Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A simplified procedure for assessing the seismic capacity

of masonry arches
Antonello De Luca
, Aldo Giordano, Elena Mele
Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale, Università di Napoli ‘‘Federico II’’, Piazzale Tecchio, 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Received 21 July 2003; received in revised form 20 July 2004; accepted 20 July 2004

Abstract

In this paper, a simplified procedure for assessing the seismic capacity of masonry arches is proposed. The algorithm couples
two quite simple analysis approaches, i.e. FEM linear analysis and limit analysis applied following Heyman’s hypotheses to a pre-
chosen failure mechanism. In particular, linear analysis is used for detecting tensile and compressive stress zones in the masonry
element and for identifying a probable class of failure mechanisms for which the collapse multiplier is then calculated taking
advantage of a standard parametric CAD program. The procedure is iterative, since within the selected mechanism class, the pos-
ition of the hinges has to be varied in order to minimise, in the kinematic approach, the collapse multiplier. The proposed simpli-
fied procedure is then applied to three triumphal arches of Neapolitan churches, verifying the results against non-linear FEM
analysis using smeared cracking approach as implemented in the computer software ABAQUS. The three case studies considered
in the paper are actually quite different in geometry. As a consequence, the structural behaviour and lateral strength are also
expected to be fairly different. Despite the different geometry and the quite scattered values of lateral strength, a similar mech-
anism is identified for the three structural schemes. Also, the values of the lateral strength become closer when the total vertical
load W is used for normalisation. This non-dimensional strength capacity can be directly compared to the seismic coefficient
(non-dimensional strength demand), so that the results herein obtained can be useful for an evaluation of the seismic safety level
of single structural macro-elements and, if their proper combination can be derived, of the church it belongs to.
# 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: FEM structural analysis; Limit analysis; Seismic actions; Masonry; Churches; Triumphal arch; Strength capacity

1. Introduction From a geometrical point of view, the triumphal

The triumphal arch is a recurrent structural element
in churches, particularly in the basilica-type churches,
and is defined as the element separating, or connecting,
the zone of nave and aisles (hall) from the zone of
crossing, transepts, and chancel. In several cases, when
the church features a dome, two or four triumphal
arches can be identified in the church, namely the arch
between the hall and the crossing/transepts, and the
arch between the crossing/transepts and the chancel,
and possibly the two facing the lateral branches of the
transept.


Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-081-7682442; fax: +39-081-
5934792.
E-mail address: adeluca@unina.it (A. De Luca).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.003
arch is a masonry wall panel, with either a single
arched opening and quite large abutment piers, or a
main arch flanked by two lower and narrower open-
ings. Due to its arched shape (semi-circular, pointed or
elliptic) and the generally very large dimensions, this
element evokes the triumphal arch of the Roman
Empire, giving rise to its name. In general, the tri-
umphal arch is either made of wall-facing wedge-
shaped stones or of masonry decorated by mosaics,
marble elements, enriched mouldings, stucco finishes.
This element has special importance in the seismic
behaviour of basilica-type churches. Damage surveys
conducted on churches subjected to earthquakes [5]
showed that very often the triumphal arch experiences
severe damage resulting from in-plane horizontal
actions, which can lead to partial or total collapse.
This effect is mainly connected with the structural
1916 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
scheme of the basilica plan churches, characterised by
high stiffness concentration at the intersection between
the nave and transept, so that high seismic forces are
attracted in that zone.
In this paper, a simplified procedure based on FEM
linear analysis and limit analysis is proposed and its
results verified against FEM non-linear advanced
analysis. The procedure is applied to three triumphal
arches of Naples’ churches, chosen on the basis of geo-
metrical characteristics and availability of precise
description and material characterisation. The results
herein obtained provide useful indications about the
seismic capacity of these important structural elements.
2. Non-linear and limit analysis
Structural analysis of masonry structures has always
been a very demanding task. As a matter of fact, on
the one hand the typological characteristics of masonry
buildings do not allow to refer to simplified static
schemes, on the other hand the mechanical properties
of the material lead to a widely non-linear behaviour
whose prediction through numerical means can be very
tricky, unless proper material parameters and solution
strategy are provided. In this regard, the possibility of
comparing the result of sophisticated numerical analy-
ses with simplified schemes turns out to be very useful
from a practical point of view.
Within simplified approaches, the limit analysis, firstly
applied to masonry structures by Heyman [7,8], has to be
mentioned. It represents a particularly effective tool for
estimating the collapse load of structural systems [1,10],
since it provides a bound of the horizontal capacity.
As sketched by Heyman [7], the hypotheses on the
masonry behaviour are: no tensile strength; infinite
compression strength and absence of sliding at failure.
Under these hypotheses, the masonry material becomes
an assemblage of rigid parts, held up by mutual press-
ure, and the collapse of the structural elements is char-
acterised by the development of non-dissipative hinges
transforming the structure into a mechanism. The term
‘mechanism’ indicates a displacement distribution in
the structure produced by inelastic deformations (the
formation of hinges) which occur in a finite number of
sections due to disconnections and cracking.
In this paper, the collapse multiplier of a distribution
of horizontal loads (which simulate seismic-type loads)
has been evaluated for the selected triumphal arches.
The analysis has been carried out by applying the kine-
matic theorem to the structural element, subjected to
the vertical loads deriving from the self weight and the
roof loads, and to the seismic-type horizontal load dis-
tribution. In a generic arch under horizontal loads, the
structure being symmetrical and the load condition
skew also symmetrical, the attainment of the collapse
according to the limit analysis requires the develop-
ment of a skew-symmetrical mechanism, with forma-
tion of four hinges. The straightforward application of
the limit analysis to masonry structure is quite cumber-
some since it requires the evaluation of all possible
kinematic multipliers or the evaluation of at least one
static multiplier. These procedures are not commonly
found in computer programs. For this reason, a simpli-
fied approximate procedure is proposed, more user-
friendly to designers, since it starts from the elastic
analysis of the structural element. As a term of com-
parison, the three arches are then ‘reduced’ to simple
portals, for which the closed form expressions of the
collapse multiplier for the different mechanisms can be
easily derived.
3. Proposed procedure
It is well known that the collapse under horizontal
load of a simple arched element, like the one herein
examined, implies the development of a skew-sym-
metric mechanism, with formation of four hinges. The
mechanism and, more generally, the collapse mode
depend on geometrical and mechanical factors. For the
generic arch, three mechanism types can be activated: a
local mechanism, which is characterised by the local
failure of the arch only, with no hinge occurring in the
piers; a global mechanism, which is characterised by
the presence of two hinges at the base of the piers and
two hinges in the arch; and, a semi-global mechanism,
characterised by the presence of one hinge at the base
of one pier and by three hinges in the arch. The local
mechanism occurs when the pillars are very stocky
(H=B < 1), while the global one is typical of more slen-
der structures. For instance, the abovementioned failure
mechanism for a typical simple arch can be represented
as in Fig. 1, in which the mechanism pattern is shown
along with the relevant kinematic chain. From this last
one, the displacement components are derived. Such
components are used in the equation of the principle of
the virtual works to calculate the horizontal collapse
multiplier. In particular, with reference to Fig. 2, let Fi
be the generic concentrated load, and Wj the weight of
the single part forming the mechanism.
Besides, let Svi and Shi be the vertical and horizontal
virtual displacement component of the load application
points, respectively, and Svj and Shj those of the weights
Wj, univocally derived from the kinematic chain. The
principle of the virtual work equation is then:
!
X X X X
Fi  Svi þ Wj  Svj ¼ k Fi  Shi þ Wj  Shj ð1Þ
i j i j
Since all displacement components depend on a sin-
gle arbitrary lagrangian parameter, the above equation
turns out to be a homogenous equation in the only
unknown k. Actually, either h1, h2, or h3 (Fig. 2) can be
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929 1917

Fig. 2. Determination of displacement components.

