J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

DOI 10.1007/s10950-006-9033-z

Modelling methods of historic masonry buildings

under seismic excitation
M. Mistler & C. Butenweg & K. Meskouris

Received: 4 July 2005 / Accepted: 12 July 2006 / Published online: 15 November 2006
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract Historic masonry buildings in seismically

active regions are severely damaged by earthquakes,
since they certainly have not been explicitly designed
by the original builders to withstand seismic effects,
at least not in a scientific way from todays point of
view. The assessment of their seismic safety is an
important first step in planning the appropriate interventions for improving their pertinent resistance. This
paper presents a procedure for assessing the seismic
safety of historic masonry buildings based on measurements of their natural frequencies and numerical
simulations. The modelling of the brittle nonlinear
behaviour of masonry is carried out on the macro-level.
As an example, a recently completed investigation of
the seismic behaviour of the Aachen Cathedral is
given, this being the first German cultural monument
to be included in the UNESCO cultural heritage list
in 1978. Its construction goes back to the 9th century
and it is considered as one of the finest examples of
religious architecture in Central Europe. The investigation is based on measurements of the natural
frequencies at different positions and numerical
simulations using a detailed finite element model of
the Cathedral.

M. Mistler (*) : C. Butenweg : K. Meskouris

Chair of Structural Statics and Dynamics,
RWTH Aachen University,
52056 Aachen, Germany
e-mail: mistler@LBB.rwth-aachen.de

Key words Aachen Cathedral . earthquake .

historic masonry . numerical simulation

Introduction
Masonry, as the oldest building material, has been
widely used within living memory because of the ease
in assembling its constituent parts by hand. The techniques are essentially the same as the at ones developed
some thousand years ago. Apart from its aesthetic
appearance, structural advantages of masonry, such as
its durability with low maintenance costs explain why
many famous masonry structures in Europe (like
Romanesque structures and ancient cathedrals) have
successfully withstood the test of time.
In terms of their load-carrying behaviour, the study
of existing masonry structures is complicated in that
many variations of materials and building techniques
exist. The former vary heavily, so that detailed
information about a specific structure is usually not
available. Most of the masonry structures were built
based on empirical data and experience passed on
from masters to apprentices, without any mathematical analysis, but with great practical skill. Often the
structural form suggests a rudimentary grasp of the
basic nature of the acting forces, but even today our
knowledge about masonry load-behaviour patterns is
not as well-developed as for other materials. Many
calculation methods for capacity assessments hardly
ever consider the complex behaviour of masonry as a

498

composite material. Since this paper intends to

contribute to an improved capacity assessment of
masonry buildings, in particular historical structures,
a brief introduction to some historical facts is given
first. It is followed by a description of masonry
models considering three different levels of modelling. After that a nonlinear smeared macro-model for
masonry is presented. Finally, the investigation of the
seismic behaviour of the Aachen Cathedral is presented as a practical application.

Masonry components and types

Building with masonry is certainly one of the most
important achievements of early civilizations. Bricks,
the oldest man-made construction material, have been
in use since 4000 A.D. in Mesopotamia. Later
civilizations have developed various techniques and
layouts for masonry walls. Especially the Romans
have added important enhancements to masonry
building techniques and opened the way to vast new
application areas.
The oldest and most basic type of masonry is stone
masonry, consisting of entire or cleaved stone blocks.
Since this type of masonry can be erected without
chiseling work, it has been the standard type for
masonry walls in rural regions for a long time. Early
structures have been erected without any interlocking
by grout, while later clay or lime mortar has been
used. Adobe bricks have also been a very common
building material, at least in the early stages of the
Greek civilization.
In spite of the large number of adobe buildings, the
characteristic masonry technique of this time, in
which the Mycenic culture was at its apex in Greece,
was Cyclopic masonry. It consists of more or less
accurately trimmed natural stones that have been
placed without mortar and with joints as small as

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

possible. Due to improvements in stone processing

techniques, this later evolved to a polygonal pattern of
joints (von Wlfel 2000a).
The Greeks also have developed the dressed stone
masonry, which became the standard way for constructing monumental buildings in both the late Greek
civilization as well as in the Roman Empire. Stones
were connected without mortar, but with iron or
bronze anchors for mechanical interlocking. At the
beginning it was only possible to handle stones of
moderate hardness, but with wider availability of
harder materials for chisels, the Romans have also
used harder natural stones, such as granite or basalt.
Brick masonry has been employed in Greece
since the 7th century A.D. Primarily employed for
urban habitations, brick masonry was typically used
with lime mortar. Several standardized formats of
bricks have been developed as well as various
masonry types. The construction form using opus
caementitium or Roman Concrete evolved as a
mixture of sand, lime, bricks and added stone material
and it is very similar to modern concrete. Knowledge
of the hydraulic properties of added puzzolan has
allowed the Romans to construct masonry water
pipelines or even underwater buildings, but with the
decline of the Roman Empire this knowledge disappeared in almost all of Europe until the discovery
of Trass as a new puzzolanic binder in the middle of
the 17th century.
The Romans have often combined the new
technique of opus caementitium with conventional
masonry construction. Working with the Roman
concrete has speeded up the construction process,
with, however some esthetic demands sacrificed
along the line. To counteract this, an outer (visible)
layer from natural stones was often used, while
poured material served for the inner, invisible parts
of the walls. Depending on the material used for the
outer layer of the masonry wall, it was called opus

Figure 1 Opus incertum (dressed stones), opus implectum (quarrystones), multi-layer assembly.

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

499

Figure 2 Macroscopic failure modes of a masonry

panel.

incertum (dressed stones) (Figure 1a) or opus implectum (quarrystones) (Figure 1b). Also, special shapes
such as the opus mixtum, a mixture of dressed stones
and bricks, were developed (von Wlfel 2000b).
This multi-layer form has been the standard type
for masonry walls in Europes middle ages over
many centuries. The outer layer consisted of quarrystones, dressed stones or bricks up to 50 cm thick.
The inner part consisted of loose stonewall masonry.
Sometimes a third layer was provided to take care of
aesthetic aspects (Figure 1c). For the inner layer that
was not exposed to the elements, inferior quality
materials were used, e.g., gypsum mortar in northern
Europe.

Figure 3 Different FEM approaches for modelling masonry.

Typical failure mechanisms

Engineers usually describe a structure by means of
computer models which are mostly geared to a linear
analysis. For masonry structures, this does not
describe the structural behaviour correctly and should
be employed only in a preliminary analysis, if realistic
results are to be expected. For more detailed analyses,
the use of nonlinear material models is necessary in
order to mirror the nonlinear anisotropic behaviour
and the post-peak load-carrying capacity which may
be the key to why masonry buildings have withstood
seismic loading in the past. Unfortunately, the
definition of the required material parameters is very

500

complex and furthermore the numerical models must

be able to simulate all pertinent failure modes due to
different kinds of loading. Considered from the
macroscopic point of view, the following failure
modes may occur:
Shear failure This failure mode is usually characterized by cracks in the bed and head faces. In the case
of low-strength bricks, the cracks typically bisect the
stone. This failure mode exhibits a ductile behaviour
compared to the other modes (Figure 2a).
Friction failure This failure mode corresponds to
horizontal sliding, which is apt to occur when low
vertical dead loads are combined with high horizontal
loads (Figure 2b).

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

stress states. For an ultimate limit state design and for

assessing the capacity of the structure, an in-plane
failure criterion for masonry is required; however,
failure modes and strength characteristics of masonry
are highly sensitive to the orientation of the principal
stresses with respect to the joint plane. This anisotropy is mainly due to the relative weakness of the
mortar compared to the units and it may be even more
prominent if the units exhibit anisotropic strength
properties because of perforations. Thus, to define
masonry failure, a three-dimensional surface in terms
of the two principal stresses and their respective
orientation to the bed face is required.

Numerical modelling

Bending failure This mode occurs in slender panels

with high compression areas at the support corners.
The higher the vertical loads, the more brittle is the
failure mode (Figure 2c).

Modelling levels based on the finite element method

Since the direction of the horizontal loading

changes during an earthquake, these modes will
generally occur in both directions and alternate during
the loading process.
Considered from another point of view, the
assembly of bricks and mortar is subjected to biaxial

&

Masonry can be modelled based on several different

approaches (Figure 3), with each method having its
own merits and drawbacks:
Modelling each brick, mortar face and interface
separately
A large number of micro-models were developed
for simulating monotonic as well as cyclic loading in
the past. Normally, each component is endowed with
its own nonlinear behaviour and the bond between the

Figure 4 Stressstrain relationships for monotonic (a) and cyclic loading (b).

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

501

Figure 5 Failure criterion

of unreinforced masonry after Ganz (1985).

brick and the mortar is considered by using special

joint or contact elements which are able to simulate
the gaps. A modelling prerequisite is the exact
knowledge of the actual geometry of the whole wall.
& Modelling the bricks and the interface jointly
Since the real brickmortar joint behaviour is often
not known, discrete joint elements of zero thickness
with smeared characteristics may be used, so that
grout elements do not need to be generated. The
dimensions of the bricks have to be expanded, which
has a bearing on their stiffness, and the accuracy of
the model is lower. Brick failure due to transverse
tensile stresses cannot be simulated in a 2-D model,
but the global behaviour is described satisfactorily.

&

Using a smeared model with homogenized properties

Here the masonry is modelled as an anisotropic
continuum. This model is computationally less expensive and allows the structural behaviour of large
substructures subject to dynamic loading to be
investigated. In order to use this method, the effective
stiffness of the masonry and the smeared nonlinear
characteristics have to be known, requiring the
definition of stress-strain relationships for monotonic
and cyclic loading. In addition, the global failure
criterion has to be defined.
& Using macro-elements to simulate additional
components such as walls and panels
Such elements are not in general use because their

Figure 6 Rigid block model of a shear wall under earthquake loading.

502

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

Figure 7 (a) Side view and

(b) plan view of the Aachen
Cathedral.

input variables must be calibrated on the basis of

shear panel tests in which each element has different
characteristics.

masonry is presented, which can be used for the

numerical simulations of historic masonry buildings.
Homogenisation

In conclusion, even though the accuracy of the first

approaches mentioned above is much higher than of
the latter, they are much more expensive in terms of
computational costs and the corresponding high
number of degrees of freedom limits the applicability.
Only for small structure may an accurate model be
used with confidence, while whole buildings are
almost impossible to simulate by means of such
micro-models. Smeared models as well as macroelement based models are less accurate by better
suited for this purpose; however, they still require
additional effort for their calibration which is mostly
based on (expensive) experimental results. In the
following a nonlinear smeared macro-model for

Figure 8 Sketch of the

anchor system.

As already mentioned, the problems in using smeared

material models lie not only in the inherent complexity of their nonlinear behaviour, but also in the
necessity of their calibration, meaning the determination of some material parameters by testing. The
experimental costs can be reduced if the effective,
nonlinear material properties can be derived from the
characteristic values of the constituents (which are
known for a wide variety of brick and mortar types) in
order to use them as input variables of the smeared
model.
There are several homogenization techniques
available, which may be broadly classified in two

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

503

Figure 9 (a) Pillars, arches

and (b) cupola of the interior Octagon.

different groups, namely two-step and single-step

methods. In the first type, the procedure for estimating the effective elastic stiffness is divided into two
steps: First, brick units and head joints are homogenized horizontally and then this layer and the

Figure 10 (a) Walls, main

arches and (b) vaults of the
Choir Hall.

continuous bed joints are homogenized vertically or

vice-versa. The drawbacks of the two-step homogenization are that results depend on the order of the
steps and sometimes differ markedly. A single-step
approach was used e.g. by Anthoine [3] for deriving

504

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

Figure 11 West Tower consisting of three segments.

numerically the overall elastic constants by applying

the homogenisation theory of periodic media to
masonry.
Nonlinear smeared macro-model for masonry
Hypoelastic model using the principle of equivalent
uniaxial strains
This nonlinear model is based on the biaxial orthotropic hypoelastic concrete model of Darwin and
Pecknold (1974) and it has been modified for
application to masonry by Vratsanou (1992). It uses
the principle of equivalent uniaxial strains as a
simplification of the complex biaxial material behaviour. The constitutive relation is described for each
principal stress direction by means of the uniaxial
stress-strain relation and the equivalent uniaxial
strains are fictitious strains in the principal stress
directions. The principal stresses correspond to the
stresses of a fictitious uniaxial state. An important
advantage is that the uniaxial stress-strain relationships and other required material characteristics can
be derived by means of uniaxial tests. The failure
criterion used is the one derived by the experimental
Figure 12 Anchor system.

Figure 13 Overall model of the Aachen Cathedral.

tests of Page (1981, 1983). For simplicity, it is based

on the assumption that the angle between the bed
joints and the first principal stress direction is 45,
since the cracks in shear walls subjected to in plane
seismic loading usually arise under this angle.
The monotonic stress-strain relationship (Figure 4a)
consists of three ranges. The tension region is defined
by a straight line OT ending at the point of the
maximum tensile strength T (t, ft ). The compression
region consists of the increasing range OC, defined
by the compression strength C (c, fc), and the decreasing range CU which describes the softening
effect by a linear behaviour until U (f, f). In the
numerical application the residual compression strength
is set equal to 1/1,000 fc in order to avoid computational
problems.
Concerning the stressstrain relationships for cyclic loading it is important to distinguish between the

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

505

includes anisotropic elastic and inelastic behaviour.

The fundamental notion of the plasticity theory is the
existence of a yield function f as boundary to the
elastic domain. The surface (Figure 5) itself is
composed of several single failure criteria. Each
criterion describes a different failure mode of masonry, either component or bond failure.
It is assumed that the total strain vector can be
divided into elastic and plastic components. Yielding
can only occur if the stresses satisfy the general yield
criterion
f ; 0

Figure 14 Historic materials.

unloading paths before and after exceeding the

compression strength (Figure 4a). In the first case
the unloading path is a straight line defined by the
elastic modulus E0 and tensile stresses are still
possible. In the second case the unloading path
doesnt reach the tensile region. After exceeding the
maximum tensile strength ft cracks occur perpendicular to the principal stress direction. Based on a
smeared crack model a smeared crack width is then
calculated.
Smeared continuum model based on nonsmooth
multisurface plasticity theory
This smeared elasto-plastic continuum model is based
on the nonsmooth multisurface plasticity theory and

Table 1 Material properties

where the yield stress is a function (hardening law) of

the scalar which is introduced as a measure for the
amount of hardening or softening. It influences the
expansion and/or the reduction of the initial yield
surface dependent on the load path, as well as on the
translation of the yield criterion in the stress space.
The introduction of separate softening functions for
each strength parameter makes it possible to formulate an orthotropic softening model that depends on
the failure mode. The yield domain, its hardening and
softening laws are defined based on experimental
results. Thus, it becomes possible to simulate masonry-specific failure and damage mechanisms. For the
implementation of the model at the integration point
level the return mapping procedure is used: First, an
elastic predictor step calculates a trial stress state,
and if this state is not inside the yield domain, a local
iteration projects the stress state on the actual yield
surface. The big advantage of the multi-surface
plasticity is that it allows different failure mechanisms
of masonry to be considered, which may also act
simultaneously.

Number

Name

(kg/m3)

E (MN/m2)

G (MN/m2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Carolingian masonry
Bluestone
Herzogenrathian sandstone
Calcareous tufa face wall
Luxembourgian sandstone
Normal concrete C25
Lightweight concrete C25
Steel roof construction
Steel S-235
Cupola octagon

2,150
2,700
1,883
1,400
2,186
2,500
2,000
7,800
7,850
1,500

7,800
20,000
12,340
4,230
28,700
29,750
29,750
210,000
210,000
10,000

3,250
8,330
5,140
1,760
11,950
11,440
11,440
87,500
87,500
6,250

506

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

Figure 15 Column cross-section of the Choir Hall and model idealization.

Discontinuous modelling of masonry

In order to simulate historic masonry considerable
attention has been recently given to methodologies,
which deal directly with the discontinuous and fractured
nature of structural masonry like the discrete element
method (DEM), rigid block spring method, discontinuous deformation analysis and a combined discrete/finite
element method (Figure 6). A large number of distinct
interacting domains has to be treated, where the contact
conditions are continuously updated, especially when
multi-body contact nonlinearity is considered (contact
detection, separation, sliding). Often, interacting
domains are treated as rigid. Although such a
restriction simplifies the computational simulation and
it is often quite acceptable, it is self-evident that the
domain deformability should be included if criteria for
compressive failure and for further progressive fracturing of continuous domains like the blocks or bricks are
required. Deformability is considered by means of
subdividing the discrete domain into finite elements or
by the discontinuous deformation analysis, which is
based on an assumed deformation field within distinct
domains of arbitrary shapes and a rigorous imposition
of contact constraints; see Bicanic et al. (2002).

region, an assessment of its seismic behaviour, as

presented in the following, became necessary. The
investigations were based on a detailed finite element
model of the cathedral which was calibrated by
measurements of its natural frequencies.
Static system
Currently the cathedral consists essentially of the West
Tower, the Octagon and the Choir Hall (Figure 7a, b).
The most important aspect of the static system in
terms of a horizontal earthquake excitation is the
common lateral load carrying system of the Choir
Hall and the Octagon. Due to its slender columns and
the glassed surfaces, the Choir Hall is not able to
carry horizontal loads to the foundation. Therefore
several anchor systems (Figure 8) have been installed
over the last centuries to ensure the structural integrity
of the cathedral under horizontal loads.
Historic anchors Originally, five iron anchors were
installed for the connection of the Choir Hall to the
Octagon. These anchors are now supposed to be

Table 2 Applied anchor forces and prestresses

Seismic behaviour of the Aachen Cathedral

Anchor

Anchor
force (kN)

Prestress
(MPa)

After more than 1,200 years of permanent use, the static

system of the Aachen Cathedral shows considerable
damage of the masonry, the medieval anchoring system,
the roof construction, the vaults and the pillars.
Therefore, rehabilitation measures of the cathedrals
load bearing system were carried out in the 20th century.
Due to the location of the cathedral in a seismic active

Main Pirlet-anchor (longitudinal)

Ring anchors around the Choir Hall
Transversal anchors in the Choir Hall
(per double anchor)
Ring anchor around the Octagon
Ring anchor around the 16-sided
ambulatory

200
0
100

14
0
71

150
0

83
0

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

507

Figure 16 (a) First eigenmode (plan) and (b) Second

eigenmode (elevation).

Pirlet-anchor The Pirlet-anchor, which was installed in

the 1920s, ensures nowadays the integrity of the Choir
Hall. The main anchor in longitudinal direction consists
of four prestressed steel L-profiles. At the east end of the
Choir Hall, the anchor is connected to several circularly
aligned steel anchors which carry the anchor forces to
the outer columns. Above the vault of the Octagon, the
main anchor is supported by a space truss system.
Further concrete and steel anchors In addition to the
Pirlet-anchor a concrete anchor surrounding the Choir
Hall has been introduced. Furthermore, new steel
anchors have been added in recent years to the outside
of the Choir Hall at approximately the height of the
historic anchors. Around the Octagon, a new steel
anchor is being installed right now.

Table 3 Superposition scheme

Load case

Combination

Description

SW
EX
EY
EXY

EXYMax

1.0 EX +
0.3 EY
0.3 EX +
1.0 EY
+EXY + SW

EXYMin

EXY + SW

EYXMax

+EYX + SW

EYXMin

EYX + SW

Self-weight
Spectrum X-direction
Spectrum Y-direction
1.0 Spectrum X + 0.3
Spectrum Y
0.3 Spectrum X + 1.0
Spectrum Y
Max (1.0 Spectrum X
+ 0.3 Spectrum Y)
Min (1.0 Spectrum X
+ 0.3 Spectrum Y)
Max (0.3 Spectrum X
+ 1.0 Spectrum Y)
Min (0.3 Spectrum X
+ 1.0 Spectrum Y)

EYX

Development of the finite element model

The development of the numerical model started with
the generation of a geometry model based on the
information taken from construction plans, photo
material and measurements on site by using the finite
element pre- and postprocessor FEMAP (2002). Due
to the complex geometry of the cathedral the model
was divided into several sub models which were
saved on different layers in FEMAP. After completion
of all sub models the overall system was assembled
and meshed under consideration of the different
element types as well as material and cross-section
data. In the last step the structural model was exported
to ANSYS (2003) to execute the static, multi modal
and time history analyses.
Description of the sub models
In the following the main sub models and their
assembling to the overall model are described. The
five smaller chapels surrounding the cathedral which
have a positive influence on the dynamic behaviour
were not considered leading to conservative results.
The interior Octagon was modelled with beam
elements for the eight columns and shell elements for
the arches and the cupola (Figure 9). To avoid an
0,8
Acceleration [m/s2]

inactive due to corrosion and inappropriate repair

works during the last centuries.

0,6
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2 0
-0,4

-0,6
-0,8
Time [s]

Figure 17 Spectrum-compatible time history.

10

508

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

Figure 18 Stresses (N/mm2)

in the Pirlet construction.

overestimation of the stiffness in the intersection areas

of the beam and shell elements the stiffness of the
beams was reduced to obtain the correct stiffness value
for the total cross-section. In longitudinal direction the
slim columns of the Choir Hall (Figure 10) are connected by walls in the lower part and arches in the
upper part, in transverse direction the columns are
connected with each other by main arches and vaults.
For the discretisation of the Choir Hall beam elements
for the columns and shell elements for the walls and
vaults were used.
The West Tower which is made up of three
segments was discretised with beam and shell
elements. The three segments with different groundFigure 19 Time history of
the stresses in the Pirletanchor.

plans were coupled by using constraint equations

between the nodes in the interfaces of the segments
(Figure 11).
In Figure 12 the finite element discretisation of the
Pirlet anchorage system is shown. The main anchor in
longitudinal direction and the circularly aligned steel
anchors at the east end of the Choir Hall were
modelled with prestressed tension bars, the sophisticated structure above the Octagon was discretised
with beam and truss elements, the concrete ring
anchors at the top of the Choir Hall were modelled
with beam elements and the steel anchors outside and
inside the Choir Hall were considered as nonprestressed tension bars in the model.

[N/m]

Time [s]

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

509

Overall model

Calibration of the numerical model

The overall model (Figure 13) was obtained by

assembling the sub systems presented before. To
achieve a realistic simulation of the structural behaviour the element size for the automatic mesh generation was chosen to approximately 1 m. Using this
element size the complete finite element model of the
cathedral consists of a total of 20,130 elements with
85,311 DOF. The boundary conditions of the model
were modelled rigidly clamped at the bottom and do
not include any soil structure interaction effects.

For a complex model like the Aachen Cathedral which

includes a lot of uncertainties in the exact stiffness and
the mass distribution, a calibration with the measured
eigenfrequencies is necessary. The material properties
of the cathedral were determined from reliable experimental results (Ibac 1990). The geometry was obtained with good accuracy from the construction
plans. Therefore the calibration of the model was carried out only by variation of the mass distribution.
During calibration nodal masses were added to the
system to represent non-structural masses which were
not taken into account before. The first natural
frequency (Figure 16a) corresponds to a translational
mode of the Choir Hall in which the end of the hall
vibrates perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the
cathedral. This natural mode results from the weakness of the Choir Hall due to its slender columns and
glassed surfaces. The second natural frequency
(Figure 16b) corresponds to a translational mode in
the longitudinal direction of the cathedral with the
whole cathedral participating in the movement.

Material properties
Figure 14 shows the material distribution of the
cathedral and Table 1 includes the historic materials
and the materials which were used for strengthening
works during the last century. In addition to the
properties for each material the associated material
number in the finite element model is given.
An important aspect of the modelling was the
realistic representation of the column cross-sections
because most of the columns consist of two crosssectional parts with different material properties. As
an example, the cross-section of the slender columns
of the Choir Hall is shown in Figure 15. The core of
the columns consists of a conglomerate of mortar,
sand and chippings with low strength and the outer
part is made up of sandstone (Herzogenrathian
sandstone) with higher strength. In the finite element
model, the columns were idealized by special beam
elements with a subdivision of the cross-section into
different cells. For each cell the material properties
were defined separately and a rigid bond was assumed
between the cells. In case of the columns, the core
was simply assumed to be an elastoplastic material
and a smeared nonlinear material model was used for
the cells of the outer part.
Prestress of the anchorage system
In Table 2 the anchor forces and corresponding
prestresses of the different anchor systems are given.
The anchor forces were calculated according to a
report of the Institute of Lightweight Structures of the
University of Technology Aachen (1970).

Computation methods
Response spectrum analysis
The response spectrum was defined according to the
German code E DIN 4149 (2004) which is similar to
the European standard EC 8 (2003) by using the
software SEISQUICK (2003). The response spectrum
analysis was carried out separately in longitudinal and
transversal directions. The internal forces were computed according to the SRSS rule for each direction
and then superposed with positive and negative sign
with the 30%-rule according to E DIN 4149 (Table 3).
The code requires that the effective mass of the
considered modes is greater than 90% of the overall
mass of the structure and that every mode with an
effective mass greater than 5% must be taken into
account. These requirements were satisfied by using
the first 30 modes.
Time history analysis
Time history analyses were carried out to verify the
results from the response spectrum analysis and to

510

J Seismol (2006) 10:497510

compute the internal forces as a function of time. For

this purpose time histories that are compatible with
the response spectrum were generated with the
programs ESYN and BASKOR (Meskouris and
Hinzen 2003). One of the resulting synthetic accelerograms is shown in Figure 17. For the computation the
accelerograms are applied in the two horizontal
directions as in the response spectrum analysis.

The smeared approach leads to a substantial reduction

of calculation time in comparison with micro-models,
where the bricks, the mortar and the contact area
between brick and mortar are modelled separately.
The practical use of the developed procedure is
demonstrated by means of the investigation of the
seismic behaviour of the Aachen Cathedral.

Results

References

Response spectrum analysis

ANSYS (2003) http://www.ansys.com FE-Software, SAS IP

Inc.
Bicanic N, Stirling C, Pearce CJ (2002) Discontinuous
Modelling of Structural Masonry. Fifth World Congress
on Computational Mechanics. Vienna, Austria
Darwin D, Pecknold DA (1974) Inelastic model for cyclic
biaxial loading of reinforced concrete. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois
E DIN 4149 (2004) Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im
DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V, Entwurf Oktober
EC 8 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Draft
No 6, European Committee for Standardization, January
FEMAP (2002) Finite Element Modelling and postprocessing,
Version 8.2
Ganz HR (1985) Mauerwerkscheiben unter Normalkraft und
Schub. ETH Zrich, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion. Birkhuser Verlag Basel
Ibac (1990) Mrtel und Natursteinuntersuchungen zur
Instandsetzung der TurmkapelleAachener Dom, Prfbericht Nr. A 2318, Institut fr Bauforschung, RWTH
Aachen, Aachen
Institute of Lightweight Structures (1970) Bericht Nr. S 21/
1970: Ermittlung der Vorspannung des Zentralankers im
Dachraum der Chorhalle des Aachener Doms durch
Eigenspannungs und EigenfrequenzMessungen am
25.6.1969 und am 5.6.1970, RWTH Aachen
Meskouris K, Hinzen K-G (2003) Bauwerke und Erdbeben,
Vieweg Verlag.
Page AW (1981) The biaxial compressive strength of brick
masonry. In: Proc Inst Civ Eng Part 2, 71:893906
Page AW (1983) The strength of brick masonry under biaxial
compression-tension. In: Int J Masonry Constr 3(1):2631
SEISQUICK (2003) Software for applying E DIN 4149,
Institute of Structural Statics and Dynamics, Aachen
University
von Wlfel W (2000a) Mauerwerkstechnik in der griechischen
Antike, das Mauerwerk.
von Wlfel W (2000b) Bautechnik im Rmischen Reich, das
Mauerwerk
Vratsanou V (1992) Das nichtlineare Verhalten unbewehrter
Mauerwerksscheiben unter Erdbebenbeanspruchung.
Hilfsmittel zur Bestimmung der q-Faktoren. Diss. Universitt Karlsruhe

The results show that for the critical load combination

(X + 0.3Y ) the maximum stress in the main Pirletanchor is 21.0 MN/m2 (Figure 18). This corresponds
to about 10% of its capacity because the anchor
appears to have been designed very conservatively for
carrying larger wind loads. Since the minimum stress
of the main anchor is 7.4 MPa the anchor is as desired
always under tensile stress. The maximum stresses of
the other not prestressed anchors are below the
maximum stresses as well. The computations with
the response spectrum method show the structural
safety of the cathedral.
Time history analysis
As a result the stress distribution in the main Pirletanchor over the time is shown in Figure 19. The
maximum and minimum stresses of 16.9 and
11.8 MN/m2 result from the combination X + 0.3Y.
These results are as expected slightly below the
results obtained with the response spectrum method.
Since the stresses in the secondary anchors were
slightly lower as well the time history analysis also
shows the structural safety of the cathedral.
Conclusion
The paper presents a procedure for assessing the
seismic behaviour of historic masonry buildings based
on measurements of their natural frequencies and
numerical simulations. The masonry is modelled as a
homogeneous material using a biaxial failure criterion
and a smeared crack approach for crack modelling.