Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Comparative inelastic pushover analysis of masonry frames

T. Salonikios a,∗, C. Karakostas a, V. Lekidis a, A. Anthoine b
a
Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, P.O. Box 53, GR-55102 Finikas, Thessaloniki, Greece
b
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, ELSA, I 21020 Ispra, Italy

Received 22 July 2002; received in revised form 15 May 2003; accepted 16 May 2003

Abstract

In the present paper, the methodology, suggested in FEMA 273 guidelines for the evaluation of the seismic capacity of existing
structures, is applied for the case of unreinforced masonry-type plane frames. Results from comparative pushover analyses of
masonry plane frames are presented. Calculations are carried out by the SAP2000 Nonlinear and CAST3M programs. For the
analysis by the SAP2000 Nonlinear program, linear elements with appropriate plastic hinges are used for the modelling. For the
analysis by the CAST3M program, two different types of models are examined, using either homogenous plane elements or discrete
brick and joint elements. From the analytical results, useful conclusions are drawn on the strength and inelastic behaviour of masonry
frames under three different distributions of the seismic lateral loads.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Unreinforced masonry walls; Profile of lateral loads; Pushover analysis; Frame elements; Homogenous elements; Discrete brick elements

1. Introduction buildings. Using such methodologies, a more reliable

Unreinforced masonry structures are found in many
earthquake prone countries. For example, many monas-
teries of mount Athos in northern Greece, that were built
at the beginning of the previous millennium, have been
repeatedly stricken by destructive earthquakes in 1366,
1511, 1572, 1776 and 1797 with magnitudes of about
6.5–6.7 [1]. In most cases, however, only some cracks
on the walls or partial collapses were observed, with no
total collapse ever reported. In contrast to this actual
behaviour, analytical computations based on conven-
tional force-based methods indicate that total collapse
should have followed such seismic actions.
Such incompatibilities between the actual structural
behaviour and the predictions stemming from conven-
tional analytical methods led to the need for using more
refined and realistic computational approaches. In recent
years, displacement-based methodologies, such as the
pushover analysis [2–4], have been proved more suitable
for cases of retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-31-047-60814; fax: +30-31-
047-6085.
E-mail address: salonikios@itsak.gr (T. Salonikios).
and realistic evaluation of the damage distribution can
be achieved.
In recent codes [5], the use of such nonlinear displace-
ment-based methods is extended to the case of unre-
inforced masonry (URM) buildings. It was found that
such structures may exhibit ductile inelastic behaviour
under combined vertical and horizontal loads [6]:
according to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, in the high
inelastic deformation range, where cohesion ceases to
exist, satisfactory ductility is provided by the friction.
The in-plane resisting mechanism activated in URM
buildings is provided by the piers and spandrels. In
addition to the normal force due to the dead loads (in
the piers only), these resisting elements are subjected to
shear and bending due to the imposed seismic action at
the base of the structure. Depending on the width to
height ratio of the element and on the respective values
of the normal force, bending moment and shear force,
three failure mechanisms might be observed [2]:
앫 Flexural (rocking) failure consisting the initial crack-
ing of the masonry in tension (in the bed joints for
piers, in both head joints and bricks in spandrels), and
the subsequent crushing of the diagonally opposite
compressed corners of the element.