procedures. This allows to detect the pattern of com-

pressive and tensile stresses due to the actual vertical
loads and a chosen distribution of horizontal loads.
Fig. 1. Possible failure mechanisms and relevant kinematic chains.
Then, taking into account the result of the previously
mentioned numerical analyses, the limit analysis is
chosen as the lagrangian parameter, so that the values applied following the algorithm outlined here.
of the displacement components are calculated from On the basis of geometrical considerations and tak-
the product of the rotation h by the distance from ing into account the tensile/compression stress dis-
rotation centre. tributions obtained through linear FEM analyses, the
For each collapse pattern, let C1, C2, C3 be the zones where the hinges may occur are detected, so that
absolute rotation centres, and C12, C23, C13 the relative the most probable class of collapse mechanism can be
rotation centres. Such points are determined using the identified. Then, by varying the position of each hinge
condition that when a virtual displacement field is within the above defined zone, an array of collapse
onset, then the absolute centres of any two parts must multipliers is calculated by simply applying the prin-
be aligned with their relative centre, and also any three ciple of the virtual works in a procedure which takes
relative centres must be aligned. In the case of the arch, advantage from a parametric CAD (namely AUTO-
in which three virtually displacing parts form the mech- CAD1). In particular, for any hinge position, the char-
anism, if Fk, Fl, Fm are the forces applied to parts 1, 2 acteristics of the single parts forming the mechanism
and 3, dvk,l,m and dhk,l,m the distance components of the (area, centroid, relevant load) are automatically calcu-
applied forces from the absolute rotation centre of lated within the CAD environment. Similarly, for the
the part they belong to, and dvj and dhj those of the centroids and load application points, the horizontal
weights Wj, then Eq. (1) can be re-written as follows: and vertical displacements, univocally derived from the
X X X X
3 kinematic chain, are easily found. The determination of
h1 Fk dhk þ h2 Fl dhl þ h3 Fm dhm þ Wj  hj dhj such a kinematic chain is also carried out using
k l m j¼1 AUTOCAD. The application of the principle of the
X X X virtual works is then a matter of a few spreadsheet
¼ k h1 Fk dvk þ h2 Fl dvl þ h3 Fm dvm lines. The actual collapse multiplier is selected as the
k
!
l m minimum among the computed ones.
X The procedure is iterative, since the position of the
þ Wj  hj dvj ð2Þ hinges has to be varied. To clarify this, Fig. 3 shows
j the different failure shapes obtained for the global
v
In the approach proposed, the selected structural ele- mechanism with hinge positions varied in 30 steps,
ments are first analysed linearly, using standard FEM measured clock-wise with reference to the centre of the
1918 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929

Afterwards, in order to derive comparative infor-

mation, advanced non-linear analyses are carried out
using a properly calibrated constitutive model, as illu-
strated in paragraph 4. The results of such analyses, in
terms of force–displacement curves, are then compared
with those obtained through the proposed application
of the limit theory.
It is not pointless outlining that the approximation
of the procedure, besides the standard hypotheses
assumed for limit analysis, is mainly due to the a priori
choice of an only class of mechanism shape. For this
reason, the obtained collapse multiplier might not poss-
ibly be the smallest, though it is assumed to be the
most probable, since the hinge position, that identifies
the actual mechanism, is compatible with both linear
and non-linear analyses. This aspect also represents the
main appeal of the procedure, in which a large number
of algebraic calculations, that would be necessary for
deriving the multipliers for all possible mechanism
families, are bypassed.

4. Non-linear fem analyses

A smeared crack model has been used for accounting

the brittle behaviour of masonry, as implemented in
the computer code ABAQUS [9]. In such a model, the
cracking process is completely introduced via constitut-
ive law, by affecting the material stiffness at every inte-
gration point. The well known ABAQUS ‘concrete’
model uses damaged elasticity to account for the crack-
Fig. 3. Failure shapes for step-wise incremented hinge positions. ing, the occurrence of which is defined by a so-called
‘crack detection surface’, whose shape can be con-
arch. In the figure, the first row shows the mechanisms trolled via user parameters.
named Ai, in which the first hinge in the arch is posi- The model basically requires the definition of: (i) the
v v v
tioned at 0 and the second successively at 30 , 60 , stress–strain curve in compression, in tabular form, as
v
90 , etc. Similarly, family Bi mechanisms have the first a function of plastic strain; (ii) the shape of the failure
v v
hinge in the arch fixed at 30 and the second at 60 , surface via the ‘failure ratios’ option; and (iii) the post-
v
90 , etc. In this manner, the generic loop, using polar
cracking tensile behaviour, defined by the ‘tension stiff-
coordinates and identifying hinge positions with their
names Hi, can be represented as follows: ening’ option. This last feature may seem nonsensical
for masonry, though a small amount of tensile strength
H1 ¼ p should be anyway provided to avoid numerical insta-
for i ¼ 1 5 bility problems.
H1 ¼ H1 þi p=6 In order to calibrate correctly the model parameters,
for k ¼ 1 to (5i) a curve-fitting procedure has been adopted using the
H2 ¼ H1 þk p=6 results of various experimental tests performed on tuff
Calculate ith areas/weights masonry panels [6]. It is worth pointing out that all
Calculate ith centres positions case studies herein examined feature tuff masonry
Calculate ith virtual displacements blocks, as typically occurring in the historic buildings
Evaluate Eq. (2) which gives: of Naples.
) ki Table 1 reports the selected values for the model
k ¼ minfki g parameters.
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929 1919

