Non-linear static analysis of masonry structures

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

Nicola Augenti, Fulvio Parisi

Keywords: Non-linear static analysis; displacement control; masonry buildings; distributed plasticity. ABSTRACT Non-linear static procedures (NSPs) are, at present, the only effective alternative to traditional methods of linear seismic analysis, given the high difficulties related to non-linear time-history analysis. Such methods allow to simulate the actual seismic behaviour of individual masonry shear walls, as well as non-linear response of masonry buildings, but particular attention is needed in the case of significant irregularities in plan or elevation. In this paper a new method for predicting the seismic response of masonry buildings is presented. By means of a displacement-based NSP, it considers also torsional rotations of diaphragms. Starting from a macro-element discretization of each masonry shear wall and carrying out a step-by-step evaluation of both the strength and displacement capacities via strength domains and force-displacement curves, respectively, the capacity curve of the building is plotted for each heightwise pattern of horizontal forces. The lateral behaviour of pier panels is described with continuity through a new distributed plasticity model formulated for masonry macro-elements, which considers either geometrical non-linearity due to partialization of cross-sections, or mechanical non-linearity in the elastic and plastic ranges. The proposed procedures were implemented in a new computer program, which can be used either for newly designed buildings, or for existing ones.

INTRODUCTION

In order to maximize the exploitation of inelastic sources in newly designed constructions and to better simulate the non-linear seismic behaviour of existing structures under severe earthquakes, a number of non-linear static procedures (NSPs) have been proposed in the last decade as alternative analytical tools to non-linear time-history analysis. As well-known, in the NSPs - namely the coefficient method (ASCE 2000), the capacity spectrum method (ATC 1996, Freeman 1998), and the N2 method (Fajfar and Fishinger 1988) - the comparison between seismic demand and capacity is made in terms of displacements by applying the equivalent singledegree-of-freedom (SDOF) substitution approach (Shibata and Sozen 1976) and plotting a forcedisplacement curve, namely capacity curve, or a spectral acceleration-displacement curve, namely capacity spectrum. Such methods of

seismic analysis can be applied also to masonry structures, even in the case of significant irregularities in plan or elevation, and enable to match the requirements of performance-based earthquake engineering (SEAOC 1995, Abrams 2001). 2 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF MASONRY STRUCTURES

The existing building stock consists of many types of masonry constructions, which are made up of several assemblages of constituent materials. This large variability results in a very difficult, if not impossible, definition of a limited range of values for the behaviour factor q, to be used in linear static analyses. Therefore, at least presently, the application of the q-factor approach (Tomaevi and Bosiljkov 2004) may be fully inadequate to simulate the actual seismic behaviour of masonry structures. Both the earthquake resistance and the displacement

capacity of these constructions are often fully wrong predicted by the equivalent linear analysis. As widely recognized by the scientific community, the use of NSPs to assess masonry structures is currently the only way to predict their behaviour under earthquake loading. Nevertheless, several features have to be taken into account in order to minimize uncertainties in safety verifications and to reach a better approximation of the actual behaviour of these structures. 2.1 Accounting for non-linearity sources

The global response of a masonry structure is directly related to the local one. To estimate realistically the seismic capacity of a masonry building, particular attention is needed to define both the strength domains (Augenti and Parisi 2009a) and force-displacement curves (Augenti and Parisi 2009b) of pier panels. By means of a new distributed plasticity model specifically formulated for masonry macro-elements, the lateral behaviour of each pier panel can be simulated with continuity by considering the following phenomena: 1. geometrical non-linearity, due to the evolutive partialization of cross-sections as cracking spreads within the panel; 2. mechanical non-linearity in the elastic range, due to micro-cracking occurring for small deformations and propagating in an unstable way until it becomes macroscopic; 3. mechanical non-linearity in the plastic range, due to yielding of masonry for large deformations. According to Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004), geometrical non-linearity should be simply considered by assigning an equivalent cracked stiffness to the pier panel. Nevertheless, it is wellknown that the non-linear elastic behaviour of a pier panel may significantly influence the inelastic one because of the spreading of cracking. Therefore, a cracked stiffness could be used only when a bilinear force-deformation model is assumed in the absence of an accurate evaluation of the stiffness properties, substantiated by a rational analysis. In such conditions, the cracked bending and shear stiffness may be taken as one half of the gross section uncracked elastic stiffness. In the displacement-based NSP described below (see sections 3 and 4) no cracked stiffness is used to approximate the lateral behaviour of each pier panel because force-displacement curves are plotted as the relative horizontal displacement increases (Fig. 1). Either the

