Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structural
Available
Available Integrity
online
online atProcedia
at 00 (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia1100(2018)
(2016)169–176
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XIV International Conference on Building Pathology and Constructions Repair – CINPAR 2018
XIV International Conference on Building Pathology and Constructions Repair – CINPAR 2018
Seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings: a case study in
Seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings: a case study in
the center
XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016, of Lucca
10-12 February 2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
the center of Lucca
Sonia Boschia,a,*, Andrea
Thermo-mechanical modeling Borghini of
a
a ,a high
Barbara Pintucchiaa, Nicola
pressure turbine
a
blade
Zani of an
Sonia Boschi *, Andrea Borghini , Barbara Pintucchi , Nicola Zania
airplane gas turbine engine
a
DICEA, Via di Santa Marta 3, Florence 50139, Italy
a
DICEA, Via di Santa Marta 3, Florence 50139, Italy

a b c
Abstract P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
Abstract
a
The Italian Department
territory,of as
Mechanical Engineering,
that of many other Instituto
European Superior Técnico,
countries, Universidade
is currently de Lisboa,
defined as aAv. Rovisco
total Pais,territory.
seismic 1, 1049-001TheLisboa,
cultural
The Italian territory, made
as that Portugal
heritage
b is generally of of manyconstructions
historic other European countries,
of load-bearing is masonry
currentlybuildings,
defined as a total seismic
organized in complexterritory. The cultural
aggregates. These
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
heritage
structures, is generally
due to theirmade of historic
intrinsic constructions
vulnerability of load-bearing
and their reciprocal masonry buildings,
interactions, are organized susceptible
particularly in complex to aggregates.
local or These
global
Portugal
structures,
collapses
c
CeFEMA, due
in caseto their
of seismic
Department intrinsic vulnerability and their reciprocal interactions, are particularly susceptible to local
loading. Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
of Mechanical or global
collapses
This paperinaims
case at
of analyzing
seismic loading.
the seismic vulnerability of the masonry
Portugal aggregate of Civitali Insitut, located in the city center of
This paper
Lucca aims
(Italy). at analyzing
After a descriptionthe seismic
of the vulnerability of the masonry
complete knowledge processaggregate
done, basedof Civitali
also to Insitut,
partiallylocated in theonsite
destructive city center
tests of
of
Lucca
double (Italy). After
flat-jacks, thea static
description of the assessment
and seismic complete knowledge process
of the complex hasdone,
beenbased also analyzing
discussed to partiallyboth
destructive onsite testsand
local mechanisms of
Abstract
double flat-jacks, the static and seismic assessment of the complex has been discussed analyzing
global behavior by assuming different structural configurations according to the level of connections between structural elements.both local mechanisms and
global behavior
Particular by assuming
attention has been paiddifferent
to thestructural
study of configurations according
the vaults covering to the floor.
the ground level of
Theconnections between
analyses have structural
highlighted someelements.
critical
During
Particular
issues typicaltheir
of operation,
attention
thathas been
type ofmodern
paid to the
building aircraft
studyengine
structuresofsuch components
the vaults
as the coveringarethesubjected
weak walls' to and
ground floor.
connections increasingly
Thetheanalysesdemanding
of theoperating
have highlighted
poor quality masonrysome conditions,
critical
type.
especially
issues typicalthe of high pressure
that type turbinestructures
of building (HPT) blades.
such Such
as theconditions
weak walls' cause these parts
connections andtothe
undergo different
poor quality types
of the of time-dependent
masonry type.
degradation, one of which is creep. A model using the finite element method (FEM) was developed, in order to be able to predict
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Copyright
the creep© 2018 Elsevierof
behaviour B.V. All rights
HPT blades.reserved.
Flight data records (FDR) for a specific aircraft, provided by a commercial aviation
Copyright
Peer-review ©under
2018 Elsevier B.V. All
responsibility rights
of CINPAR
the reserved.
CINPAR 2018 organizers
Peer-review
company, under
were responsibility
used to of the
obtain thermal 2018mechanical
and organizers data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
Peer-review under responsibility of the CINPAR 2018 organizers
needed for the FEM analysis, a HPT blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
Keywords: masonry aggregate; statc and seismic assessment.
obtained. The data that was gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
Keywords: masonry aggregate; statc and seismic assessment.
rectangular block shape, in order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
overall expected behaviour in terms of displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
1. model
Introductioncan be useful in the goal of predicting turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.
1. Introduction
©The
2016 The and
static Authors. Published
seismic by Elsevier
assessment B.V. masonry buildings represents a significant topic for several European
of ancient
The staticcharacterized
Peer-review
Countries, and
underseismic assessment
responsibility
by highof the of ancient
Scientific
seismic masonry
Committee
hazard buildings represents
of PCF 2016.
and architectural a significant
heritages generally topic for several
consisting European
of inadequate
Countries, characterized by high seismic hazard and architectural heritages generally consisting
seismic resistant buildings. Historical constructions are largely made of load-bearing masonry structures organized of inadequate
Keywords:
seismic High Pressure
resistant Turbine
buildings. Blade; Creep;
Historical Finite Elementare
constructions Method; 3D Model;
largely made Simulation.
of load-bearing masonry structures organized