Table 1 abutments. Due to the highly different geometries, con-

Parameter values for the ABAQUS model
3
Weight per unit volume (kg/m )
Young’s modulus (GPa)
Poisson’s ratio
Compression strength (MPa)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Failure ratios
5. Application of the procedure
siderable differences in the structural behaviour and
Tuff stone failure mode are expected among the three elements.
1700 Therefore, the selected sample of case studies, though
1.1 not extensive, can provide a significant validation of
0.2
the efficacy of the proposed procedure.
3.3
0.33 Since the application may be repetitive, the pro-
1.12, 0.08, 1.33, 0.28 cedure is extensively illustrated only for the first case
study, while the other two are considered as validation
cases.

In this paper, three triumphal arches are examined 5.1. The triumphal arch of the San Ippolisto Martire
using the above described procedure. They belong to church
three basilica plan churches: the church of San Ippo- The San Ippolisto Martire church in Atripalda
listo Martire, the church of San Giovanni a Mare, and
(Avellino, Italy) was built between 1584 and 1612, on a
the church of San Giovanni Maggiore. While the first
previous paleo-Christian basilica of the IV century AD
church is located in Irpinia, the others represent two of
[14]. In the XVIII century, several additions and
the several basilicas in the historic centre of Naples,
restorations were made, including the two order faç
which are currently being analysed by the authors in
the context of a wide research activity [11–13]. Beyond ade, which presents a semi-circular arched doorway
the historical, architectural and social values of the and a triangular tympanum, with a central rose win-
churches chosen for the analysis, the choice was also dow, imposed on the top. The plan of the church is
made because of by the significant differences in the sketched in Fig. 4, while in Fig. 5 a photo of the façade
geometrical layout of the triumphal arches, which have is provided.
stimulated the structural study: in the first case (the
church of San Ippolisto Martire), the triumphal arch is
a slender, single opening element; in the second case
(the church of San Giovanni a Mare), the triumphal
arch is a non-symmetrical element, with a main
semi-circular arch, flanked by two lower and narrower
pointed arches; in the third case (the church of San
Giovanni Maggiore), the triumphal arch is a large
semi-circular arch with very wide and stocky lateral

Fig. 4. Schematic plan of the San Ippolisto Martire church. Fig. 5. Façade of the San Ippolisto Martire church.
1920 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929

Fig. 6. (a) Geometry, (b) FEM mesh and loads of the triumphal arch model.