displacement capacity, or the lateral resistance, are estimated by means of a step-by-step procedure where the stress-strain relationship of masonry is explicitly accounted for. The displacement capacity of each pier panel is not assumed prior to the analysis as a percentage of the height (CEN 2005b, M.I.T. 2008), but it is estimated via an incremental iterative procedure taking into account the given axial force. By this way, the lateral behaviour of each structural element is more rigorously described and depends on the geometrical, mechanical and load conditions. Mechanical non-linearity is directly considered by assigning a suitable stress-strain relationship to masonry. Its implementation enables to include the strength degradation in the force-displacement curves of pier panels, according to Eurocode 8.
400 350 300
Ultimate limit state (ULS)

V [kN]

250 200 150 100 50 0 0

Elastic limit state (ELS)

Cracking limit state (CLS)

d [mm]

Figure 1. Typical force-displacement curve of a pier panel failing in flexure.

2.2

Torsional behaviour

Masonry buildings are torsionally-restrained, but their response may significantly change as the level of damage increases with the seismic engineering demand parameter (EDP, e.g. the spectral displacement of the equivalent SDOF system). During the elastic response of a masonry structure, at each level the shear centre is approximately coincident with the one of initial stiffness. As the horizontal displacement of the control point increases, cracking and yielding gradually occur and spread within the shear walls, so the in-plan position of the shear centre changes owing to the redistribution of internal forces. If the masonry structure is quite regular in plan, the non-linear redistribution of internal forces turns out to be approximately uniform for all the shear walls. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that at each level the shear centre coincides with the one of strength at ULS. The regularity of the construction makes possible that the masonry walls develop their flexural or shear

resistance. According to the global translational and rotational equilibrium of each level, shear forces estimated for pier panels via a linear static analysis can be simply redistributed in such conditions (Magenes 2006). If the masonry structure is not regular in plan, the inelastic redistribution of internal forces is non-uniform and leads to dangerous localizations of damage. Significant reductions of global seismic capacity, in terms of both resistance and displacement, are thus expected in this case. Either the position of the shear centre, or the plastic redistribution of internal forces, can be estimated only via non-linear analysis. An interesting feature is also the contribute of the transversal shear walls to the seismic torsional resistance of the building. Seismic capacity may be drastically different from the one expected if torsionally-induced displacements are neglected, especially in the presence of large irregularities in plan. Figure 2 shows force-displacement curves of both parallel and transversal shear walls of a two-storey masonry building, as well as the pushover curve. In such an extreme case, the contributes of the shear walls orthogonal to the external horizontal forces are even larger than those of parallel shear walls, so the torsional behaviour plays a fundamental role in the seismic performance of the structure.
Transversal shear walls Parallel shear walls Building 1200 1000 800 600

frame of NSPs should be able (1) to link the global seismic behaviour with the local one, and (2) to estimate the strain demands for each structural element. Also this features are taken into account in the procedures presented in the following sections. Figure 3 shows how the local response of a masonry pier panel in terms of sectional axial strain distribution changes as the maximum strain increases. Cracking limit state (CLS) is reached when the minimum axial strain becomes zero at the end cross-sections (Fig. 3a). As the horizontal top displacement d increases, cracking spreads within the macro-element leading to the partialization of cross-sections. Elastic limit state (ELS) is reached when the maximum axial strain of the end cross-sections matches the yielding value of masonry (Fig. 3b). During the spreading of cracking and yielding within the pier panel, the maximum displacement at the top is reached when the maximum axial strain of the end crosssections becomes equal to the ultimate one (Fig. 3c). This is assumed to be the ultimate limit state (ULS) of the pier panel. This detailed modelling of non-linearity sources was then implemented in the proposed procedure, to better simulate both the local and global seismic behaviours of masonry structures.
B
) (zk,min =0 ) (zk,max