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-278879; fax: +39-055-278800.

* E-mail
Corresponding
address:author. Tel.: +39-055-278879; fax: +39-055-278800.
sonia.boschi@unifi.it
E-mail address: sonia.boschi@unifi.it
2452-3216 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2452-3216 Copyright
Peer-review © 2018 Elsevier
under responsibility of the B.V. All rights
CINPAR 2018 reserved.
organizers.
Peer-review under responsibility
* Corresponding of the218419991.
author. Tel.: +351 CINPAR 2018 organizers.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
2452-3216 Copyright  2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Peer-review under responsibility of the CINPAR 2018 organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.023
170 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176
2 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

in complex aggregates, being the result of an historic process of evolution and saturation of free spaces among
existing structural units, often presenting different materials and construction techniques (Carocci and Tocci 2007,
Bernardini et al. 2018). These structures are particularly susceptible to local or global collapses in case of seismic
loading, due to their intrinsic vulnerability - absence of adequate connections between orthogonal walls, poor
mechanical characteristics of the materials, significant deterioration due to existing crack pattern or inappropriate
maintenance - and their reciprocal interactions. Indeed, historic masonry buildings showed high damage levels
during past and recent Italian earthquakes (D’Ayala and Paganoni 2011, Borri et al. 2017), once again evidencing
the need of operational strategies for evaluating their seismic vulnerability and defining effective retrofitting
techniques capable of increasing the safety level and preserving their historical identities and artistic values.
For large-scale vulnerability assessment, expeditious methods make use of qualitative parameters (Lagomarsino
2006, Lourenço and Roque 2006, Boschi et al. 2017) to classify the buildings and defining ranks useful to identify
the constructions more susceptible to damage and immediately in dire of retrofitting. However, it is still through
detailed analyses and numerical accurate models that seismic upgrading interventions are commonly designed.
Thanks to the high level of knowledge - geometrical, architectural, materical and structural - acquired through the in-
situ process of investigation, numerical models are implemented, keeping attention on the evaluation of both local
and global collapse mechanisms of significant structural units (Roca et al. 2010, Lagomarsino and Cattari 2015,
Betti et al. 2017 and Castori et al. 2017,to cite just a few), as suggested by the current Italian Building Code (M.I.T.
2008 and 2009) and the Guidelines of the Ministry for Cultural Heritage (D.P.C.M. 2011).
In this framework, the paper discusses the seismic vulnerability of the masonry aggregate of Civitali Insitut,
located in the city center of Lucca (Italy). A multidisciplinary procedure has been used: firstly, a careful and
complete knowledge of the structure has been acquired, based also on partially destructive onsite tests of double flat-
jacks; then, the static and seismic assessment of the complex has been conducted by analyzing both local
mechanisms and global behavior and assuming different structural configurations accordingly to what observed in
the cognitive phase. Particular attention has been paid to the study of the vaults that cover the ground floor of the
building, one of the most vulnerable structural elements in the construction. The results have highlighted some
critical issues such as the weak connections of the wall and the poor quality of the masonry typology.

