static analysis In nonlinear static analyses, the structure is subjected to certain actions step-by-step until its peak-load and beyond that into the post-peak regime. The pseudo-time in which the structural response evolves does not represent any physical characteristics. Simulations can be performed in either load control or displacement control, and in event-by-event damage control (e.g. sequentially linear analysis [36, 37]).
Given the mechanical nonlinearity assumed for the material, nonlinear differential equations have to be solved. These equations can be transformed in nonlinear algebraic equations and solved within a numerical framework. Typically, the nonlinear equations are linearized in a step-wise manner and resolved following an iterative procedure. Among the most famous iterative implicit procedures are: the Picard iteration (or direct iteration) method, the Newton–Raphson iteration methods, and the Riks methods (the interested reader is referred to [38] for more information about iterative procedures).
These kind of analyses are typically used to simulate quasi-static experimental tests on masonry structures and to perform the so-called pushover analysis. Pushover analysis is a very common and standardized procedure to assess the seismic behavior of a masonry structure, which is subjected to a monotonically increasing displacement of a control node given a load pattern of horizontal forces kept constant in shape during the analysis.
-
(2)
Nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis In nonlinear time history analysis (also called transient nonlinear analysis), the structure is step-by-step subjected to time-dependent actions and the structural response evolves in the actual time, accounting for inertial and damping effects as well.
Time integration methods are employed to approximately satisfy the equations of motion during each time step of the analysis. These methods may be classified as either explicit or implicit [39]. An explicit method is labeled as one in which the new response values calculated at each step depend only on quantities obtained in the previous step. Conversely, in an implicit method the expressions giving the new values for a given step include values which pertain to that same step. Therefore, trial values of the unknowns must be assumed and refined by successive iterations. Among the most famous time integration methods are the following: Euler–Gauss procedure, Newmark Beta methods, second central difference formulation, linear acceleration procedures [39]. In any case, a large body of literature has been written on this topic and the interested reader is referred to [39] for more details.
Nonlinear time history analyses can simulate the effects of dynamic actions (e.g. earthquakes, impacts, explosions, etc.) on masonry structures. Indeed, the possibility to account for time-dependent loads allows to simulate the response of the structure against, for instance, a real accelerogram. Shaking table experimental tests on masonry structures can be analyzed as well. Occasionally, dynamic analysis can be also used for simulating quasi-static tests and processes, by applying, for example, loads in a very slow way.
3.2 Limit Analysis-Based Solutions
Heyman [40] firstly applied limit theorems of plasticity to masonry structures, adopting the following three hypotheses:
-
(1)
Masonry has no tensile strength,
-
(2)
The compressive strength of masonry is infinite,
-
(3)
Sliding of one masonry block upon another cannot occur.
These hypotheses, together with the negligibility of elastic strains, allowed the formulation of the static theorem (lower-bound limit analysis) and the kinematic theorem (upper-bound limit analysis) for masonry structures.
The Heyman’s rigid no-tension model has been widely used and fruitfully applied in analyzing the stability of masonry systems [41]. Firstly, these assumptions allowed simple graphic statics solutions for the stability analysis of masonry vaults [42], and kinematic analysis of common seismic failure modes of masonry buildings [43]. Secondly, the Heyman’s hypotheses established a solid base for the formulation of modern computational limit analysis-based methods. These numerous methods (that will be discussed in the following) are based on either the static theorem [44] or the kinematic theorem [45], and the problem can be formulated as solution of an optimization problem (using or not genetic algorithms), of nonlinear differential equations, of linear or sequential linear programming, etc.
One of the main disadvantages of limit analysis-based solutions consists in the fact that their output is limited to the collapse multiplier and the collapse mechanism, and no information is available on the ultimate displacement and/or post-peak response (like as in discontinuity layout optimization (DLO) procedures [46]), which appear fundamental in widely adopted displacement-based seismic assessment procedures for masonry structures.
4 Modeling Strategies
In this section, a classification of the modeling strategies for masonry structures is proposed. This classification is focused on the ways masonry and/or masonry structures are modeled. Therefore, the analysis approaches discussed in Sect. 3 can be, in principle, applied to each modeling strategy category.
Each modeling strategy has some peculiar appealing features, which, in general, could have a specific area of application. Furthermore, depending on the scale of representation conceived in the numerical strategy, different scales of material testing (Fig. 7) could be used to calibrate the mechanical parameters of the model, see Sect. 2.2.
Although each modeling solution that can be found in the scientific literature presents original and peculiar features and, hence, a fully coherent collocation of all the modeling approaches appears substantially impossible, the following solution tries to make some order on the wide scientific production on this field.
The present classification proposes four main categories of modeling strategies for masonry structures (Fig. 2):
-
(1)
Block-based models Masonry is modeled in a block-by-block fashion and, therefore, the actual masonry texture can be accounted for. The block behavior can be considered rigid or deformable, whereas their interaction can be mechanically represented by means of several suitable formulations, that are reviewed in Sect. 5.
-
(2)
Continuum models The masonry material is modeled as a continuum deformable body, without distinction between blocks and mortar layers. The constitutive law adopted for the material can be defined either through (1) direct approaches, i.e. by means of constitutive laws calibrated, for example, on experimental tests, or through (2) homogenization procedures and multi-scale approaches, where the constitutive law of the material (considered as homogeneous in the structural-scale model) is deduced from a homogenization process which relates the structural-scale model to a material-scale model (representing the main masonry heterogeneities) of a representative volume element (RVE) of the structure. In this case, the solution of structural-scale problems could be formulated in a multi-scale framework. These continuum models are reviewed in Sect. 6.
-
(3)
Macroelement models The structure is idealized into panel-scale structural components (macroelements) with a phenomenological or mechanical-based response. Typically, two main structural components may be identified: piers and spandrels. The subdivision of the structure into panel-scale portions is an a priori operation made by the analyst who interprets the structural conception of the building. Although these models could, in some respects, be considered continuum approaches, the main difference with the models in (2) is that the constitutive law of macroelements attempts to reproduce the mechanical response of panel-scale structural components, while the constitutive law of the models in (2) tries to reproduce the mechanical behavior of the masonry material. Macroelement models are reviewed in Sect. 7.
-
(4)
Geometry-based models The structure is modeled as a rigid body. The geometry of the structure represents the main (or even the only) input of these modeling strategies. The block-by-block definition of masonry is not pursued in this category, being block-based approaches included in category (1). The structural equilibrium and/or collapse are investigated through different procedures. Typically, these methods implement limit analysis-based solutions (see Sect. 3.2), which can be based on either static or kinematic theorems. Although these models could, in some respects, be considered as continuum models [see category (2)], it should be remarked that the present category is based on the assumption of rigid body. The geometry-based models are reviewed in Sect. 8.
In the following, each category is comprehensively reviewed, showing the limitations and possibilities of each approach, accounting for new and recently proposed solutions. In this spirit, the following sections could be seen as an updating of well-known review papers [46,47,49] on this field.
5 Block-Based Models
Block-based models represent the masonry behavior at the scale of the main heterogeneity of the material, characterized by blocks assembled by mortar (or dry) joints, which governs the main aspects of its mechanical and failure response. Indeed, these models can account for the actual masonry texture, which substantially controls the anisotropy and the failure pattern of the material.
The first example of nonlinear block-based models dates probably back to 1978, thanks to the pioneering work by Page [50], where masonry is considered as an assemblage (that will be called “textured continuum” in the following) of elastic brick elements acting in conjunction with linkage elements simulating the mortar joints which have limited shear strength depending upon the bond strength and the level of compression. From that work, several block-based models have been developed and proposed.
The main positive features of the block-based modeling strategy category can be summarized as:
-
Representation of the actual masonry bond and many structural details (e.g. toothing of corners between orthogonal walls, see Fig. 8);
-
Mechanical characterization from small-scale experimental tests;
-
Clear representation of the failure modes, which do not need demanding interpretation. Indeed, detailed insights on the weakest parts of the structure can be found, helping the designing of strengthening devices;
-
Anisotropy intrinsically accounted for in the definition of the actual masonry bond;
-
3D solid and 2D shell models can account for, at the same time, the in-plane and out-of-plane responses of masonry walls (and their interactions [51]);
-
The interaction between orthogonal walls if subjected to horizontal loads (in terms, for example, of vertical reaction transfer) is intrinsically accounted for in 3D models.
Conversely, the main negative features of the block-based models can be summarized as:
-
The main issue of these models resides in their huge computational demand. This well-known problem [47, 48], typically limits the applicability of these modeling strategies to panel-scale structures. Indeed, few examples of applications on full-scale masonry structures can be found in the literature [52, 53]. However, given the continuous power increment of the computational facilities, this problem could be less significant in the near future;
-
2D membrane models unlikely show a reliable out-of-plane response;
-
The actual bond of existing masonry structures is often non-completely know. Therefore, the block-by-block discretization could be approximated in those cases;
-
The assembly of the model is usually a time-consuming and complex operation, which limits the use of these modeling strategies to academic studies and very few high-level consultancy groups.
In this section, block-based models are classified into different subcategories depending on the way the interaction between blocks is formulated (Fig. 9):
-
1.
Interface element-based approaches;
-
2.
Contact-based approaches;
-
3.
Textured continuum-based approaches;
-
4.
Block-based limit analysis approaches;
-
5.
Extended finite element approaches.
Each subcategory is then exhaustively reviewed in the following.
5.1 Interface Element-Based Approaches
One of the first nonlinear interface-based models to simulate the collapse behavior of masonry structures appeared in [54], where the mortar joints were modeled with zero-thickness interface elements and the masonry units (which were considered as expanded to account for the geometry of the mortar joints) were modeled with smeared crack elements, within a FE approach (Fig. 10). In particular, a dilatant interface plasticity-based constitutive model capable of simulating the initiation and propagation of interface fracture under combined normal and shear stresses was developed.
Other early applications of interface elements to masonry were reported in [55, 56] where a method was also introduced to enlarge the blocks so as to be able to use zero-thickness interface elements for mortar joints, given that they show a certain thickness in reality. Furthermore, a priori defined potential cracks within the blocks were introduced [55, 56].
An important improvement of this approach has been proposed by Lourenço and Rots [57]. In particular, they developed a multi-surface interface-based model in which all the nonlinearities (including shear sliding, tensile cracking and also compressive crushing) were concentrated in the interfaces. This permitted to increase the efficiency of the model, in the framework of softening plasticity. Such a model [57] has been diffusely used in the years that followed, and is still today utilized for many applications on masonry structures [58, 59]. For example, an interesting application of this interface model has been conducted in [60] for historic non-regular stone masonry shear walls. Furthermore, an extension of the interface model developed in [57] to the cyclic behavior of masonry shear walls has been presented and validated in [61], fully-based on the plasticity theory.
A cyclic mortar joint interface model based on damage mechanics has been developed by Gambarotta and Lagomarsino [62]. In particular, the constitutive equation of the interface is postulated in terms of two internal variables representing the frictional sliding and the mortar joint damage. The interface model exhibits a brittle response under tensile stresses and is characterized by frictional dissipation together with stiffness degrading under compressive stresses (Fig. 9).
Other approaches, based on cohesive interfaces with damage and friction have been presented in [62,63,65], which were suitable for the simulation of masonry shear walls.
Additionally, several strategies have been based on the assumption of rigid blocks which interact through nonlinear springs simulating the response of masonry joints as well as crushing. This is the case, for example, of the model developed by Malomo et al. [66] within the framework of the so-called applied element method. Although similar, in principle, to the rigid body spring model (RBSM) developed by Casolo [67] (which is, however, used without accounting for the actual masonry bond and, so, the spring linear and nonlinear properties have to be homogenized), in [66] the block-by-block modeling is pursued for the analysis of the in-plane cyclic behavior of masonry walls.
All references described up unto this point are conceived for the analysis of 2D problems, typically in-plane problems. This aspect, as discussed above, considerably limits the applicability of the modeling strategies to real problems. To overcome this issue, several 3D models have been developed [67,68,70] to deal with real case studies as well. Primarily, two different interface elements have been developed specifically for 3D analysis of masonry structures.
Firstly, an extension of the Lourenço and Rots [57] multi-surface interface model to the 3D case, accounting also for geometrical nonlinearity, has been developed by Macorini and Izzudin [71]. In particular, a co-rotational approach has been employed in [71] for the interface element, which shifts the treatment of geometric nonlinearity to the level of discrete entities, and enables the consideration of material nonlinearity within a simplified local framework employing first-order kinematics (Fig. 9). This approach has been extensively used for real applications [72, 73] by using partitioning routines [74, 75]. Moreover, the interface model presented in [71] has been further developed for simulating the cyclic response of masonry structures [52] by using a damage-plasticity approach.