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00118-4
1516 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
앫 Diagonal cracking shear failure involving the bed and
head joints and/or the bricks depending on their rela-
tive strength.
앫 Shear sliding failure along a bed joint at one end of
the structural element (only for piers).
This is fully coherent with what have been observed
during several damage surveys of masonry buildings
subjected to earthquake excitations. Two main types of
cracks have been observed: either horizontal at the ends
of the pier (or vertical at the ends of the spandrels), or
diagonal in both element types.
When an URM building is subjected to a seismic base
excitation, both bending and shear resisting mechanisms
may be activated and failure will first appear at the
location with the smallest strength. To reliably describe
the inelastic behaviour of an URM building, a model
should allow both flexural and shear mechanisms to be
activated.
Methods of displacement-based or pushover inelastic
analysis for the seismic evaluation of URM buildings
possess the advantage that loads are applied in a static
way and hence the results can be easily verified. Also,
structural elements are checked using deformation and
displacement values, which are the actual result of the
earthquake excitation on the building [4]. Irrespective of
the design methodology to be used (displacement-based
or simplified pushover analysis), there is always a need
for inelastic modelling of the building and for appropri-
ate distribution of lateral loads along the height. Among
the models suggested in the literature for the simulation
of URM walls, most prominent are the discrete brick and
joint [7], the continuum [8] and the frame element [9]
models. A comparative study using all three proposed
models is presented in this paper. In the computations,
three different lateral load distributions are also assumed,
since in URM buildings the appropriate lateral loads pro-
file is not always obvious. This problem arises from the
fact that, in such buildings, an important fraction of the
total mass is distributed along the wall height and in
many cases there are flexible wooden floors that do not
provide sufficient diaphragm constrain at their level.
2. Modelling assumptions
The resistance of URM buildings to seismic exci-
tations relies on the in-plane and out-of-plane resistance
of several load-bearing masonry walls arranged in
orthogonal planes. Out-of-plane failure may be pre-
vented by an appropriate connection between perpen-
dicular walls. In-plane failure is governed by the geo-
metric arrangement of the openings that defines a series
of piers and spandrels (plane frame) expected to sustain
the gravity and lateral loads. In the present work, two
different, two storey frames are examined, namely a one-
bay (1B) and a seven-bay (7B) model (Fig. 1). The
choice of the models is dictated from the fact that URM
buildings in earthquake prone Southern Europe countries
such as Greece are usually low-rise (in most cases one
or two storeys high), but may be smaller or larger
depending on the use (private or collective). In addition
to the self-weight of the masonry, extra masses are con-
sidered at the floor levels. For the 1B frame, a uniformly
distributed mass of 6 tons/m is assumed for the first
floor, and of 4 tons/m for the second floor. The corre-
sponding values for the 7B frame are assumed to be 3
and 2 tons/m, respectively, so as to obtain the same mass
(and associated axial load) on the piers of the 1B frame
and on the internal piers of the 7B frame (the mass on
the two external piers of the 7B is smaller).
For the analysis, three types of modelling are investi-
gated. In the first, the linear frame elements of the
SAP2000 Nonlinear program are used, while in the two
others, a continuous and discrete modelling is applied
using suitable plane and joint elements of the
CAST3M program.
The basic mechanical characteristics of the masonry
material are not a parameter for this study and are there-
fore the same for all computations (thickness of the
walls t = 0.60 m, volumetric mass r = 2 t / m3, Young
modulus E = 1650 MPa, Poisson ratio n = 0.2, tension
strength f t = 0.1 MPa, compression strength f c = 3.0
MPa). Additional parameters required for a specific
modelling option have been chosen on the basis of exist-
ing guidelines [5], engineering judgment and/or experi-
ence acquired from previous use of the model.
2.1. Linear (S) model (SAP2000)
The structures are considered as an assemblage of lin-
ear elements (beams) available in the SAP2000 Nonlin-
ear program [9]. These beams have an elastic–plastic
behaviour based on the plastic hinge concept. In this
case, a necessary prerequisite is the definition of the
possible locations and types of the plastic hinges that
might develop along the span of each element. These
plastic hinges should be able to accurately describe the
possible failure mechanisms observed in the actual struc-
tures (flexural or shear). Here, a suitable moment–
rotation (M–⌰) plastic hinge is provided at both ends
of each element (flexural mechanism), while a shear–
displacement (V–d) plastic hinge is located at the mid
span of the element (shear mechanism), as shown in
Fig. 2.
The constitutive laws of the plastic hinges are defined
according to the guidelines of FEMA 273, Table 7.2 [5]:
the initial linear elastic branch is followed by a horizon-
tal one after the first cracking. At a higher inelastic
deformation, a sudden drop of the strength to 60% of
its maximum value is assumed, and then kept constant
afterwards. For the case of structural components with
 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Fig. 1. Geometry of the frames and value of the added masses.
Fig. 2. Modelling details for piers and spandrels in the SAP2000 pro-
gram.
a height to width ratio equal to 1 (which can be con-
sidered to satisfactorily apply, from an engineering point
of view, to the frames examined here) the shape of the
constitutive law is the same for both the flexural and
shear mechanisms. The corresponding models are shown
in Fig. 3.