The nave of the church is 11.6 m wide, 28 m long stress state in the element, characterised by tensile com-
and has a maximum height of 16.5 m, while the aisle is ponents at the left side of both pier bases, at the
5.0 m wide and 8.5 m high. The masonry walls have
thickness varying between 1.0 and 1.2 m, the columns
of the nave arcade have a rectangular section of
1:2  1:2 m. The chancel has a rectangular plan shape,
8:8  11:6 m, and the height varies between 14.8 and
18.0 m. The structural elements are made of tuff
masonry. The roof structural system of the nave is
king-post timber roof, while the lateral aisles are cov-
ered by quadripartite vaulting systems with four diag-
onal ribs.
Following the 1980 Irpinia earthquake, the crossing
and transepts of the church, which were surmounted by
heavy reinforced concrete roof system built after a pre-
vious earthquake of 1930, were destroyed.
In Fig. 6(a), the main geometrical dimensions of the
triumphal arch are provided. It is worth pointing out
that this arch is a quite slender structural element, due
to the small arch thickness at crown (s ¼ 1:9 m) and to
the slenderness of piers (H=B ¼ 2:96). The semi-circu-
lar opening is quite large, equal to 46% of the total sur-
face of the element.
In Fig. 6(b), the FEM mesh, with the vertical and
horizontal load distributions considered in the analyses
is provided. An opportunely fine 2D mesh, consisting
of 998 shell elements (S4R), has been used to model the
element, which has been subjected to vertical loads
deriving from the self weight and from the roof loads,
and to a horizontal load of increasing intensity, con-
stantly distributed along the height of the element.
In Fig. 7(a), the deformed configuration at the last
load increment of the analysis, with the vertical stress
contour superimposed, is shown.
In Fig. 7(b), a vector representation of the principal
stresses is provided, which clearly shows the stress flow Fig. 7. FEM analysis: (a) vertical stresses; (b) principal stresses with
in the element. Both plots allow for evaluating the possible hinge positions.
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929 1921

intrados on the left haunch, and at the extrados on the
right haunch of the arch.
The stress state and the deformation mode resulting
from the FEM analysis have been used for selecting the
class of collapse mechanisms, namely the zones where
the hinges are most likely to occur in the masonry.
Following the procedure described in paragraph
3, on the basis of the results of numerical analyses, a
global mechanism type has been a priori selected for
the element (Fig. 8), while the semi-global and local
mechanism types have been excluded. For the global
mechanism, four critical zones in the arch have been
identified. By varying the position of the hinges in
these critical zones, the class of the kinematic multi-
pliers has been defined, and the minimum value has
provided the collapse multiplier. Fig. 8 shows, along
with the collapse mechanism, the relevant kinematic
chain, from which the displacement components are
derived automatically.
It is worth noting that kinematic multiplier is affec-
ted not by large variability within the class belonging
to the same mechanism family. Thus, once the mech-
anism pattern has been chosen on the basis of FEM
analysis, the procedure may be rendered non-iterative
through a ‘one shot’ application, assuming any hinge
position within the zone of compression/tension,

