Benchmarking the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings from a blind prediction test

Parisse, Francesco; Cattari, Serena; Marques, Rui Filipe Pedreira; Lourenço, Paulo B.; Magenes, Guido; Beyer, Katrin; Calderoni, Bruno; Camata, Guido; Cordasco, Emilia Angela; Erberik, Murat Altuğ; Icel, Cemal; Karakaya, M.; Malomo, Daniele; Manzini, Carlo Filippo; Marano, Corrado; Messali, Francesco; Occhipinti, Giuseppe; Pantò, Bartolomeo; Saygılı, Özden; Sousamli, M.

doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.096

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the comparative studies available in literature, three interesting blind predictions are discussed hereinafter as documented in Mendes et al (2017), Parisse et al (2021) and Esposito et al (2019), respectively. The first two involved research teams (RTs) from various universities at international scale while the third one nine engineering companies working for the seismic assessment of the Groningen building stock, that is located in the northern part of the Netherlands and was subjected in the past decade to human-induced shallow earthquakes.…”

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The blind predictions discussed in Mendes et al (2017) and Esposito et al (2019) have been carried out within the context of two experimental campaigns (on shaking table, the first one, and through a quasi-static cyclic test, the second one). Conversely, the one described in Parisse et al (2021) refers to a scientific exercise proposed within the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Special Session 18 (Magenes et al 2018), for which the feedback on the actual seismic response of the examined benchmark structure is missing. Moreover, it has to be highlighted that, despite up to now the "URM nonlinear modelling-Benchmark project" has been essentially focused to the in-plane response, the experience illustrated in Mendes et al (2017) mainly refers to the activation of out-of-plane mechanisms.…”

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Fig. 1, two different configurations have been analysed in Mendes et al (2017) and Parisse et al (2021) with analogous geometric dimensions but characterized by two different masonry typologies (i.e. irregular stone masonry and solid brick masonry); instead, the prototype tested in Esposito et al (2019) consisted in a full-scale two-story specimen resembling a modern terraced house built after 1980.…”

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the three prototype structures, the one proposed in Magenes et al (2018) (and analysed in Parisse et al 2021) is the most complex, since it consists of a three-story building with an idealized geometrical layout conceived to be representative of URM building units in historical centers of the Mediterranean and Central European countries (as based on the typological studies presented in Carocci and Circo 2014). The two proposed configurations vary not only in the types of masonry walls, but also in the horizontal diaphragms, namely: (A) stone masonry and flexible diaphragms, comparable to a traditional non-engineered building; (B) brick masonry and rigid diaphragms, comparable to a modern codebased structure.…”

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…in Mendes et al 2017;Esposito et al 2019) or in purely research experiences (e.g. Bartoli et al 2017;Parisse et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Benchmarking the software packages to model and assess the seismic response of unreinforced masonry existing buildings through nonlinear static analyses

Cattari

Magenes

2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic modelling of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings is addressed worldwide according to different approaches, not only at research level, but also in the current engineering practice. The analysts have so many different possible choices in interpreting the response of the examined structure and in transferring them into the model for the assessment that the achievable results may turn out in a huge scattering, as also testified by various comparative studies already available in the literature. Within this context, this paper is an overview of a wide research activity addressed to the benchmarking of software packages for the modelling and seismic assessment through nonlinear static analyses of URM buildings. The activity conveyed the effort of many experts from various Italian universities and was funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protection within the context of the ReLUIS projects. The main objective of the research is the critical analysis and the systematic comparison of the results obtained by using several modelling approaches and software package tools on selected benchmark examples in order to provide a useful and qualified reference to the engineering and scientific community. To this aim, different benchmark examples—of increasing complexity, ranging from the single panel to 3D existing buildings—have been specifically designed. While other papers from the teams involved in the research project delve on the specific results achieved on each of these case studies, this paper illustrates an overview on such benchmark structures, their purpose and the standardized criteria adopted to compare the results. Moreover, the whole set of benchmark case-studies is made available in this paper through their detailed input data allowing to be replicated also by other researchers and analysts.