2.2. Continuous (C) model (CAST3M)
Masonry is considered as a two-dimensional homo-
geneous material under the plane stress assumption
(homogenized media) so that bricks and mortar joints
are not represented separately. The numerical model
chosen is the model of Mazars [10] existing in the code
1517
CAST3M [11]: it is an isotropic scalar damage model
suitable for concrete structures under monotonic loading.
The damage variable varies from 0 (virgin material) to
1 (fully destroyed material). This model is known to suf-
fer from a strong mesh-dependency in the post-peak
range, which can be eliminated through appropriate
numerical techniques (e.g. non-local or viscous
regularization). However, this was not necessary in the
present work, since the post-peak response of the struc-
tures (softening branch) is never derived. The size of the
mesh elements thus had little influence on the results and
has been chosen on a purely geometrical basis (small
enough to describe the different members but larger than
a single brick).
The elastic characteristics and the
tension/compression strengths have been set to the same
values chosen for the simplified analysis (E = 1650
MPa, n = 0.2, f t = 0.1 MPa, f c = 3.0 MPa). The para-
meters governing the post-peak behaviour of the model
have been chosen so as to obtain a brittle softening in
tension and a more ductile softening in compression
(Fig. 4).
2.3. Discrete (D) model (CAST3M)
Masonry is considered as a two-dimensional hetero-
geneous material under the plane stress assumption: the
bricks are modelled separately (elastic material) and the
mortar joints are represented by elastic–plastic interface
elements [7,12]. The plastic yielding of the interface is
governed by a composite yield locus featuring a usual
Mohr–Coulomb criterion, a tension cut-off and a com-
pression cut-off. The post-peak regime is controlled by
three uniaxial evolutions featuring, respectively, the
behaviours in pure shear, pure tension and pure com-
pression.
The elastic characteristics of the brick and mortar joint
are usually very different (the former are much stiffer
than the latter). The Young moduli of the two materials
(2400 MPa for brick and 400 MPa for mortar) have been
chosen so as to give on average (owing to the bond pat-
tern, masonry is orthotropic) a value around 1650 MPa.
The friction angle of the interface was 30° and the
1518 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4. Continuous (Mazars) model: (a) meshes and (b) uniaxial stress–strain curves of the material in tension and compression.
cohesion 0.09 MPa. The tension/compression strengths
of the masonry (0.1 and 3.0 MPa) have been affected to
the tension/compression cut-offs of the interface. The
post-peak behaviour was again chosen very brittle in ten-
sion and more ductile in compression and shear (Fig. 5).
Furthermore, in order to maintain a reasonable size of
finite element problem, especially for the 7B frame, the
dimensions of the bricks have been overvalued (0.50 ×
0.25 m instead of 0.20 × 0.10 m).
2.4. Distribution of lateral loading
The loading is imposed on the structures in a two-step
sequence. In the first step, the vertical (permanent) loads
are applied and, in the second step, the lateral loads are
imposed. The values of the latter are then increased mon-
otonically step by step [13]. The analysis is carried out
until a prescribed displacement value at a prescribed
(control) node is achieved or until any further increment
of the lateral load becomes impossible. In particular,
Linear (S) model.
such a force-controlled loading makes inaccessible the
possible softening branch of the response. In the com-
parative analyses, three different lateral load distri-
butions were used:
앫 Load case ACC: The lateral force applied at each
node is proportional to the mass tributary to that node.
When all nodes have the same mass, this load case
results in a uniform distribution of the lateral loads.
앫 Load case LOAD: The lateral force applied at each
node is proportional to the product of the height of
the node times the mass tributary to that node. When
all nodes have the same mass, this load case results in
an inverse triangular distribution of the lateral loads.
앫 Load case MODE: The lateral force applied at each
node is proportional to the product of the displace-
ment of the node in the first mode shape times the
mass tributary to that node. This load case results in
lateral loads proportional to the inertial forces applied
to the structure when vibrating freely according to its
 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Fig. 5. Discrete (elastic bricks, nonlinear joints) model: (a) meshes and (b) failure criterion of the joints with the corresponding stress–displacement
curves in tension, shear and compression.
first mode shape. When the first mode shape is shear
or even bending dominated as in the case of the build-
ings studied here, this load case results very close to
the previous one (i.e. LOAD) because the lateral
forces have a fairly small vertical component even in
a bending mode.
3. Comparative presentation of the numerical
results
A preliminary analysis (computation of the first mode
shapes and frequencies) was necessary in order to define
the distribution of the lateral forces for the MODE load
case. This was also an opportunity to check the possible
differences already existing between the different model-
ling strategies in the linear elastic domain. All three
modelling approaches (S, C and D) have been found to
yield the same fundamental frequency and very similar
mode shapes.
1519
Each of the 18 analysis cases described above leads
to the pushover curve, i.e. the base shear versus displace-
ment at the control point (middle point at the top of the
building) curve, as well as to the failure mechanism cor-
responding to the maximum shear achieved (peak or
plateau). As mentioned earlier, the probable softening
branch could not be obtained because the loading was
force-controlled.
The base shear–displacement curves obtained by the
simplified (S) analyses are presented in Fig. 6, for each
frame and each load case considered. As can be easily
