Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

MASONRY SECTIONS of ANNEXE 2: BUILDINGS of ORDINANCE PCM 3274 and MODIFICATIONS OPCM 3431 dated 03/05/05 CHAPTER 8 BUILDINGS

S WITH MASONRY STRUCTURE CHAPTER 11 EXISITNG MASONRY BUILDINGS

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

8 BUILDINGS WITH MASONRY STRUCTURE


8.1 General rules 8.1.1 Introduction Masonry buildings have to be designed in accordance with the regulations of D.M. 20 November 1987, Norme tecniche per la progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo degli edifici in muratura e per il loro consolidamento (Technical norms for the design, execution and inspection of masonry buildings and their strengthening) and further modifications and integrations. In particular, the aforementioned code has to be considered as a reference for the physical, mechanical and geometrical characteristics of natural and artificial resisting elements as well as for the quality control for manufacturing and acceptance on the construction site. The current code distinguishes masonry structures into two fundamental types: the unreinforced and the reinforced type. The latter is not taken into account in the D.M. 20 November 1987. For what concerns the reinforcing steel, all the rules specified by the reinforced concrete building code hold except for the modifications in the current code. For the safety verifications the use of the semi-probabilistic limit states methods is mandatory. The partial safety factor to be used for seismic structural design of masonry structures is m = 2. 8.1.2 Materials The masonry units that are to be utilised for construction of load-bearing masonry should have sufficient robustness in order to avoid local brittle failure. Masonry units should conform to the following requisites: The volumetric percentage of the voids is not greater than 45% of the total volume of the unit; For clay units of gross area A greater than 580 cm2, a hole for the placement of the reinforcing bars with an area not greater than 70 cm2 is allowable; the holes that will be fully grouted with concrete are not subjected to this limitation; For concrete units of gross area A greater than 580 cm2, a hole for the placement of the reinforcing bars with an area not greater than 70 cm2 is allowable; with gross area A greater than 700 cm2 the limit on the dimensions of the hole is raised to 0.1A; with gross area A greater than 900 cm2 the limit on the dimensions of the hole is raised to 0.15A; the holes that will be fully grouted with concrete are not subjected to this limitation; Any eventual webs parallel to the wall plane have to be continuous and rectilinear; the only allowable interruptions are the frogs and those for the placement of the reinforcing bars; The ultimate characteristic compressive strength in the load-bearing direction (fbk) should not be less than 5 MPa computed on the gross area of the unit; The ultimate characteristic compressive strength perpendicular to the load-bearing direction in the plane of the wall ( f bk ), computed similarly, should not be less than 1.5 MPa. The mean strength of the mortar should not be less than 5 MPa and the perpend joints should be grouted with mortar. The use of materials or masonry units with characteristics different from those specified above should be supported by adequate experimental tests that justify their use. Masonry structures built with artificial or dressed stone units are allowable. The possibility of using stone masonry with regular brick or concrete horizontal courses in zones 1, 2 and 3 is excluded. 8.1.3 Types of construction and behaviour factors Depending on the construction technique adopted, the building may be considered to be either unreinforced masonry or reinforced masonry. The behaviour factor q to be used in the design spectrum defined in point 3.2.5, for linear analyses, is indicated as follows. In case of reinforced masonry, values between 2.0u/1 and 2.5u/1 can be adopted depending on the type of construction chosen without verifying the failure mechanism developed. A value of 3.0 u/1 can be used only when the capacity design principles described in the points 8.1.7 and 8.3.2 are applied. Unreinforced masonry building; regular in elevation Unreinforced masonry building; irregular in elevation Reinforced masonry building; regular in elevation Reinforced masonry building; irregular in elevation Reinforced masonry building designed following capacity design principles q = 2.0 u/1 q = 1.5 u/1 q = 2.5 u/1 q = 2.0 u/1 q = 3.0 u/1

The coefficients 1 and u are defined as follows:

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 is the horizontal seismic force multiplier for which, while all other design forces remain constant, the first masonry wall reaches its strength capacity (in shear or flexure); u is 90% of the horizontal seismic force multiplier for which, while all design forces remain constant, the building reaches its maximum strength capacity; The value u/1 may be obtained from a non-linear static (pushover) global analysis (clause 4.5.4) and it cannot be assumed to be greater than 2.5 in any case. When a non-linear analysis is not used for the evaluation of u /1, the following values may be adopted: Single-storey unreinforced masonry buildings Double- or multi-storey unreinforced masonry buildings Single-storey reinforced masonry buildings Double- or multi-storey reinforced masonry buildings Reinforced masonry buildings following capacity design principles u /1 = 1.4 u /1 = 1.8 u /1 = 1.3 u /1 = 1.5 u /1 = 1.3 1

8.1.4 Design criteria and construction rules The building plan should be as compact and symmetrical about the two orthogonal axes as possible. The structural walls including openings should have continuity over the height up to the foundation avoiding floating walls. The structures of the floors and of the roofs should not cause horizontal thrusts. Any eventual horizontal thrusts, taking into account the seismic action, must be offset by means of suitable structural elements. The floors must distribute the horizontal forces between the structural walls, and therefore they must be well connected to the walls and guarantee adequate diaphragm action. The maximum distance between two successive floors must be not greater than 5 m. The dimensions of the seismic resistant walls, without plaster, must conform to the requirements indicated in table 8.1, in which t is the wall thickness, ho is the effective buckling length of the wall (clause 2.2.1.3 of DM 20.11.87), h is the maximum height of the openings adjacent to the wall and l is the wall length. Table 8.1 Geometrical requirements of the seismic resistant walls Masonry typology Unreinforced masonry built with dressed stone units Unreinforced masonry built with artificial units Reinforced masonry built with artificial units Unreinforced masonry built with dressed stone units, in zones 3 and 4 Masonry built with artificial units with percentage of voids between 15% and 45%, in zone 4 Masonry built with artificial units with percentage of voids less than 15%, in zone 4 8.1.5 Methods of analysis 8.1.5.1 General The methods of analysis described in clause 4.5 should be applied with the following additional requirements. 8.1.5.2 Linear static analysis This procedure is applicable to the cases foreseen by clause 4.5.2., and in the case of buildings irregular in height as well, provided that = 1.0 (equation 4.2). The stiffness of the masonry elements shall be evaluated taking into account both flexural and shear flexibilities. The use of cracked stiffness is preferable. In absence of an accurate evaluation of the stiffness properties, the cracked stiffness may be taken as one half of the gross section uncracked elastic stiffness. Floors may be considered to be infinitively rigid in their plane, provided that the openings in the floor do not reduce the stiffness significantly, if they are in reinforced concrete or clay-cement blocks with a minimum r.c. slab thickness of 40 mm or mixed floors with a minimum r.c. slab 50 mm thick, appropriately connected with shear connectors to steel or timber tmin (ho/t)max (l/h) min 300 mm 10 0.5 240 mm 12 0.4 240 mm 15 Any 240 mm 12 0.3 200 mm 20 0.3 150 mm 20 0.3

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 structural floor elements. In case of other structural types the designer should justify the assumption of infinite stiffness of the floors. With the assumption of infinitely rigid floors, the structural model may be constituted basically of continuous masonry walls for the entire height of the structure connected at the level of the floors for translation (cantilever method). Alternatively, coupling elements such as r.c. beams or r.c. tie-beams and masonry spandrels (if effectively bonded to the adjoining walls) may be considered in the structural model, provided that the safety verifications are carried out on these elements as well. The clauses 8.1.6, 8.2.2 and 8.3.2 have to be followed for the safety verification of masonry spandrels. Unreinforced masonry spandrels can be considered in the model only if they are supported by floor tie-beams or a lintel beam resistant in bending and well connected to the adjoining wall. For r.c. coupling elements, the criteria in clause 5.4.6 are to be followed, considering as effective only those coupling elements at least equal to the floor thickness. If coupling elements are taken into account, the structural analysis may be performed using frame models (frame method) where the intersections between vertical and horizontal elements may be considered to be infinitively rigid. In the case of rigid floors, the base shear distribution in the walls of the same floor from the linear analysis may be modified, provided that the global equilibrium is respected (total base shear and the position of the force resultants remains unchanged) and that the absolute value of the variation of shear in each wall V is not greater than V max{0.25 V ,0.1 Vfloor } where V is the shear force in the wall and Vfloor is the total shear force in the floor parallel to the wall. In case of deformable floors, the redistribution can be carried out only between coplanar wall panels connected by tie-beams or steel ties or belonging to the same wall. In such a case, the limit for the redistribution Vfloor is to be considered as the sum of the shear forces in the coplanar panels. The out-of-plane verifications may be carried out separately, and equivalent forces as indicated in clause 4.9 for non-structural elements, assuming qa = 3, may be used. More precisely, the seismic force perpendicular to the walls may be represented by a distributed horizontal force equal to SaI/qa times the weight of the wall and, by a concentrated horizontal force equal to SaI/qa times the weight transmitted by the floors supported by the wall, if these forces are not efficiently transmitted to the lateral walls parallel to the direction of seismic action. For seismic resistant walls that comply with the limits of table 8.1, the period Ta, indicated in clause 4.9, can be assumed to be equal to 0. For walls with different characteristics, the out-of-plane verification must be performed by estimating the period Ta even in an approximate way. 8.1.5.3 Modal dynamic analysis This type of analysis is applicable to all cases with the limitations indicated in clause 4.5.3. The requirements specified for the modelling and redistribution of forces in the case of linear analysis are valid in this case as well. The out-of-plane verifications may be carried out separately using equivalent forces described in the above clause for linear static analysis. 8.1.5.4 Non-linear static analysis (push-over) The geometric model of the structure may comply with that indicated in the case of linear analysis or using more sophisticated models provided that they are suitable and well documented. The analysis should be carried out using, at least, two different horizontal force distributions, applied to the centre of the mass of each storey: the first one with forces proportional to the masses and the second one proportional to the distribution of the modal forces corresponding to the first mode of vibration, in the direction considered. This second distribution may be approximated to the force distribution used for the linear static analysis (clause 4.5.2). The walls may be characterised by a bilinear elastic perfectly plastic behaviour, with an equivalent capacity at the elastic limit and displacements at the elastic and ultimate limits defined by means of the flexural or shear response explained in clauses 8.2.2 and 8.3.2. The linear r.c. elements (tie-beams, coupling beams) may be defined with a bilinear elastic perfectly plastic behaviour with an equivalent capacity at the elastic limit and displacements at the elastic and ultimate limits defined by means of the flexural or shear response. For masonry buildings up to two floors, each floor can be analysed separately. For buildings with number of storeys greater than two, the model should take into account the effects owing to the variation of vertical forces due to the seismic action and should guarantee local and global equilibrium. The final result is a curve called the capacity curve with horizontal displacement of control point (usually taken at the centre of mass at the roof level of the building) along the abscissa and the total horizontal force applied (base shear) along the ordinates. The displacement capacity corresponding to the damage and ultimate limit states (clauses 2.1, 2.2) shall be evaluated on the force-displacement curve as indicated below: the smaller value between the displacement corresponding to the attainment of the Damage limit state: maximum force and that for which the relative displacement between two points on the