(a) b = be
1 2 3 4 5 6
) (zk,max = y (k )

V [kN]

400 200 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 0 -1 -200 0 -400 -600 -800

(b) b = bu
) (zk,max = u (k )

d [mm]

Figure 2. Contributes of transversal shear walls to the seismic capacity of a masonry building.

2.3

Deformation control at the local level

Performance-based earthquake engineering needs for reasonable estimates of inelastic deformation or damage in structures. Elastic analysis is not capable of providing this information. On the other hand, non-linear dynamic time-history analysis is very demanding. Pushover analysis may provide reliable estimates of location of damage. Since a deformation control is needed also for masonry structures, the algorithms used in the

(c)
Figure 3. Sectional axial strain distributions of a pier panel at CLS (a), ELS (b), and ULS (c).

NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF A MASONRY SHEAR WALL

Existing masonry buildings have often diaphragms with high deformability in their own plane and poorly connected to the shear walls (i.e.

absence of steel ties or reinforced concrete ring beams). In this case, the masonry shear walls can be assessed in separate ways under seismic loading conditions. To carry out pushover analysis, the RAN method (Augenti 2004) was extensively modified by implementing a new incremental iterative procedure based on the use of strength domains and force-displacement curves defined for the constitutive models proposed by Turnsek and Cacovic (1970), and by Eurocode 6 (CEN 2005a). The force-displacement curves of the pier panels are plotted in displacement control by using the Pegasus method (Dowell and Jarratt 1972). Axial forces due to gravity loads are taken into account when defining strength and displacement capacitites of each panel. Among the different methods of pushover analysis developed in the last years (ATC 2005), namely the modal pushover analysis (Chopra and Goel 2002) and force- and displacement-based, adaptive and non-adaptive pushover procedures (Antoniou and Pinho 2004a, 2004b), the algorithms proposed below will follow the method suggested by Fajfar (2000). The basic variant of the N2 method is based on pushover analysis and was implemented into both the Eurocode 8 and Italian code (M.I.T. 2008). Seismic demand is determined from inelastic spectra depending on the period of the idealized equivalent SDOF system (Vidic et al. 1994). The transformation from the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) to an equivalent SDOF system is based on the assumption of a time-invariant displacement shape. This assumption represents the major limitation of the applicability of the method. Since a single masonry shear wall must be analysed for each pattern of lateral forces (i.e. uniform and modal) and for both positive and negative orientations, four seismic analyses must be performed. Given the k-th shear wall of a masonry building, let us denote by the subscripts i and j of the generic parameter Ei,j, a level (i.e. horizontal strip) and a pier (i.e. vertical strip), respectively. The superscripts j and k will be used to denote an incremental displacement step and an iteration, respectively. The levels of the masonry shear wall are progressively numbered from the top to the base. Figure 4 shows the displacement-based incremental iterative procedure proposed for plotting the capacity curve of a single masonry shear wall.

k-th MASONRY SHEAR WALL

Calculate masses and initial elastic stiffnesses

Chose the pattern of lateral forces

Define the heightwise distribution factor of lateral forces for each level i

Assign an orientation to the lateral forces

START INCREMENTAL PROCEDURE

Step k : Assign a value of lateral displacement to the control point

1 c = c = 500
(k ) n i=1

max u,i,j

j = 1,...,m

for k = 1

Iterative strategy for determining the displacement distribution factor of the i-th level set (ij ) = i for j = 1

Update (i j ) = (i j 1) i Vi
( j , k)

k) Compute (ij , k) = (c (ij )

/ V1

( j , k)

Calculate V i(, jj , k) = f i(k) ((i j , k) )

set j = j + 1

Compute Vi

( j , k)

j =1

V i, j

( j , k)

i1

r=1

Vr

( j , k)

Update c = c i Vi( j , k) / V1( j , k) i < tol i j < j max

(k ) (k 1)

+ c

NO

YES Compute V b =
(k ) n i=1

set k = k + 1 Vi
(k )

Vi = 0

(k )

NO

ITERATE

YES END

Figure 4. Displacement-based pushover procedure proposed for a single masonry shear wall.