2. Knowledge process of the building complex

2.1. The adopted procedure

The case study is a complex masonry building in aggregate that includes two high schools and a kindergarten and
it is located in San Nicolao Street, in the city center of Lucca (Italy). The complex is the ex-monastery of San
Nicolao Novello, with annexed San Nicolao Church. The aggregate fills an urban block (Fig. 1a). It dates back to
1330 and hosted the Augustinian nuns of Santa Maria della Croce. The buildings was rebuilt between the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries and, more recently, has undergone different architectonical and structural interventions
giving it its actual configuration.
The aggregate has a main body with an almost square plan, inscribed in a rectangle with dimensions of
approximately 76×62 m and it has an internal cloister, with a square plan too, entering in a rectangle of indicative
dimensions 38×34 m (Fig. 1b). On the East side, the main building is in continuity with two other structural bodies,
of elongated rectangular shape that develop longitudinally along Via San Nicolao, Fig. 1c. In particular, the northern
appendix is the Church of San Nicolao (30×14 m), while on the South side, there is an appendix of approximately
32×18 m. On the West side, there is an L-shaped one-level structure (12×10 m). The main body mostly develops on
two levels above ground, while on the East side, along Via San Nicolao, it is constituted by three levels, as the South
Appendix. The cloister develops for two levels as well as the Church.
When a complex building have to be analysed, the results of numerical analyses of the global modelling of the
structure may be unreliable, as the behaviour of each single structural units may be different from that of the whole
building and therefore must be studied separately.
The procedure used for this case study is based on a knowledge approach, in line with what already done by
Lagomarsino et al. (2014) and Caprili et al. (2017) for the analysis of Podestà Palace and La Sapienza Palace in
Pisa, respectively. A detailed knowledge process is conducted for the building complex, paying attention to its
 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176 171
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

evolutions and transformations over the centuries, the geometrical survey and focusing on the structural aspects: the
typologies of floors, roofs and masonry walls are investigated through both visual inspections and non-destructive
(NDT) in-situ tests. Subsequently, and thanks to this full knowledge acquired, the structure is disaggregated into
identified structural units, that may be considered having a unitary response against seismic actions. Each of them is
seismically analysed, thus identifying properties, peculiarities and deficiencies and designing preliminary retrofit
interventions.

b c

Fig. 1. (a) Civitali Institut aerial image; (b) internal cloister; (c) Civitali main front street on the East side.

2.2. Structural description and in situ investigation

The extensive investigation campaign adopted to fully know the structure included:

• n.47 essays on vertical masonry structure through the removal of plaster portions (about 1×1 m) in order to
identify the types and quality of masonry types, those of the constituents and the structural details;
• n.14 essays on horizontal elements (n.9 horizontal slabs and n.5 vaulted structures) aimed at identifying types,
thicknesses and structural slab packages;
• thermographic investigations by means of a thermal imaging camera, to identify the wall texture or the type of
horizontal elements (where essays could not be done);
• experimental tests on the walls aimed at directly defining their mechanical characteristics; in particular:
‒ n.7 tests with single and double flat-jacks, to estimate the in situ stress state and the modulus of normal
elasticity of the masonry (E);
‒ n.8 tests with penetrometric instrumented drill for the evaluation of the mortar compressive strength;
‒ n.7 endoscopies to verify the consistency of the wall thickness;
• n.7 static and dynamic tests on tie-rods of the major vaults covering the ground floor to estimate the stress state.
172 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176
4 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

The building is made up of load-bearing masonry of different types, plastered in all its parts, except for some
limited areas. From the essays and the double flat-jack results, it was possible to identify three different predominant
vertical masonry types: M1, M2 and M3. M1 (Fig. 2a) is a stone masonry, 50-60 cm thick, characterized by large
blocks, squared in some cases, with a regular presence of shims and full bricks. The mortar is friable to the touch
and, accordingly to the results of the mechanical tests, it has a low compressive resistance. The results of the double
flat-jack provided an average value of the E modulus equal to 3150 N /mm2, amply over the ranges provided by the
Italian code (M.I.T. 2009, Tab. C8A.2.1) for the irregular/roughly cut stone masonry. It is worthwhile mentioning
that this result could be ascribable to the unfitting positioning of the LVTDs in the masonry, which, by interfering
with the stones, have really measured the elasticity of the blocks. The M2 (Fig. 2b) is a solid brick masonry,
characterized by variable thicknesses (about 30-55 cm), made up of bricks of varying sizes and mortar with
satisfactory mechanical characteristics in relation to the period of construction. The unique double flat-jack carried
out on M2 provided a value of E consistent with values given by the Italian code for masonry with the same
characteristics and good mortar (about 2700 N/mm2). The M3 masonry (Fig. 2c), a mixed stones and brick masonry,
is characterized by barely cut and not worked stones of medium-large size, squared only in few cases. The mortar,
generally friable to the touch, is less compact with respect to that of the M1 masonry. In some cases, the M3 walls
have voids on the surface and in the wall thickness too. From the three double flat-jack emerges that the average of
E modulus is equal to 1057 N/mm2, considerably lower than M1 type but in line with the value given for
disorganized stone masonry.

a b c

Fig. 2. (a) stone masonry; (b) brick masonry (with inserted the double flat-jack); (c) mixed masonry (stone and brick masonry).

There are different types of horizontal elements due to the variety of the structural units and the numerous
interventions carried out over time on the building. Spans of the vaults and slabs are generally quite large. There are
structural vaults, wooden and steel structures and modern hollow brick and reinforced concrete slabs. In particular,
at the ground floor the spaces are covered by cross and barrel vaults, generally made up of brick masonry. Most of
the barrel vaults cover large rectangular rooms, have lateral lunette and one or even two orders of transversal chains.
These vaults have a rather low profile. In particular, the vault covering the kindergarten - that can be considered
representative of all the other of the same typology - has a span of 883 cm and a rise of 148 cm. From a through
essay, it emerges that the vault’s thickness is 28 cm from the abutments up to about the haunches, whereas it is
halved in the part around the crown, with the exception of the transversal ribs - spaced 110 cm apart - that have both
thickness and depth equal to 28 cm. There is not infill, except for a limited zone around the crown; over the vault, a
wooden slab rests on the lateral walls and on two brick masonry supports, which develops in the longitudinal
direction of the vault, each one at a distance from the crown of about 1 m. Some masonry walls built on some ribs,
together with the lunettes, provide a stabilizing and stiffening contribution (Fig. 3 and 4a).
The vaults of the cloisters are cross brick masonry vaults (Fig. 4c), with an almost square fields of about 350 cm
on a side. Each vault is set on the rear wall and on rectangular piers in the side facing the cloister. A through essay
revealed a structural thickness of 15 cm in addition to a filling, made up of mainly loose materials, having a
thickness ranging from about 16 to 35 cm on the various sides of the cloister.
 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176 173
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

As regards San Nicolao Church, cross vaults cover both the main and the lateral naves, with spans of about
600×395 cm and 310×395 cm (Fig. 4b), respectively. An essay on the central nave have shown that the vault is 16
cm thick and without infill. The slab package is sustained through four wooden sleepers with longitudinal
development that rest on the extrados of the vault.
The majority of first and second floors’ slabs are made by wooden structure (double warped beams - such as Fig.
5a), or I beams and hollow tiles, with different types of steel principal structure (Fig. 5b). At the roof level, some
spaces are covered by ceiling, other roofs are visible, mainly constitute of wooden elements, with trusses or
horizontal beams (Fig. 5c). The state of conservation of the horizontal elements is generally poor, with the exception
of some renovated portions of the roof.
All the foregoing information on the vertical and horizontal structural elements are summarized on Fig. 6.

a b

Fig. 3. kindergarten’s vault: (a) structural scheme; (b) filling space and wooden slab.

a b c

Fig.4. type of vaults at the ground floor: (a) barrel vault with lunettes; (b) cross vaults of the Church; (c) cross vaults of the cloister.

a b c

Fig.5. type of horizontal elements of the upper floors. (a) wooden double-order beam structure; (b) I beam and hollow tiles (in evidence the I
beam without plaster); (c) wooden truss roof structure.
174 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176
6 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Fig.6. Civitali complex: individuation of the different types of masonry and horizontal elements. (a) ground floor; (b) first floor.