Secondly, another interface constitutive model has been developed in [76] and coupled with elasto-plastic block elements for the explicit cyclic analysis of 3D masonry walls. This interface model has been broadly used for studying several aspects of the mechanics of masonry walls [51, 76,77,79].
5.2 Contact-Based Approaches
Block-based modeling strategies based on contact mechanics are widely used for the accurate modeling of masonry structures. Basically, rigid or deformable (linear or nonlinear) blocks interact following a frictional or cohesive-frictional contact definition. Although several in-house formulations have been developed and validated (see for instance [80, 81]), three main families of contact-based approaches can be found.
Firstly, a wide family of modeling approaches has been based on the distinct element method (DEM), also called discrete element method in the literature [82], originally proposed by Cundall and Stack [83] for the analysis of granular assemblies and implemented in the UDEC code [84]. DEM approaches are based on contact penalty formulations and explicit integration schemes. In this context, several applications have been conducted on real masonry structures [84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,94] using rigid or linear elastic blocks (Fig. 9).
Secondly, an implicit approach which considers the deformability of blocks is the so-called discontinuous deformation analysis (DDA) [95]. DDA fulfills constraints of no tension between blocks and no penetration of one block into another. Also, Coloumb’s law is fulfilled at all contact positions for both static and dynamic computations [96].
Thirdly, another family is based on the non-smooth contact dynamics (NSCD) method, developed by Jean [97] and Moreau [98] and characterized by a direct contact formulation, in its non-smooth form, implicit integrations schemes, and energy dissipation due to blocks’ impacts. This approach, although successfully applied to several real case studies [98,99,100,102], appears limited to dry stone masonry structures, as it seems still not capable in representing cohesive responses of the mortar joints.
Although the approaches belonging to the aforementioned three families are generally rather fast and permit full-scale applications as well, they cannot properly account for masonry crushing, which can be, in some cases, crucial in the mechanical response of masonry structures. To this aim, other approaches have been developed to account for block nonlinearity in tension and compression (Fig. 11). For example, Sarhosis and Lemos [103] accounted for masonry crushing (Fig. 11a) conceiving masonry units and mortar joints as an assemblage of densely packed discrete irregular deformable particles bonded together by zero-thickness contact interfaces, .
In the framework of the so-called finite-discrete element method (FDEM) [104], Smoljanović et al. [105] developed a code for the computational analysis of dry stone masonry structures [105] and extended it to 3D structures in [106]. Additionally, they implemented the nonlinear response of blocks in [107] to account for masonry crushing and block fragmentation (Fig. 11b).
Finally, a very recent 3D block-based model with contacting damaging blocks has been developed and validated in [11], where the mortar layers are explicitly modeled in the block mesh (becoming a “detailed” model according to the definition in [47]). This model, based on implicit integration schemes, contact penalty method, compressive and tensile damage for the blocks, and rigid-cohesive-frictional contact behavior, provided very accurate results for the in-plane and out-of-plane response of masonry panels. Moreover, the model presented in [11] has been extended to the cyclic behavior of full-scale masonry structures (Fig. 11c) in [53].
5.3 Textured Continuum-Based Approaches
The main idea of block-based textured continuum models [50] is to have, in a FEM framework with nonlinear elements, blocks and joints modeled separately without any interface between them, allowing for nonlinear deformation characteristics of the two materials as well as failure of the blocks, the mortar, or the mortar joints by bond.
An example of a pioneering mesh discretization of this kind of approaches is shown in Fig. 9 (see Ali and Page [108]), in which the FEs with block properties are distinguished from the ones with mortar (or more correctly mortar joint) properties. In particular, the model used in [108] uses a strength criterion for crack initiation and propagation, and the smeared crack modeling technique for reproducing the effects of the crack.
More recently, a block-based textured continuum model which discretizes both units and mortar-joints with continuum elements, making use of a tension/compression damage model, has been developed in [109]. Particularly, in [109] the damage model has been refined to properly reproduce the nonlinear response under shear and to control the dilatancy. Another solution, based on a enriched kinematic damage model, has been proposed in [110].
A very innovative approach to mechanically model the nonlinear response of mortar joints has been lately presented in [111], where a microstructured 3D composite interphase formulation based on a multiplane cohesive-zone model has been proposed. Basically, a multiscale modeling strategy for the constitutive law of mortar joints has been adopted, allowing to conduct a consistent and reproducible calibration procedure of the mortar joint parameters.
5.4 Block-Based Limit Analysis Approaches
Block-based limit analysis represents an accurate and robust approach for the prediction of collapse load and failure mechanism of masonry structures. Several 2D and 3D approaches have been developed along the last two decades (Fig. 9), generally based on either static or kinematic theorems of limit analysis, even if the implementation of friction in the computations is usually non-conservative with respect to the limit analysis theorems.
The first block-based limit analysis approach applied to masonry assemblages is probably the one developed by Baggio and Trovalusci [112], where the solution of the limit analysis problem in the presence of friction at interfaces between rigid blocks, i.e. a nonlinear programming problem, is obtained by solving a preliminary problem of linear programming, corresponding to a linearized limit analysis in the presence of dilatancy at the interfaces [113].
Another approach has been developed by Ferris and Tin-Loi [114], where the computation of the collapse loads of discrete rigid block systems, characterized by nonassociative friction and tensionless contact interfaces, is formulated and solved as a special constrained optimization problem, i.e. the so-called mathematical program with equilibrium constraints.
Furthermore, Sutcliffe et al. [115] developed a technique for computing the lower bound limit loads in unreinforced masonry shear walls under conditions of plane strain. By using a Mohr-Coulomb approximation of the yield surfaces, the numerical procedure proposed in [115] computes a statically admissible stress field via linear programming and finite elements. By imposing equilibrium, an expression of the collapse load is formed by imposing equilibrium, and the solution obtained is a rigorous lower bound on the actual collapse load.
Later, Orduña and Lourenço [116, 117] proposed a solution procedure for the non-associated limit analysis of rigid block masonry assemblages, incorporating non-associated flow rules and a coupled yield surface.
Moreover, a formulation for limit analysis of masonry block structures with non-associative frictional joints, using linear programming, has been proposed in [118], extended to 3D structures accounting for torsional effects in [119], and optimized using cone programming in [120]. In these approaches, rigid blocks interact via no-tension contact surfaces with Coulomb friction.
Conversely, the approach proposed and developed by Milani [121], based on 3D FE upper bound limit analyses of in- and out-of-plane loaded masonry walls, implements interfaces with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off and cap in compression for mortar joints, whereas a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is adopted for bricks. Therefore, mortar joint cohesion and masonry crushing are accounted for in this approach. Other direct applications of this model can be found in [122, 123], whereas applications within homogenization procedures are going to be discussed in the following section.
Although block-based limit analysis approaches have been also applied to real structures, e.g. masonry bridges in [124], their computational demand appears particularly high, preventing their use for large-scale masonry structures.
5.5 Extended Finite Element Approaches
Very recently, few block-based models formulated in the framework of the extended finite element method (XFEM) have been proposed [125, 126] (Fig. 9).
Particularly, Abdulla et al. [125] proposed a 3D model which includes surface-based cohesive behavior to capture the elastic and plastic behavior of masonry joints and a Drucker-Prager plasticity model to simulate crushing of masonry under compression (Fig. 9).
Furthermore, XFEM is adopted in [126] to model the cracking behavior and the compressive failure of masonry in infill panels, and the discrete interface element is employed to simulate the behavior of the masonry mortar joints and the joints at the frame-to-infill interface (Fig. 9).
Although only two models have been proposed so far in this subcategory, these approaches can represent a powerful alternative for block-based analysis of masonry structures.
6 Continuum Models
In continuum approaches, masonry is modeled as a continuum deformable body (Fig. 12). This category of modeling strategies has the advantage that the mesh discretization does not have to describe the main heterogeneities of masonry, and, hence, can have dimensions which can be significantly greater than the block size. So, the computational effort of these approaches is, in general, lower than block-based approaches. However, given the complexities of masonry from a mechanical point of view (Sect. 2), the definition of suitable homogeneous constitutive laws for masonry is a challenging task, and can be pursued either through (1) direct approaches, i.e. by means of constitutive laws calibrated, for example, on experimental tests, or through (2) homogenization procedures and multi-scale approaches, where the constitutive law of the material (considered as homogeneous in the structural-scale model) is derived from an homogenization process which relates the structural-scale model to a material-scale model (representing the main masonry heterogeneities). The homogenization process is typically based on refined modeling strategies (e.g. block-based models) of a representative volume element (RVE) of the structure.
6.1 Direct approaches
Direct continuum models rely on continuum constitutive laws which can, somehow, approximate the overall mechanical response of masonry. In these approaches, the mechanical properties (elastic parameters, strength domain, etc.) could be calibrated through experimental tests or other data (e.g. experimentally-derived analytical strength domains), without resorting to RVE-based homogenization procedures.
Several formulations, with different levels of approximation, have been developed and tested on real applications. Indeed, although the mechanical properties of the homogeneous model should be, in theory, rigorously deduced from homogenization theories, many simplified approaches have been successfully applied on interesting case studies.
One first family of direct approaches consists in a drastic idealization of the masonry mechanical behavior, i.e. masonry is conceived as a perfectly no-tension material. Generally, perfectly no-tension material means an isotropic medium incapable of sustaining tensile stresses but, otherwise, linear-elastic [127]. This radical hypothesis, although sustained by the fact that the mechanical characterization of masonry is very challenging especially in the tensile regime, can be a valuable basis for preliminary structural analyses [128]. Nevertheless, the hypothesis of no-tension material has been widely used in the analysis of the stability of masonry vaults and domes [40, 41], in the framework of geometry-based models (Sect. 8).
In [128], an approximate, piecewise-linear description of perfectly no-tension material behavior has been developed, leading to a very simple formulation of the discretized boundary value problem in finite terms. Later, Angelillo [129] proposed a FE solution based on a complementary energy theorem for elastic no-tension bodies. The solution relies on a problem of minimization of a quadratic function with equality and inequality constraints. Starting from an elementary stress field, an optimal approximate solution (safe in the spirit of limit analysis) is reached. Other solutions of the FE analysis of no-tension structures can be found in [129,130,132]. More recently, Bruggi [133] proposed a FE analysis of no-tension structures as a topology optimization problem. Then, Bruggi and Taliercio [134] proposed a non-incremental energy-based algorithm to define the distribution and the orientation of an equivalent orthotropic material, minimizing the potential energy so that to achieve a compression-only state of stress.
Although the cited no-tension approaches represent elegant solutions for such a complex problem, their applicability to real case studies is still limited. Indeed, all the aforementioned approaches are limited to 2D problems and only very recently 3D no-tension structures have been investigated [135]. However, these approaches cannot simulate the post-peak behavior of masonry structures, which is a strong limitation in the field of seismic assessment of structures. Moreover, although the assumption of null tensile strength can be considered, in general, conservative, this could lead to failure mechanisms which are not coherent with the ones experimentally observed, given that in reality the tensile strengths of masonry are non-zero.
Other direct continuum models for masonry structures rely on continuum nonlinear constitutive laws based either on fracture mechanics (smeared crack models), on damage mechanics, or on plasticity theory. Several smeared crack [136, 137], plastic [138], damage [139], and plastic-damage [140, 141] models have been primarily developed for the FE analysis of concrete structures. However, their usability for the simulation of the collapse or near collapse behavior of masonry structures presents some limitations, mainly due to the multi-level anisotropy (elastic, strength and brittleness anisotropies, see Sect. 2) of masonry and its heterogeneity introduced by mortar joints. A pioneering test of the accuracy of smeared crack models for masonry structures is reported in [142]. While the model adopted in [142] showed good performance with respect to flexure-dominated behavior, it showed problems in capturing the brittle shear behavior of masonry panels.
Although non-fully coherent with masonry mechanics, smeared crack and isotropic damage and plastic-damage models have been extensively used for analyzing masonry structures [143], mainly due to their efficiency, their diffusion in commercial FE codes, and the relatively few mechanical parameters to characterize.
Particularly, the utilization of these nonlinear models has been found especially indicated for the analysis of historic monumental structures, given their limited computational effort and their capability to represent complex and large-scale 3D geometries. In addition, historic buildings are usually characterized by multi-leaf irregular randomly-assembled masonries, which are often impossible to represent block-by-block and to mechanically characterize, given also the strict limitations for destructive in situ tests on historic buildings [144]. Indeed, poor information is usually available on the mechanical properties of historic masonries, favoring the use of isotropic nonlinear models. Many applications of isotropic smeared crack, damage and plastic-damage models have been successfully conducted on historic towers [144,145,147, 147], churches and temples [147,148,149,151], palaces [31, 151,152,154], and masonry bridges [155, 156]. In particular, most of the applications on historic monumental structures rely on 3D models (Fig. 13), as the structural behavior is rarely representable by 2D models, given the complex and irregular geometries of these buildings (Sect. 2).