Fig. 8. Chosen collapse mechanism and kinematic chain with relevant loads.
1922 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
provided that a certain approximation is considered
acceptable. In this case, for example, the multiplier
connected to the selected mechanism is bound between
0.28 and 0.35 (i.e. approximately 20% variability).
It is also interesting that the mechanism fairly mat-
ches the deformed configuration obtained from the
FEM analysis (Fig. 7(b)).
In Fig. 9, the comparison between the push-over
FEM analysis and the limit analysis is provided. In
particular, the non-dimensional force–displacement
curve F =W vs. d=H, obtained from the FEM analysis,
is depicted in the graph, together with the horizontal
line corresponding to the collapse multiplier. In the
graph, the horizontal force resultant (F), is normalised
to the total vertical load (W), acting at the base of the
element, while the horizontal displacement (d) of the
arch’s top right joint is normalised to the arch height
(H). The comparison between the collapse multiplier
(F =W ¼ 0:28) and the maximum load capacity
obtained via FEM (F =W ¼ 0:24) confirms that the for-
mer provides an upper bound of the element strength
capacity.
5.2. Validation cases
The other two cases taken into account are the chur-
ches of San Giovanni a Mare and San Giovanni Mag-
giore, respectively.
The church of San Giovanni a Mare is a classical
Angevin style monument. It is one of the most ancient
churches of Naples: according to [3], the first document
Fig. 9. FEM analysis vs. limit analysis results.
reporting about the church is dated 1186. Even though
several additions and alterations have strongly modi-
fied the original plan of the church over the centuries,
the major features the basilica-type churches are still
recognisable.
The San Giovanni Maggiore church was erected in
the 560, at the site of the ancient city of Naples which
was previously occupied by a pagan sanctuary. It is
one of the more ancient sacral sites reported in the
Liber pontificalis of Naples [2] and in other medieval
documents, and from its origin it has represented a ref-
erence church in the city. Also, this church has been
modified during centuries, and was subject to several
earthquakes (1456, 1732, 1805, 1980) which mostly
damaged the transept zone.
In Fig. 10, the geometrical layout of the two tri-
umphal arches is provided. Note that the two examples
are quite different in geometry and also in dimensions
(figures not in the same scale). Actually, the first one is
characterised by a main semi-circular arched opening,
flanked by two lower and narrower pointed arches; the
second one is characterised by the presence of wide,
stocky abutment panels (H=B ¼ 0:91) and a relatively
small thickness of the arch at crown and areas within
the element with different transversal thickness (central
part 2.4 m, lateral panels 1.8 m, infilled minor arches
0.9 m) The global height of the elements is 13.30 and
20.3 m, respectively.
In Fig. 11, the deformed configuration, with the vec-
tor representation of the minimum (compression) and
maximum (tensile) principal stresses superimposed, is
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
Fig. 10. (a) Triumphal arch of San Giovanni a Mare; (b) Triumphal arch of San Giovanni Maggiore.
provided. As in the previous case, these plots have been
used for detecting the critical zones where the hinges
are likely to occur, and subsequently the class of collapse
mechanisms. By varying the position of the hinges in
these critical zones, the collapse multiplier has been
computed as the minimum kinematic multiplier. In all
cases, the final collapse mechanism closely matches
the deformed configuration obtained from the FEM
analysis.
Finally in Figs. 12 and 13, the comparison between
the FEM analysis and the limit analysis is provided, in
terms of normalised horizontal force resultant, F =W
vs. horizontal displacement ratio, d=H. Also in these
cases, the collapse multiplier value (F=W equal to
22.4% and 41%, respectively) is slightly larger than the
1923
maximum load capacity obtained via FEM (F=W equal
to 20% and 31%, respectively).
It is worth pointing out that as far as the arch of San
Giovanni a Maggiore is concerned, the value of the
collapse multiplier is quite close to the one which could
be obtained from the limit analysis of the single abut-
ment panel (F =W ¼ 0:39 for the single abutment
panel). This last consideration has stimulated a further
simplification as described in the following paragraph.
6. Synthesis of the results and discussion
The analysis of the three triumphal arches, carried
out under vertical loads and horizontal seismic-type
actions, and the application of the proposed simplified
approach, have allowed to derive quantitative indica-
1924 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929

Fig. 11. FEM analysis: principal stresses with possible hinge position for (a) San Giovanni a Mare and (b) San Giovanni Maggiore.

tions on the strength capacity of the masonry elements.
Major outcomes and results deriving from the analyses
are stated in the following.
The geometry of the structural schemes of the ana-
lysed arches is quite different, as easily derived from
both Fig. 14 and from some major geometrical para-
meters reported in Table 2. Since the structural behav-
iour of nearly no-tension material under horizontal
actions is strongly affected by geometry, quite different
values of the lateral strength capacity were expected
and, in fact, FEM analysis has provided scattered
results (Fig. 15).
Despite those aspects that differentiate the three
cases, a similar mechanism shape has been observed for
the structural schemes, namely a ‘global-type’ mech-
anism, involving hinges both at the pier base and in the
arch. Quite obviously, the hinge pattern appears more
complex in the case of more composite geometrical lay-
out, as in the case of the triumphal arch of San Gio-
vanni a Mare. Nevertheless, the ‘weak’ points, where
hinges are likely to take place, occur at corresponding
locations for all the structural elements.
The comparison between the simplified limit analysis
approach, based on the a priori selection of the col-
lapse mechanism, and the results of FEM non-linear
analysis show that the proposed procedure provides
quite reliable results. Some major scatters, though,
occur when the geometrical characteristics drive the
element into such a mode of failure that do not show
an extended softening branch. This is the case of San
Giovanni Maggiore church, where the collapse features
of the triumphal arch are strongly affected by the
behaviour of the very stocky, variable thickness, abut-
ment piers.
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929 1925

Fig. 12. FEM analysis vs. limit analysis results for San Giovanni a Mare.