3. SU identification and structural behavior

Based on the essays, the experimental investigations and mainly on the critical reading of the structural plants
and construction details, different structural units have been pointed out, as reported by Fig. 7, over the ground and
the second floors. The static and seismic safety evaluation of the complex has been assessed for each unity
separately (Fig. 8b); however, a global model of the whole building complex has also been used (Fig. 8a) - mainly to
perform the modal analysis.
The evaluation of the safety assessment of the structures has allowed to highlight the main structural deficiencies,
in relation to both the static and seismic actions. In particular, the analysis has been focused on: (i) static loads
verification with reference to both the Serviceability and Ultimate limit states of some vaults, steel/wooden slabs
and vertical masonry panels; (ii) seismic verification, accounting for the check of local mechanisms and global
behavior. Numerical models have been implemented into commercial structural softwares and: (i) non-linear static
analyses for equivalent frame models have been used for the analysis of the complex and each structural units; (ii)
linear dynamic analyses with a finite element model have been used for the San Nicolao Church.
Vertical masonry panels in the original portion of the building complex have shown a good static behavior and
met the requirements of the Italian Building Code. Conversely, the panels located at the ground floor (East portion),
made up of mixed stone/brick masonry have shown an unsatisfactory response following conventional checks
methods. Indeed, they have low mechanical resistances, in certain cases significant slenderness and are subject to
high loads as the structure has been raised by one floor. Nevertheless, for these walls, checks on the Serviceability
Limit State are satisfied being in line with the absence of a crack pattern due to excessive compressive loads.
Some numerical analyses have been conducted on six vaults taken as representative of all the types of vaulted
structure of the building complex. For these analyses, the finite element code Mady developed ad hoc for the static
and dynamic analyses of masonry structures, has been used (Lucchesi et al. 2017). The numerical analyses have
allowed to perform the structural safety assessments of the vaults. In particular, the load multiplier that leads to
collapse has been evaluated and assumed as a safety factor.
It is wort noting that the safety assessment has been carried out for the Ultimate Limit State and, only for cases
where safety requirements have not been achieved, the structural analyses have been performed with reference to the
Serviceability Limit State, with the aim of investigating the actual behavior of the vault, in terms of deformations
and trends of the stress state.
 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176 175
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

a b

Fig. 7. Complex plan for the structural unit identification. (a) ground floor. (b) second floor (coverage).

a b

Fig. 8. (a) Global model. (b) Some examples of the structural units models.

The vaults covering the kindergarten do not meet the requirements of the Italian Building Code, and other vaults
of the same type could have such an outcome. The vault covering the lateral nave of San Nicolao Church on the
West side is also not verified, given the increase of loads with respect to the original ones, due to the addition of a
one-storey raising. Conversely, all the analysed vaults turn out to be verified under the Serviceability Limit State.
Seismically, the major criticisms of the structure are related to the absence of the orthogonal vertical masonry
panels’ connections or connections between horizontal elements (vaults or steel and wood slab), the limited presence
of anti-seismic devices such as metal tie-rods or concrete bond beams and the widespread presence of vaults, with
not-opposed thrusting force. From the observed vulnerabilities, out-of-plane overturning safety verifications,
according with the Italian Building Code, have been carried out: following the kinematic linear analyses most of
them were unsafe, presenting some problems of instability too (horizontal load multiplier less than zero).

4. Conclusions

In case of historical aggregate buildings, the knowledge process represents a mandatory step for the definition of
reliable structural models and for static and seismic analysis results. For the case study of Civitali Institut in Lucca, a
masonry complex aggregate including a Church, many peculiar aspects has been highlighted through a detailed in
situ investigation that included several essays on vertical and horizontal structural elements and mechanical
characterization of the masonry types through partially destructive tests.
Three different types of masonry have been recognized in the structure - stone, brick and mixed stone and brick
masonry types - qualitatively and mechanically different from each other. The mixed one shows lower mechanical
176 Sonia Boschi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 169–176
8 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

characteristics than the others do and in some portions the mixed masonry walls do not satisfy the static safety
checks for the Ultimate State Limit. As regard the horizontal elements, several type have been identified, including
vaults, steel and wood structures and hollow brick and reinforced concrete slabs. The vaults of the ground floor are
the most vulnerable, as they are made of solid bricks, have a low profile and quite large spans. From the analyses,
they do not meet the requirements of the Italian Building Code at least with respect to the Ultimate Limit States.
The in-depth knowledge of the building has allowed identifying the various structural units that may be
considered to have a unitary response against seismic actions. For each of them, accurate models have been
implemented and results of the local and global behavior have been discussed. In most cases, local out-of-plane
analyses studied by kinematic linear analyses, have shown lower results in terms of safety coefficients, due to both
the absence of the orthogonal vertical masonry panels’ connections or connections between horizontal elements and
the limited presence of anti-seismic devices.