The procedure starts with the evaluation of the masses, mi, associated with each level of the wall, along with the computation of the initial elastic stiffnesses, ki,1. It must be then defined the pattern of lateral forces to be respected as the horizontal displacement of the control point (e.g. a point placed at the top of the wall) is monotonically increased. The heightwise distribution factor of lateral forces at the i-th level is then taken as:

i =

mi i m1 1

(1)

with i = zi /H and 1 = 1, for the modal pattern (which is approximated as inverse triangular), and:

then the base shear at the k-th step of the pushover procedure can be calculated as follows:

i =

mi m1

(2)

Vb( k ) = Fi ( k )
i =1

(9)

for the uniform pattern. To start the pushover procedure, it is needed also the choice of the orientation to be assigned to the lateral forces. For the first step (k = 1), the horizontal displacement of the control point can be assumed as:

and a point of the capacity curve can be plotted. If at least one of the inequalities 8 is not satisfied, then the displacement distribution factor i is wrong and it can be updated through the equation:

i( j ) = i( j 1)

i
Fi
( j ,k )

(ck ) = c =

1 max { u ,i , j } j =1,..., m 500 i =1

n

F1( j ,k )

(10)

(3)

The deformed shape of the masonry wall is not known because it depends on the effective stiffness of the storeys associated with the lateral forces. An iterative procedure is thus required for determining the displacements of the storeys. For the first iteration ( j = 1), the displacement distribution factor at each level of the masonry wall can be set equal to the one of the lateral forces, which means:

i( j ) = i

(4)

so Equations from 5 to 7 must be applied once again. Note that the correction factor of the displacement distribution coefficient has been assumed equal to the ratio between i , which is representative of the expected (given) load pattern, and Fi(j,k)/F1(j,k), which is representative of the load pattern resulting from the j-th iteration at the k-th step. This procedure does not end until inequalities 8 are verified. After a point (Vb, c) is determined at the k-th step of the incremental procedure, if it results:

The absolute displacement of the i-th level for the k-th step is given by:

Vi ( k ) = 0

(11)

i( j ,k ) = (ck ) i( j )

(5)

and the corresponding shear force applied on each pier panel (i, j) can be derived from the forcedisplacement relationship of the storey:

then a storey mechanism occurs and the capacity curve of the shear wall is ended. On the contrary, if Equation 11 is not satisfied, then the horizontal displacement of the control point is increased as follows: (ck ) = (ck 1) + c (12)

( j ,k ) i, j

= fi

(k )

( )
( j ,k ) i

(6)

given the axial force due to both gravity and seismic loads, and the secant lateral stiffness, ki. The lateral force applied to the i-th level of the masonry shear wall at the k-th step can be computed as:
Fi ( j ,k ) = Vi ,( jj , k ) Fr( j , k )
j =1 r =1 m i 1

and another iterative procedure starts to evaluate the displacement distribution factor. For each step, the position of the centre of axial stiffness at each level of the masonry wall is also updated. 4 NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF A MASONRY BUILDING

(7)

that is the difference between the storey shears related to the levels i and i 1. If the convergence test in terms of load pattern is satisfied within the fixed tolerance (e.g. tol = 10-3) and maximum number of iterations (e.g. jmax = 200), which means:
i Fi ( j ,k ) F1( j ,k ) i

< tol

(8)

j < j max

The N2 method is a rational analytical tool for non-linear seismic analysis and performance assessment of structures. It can be applied also to masonry buildings by implementing the specific behaviour features of such types of constructions. Since higher modes of vibration are less important in masonry structures, the N2 method can provide good estimates of global and local seismic response, even in the case of significant irregularities in elevation or in plan (Fajfar 2006). Let us consider a masonry building and refer to the procedure showed in Figure 5.

