Available online at [Link].

com
Available online at [Link]

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at [Link]
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000
[Link]/locate/procedia
[Link]/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081

XIX
XIX ANIDIS
ANIDIS Conference,
Conference, Seismic
Seismic Engineering
Engineering in
in Italy
Italy

On
On the
the vulnerability
vulnerability features
features of
of historical
historical masonry
masonry buildings
buildings in
in
aggregate
aggregate
Michele
Michele Angiolilli
Angiolillia,, Silvia
a
Silvia Pinasco
Pinascoa*
a*, Serena Cattaria, Sergio Lagomarsinoa
a
, Serena Cattari , Sergio Lagomarsino
a

a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, University of Genoa, 16145 Genova, Italy
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, University of Genoa, 16145 Genova, Italy

Abstract
Abstract
Damage and losses caused by several seismic events revealed the significant seismic risk of existing unreinforced masonry (URM)
Damage and losses caused by several seismic events revealed the significant seismic risk of existing unreinforced masonry (URM)
structures in aggregate, especially when belonging to historical centers of small municipalities. Small historical centers are
structures in aggregate, especially when belonging to historical centers of small municipalities. Small historical centers are
frequently the consequence of a centuries-long process of building expansion that results in interacting units with varying materials,
frequently the consequence of a centuries-long process of building expansion that results in interacting units with varying materials,
construction techniques, heights, states of preservation, and, in some cases, spontaneous repairs. All these complicated factors
construction techniques, heights, states of preservation, and, in some cases, spontaneous repairs. All these complicated factors
contribute to the fact that seismic assessment of URM buildings in aggregate still constitutes a challenging topic and an open issue
contribute to the fact that seismic assessment of URM buildings in aggregate still constitutes a challenging topic and an open issue
both at research level and in engineering practice. Structural irregularities, connection quality among structural parts, diaphragm
both at research level and in engineering practice. Structural irregularities, connection quality among structural parts, diaphragm
flexibility, and the lack of aseismic devices are all well-known factors impacting the seismic response of historic masonry
flexibility, and the lack of aseismic devices are all well-known factors impacting the seismic response of historic masonry
structures. Despite that, no univocal answers are available in the literature on the beneficial or detrimental effect for structural units
structures. Despite that, no univocal answers are available in the literature on the beneficial or detrimental effect for structural units
to be in aggregate or not (apart evident cases) neither standardized procedure to quantity such effects as well as the possible
to be in aggregate or not (apart evident cases) neither standardized procedure to quantity such effects as well as the possible
interaction between in-plane (IP) damage and local out-of-plane (OOP) mechanisms. After describing the various possible methods
interaction between in-plane (IP) damage and local out-of-plane (OOP) mechanisms. After describing the various possible methods
for assessing the seismic vulnerability of masonry aggregate, the paper summarizes the key results of an analytical-numerical
for assessing the seismic vulnerability of masonry aggregate, the paper summarizes the key results of an analytical-numerical
approach applied to various URM aggregates located in different locations with moderate to high seismic risk. The paper examines
approach applied to various URM aggregates located in different locations with moderate to high seismic risk. The paper examines
the “aggregate-effect” as well as the effects of combining IP and OOP mechanisms on the fragility curves of the case studies. For
the “aggregate-effect” as well as the effects of combining IP and OOP mechanisms on the fragility curves of the case studies. For
the first aim, results of structural units analyzed as isolated or inserted in the aggregate are compared by using both nonlinear static
the first aim, results of structural units analyzed as isolated or inserted in the aggregate are compared by using both nonlinear static
analyses (i.e. pushover) and nonlinear dynamic analyses. For the second aim, the findings concern a newly integrated approach for
analyses (i.e. pushover) and nonlinear dynamic analyses. For the second aim, the findings concern a newly integrated approach for
assessing local behaviors and combining them with the global response. In particular, the IP response of URM buildings was
assessing local behaviors and combining them with the global response. In particular, the IP response of URM buildings was
simulated through a 3D Equivalent Frame model of the structures, whereas out-of-plane OOP mechanisms were evaluated
simulated through a 3D Equivalent Frame model of the structures, whereas out-of-plane OOP mechanisms were evaluated
separately but using floor accelerations derived from post-processing of data from the global 3D model as seismic input, aiming to
separately but using floor accelerations derived from post-processing of data from the global 3D model as seismic input, aiming to
explicitly consider the filtering effect provided by the non-linear dynamic response of the structure at the different building levels.
explicitly consider the filtering effect provided by the non-linear dynamic response of the structure at the different building levels.
The outcomes highlight the difficulties of adequately capturing the seismic response of mutually interacting structural units through
The outcomes highlight the difficulties of adequately capturing the seismic response of mutually interacting structural units through
pushover analyses as well as the impossibility to combine IP and OOP without using sophisticated numerical models.
pushover analyses as well as the impossibility to combine IP and OOP without using sophisticated numerical models.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2023
© 2022The TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by ELSEVIER
by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
This isisan
This anopen
openaccess
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-NDlicenselicense ([Link]
([Link]
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the
of the XIX XIX ANIDIS
ANIDIS Conference,
Conference, Seismic Engineering
Seismic Engineering in Italy. in Italy
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy
Keywords: unreinforced masonry structures, building in aggregate, nonlinear dynamic analyses, equivalent frame model, out-of-plane
Keywords: unreinforced masonry structures, building in aggregate, nonlinear dynamic analyses, equivalent frame model, out-of-plane
mechanisms, seismic vulnerability
mechanisms, seismic vulnerability