show abstract

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivations Emerged From Other Benchmarking Studies Available In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…in Mendes et al 2017;Esposito et al 2019) or in purely research experiences (e.g. Bartoli et al 2017;Parisse et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Benchmarking the software packages to model and assess the seismic response of unreinforced masonry existing buildings through nonlinear static analyses

Cattari

Magenes

2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Macro‐Distinct Element Model (M‐DEM) for simulating in‐plane/out‐of‐plane interaction and combined failure mechanisms of unreinforced masonry structures

Malomo

DeJong

2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the seismic analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, the modeling of out-of-plane (OOP) modes and their mechanical interaction with in-plane (IP) loaded components are typically neglected when using simplified numerical methods. Although this may result in unconservative predictions, the high computational expense entailed by more refined approaches is often prohibitive for applied researchers and practitioners. To overcome these limitations, the demonstrated capabilities of a recently developed low-cost Macro-Distinct Element Model (M-DEM) to simulate IP and OOP modes are extended in this work towards the modeling of IP/OOP interaction and combined failure mechanisms of URM assemblies. In the M-DEM framework, shear and flexural damage are accounted for by zero-thickness interface spring layers, whose layout is determined a priori as a function of the masonry texture, while crushing failure is modeled through homogenized finite element macro-blocks. To adapt and validate this M-DEM scheme to model IP/OOP interaction, past experiments on full-scale C-, U-, and I-shaped URM specimens tested under quasi-static loading were simulated. The shake-table response of a full-scale C-shaped URM assembly with openings was also numerically simulated up to collapse, representing a major improvement over previous macro-element methods. After the comparison with experimental tests, a parametric investigation of the response of reference URM walls under combined IP/OOP actions was conducted, and the influence of previous IP damage on one-and two-way OOP bending capacity is quantified. This aspect, despite being widely identified as of relevant interest, has only been marginally investigated in previous research, both experimentally and numerically.

show abstract

Quantifying modeling uncertainties in seismic analysis of dams: Insights from an international benchmark study

Hariri‐Ardebili

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in nonlinear dynamic analysis of dams have not completely resolved concerns over modeling confidence and analysis accuracy. Verification and validation offer accuracy assessment, but uncertainties persist during performance evaluation due to both epistemic (modeling) and aleatory (parametric) sources. Epistemic uncertainties arise from simplifications and modeling techniques. This paper addresses epistemic uncertainties in a gravity dam seismic analysis using data from the International Comnission on Large Dams (ICOLD) benchmark study. While the benchmark formulation included the finite element model of the dam, mechanical material properties, and dynamic loads, participants retained the flexibility to opt for best‐practice modeling assumptions, simplifications, and other specifics. Notable response variability emerged, particularly in crack profiles and damage predictions. This study examines sources of variability, quantifying modeling uncertainty for the benchmark problem. More specifically, the modeling variability is quantified using the logarithmic standard deviation, also known as dispersion. This metric enables its incorporation into other seismic risk assessment and fragility studies. Under relatively low‐intensity motion (peak ground acceleration [PGA] of 0.18 g in this case), modeling dispersion of 0.45, 0.30, 0.32, and 0.30 were calculated for the maximum dynamic crest displacement, maximum hydrodynamic pressure at the heel, heel and crest maximum acceleration, respectively. Additionally, the dispersion of the failure PGA was determined to be 0.7. Findings underscore the need for systematic seismic response modeling in dam engineering to enhance prediction accuracy. A better understanding of the sources and magnitudes of modeling uncertainties can help improve the reliability of dam seismic analysis and contribute to the development of more effective risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Benchmarking the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings from a blind prediction test

Cited by 41 publications

References 31 publications

Benchmarking the software packages to model and assess the seismic response of unreinforced masonry existing buildings through nonlinear static analyses

Benchmarking the software packages to model and assess the seismic response of unreinforced masonry existing buildings through nonlinear static analyses

A Macro‐Distinct Element Model (M‐DEM) for simulating in‐plane/out‐of‐plane interaction and combined failure mechanisms of unreinforced masonry structures

Quantifying modeling uncertainties in seismic analysis of dams: Insights from an international benchmark study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About