seen, the lateral load distribution does not seem to gre-
atly affect the pushover curves of the S models (same
ultimate strength). The only difference seems to be a
higher stiffness of the frames under the ACC load case,
which is clearly due to the distribution of the lateral
loads: independently of the load case considered, the
piers of the first storey are subjected to the same shear
(i.e. the total base shear V), whereas the shear applied
to the piers of the second storey is much lower in the
1520 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Fig. 6. Pushover curves for the linear model: (a) 1B frame and (b)
7B frame.
ACC load case than in the LOAD or MODE ones, thus
resulting in a lower total displacement at the con-
trolled point.
Also of interest are the mechanisms of the creation of
the plastic hinges, which are presented in Fig. 7.
Although the spatial and temporal activation of the
hinges generally depends on the load case, the final fail-
ure mechanism is always determined by the shear failure
of all piers of the first storey, resulting in a lateral (quasi)
rigid translation of the upper part of the building (same
displacement at both floors). This explains why the lat-
eral ultimate strength does not depend on the distribution
of the lateral loads: only the horizontal resultant force is
working (not the resultant bending moment). This also
explains why the ultimate lateral strength is approxi-
mately the sum of the shear strengths of the piers of the
first storey, i.e. 2 × 90 = 180 kN for the 1B frame and
8 × 90 = 720 kN for the 7B frame.
The results for the continuous (C) models (pushover
curves and failure mechanisms) are presented in Figs. 8
and 9 for the 1B and 7B frames, respectively, while the
corresponding results for the discrete (D) models are
presented in Figs. 10 and 11, with the exception of the
7B model under the MODE load case (early interruption
of the computations due to lack of convergence).
Despite significant differences (ultimate strength and
Fig. 7. Plastic hinges formation history for the linear models.
corresponding displacement, failure mechanisms), the
results of the C and D analyses present common features
not observed on the results of the S analyses. To begin
with, the LOAD and MODE load cases always yield
similar results (same pushover curves, similar failure
mechanism), whereas the ACC load case always results
in a greater stiffness and a much higher ultimate load.
This is again due to the fact that the shear applied to the
piers of the second storey is much higher in the LOAD
and MODE load cases than in the ACC one. Under the
LOAD/MODE load case, not only the total displacement
at the controlled point is higher (lower stiffness as in the
simplified analyses), but also the failure mechanism is
not restricted to the shear failure of the piers of the first
storey. For the 7B frame, the failure largely involves the
second storey where most piers undergo a rocking fail-
ure, whereas, under the ACC load case, the failure is
mainly concentrated in the first storey (as in all simpli-
 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Fig. 8. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 1B con-
tinuous model.
fied analyses). This is particularly clear in Fig. 9. For
the 1B frame, however, this explanation does not hold
true since, independently of the load case, the final fail-
ure always occurs through an overall rocking of the
structure. The increased strength under the ACC load
case is then attributable to the differential horizontal dis-
placement along the height: the resultant bending
moment then contributes substantially to the failure but
less in the ACC case.
Another significant difference with the simplified
analysis is the fundamental influence of the number of
bays on the behaviour of frames: for a given modelling
and a given load case, the failure mechanism of the 7B
frame is far from being the spatial repetition of the fail-
ure mechanism of the 1B frame. Consequently, the ulti-
mate strength of the 7B frame is not approximately four
times the ultimate strength of the 1B frame, as found in
the simplified analyses, but much more (five or six
times).
All the pushover curves obtained in the C analysis
reach higher shear values and exhibit a slower stiffness
degradation before failure than their analogues in the D
analysis. However, the differences are substantial only
for the 7B frame. Indeed, the failure mechanisms of the
1B frame are similar in both modelling (overall rocking),
whereas the failure mechanisms of the 7B frame exhibit
major differences. In the C analysis, the shear failure
observed on the piers always occurs by diagonal crack-
ing, whereas in the D analysis, a clear shear sliding takes
place in one (or two) joint(s) at the bottom of the
element. Similarly, the rocking failure of the piers is
1521
Fig. 9. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 7B con-
tinuous model.
more extensive in the C analysis (the junction zones
between piers and spandrels are also involved) than in
the D analysis where only one (top or bottom) joint is
opening. This could explain why the strength and stiff-
ness of the models are higher in the C analysis,
especially for the 7B frame: the progressive and final
failure of the 7B frame requires much more energy in
the C analysis (extensive failure of the piers and/or
neighbour junctions) than in the D analysis (localized
failure of few horizontal joints).
From the whole discussion it appears that the differ-
ences between the results obtained by the three types of
analysis are clearly linked to a modelling strategy more
or less able to adequately describe the inelastic behav-
iour of the masonry, even if the material data are chosen
in a consistent way. These differences are more accentu-
ated in the case of the multi-bay frames and for the ACC
load case. For example, under the MODE load case, the
shear strength of the 1B frame is 180 kN both for the
simplified (S) and discrete (D) models but is reached at
different top displacement values (6 and 15 mm,
1522 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