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 same vertical belonging to two consecutive storeys exceeds values in clause 4.11.2; the displacement corresponding to a force degradation by not more than 20% of the maximum;

Ultimate limit state:

The out-of-plane verifications may be carried out separately, using the procedure described for the linear static analysis. 8.1.5.5 Non-linear dynamic analysis The structural models should conform to clause 4.5.5, using proven and well-documented mechanical models that efficiently reproduce the dynamic and cyclic behaviour of masonry. 8.1.6 Safety verification In case of linear analysis, for safety verifications for the ultimate limit state, the capacity of each structural element should be greater than the demand for each of the following collapse modes: flexure, shear sliding, and out-of-plane flexure. Out-ofplane flexural verification should be carried out for all structural walls, in particular the vertical load-bearing walls, even if they are not considered resistant to seismic action according to the requirements of table 8.1. While applying capacity design principles (reinforced masonry), the forces to be applied for the shear verification should be derived from the flexural capacity, as indicated in clause 8.1.7. The safety verifications are described in clauses 8.2.2 and 8.3.2. The safety verifications are assumed to be automatically verified, without any explicit calculations, for buildings satisfying the rules for simple masonry buildings (clause 8.1.9). In case of non-linear static analysis, the safety verification shall consist of the comparison between ultimate displacement capacity of the building and the displacement demand obtained by applying the procedure described in clause 4.5.4. The displacements induced by the force distribution used in the linear static analysis (clause 4.5.2) may be considered to be a representative vector of the first mode of vibration . In any case, if the value of q* computed according to the clause 4.5.4.4, exceeds a value of 3.0, for both unreinforced and reinforced masonry buildings without applying capacity design principles, the safety verification is not satisfied. The elastic stiffness of the equivalent bilinear system shall be found by marking the secant to the capacity curve at the point corresponding to a base shear 70% of the maximum value (maximum base shear). The horizontal section of the bilinear curve shall be found by equalizing the areas underneath the two curves up to the ultimate displacement of the system. In case of dynamic non-linear analysis, the safety verifications shall consist of the comparison between the displacement capacity and the displacement demand. 8.1.7 Capacity design principles Capacity design principles may be applied exclusively in the case of reinforced masonry buildings. The main principle of capacity design is to avoid shear failure of each masonry wall, ensuring that it has been preceded by flexural failure. This principle is applied when each wall is verified in flexure for the forces acting on it and it is verified in shear according to the forces resulting from the flexural capacity at failure amplified of the factor Rd = 1.5. 8.1.8 Foundations The foundation structures should be built with reinforced concrete following clause 5.4.7 and using the forces resulting from the analysis. They should be continuous, without interruptions corresponding to the openings in the walls above. If a storey of the building is partially or completely under the ground, constructed with r.c. retaining walls, this may be considered as a foundation structure for the load-bearing masonry floor above, according to the requirements of continuity of the foundations, and it is not counted in the total number of storeys of the masonry structure. 8.1.9 Simple masonry buildings Simple masonry buildings should fulfil the following characteristic, besides the conditions of plan and elevation regularity defined in clause 4.3 and those defined in the following clauses 8.2.3 and 8.3.3, for unreinforced and reinforced masonry buildings, respectively. For such buildings analyses and safety verifications are not mandatory. The walls of the buildings are continuous from the foundations up to the top of the building. A minimum of two systems of walls should be present in both the orthogonal directions, whose gross length excluding openings is not less than 50 % of the dimension of the building in the corresponding direction. While computing the gross

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 length, only those walls that conform to the geometric requirements of table 8.1 may be included. The distance between these two wall systems perpendicular to their longitudinal layout should be greater than 75 % of the building dimension in that same direction (perpendicular to the walls). At least 75 % of the vertical loads should be supported by these shear walls. In each of the two directions, walls resistant to horizontal forces should be present with spacing not greater than 7 m (9 m for reinforced masonry buildings). The inter-storey height should not be greater than 3.5 m. For each storey, the ratio between the total resistant cross-sectional area of the walls to the total floor area should not be less than the values indicated in the following table, as a function of the number of storeys of the buildings and the seismic zone, for each of the two orthogonal directions: Table 8.2 Area of the resistant walls in each orthogonal direction for simple buildings Peak ground acceleration ag*S*ST (1) 0.07 g 0.1 g 0.15 g 0.20 g 0.25 g 0.30 g 0.35 g Number of Type of structure storeys 1 3.5 % 3.5 % 4.0 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 6.0 % Unreinforced 2 4.0 % 4.0 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 6.0 % 6.5 % masonry 3 4.5 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 6.0 % 6.5 % 7.0 % 1 2.5 % 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.5 % 3.5 % 4.0 % 2 3.0 % 3.5 % 3.5 % 3.5 % 4.0 % 4.0 % 4.5 % Reinforced masonry 3 3.5 % 4.0 % 4.0 % 4.0 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 4 4.0 % 4.5 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 5.5 % 6.0 % (1) ST is applied only in case the structural importance factor is greater than 1 (clause 3.2.3)

0.40 g 0.45 g 0.4725 g 6.0 % 6.5 % 4.0 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 6.0 % 6.0 % 6.5 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 6.5 % 6.5 % 7.0 % 4.5 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 6.5 %

It is implicit that for simple buildings the number of storeys can not be greater than 3 for unreinforced masonry buildings and 4 for reinforced masonry buildings. Moreover, for each storey the following should be verified:

f N 0.25 k A m

where: N is the total vertical load at the base of the considered wall. A is the total area of the load-bearing walls (for vertical loads) of the same floor. fk is the characteristic compressive strength of the masonry in vertical direction. 8.2. Unreinforced masonry buildings 8.2.1 Design criteria Besides the criteria defined in clause 8.1.4, unreinforced masonry buildings should, by rule, have vertically aligned openings. If the openings are not vertically aligned, particular attention must be paid to the definition of an adequate structural model and safety verification, as the misalignment of the openings brings about discontinuity and irregularity in transmitting internal forces. In the absence of more accurate evaluations, only the part of the walls that have vertical continuity from the floor being verified down to the foundations shall be considered in the structural model and safety verifications. 8.2.2 Safety verifications 8.2.2.1 In-plane flexure The flexural verification of the section of a structural element shall be carried out comparing the design moment and the ultimate moment capacity computed neglecting the tensile strength of masonry and assuming a suitable non-linear distribution of the compression. In case of a rectangular section, this ultimate moment may be computed as follows: Mu = (l2 t / 2) (1 / 0.85 fd) where: Mu is the moment corresponding to the flexural collapse (8.2)