Although each reliable damage model has to conceive a regularization of the fracture energy, which is usually normalized on a characteristic dimension of the element, very coarse meshes could lead to unsafe results as they are not able to essentially represent the damage pattern and the stress redistribution. An enhancement of the aforementioned constitutive models could be represented by the use of crack-tracking algorithms, originating from the analysis of localized cracking in quasi-brittle materials, which ensure mesh-bias independency of the numerical results and the realistic representation of propagating cracks in the numerical simulation of fracture in quasi-brittle materials [157, 158].
However, when dealing with periodic well-organized masonry, the assumption of only one tensile strength value (that governs the tensile response in each direction) risks to be too simplistic. To this aim, some orthotropic nonlinear constitutive laws have been developed and applied on masonry structures [159].
A first example of an orthotropic plasticity model with softening has been proposed in [160], while in [161] the ability of that continuum model to represent the inelastic behavior of orthotropic materials is shown, and a set of experimental tests to characterize the constitutive behavior of masonry is proposed, demonstrating the capability of the model to reproduce the strength behavior of different masonry types.
Successively, the effect of anisotropy has been introduced in [162] by means of fictitious isotropic stress and strain spaces. The material properties in the fictitious isotropic spaces are mapped into the actual anisotropic space by means of a consistent fourth-order tensor. The advantage of the model is that the classical theory of plasticity can be used to model the non-linear behavior in the isotropic spaces.
Later, an orthotropic damage model specifically developed for the analysis of brittle masonry subjected to cyclic in-plane loading has been described in [163]. Different elastic and inelastic properties have been assumed along the two natural axes of the masonry (i.e. the bed joints and the head joints directions) also as principal axes of damage.
More recently, Pelà et al. [164, 165] proposed an orthotropic damage model for the analysis of masonry structures, in which the orthotropic behavior is simulated through the concept of mapped tensors from the anisotropic field to an auxiliary workspace. The model affords the simulation of orthotropic induced damage, while also accounting for unilateral effects, thanks to a stress tensor split into tensile and compressive contributions. The damage model has also been combined with a crack-tracking technique [166] to reproduce the propagation of localized cracks in the FE problem.
Although the described direct continuum anisotropic approaches (Fig. 12) represent scientifically sound solutions, their application on real case study has been limited by the fact that their computational effort and the number of material properties to be mechanically characterized is substantially higher than isotropic approaches.
Additionally, other solutions adopt an homogeneous FE model of the structure, but, instead of a proper continuum, they use alternative solutions to describe the nonlinear behavior of masonry. For example, Reyes et al. [167] proposed a numerical procedure for fracture of brickwork masonry based on the strong discontinuity approach, accounting for the anisotropy of the material.
Other approaches, based on FE limit analysis, conceive the homogeneous structural-scale model made of rigid or deformable elements, placing nonlinear interfaces in between the elements, where plastic dissipation can occur. Dealing with historic full-scale buildings, FE limit analysis approaches have been successfully applied [33, 168] by using averaged mechanical properties, without using a rigorous homogenization procedure.
Finally, other approaches based on systems of springs [169, 170] can be fully characterized through a suitable calibration of linear and nonlinear spring properties.
These latter approaches (FE limit analysis and spring-based approaches) can be considered borderline in the context of continuum models (as they have interfaces between elements or spring systems instead of a proper continuum). However, given that they eventually behave as a continuum (where all the deformabilities and nonlinearities are lumped in the interfaces/springs) and the structure is effectively discretized by means of a continuum mesh, their classification in this category could be considered legitimate.
6.2 Homogenization Procedures and Multi-scale Approaches
The constitutive law of the homogeneous structural-scale model which tries to represent masonry can be deduced from homogenization processes, typically based on RVEs. The definition of a proper RVE is essential, as it should be statistically representative of the material-scale heterogeneity under study, embodying the characteristic material heterogeneities. To this aim, several RVEs geometries have been proposed, to account for different periodic and non-periodic patterns of masonry (Fig. 14).
Given the mechanical complexity of masonry, in terms, for example, of anisotropy, a very wide family of continuum approaches rely on homogenization procedures and multi-scale approaches [176]. Basically, three main families of approaches could be distinguished (Fig. 15):
-
(1)
A priori homogenization approaches (Fig. 15a), which typically rely into two steps: in the first step, (a priori) RVE-based homogenization is performed to deduce the mechanical properties of the structural-scale material; the second step relies into the introduction in the structural-scale model of the homogenized mechanical properties.
-
(2)
Step-by-step multi-scale approaches (Fig. 15b), in which the overall behavior at the structural scale is step-by-step determined by solving a boundary value problem (BVP) on the RVE for each integration point of the structural-scale model. In this way, an estimation of the expected average response to be used as constitutive relations in the structural-scale model is step-by-step obtained. In these approaches, the heterogeneity of masonry is not directly accounted for in the structural-scale model, being explicitly accounted for into the material-scale RVE.
-
(3)
Adaptive multi-scale approaches (Fig. 15c), in which the material-scale model is adaptively inserted and resolved on the structural-scale model, thus establishing a strong coupling between the two scales.
6.2.1 A Priori Homogenization Approaches
A priori homogenization approaches typically consists of two steps: in the first step the mechanical properties are deduced through an homogenization process, and in the second step homogenized properties are introduced in the structural scale model. However, most of the solutions provided in the literature focused on the first step, while only few approaches dealt with both steps.
The deduction of homogenized constitutive laws for the analysis of heterogeneous quasi-brittle materials, such as masonry, can be based on closed-form (analytical), quasi-analytical, and numerical methods.
A pioneering contribution on the mathematical description of the macroscopic behavior of brick masonry has been given in [180]. Successively, Anthoine [171] rigorously derived the in-plane elastic characteristics of masonry through homogenization theory. Briccoli Bati et al. [181] applied a material-scale model for the determination of the overall linear elastic mechanical properties of a simple texture of brick masonry. In the framework of the Cosserat continuum models, Masiani and Trovalusci [182] studied the case of 2D periodic rigid block assemblies joined by linear elastic mortar joints, deducing the structural-scale model characterization of the equivalent medium by equating the virtual stress power of the coarse model with the virtual power of the internal actions of the discrete fine model. An extension to the 3D case has been analyzed in [183]. Further approaches for the derivation of homogenized elastic properties of masonry can be found in [173, 183,184,185,186,188].
Other approaches, beyond the definition of elastic properties, attempted to derive masonry strength domains (both in-plane and out-of-plane) [189]. For example, in [190], a structural-scale strength criterion for in-plane masonry response is derived through a continuum model. Zucchini and Lourenço [191, 192] derived both elastic moduli and failure surfaces through a linear and nonlinear homogenization procedures. Wei and Hao [193] develop a continuum damage model for masonry accounting for the strain rate effect, using a homogenization theory implemented in a numerical algorithm. Stefanou et al. [174] provided a straightforward methodology for the estimation in closed-form of the overall strength domain of an in-plane loaded masonry wall by accounting for the failure of its bricks.
Most of the existing models for masonry concerned periodic material-scale textures. Cecchi and Sab [194] analyzed non-periodic masonries, typical of historic buildings, by means of a perturbation approach, while Cavalagli et al. [172, 195] used a random media material-scale approach.
Moreover, several approaches for the derivation of the homogenized failure surfaces for masonry have been based on FE limit analysis [175, 195,196,197,198,200]. For example, in [196] a simple material scale model for the homogenized limit analysis of in-plane loaded masonry has been proposed. In particular, a linear optimization problem is derived on the RVE in order to recover the homogenized failure surface of the brickwork, under plane stress conditions. One of the main benefits of these approaches relies on the fact that, once homogenized the masonry properties in terms of elastic moduli and strength domain (so, they are a priori defined), they can be directly implemented in structural-scale models (Fig. 16), to solve real case studies [201, 202].
The same benefit can be observed in RBSM approaches [177, 202,203,205], where the linear and nonlinear properties of the springs between rigid elements, which do not represent the actual masonry bond, can be a priori homogenized (Fig. 17). Once determined the homogenized properties, they can be directly used for structural applications [177].
6.2.2 Step-by-Step Multi-scale Approaches
Plenty of step-by-step multi-scale approaches can be found in the scientific literature, which may differ in terms of:
-
Continuum type adopted in the structural-scale model (Cauchy continuum, Cosserat continuum, etc);
-
Type of homogenization procedure (first or second order computational homogenizations, transformation field analysis (TFA), etc);
-
Type of modeling of the RVE (i.e. modeling strategy adopted for the material-scale model, e.g. block-based models).
These approaches typically rely on step-by-step and point-by-point transitions between the structural-scale model and the material-scale model, and vice-versa. Multi-scale computational homogenization methods are traditionally implemented within the FEM framework and, so, also called FE\(^2\) approaches. Most of these approaches are based on FE first-order homogenization schemes.
In this context, Cauchy continuum models have been classically adopted in structural-scale models, which are recovered applying periodic homogenization techniques for the simulation of in-plane behavior of masonry structures (Fig. 15b).
A pioneering computational homogenization method has been proposed by Papa [206], where a unilateral damage model for masonry based on a homogenization procedure has been developed, and by Luciano and Sacco [207, 208], where a damage model for periodic masonry has been developed from a material-scale heterogeneity analysis. Around that time, Gambarotta and Lagomarsino [209] considered an equivalent stratified medium made up of mortar joints and brick units layers, adopting the damage constitutive laws both for the bricks and the mortar joints developed in [62]. Successively, a continuum framework has been developed for modeling of inelastic behavior of structural masonry in [210]. This formulation incorporated the anisotropic material characteristics and addressed both stages of the deformation process, i.e. those associated with homogeneous as well as localized deformation mode. Calderini and Lagormarsino [211] obtained homogenized in-plane constitutive equations, in terms of mean-stress and mean-strain. Different in-plane damage mechanisms have been considered, being the damage process governed by evolution laws based on an energetic approach and on a non-associated Coulomb friction law. Later, Zucchini and Lourenço [212] proposed an improved material-scale model for masonry homogenization in the nonlinear domain, incorporating suitably chosen deformation mechanisms coupled with damage and plasticity models.
Sacco [213] proposed a multi-scale procedure based on a micromechanical analysis of the damaging process of the mortar material, assuming linear elastic blocks. In this case, a nonlinear homogenization procedure based on TFA has been proposed, making use of the superposition of the effects and the FE method. An improvement of this approach has been developed by Marfia and Sacco [214], where an extension of the TFA-based homogenization procedure to the case of nonuniform eigenstrain, as well as the use of nonlinear behavior of blocks in the material-scale model has been implemented.
In first-order computational homogenization schemes, where the formulation relies on the first gradient of the kinematics field, two main limitations could arise.
The first limitation is linked to the principle of separation of scales, which enforces the assumption of uniformity upon the structural-scale fields attributed to each RVE. Indeed, this assumption is not totally effective in structural-scale parts where high deformation gradients are present in the relative RVE.
The second limitation derives from the cohesive (quasi-brittle) response of masonry, i.e. due to the fact that softening effects arise in the stress-strain relationships. Being the characteristic lengths of the structural- and material-scales non-intrinsically accounted for in classical Cauchy continuum models, mesh-sensitivity issues tend to arise when material softening behavior appears. In order to overcome such a drawback, nonlocal approaches, higher-order continuum models, as well as regularization processes can be adopted to guarantee problem objectivity.
A simple way to overcome localization problems consists in following a regularization process, for example, in terms of fracture energy. A classical first order computational homogenization together with a regularization procedure based on the fracture energy of the material-scale model has been proposed in [178]. In this approach, a generalized geometrical characteristic length takes into account the size of the structural-scale element as well as the size of the RVE, ensuring objectivity of the dissipated energy at the structural-scale.
Massart et al. [215] proposed an enhanced multi-scale model using nonlocal implicit gradient isotropic damage models for both the constituents, describing the damage preferential orientations and employing at the macroscopic scale an embedded band model.
A second-order computational homogenization of periodic masonry has been proposed by Bacigalupo and Gambarotta [216, 217]. This computational procedure has been derived assuming an appropriate representation of the material-scale displacement field as the superposition of a local structural-scale displacement field and an unknown material-scale fluctuation field accounting for the effects of the heterogeneities.
