GNGTS 2019 - Atti del 38° Convegno Nazionale

442 GNGTS 2019 S essione 2.2 the ultimate displacement configuration of the SDOF equivalent system. As evidenced by the reported results, the seismic response obtained through the different numerical approaches is comparable. The RHA provides higher spectral accelerations than the PA, but the values are quite comparable in terms of magnitude. This confirms the difficulty in the numerical modeling of very complex structures, especially in the case of nonlinear dynamic analysis which represent the best investigation tool. Regarding the analytical approach, there is a discrepancy with the results of the numerical insight. The lowest values obtained for the KA are mainly due to the non-refinement of the simplified method, which is more conservative since the accelerations obtained are calculated on a single failure mechanism. On the contrary, the numerical calculation involving the entire structure and a * values are assessed as the ratio of Base-shear to participating mass. However, KA is a quick tool for the seismic analysis of masonry walls. Even today, the design of localized interventions, such as the insertion of tie-rods for achievement of the box-like behavior, takes place through simplified approaches (Formisano and Milani, 2019). Conclusions. The nonlinear static analysis is performed with the purpose of highlighting the seismic vulnerability of the case study. Owing to the triangular plan of the building, a multi- control point approach is used. The dynamic simulations allowed the seismic capacity of the San Fili Castle to be drawn clearly. The results, in terms of both damage and seismic resilience, are quite in agreement with those provided by pushover analysis. Also, it is noteworthy that Fig. 3 - KAs calculation scheme. Table 2 - Spectral acceleration values obtained with the different approaches. Pushover Analysis    Response History Analysis        Kinematic Analysis: +Y: a PA * [m/s 2 ]        Y: a RHA * [m/s 2 ] a KA * [m/s 2 ] BCP: C2 Positive values Negative values SO VO 2.59 2.90 2.75 0.89 1.10