However, it is worth noting that in this case, the
FEM non-linear analysis is not able to follow the load–
displacement curve in the softening branch, due to con-
vergence and numerical instability problems, deriving
from the well known localisation phenomenon.
The quite variable values of the horizontal strength
F, equal to 1220, 927 and 5050 kN, respectively, for the
triumphal arches of San Ippolisto, San Giovanni a
Mare and San Giovanni Maggiore, give rise to closer
non-dimensional values when the total vertical load W
is used for normalisation. This point appears to be
particularly significant from a seismic point of view:
the global seismic strength demand on a building is
typically expressed in terms of normalised base shear,
Vb =W , as well as the demand on the single structural
elements, Vbi =Wi . Therefore, the normalisation to the
vertical load also provides values which can be
straightforwardly used for an immediate seismic safety

Fig. 13. FEM analysis vs. limit analysis results for San Giovanni Maggiore.
1926 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929

Fig. 14. Geometry of the three arches in the same length scale.

assessment through a direct comparison strength collapse multiplier for each possible mechanism, the
demand vs. capacity [11,13]. following simple formula has been proposed:
As a further simplification, we can assume that an   
arch might be virtually represented by a simple rec- F B WB B
¼ 1þ 0:5 þ ð3Þ
tangular portal, having suitable geometrical ratios. In a Wtot 2h Wtot D
companion paper [4], the authors have proposed a sim-
The geometrical quantities appearing in such an
plified expression for the evaluation of the horizontal
capacity of masonry portal frames. In the paper men- expression are explained in Fig. 16, while WB repre-
tioned, after deriving the closed form expression of the sents the weight of the horizontal part (ideally ‘Beam’)
and Wtot the total weight of the portal element.
The proposed formula includes the three main
Table 2 aspects that have been found to govern the value of
Geometrical and structural parameters of triumphal arches F =W for the portal. In particular:
San San San
Ippolisto Giovanni Giovanni B
represents the collapse multiplier of the column as
a Mare Maggiore 2h
Htot =L 0.83 0.71 0.58 a single element
h=B 2.96 2.5–4.85 1.59  
W (kN103) 5.17 4.72 16.56 WB
F (kN103) 1.220 0.927 5.050
1þ is the stabilizing effect of the ideal beam
 Wtot
F =WFEM 0.24 0.20 0.31 B
F =W expression (3) 0.205 0.18 0.395 0:5 þ is the effect of the opening
D
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
Fig. 15. Force–displacement curves for the three arches.
The errors obtained with respect to the exact closed
form solution for the portal are generally below 6%.
In the case of the analysed arches, superimposing the
portal scheme onto the geometrical pattern, as shown
in Fig. 17 for San Ippolisto and San Giovanni Mag-
giore, we have obtained for the three arches 0.205, 0.18
and 0.395, respectively, (Table 2), which are different
but not far from the values obtained with the proposed
procedure.
Note that the value for San Giovanni a Mare is less
meaningful due to the complexity and not because of
Fig. 16. Portal geometrical quantities.
1927
the direct possibility of superimposing the portal
scheme.
As a summary of the main features herein discussed,
in Table 2 the following geometrical and structural
parameters are provided for each arch: global slender-
ness, defined as the ratio of the total height to the
maximum width (Htot =L); pier slenderness, defined as
the ratio of the pier height to the pier width (h=B);
total vertical load acting at the base of the element,
given by the sum of the masonry weight plus the sup-
ported roof loads (W); average compressive stress level,
given by the ratio of the total vertical load to the area
of the element base (rc,av.); lateral strength capacity,
F, obtained as a result of the FEM non-linear analysis;
non-dimensional lateral strength capacity (F =W ); non-
dimensional collapse multiplier derived from the
approximated expression (3).
This last consideration confirms the close behaviour
detected, notwithstanding the different geometry. Also,
it provides an immediate, though roughly approxi-
mated, index of seismic capacity.
7. Conclusive remarks
In this paper, the structural behaviour of the tri-
umphal arch is studied. A simplified procedure, which
couples FEM linear analysis and limit analysis, is pro-
posed. In particular, linear analysis is used for detecting
tensile stress zones in the masonry element and iden-