Other approaches have been based on the adoption of Cosserat continuum models at the structural-scale. Generally, this allowed to account for a internal length of the material and to overcome localization problems [218]. Salerno and de Felice [219] investigated on the accuracy of various identification schemes for Cauchy and Cosserat continua, showing that micro-polar continuum better reproduces the discrete solutions, in the case of non-periodic deformation states, due to its capability to take scale effects into account. Alternatively, Casolo [220] considered isotropic linear elastic models both for the brick and the mortar and used a computational approach to identify the homogenized elastic tensor of the equivalent Cosserat medium. In addition, Addessi et al. [221] developed a structural-scale Cosserat continuum, which automatically accounts for the absolute size of the masonry components, derived by a rational homogenization procedure based on TFA. Another homogenization method for the Cosserat continuum has been presented by De Bellis and Addessi [222]. Finally, Addessi and Sacco [223] developed a nonlinear constitutive law for the material-scale model, which includes damage, friction, crushing and unilateral contact effects for the mortar joints. The nonlinear homogenization has been performed employing the TFA technique, properly extended to the structural-scale Cosserat continuum.
Although the multi-scale approaches mentioned earlier where focused on the in-plane response of masonry walls, also the out-of-plane analysis of masonry structures is an interesting issue, especially from a earthquake engineering point of view. To this aim, Mercatoris and Massart [224] presented a multi-scale framework for the failure of periodic quasi-brittle thin planar shells, using a shear-enhanced element with the Reissner- Mindlin description and employing it for the failure of out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Furthermore, a computational homogenization approach for the analysis of general heterogeneous thick shell structures, with special focus on periodic brick-masonry walls has been proposed in [225].
A very efficient multilevel approach has been developed by Brasile et al. [226, 227]. Although this approach could be considered borderline in a multi-scale framework (being rather a multilevel approach), the strategy proposed in [226, 227] is based on an iterative scheme which uses two different (local and global) masonry models simultaneously. The former is a fine block-based model and describes the nonlinear mechanical response including damage evolution and friction toughness phenomena. The latter is a linearized FE approximation of the previous model, defined at the rough scale of the wall and used to accelerate the iteration. The proposed iterative scheme proved to be efficient and robust for in-plane nonlinear analysis of masonry façades.
6.2.3 Adaptive Multi-scale Approaches
A second multi-scale strategy (CMM) consists in the use of the so-called adaptive multi-scale methods [179, 227,228,230] (Fig. 15c). In these approaches, a first-order homogenized model initially represents the masonry response until a threshold criterion is reached. For instance, such a criterion could be able to account for the onset of damage propagation. After reaching the threshold, the area of interest is replaced by an heterogeneous material-scale description able to represent the high localized deformation without the mesh-dependency of the first-order theory.
7 Macroelement Models
In macroelement models (Fig. 18), the structure is idealized into panel-scale structural components with a phenomenological or mechanical-based nonlinear response. Typically, two main structural components may be identified: piers and spandrels.
These approaches are mainly focused on the analysis of the global seismic response of masonry buildings. Indeed, macroelement models are generally based on the assumption that any activation of local failure mode, mainly associated with the out-of-plane response of masonry walls, is prevented [231]. In this framework, the global seismic response is, therefore, strictly related either to the in-plane capacity of walls or to the load transfer due to the presence of diaphragms. In these approaches, global analyses (incremental-iterative static and/or dynamic) are typically conducted on 3D models, to account for load transfer between the bearing walls due to an horizontal action.
In these modeling approaches, the structural components (piers and spandrels) need to be a priori identified, on the basis of damage observations on real buildings. Indeed, earthquake-damage observations showed that cracks and damages are usually concentrated in piers and spandrels. Piers are the vertical resisting elements which carry either vertical or horizontal loads. Conversely, spandrels are the horizontal parts of the structure between two vertically aligned openings, which couple the response of contiguous piers when horizontally loaded. Although the identification of masonry piers and spandrels [231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,240] may result easy and rather trivial in case of masonry façades with regularly distributed openings (e.g. for regular ordinary masonry structures, see Fig. 1b), it becomes more complex in case of irregularly arranged openings, being substantially impossible for very complex geometries (e.g. for historic monumental masonry structures, see Fig. 1a).
Macroelement models are the most widely diffused modeling strategies particularly for the seismic assessment of masonry structures, substantially the only one used by practitioners. Indeed, their very limited computational effort (also in case of 3D structures), coupled with the easy and quick definition of the model and mechanical properties, leaded their widespread dissemination.
However, being the macroelement models one of the most simplified approaches to analyze masonry structures (Fig. 2), they present, together with their manageable computational effort, also some drawbacks. In particular, they usually assume that any activation of local (out-of-plane) failure mode is prevented. This decoupling assumption, although local failure modes can be separately assessed through kinematic limit analysis (see Sect. 8.2), could lead to conventional estimate of the seismic capacity, as in reality out-of-plane and in-plane damages can simultaneously arise [51]. Additionally, macroelement models cannot meticulously account for structural details, such as the toothing between orthogonal walls. Finally, the a priori idealization of the structure in piers and spandrels could lead to the definition of a mechanical system that could be far from the actual one, particularly for the case of very irregular opening layouts. Therefore, a certain level of expertise is anyway requested to the analyst.
Although most of macroelement models are equivalent beam-based [241], several spring-based approaches have also been recently developed. Either equivalent beam-based or spring-based approaches (Fig. 18) are reviewed in the following.
7.1 Equivalent Beam-Based Approaches
The idealization of masonry panels as nonlinear beams represent the most common assumption in the so-called “equivalent frame models”. A pioneering equivalent beam-based model has been proposed by Tomaževič [242]. The so-called POR method [242] was based on crude mechanical assumptions, i.e. in-plane damage for horizontally loaded masonry façades was only due to shear forces in the piers, while both spandrels and nodal regions were considered rigid and fully resistant. This simple mechanical description, based on simplified elasto-plastic relationships to describe beam nonlinearity, provided sufficient reliability only in the case of buildings with weak piers and strong spandrels. Successively enhancements were presented in [235], implementing the flexibility and the limited strength of masonry spandrels.
Other more advanced equivalent beam-based models [242,243,244,245,246,247,249] proposed the idealization the masonry structure as an assemblage of pier and spandrel beam elements, linked by rigid links (Fig. 18) which represent the nodes between piers and spandrels (i.e. zones in which seismic damage is rarely observable). These models rely on the phenomenological nonlinear elasto-plastic constitutive laws adopted for the beam elements.
Later, Grande et al. [250] proposed a simple beam FE for the nonlinear analysis of masonry structures, based on three parts: two rigid offsets, able to simulate the very stiff behavior of the masonry pier-lintel intersections, and a flexible central part. Furthermore, special shear interfaces were also introduced in the model to account for the shear failure. Another 2-node force-based beam FE has been formulated in [251], where the resultant stress components were exactly interpolated along the beam axis, performing analytical integration (without resorting to a fiber approach). The beam FE was composed of a central flexible element, characterized by a no-tension constitutive relationship, and a lumped nonlinear shear hinge. A further beam FE has been proposed in [252], where both flexural and shear plastic lumped hinges were inserted at the two nodes of the beam, following a classical elastic-plastic constitutive relationship. Finally, Liberatore and Addessi [253] developed a 2-node force-based beam FE consisting of a central linear elastic element, two flexural hinges and a shear link with elastic-perfectly plastic behavior, determined by a predictor-corrector method.
A 2D nonlinear beam with lumped plasticity that assumes a bi-linear relation with cut-off in strength (without hardening) and stiffness decay in the nonlinear phase has been proposed in [236], as implemented in the Tremuri software [254]. Being the latter particularly efficient for monotonic actions, more recently the formulation of this nonlinear beam has been refined by Cattari and Lagomarsino [255] through a piecewise-linear behavior. In particular, such refined constitutive law allows the description of the nonlinear response until very severe damage levels (from 1 to 5), through progressive strength degradation in correspondence of assigned values of drift.
The model includes also an accurate description of the hysteretic response formulated through a phenomenological approach, to capture the differences among the various possible failure modes (flexural type, shear type or even hybrid) and the different response of piers and spandrels, which revealed particularly efficient in performing nonlinear dynamic analyses [256].
Finally, a very advanced equivalent beam-based macroelement has been recently proposed by Raka et al. [257] for the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of masonry buildings. The beam formulation considered axial, bending, and shear deformations within the framework of the Timoshenko beam theory. In particular, a phenomenological cyclic law for the beam section, accounting for the shear panel response, has been coupled with a fiber-based model that accounts for the axial and bending responses. Although the model accuracy is strongly dependent on the fiber and shear constitutive laws adopted, the formulation proposed in [257] is general and versatile.
7.2 Spring-Based Approaches
Alternatively to the use of equivalent beam elements, several macroelement models have been formulated by implementing nonlinear springs (Fig. 18), within a fictitious frame, to approximate the in-plane nonlinear response of masonry walls and façades.
A pioneering application of a spring-based macroelement model has been presented in [258], adapting a model with nonlinear shear springs in series with rotational springs originally developed, in the 1980s, for the in-plane analysis of reinforced concrete walls. The proposed formulation for the analysis of masonry structures included an axial spring, three shear springs, and two rotational springs to simulate the axial, bed joint sliding, diagonal tension, and rocking/toe crushing failure modes experimentally observed on masonry pier tests.
In [259] and [260] a two-node element capable to represent the in-plane cyclic behavior of a whole masonry panels has been proposed aimed to describe both the shear behavior and the coupled axial-flexural one at the two nodes thanks to a bed of spring and two additional internal degree of freedom. In particular, the shear stress-strain cyclic relation has been derived by the macroscopic integration of the continuum model developed in [209]. Some aspects of this original formulation were further improved by Penna et al. [261] including a nonlinear degrading model for rocking damage, which permits to keep into account the effect of limited compressive strength. The latter model has also been implemented in the Tremuri software [236].
An interesting advance in the context of spring-based macroelement models has been developed by Caliò et al. [262], where piers and spandrels where idealized through equivalent discrete elements made of nonlinear springs to simulate the in-plane nonlinear response of masonry walls. The basic panel element is represented by an articulated quadrilateral constituted by four rigid edges connected by four hinges and two diagonal nonlinear springs. Each side of the panel can interact with other panels by means of a discrete distribution of nonlinear springs. The reliability of the proposed approach has been evaluated by means of nonlinear incremental-iterative static analyses performed on masonry structures. In [262] (and also in [263] for infilled frame structures), such a modeling approach has been used to directly represent piers and spandrels through basic panel elements. Nevertheless, given the versatility of the approach, such a modeling strategy has been used in [169, 170, 264] to simulate the masonry material response (and, so, not only the structural components response), see Sect. 6.1.
Another spring-based approach has been presented in [265], where each structural component has been described through multi-spring nonlinear elements connected by rigid links. In particular, nonlinear springs were placed at the two ends of the piers and spandrels for describing the flexural behavior and in the middle for representing the response in shear. The other parts were constituted of rigid links. Specific hysteretic rules for the degradation of stiffness and strength were also used for modeling the structural response under cyclic loading.
Aghababaie Mobarake et al. [266] proposed a basic panel element made-up of six sub-elements including upper and lower rigid beams and right, left (bilateral) and X-bracing nonlinear trusses, with four nonlinear zero-length sub-elements between the upper and lower beams and truss sub-elements. Each pier, spandrel and node between them is idealized by using a single proposed basic panel element. The approach proposed in [266] provided a rather simple and efficient platform for nonlinear static and dynamic analyses by considering the in-plane behavior of masonry panels.
Finally, a very recent and simplified solution has been presented by Xu et al. [267], where the masonry façade is considered as an integral unit, rather than composed of independent piers and spandrels. According to the strategy proposed in [267], the masonry façade is modeled by means of two vertical springs and a horizontal nonlinear spring that governs the wall shear response. The hysteretic behavior is governed by a group of control parameters, that depend on the distribution of openings and/or confining elements as well as on the dimensions, material properties and boundary conditions of the façade. The extremely simplified modeling strategy proposed in [267] could represent a complementary approach for the analysis of masonry structures subjected to horizontal cyclic loadings.
8 Geometry-Based Models
In geometry-based models, the structure is modeled as a rigid body. The geometry of the structure substantially represents the only input of these modeling strategies, beyond the definition of the loading condition. These approaches typically investigate the structural equilibrium and/or collapse through limit analysis-based solutions (Fig. 19), which can be based on either static or kinematic theorems. Although typically based on limit analysis and on the Heyman’s rigid no-tension model [40], these approaches have been formulated following several innovative solutions.
8.1 Static Theorem-Based Approaches
As shown by Heyman in [40], applications of the static theorem of limit analysis on real masonry structures were possible by simple graphic statics [40, 42]. Particularly, static theorem-based approaches (Fig. 19) appear specially suitable for the investigation of the equilibrium states in masonry arches, vaults and domes (i.e. masonry vaulted structures). In general, these approaches can provide the range of possible equilibrium states of the vaulted structure, bounded between two extreme equilibrium conditions.
A first computational development for the equilibrium analysis of masonry vaults has been proposed by O’Dwyer [268], where, after the decomposition of the vault into an optimized system of arches in equilibrium, a procedure for the application of the static theorem to vaults and domes has been presented. Another computational approach, called funicular model, for the assessment of masonry structures based on the well-known analogy between the equilibrium of arches and that of hanging strings has been presented in [269]. Further, a computational tool for the real-time limit analysis of 2D vaulted masonry structures has been presented by Block et al. [270].