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 l is the total length of the wall (tension zone included) t is the thickness of the compression zone of the wall 0 is the mean vertical stress, with respect to the total area of the section (= P/lt, where P is the axial force, positive if in compression). If P is tensile, Mu = 0 fd = fk / m is the design compressive strength of masonry. In case of non-linear static analysis, the flexural strength may be computed by assuming fd equal to the mean value of the compressive strength of masonry, whereas the ultimate displacement may be assumed to be equal to 0.8% of the height of the wall. 8.2.2.2 Shear The shear strength of each structural element shall be evaluated by means of the following equation: Vt = l t fvd (8.3)

where: l is the length of the compressed part of the wall t is the thickness of the wall fvd = fvk / m is defined in clause 2.3.2.1 of DM 20.11.87, computing the mean vertical stress (indicated as n in the DM) on the compressed part of the section (n = P/ lt). The value of fvk should neither be greater than 1.4 f bk , where f bk indicates the characteristic compressive strength of the units in the direction of application of force, nor greater than 1.5 MPa. In case of the non-linear static analysis, the shear strength may be computed as fvd = fvm0 + 0.4n where fvm0 is the mean shear strength of masonry (in absence of direct determination: fvmo = fvk0/0.7), whereas the ultimate displacement may be assumed equal to 0.4% of the height of the wall. The value of fvd should neither be greater than 2.0 f bk nor 2.2 MPa. 8.2.2.3 Out-of-plane flexure The value of the ultimate moment for the forces perpendicular to the wall plane shall be computed by assuming a rectangular compression block, a strength value equal to 0.85 fd and by neglecting the tensile strength of masonry. 8.2.2.4 Masonry beams The verification of unreinforced masonry coupling beams, in the presence of a known axial horizontal force, is carried out in a similar way as that of vertical masonry walls. If the axial load is not known from the model (e.g. when the analysis is carried out on a frame model with the hypothesis of floors infinitely rigid in-plane), but horizontal elements with tensile strength (such as steel ties or r.c. ring beams) are present close to the masonry beam, the strength may be assumed not greater than the following values associated to the shear and flexural failure mechanisms. The shear strength Vt of unreinforced masonry coupling beams, in presence of an r.c. ring beam or a lintel strong in flexure, and effectively bonded at the ends may be computed in a simplified way as follows: Vt = h t fvd0 where: h is the height of the beam section fvd0 = fvk0 / m is the design shear strength in the absence of compression; in case of non-linear static analysis the strength may be assumed to be equal to the mean value (fvd0 = fvm0). The maximum moment capacity associated to the flexural mechanism, always in presence of horizontal elements resisting tensile forces to equilibrate horizontal compression in masonry beams, may be evaluated as follows: M u = H p h / 2 1 H p /(0.85f hd ht )

where: Hp is the minimum between the tensile strength of the element in tension placed horizontally and the value 0.4fhdht fhd=fhk/m is the design compressive strength of masonry in the horizontal direction (in the plane of the wall). In case of non-linear static analysis, it may be assumed to be equal to the mean value (fhd = fhm). The shear strength, associated to this mechanism may be computed as: Vp = 2M u / l where l is the clear span of the masonry beam. The smaller of the two values Vt and Vp is assumed as the shear strength for the unreinforced masonry beam.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

8.2.3 Construction details At all floors, at the intersection between floors and walls, a continuous r.c. tie beam should be provided. The r.c. tie-beam should have a width at least equal to that of the wall. A maximum setback of 6 cm from the external edge is allowable. The minimum depth of the r.c. tie-beam shall be equal to the depth of the floor. The longitudinal reinforcement shall not be less than 8 cm2 and stirrups not less than 6 mm in diameter with a spacing of not more than 25 cm. Metallic or precast beams of the floors should be extended into the tie-beam for at least half of its width and in any case for not less than 12 cm and adequately anchored to it. At the corner of two external load-bearing walls, sections of masonry walls (on both walls) with length not less than 1 m including the thickness of the transverse wall are prescribed. Above each opening, a flexure resisting lintel, efficiently bonded to the adjoining walls should be provided.

8.3. Reinforced masonry buildings 8.3.1 Design criteria Every masonry wall constructed in reinforced masonry as a whole constitutes a structure perforated by openings. Each masonry wall should be effectively bonded to floors in order to have rigid diaphragms, according to clause 8.1.5.2. The structural system should be able to resist to the external horizontal forces with a global behaviour, to which only the strength of the in-plane wall contributes. 8.3.2 Safety verifications 8.3.2.1 In-plane flexure For the verifications of the section, a rectangular compression block with depth equal to 0.8 x, where x represents the depth of the neutral axis and with strength equal to 0.85 fd may be assumed. The maximum strains to be considered are m = 0.0035 for the compressed masonry and s = 0.01 for the tension steel. In case of non-linear static analysis, the mean strength of the material may be adopted as design values. The ultimate displacement may be assumed as equal to 1.2 % of the height of the wall. 8.3.2.2 Shear The shear strength (Vt) shall be computed as the sum of the masonry contribution (Vt,M) and the reinforcement contribution (Vt,S), according to the following equations: Vt = Vt,M + Vt,S Vt, M = d t fvdk (8.4) (8.5)

where: d is the distance between the compressed edge and the centre of mass of the tension reinforcement. t is the thickness of the wall fvd = fvk / M is defined in clause 2.3.2.1 of DM 20.11.87 computing the mean vertical stress (indicated as n in the DM) on the gross section of width d (n = P/dt). Vt,S = (0.6 d Asw fyd) / s (8.6)

where: d is the distance between the compressed side and the centre of mass of the tension reinforcement. Asw is the area of the shear reinforcement placed parallel to the direction of the shear force, with spacing s measured perpendicular to the direction of the shear force. fyd is the design yield strength of the steel, s is the spacing between the levels of reinforcement.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

The shear force acting on the element should not be greater than the following value: Vt,c = 0.3 fd t d where: t is the thickness of the wall fd is the design compressive strength of masonry. In case of non-linear static analysis, as design values, the mean strength of the material may be adopted. The ultimate displacement may be assumed to be equal to 0.6 % of the height of the wall. 8.3.2.3 Out-of-plane flexure For the verification of out-of-plane bending sections, a rectangular compression block and limit values of strain for masonry and steel may be assumed in the same way as for in-plane verification. 8.3.3 Construction details The rules indicated in clause 8.2.3 for the unreinforced masonry should apply also for reinforced masonry, with the following exceptions and further prescriptions. The lintels above the openings may be constructed in reinforced masonry. The reinforcing bars should be only of the ribbed type and should be anchored adequately to the ends and bent around the vertical bars. Alternatively, for the horizontal reinforcement, lattice reinforcement or other type of reinforcing in order to guarantee suitable bond and anchorage, may be used. Suitable corrosion protection should be guaranteed. The horizontal reinforcement placed in the mortar bed joints or in suitable recesses in the units should not have spacing greater than 600 mm. Bars with a diameter less than 5 mm should not be used. The percentage of steel computed with reference to the gross section of the masonry should neither be less than 0.04 %, nor greater than 0.5%. The vertical reinforcement should be placed in suitable recesses, the dimension of which should be so as to inscribe a cylinder of diameter at least 6 cm. Vertical reinforcement with a total area of not less than 200 mm2 should be placed in each end of a load-bearing wall, at each intersection between load-bearing walls, close to all openings and in any case, at a maximum spacing of 4 m. The area of vertical reinforcement computed with the gross section of the masonry should neither be less than 0.05 %, nor greater than 1 %. Lap splices should guarantee continuity in the transmission of the tensile stresses, so that the reinforcing bars yield before the lap splice reaches its strength. In the absence of any experimental data, the lap splice should at least be 60 diameters in length. Parapets and connecting elements between walls should be well connected to the adjoining walls in order to guarantee the continuity of the horizontal reinforcement and, where possible, of the vertical reinforcement. The provision of sections of masonry walls, at the corner of the external walls, on both walls, with length not less than 1 m including the thickness of the transverse wall, is not mandatory. (8.7)

8.4. Building in seismic zone 4 The design of buildings in masonry structure to be constructed in seismic zone 4 may be achieved applying the rules for aseismic design as per the following conditions: The combination of the actions in the equation (3.9) should be considered. The seismic action is defined applying the system of forces defined by the expressions (4.2) and (4.3) in two orthogonal directions, assuming Sd(T) = 0.07g for unreinforced masonry structures and Sd(T) = 0.04g for the reinforced masonry structures. The safety verifications may be carried out independently in the two directions for the ultimate limit state. In particular, the seismic action perpendicular to a wall is represented by a distributed horizontal force equal to Sd(T) times the weight transmitted from the floors that are supported by the wall, if the forces are not efficiently transmitted to lateral walls. Unreinforced masonry buildings should comply with the requirements in clause 8.2.3. Reinforced masonry buildings should comply with the requirements in clause 8.3.3. The definition of the simple building should be as per the requirements in clause 8.1.9.

8.5. Mixed structures with unreinforced and reinforced masonry walls

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 Within the ambit of masonry construction, use of different structural systems to support vertical loads is allowed, as long as the resistance to seismic forces is entirely guaranteed by these elements. In case masonry walls resist the seismic forces entirely, they must comply with requirements in the aforementioned clauses. In case structural systems of a different technology (e.g. reinforced concrete walls) resist the seismic forces entirely, design regulations indicated in the relevant chapters of the current code have to be followed. In case it is necessary to consider collaboration between masonry walls and different structural systems in resisting seismic forces, non-linear methods of analysis (static or dynamic) have to be used for the verification. The connections between structural systems of different technology have to be expressly verified. Particular attention must be paid to the effective transmission of the vertical loads. Moreover, it is necessary to verify the compatibility of the deformations in all the structural parts. Construction of buildings with masonry structure in the lower part and with r.c., steel, timber or other structural systems above, is allowed under the following conditions: - The height limits of masonry buildings are applicable to the masonry parts as well as the parts in other structural systems; - The upper part in a different structural system has to be effectively anchored to r.c. the ring beam of the masonry structure; - In case of linear analysis, the use of the static analysis (within the limits of applicability given in clause 8.1.5.2) is allowable provided that a force distribution compatible with the first elastic mode shape in each direction, computed with sufficiently accurate methods that take into account the irregular distribution of stiffness in height, is used. To this end, in the absence of more accurate methods, the first mode shape can be estimated from the displacements obtained by applying statically the force distribution defined by equation (4.2) to the building; - In case of non-linear static analysis, the horizontal force distributions prescribed by clause 4.5.4.2 may be used where the first elastic mode shape is calculated with sufficiently accurate methods; - In case of linear analysis, for the verification of the masonry part, the behaviour factor q as indicated in clause 8.1.3 should be used. For the verification of the upper part in a different structural system a behaviour factor q suitable to the construction type and to the configuration (regularity) of the upper part should be used, however, not greater than 2.5; - All the connections between the parts in different structural systems and the masonry should be locally checked based on the forces computed from the analysis increased by 30%.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 11 EXISITING BUILDINGS