Acknowledgements

The Authors thank Profs. M. Lucchesi and A. Vignoli of the University of Firenze that allowed and supported the
present study and Ing. P. Saletti and Arch. A. Bassetti of the Lucca Administration. For their participation in the
structural surveys and collaboration to the safety evaluation, the Authors thank Ing. N. Khalimov and S2R Society,
spin-off of the University of Firenze.

References

Bernardini, C., Maio, R., Boschi, S., Ferreira, T.M., Vicente, R., Vignoli, A., 2018. The seismic vulnerability assessment of a stone masonry
building enclosed in aggregate. 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 18-21 June 2018. Thessaloniki.
Betti, M., Borghini, A., Boschi S., Ciavattone, A., Vignoli, A., 2017. Comparative Seismic Risk Assessment of Basilica-type Churches. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, doi: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1309602.
Borri, A., Sisti, R., Prota, A., Di Ludovico, M., Costantini, S., Barluzzi, M., De Maria, A., Aisa, E., Bragett, A., Savi, F., Fagotti, G., Baldi, L.,
2017. Analisi del danno degli edifici ordinari nel centro storico di Norcia a seguito del sisma del 2016. Proc. Of XVII Convegno ANIDIS,
ISBN 978-886741-8541.
Boschi, S., Ciavattone A., Vignoli, A., 2017. Estimation of the seismic structural capacity of masonry buildings through simplified procedures.
Proc. Of XVII Convegno ANIDIS, ISBN 978-886741-8541.
Caprili, S., Mangini F., Paci, S., Salvatore W., Bevilacqua M.G., Karwacka, E., Squaglia, N., Barsotti, R., Bennati, S., Scarpelli, G., Iannelli, P.,
2017. Bull Earthquake Eng (2017) 15: 4851-4886.
Carocci, C., Tocci, C., 2007. Sicurezza sismica degli aggregati edilizi storici: alcuni casi di studio. Proceedings of the XII ANIDIS Conference,
Pisa.
Castori, G., Borri, A., De Maria, A., Corradi, M., Sisti, R., 2017. Seismic vulnerability assessment of a monumental masonry building.
Engineering Structures. 136:454-65.
D’Ayala, D.F., Paganoni, S., 2011 Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 9(1):81-104.
D.P.C.M., 2011. Valutazione e Riduzione del Rischio Sismico del Patrimonio Culturale Con Riferimento Alle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni
di Cui al Decreto del Ministero Delle Infrastrutture e Dei Trasporti del 14 Gennaio 2008, S.O. n. 217/L (in Italian).
Lagomarsino, S., 2006. On the vulnerability assessment of monumental buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:445–463.
Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., Degli Abbati, S., Ottonelli, D., 2014. Seismic assessment of complex monumental buildings in aggregate: the case
study of Palazzo del Podestà in Mantua (Italy). In: Peña F, Chávez M (eds.) SAHC20149th international conference on structural analysis of
historical constructions, Mexico City, Mexico, 14–17 October 2014.
Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., 2015. PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures.
Bull Earthq Eng 13:13–47.
Lourenço, P.B., Roque, J.A., 2006. Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings. Construction and Building
Materials, 20, 200-208.
Lucchesi, M., B. Pintucchi, B., Zani, N., 2017. Modelling masonry construction through the Mady code. 2nd International Conference on recent
advance in nonlinear models - Design and rehabilitation of structures CoRASS2017.
M.I.T., 2009. Circolare n. 617 del 2 Febbraio 2009. Istruzioni per l’Applicazione Nuove Norme Tecniche Costruzioni di cui al Decreto
Ministeriale 14 Gennaio 2008, G.U. n. 47 del 26.02.2009, S.O. n. 27 (in Italian).
M.I.T. (2008) D.M. del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti del 14/01/2008. Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, G.U. n. 29 del
04.02.2008, S.O. n. 30 (in Italian).
Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G, Pela L (2010) Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch
Comput Methods Eng 17:299–325.