An innovative approach for the equilibrium analysis of vaulted masonry structures, called thrust network analysis (TNA), has been proposed by Block and Ochsendorf [271]. The TNA method, based on a duality between geometry and in-plane forces in networks, finds possible funicular solutions under gravitational loading within a defined envelope, generating compression-only vaulted surfaces and networks. In this way, the range of possible equilibrium states of the vault, bounded by a minimum and maximum thrust, can be obtained. A nonlinear extension of TNA has been presented in [272] for the application on Gothic masonry vaults, while in [273] TNA is extended with the use of structural matrix analysis and efficient optimization strategies. Finally, an extension of TNA with joints consideration has been provided in [274].
Another interesting thrust network approach has been developed by Fraternali [275], where the equilibrium problem of unreinforced masonry vaults is investigated through polyhedral stress functions. The masonry vault is conceived as a no-tension membrane carrying a discrete network of compressive singular stresses, through a non-conforming variational approximation of the continuous problem. The geometry of the thrust surface and the associated stress field are determined by means of a predictor-corrector procedure based on polyhedral approximations of the thrust surface and membrane stress potential. Another approach which considers masonry vaulted structures as unilateral membrane has been proposed by Angelillo et al. [276] and by Angelillo [277], where the discrete network of singular stresses has been defined basing on the Airy’s stress formulation [278].
Finally, a reformulation of the original version of the TNA [271] by discarding the dual grid and focusing only on the primal grid, thus significantly enhancing the computational performances, has been proposed by Marmo and Rosati [44]. In [44], TNA is also extended by including horizontal forces in the analysis as well as holes or free edges in the vault. A further application on masonry helical staircases has been presented in [279].
In summary, static theorem-based approaches appear particularly attractive for the assessment of the statical safety of masonry vaulted structures. Indeed, if compression-only networks can be found within the boundaries of a vault, then the vault will stand in compression. Moreover, if the solution lie within the middle third of the section, any tension (and, therefore, any hinges) will be present in the section. This easy and powerful concept for understanding the stability and proximity to collapse of such structures has been formerly expressed by Heyman [40]. However, only few of the above-mentioned approaches can account for horizontal actions (such as seismic actions [44]), and no one could account for the interaction with the bearing structures (e.g. bearing walls), whose deformations could induce damage and equilibrium changes in the vaulted structure, as evidenced in [280] for earthquake actions.
8.2 Kinematic Theorem-Based Approaches
Kinematic theorem-based limit analysis approaches have been widely used in the last decades for the fast and effective assessment of existing masonry buildings. Giuffrè [281] proposed a kinematic limit analysis approach for studying the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings based on their decomposition into rigid blocks, following failure mechanisms actually observed in existing masonry buildings in Italy. Given the simplicity and effectiveness of the approach proposed by Giuffrè, it has been adopted in the Italian code [25, 281,282,284]. Figure 20 shows few examples of collapse mechanisms to be accounted for in the seismic assessment of masonry churches through kinematic limit analysis, from [25]. Kinematic linear and nonlinear (in which the displacement capacity of the structure until collapse is also evaluated) are commonly used in the professional practice for the safety assessment of existing masonry buildings [283].
Basically, in all these cases, the collapse mechanisms to be analyzed are a priori determined, on the basis of recurring failure mechanisms actually observed. However, in the context of static theorem-based approaches, the collapse multiplier evaluated in this way is not necessarily the lower one, given, for instance, peculiar features of the geometry of the structure.
To this aim, more advanced computational static theorem-based approaches have been developed to precisely evaluate the collapse multiplier and the collapse mechanism of masonry structures (Fig. 19). Milani [285] developed a simple discontinuous upper bound limit analysis approach with sequential linear programming mesh adaptation to analyze the actual failure mechanisms of masonry double curvature structures. Very recently, Chiozzi et al. [45] proposed a genetic algorithm for the limit analysis of masonry vaults based on an upper bound formulation. Given a masonry vault geometry, that can be represented by a non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) parametric surface, and a NURBS mesh of the given surface, each element of the mesh is a NURBS surface itself and can be idealized as a rigid body. The initial mesh is adjusted by means of a genetic algorithm in order to enforce that element edges accurately represent the actual failure mechanism. This approach has also been validated for the out-of-plane collapse behavior of masonry walls [286]. Finally, an automatic upper bound adaptive limit analysis program for masonry churches, called UB-ALMANAC, has been proposed in [29]. A NURBS mesh is directly prepared within a CAD environment based on the 3D geometrical model of the whole church. Limit analysis is then performed automatically under the desired horizontal loads distribution, using the kinematic theorem of limit analysis with dissipation allowed only along interfaces and progressive adaptation of the mesh through a genetic algorithm, leading to a quick estimation of the first activating failure mechanism and the most vulnerable part of the church.
Although these approaches cannot provide the displacement capacity of a masonry structures, they are very powerful for the fast and effective evaluation of the main vulnerabilities of a masonry building.
9 Conclusions
In this paper, a comprehensive review of the existing modeling strategies for masonry structures, as well as a classification of these strategies, has been presented. The classification of modeling strategies for masonry structures consisted of four categories (Fig. 2): block-based models, continuum models, macroelement models, and geometry-based models. Although a fully coherent collocation of all the modeling approaches was substantially impossible due to the peculiar features of each solution proposed, this classification attempted to make some order on the wide scientific production on this field.
From the comprehensive review of modeling strategies for masonry structures carried out in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:
-
Block-based models could represent the most accurate strategy to analyze the mechanical response of masonry structures. Several applications showed the potentialities of BBM to investigate the structural behavior of large-scale structures (specifically for contact-based approaches), with irregular and complex geometries as well. However, although the area of application of BBM appears theoretically large, their high computational demand currently limits their employment to very important case studies and academic works. Anyway, they could be adopted to gain in-depth insights on specific features of the mechanics of masonry structures, and to provide reference solutions for more simplified approaches (e.g. MM).
-
Continuum models represent widely used solutions for the structural analysis of masonry buildings. Concerning direct approaches, isotropic smeared crack and plastic-damage constitutive laws have been widely used for the structural assessment of historic monumental structures. Indeed, these approaches often represent the only suitable strategy to deal with such complex structures. However, the results obtained should be carefully interpreted, as they could sensibly overestimate, for example, the ultimate displacement capacity. Although no-tension continuum approaches seem to fail in a proper mechanical analysis of masonry structures, other simplified approaches, such as homogenized FE limit analysis and homogenized discrete approaches, appear particularly suitable for the structural assessment of full-scale masonry structures, even though the difficulties in the homogenization processes. Concerning multi-scale approaches, although very smart solutions have been proposed, they present some limitations. In particular, most of them have been tested only on 2D panel-scale masonry structures, with very few exceptions. Eventually, the so called FE\(^2\) methods appears computational demanding. Indeed, although theoretically more efficient than BBM, the fact that their are usually implemented in homemade codes sensibly limits their efficiency and optimization. So far, no example of 3D computational homogenization method exists, being all the approaches developed in the last decades limited to 2D problems. Furthermore, being these approaches based on the mechanical response of the periodic RVE, the possibility of accurately representing specific structural details appears rather limited.
-
Macroelement models mostly represent the only modeling strategy manageable by practitioners for seismic assessments of masonry buildings. Nevertheless, their reliability should be further improved by accounting for structural details (e.g. toothing between orthogonal walls) and the interaction between out-of-plane and in-plane damages. Also, further enhancements should concern ad hoc developments of spandrel macroelements, as, so far, the calibration of the models is based almost entirely on experimental tests of piers elements. Anyway, MM are limited to the seismic assessment of ordinary masonry structures.
-
Geometry-based models, although typically based on limit analysis solutions, can provide very useful outcomes. On the one hand, static theorem-based computational approaches represent effective solutions (substantially the only ones) for the investigation of the equilibrium states (and, therefore, the safety) in masonry vaulted structures. On the other hand, static theorem-based computational approaches appear especially suitable to predict the collapse mechanism (and the collapse multiplier) in complex masonry structures. These results, although non-comprehensive, represent a fundamental information in the mechanical analysis of masonry structures.
In summary, although significant advances have been made in the context of modeling strategies for masonry structures, each computational solution shows peculiar limitations and a specific area of application. Therefore, the choice of the most suitable modeling strategy should be formulated depending on the features and the complexity of the structure under investigation, the output required, the data available, and the expertise level.
Finally, the use of 3D models, which can represent the 3D features of a masonry structure, appears particularly indicated for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings to account for the geometric irregularities and the structural details which usually characterize ordinary and monumental buildings.
References
Como M (2013) Statics of historic masonry constructions. Springer, Berlin
Hendry AW (1998) Structural masonry. Macmillan Education, London
Page A (1981) The biaxial compressive strength of brick masonry. Proc Inst Civ Eng 71(3):893–906
Page A, Samarasinghe W, Hendry A (1982) The in-plane failure of masonry. A review. Proc Br Ceram Soc 30:90
Page A (1983) The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tension-compression. Int J Mason Constr 3(1):26–31
Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(11):1091–1112
Calderini C, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2009) In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(2):243–267
Beyer K (2012) Peak and residual strengths of brick masonry spandrels. Eng Struct 41:533–547
Petry S, Beyer K (2014) Influence of boundary conditions and size effect on the drift capacity of URM walls. Eng Struct 65:76–88
Messali F, Rots J (2018) In-plane drift capacity at near collapse of rocking unreinforced calcium silicate and clay masonry piers. Eng Struct 164:183–194
D’Altri AM, de Miranda S, Castellazzi G, Sarhosis V (2018) A 3D detailed micro-model for the in-plane and out-of-plane numerical analysis of masonry panels. Comput Struct 206:18–30
Facconi L, Minelli F, Vecchio FJ (2018) Predicting uniaxial cyclic compressive behavior of brick masonry: new analytical model. J Struct Eng 144(2):04017213
Sassoni E, Mazzotti C, Pagliai G (2014) Comparison between experimental methods for evaluating the compressive strength of existing masonry buildings. Constr Build Mater 68:206–219
Kržan M, Gostič S, Cattari S, Bosiljkov V (2015) Acquiring reference parameters of masonry for the structural performance analysis of historical buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):203–236
Esposito R, Messali F, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Rots JG (2019) Seismic assessment of a lab-tested two-storey unreinforced masonry Dutch terraced house. Bull Earthq Eng 17(8):4601–4623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00572-w
Messali F, Esposito R, Jafari S, Ravenshorst G, Korswagen P, Rots JG (2018) A multiscale experimental characterization of dutch unreinforced masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 16ECEE
Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M, Speranzini E (2011) Shear behavior of unreinforced and reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests. Constr Build Mater 25(12):4403–4414
Lumantarna R, Biggs DT, Ingham JM (2014) Compressive, flexural bond, and shear bond strengths of in situ New Zealand unreinforced clay brick masonry constructed using lime mortar between the 1880s and 1940s. J Mater Civ Eng 26(4):559–566