Calculate masses and initial elastic stiffnesses

Evaluate the positions of both centres of mass and of stiffness at each level

Set an accidental eccentricity at each level

Assign the pattern, the direction and the orientation of lateral forces

START INCREMENTAL PROCEDURE

Assign a displacement to the control point

because it depends on the effective stiffness of the storeys associated with the lateral forces. An iterative procedure is thus required for determining the displacements of the storeys. For the first iteration ( j = 1), the displacement distribution factor at each level of the masonry wall can be set equal to the one of the lateral forces (see Equation 4), or else proportional to the ratio of the initial elastic stiffnesses:

Evaluate the displacement distribution factors Update the horizontal displacements of the piers

Compute the horizontal displacements of the pier panels for a zero-torsional rotation of the level

i( j ) = i

Calculate the variations of torsional rotation Calculate the shear forces acting on the pier panels Compute the torsional rigidity of each level Rotational equilibrium of each level satisfied? Update the heightwise distribution of horizontal displacements

k1 ki

(14)

NO

to increase the rate of convergence. The absolute displacement of the centre of mass at the i-th level for the k-th step is given by:
( j ,k ) (k ) ( j) G ,i = c i

YES Compute the lateral forces

(15)

while the one experienced by each wall depends also on the torsional rotation i as it follows:
Is the resulting lateral force pattern "equal" to the assigned one? NO

( j ,k ) (i , j ,k ) i(,ik, j ,k ) = G ( d i , k d G ,i ) ,i + i

(16)

YES Compute the base shear Increment the displacement of the control point

Vi = 0

(k )

NO

ITERATE

YES END

assuming the diaphragms to be rigid in their own plane. Since also the torsional rotation of each level is not known, a further iterative cycle is needed to compute it, so another superscript i appears into Equation 16. For the first iteration (i = 1) one can set:

Figure 5. Displacement-based pushover procedure proposed for a masonry building.

i(i , j ,k ) = 0

(17)

Prior to start the displacement-based pushover analysis, one must compute masses, initial elastic stiffnesses, and the positions of their respective centres at each level of the building. Initial stiffnesses of all pier panels are known assuming a shear-type behaviour for masonry shear walls. An accidental eccentricity not lower than 5% of the building plan projection orthogonal to the seismic action must be set at each level, according to the codes. Pattern (i.e. Equation 2 or 3), direction and orientation of the lateral forces can then be assigned to the structure to be analysed. The displacement-based incremental static procedure starts by assigning an horizontal displacement to the control point of the structure, C, (e.g. the centre of mass of the top level, G1). For the first step (k = 1), it can be assumed:
(k ) c = c =

The shear force acting at the i-th level of the k-th masonry wall can be evaluated by means of the force-displacement curve defined for the level under consideration via the following functional relationship:

Vi ,(ki , j ,k ) = f i ,(kk ) ( i(,ik, j ,k ) )

(18)

The shear force acting at the i-th level of the whole building is then expressed by:

Vi (i , j ,k ) = Vi ,(ki , j ,k )
k =1

(19)

1 n max max { u ,i , j } j =1,..., m 500 i =1 k =1,..., w

The shear force applied to an individual pier panel of a given level of the building can be computed by assuming equal horizontal displacements for all pier panels belonging to the same level of a given masonry shear wall. Therefore, the secant stiffness of such a vertical structural element can be expressed as:
k i(,ij,,jk,k ) =
j ,k ) Vi ,( ij,,k

(13) As for a single masonry wall, also in this case the deformed shape of the masonry wall is not known

i(,ik, j ,k )

(20)

thanks to the use of its force-displacement curve. The position of the centre of stiffness, Si, can

be estimated at each level, so the storey torque MT can be computed as:

(i , j ,k ) (i , j ,k ) MT = Vi ,(ki , j ,k ) d i ,k d S ,i ,i

(21)

The resulting lateral load pattern must be thus compared with the assigned one, so if the convergence test:
i Fi ( i , j ,k ) F1( i , j ,k ) i

If the torsional rotations are zero at each level of the masonry structure ( i(i,j,k) = 0 i), then the torsional rigidity of the i-th level is equal to:
(i , j ,k ) (i , j ,k ) IS = k i(,ik, j ,k ) ( d i ,k d S ) ,i ,i w k =1 2

< tol

(29)

j < j max

(22)

being:
k i(,ik, j ,k ) = k i(,ij,,jk, k )
j =1 m

(23)

its secant lateral stiffness. In this case, the torsional rotations along the height can be updated as follows:

i(i , j ,k ) =

(i , j ,k ) MT ,i (i , j ,k ) IS ,i

(24)

By putting this new values in Equation 16, the procedure goes on up to assess the following convergence test:
i
(i , j ,k ) (i , j ,k ) MT Vi ( i , j ,k ) d G ,i d S ,i ,i

is satisfied, then the base shear force can be evaluated via Equation 9 and a point of the capacity curve can be plotted. Otherwise, the displacement distribution factor i is wrong and it must be updated through a numerical procedure. By setting j = j + 1, one can get an updated value of horizontal displacement at the control point. Thus, another iterative cycle (on the index i) starts to estimate the torsional rotations, as well as the heightwise distribution of displacements and shear forces for each masonry shear wall. If both the convergence tests on the rotational equilibrium and lateral load pattern are satisfied, then one can get a point (Vb, c) of the capacity curve corresponding to the k-th step of the pushover analysis. The procedure described above finishes until a storey mechanism occurs, which means:

d G ,i d

(i , j ,k ) S ,i

< tol d

(25)

Vi ( k ) = 0

(30)

i < imax

Otherwise, the horizontal displacement of the control point is increased as follows:

(ck ) = (ck 1) + c

or else:

(31)

V
k =1

( i , j ,k ) i ,k

(i , j ,k ) d i ,k d S + ,i

w i 1 (i , j ,k ) Vr(,ik, j ,k ) d G ,k d S < tol M (26) ,i k =1 r =1

i < imax If one of this inequalities is not satisfied, then each torsional rotation can be updated via the following equation:

and another iterative step (on the index k) starts to evaluate one more point of the capacity curve of the masonry building. Figure 6 shows pushover curves of a masonry building obtained for both modal and uniform lateral load patterns applied along the x- and ydirections, separately. The adopted patterns of horizontal actions should approximately bound the likely heightwise distribution of inertia forces.
x-direction - modal pattern

i(i +1, j ,k ) = i(i , j ,k )

Vi ( i , j ,k ) (i , j ,k ) d G ,i d S ,i (i , j ,k ) MT ,i

(27)

3000 2500 2000

x-direction - uniform pattern y-direction - modal pattern y-direction - uniform pattern

By putting it into Equation 16, such an iterative sub-procedure goes on until the rotational equilibrium is satisfied at each level of the building. Once the latter convergence test is verified, the global horizontal forces can be computed as:
Fi ( i , j ,k ) = Vi ( i , j ,k ) Vr( i , j ,k )
r =1 i 1

V [kN]

1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(28)

d [mm]

Figure 6. Pushover curves of a masonry building.