11.1 Introduction Existing buildings are distinguished from newly designed ones for the following aspects: The design reflects the state of knowledge at the time of their construction; The design can include defects of conceptual nature and in implementation that are undetectable. Such buildings could have been subjected to past earthquakes or other accidental forces whose effects are not manifest. As a consequence, the safety assessment and the design of interventions are normally affected by a degree of uncertainty different from those for buildings of new design. This involves the employment of adequate confidence factors in the safety verification and also for the methods of analysis and verification that depend on the completeness and reliability of the available information. In existing buildings, the actual conditions noticeable are so diverse that it is impossible to provide for specific and detailed rules for every case. The contents of the current chapter constitute a general reference that can be integrated in particular cases by specific and alternative assessments by the designer. To execute seismic safety assessments and, to implement strengthening interventions in accordance with existing norms when a need arises, is obligatory for whosoever intends: a. b. c. d. To raise the height or to enlarge the building (refers to enlargement or increase in height of those parts of the building of height inferior to the maximum height of the building itself); To bring about changes in the destination of use which involves an increment of the original loads (permanent and live loads combined with the coefficients 2i from table 3.4) in the building affected by the intervention; To execute structural interventions aimed at transforming the building by means of a systematic assembly of works that produces a building different from the earlier; To execute structural interventions aimed at implementing works and alterations, renovate and substitute structural parts of the building, when such interventions involve substantial alterations in the global behaviour of the building.

A variation in the height of the building in order to make the built environment habitable, within the building norms and such that the number of floors remains unaltered, does not have to be considered as an increase in height or enlargement. In such a case, an intervention for seismic strengthening is not obligatory, as long as none of the other three conditions enumerated in points b, c and d above are breached. In particular, documentation to the effect that, the interventions as a consequence of the variation of the height would not have brought about an increment of the load by more than 20% and that the interventions however enable the building to attain a higher degree of safety with respect to seismic forces, is required. The increase in height and associated interventions that result in an increase in the number of floors are admissible only if case compatible with the city/town planning regulations. When a structural intervention is carried out on single elements of a building, if the need for seismic strengthening does not exist, proceeding by neglecting the analyses and verifications described in this chapter is permitted on the condition that, documentation to the effect that the works foreseen enables the building to attain a higher degree of seismic safety is provided. Such interventions are defined as seismic improvement. In view of the uniqueness of structural typologies of a particular territory, for strengthening interventions, i.e. an improvement dictated by the vulnerability, the Regional governments may permit a reduction in the level of seismic protection up to 65% of that estimated for new constructions and hence the level of seismic actions to be considered for different limit states as well as the number of limit states to be considered. For protected cultural heritage, in any case, it is possible to limit the interventions to improvement in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4), art. 29 of the legislative decree no. 42/2004, Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio (Code for Cultural Heritage and Landscapes). However, the level of ground acceleration corresponding to the attainment of every limit state predicted for the structural typology of the building, for the situation before and after a possible intervention has to be calculated. 11.5 Safety assessment of masonry buildings Safety assessment is a quantitative procedure aimed at establishing whether or not an existing building is capable of resisting the design seismic force combination defined in the current code. The code provisions furnish the tools required for the assessment of single buildings and the results are not extendable to different buildings even of the same typology. For the assessment of existing buildings, apart from the global seismic analyses to be implemented with the methods prescribed by the norms for design of new constructions (along with requirements specified as follows), analysis of local mechanisms also have to be considered.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 In the implementation of the assessment, experiences derived from investigation of the behaviour of similar buildings that might have suffered earthquake damage in the past, if available, should be accounted for. 11.5.1 Safety prerequisites and verification criteria The safety assessment of existing masonry buildings requires the verification of the limit states defined in clauses 2.1 and 2.2, that is, the Damage Limit State (LS) corresponding to a modest level of structural damage, and the Ultimate LS corresponding to important damages in the structural elements. Conventionally, it is assumed that if the safety verification is satisfactory for the Ultimate LS then, implicitly, the building is safe with respect to collapse, a limit state considered in the case of reinforced concrete and steel buildings. The relevant methods of analysis and safety assessment are described in the following (clauses 11.5.4 and 11.5.5). For the calculation of the capacity of the elements, mean values of the existing material properties obtained from in situ tests and possible additional information, divided by the Confidence Factor, as defined in 11.5.3 and in Table 11.5.1, in relation to the Knowledge Level reached, are utilised. 11.5.2 Necessary information and identification of the knowledge level The information on the masonry building that is being assessed is of fundamental importance in order to perform adequate analysis and this can be attained with various levels of thoroughness, depending on the accuracy of the survey operations, historical research and experimental investigations. Such operations will be a function of the objectives initially proposed and would affect either the whole or part of the building based on the size and significance of the intervention foreseen. The scheme of the investigations however, forms part of the diagnostic phase as well as the actual intervention itself, and has to be predisposed within a general framework to demonstrate the motivations and objectives of the investigations. 11.5.2.1 Geometry The information on the structural geometry of existing masonry buildings is obtained as a rule from survey operations. Such operations involve a floor to floor survey of all elements in masonry and possible niches, cavities, chimney flues, survey of the vaults (thickness and profile), the floors and the roofs (typology and direction of spanning), the stairs (structural typology), identification of the gravity loads acting on every wall element and the typology of the foundations. The results of the survey have to be illustrated using plans, elevations and sections. Apart from this, all possible cracking identified in the building have to be surveyed and represented, classifying the damages according to the typology (detachment, rotation, creep, out-of-plane displacements, etc.) and deformation (evident out-ofplumb, bulging, sagging in vaults, etc.). The purpose of this is to allow identification of the cause and the possible evolution of the structural problems of the building in the successive diagnostic phase. 11.5.2.2 Construction details The construction details relative to the following elements have to be examined: a. b. c. d. e. f. Quality of the connection between walls vertically; Quality of connection between the floors/ceilings and the walls and possible presence of tie beams or other connecting devices; Existence of structurally efficient lintels above openings; Presence of structurally efficient elements capable of offsetting thrusts possibly existing; Presence of elements, even non-structural, that are highly vulnerable; Masonry typology (single or double leaf, with or without transverse connections, etc.) and their constructional characteristics (built in brick or stone, regular or irregular, etc.).

The following are distinguished as: Limited in-situ inspections: These are based on visual surveys carried out, as a rule, resorting to removal of the plaster and samples in the masonry to examine characteristics both on the surface and within the thickness of the masonry, and the connection between orthogonal walls and, the floors with the walls. The construction details in points a) and b) can also be evaluated on the basis of an appropriate knowledge of the typology of the floors and masonry. In the absence of a direct survey, or of adequately reliable information, conservative assumptions have to be however made in the successive phases of modelling, analysis and assessment. Extensive and exhaustive in-situ inspections: These are based on visual surveys carried out, as a rule, resorting to samples in the masonry to examine characteristics both on the surface and within the thickness of the masonry, and the connection between the orthogonal walls and, the floors with the walls. The inspection of all the elements within the building has to be carried out systematically for points a) to f).

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

11.5.2.3. Material properties Special attention has to be dedicated to the evaluation of the masonry quality, with reference those features that indicate whether or not good construction principles have been respected. Examination of the masonry work and eventual experimental assessment of the mechanical characteristics has the primary scope of establishing whether or not, the masonry under investigation, is capable of a suitable structural behaviour to resist static and dynamic forces expected for the building under consideration. The presence or absence of transversal connecting elements (e.g. through-stones), form, typology and dimensions of the elements, texture, horizontality of the joints, regular staggering of the joints, quality and consistency of the mortar, are of particular importance. The characterisation of the mortar (type of binding agent, type of aggregate, binding agent/aggregate ratio, level of carbonation), of the stone and/or bricks (physical and mechanical characteristics) through experimental investigations also form part of the survey. Samples of mortar and stone are extracted in-situ ensuring that the mortar from the interior (a depth of at least 5-6 cm within the masonry thickness) is extracted. The following are distinguished as: Limited in-situ investigations: These serve to complete the information on the material properties obtained from the literature or from the rules in vigour during the period of construction, and for identifying the corresponding typology in Table 11.D.1 of the Appendix 11.D. They are based on visual inspections of the masonry surface. Such visual examinations are conducted by removing of an area of the plaster at least 1m by 1m, in order to identify the form and dimensions of the blocks used to construct the wall and carried out, preferably, close to the corners in order to identify the connection between the walls. The compactness of the mortar also has to be evaluated, even if in an approximate manner. The capacity of the masonry elements to behave in a monolithic manner under seismic forces has to be estimated, by evaluating the quality of the internal and transverse connections through localised samples along the masonry wall thickness. Extensive in-situ investigations: The inspections described in the previous point carried out in an extensive and systematic manner with superficial and internal samples for every type of masonry present. Tests with double flat jacks and tests for characterisation of the mortar (type of binding agent, type of aggregate, binding agent/aggregate ratio, etc.) and eventually on stone and/or bricks (physical and mechanical characteristics) are required to verify the correspondence of the masonry to the typology defined in table 11.D.1 of the Appendix 11.D. A test for every type of masonry present is required. Non-destructive testing procedures (sonic tests, sclerometer tests (hardness), penetrometer test for mortar, etc.) may be utilised as complementary to the requisite tests. When a clear and proven typological continuity exists in terms of materials, masonry unit sizing, construction details, etc., between the building under investigation and others situated in the same zone, tests conducted on the other buildings can be utilised as a substitute. The Regional governments can define such homogeneous zones to meet this purpose, taking into account the uniqueness of structural typology within their territory. Exhaustive in-situ investigations: These investigations serve to obtain quantitative information on the material strength. Apart from the visual inspections of the internal samples and the tests mentioned in the previous point, a further series of experimental tests have to be carried out, both in quantity and quality, in order to be able to estimate the mechanical characteristics of the masonry. The measurements of the mechanical characteristics of the masonry are obtained by means of in-situ and laboratory tests (on undisturbed elements extracted from the structure). The tests can generally include diagonal compression tests on panels or combined tests of vertical compression and shear. Non-destructive testing methods can be utilised in combination, but not as a substitute, of the tests aforementioned. When a clear and proven typological continuity exists in terms of materials, masonry unit sizing, construction details, etc., between the building under investigation and others situated in the same zone, tests conducted on the other buildings can be utilised as a substitute. The Regional governments can define such homogeneous zones to meet this purpose, taking into account the uniqueness of structural typology within their territory. The results of the tests have to be examined and considered within a general typological frame of reference which takes into account the results of the experimental tests available in the literature up to that time for the masonry typology under investigation, and that allows the estimation of an effective representative of the values found, even in statistical terms. The results of the tests have to be utilised with reference to the values reported in table 11.D.1 of the Appendix 11.D, in accordance with that described in the following clause 11.5.3. The Regional governments can define specific tables for masonry typologies recurring within the regional territory to be supplemented with table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