McCann D, Forde M (2001) Review of NDT methods in the assessment of concrete and masonry structures. NDT & E Int 34(2):71–84
Bosiljkov V, Bokan-Bosiljkov V, Strah B, Velkavr J, Cotič P (2010) Review of innovative techniques for the knowledge of cultural assets (geometry, technologies, decay). PERPETUATE (EC-FP7 project), Deliverable D6
Borri A, Corradi M, Castori G, De Maria A (2015) A method for the analysis and classification of historic masonry. Bull Earthq Eng 13(9):2647–2665
Tondelli M, Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2012) Evaluation of uncertainties in the seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings. J Earthq Eng 16(sup1):36–64
Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage, International scientific committee for analysis and restoration of structures of architectural heritage, ratified as ICOMOS document by the General Assembly in Zimbabwe (2003)
Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Brussels, Belgium (2005)
Direttiva del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 9 febbraio 2011. Valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale con riferimento alle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al D.M. 14/01/2008
Guide for the structural rehabilitation of heritage buildings, prepared by CIB commission W023—Wall structures (2010)
Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Bosiljkov V, D’Ayala D (2015) Sensitivity analysis for setting up the investigation protocol and defining proper confidence factors for masonry buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):129–151
Haddad J, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2019) Sensitivity and preliminary analyses for the seismic assessment of Ardinghelli Palace. In: Structural analysis of historical constructions. Springer, Berlin, pp 2412–2421
Chiozzi A, Grillanda N, Milani G, Tralli A (2018) UB-ALMANAC: an adaptive limit analysis NURBS-based program for the automatic assessment of partial failure mechanisms in masonry churches. Eng Fail Anal 85:201–220
Castellazzi G, D’Altri A, Bitelli G, Selvaggi I, Lambertini A (2015) From laser scanning to finite element analysis of complex buildings by using a semi-automatic procedure. Sensors 15(8):18360–18380
Castellazzi G, D’Altri AM, de Miranda S, Ubertini F (2017) An innovative numerical modeling strategy for the structural analysis of historical monumental buildings. Eng Struct 132:229–248
Korumaz M, Betti M, Conti A, Tucci G, Bartoli G, Bonora V, Korumaz AG, Fiorini L (2017) An integrated terrestrial laser scanner (TLS), deviation analysis (DA) and finite element (FE) approach for health assessment of historical structures. A minaret case study. Eng Struct 153:224–238
D’Altri AM, Milani G, de Miranda S, Castellazzi G, Sarhosis V (2018) Stability analysis of leaning historic masonry structures. Autom Constr 92:199–213
Cerone M, Croci G, Viskovic A (2000) The structural behaviour of colosseum over the centuries. In: More than two thousand years in the history of architecture
Macchi G, Ruggeri G, Eusebio M, Moncecchi M (1993) Structural assessment of the leaning tower of pisa. In: IABSE reports. IABSE Internationa Association for Bridge, pp 401–401
DeJong MJ, Belletti B, Hendriks MA, Rots JG (2009) Shell elements for sequentially linear analysis: lateral failure of masonry structures. Eng Struct 31(7):1382–1392
Rots JG, Belletti B, Invernizzi S (2008) Robust modeling of RC structures with an “event-by-event” strategy. Eng Fract Mech 75(3–4):590–614
Reddy JN (2004) An introduction to nonlinear finite element analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Clough RW, Penzien J (2003) Dynamics of Structures, (revised). Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif
Heyman J (1966) The stone skeleton. Int J Solids Struct 2(2):249–279
Angelillo M (ed) (2014) Mechanics of masonry structures. Springer, Vienna
Huerta S (2001) Mechanics of masonry vaults: The equilibrium approach. SAHC 2001
Giuffrè A, Carocci C (1993) Statica e dinamica delle costruzioni murarie storiche. pp 539–598
Marmo F, Rosati L (2017) Reformulation and extension of the thrust network analysis. Comput Struct 182:104–118
Chiozzi A, Milani G, Tralli A (2017) A genetic algorithm NURBS-based new approach for fast kinematic limit analysis of masonry vaults. Comput Struct 182:187–204
Bauer S, Lackner R (2015) Gradient-based adaptive discontinuity layout optimization for the prediction of strength properties in matrix-inclusion materials. Int J Solids Struct 63:82–98
Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Progress Struct Eng Mater 4(3):301–319
Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G, Pela’ L (2010) Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17(3):299–325
Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47
Page AW (1978) Finite element model for masonry. J Struct Div 104(8):1267–1285
Dolatshahi KM, Yekrangnia M (2015) Out-of-plane strength reduction of unreinforced masonry walls because of in-plane damages. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(13):2157–2176
Minga E, Macorini L, Izzuddin BA (2018) A 3D mesoscale damage-plasticity approach for masonry structures under cyclic loading. Meccanica 53(7):1591–1611
D’Altri AM, Messali F, Rots J, Castellazzi G, de Miranda S (2019) A damaging block-based model for the analysis of the cyclic behaviour of full-scale masonry structures. Eng Fract Mech 209:423–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.046
Lotfi HR, Shing PB (1994) Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures. J Struct Eng 120(1):63–80
Rots J (1991) Numerical simulation of cracking in structural masonry. Heron 36(2):49–63
Rots JG (1997) Structural masonry: an experimental/numerical basis for practical design rules. AA Balkema, Leiden
Lourenço PB, Rots JG (1997) Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. J Eng Mech 123(7):660–668
Sandoval C, Arnau O (2016) Experimental characterization and detailed micro-modeling of multi-perforated clay brick masonry structural response. Mater Struct 50(1):34
Calderón S, Sandoval C, Arnau O (2017) Shear response of partially-grouted reinforced masonry walls with a central opening: testing and detailed micro-modelling. Mater Des 118:122–137
Senthivel R, Lourenço P (2009) Finite element modelling of deformation characteristics of historical stone masonry shear walls. Eng Struct 31(9):1930–1943
Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB (2004) Implementation and validation of a constitutive model for the cyclic behaviour of interface elements. Comput Struct 82(17–19):1451–1461
Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S (1997) Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part I: the mortar joint model and its applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(4):423–439
Alfano G, Sacco E (2006) Combining interface damage and friction in a cohesive-zone model. Int J Numer Methods Eng 68(5):542–582
Parrinello F, Failla B, Borino G (2009) Cohesive–frictional interface constitutive model. Int J Solids Struct 46(13):2680–2692
Formica G, Sansalone V, Casciaro R (2002) A mixed solution strategy for the nonlinear analysis of brick masonry walls. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(51–52):5847–5876
Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2018) Using the applied element method for modelling calcium silicate brick masonry subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(7):1610–1630
Casolo S (2000) Modelling the out-of-plane seismic behaviour of masonry walls by rigid elements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(12):1797–1813
Orduña A (2017) Non-linear static analysis of rigid block models for structural assessment of ancient masonry constructions. Int J Solids Struct 128:23–35
Baraldi D, Cecchi A (2016) Discrete approaches for the nonlinear analysis of in plane loaded masonry walls: molecular dynamic and static algorithm solutions. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 57:165–177
Baraldi D, Cecchi A (2017) A full 3D rigid block model for the collapse behaviour of masonry walls. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 64:11–28
Macorini L, Izzuddin B (2011) A non-linear interface element for 3D mesoscale analysis of brick-masonry structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 85(12):1584–1608
Chisari C, Macorini L, Amadio C, Izzuddin B (2015) An inverse analysis procedure for material parameter identification of mortar joints in unreinforced masonry. Comput Struct 155:97–105
Chisari C, Macorini L, Amadio C, Izzuddin BA (2018) Identification of mesoscale model parameters for brick-masonry. Int J Solids Struct 146:224–240
Minga E, Macorini L, Izzuddin B (2018) Enhanced mesoscale partitioned modelling of heterogeneous masonry structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 113(13):1950–1971
Zhang Y, Macorini L, Izzuddin BA (2016) Mesoscale partitioned analysis of brick-masonry arches. Eng Struct 124:142–166
Aref AJ, Dolatshahi KM (2013) A three-dimensional cyclic meso-scale numerical procedure for simulation of unreinforced masonry structures. Comput Struct 120:9–23
Wilding BV, Dolatshahi KM, Beyer K (2017) Influence of load history on the force-displacement response of in-plane loaded unreinforced masonry walls. Eng Struct 152:671–682
Dolatshahi KM, Aref AJ (2016) Multi-directional response of unreinforced masonry walls: experimental and computational investigations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(9):1427–1449
Dolatshahi KM, Nikoukalam MT, Beyer K (2018) Numerical study on factors that influence the in-plane drift capacity of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(6):1440–1459
Kuang JS, Yuen Y (2013) Simulations of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frame failure. Proc Inst Civ Eng: Eng Comput Mech 166(4):179
Miglietta PC, Bentz EC, Grasselli G (2017) Finite/discrete element modelling of reversed cyclic tests on unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 138:159–169
Sarhosis V, Bagi K, Lemos JV, Milani G (2016) Computational modeling of masonry structures using the discrete element method. IGI Global, Pennsylvania
Cundall PA, Strack OD (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1):47–65
Cundall PA (1980) UDEC-A generalised distinct element program for modelling jointed rock., tech. rep., Cundall (Peter) Associates Virginia Water (England)
Çaktı E, Saygılı Ö, Lemos JV, Oliveira CS (2016) Discrete element modeling of a scaled masonry structure and its validation. Eng Struct 126:224–236
Papantonopoulos C, Psycharis I, Papastamatiou D, Lemos J, Mouzakis H (2002) Numerical prediction of the earthquake response of classical columns using the distinct element method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(9):1699–1717
Bui T, Limam A, Sarhosis V, Hjiaj M (2017) Discrete element modelling of the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of dry-joint masonry wall constructions. Eng Struct 136:277–294
Sarhosis V, Sheng Y (2014) Identification of material parameters for low bond strength masonry. Eng Struct 60:100–110
Lemos JV (2007) Discrete element modeling of masonry structures. Int J Archit Herit 1(2):190–213
Tóth AR, Orbán Z, Bagi K (2009) Discrete element analysis of a stone masonry arch. Mech Res Commun 36(4):469–480
Simon J, Bagi K (2016) Discrete element analysis of the minimum thickness of oval masonry domes. Int J Archit Herit 10(4):457–475
Forgács T, Sarhosis V, Bagi K (2017) Minimum thickness of semi-circular skewed masonry arches. Eng Struct 140:317–336
Lengyel G (2017) Discrete element analysis of gothic masonry vaults for self-weight and horizontal support displacement. Eng Struct 148:195–209
Foti D, Vacca V, Facchini I (2018) DEM modeling and experimental analysis of the static behavior of a dry-joints masonry cross vaults. Constr Build Mater 170:111–120
Shi G-H (1992) Discontinuous deformation analysis: a new numerical model for the statics and dynamics of deformable block structures. Eng Comput 9(2):157–168
Thavalingam A, Bicanic N, Robinson J, Ponniah D (2001) Computational framework for discontinuous modelling of masonry arch bridges. Comput Struct 79(19):1821–1830
Jean M (1999) The non-smooth contact dynamics method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 177(3–4):235–257
Moreau JJ (1988) Unilateral contact and dry friction in finite freedom dynamics. In: Nonsmooth Mech Appl. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–82
Rafiee A, Vinches M (2013) Mechanical behaviour of a stone masonry bridge assessed using an implicit discrete element method. Eng Struct 48:739–749
Rafiee A, Vinches M, Bohatier C (2008) Application of the nscd method to analyse the dynamic behaviour of stone arched structures. Int J Solids Struct 45(25–26):6269–6283
Lancioni G, Gentilucci D, Quagliarini E, Lenci S (2016) Seismic vulnerability of ancient stone arches by using a numerical model based on the non-smooth contact dynamics method. Eng Struct 119:110–121
Beatini V, Royer-Carfagni G, Tasora A (2017) A regularized non-smooth contact dynamics approach for architectural masonry structures. Comput Struct 187:88–100
Sarhosis V, Lemos J (2018) A detailed micro-modelling approach for the structural analysis of masonry assemblages. Comput Struct 206:66–81
Munjiza AA (2004) The combined finite-discrete element method. Wiley, Hoboken
Smoljanović H, Živaljić N, Nikolić Ž (2013) A combined finite-discrete element analysis of dry stone masonry structures. Eng Struct 52:89–100
Smoljanović H, Živaljić N, Nikolić Ž, Munjiza A (2018) Numerical analysis of 3D dry-stone masonry structures by combined finite-discrete element method. Int J Solids Struct 136:150–167
Smoljanović H, Nikolić Ž, Živaljić N (2015) A combined finite-discrete numerical model for analysis of masonry structures. Eng Fract Mech 136:1–14
Ali SS, Page AW (1988) Finite element model for masonry subjected to concentrated loads. J Struct Eng 114(8):1761–1784
Petracca M, Pelà L, Rossi R, Zaghi S, Camata G, Spacone E (2017) Micro-scale continuous and discrete numerical models for nonlinear analysis of masonry shear walls. Constr Build Mater 149:296–314
Addessi D, Sacco E (2016) Nonlinear analysis of masonry panels using a kinematic enriched plane state formulation. Int J Solids Struct 90:194–214