Nevertheless, displacement-based adaptive procedures (DAPs) could be more effective to better estimate the seismic response of irregular in-plan masonry buildings. Figure 6 shows that estimates of displacement capacity for the two lateral load pattern are very different themselves for a seismic input applied along the y-direction. This means that different failure mechanisms are predicted leading to potentially non-conservative safety verifications. Such an aspect is under analysis, at present, prior to the implementation of DAPs into the RAN method. After the pushover curve of the actual MDOF structure has been plotted, it must be scaled by the first mode participation factor. Its bilinear approximation can be used to define the lateral stiffness and the yielding force of the equivalent SDOF system. Since the elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) model can be defined in different ways, engineering judgement should be used in this transformation. Based on the elastic period of the idealised EPP system, the displacement demand can be estimated through inelastic design spectra and compared with the displacement capacity associated with the performance level under consideration. Thus, the seismic performance of the structure is assessed for each hazard intensity, at both global and local levels by transforming back the displacement demand from the SDOF to the MDOF system. To this end, suitable acceptance criteria have to be derived from experimental data for different types of masonry assemblages and for various structural elements. 5 CONCLUSIONS

newly designed masonry buildings, or on existing ones. An individual masonry shear wall, rather than a whole building, can be modelled and analysed. Safety verifications are performed in separate sections under gravity loads only and in seismic conditions. RAN code is a wholly userfriendly software and gives effective tools to optimize the structural design or assessment of masonry buildings, with particular reference to the earthquake loading conditions. REFERENCES
Abrams, D.P., 2001. Performance-based engineering concepts for unreinforced masonry building structures, Journal on Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 3, 48-56. Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., 2004a. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8 (4), 497-522 Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., 2004b. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8 (5), 643-661. ASCE, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, American Society of Civil Engineers: Washington, D.C, USA. ATC, 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC-40 Report, American Technical Council: Redwood City, USA. ATC, 2005. Improvements of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440, American Technical Council: Washington, D.C, USA. Augenti, N. (ed.), 2004. Il calcolo sismico degli edifici in muratura, UTET: Turin, Italy. Augenti, N., Acconcia, E. (eds.). Analisi sismica non lineare di edifici in muratura, in preparation. Augenti, N., Parisi, F., 2009a. Influence of the constitutive law on the flexural strength of masonry panels. 13th Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Bologna, Italy. Augenti, N., Parisi, F., 2009b. Force-displacement curves in displacement control. 13th Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Bologna, Italy. CEN, 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1:2004, Comit Europen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium. CEN, 2005a. Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures, prEN 1996-1-1:2005, Comit Europen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium. CEN, 2005b. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, prEN 1998-3:2005, Comit Europen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium. Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 561-582. Dowell, M., Jarratt, P., 1972. The Pegasus method for computing the root of an equation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 12 (4), 503-508.

The proposed displacement-based incremental static (pushover) procedures enable to control the inelastic seismic response of a masonry building, taking into account the torsional rotations of diaphragms and using new distributed plasticity macro-elements. Their strength and displacement capacities are estimated via N-V interaction domains and force-displacement curves, respectively. Different sources of geometrical and mechanical non-linearity are analytically described accounting for the adopted - constitutive law. The incremental iterative procedures presented in this paper were implemented in a new software program for seismic analysis of masonry buildings, called the RAN code (Augenti and Acconcia, in prep.). It allows to carry out both linear and non-linear static analyses either on

Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M., 1988. N2 a method for nonlinear seismic analysis of regular buildings. 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo, Kyoto, 5, 111-116. Fajfar, P., 2000. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra, 16 (3), 573-592. Fajfar, P., 2006. The N2 method for asymmetric buildings. 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Geneva, Switzerland. Freeman, S.A., 1998. The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paris, France. Magenes, G., 2006. Masonry Building Design in Seismic Areas: Recent Experiences and Prospects from a European Standpoint. 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Geneva, Switzerland. M.I.T., 2008. D.M. 14.01.2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Ministero Infrastrutture e Trasporti: Rome. SEAOC, 1995. Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Associations of California: Sacramento, USA. Shibata, A., Sozen, M.A., 1976. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 102 (1), 1-18. Tomaevi, M., Bosiljkov, V., Weiss, P., 2004. Structural Behaviour Factor for Masonry Structures. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, paper no. 2642. Turnsek, V., Cacovic, F., 1970. Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls. 2nd International Brick & Block Masonry Conference. Stoke on Trent, UK. Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23, 502-521.