11.5.3 Knowledge level The values of mechanical parameters and confidence factors are defined with reference to the knowledge level acquired as described subsequently. The knowledge level LC3 is said to be reached when the geometric survey, extensive and exhaustive in-situ inspections on construction details and exhaustive in-situ investigations on material properties have been executed. The knowledge level LC2 is said to be reached when extensive and exhaustive in-situ inspections on construction details and extensive in-situ investigations on material properties have been executed. Table 11.5.1 Knowledge level as a function of the available information, the consequent methods of analyses admissible and the values of confidence factors for masonry buildings Knowledge Level LC1 LC2 LC3 Structural survey Geometry Construction details Limited in-situ inspections Extensive and exhaustive in-situ inspections Material properties Limited in-situ investigations Extensive in-situ investigations Exhaustive in-situ investigations Analysis methods All All All Confidence Factors 1.35 1.20 1.00

For the various knowledge levels, for every masonry typology, the average values of the mechanical parameters will be defined as follows: LC1 Strengths the minimums of the intervals corresponding to the masonry typology under consideration, as reported in table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D; elastic moduli: the minimums of the intervals reported in the aforementioned table. LC2 Strengths the averages of the intervals corresponding to the masonry typology under consideration, as reported in table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D; elastic moduli: average values of the intervals reported in the aforementioned table. LC3 case a) In case three experimental values of the strength are available. Strengths averages of the results of the tests; elastic moduli: average of the test results or the average values of the intervals corresponding to the masonry typology under consideration, as reported in table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D. LC3 case b) In case two experimental values of the strength are available. If the value of the strength falls within the interval corresponding to the masonry typology under consideration, as reported in table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D, the strength is assumed as the average value of the interval, if the value is greater than the upper limit of the interval, then the upper bound value is used as the strength, and if the value is less than the lower limit of the interval, then the average experimental value is used as the average strength. As for the elastic moduli, the provisions in LC3 case a) is valid. LC3 case c) In case one experimental value of the strength is available. If the value of the strength falls within the interval corresponding to the masonry typology under consideration, as reported in table 11.D.1 of Appendix 11.D, or greater, the strength is assumed as the average value of the interval. If the value of the strength is lesser than the minimum value of the interval, the average value of the experimental tests is utilised. As for the elastic moduli, the provisions in LC3 case a) is valid. 11.5.4 Safety assessment 11.5.4.1 Level of seismic protection and importance factors Provisions in clauses 2.5 and 4.7 are valid. 11.5.4.2 Seismic action For the ultimate and damage Limit States, the seismic action is defined in chapter 3. In case of assessment by linear analyses with the use of the q factor, the value that has to be utilised is equal to: q = 2.0 u/1 for buildings regular in elevation q = 1.5 u/1 in other cases

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 where u and 1 are defined in point 8.1.3. In the absence of a more precise estimation, the ratio of u/1 can be assumed equal to 1.5. The definition of regularity for an existing masonry building is that indicated in clause 4.3.1, where the requirement d) has to be substituted by: floors well connected to the walls and endowed with sufficient in-plane stiffness. 11.5.4.3 Modelling of the structure The safety assessment is executed with reference to the global seismic behaviour, as per the criteria for modelling and assessment defined in clauses 4.4 (modelling), 8.1.5 (methods of analysis) and 8.2.2 (safety assessment), considering the specifications of clause 11.5.8 (modelling the capacity for the assessment). Nevertheless, certain peculiarities emerge for existing masonry buildings, which have to be appropriately considered in the structural modelling. In particular, in the presence of the building within an aggregate, typical in historic centres, and buildings of mixed structural systems, an outcome of relatively modern construction systems or of recent successive transformations, the aforementioned methods may not always be adequate and it is opportune to proceed with an appropriate modelling. Furthermore, in masonry buildings, the possibility of local collapse mechanisms with respect to which appropriate safety assessment needs to be carried out, has to be duly considered. 11.5.4.3.1 Local mechanisms In olden masonry buildings, regular connecting elements between the walls, at the level of the floors/ceilings are often absent. This constitutes a potential vulnerability with respect to local mechanisms, which may result not only in out-of-plane collapse of single masonry panels but also larger portions of the building (overturning of poorly connected internal walls, overturning of elevated walls found in buildings of varying height, partial collapses in the corner buildings within a building cluster, etc.). Safety verification of the building with reference to these mechanisms is obligatory. A possible reference model for this type of assessment is the limit equilibrium analysis where the masonry structure is considered as rigid bodies with no tensile strength. The weak tensile strength of masonry in this case, in fact, brings about a collapse due to loss of equilibrium whose estimation does not depend significantly on the deformability of the structure but on the geometry and the restraints. Despite the large variety in typology, dimensions and materials in masonry constructions, post-earthquake damage observations have shown recurring local mechanisms according to which verifications have to be carried out. The criteria for seismic verification of local mechanisms are provided in clauses 11.5.4.4 and 11.5.5. 11.5.4.3.2 Building aggregates A building aggregate is constituted of an assemblage of parts which is a result of an articulated, but not unitary origin, due to multiple factors (construction sequence, change of materials, changed exigencies, alternation of ownership, etc.). In the analysis of a building that forms part of an aggregate, the potential interactions due to the structural contiguity with adjacent buildings either connected or bonded to, have to be taken into account. As a preliminary step to this end, the structural unit (US) under investigation has to be identified, indicating the actions that can be expected on the unit from the contiguous structural units. Wherever required, such preliminary analysis has to consider the entire aggregate in order to identify the fundamental spatial connections, with particular attention to the context and the mechanisms of juxtaposition and superimposition. In particular, the process of investigations on building aggregates should develop by means of identification of various layers of information: - the relationships between the processes of aggregation and organisation of the building fabric and the evolution of the street system; - the principal events that have influenced the morphological aspects of the historical construction (historical sources); - the morphology of the streets (course, width, deviations in plan, misaligned facades); - the layout and hierarchy of the courtyards (with direct access or via lobby) and the location of the external stairs; - the alignment of the walls; checks for orthogonality with respect to the streets; identification of extensions, rotations, intersections and sliding of the axes of the walls (this helps to identify the walls relative to their contemporaneity of the construction and therefore define their level of connection); - the elementary spatial relationships of the single masonry cells, as well as the proportions of regularity, repetition, modularity of the different floors (this helps in distinguishing the original cells from those added successively); - the form and position of the openings in the faade walls: axis, symmetry, repetition (this helps to determine the weak zones in the load path as well as in revealing the modifications over time);