Serpieri R, Albarella M, Sacco E (2017) A 3D microstructured cohesive-frictional interface model and its rational calibration for the analysis of masonry panels. Int J Solids Struct 122:110–127
Baggio C, Trovalusci P (1998) Limit analysis for no-tension and frictional three-dimensional discrete systems. J Struct Mech 26(3):287–304
Baggio C, Trovalusci P (2000) Collapse behaviour of three-dimensional brick-block systems using non-linear programming. Struct Eng Mech 10(2):181
Ferris M, Tin-Loi F (2001) Limit analysis of frictional block assemblies as a mathematical program with complementarity constraints. Int J Mech Sci 43(1):209–224
Sutcliffe D, Yu H, Page A (2001) Lower bound limit analysis of unreinforced masonry shear walls. Comput Struct 79(14):1295–1312
Orduña A, Lourenço PB (2005) Three-dimensional limit analysis of rigid blocks assemblages. Part I: Torsion failure on frictional interfaces and limit analysis formulation. Int J Solids Struct 42(18–19):5140–5160
Orduña A, Lourenço PB (2005) Three-dimensional limit analysis of rigid blocks assemblages. Part II: load-path following solution procedure and validation. Int J Solids Struct 42(18–19):5161–5180
Gilbert M, Casapulla C, Ahmed H (2006) Limit analysis of masonry block structures with non-associative frictional joints using linear programming. Comput Struct 84(13–14):873–887
Portioli F, Casapulla C, Cascini L, D’Aniello M, Landolfo R (2013) Limit analysis by linear programming of 3D masonry structures with associative friction laws and torsion interaction effects. Arch Appl Mech 83(10):1415–1438
Portioli F, Casapulla C, Gilbert M, Cascini L (2014) Limit analysis of 3D masonry block structures with non-associative frictional joints using cone programming. Comput Struct 143:108–121
Milani G (2008) 3d upper bound limit analysis of multi-leaf masonry walls. Int J Mech Sci 50(4):817–836
Milani G, Beyer K, Dazio A (2009) Upper bound limit analysis of meso-mechanical spandrel models for the pushover analysis of 2d masonry frames. Eng Struct 31(11):2696–2710
Milani G, Zuccarello F, Olivito R, Tralli A (2007) Heterogeneous upper-bound finite element limit analysis of masonry walls out-of-plane loaded. Comput Mech 40(6):911–931
Cavicchi A, Gambarotta L (2006) Two-dimensional finite element upper bound limit analysis of masonry bridges. Comput Struct 84(31–32):2316–2328
Abdulla KF, Cunningham LS, Gillie M (2017) Simulating masonry wall behaviour using a simplified micro-model approach. Eng Struct 151:349–365
Zhai C, Wang X, Kong J, Li S, Xie L (2017) Numerical simulation of masonry-infilled rc frames using xfem. J Struct Eng 143(10):04017144
Del Piero G (1989) Constitutive equation and compatibility of the external loads for linear elastic masonry-like materials. Meccanica 24(3):150–162
Maier G, Nappi A (1990) A theory of no-tension discretized structural systems. Eng Struct 12(4):227–234
Angelillo M (1994) A finite element approach to the study of no-tension structures. Finite Elements Anal Des 17(1):57–73
Alfano G, Rosati L, Valoroso N (2000) A numerical strategy for finite element analysis of no-tension materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48(3):317–350
Cuomo M, Ventura G (2000) A complementary energy formulation of no tension masonry-like solids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 189(1):313–339
Lucchesi M, Padovani C, Pasquinelli G (2000) Thermodynamics of no-tension materials. Int J Solids Struct 37(45):6581–6604
Bruggi M (2014) Finite element analysis of no-tension structures as a topology optimization problem. Struct Multidiscip Optim 50(6):957–973
Bruggi M, Taliercio A (2015) Analysis of no-tension structures under monotonic loading through an energy-based method. Comput Struct 159:14–25
Bruggi M, Taliercio A (2018) Analysis of 3D no-tension masonry-like walls. In: European mechanics society ESMC 2018
Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson P-E (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concret Res 6(6):773–781
Rots JG, De Borst R (1987) Analysis of mixed-mode fracture in concrete. J Eng Mech 113(11):1739–1758
Dragon A, Mroz Z (1979) A continuum model for plastic-brittle behaviour of rock and concrete. Int J Eng Sci 17(2):121–137
Løland K (1980) Continuous damage model for load-response estimation of concrete. Cem Concret Res 10(3):395–402
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E (1989) A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct 25(3):299–326
Lee J, Fenves GL (1998) Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech 124(8):892–900
Lotfi H, Shing P (1991) An appraisal of smeared crack models for masonry shear wall analysis. Comput Struct 41(3):413–425
Toti J, Gattulli V, Sacco E (2015) Nonlocal damage propagation in the dynamics of masonry elements. Comput Struct 152:215–227
D’Altri AM, Castellazzi G, de Miranda S (2018) Collapse investigation of the Arquata del Tronto medieval fortress after the 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence. J Build Eng 18:245–251
Bartoli G, Betti M, Vignoli A (2016) A numerical study on seismic risk assessment of historic masonry towers: a case study in San Gimignano. Bull Earthq Eng 14(6):1475–1518
Castellazzi G, D’Altri AM, de Miranda S, Chiozzi A, Tralli A (2018) Numerical insights on the seismic behavior of a non-isolated historical masonry tower. Bull Earthq Eng 16(2):933–961
Valente M, Milani G (2016) Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by means of simplified approaches and standard FEM. Constr Build Mater 108:74–104
Betti M, Vignoli A (2011) Numerical assessment of the static and seismic behaviour of the basilica of Santa Maria all’Impruneta (Italy). Constr Build Mater 25(12):4308–4324
Milani G, Valente M (2015) Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: Non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Eng Fail Anal 54:13–56
Fortunato G, Funari MF, Lonetti P (2017) Survey and seismic vulnerability assessment of the baptistery of san giovanni in tumba (Italy). J Cultural Heritage 26:64–78
Elyamani A, Roca P, Caselles O, Clapes J (2017) Seismic safety assessment of historical structures using updated numerical models: the case of Mallorca cathedral in spain. Eng Failure Anal 74:54–79
Betti M, Galano L (2012) Seismic analysis of historic masonry buildings: the vicarious palace in Pescia (Italy). Buildings 2(2):63–82
Tiberti S, Acito M, Milani G (2016) Comprehensive fe numerical insight into finale emilia castle behavior under 2012 emilia romagna seismic sequence: Damage causes and seismic vulnerability mitigation hypothesis. Eng Struct 117:397–421
Degli Abbati S, D’Altri AM, Ottonelli D, Castellazzi G, Cattari, S, de Miranda S, Lagomarsino S (2019) Seismic assessment of interacting structural units in complex historic masonry constructions by nonlinear static analyses. Comput Struct 213:51–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.12.001
Pelà L, Aprile A, Benedetti A (2009) Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges. Eng Struct 31(8):1777–1788
Zampieri P, Zanini MA, Modena C (2015) Simplified seismic assessment of multi-span masonry arch bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 13(9):2629–2646
Saloustros S, Pelà L, Cervera M (2015) A crack-tracking technique for localized cohesive-frictional damage. Eng Fract Mech 150:96–114
Saloustros S, Pelà L, Cervera M, Roca P (2018) An enhanced finite element macro-model for the realistic simulation of localized cracks in masonry structures: A large-scale application. Int J Archit Herit 12(3):432–447
Rots J, Messali F, Esposito R, Jafari S, Mariani V (2016) Computational modeling of masonry with a view to groningen induced seismicity. In: 10th international conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, SAHC, pp 13–15
Lourénço PB, De Borst R, Rots JG (1997) A plane stress softening plasticity model for orthotropic materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40(21):4033–4057
Lourenço PB, Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J (1998) Continuum model for masonry: parameter estimation and validation. J Struct Eng 124(6):642–652
Lopez J, Oller S, Onate E, Lubliner J (1999) A homogeneous constitutive model for masonry. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46(10):1651–1671
Berto L, Saetta A, Scotta R, Vitaliani R (2002) An orthotropic damage model for masonry structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 55(2):127–157
Pelà L, Cervera M, Roca P (2011) Continuum damage model for orthotropic materials: application to masonry. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(9–12):917–930
Pelà L, Cervera M, Roca P (2013) An orthotropic damage model for the analysis of masonry structures. Constr Build Mater 41:957–967
Pelà L, Cervera M, Oller S, Chiumenti M (2014) A localized mapped damage model for orthotropic materials. Eng Fract Mech 124:196–216
Reyes E, Gálvez J, Casati M, Cendón D, Sancho J, Planas J (2009) An embedded cohesive crack model for finite element analysis of brickwork masonry fracture. Eng Fract Mech 76(12):1930–1944
Milani G, Casolo S, Naliato A, Tralli A (2012) Seismic assessment of a medieval masonry tower in northern Italy by limit, nonlinear static, and full dynamic analyses. Int J Archit Herit 6(5):489–524
Pantò B, Cannizzaro F, Caddemi S, Caliò I (2016) 3d macro-element modelling approach for seismic assessment of historical masonry churches. Adv Eng Softw 97:40–59
Pantò B, Caliò I, Lourenço P (2018) A 3D discrete macro-element for modelling the out-of-plane behaviour of infilled frame structures. Eng Struct 175:371–385
Anthoine A (1995) Derivation of the in-plane elastic characteristics of masonry through homogenization theory. Int J Solids Struct 32(2):137–163
Cavalagli N, Cluni F, Gusella V (2011) Strength domain of non-periodic masonry by homogenization in generalized plane state. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 30(2):113–126
Taliercio A (2014) Closed-form expressions for the macroscopic in-plane elastic and creep coefficients of brick masonry. Int J Solids Struct 51(17):2949–2963
Stefanou I, Sab K, Heck J-V (2015) Three dimensional homogenization of masonry structures with building blocks of finite strength: a closed form strength domain. Int J Solids Struct 54:258–270
Milani G (2011) Simple lower bound limit analysis homogenization model for in-and out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 25(12):4426–4443
Sacco E, Addessi D, Sab K (2018) New trends in mechanics of masonry. Meccanica 53(7):1565–1569
Bertolesi E, Milani G, Casolo S (2018) Homogenization towards a mechanistic rigid body and spring model (HRBSM) for the non-linear dynamic analysis of 3D masonry structures. Meccanica 53(7):1819–1855
Petracca M, Pelà L, Rossi R, Oller S, Camata G, Spacone E (2016) Regularization of first order computational homogenization for multiscale analysis of masonry structures. Comput Mech 57(2):257–276
Leonetti L, Greco F, Trovalusci P, Luciano R, Masiani R (2018) A multiscale damage analysis of periodic composites using a couple-stress/Cauchy multidomain model: application to masonry structures. Compos Part B: Eng 141:50–59
Pietruszczak S, Niu X (1992) A mathematical description of macroscopic behaviour of brick masonry. Int J Solids Struct 29(5):531–546
Briccoli Bati S, Ranocchiai G, Rovero L (1999) A micromechanical model for linear homogenization of brick masonry. Mater Struct 32(1):22–30
Masiani R, Trovalusci P (1996) Cosserat and Cauchy materials as continuum models of brick masonry. Meccanica 31(4):421–432
Stefanou I, Sulem J, Vardoulakis I (2008) Three-dimensional Cosserat homogenization of masonry structures: elasticity. Acta Geotechnica 3(1):71–83
Cecchi A, Sab K (2002) A multi-parameter homogenization study for modeling elastic masonry. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 21(2):249–268
Cecchi A, Sab K (2007) A homogenized reissner-mindlin model for orthotropic periodic plates: application to brickwork panels. Int J Solids Struct 44(18–19):6055–6079
Mistler M, Anthoine A, Butenweg C (2007) In-plane and out-of-plane homogenisation of masonry. Comput Struct 85(17–18):1321–1330
Drougkas A, Roca P, Molins C (2015) Analytical micro-modeling of masonry periodic unit cells-elastic properties. Int J Solids Struct 69:169–188
Cecchi A, Milani G, Tralli A (2005) Validation of analytical multiparameter homogenization models for out-of-plane loaded masonry walls by means of the finite element method. J Eng Mech 131(2):185–198
Kawa M, Pietruszczak S, Shieh-Beygi B (2008) Limit states for brick masonry based on homogenization approach. Int J Solids Struct 45(3–4):998–1016
De Buhan P, De Felice G (1997) A homogenization approach to the ultimate strength of brick masonry. J Mech Phys Solids 45(7):1085–1104
Zucchini A, Lourenço P (2002) A micro-mechanical model for the homogenisation of masonry. Int J Solids Struct 39(12):3233–3255
Zucchini A, Lourenço PB (2004) A coupled homogenisation-damage model for masonry cracking. Comput Struct 82(11–12):917–929
Wei X, Hao H (2009) Numerical derivation of homogenized dynamic masonry material properties with strain rate effects. Int J Impact Eng 36(3):522–536
Cecchi A, Sab K (2009) Discrete and continuous models for in plane loaded random elastic brickwork. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 28(3):610–625
Cavalagli N, Cluni F, Gusella V (2013) Evaluation of a statistically equivalent periodic unit cell for a quasi-periodic masonry. Int J Solids Struct 50(25–26):4226–4240
Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A (2006) Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls, Part I: Failure surfaces. Comput Struct 84(3–4):166–180
Milani G, Lourenço P, Tralli A (2006) Homogenization approach for the limit analysis of out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. J Struct Eng 132(10):1650–1663
Cecchi A, Milani G, Tralli A (2007) A reissner-mindlin limit analysis model for out-of-plane loaded running bond masonry walls. Int J Solids Struct 44(5):1438–1460
Cecchi A, Milani G (2008) A kinematic fe limit analysis model for thick english bond masonry walls. Int J Solids Struct 45(5):1302–1331
