## 5 Numerical Validation of the Model
### Dynamic Analysis of a Masonry House
#### 5.2.4 Numerical Modeling
It is important to emphasize that this peak error does not reflect the overall trend throughout the testing period. While the model is generally reliable, certain dynamic responses may occasionally result in deviations from the measured values. The model's underestimation of the OOP displacement can be attributed to the simplifications inherent in modeling OOP behavior using an elastic constitutive model. Masonry, particularly adobe, exhibits nonlinear behavior when subjected to OOP forces, which can result in cracking, crushing, or other failure modes that a a purely elastic model cannot fully capture. [PERSON] et al. (2019) presented the shake table test results. Unlike the IP walls, the OOP walls exhibited no significant damage under the analyzed seismic excitation level, and the displacements measured at Points 2-5 (Figure 19) linearly varied along the height of the wall. These observations support the model's assumption of linear elastic behavior for OOP walls as a reasonable approximation. Consequently, the authors believe that the underestimation of OOP displacements has minimal impact on the structural response of the IP shear walls, which are the primary contributors to the structure's seismic resistance. Note that a finer mesh (corresponding to DFM\(\_\)2) leads to a slightly better accuracy, as shown in Table 5. However, this accuracy sacrifices the computational time (which is about four times longer) for a low impact on the IP behavior. The computation time of 4 h and 30 min, as indicated in Figure 22, encompasses various tasks, including mesh generation, the calculation of the vertical stress applied to each macro-element, application of static loads, and the execution of the numerical analysis. This overall computation time was considered quite satisfactory as it allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the seismic response of an entire masonry structure within just a few hours. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{d_{IP,DFM}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{IP,exp}}\) & \(\mathbf{error_{IP}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{OOP,DFM}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{OOP,exp}}\) & \(\mathbf{error_{OOP}}\) \\
**mm** & **mm** & \% & **mm** & **mm** & **\%** \\ \hline \(+2.59\) & \(+3.54\) & \(26.9\) & \(+3.74\) & \(+7.77\) & \(51.9\) \\ \(-2.74\) & \(-3.04\) & \(10\) & \(-3.46\) & \(-7.31\) & \(52.7\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of the maximum displacements in the positive and negative directions determined with the DFM and experimentally measured. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{d_{IP,DFM}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{IP,exp}}\) & \(\mathbf{error_{IP}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{OOP,DFM}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{OOP,exp}}\) & \(\mathbf{error_{OOP}}\) \\
**mm** & **mm** & \% & **mm** & **mm** & **\%** \\ \hline \(+2.72\) & \(+3.54\) & \(23\) & \(+4.90\) & \(+7.77\) & \(37\) \\ \(-2.77\) & \(-3.04\) & \(9\) & \(-3.84\) & \(-7.31\) & \(48\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Finer mesh: comparison of the maximum displacements in the positive and negative directions determined with the DFM and experimentally measured. Figure 22: The experimental and calculated displacement histories of the house at Points 6 and 7.