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 - the misalignment and tapering of walls, floating walls supported by the floor below, staggering in height of contiguous floors (this provides signs to identify sources of damage due to vertical and seismic loads as well as to refine the interpretation of the mechanism of aggregation). The homogeneity in structural behaviour of such a portion of the aggregate to both static as well as dynamic loads has to be taken into account principally for the identification of the US to be considered. To this end it is important to notice the structural typology and the durability of the characteristic elements, so as to direct the design of the intervention towards solutions congruent with the original structural configuration. The identification of the US has to be, however, accomplished case to case, according to the form of the reference building system to which the US belongs (composed of one or more property units), the quality and the consistency of the interventions expected and with the criterion of minimising break-up into single interventions. The designer can then define the minimum operative dimensions, which sometimes may refer to the set of property units constituting the system, and in some cases portions of the urban environment, more or less extensive. The US, however, has to have vertical continuity as far as load path for vertical loads are concerned and, by rule, will be delimited by open spaces or structural joints or adjacent buildings of different construction typology, materials or periods of construction. For the structural interactions with adjacent buildings, the following have to be considered: loads (both vertical and horizontal, in the presence of seismic loads) coming from floors or walls of adjacent US; thrusts from arches and vaults belonging to adjacent US; thrusts coming from counteracting arches or from tie-rods anchored in other buildings. The illustration of the US by means of plans, elevations and sections will permit an assessment of the distribution of stresses and the interaction between contiguous US. In addition to what is normally foreseen for buildings not situated in aggregates, the effects of the following should be evaluated: thrusts on common walls with adjacent US that have not been counteracted due to staggering in height of floors; local effects caused by misaligned facades or due to differences in height or stiffness among adjacent US; actions of overturning and translation that affect walls in the US at the head of a cluster. Moreover, potential pounding in the joints between adjacent US has to be considered. The analysis of a structural unit according to methods used for single buildings, without an adequate modelling or with an approximate model of the interaction with adjacent fabrics is conservative. Consequently, it is acknowledged that the analysis of the global seismic capacity of the US can be assessed by means of the simplified methodologies described in clause 11.5.5.1. 11.5.4.3.3 Mixed buildings Within the category of existing buildings, some may be classified as mixed. Particularly, - Buildings in which the perimeter walls are in load bearing masonry and the internal vertical structure is composed of columns/pilasters (e.g. steel or reinforced concrete); - Masonry buildings that have undergone an increase in height where the structural system is, for example, in steel or reinforced concrete, or buildings in reinforced concrete or steel where the raised portion is in masonry; - Buildings which have undergone an extension in plan, where the structural system (for example in steel or reinforced concrete) is interconnected with the existing masonry structure. In these situations, it is necessary to plan for modelling that adequately takes into account the structural peculiarities identified. 11.5.4.4 Methods of analysis The effects of the seismic action have to be combined with the effects of permanent and live loads as indicated in clause 3.3. The global seismic response can be evaluated with one of the methods indicated in clause 4.5, with the specifications and restrictions indicated in clauses 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 11.5.8. Masonry spandrels (coupling beams in masonry) can be included in the modelling existing buildings if following conditions are verified: - If the beam is efficiently embedded in the walls that support it; - If the beam is supported by a structurally efficient lintel; - If the possibility of setting up a diagonal strut resisting mechanism which requires equilibrating the horizontal component of compression exists (for example by means of steel ties or a tensile strength resisting element close to the beam). In case of the necessity to analyse the response with respect to local mechanisms (clause 11.5.4.3.1), it would be required to proceed with the adequate models, for example, those which use the theorems of limit analysis of masonry structures. Such an approach based on kinematics, for carrying out seismic analysis, is described in Appendix 11.C. By applying the principle of virtual work for every chosen mechanism, it is possible to estimate the seismic capacity in terms of strength (linear kinematic analysis) or displacement through an evaluation of finite displacements (non-linear kinematic analysis). The

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 corresponding verifications can be performed in a similar manner as those defined for the methods indicated in clauses 4.5.2 and 4.5.4. 11.5.4.5 Combination of the components of the seismic action Provisions of the clause 4.6 are valid.

11.5.5 Safety verification For the safety verification with respect to the global seismic behaviour, provisions of clauses 8.1.6 and 8.2.2 for ordinary masonry buildings are applicable with supplements from clause 11.5.8. For the building aggregates, alternatively, the methods described in clause 11.5.5.1 are applicable. Moreover, the assessment of significant local mechanisms is obligatory, mainly with the aim of guaranteeing safety with respect to the ultimate SL. One possible verification method is proposed in Appendix 11.C. 11.5.5.1 Simplified global verification for the buildings in an aggregate In case of sufficiently rigid floors, the conventional verifications for the SLU and SLD of a building (structural unit) in an aggregate can be performed, using the static non-linear analysis, even for buildings with more than two floors, by analysing and verifying separately every floor of the building and neglecting the variation in axial force in the masonry piers due to the effect of the seismic action. Except for the corner or head structural unit (of an aggregate), besides parts of buildings or not constrained or bonded on any side to other structural units (e.g. upper floors of a building of greater height with respect to all adjacent US), the analysis can also be performed neglecting torsional effects assuming that the floors can translate only in the direction of the seismic action. When that the floors of the building are flexible, analysis of the single walls or the system of coplanar walls that constitutes the building has to be carried out, each analysed as an independent structure subjected to relevant vertical loads and seismic action in the direction parallel to the wall. In this case, the analysis and verification of each single wall will follow the criteria explained in clauses 8.1.6 and 8.2.2 for ordinary masonry buildings of new construction supplemented by those reported in 11.5.8. 11.5.6 Criteria for selection of the intervention 11.5.6.1 General indications The choice of the type, the technique, the extent and the urgency of the intervention depends on the results of the preceding phase of assessment, taking into account in addition, the following aspects: Masonry of a quality that insufficient to support the vertical and horizontal forces that it is subjected to has to be adequately consolidated or substituted; Inadequate connections between the floors and walls and the roofs and walls have to be rendered effective; Interventions in the connections between intersecting walls at T-junctions and angled walls; Thrusts from roofs, arches and vaults that have not been counteracted and have to be reduced or eliminated by appropriate devices; Highly vulnerable elements, on which interventions cannot be carried out, have to be eliminated; In case of highly irregular buildings (in terms of strength and/or stiffness), interventions that rectify such unfavourable situations are desirable; The transformation of flexible floors into rigid floors involves a different distribution of forces acting on the walls, which could either be favourable or unfavourable with respect to the geometry of the structure. This has to be adequately considered in the modelling and analyses; Interventions aimed at improving the deformation capacity (ductility) of single elements are always desirable; It is necessary to check that the introduction of local reinforcements does not reduce the global ductility of the structure. 11.5.6.2 Types of intervention The intervention could pertain to one of the following general categories or a combination of those (the list is indicative, not exhaustive and not compulsory):

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

Strengthening, substitution or reconstruction of parts of elements; Modification of the structural organisation: addition of new resistant structural elements such as, new masonry
partitions, elements particularly vulnerable, elimination of potential soft storeys, stiffening of floors; Possible transformation of non-structural elements to structural elements; Introduction of passive protection by means of cross bracing and/or base isolation; Reduction of masses; Limitation or change in the destination of use of the building: Partial or total demolition.

More specific instructions on the criteria for the interventions of strengthening of masonry buildings are presented in Appendix 11.E. Instructions CNR-DT 200/2004 can be adopted for the safety verifications of reinforced elements, in the event of the use of composite materials (FRP). 11.5.6.3 Non-structural elements and installations Interventions on non-structural parts and installations are necessary when, in addition to functionality requirements, their seismic response can endanger lives of the occupants or produce damages to the property inside the building. For the design of interventions in order to ensure integrity of such components, the prescriptions of clauses 4.9 and 4.10 are valid. 11.5.7 Design of the intervention The design of intervention has to comprise of the following points: The choice of the type of intervention; The choice of the techniques and/or the materials; Preliminary dimensioning of the reinforcements and the eventual additional structural elements; Structural analyses by the methods allowed by the clause 11.5.4 considering the characteristics of the structure postintervention; The assessment of the structure post-intervention will be executed: for the repaired or strengthened existing elements, in accordance with the provisions indicated in the following points, or for the newly constructed elements, in accordance with the prescriptions for such a structure; In the event that the intervention consists of a base isolation, prescriptions in chapter 10 will be followed both for the analysis as well as the assessment. 11.5.8 Capacity models for the assessment 11.5.8.1 Masonry walls The models described in clause 8.2.2 are utilised with the following specifications and prescriptions. In the case of elastic analysis with the q factor, the design strength is obtained by dividing the average values by the respective confidence factors and the partial safety coefficients for materials. In the case of non-linear analysis, the design strength to be utilised is obtained by dividing the average values by the respective confidence factors. In the case of ordinary masonry, as a substitution for equation 8.3, the design shear strength for in-plane actions in a masonry panel can be calculated with the following relation:

Vt = l t

0 1.5 0 d f 1+ = l t td 1 + 0 1.5 0 d b b f td

(11.13)

where, l is the length of the panel t is the thickness of the panel 0 is the average normal tension with reference to the total area of the section (= P/lt, with P axial force positive if compressive)

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 ftd and 0d are the design tensile strength for diagonal cracking and the corresponding reference shear strength of the masonry, respectively (ft = 1.5 0) b is a corrective coefficient connected to the distribution of stress on the section depending on the slenderness of the wall. b can be assumed equal to h/l, however not greater than 1.5 and not lesser than 1.0, where h is the height of the panel. In the case of non-linear analysis, the ultimate displacement for in-plane actions of every panel will be assumed to be 0.4% of the height of the panel for shear failure and 0.6% for flexural failure.

11.5.8.2 Floors The stiffness and the strength of floors in each of the two directions have to be evaluated and considered in the model. The floors can be considered to be infinitely rigid and resistant if the requirements indicated in 4.11.1.5 and 8.1.5.2 are respected, except in case of more accurate evaluations by the designer. 11.5.9 Capacity models for the strengthening The models utilised for strengthened elements have to be justified by the designer. The confidence factors utilised have to correspond to the knowledge levels described in the current chapter 11. In particular, evaluations executed on the basis of data from the literature, without recourse to experimental inspections, requires the use of the confidence factor corresponding to the knowledge level LC1. 11.5.10 Simple buildings The simplified norms of the clause 8.1.9 can be applied, utilising instead of characteristic compressive strength fk, the average value fm divided by the confidence factor. Other than the conditions prescribed there, after the eventual strengthening intervention, it is necessary that the following are verified: a. b. c. d. e. f. The orthogonal walls are well connected to each other The floors are well connected with the walls All the openings are provided with architraves with flexural capacity All thrusting elements ultimately present are provided with devices to eliminate or equilibrate the horizontal thrusts All elements, including non-structural ones, that are highly vulnerable, have been eliminated The masonry walls are not sack walls or of double leaf, and in general of bad quality and poor strength (e.g. masonry with large volume of perforations or of insufficient thickness).

