Modelling and Seismic Response Analysis of Existing URM Structures. Part 1: Archetypes of Italian Modern Buildings

References

• Antoniou, S., and R. Pinho. 2004. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8 (5): 643–61. doi: 10.1080/13632460409350504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azizi-Bondarabadi, H., N. Mendes, and P. B. Lourenco. 2019. Higher mode effects in pushover analysis of irregular masonry buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 25 (8): 1459–93. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2019.1579770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer, K., and A. Dazio. 2012. Quasi-static monotonic and cyclic tests on composite spandrels. Earthquake Spectra 28 (3): 885–906. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. doi: 10.1193/1.4000058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer, K., and S. Mangalathu. 2013. Review of strength models for masonry spandrels. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11 (2): 521–42. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9394-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer, K., and S. Mangalathu. 2014. Numerical study on the peak strength of masonry spandrels with arches. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 18 (2): 169–86. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2013.851047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracchi, S., M. Rota, A. Penna, and G. Magenes. 2015. Consideration of modelling uncertainties in the seismic assessment of masonry buildings by equivalent-frame approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13 (11): 3423–48. doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9760-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracchi, S., M. Mandirola, M. Rota, and A. Penna. 2020. A new macroelement-based strategy for modelling reinforced masonry piers. Proceedings of the7th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Krakow, Poland.
   Google Scholar
• Bracchi, S., A. Galasco, and A. Penna. 2021. A novel macroelement model for the nonlinear analysis of masonry buildings. Part: Axial and flexural behavior. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 50 (8): 2233–52. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracchi, S., and A. Penna. 2021. A novel macroelement model for the nonlinear analysis of masonry buildings. Part 2: Shear behavior. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 50 (8): 2212–32. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calderini, C., S. Cattari, and S. Lagomarsino. 2009. In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 38: 243–67. doi: 10.1002/eqe.860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattari, S., S. Resemini, and S. Lagomarsino. 2008. Modelling of vaults as equivalent diaphragms in 3D seismic analysis of masonry buildings. In Structural analysis of historic construction: Preserving safety and significance, two volume set, ed. D. D'Ayala and E. Fodde, 537–44. London, UK: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cattari, S., and S. Lagomarsino. 2013a. Seismic assessment of mixed masonry-reinforced concrete buildings by non-linear static analyses. Earthquake and Structures 4 (3): 241–64. doi: 10.12989/eas.2013.4.3.241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattari, S., and S. Lagomarsino. 2013b. Masonry structures,51–200. In Developments in the field of displacement based seismic assessment, ed. T. Sullivan and G. M. Calvi, 524. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press and EUCENTRE.
   Google Scholar
• Cattari, S., D. Camilletti, S. Lagomarsino, S. Bracchi, M. Rota, and A. Penna. 2018. Masonry Italian code-conforming buildings. Part 2: Nonlinear modelling and time-history analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 22 (sup2): 2010–40. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2018.1541030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEN 2005. 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• da Porto, F., M. Donà, A. Rosti, M. Rota, S. Lagomarsino, S. Cattari, B. Borzi, M. Onida, D. De Gregorio, F. L. Perelli, et al. 2021. Comparative analysis of the fragility curves for Italian residential masonry and RC buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (8): 3209–52. doi: 10.1007/s10518-021-01120-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decreto Ministeriale. 12 Febbraio 1982. Aggiornamento delle norme tecniche relative ai criteri generali per la verifica di sicurezza delle costruzioni e dei carichi e sovraccarichi. G. U. n. 56 del 26 febbraio982. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Decreto Ministro Lavori Pubblici. 20 Novembre 1987. Norme tecniche per la progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo degli edifici in muratura e per il loro consolidamento. S. O. alla G. U. n. 285 del 5 dicembre987. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I. 2017. Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 46 (10): 1711–23. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I., A. Spillatura, and P. Bazzurro. 2018. Seismic reliability of code-conforming Italian buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 22 (sup2): 5–27. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2018.1540372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I., R. Baraschino, and A. Spillatura. 2022a. Evolution of seismic reliability of code-conforming Italian buildings. Journal Earthquake Engineering. doi:10.1080/13632469.2022.2087801. under review.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I., R. Baraschino, D. Cardone, L. R. S. Viggiani, G. Della Corte, S. Lagomarsino, A. Penna, A. Belleri, and P. Riva. 2022b. Seismic fragility of Italian code-conforming buildings by multi-stripe dynamic analysis of three-dimensional structural models. Journal Earthquake Engineering. under review.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics). 2011. Censimento generale della popolazione—Dati sulle caratteristiche strutturale della popolazione, delle abitazioni e variabili. Accessed May 10, 2020. http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/104317. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Kallioras, S., F. Graziotti, and A. Penna. 2019. Numerical assessment of the dynamic response of a URM terraced house exposed to induced seismicity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17: 1521–52. doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0495-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreslin, M., and P. Fajfar. 2012. The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 10 (2): 695–715. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagomarsino, S., A. Penna, A. Galasco, and S. Cattari. 2013. TREMURI program: An equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Engineering Structures 56 (11): 1787–99. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagomarsino, S., and S. Cattari. 2015. Seismic performance of historical masonry structures through pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. In Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, ed. A. Ansal, Vol. 39, 265–92. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_11.