1928 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
Fig. 17. Superimposition of a portal scheme onto the selected arches.
tifying the most probable failure mechanism class.
The calculation of the kinematic multipliers is then
carried out taking advantage of a CAD program, so
that the quantities (area, centroid, relevant load)
involved in the virtual work equations are automati-
cally calculated. Non-linear FEM analyses are then
performed on the structural element models.
The application of the proposed procedure can be
considered as a worthy tool for an approximate assess-
ment of the seismic capacity: the linear analyses allow
to choose ‘a priori’ the most probable failure mech-
anism classes, so that the calculation of the collapse
multiplier is simplified, not having to take into account
all the possible mechanisms.
Besides, the limit analysis turns out to be very effec-
tive in checking the numerical results, which in some
cases can be very unstable, due to the intrinsic char-
acteristics of non-linear constitutive models.
Though in the cases considered significant differences
in the structural behaviour, collapse mode and collapse
multiplier could have been expected, a similar mech-
anism has however been observed. Furthermore, the
quite different values of the horizontal strength, F, lead
to closer-than-expected non-dimensional values F =W ,
bounded between 0.20 and 0.31. This result appears to
be particularly interesting from a seismic point of view,
since it provides an order of magnitude of the base
shear which triumphal arches might carry under earth-
quakes.
In conclusion, the proposed procedure provides indi-
cations that may be very valuable in the seismic assess-
ment of churches and also in the design of retrofit
solutions.
 A. De Luca et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1915–1929
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by CNR Progetto Fina-
lizzato Beni Culturali, by MIUR Cofin 2000 ‘‘Adegua-
mento sismico di edifici monumentali tramite isolamento
sismico materiali innovativi’’, and has been developed in
the context of the activities of ‘‘Centro di Competenza
CRdC BENECON’’.
References
[1] Abruzzese D, Como M, Lanni G. Some results on the strength
evaluation of vaulted masonry structures. In: Brebbia CA,
Leftheris B, editors. Structural studies of historical buildings
IV—vol. 1: architectural studies, materials and analysis. Compu-
tational Mechanics Publications; 1995, p. 431–40.
[2] Borrelli G. La Basilica di San Giovanni Maggiore. Napoli 1967
[in Italian].
[3] Casiello S. Il restauro della chiesa di S. Giovanni a Mare
in Napoli. Napoli: Ed. Paparo; 2000 [in Italian].
[4] De Luca A, Mele E, Romano A, Giordano A. A simplified
expression for the evaluation of the horizontal capacity of
masonry portal frames. Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions,
Padova, 10–13 November 2004. 2002.
[5] Doglioni F, Moretti A, Petrini V. Le chiese e il terremoto.
Trieste: LINT; 1994 [in Italian].
1929
[6] Giordano A, Mele E, De Luca A. Modelling of historical
masonry structures: comparison of different approaches through
a case study. Engineering Structures 2002;24(8):1057–69.
[7] Heyman J. The stone skeleton. International Journal of Solids
Structures 1966;2:249–79.
[8] Heyman J. The safety of masonry arches. International Journal
of Mechanical Science 1969;11:363–85.
[9] Hibbit, Karlson and Sorensen. ABAQUS theory manual. 1997.
[10] Lagomarsino S, et al. Modelli di calcolo per il miglioramento
sismico delle chiese. Proceedings of the eighth Italian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering ANIDIS ‘‘L’Ingegneria Sismica in
Italia’’, Torino. 1999 [in Italian].
[11] Mele E, De Luca A, Giagnuolo C. L’effetto di alcuni interventi
di adeguamento sismico sul comportamento di edifici in mur-
atura. Proceedings of the eighth Italian Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering ANIDIS ‘‘L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia’’,
Torino. 1999 [in Italian].
[12] Mele E, Gatto D, De Luca A. Structural analysis of basilica
churches: a case study. Proceedings of the third International
Seminar in Historical Constructions, Guimarães, November 7–9.
2001.
[13] Mele E, De Luca A, Giordano A. Modeling and analysis of a
basilica under seismic loading. Journal of Cultural Heritage
2003;4(4):355–67.
[14] Min. Beni Cult. E Amb. Soprintendenza Generale Interventi
Post-Sismici in Campania e Basilicata. Dopo la polvere. Tomo
II—Provincia di Avellino. Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello
Stato, Rome, 1994. p. 211–2 [in Italian].