2452-3216 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

2452-3216 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy

2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy.
10.1016/[Link].2023.01.265
 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081 2075
2 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

1. Introduction

The seismic hazard on the Italian territory is medium to high, highlighting the need for risk reduction measures
especially when paired with the high vulnerability of the existing building stock. Recent seismic events have exposed
the extreme vulnerability of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) structures in historic centers (e.g., D'Ayala and
Paganoni (2011), Carocci (2012), Sorrentino et al. (2019)). The vulnerability sources within existing URM aggregate
are various and mainly depend on the type of construction, weakening of the masonries due to improvised renovations,
and the typical building density of the old towns. A common way of URM aggregate construction was to add structural
components to pre-existing ones. As a result, adjacent structural units (SUs) are linked together through a structural
connection that is variable in its effectiveness. Indeed, SUs can be found with shared mid-walls or built independently
but in contact with pre-existing ones. The complicated structural configuration, as well as the utilization of a variety
of materials and building processes, made the seismic assessment of URM aggregate challenging. Several approaches
for assessing seismic vulnerability have been developed in recent decades, such as:
• Large-scale approaches based on empirical evaluations obtained from post-earthquake data that identifies
“vulnerability classes" based on a few key morpho-typological and structural properties. Therefore, a vulnerability
model for each recognized class can be calibrated. This is accomplished using statistical elaborations, which have
the benefit of requiring limited data and processing quickly, making them ideal for analyzing a large number of
structures or an entire city of big size (Del Gaudio et al. (2019), Penna et al. 2022a, Sisti et al. (2019);
• Holistic approach is a multi-scale approach based on several components (i.e., hazard, vulnerability, exposure, and
consequences) (Cardinali et al. (2021), Pirchio et al. (2021));
• Heuristic approach which is based also on the expert judgment (e.g. Vicente et al. (2014), Brando et al. (2017),
Lagomarsino et al. (2021), Sandoli et al. (2022));
• Analytical/mechanical methodologies, which determine a vulnerability function that connects structural capacity
and seismic demand using numerical models and building simulation procedures. Those methods necessitate in-
depth understanding of the building's properties and time-consuming structural calculations (particularly high for
large-scale applications) (Cocco et al. 2019, Cima et al. (2021), Leggieri et al. (2021), Nale at al. (2021);
• Analytical/numerical approach (Ramos and Lourenço (2004), Senaldi et al. (2010), Formisano and Massimilla
(2019), Bernardini et al. (2019), Degli Abbati et al. (2019), Valente et al. 2019, Greco et al. 2020, Angiolilli et al.
(2021), Battaglia et al. (2021), Bernando et al. (2022));
• Hybrid techniques integrating the different procedures by individuating representative building classes (Kappos et
al. (2006), Maio et al. (2015). This method is useful when there is large observational data is missing or when
calibrating or validating the results of analytical models is problematic.
Despite the considerable effort put out in the aforementioned studies, some shortcomings remain. In particular, the
aggregate-effect as well as the explicit consideration of the interaction between local mechanisms (OOP or pounding
mechanisms) and the IP behavior is missing in most of the studies. For example, in empirical methods, only the unit
location is treated as an extra vulnerability source making very difficult investigating in depth if the interaction among
SUs is detrimental or beneficial varying the features of SUs. Furthermore, several analytical methods merely account
for the IP or OOP response separately, without taking into consideration their interaction. It is worth mentioning that
IP damage affects OOP strength decrease, as well documented in Dolatshahi and Yekrangnia (2015).
One of the strategy to obtain reliable results at large scale, it is represented by the development of analytical-
methodologies (able to take into account the problems described above) applied to a consistent number of
representative case studies that, by varying their building features (e.g. geometry of buildings, layout of openings,
structural details and restraints given by the structure, mechanical properties, diaphragm typologies, …), it allows to
obtain more general results able to cover the much greater variability of the Italian building stock within small
historical centres. Hence, the final deliverables of such studies (e.g. Lagomarsino et al. 2022) will improve and enrich
the current database and increase the level of accuracy and reliability of large scale approaches. This leads to the
possibility of obtaining a more accurate damage scenario specific for buildings with different peculiarities, such as
different era (modern or historic) or context (within small or big historical centres).
The mutual interaction between adjacent SUs is one of the main issue to be considered within the seismic
assessment of historic URM aggregate. The influence of the SU compounds on the seismic behavior of the individual
buildings is known as "aggregate-effect". A misleading aspect regarding this effect is represented to the fact that in
2076 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081
M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 3

analytical approaches, the aggregate-effect is often meant as the effect that boundary conditions, provided by adjacent
SUs, may have on the seismic response of an individual building belonging to an aggregate. Despite the modeling of
adjacent SUs is often wrongly neglected, most of the analytical study reported above concluded that aggregate-effect
was beneficial for the individual units, although this outcome can be also associated to the type of the analysis. Indeed,
in Angiolilli et al. (2021) it was shown that nonlinear static analyses (NSA) are not appropriate, as compared to the
nonlinear dynamic analyses (NDA), to gather accurately the seismic response of mutual interacting SUs. On the other
hand, from most of the empirical observations, one can conclude that isolated buildings are less vulnerable than
aggregated buildings. This is because isolated buildings are usually characterized by a structural typology and an
architectural configuration different from buildings belonging to aggregate.
The challenges related with the aggregate-effect, as well as the combination of local and IP mechanisms, will be
highlighted in this work. In the current literature, there are various valid computational models and methodologies for
assessing URM structures, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks in terms of representativeness, computer
efficiency, and application (Roca et al. (2010), Asteris (2015)). Modelling historic URM structures, on the other hand,
necessitates special considerations and a design philosophy distinct from that used for modern URM and other
materials. The ability to appropriately represent the interaction between IP and OOP responses, as well as the influence
of diaphragm failures on them, is a must. Although sophisticated detailed models capable of directly representing
local mechanisms within the analysis of the global response can be used (e.g. Lourenço et al. (2011), Castellazzi et al.
(2017), Malomo et al. (2020), Grant et al. (2021)), their high computational burden prevents their use for large
numbers of nonlinear analyses on complete building models. Equivalent Frame (EF) models requires a limited number
of degrees of freedom, with a reasonable reduction in computational effort, allowing the analysis of complex models
of URM structures. In the proposed procedure, the IP response of the buildings is based on the use of EF models
whereas the local mechanisms are evaluated in a separate way. The combination of responses can be then performed
according to the procedure described in Angiolilli et al (2021) and Lagomarsino et al. (2022).
Within this general context, this work presents the results obtained for two numerical models representative of
URM aggregate belonging to small to large Italian historical centres. The models were developed in previous studies
(Angiolilli et al. (2021), Brunelli et al. (2022)) and results are herein post-processed to highlight the effect mutual
interaction between adjacent SUs during seismic events in terms of fragility curves, explicitly accounting also for
local mechanisms.

2. Main outcomes obtained for the investigated case studies

2.1. Features and modelling criteria of the case studies

The two studied case-studies consists of URM-SUs belonging to aggregate located in Catania and Visso (Italy).
They are representative of very complex building conglomerates in which the interaction between SUs is fundamental
to be evaluated to accurately estimate their seismic response.
In particular, regarding the Catania’s aggregate, a corner structural unit of a L-shaped aggregate formed with two
adjacent SUs was taken as reference building. It is assumed that the two SUs were built after the construction of the
reference building, simply built against it without doubling the boundary walls. The 3-storey URM building is
characterized by a thickness of the external lavic stone walls ranging from 0.55 m to 0.7 m, as well as an internal wall
thickness ranging from 0.25 m to 0.4 m. The same geometrical features were assumed also for the two adjacent
buildings. The case study was recently studied in Angiolilli et al. (2021) and Lagomarsino et al. (2022).
Regarding the Visso’s aggregate, four of five adjacent SUs belonging to the so-called "row housing" (consisting of
a series of buildings aggregated in lines) were studied. The geometric and structural details of the units were assumed
on the basis of field survey and, in some cases, were also based on the characteristics of neighboring damaged
buildings that showed almost clearly the type of the masonry, the diaphragm system, and the distribution of the internal
space. In particular, the load-bearing walls were characterized by two-leaf stone masonry, with rough stones sizing
about 90-120 mm in height and 360-400 mm in length. Floor diaphragms were assumed to be composed of concrete
slab (not reinforced) system 150 mm tick. Only sporadic tie-rods were present, making some of structural units
possibly susceptible to the activation of OOP mechanisms, especially at the upper building floor. The Visso’s
aggregate was struck by several mainshocks in 2016 causing widespread damage to the SUs (Brunelli et al. 2022). In
 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081 2077
4 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

this paper, the condition prior to the 2016 earthquakes is investigated. Please refer to Angiolilli et al. (2022a) for
further information on the case study. Table 1 lists the main characteristics of the URM aggregates under investigation.

Table 1. Main features of the two case studies (*maximum dimensions of the entire aggregate)
Nr. of Min/max Interstorey Dimension in plan
Site Era Plan configuration
storeys heights [m] [m]
Catania 1840s 3 C-shaped unit within a L- 4.46 - 5.84 43 x 39*
shaped aggregate
Visso 1920 3-4 Row housing 2.1 - 3.9 35.7 x 17.7*

The structural model of the case studies was developed according to the equivalent frame (EF) modelling approach
implemented in the Tremuri software (Lagomarsino et al. 2013). Figure 1 illustrates also the EF model constituted of
piers (vertical elements), spandrels (horizontal elements) and rigid areas (nodes).

Fig. 1. Photo of the two case studies on the left and their representative 3D EF models on the right.

The piecewise-linear beam model (i.e. NLBEAM) was assumed to describe the IP nonlinear response of URM
panels (Lagomarsino and Cattari (2013)) until very severe damage levels (DL, from 1 to 5), through the definition of
a relation between the drift value and the corresponding fraction of the residual shear strength at the attainment of the
i-th DL differentiated for piers or spandrels, flexural or shear behaviours. The case studies were modeled under the
fixed based assumption. The interaction between adjacent SUs is modelled by elastic no-tension truss elements
perpendicular to adjacent walls as well as fictitious floors (membrane elements) coupling only displacements parallel
to the boundary walls. The sensitivity analysis on different connection types is well described in Angiolilli et al.
(2021). Furthermore, to analyze the aggregate-effect, individual buildings were considered for each case study by
neglecting the interlocking with the other structural units. In particular, for Catania’s aggregate, only the SU in the
corner of the aggregate was considered, whereas for Visso’s aggregate, two SUs (i.e. SU1 and SU3) were analyzed
(see Fig. 1). Table 2 and Table 3 summarize respectively the main geometrical information and the structural details
of the investigated case studies. Note that the mass of the SU under isolated condition is slightly higher, as compared
2078 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081
M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 5

to that associated to the aggregated condition, since the walls of neighboring buildings sharing the same mid-walls
have double thickness (see Tab. 2).

Table 2. Mechanical properties (*for spandrels; **for piers; ***isolated; ****aggregated)

Site fm (MPa) τ0 (MPa) E [MPa] G [MPa] W [kN/m3] SU’s weight [kN]
Catania 4.6-5.8 0.09-0.12 1740 580 21.4 25,071***– 22,420****
Visso 4.49*-6.42** 0.062*;0.127** 2078*;2968** 693*;991** 21.4 5,528 ***– 5,528**** (SU1)
5,762*** – 4,155**** (SU3)
Note: fm: compressive strength; τ0 shear strength, E: Young Module; G: Shear Module; W: density;

Table 3. Parameters adopted for the four NLBEAM-EF models (P and S stand for piers and spandrels, respectively).

Shear behaviour Flexural behaviour

Residual. Str. Residual
Site Drift [%] Hyst. Resp. Drift [%] Hyst. Resp.
[%] Str. [%]
DL3 DL4 DL5 DL3 DL4 c1 c2 c3 DL3 DL4 DL5 DL4 c1 c2 c3 c4
Cat P 0.45 0.75 1 60 20 0.8 0.8 0 0.6 1 1.5 80 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5
ania S 0 1 1.5 40 40 0.2 0 0.3 0.6 1 1.5 95 0.2 0 0.3 0.8

Vis P 0.45 0.7 1.48 60 20 0.8 0.8 0 0.6 0.8 1.81 85 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5
so S 0.50 1.5 2.0 70 70 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 1.5 2.0 70 0.2 0 0.3 0.8
Note: c1, …, c4 define the slope of unloading and loading branches of the hysteretic response

2.2. Pushover analyses

Figure 2 shows the capacity curves, expressed in terms of base shear over weight ratio versus roof drift, for the two
investigated case studies and obtained by considering uniform load pattern distributions proportional to the mass. For
each direction (x or y as well as positive or negative) a comparison between isolated or aggregated behavior is reported.
First of all, when compared to isolated SUs, all SUs in aggregate have higher stiffness along the direction where
interaction with adjacent structures occurs. For the SU of Catania’s aggregate, the aggregate-effect led to a negative
contribution, in terms of both strength and drift capacity, along X+ direction (one direction in which the interaction
between the SUs takes place) and a positive contribution along the other three directions of the pushover analyses,
especially in terms of strength. In detail, along X +, one can observe a slightly higher maximum shear capacity
coefficient for the isolated case with respect to the aggregated case. However, the same trend cannot be observed for
the other direction in which the interaction between the adjacent SUs takes place (Y-). This result can be justified by
the fact that the building connected to the reference SU along y direction was much vulnerable than the building
connected to the reference SU along X direction, mainly depending on both the disposition and cross-section of the
walls. For the SU1 of the Visso’s aggregate, the capacity curves show a negative influence of the aggregate-effect in
terms of strength (about 5%) only along X+ (where the interaction with the adjacent SU takes place), whereas a
positive effect along the Y direction (both negative and positive directions). Instead, SU1 is positively influenced by
the aggregate-affect in both strength and drift capacity along the Y direction (both negative and positive directions).
On the other hand, for SU3, the aggregate-effect negatively affected the Y direction in terms of strength (about 5%)
and especially in terms drift capacity. In X direction, the result is a bit ambiguous since the base shear increased (about
50% in the positive and negative directions) but, at the same time, the global ductility decreased.
Definitively, when comparing only the capacity curves obtained by NSA, it is challenging to determine with clarity
whether the aggregate-effect is positive or negative in terms of global seismic performance of each SU because a
combination of resistance, stiffness, and ductility must be considered within seismic verifications. Moreover, note that
it is not possible to include OOP effect within NSAs.
 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081 2079
6 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

Fig. 2. Pushover curves of the case studies in Catania and Visso.

2.3. Fragility curves

NDAs were performed by adopting sets of accelerograms (bedrock condition) with increasing seismic intensities.
Local mechanisms were evaluated separately (see Simoes et al. (2014)) but based on the storey accelerations derived
from the NDAs performed on the 3D global model. That allows to implicitly consider the filtering effect provided by
the nonlinear dynamic response of the structure (see Angiolilli et al. (2021), Lagomarsino et al. (2022)). The NDAs
allowed for the evaluation of the structural capacity in terms of fragility curves associated with the IP behavior as well
as the IP combined with local mechanisms. Among several procedures available in the current literature for
characterizing the relationship between engineering demand parameter (EDP) and intensity measure (IM, namely the
spectral acceleration associated to the period of the structure - Sa(T1) - or the peak ground acceleration - PGA), for
the Catania’s case, the multi-stripes approach was adopted, by using twenty sets of accelerograms spectrum-
compatible with ten increasing values of Sa(T1). Furthermore, the derivation of the fragility curves, expressed as a
function of Sa(T1) and in terms of two performance conditions (Usability Preventing Damage – UPD – or Global
Collapse – GC), were performed by the maximum likelihood method (see Angiolilli et al. (2021), Iervolino (2017)).
On the other hand, for the Visso’s case, the Cloud Method (e.g. Angiolilli et al. 2022a, Jalayer 2017) was adopted -
so that at each of 320 records represents a single IM value corresponding to a single EDP response. The IM adopted
for that case study is the PGA. Although the IM and the method used are different, the results are comparable to
assess the overall impact on the fragility curves.
2080 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081
M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 7

The identification of different OOP mechanisms was defined based on the geometry of buildings, layout of
openings structural details, expert judgment and with the support of evidence on most recurring mechanisms provided
by past earthquakes. The overturning of entire panels around a hinge at the base (i.e. the so-called cantilever
mechanism) was considered for the SUs of Catania and Visso. For the latter case, the overturning of tympanum was
also considered (see Angiolilli at al. (2021, 2022b) for further details). Fig. 3 shows the comparison between fragility
curves of the SUs under the isolated or aggregated conditions (orange and blue curves, respectively) as well as fragility
curves affected by local mechanisms (blue square markers). In particular, the aggregate-effect positively influences
the global IP building performance at low seismic intensity (UPD or DL2) and, in particular, at high seismic intensity
(GC or DL4); however, the entity of such effect significantly varies for the different SUs. Furthermore, one can see
that curve of combined mechanisms (IP and local mechanisms) are more conservative, especially at high seismic
intensity, even if the shift on the left of the fragility curve is more or less pronounced. It highlights the potential impact
of considering in an integrated way both mechanisms.

Fig. 3. Fragility curves of SUs belonging to Catania’ and Visso’s aggregate.

3. Conclusions

The study herein presented aimed at comparing the seismic performance of existing unreinforced masonry building
in aggregate located in different Italian historical centres. In particular, the aggregate-effect was investigated through
nonlinear static analyses (NSA; i.e. pushover) and nonlinear dynamic analyses (NDA), the latter processed by fragility
curves. Moreover, the study provided the fragility curves of the instigated building accounting also for local
mechanisms, through an integrated process. Despite the different way in processing NDA data, the fragility curves
show the same main outcomes highlighting the importance of the integrated procedure in considering both global and
local behaviors. An important outcome of this study regards the inefficacy of capturing the actual seismic behaviour
of masonry buildings in aggregate through NSA, at least with common load patterns proposed for ordinary isolated
buildings. Indeed, by observing the capacity curves obtained by NSA, one cannot generalize whether the aggregate-
effect positively or negatively affects the seismic behaviour of the individual buildings. The aggregate-effect was
instead much clearer by observing the results of the fragility curves from NDA. Actually, for the investigated SUs, it
emerged a benefit offered by the confinement of the adjacent structural units under seismic action. However, the entity
of this effect appears variable and thus a parametrical study appears to be necessary as a future development to provide
more general recommendations. Finally, the approach adopted to integrate IP and OOP responses proved to be quite
effective in investigating also how these two failure modes interact.

Acknowledgements

A part of the study presented in this article was developed within the activities of the ReLUIS-DPC 2019–2021
research programs, funded by the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri—Dipartimento della Protezione Civile (DPC).
 Michele Angiolilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2074–2081 2081
8 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

References

Angiolilli, M., Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., Degli Abbati, S. (2021). Seismic fragility assessment of existing masonry buildings in aggregate.
Engineering Structures, 247, 113218.
Angiolilli, M., A. Brunelli, S., Cattari, S.. (2022a). Fragility curves of masonry buildings in aggregate accounting for local mechanisms and site
effects, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, in review, doi:10.21203/[Link]-1700540/v1
Angiolilli, M., Minkada, M. E., Di Domenico, D., Cattari, S., Belleri, A., Verderame, G. M. (2022b). Comparing the observed and numerically
simulated seismic damage: A unified procedure for unreinforced masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering..
Battaglia, L., Ferreira, T. M., Lourenço, P. B. (2021). Seismic fragility assessment of masonry building aggregates: A case study in the old city
Centre of Seixal, Portugal. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50(5), 1358-1377.
Bernardo, V. M. S., Campos Costa, A. P. D. N., Candeias, P. J. D. O. X., da Costa, A. G., Marques, A. I. M., Carvalho, A. R. (2022). Ambient
vibration testing and seismic fragility analysis of masonry building aggregates. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-25.
Brunelli, A., Alleanza, G.A., Cattari, S., De Silva, F., d’Onofrio, A. (2022). Simulation of damage observed on buildings in aggregate after the
2016-2017 Central Italy earthquake accounting for site effects and soil-structure interaction. TC 301 Geotechnical engineering for the
preservation of monuments and historic sites, 22-24 June 2022, Naple, Italy. [Link]
Cardinali, V., Cristofaro, M. T., Ferrini, M., Nudo, R., Paoletti, B., Tanganelli, M. (2021). A Multiscale Approach for the Seismic Vulnerability
Assessment of Historical Centres in Masonry Building Aggregates. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1-26.
Carocci CF (2012) Small centres damaged by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: on site analyses of historical masonry aggregates Bulletin Earthquake
Engineering, 10, 45–71.
D’Ayala, D. F., Paganoni, S. (2011). Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 9(1), 81-104.
Degli Abbati, S., D'Altri, A. M., 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. Computers & Structures, 213, 51-71.
Del Gaudio, C., De Martino, G., Di Ludovico, M., Manfredi, G., Prota, A., Ricci, P., Verderame, G. M. (2019). Empirical fragility curves for
masonry buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 17(11), 6301-6330.
Dolatshahi, K. M., Yekrangnia, M. (2015). Out‐of‐plane strength reduction of unreinforced masonry walls because of in‐plane damages. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(13), 2157-2176.
Formisano, A., Massimilla, A. (2018). A novel procedure for simplified nonlinear numerical modeling of structural units in masonry aggregates.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 12(7-8), 1162-1170
Greco, A., Lombardo, G., Pantò, B., Famà, A. (2020). Seismic vulnerability of historical masonry aggregate buildings in oriental Sicily.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 14(4), 517-540.
Kappos, A. J., Panagopoulos, G., Panagiotopoulos, C., Penelis, G. (2006). A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM
buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(4), 391-413.
Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Miano, A., Manfredi, G., Sezen, H. (2017). Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46(15), 2639-2663.
Iervolino, I. (2017). Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 46(10), 1711-1723.
Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., Cattari, S. (2013). TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of
masonry buildings. Engineering structures, 56, 1787-1799.
Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., Ottonelli, D. (2021). The heuristic vulnerability model: fragility curves for masonry buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 19(8), 3129-3163.
Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., Angiolilli, M., Bracchi, S., Rota, M., Penna, A. (2022). Modelling and seismic response analysis of existing URM
structures. Part 2: Archetypes of Italian historical buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-26..
Maio, R., Vicente, R., Formisano, A., Varum, H. (2015). Seismic vulnerability of building aggregates through hybrid and indirect assessment
techniques. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(10), 2995-3014
Pirchio, D., Walsh, K. Q.,... Sorrentino, L. (2021). Integrated framework to structurally model unreinforced masonry Italian medieval churches
from photogrammetry to finite element model analysis through heritage building information modeling. Engineering Structures, 241, 112439.
Penna, A., Rosti, A., Rota, M. (2022a). Seismic Response of Masonry Building Aggregates in Historic Centres: Observations, Analyses and Tests.
In Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures IV (pp. 19-36). Springer, Cham.
Ramos, L. F., Lourenço, P. B. (2004). Modeling and vulnerability of historical city centers in seismic areas: a case study in Lisbon. Engineering
structures, 26(9), 1295-1310.
Senaldi, I., Magenes, G., Penna, A. (2010). Numerical investigations on the seismic response of masonry building aggregates. In Advanced
Materials Research (Vol. 133, pp. 715-720). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
Simões, A., Bento, R., Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S. (2014). Seismic performance-based assessment of “Gaioleiro” buildings. Engineering structures,
80, 486-500.
Sisti, R., Di Ludovico, M., Borri, A., Prota, A. (2019). Damage assessment and the effectiveness of prevention: the response of ordinary
unreinforced masonry buildings in Norcia during the Central Italy 2016–2017 seismic sequence. Bull. Earthq. Eng., 17(10), 5609-5629.
Sorrentino, L., Cattari, S., Da Porto, F., Magenes, G., Penna, A. (2019). Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central
Italy earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(10), 5583-5607.
Valente, M., Milani, G., Grande, E., Formisano, A. (2019). Historical masonry building aggregates: advanced numerical insight for an effective
seismic assessment on two row housing compounds. Engineering Structures, 190, 360-379.