   Google Scholar
• Lagomarsino, S., S. Cattari, and D. Ottonelli. 2021. The Heuristic vulnerability model: Fragility curves for masonry buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (8): 3129–63. doi: 10.1007/s10518-021-01063-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagomarsino, S., S. Cattari, M. Angiolilli, S. Bracchi, M. Rota, and A. Penna. 2022. Modelling and seismic response analysis of existing URM structures. Part 2: Archetypes of Italian historical buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–26. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2022.2087800.
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore, D., ed. 2000. Progetto Catania: Indagine sulla risposta sismica di due edifici in muratura. Rome, Italy: CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Magenes, G., G. M. Calvi, and G. R. Kingsley. 1995. Seismic testing of a full-scale, two story masonry building: Test procedure and measured experimental response, in: Experimental and numerical investigation on a brick masonry building prototype - numerical prediction of the experiment. Report 3.0 G.N.D.T, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Magenes, G., and G. M. Calvi. 1997. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26: 1091–112. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.0.CO;2-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magenes, G., P. Morandi, and A. Penna. 2008. Experimental in-plane cyclic response of masonry walls with clay units. Proceedings of the4th WCEE, 8, Beijing, China. Paper No. 95.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W., and H. Müller. 1982. Failure of shear-stressed masonry: An enlarged theory, tests and application to shear walls. Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society 30: 223–35.
   Google Scholar
• Messali, F., G. Metelli, and G. Plizzari. 2017. Experimental results on the retrofitting of hollow brick masonry walls with reinforced high performance mortar coatings. Construction and Building Materials 141: 619–30. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MIT19. 2019. Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportation Circ. C.S.Ll.Pp. No. 7 of 21/1/2019: “Istruzioni per l’applicazione dell’”Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni” di cui al decreto ministeriale7 gennaio 2018.” Consiglio superiore dei lavori pubblici. S.O. n 5.alla G.U. del1.2.2019, No. 35. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Morandi, P., L. Albanesi, F. Graziotti, T. Li Piani, A. Penna, and G. Magenes. 2018. Development of a dataset on the in-plane experimental response of URM piers with bricks and blocks. Construction and Building Materials 190: 593–611. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morandi, P., L. Albanesi, and G. Magenes. 2021. In-plane cyclic response of new URM systems with thin web and shell clay units. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 25 (8): 1533–64. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2019.1586801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NTC18. 2018. Decreto Ministeriale7 Gennaio 2018: “Aggiornamento delle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni,” Ministero delle Infrastrutture. S.O. n.42 alla G.U. del 20.2.2018, No. 8. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Penna, A., S. Lagomarsino, and A. Galasco. 2014. A nonlinear macro-element model for the seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43 (2): 159–79. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, M., C. Calderini, and S. Lagomarsino. 2016. Experimental testing of the seismic in-plane displacement capacity of masonry cross vaults through a scale model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14 (1): 261–81. doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9815-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosti, A., M. Rota, and A. Penna. 2021. Empirical fragility curves for Italian URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (8): 3057–76. doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00845-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rota, M., S. Bracchi, D. Iorio, and A. Penna. 2020. Typological seismic fragility assessment of old railway stations by nonlinear time history analysis. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2020.1822884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnšek, V., and P. Sheppard. 1980. The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls. Proceedings of the International Research Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, Macedonia.
   Google Scholar
• Verderame, G. M., P. Ricci, M. Esposito, and G. Manfredi. 2012. STIL v.1.0 – Software per la caratterizzazione meccanica degli acciai da c.a. tra il950 e il 2000. ReLUIS, Naples, Italy. http://www.reluis.it. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar