*3.2. Crack Behaviors*

As already highlighted, a numerical simulation based on the CSC model in Figure 7 is performed to predict the crack locations on the exterior walls, in which the smeared crack is studied instead of an individual crack. Figure 7a–c displays the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) distributions of the exterior walls to reveal the crack locations most easily; thereby obtaining the corners of the window and door that tend to crack under a relative deformation between the upper and lower parts of the walls. Accordingly, just four displacement transducers, denoted as E01, S01, W01, and N01 in Figure 7d, were attached to the exterior walls on the east, south, west, and north sides, respectively. Moreover, masonry-timber connections were also taken into consideration due to the masonry-timber structure of the curtilage. As illustrated in Figure 8d, the displacement transducers at the primary entrance (A01) and on the interior wall (A02) were taken as typical examples in this case.

Figure 8 shows the crack displacement variations along with the moving procedure. For the exterior walls, the crack displacements of the S01 and N01 sensors are slightly higher than that of the E01 and W01 sensors when moving west in Figure 8a, which means that the south and north walls are easier to crack under the horizontal west-pushing loads. When moving north, the east and west walls become easier to crack, as deduced from Figure 8b. As for the masonry-timber connections, the crack displacement variations of the A01 and A02 sensors are also plotted, which shows that the changing range of the A01 curve is larger than A02 when moving west; when moving north, the A02 curve changes more obviously. Moreover, the FE results based on the CSC model also show that

when the displacement variations within the areas of the displacement transducers are below 0.17 mm, there is no plastic deformation that can be observed. It is worth noting that all of the crack displacement curves are changed in the range of −0.02 to 0.07 mm in Figure 8, which indicated that the crack displacement variations are very small and insufficient to give rise to structural cracks during the monolithic movement.

**Figure 7.** PEEQ distributions of the exterior walls: (**a**) west (**b**) north and (**c**) south sides; (**d**) layout of the displacement transducers.

**Figure 8.** Crack displacements obtained from the displacement transducers: (**a**) westward; (**b**) northward.

## *3.3. Deformation of the Steel Underpinning Beams*

In order to transfer the vertical loads to the steel chassis, the reinforced underpinnings are constructed at the bottom of the masonry walls with two-clip steel beams. As shown in Figure 8a, three serious inclinometers are stuck on the outside surfaces of the steel beams at the bottom of the east, north, and west walls in this case, assigned as D01, D02, and D03, respectively. Here, D01 and D02 are selected as representative sensors for simplicity, and the ranges of their measured lengths are 12 m along the east–west direction and 30 m along the south–north direction, respectively. The used series inclinometer with ten measuring points could output displacement data along the *Y* and *Z* directions, and their local coordinates were plotted in Figure 9a. Figure 9b presents the displacements of D01 along the *Y*<sup>1</sup> directions. Whether moving westward or northward during these 7 days, the displacement curves almost followed the same trend with the range from −0.5 to 1.2 mm, which indicates that there is almost no deformation along the *Y*<sup>1</sup> direction under the external horizontal loads provided by the push-in jacks (Figure S1). This is because the moving speed is very low and the stiffness of the underpinning beams in the *Y*<sup>1</sup> direction is high enough to resist the deformation. When it comes to the deformation along *Z*<sup>1</sup> direction in Figure 9c, the variation trends of the displacement curves are also similar; meanwhile, the displacement in the *Z*<sup>1</sup> direction decreased from 6.0 to 1.5 mm with the increased distance from the north end to the south end of the series inclinometer when moving west in the first to the fourth days. The displacement variations mainly originate from the difference of the external pushing loads. Additionally, it is obvious that the amplitude of deformation is larger than that during the movement north in the fifth to seventh days and the D01 data, which is caused by the direction of the pushing loads and the lower stiffness of the underpinning beam in the *Z*<sup>1</sup> direction than that in the *Y*<sup>1</sup> direction. Similarly, the displacement curves obtained via the D02 sensor are quite stable (small gaps of 1.2 to 2.0 mm and 0.3 to 1.2 mm for the westward and northward movements) in Figure 9d, which proves the homogeneous deformation in *Y*<sup>2</sup> direction of the underpinning beam during the whole monolithic movement. Additionally, the stable displacement curves in *Z*<sup>2</sup> direction distracted from the D02 sensor with a small variation of −0.1 to 0.9 mm can be found when moving west in Figure 9e. The larger deformation with the displacement varying from −5 to −2 mm is revealed when moving north due to a combination of the significantly lower stiffness in the *Z*<sup>2</sup> direction than the *Y*<sup>2</sup> direction and the external pushing-load direction.