11.6 Buildings in zone 4 The existing buildings in zone 4 can be assessed by applying the regulations for aseismic design, considering in two orthogonal directions, the system of horizontal forces defined in expressions (4.2) and (4.3), according to the combinations of actions of expression (3.9). The spectral ordinate Sd(T1) has to be assumed equal to the following values: For buildings with the structure in reinforced concrete, in steel and steel-concrete composite Sd(T1) = 0.05g For ordinary masonry buildings Sd(T1) = 0.08g For reinforced masonry buildings Sd(T1) = 0.05g The corresponding safety assessments are carried out independently in the two directions, for the ultimate limit state, applying the confidence factors as in table 11.1 for buildings in reinforced concrete or steel and, as in table 11.5.1 for buildings with masonry structure. For the brittle elements the partial safety coefficients for materials are also applied.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 APPENDIX 11.C LOCAL COLLAPSE MECHANISM ANALYSIS IN EXISTING MASONRY BUILDINGS Very often in existing masonry buildings, partial collapses generally due to the loss of equilibrium in masonry portions occur due to earthquakes. Verification with respect to these mechanisms, according to the methods described in the following, assumes significance if monolithic behaviour of the masonry walls is guaranteed so that local collapse by disaggregation of the masonry is prevented. Local mechanisms occur in the masonry walls, prevalently due to forces perpendicular to their plane, while in the case of arch systems even due to in-plane forces. Verifications of damage and collapse (in-plane and outof-plane) with reference to local mechanisms can be performed by means of the limit equilibrium analysis, based on a kinematics approach that depends on the selection of the collapse mechanism and the evaluation of the horizontal forces that activate that kinematic mechanism. The application of the verification method presupposes the analysis of the local mechanisms considered significant for the construction, which can be assumed on the basis of the knowledge of the seismic behaviour of analogous structures already damaged in earthquakes, or identified based on the presence of states of damage, even of non-seismic type; besides the quality of connections between masonry walls, the masonry bond, the presence of tie-rods, the interactions with other elements of the construction or of the adjacent buildings. The kinematics approach, furthermore, permits the determination of the path of the horizontal forces that the structure is progressively capable of supporting with the development of the mechanism. Such a curve is expressed in terms of a multiplier , ratio between the applied horizontal forces and the corresponding weights of the masses present, represented as a function of the displacement dk of a reference point of the system. The curve has to be determined until the loss of any capacity to support horizontal actions ( = 0). Such a curve can be transformed into the capacity curve of an equivalent single degree of freedom system in which, the ultimate displacement capacity of the local mechanism can be defined to be compared with the displacement demand from seismic action. For every possible local mechanism considered significant for the building, the method can be subdivided into the following steps: - Transformation of one part of the construction into a determinate system (kinematic chain) by means of identification of rigid bodies, defined by fracture planes, assumed due to poor tensile strength of the masonry, capable of rotating or sliding between blocks (mechanism of damage and collapse); - Estimation of the horizontal load multiplier 0 that causes the activation of the mechanism (limit state of damage); - Estimation of the evolution of the horizontal load multiplier with increasing displacements dk of a control point of the kinematic chain, usually chosen close to the centre of gravity, until the loss of the horizontal seismic force; - Transformation of the curve thus obtained into the capacity curve, that is into spectral accelerations a* and spectral displacements d*, with the estimation of the ultimate displacement for the collapse mechanism (ultimate limit state), defined in the following; - Safety verifications by means of checking the compatibility of the demand displacements and/or of the demand forces on the structure. For the application of the method of analysis, the following are generally assumed: - No tensile strength in the masonry; - No sliding between the blocks; - Infinite compressive strength of masonry; Nevertheless, for a realistic simulation of the behaviour, it is possible to consider in an approximate form: a) the sliding between blocks considering the presence of friction; b) connections between the masonry walls even of limited strength; c) the presence of metallic tie rods; d) the limited compressive strength of masonry, by adequately moving the hinges from the edge of the section; e) presence of walls with separated leaves. Linear kinematic analysis To obtain the horizontal load multiplier 0 that activates the local damage mechanism, it is necessary to apply the following forces to the kinematic chain composed of the rigid blocks: the dead load of the blocks applied at their centre of gravity; the vertical loads carried by the blocks (dead loads and live loads of the floors and the roof, other masonry elements not considered in the structural model); a system of horizontal forces proportional to the supported vertical loads, if these are not efficiently transmitted to the other parts of the building; possible external forces (for example, those transmitted by metallic tie rods); possible internal forces (for example, the actions related to interlocking of masonry units). By assigning a virtual rotation k to the generic block k, it is possible to determine the displacements, as a function of the rotation and the geometry of the structure due to the various forces applied in the respective directions. The multiplier 0 is obtained in terms of displacements, applying the Virtual Work Principle, by equating the total work done by the external forces to the internal forces applied to the system corresponding to the virtual work.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05
n+m o n n 0 Pi x,i + P j x, j Pi y,i Fh h = L fi i =1 i =1 j= n +1 h =1

(11.C.1)

where: n is the total number of dead loads (weights, vertical forces) applied to the different rigid blocks of the kinematic chain; m is the number of weight forces not directly acting on the blocks but whose masses, due to the effect of seismic action, generate horizontal forces on the elements of the kinematic chain and which are not efficiently transmitted to the other parts of the building; o is the number of the external forces applied to the blocks but not related to masses; Pi is the generic weight force (dead weight of the block applied at its centre of gravity, or other live loads); Pj is the generic weight force, not directly applied to the blocks, but whose mass, due to the effect of seismic action, generates horizontal forces on the elements of the kinematic chain and which are not efficiently transmitted to the other parts of the building; x,i is the virtual horizontal displacement of the point of application of the ith weight Pi, assumed as positive that direction of the seismic action which activates the mechanism; x,j is the virtual horizontal displacement of the point of application of the jth weight Pj, assumed as positive that direction of the seismic action which activates the mechanism; y,i is the virtual vertical displacement of the point of application of the ith weight Pi, assumed positive if upwards; Fh is the generic external force (absolute value) applied to the block; h is the virtual displacement of the point of application of hth external force Fh in the direction of the force and positive if in the opposite direction; Lfi is the work done by the internal forces. Non-linear kinematic analysis Generalised multiplier -displacement relationship In order to define the displacement capacity of the structure up to collapse by means the mechanism considered, the horizontal load multiplier can be estimated, not only based on the initial configuration, but also on varied configurations of the kinematic chain representative of the evolution of the mechanism and described by the displacement dk of a control point of the system. The analysis has to be performed until the configuration corresponding to a multiplier = 0 with the respective displacement dk,0, is reached. For every configuration of the kinematic mechanism of the rigid blocks, the value of the multiplier can be obtained by equation (11.C.1) with reference to the varied geometry. The analysis can be performed either graphically, by identifying the geometry of the system in the different configurations until collapse or analytically, by considering a sequence of virtual finite rotations and progressively updating the system geometry. If the various forces acting (weight, external and internal actions) are constant as the mechanism evolves, the curve that is obtained is almost linear and the displacement dk,0 corresponding to the = 0 condition can be derived from the simplified expression:

= 0 (1 d k / d k ,0 )

(11.C.2)

By expressing the geometry of a generic configuration as a function of the finite rotation k,0, applying the Virtual Work Principle using equation (11.C.1) and imposing = 0 to derive a non-linear expression, the unknown k,0 can be estimated. In case a progressive variation in external forces with the evolution of the mechanism is considered (for example the elongation of a tie-rod), the curve can be assumed to be piecewise linear and the displacements can be estimated at significant points (for example: tie-rod yielding, tie-rod failure, etc.). Estimation of the capacity curve (equivalent oscillator) With the trend of the horizontal load multiplier as a function of the displacement dk of the control point of the structure known, the capacity curve of the equivalent oscillator has to be defined as a relation between the spectral acceleration and displacement, a* and d*. The participating mass of the kinematic mechanism M* can be evaluated by considering the virtual displacements at the points of application of the various forces associated to the mechanism similar to a mode shape of vibration:

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

n +m Pi x,i i =1 M * = n+m g Pi 2 x,i


i =1

(11.C.3)

where: n+m is the number of applied weight forces Pi whose masses, due to the effect of seismic action, generate horizontal forces on the elements of the kinematic chain; x,i is the virtual horizontal displacement of the point of application of the ith force Pi. The seismic spectral acceleration a* is obtained by multiplying the load multiplier by the acceleration due to gravity and dividing by the fraction of participating mass of the kinematic mechanism. The spectral acceleration that activates the mechanism is, therefore, equal to:
0
n +m i =1 *

a* = 0

Pi

0g e*

(11.C.4)

where: g is the acceleration due to gravity;

e * = gM * /

n +m i =1

Pi

is the fraction of participating mass of the structure.