respectively), whereas the continuous model reaches a

slightly higher shear strength (210 kN) at 40 mm. Con-
versely, for the 7B frame under the ACC load case, the
strength and corresponding top displacement values for
the S, D and C models are 700 kN at 2 mm, 950 kN at
6 mm and 1600 kN at 10 mm, respectively.

4. Conclusions

It should be noted that the existing literature on the

Fig. 10. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 1B dis-
crete model.
Fig. 11. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 7B dis-
crete model.
inelastic modelling of masonry frames is rather limited,
and very few guidelines are available for the analytical
simulation of the stress–strain laws of the materials
involved (e.g. bricks, mortar and/or masonry). So, in this
work, the assumptions used were based on engineering
judgment and previous experience of the authors. A syn-
opsis of the comparative study of the results obtained
follows.
Depending on the modelling strategy adopted, the
results differ not only quantitatively (shear strength
value and corresponding displacements) but also quali-
tatively (failure mechanism). As far as the maximum
developed strength is concerned, the lower estimates are
obtained by the S models, followed by the D models (up
to 40% higher) and the C models (up to 130% higher),
the differences being much more accentuated in the case
of the multi-bay frames under the ACC load case. The
type of structure (single bay or multiple bays) is also
decisive (excepted in the S analyses), since the failure
mechanism is quite different in each case (overall rock-
ing for the 1B frame, shear failure of the piers in first
storey and rocking failure of the piers in the second sto-
rey for the 7B frame). Even the load case has a notice-
able influence: the ACC load case leads to a consistently
higher strength (excepted in the S analysis) and a differ-
ent failure mechanism whereas the LOAD and MODE
load cases are always equivalent.
The simplified (S) approach appears over-simplified
for not being able to predict different types of failure
mechanisms according to the type of structure and/or
loading. Probably, the hinges (location, type, and above
all, constitutive law) need to be refined in order to better
describe the inelastic behaviour of the masonry elements.
Nevertheless, since it systematically leads to conserva-
tive results (underestimate of the ultimate strength), the
simplified approach may always be used as a first step
for the assessment of existing masonry frames.
From the whole research effort, significant scattering
in the results was observed, depending on the modelling
approach and the assumptions used. This fact indicates
the need for further research towards a proper calibration
of the various modelling techniques, which should ide-
ally be based on combined experimental/numerical
efforts in this direction.
 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523
Acknowledgements
A significant part of the present research effort was
made possible thanks to funding by the European Com-
munity through a Marie Curie Grant No. HPMF-CT-
2000-00697, Human Capital and Mobility program.
References
[1] Papazachos B, Papazachou C. The earthquakes of Greece. Thes-
saloniki: Ziti Publications, 1997.
[2] Magenes G, Della Fontana A. Simplified non-linear seismic
analysis of masonry buildings. Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-
national Masonry Conference. British Masonry Society, No. 8,
October 1998, p. 190–5.
[3] Magenes G. A method for pushover analysis in seismic assess-
ment of masonry buildings. 12 WCEE, New Zealand 2000, paper
number 1866.
[4] Calvi M. A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evalu-
ation of classes of buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(3):411–38.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Guidelines for
1523
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Rep. FEMA 273, Wash-
ington (DC): 1998.
[6] Magenes G, Calvi M. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry
walls. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J 1997;26:1091–112.
[7] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic
response of brick masonry shear walls. Part I. The mortar joint
model and its applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J
1997;26(4):423–39.
[8] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic
response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II. The continuum
model and its applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J
1997;26(4):441–62.
[9] Sap 2000 Nonlinear. Three dimensional static and dynamic
finite element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley (CA,
USA): Computers and Structures Inc, 1999.
[10] Mazars J. A description of micro and macroscale damage of con-
crete structures. Eng Fract Mech 1986;25:729–37.
[11] Millard A. CAST3M 2000, Manuel d’ utilisation, rapport CEA-
LAMBS 93/007, Saclay, 1993.
[12] Pegon P, Pinto V, Geradin M. Numerical modeling of stone-block
monumental structures. In: Proceedings of ECCM’99, Munchen,
Germany. 1999.
[13] Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of R/C structures sub-
jected to earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):403–28.