Godio M, Stefanou I, Sab K, Sulem J, Sakji S (2017) A limit analysis approach based on Cosserat continuum for the evaluation of the in-plane strength of discrete media: application to masonry. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 66:168–192
Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A (2006) Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls, Part II: structural examples. Comput Struct 84(3–4):181–195
Milani G, Lourenço P, Tralli A (2007) 3d homogenized limit analysis of masonry buildings under horizontal loads. Eng Struct 29(11):3134–3148
Casolo S (2004) Modelling in-plane micro-structure of masonry walls by rigid elements. Int J Solids Struct 41(13):3625–3641
Casolo S, Pena F (2007) Rigid element model for in-plane dynamics of masonry walls considering hysteretic behaviour and damage. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(8):1029–1048
Silva LC, Lourenço PB, Milani G (2017) Nonlinear discrete homogenized model for out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. J Struct Eng 143(9):04017099
Papa E (1996) A unilateral damage model for masonry based on a homogenisation procedure. Mech Cohes-Friction Mater Int J Exp Model Comput Mater Struct 1(4):349–366
Luciano R, Sacco E (1997) Homogenization technique and damage model for old masonry material. Int J Solids Struct 34(24):3191–3208
Luciano R, Sacco E (1998) A damage model for masonry structures. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 17(2):285–303
Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S (1997) Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II: the continuum model and its applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(4):441–462
Pietruszczak S, Ushaksaraei R (2003) Description of inelastic behaviour of structural masonry. Int J Solids Struct 40(15):4003–4019
Calderini C, Lagomarsino S (2006) A micromechanical inelastic model for historical masonry. J Earthq Eng 10(04):453–479
Zucchini A, Lourenço PB (2009) A micro-mechanical homogenisation model for masonry: application to shear walls. Int J Solids Struct 46(3–4):871–886
Sacco E (2009) A nonlinear homogenization procedure for periodic masonry. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 28(2):209–222
Marfia S, Sacco E (2012) Multiscale damage contact-friction model for periodic masonry walls. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 205:189–203
Massart TJ, Peerlings RHJ, Geers MGD (2007) An enhanced multi-scale approach for masonry wall computations with localization of damage. Int J Numer Methods Eng 69(5):1022–1059
Bacigalupo A, Gambarotta L (2010) Second-order computational homogenization of heterogeneous materials with periodic microstructure. ZAMM-J Appl Math Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 90(10–11):796–811
Bacigalupo A, Gambarotta L (2012) Computational two-scale homogenization of periodic masonry: Characteristic lengths and dispersive waves. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 213:16–28
Addessi D, Marfia S, Sacco E, Toti J (2014) Modeling approaches for masonry structures. Open Civil Eng J 8(1):288–300. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874149501408010288
Salerno G, de Felice G (2009) Continuum modeling of periodic brickwork. Int J Solids Struct 46(5):1251–1267
Casolo S (2006) Macroscopic modelling of structured materials: relationship between orthotropic Cosserat continuum and rigid elements. Int J Solids Struct 43(3–4):475–496
Addessi D, Sacco E, Paolone A (2010) Cosserat model for periodic masonry deduced by nonlinear homogenization. Eur J Mech-A/Solids 29(4):724–737
De Bellis ML, Addessi D (2011) A Cosserat based multi-scale model for masonry structures. Int J Multisc Comput Eng 9(5):543
Addessi D, Sacco E (2012) A multi-scale enriched model for the analysis of masonry panels. Int J Solids Struct 49(6):865–880
Mercatoris B, Massart T (2011) A coupled two-scale computational scheme for the failure of periodic quasi-brittle thin planar shells and its application to masonry. Int J Numer Methods Eng 85(9):1177–1206
Petracca M, Pelà L, Rossi R, Oller S, Camata G, Spacone E (2017) Multiscale computational first order homogenization of thick shells for the analysis of out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 315:273–301
Brasile S, Casciaro R, Formica G (2007) Multilevel approach for brick masonry walls-part I: A numerical strategy for the nonlinear analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(49–52):4934–4951
Brasile S, Casciaro R, Formica G (2007) Multilevel approach for brick masonry walls-part II: on the use of equivalent continua. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(49–52):4801–4810
Reccia E, Leonetti L, Trovalusci P, Cecchi A (2018) A multi-scale/multi-domain model for the failure analysis of masonry walls: a validation with a combined FEM/DEM approach. Int J Multisc Comput Eng 16:325–343
Greco F, Leonetti L, Luciano R, Blasi PN (2016) An adaptive multiscale strategy for the damage analysis of masonry modeled as a composite material. Compos Struct 153:972–988
Lloberas-Valls O, Rixen D, Simone A, Sluys L (2012) Multiscale domain decomposition analysis of quasi-brittle heterogeneous materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 89(11):1337–1366
Quagliarini E, Maracchini G, Clementi F (2017) Uses and limits of the equivalent frame model on existing unreinforced masonry buildings for assessing their seismic risk: a review. J Build Eng 10:166–182
Augenti N (2006) Seismic behaviour of irregular masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology
Berti M, Salvatori L, Orlando M, Spinelli P (2017) Unreinforced masonry walls with irregular opening layouts: reliability of equivalent-frame modelling for seismic vulnerability assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 15(3):1213–1239
Calderoni B, Cordasco EA, Sandoli A, Onotri V, Tortoriello G (2015) Problematiche di modellazione strutturale di edifici in muratura esistenti soggetti ad azioni sismiche in relazione all’utilizzo di software commerciali. Atti del XVI convegno ANIDIS. L’Aquila, Italia
Dolce M (1991) Schematizzazione e modellazione degli edifici in muratura soggetti ad azioni sismiche. L’Industria delle costruzioni 25(242):44–57
Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) Tremuri program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799
Moon FL, Yi T, Leon RT, Kahn LF (2006) Recommendations for seismic evaluation and retrofit of low-rise URM structures. J Struct Eng 132(5):663–672
Parisi F, Augenti N (2013) Seismic capacity of irregular unreinforced masonry walls with openings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(1):101–121
Parisi F, Lignola GP, Augenti N, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Rocking response assessment of in-plane laterally-loaded masonry walls with openings. Eng Struct 56:1234–1248
Lagomarsino S, Camilletti D, Cattari S, Marino S (2018) In plane seismic response of irregular URM walls through equivalent frame and finite element models. In: Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering-Thessaloniki 2018. Springer, pp 123–151
Siano R, Roca P, Camata G, Pelà L, Sepe V, Spacone E, Petracca M (2018) Numerical investigation of non-linear equivalent-frame models for regular masonry walls. Eng Struct 173:512–529
Tomaževič M (1978) The computer program POR. Report ZRMK
Calderoni B, Marone P, Pagano M (1987) Modelli per la verifica statica degli edifici in muratura in zona sismica. Ingegneria sismica 3:19–27
Magenes G, Fontana A (1998) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Proc Br Masonry Soc 8:190–195
Kappos AJ, Penelis GG, Drakopoulos CG (2002) Evaluation of simplified models for lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 128(7):890–897
Roca P, Molins C, Marí AR (2005) Strength capacity of masonry wall structures by the equivalent frame method. J Struct Eng 131(10):1601–1610
Penelis GG (2006) An efficient approach for pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures. J Earthq Eng 10(03):359–379
Belmouden Y, Lestuzzi P (2009) An equivalent frame model for seismic analysis of masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Constr Build Mater 23(1):40–53
Pasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2008) Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the sap2000 v. 10 code. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(3):467–485
Grande E, Imbimbo M, Sacco E (2011) A beam finite element for nonlinear analysis of masonry elements with or without fiber-reinforced plastic (frp) reinforcements. Int J Archit Herit 5(6):693–716
Addessi D, Mastrandrea A, Sacco E (2014) An equilibrated macro-element for nonlinear analysis of masonry structures. Eng Struct 70:82–93
Addessi D, Liberatore D, Masiani R (2015) Force-based beam finite element (fe) for the pushover analysis of masonry buildings. Int J Archit Herit 9(3):231–243
Liberatore D, Addessi D (2015) Strength domains and return algorithm for the lumped plasticity equivalent frame model of masonry structures. Eng Struct 91:167–181
Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2012) TREMURI program: Seismic analyses of 3D masonry buildings. Release 2.0, University of Genoa (mailto: tremuri@gmail.com)
Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2013) Masonry structures
Cattari S, Camilletti D, Lagomarsino S, Bracchi S, Rota M, Penna A (2018) Masonry italian code-conforming buildings. Part 2: nonlinear modelling and time-history analysis. J Earthq Eng 22(sup2):2010–2040
Raka E, Spacone E, Sepe V, Camata G (2015) Advanced frame element for seismic analysis of masonry structures: Model formulation and validation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(14):2489–2506
Chen S-Y, Moon F, Yi T (2008) A macroelement for the nonlinear analysis of in-plane unreinforced masonry piers. Eng Struct 30(8):2242–2252
Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S (1996) On the dynamic response of masonry panels. In: Proceedings of the national conference on masonry mechanics between theory and practice, Messina, 18–20 Sept 1996, pp 451–462
Brencich A, Lagomarsino S (1998) A macroelement dynamic model for masonry shear walls. In: Computer methods in structural masonry, pp 67–75
Penna A, Lagomarsino S, Galasco A (2014) A nonlinear macroelement model for the seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):159–179
Caliò I, Marletta M, Pantò B (2012) A new discrete element model for the evaluation of the seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct 40:327–338
Caliò I, Pantò B (2014) A macro-element modelling approach of infilled frame structures. Comput Struct 143:91–107
Chácara C, Cannizzaro F, Pantò B, Caliò I, Lourenço PB (2018) Assessment of the dynamic response of unreinforced masonry structures using a macroelement modeling approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3091
Rinaldin G, Amadio C, Macorini L (2016) A macro-model with nonlinear springs for seismic analysis of urm buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(14):2261–2281
Mobarake AA, Khanmohammadi M, Mirghaderi S (2017) A new discrete macro-element in an analytical platform for seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct 152:381–396
Xu H, Gentilini C, Yu Z, Wu H, Zhao S (2018) A unified model for the seismic analysis of brick masonry structures. Constr Build Mater 184:733–751
O’Dwyer D (1999) Funicular analysis of masonry vaults. Comput Struct 73(1–5):187–197
Andreu A, Gil L, Roca P (2007) Computational analysis of masonry structures with a funicular model. J Eng Mech 133(4):473–480
Block P, Ciblac T, Ochsendorf J (2006) Real-time limit analysis of vaulted masonry buildings. Comput Struct 84(29–30):1841–1852
Block P, Ochsendorf J (2007) Thrust network analysis: a new methodology for three-dimensional equilibrium. J Int Assoc Shell Spat Struct 48(3):167–173
Block P, Lachauer L (2014) Three-dimensional (3d) equilibrium analysis of gothic masonry vaults. Int J Archit Herit 8(3):312–335
Block P, Lachauer L (2014) Three-dimensional funicular analysis of masonry vaults. Mech Res Commun 56:53–60
Fantin M, Ciblac T (2016) Extension of thrust network analysis with joints consideration and new equilibrium states. Int J Space Struct 31(2–4):190–202
Fraternali F (2010) A thrust network approach to the equilibrium problem of unreinforced masonry vaults via polyhedral stress functions. Mech Res Commun 37(2):198–204
Angelillo M, Babilio E, Fortunato A (2013) Singular stress fields for masonry-like vaults. Contin Mech Thermodyn 25(2–4):423–441
Angelillo M (2015) Static analysis of a guastavino helical stair as a layered masonry shell. Compos Struct 119:298–304
Fraddosio A, Lepore N, Piccioni MD (2019) Lower bound limit analysis of masonry vaults under general load conditions. In: Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. Springer, pp 1090–1098
Marmo F, Masi D, Rosati L (2018) Thrust network analysis of masonry helical staircases. Int J Archit Herit 12:1–21
D’Altri AM, Castellazzi G, de Miranda S, Tralli A (2017) Seismic-induced damage in historical masonry vaults: a case-study in the 2012 Emilia earthquake-stricken area. J Build Eng 13:224–243
Giuffrè A (1991) Letture sulla meccanica delle murature storiche. Kappa
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (OPCM). Norme tecniche per il progetto, la valutazione e l’adeguamento sismico degli edifici (2005)
Circolare 2009. Circolare n. 617 del 02/02/2009. Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni di cui al D.M. del 14/01/2008
NTC2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M. 14/01/2008
Milani G (2015) Upper bound sequential linear programming mesh adaptation scheme for collapse analysis of masonry vaults. Adv Eng Softw 79:91–110
Chiozzi A, Milani G, Grillanda N, Tralli A (2018) A fast and general upper-bound limit analysis approach for out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Meccanica 53(7):1875–1898
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
D’Altri, A.M., Sarhosis, V., Milani, G. et al. Modeling Strategies for the Computational Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Structures: Review and Classification. Arch Computat Methods Eng 27, 1153–1185 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09351-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09351-x