The spectral displacement d* of the equivalent oscillator can be obtained as the average displacement of the various points at which the forces Pi are applied, and weighted over the same. As a first approximation, with the displacement of the control point dk known, the equivalent spectral displacement d* can be derived with reference to the virtual displacements evaluated on the initial configuration:
n +m

d = dk

Pi x,i
i =1 n +m i =1

(11.C.5)

x,k

Pi

where: n, m, Pi, x,i are as defined earlier and x,k is the virtual horizontal displacement of the point k, assumed as reference to determine the displacement dk. In case capacity curve is linear (11.C.2) with constant forces, the capacity curve assumes the following expression:
a * = a * 1 d* / d* 0 0

(11.C.6)

where: d * is the equivalent spectral displacement corresponding to the displacement dk,0. 0 If there are varying external forces, the curve is normally assumed to be piecewise linear. The strength and displacement capacity for the damage and ultimate limit states (clauses 2.1, 2.2) is evaluated from the capacity curve based on the following points: damage limit state: ultimate limit state: from the spectral acceleration a * , corresponding to the activation of the damage mechanism; 0 from the spectral displacement d * , corresponding to the minimum of the following displacements: u a) 40% of the displacement at which the multiplier = 0, evaluated from a curve in which only those forces that are present until collapse are considered; b) the displacement corresponding to a local instability in the structural elements (for example slipping of beams).

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05

Safety Verification Damage limit state Safety for the damage limit state (SLD) is verified if the spectral acceleration of mechanism activation is higher than the spectral acceleration of the elastic response spectrum defined in clause 3.2.6, evaluated for T = 0, adequately amplified to consider the relative height of the portion of the structure involved in the mechanism: a gS Z (11.C.7) a* 1 + 1.5 0 2 .5 H where: ag and S are defined in clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3; Z is the height from the building foundation to the centre of gravity of the weight forces, whose masses generate horizontal forces on the elements of the kinematic chain and which are not efficiently transmitted to the other parts of the building; H is the total height of the building from the foundation. In case of local mechanisms, the damage limit state corresponds to the formation of cracks that affects only a part the building and not the entire structure; therefore in existing masonry buildings, considering the justified requirements of conservation as well, the verification of the damage limit state is not required, though desirable. Ultimate limit state The verification for the ultimate limit state (SLU), indispensable for guaranteeing the safety with respect to collapse, can be performed according to one of the following criteria:

Simplified verification with q factor (linear kinematic analysis)


* Safety for the ultimate limit state (SLU) is verified if the spectral acceleration a 0 that activates the mechanism satisfies the following inequality: a gS Z a* (11.C.8) 1 + 1.5 , 0 q H where ag and S are defined in points 3.2.1 and 3.2.3, Z and H have been defined for SLD and q is the behaviour factor, which is equal to 2.0.

Verification by means of the capacity spectrum (non-linear kinematic analysis) The safety verification for local mechanisms for the ultimate limit state (SLU) consists of the comparison of the ultimate displacement capacity d * of the local mechanism and the displacement demand d, evaluated by means of a response u spectrum defined similarly to the that adopted for the assessment of non-structural elements (clause 4.9), estimated with respect to the secant period Ts. Once the displacement d * = 0.4d * is estimated and, the acceleration a s* corresponding to the displacement d s* is identified s u on the capacity curve (see paragraph Non-linear kinematic analysis), the secant period is calculated as Ts = 2
displacement demand d(Ts) is then obtained as follows: d* s a* s . The

Ts < 1.5T1 1.5T1 Ts < TD TD Ts

d (Ts ) = a gS

Ts2 3 (1 + Z H ) 0.5 2 2 4 1 + (1 Ts T1 ) 1.5T1Ts Z d (Ts ) =a gS 1.9 + 2.4 2 H 4 d (Ts ) =a g S 1.5T1TD Z 1.9 + 2.4 2 H 4

(11.C.9)

where: ag, S and TD are defined in points 3.2.1 and 3.2.3, T1 is the fundamental vibration period of the structure along the direction considered, Z and H are defined as in the section Damage limit state.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 The safety for the ultimate limit state is verified if the ultimate displacement respects the relationship d d * . u APPENDIX 11.D MASONRY TYPOLOGIES AND RELATIVE MECHNICAL PARAMETERS Table 11.D.1: Reference values of the mechanical parameters (maxima and minima) and average specific weights for different types of masonry related to the following conditions: poor quality mortar, absence of courses (coursed masonry at regular intervals), wall leaves merely placed together or badly connected, unconsolidated masonry.
fm (N/cm2) min-max 60 90 110 155 150 200 80 120 300 400 180 280 380 500 460 600 300 400 150 200 300 440

Masonry typology Irregular stone masonry (pebbles, erratic and irregular stone) Uncut stone masonry with facing walls of limited thickness and infill core Cut stone masonry with good bonding Soft stone masonry (tuff, limestone, etc.) Dressed rectangular stone masonry Full brick masonry with lime mortar Masonry in half-filled brick blocks with cement mortar (e.g. double UNI) Hollow brick masonry (percentage of perforations < 45%) Hollow brick masonry with dry perpend joints (percentage of perforations < 45%) Concrete block masonry (percentage of perforations between 45% and 65%) Masonry in half-filled concrete blocks
fm = average compressive strength of masonry 0 = average shear strength of masonry E = average value of the normal elastic modulus G = average value of the shear modulus w = average specific weight of the masonry

0 (N/cm2) min-max 2.0 3.2 3.5 5.1 5.6 7.4 2.8 4.2 7.8 9.8 6.0 9.2 24.0 32.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 13.0 9.5 12.5 18.0 24.0

E (N/mm2) min-max 690 1050 1020 1440 1500 1980 900 1260 2340 2820 1800 2400 2800 3600 3400 4400 2580 3300 2200 2800 2700 3500

G (N/mm2) min-max 115 175 170 240 250 330 150 210 390 470 300 400 560 720 680 880 430 550 440 560 540 700

W (kN/m3) 19 20 21 16 22 18 15 12 11 12 14

Reference values to be adopted in the analyses, in accordance with clause 11.5.3, as a function of the knowledge level, have been indicated in Table 11.D.1. Identification of the masonry typology has to be carried out by means of a detailed survey of the constructional aspects (clause 11.5.2.2). It is noted that masonry presents, at a national scale, a remarkable variety in terms of construction techniques and materials used and therefore classification into pre-established typologies may be problematic. The Regional governments can define, as already indicated (clause 11.5.2.3) specific tables in which the typological variety and corresponding mechanical characteristics of the masonry present in that territory are better represented. The values indicated in Table 11.D.1 refer to conditions of masonry with mortar of poor characteristics, uncoursed or lacking regular masonry courses at constant spacing which regularises the masonry texture and, in particular, the horizontality of the courses. Moreover, as regards historical masonry, the values indicated in the table assume disconnected facing walls, or rather, lack of systematic transverse connecting elements (or interlocking between the masonry facing walls). In case the masonry has better characteristics with respect to the aforementioned indicators in the table, the mechanical characteristics are obtained, starting from the values in table 11.D.1, by applying the coefficients indicated in Table 11.D.2 as per the following conditions: Good quality mortar: the coefficient indicated in the table is used, corresponding to the various typologies, both for the strength parameters (fm and 0) and the elastic moduli (E and G);

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 Presence of courses (or layering with regular masonry courses): the coefficient indicated in the table is used only for the strength parameters (fm and 0); such coefficients are meaningful only for a few masonry typologies, since in the others such a construction technique is not encountered; Presence of transverse connecting elements between facing walls: the coefficient indicated in the table is used only for the strength parameters (fm and 0); such coefficients are meant only for historical masonry, as the more recent ones are constructed with specific and well-defined techniques and the values in Table 11.D.1, as it is, represent the possible varieties in behaviour. In the presence of well consolidated masonry or in case the safety of a strengthened building has to be verified, it is possible to evaluate the mechanical characteristics for few intervention techniques by means of the coefficients in Table 11.D.2 as per the following conditions: Strengthening with mortar injections: the coefficients indicated in the table are used, corresponding to the masonry typology, both for the strength parameters (fm and 0) and for the elastic moduli (E and G); in case the original masonry was classified as having good quality mortar, the aforementioned coefficient is applied to the reference value for poor quality mortar (this is due to fact that the result obtainable through this strengthening technique is, as a first approximation, independent of the quality of the original mortar. In other words, in case of masonry with good quality mortar, the increase in strength and stiffness obtainable is proportionally inferior); Strengthening with reinforced plaster: the coefficients indicated in the table are used, corresponding to the masonry typology, both for the strength parameters (fm and 0) and for the elastic moduli (E and G); for the parameters of unconsolidated masonry the coefficients relative to transverse connections are not used, as the reinforced plaster fulfils this function among others; Strengthening with artificial through-stones: the coefficient is used if the masonry is provided with good transverse connections. In case proof for the actual effectiveness of the intervention through suitable experimental investigations does not exist, the aforementioned values indicated for well consolidated masonry are to be considered as a reference for the values to be used for in calculations that will be measured by an adequate number of tests. Table 11.D.2: Correction coefficients of the mechanical parameters (indicated in Table 11.D.1) to be applied in the presence of good or very good quality of mortar; presence of courses (or regular layering); systematic presence of transverse connections; Strengthening with injection mortars; Strengthening with reinforced plaster Masonry typology Irregular stone masonry (pebbles, erratic and irregular stone) Uncut stone masonry with facing walls of limited thickness and infill core Cut stone masonry with good bonding Soft stone masonry (tuff, limestone, etc.) Dressed rectangular stone masonry Full brick masonry with lime mortar Masonry in half-filled brick blocks with cement mortar (e.g. double UNI) Hollow brick masonry (percentage of perforations < 45%) Hollow brick masonry with dry perpend joints (percentage of perforations < 45%) Concrete block masonry (percentage of perforations between 45% and 65%) Masonry in half-filled concrete blocks Good mortar 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Courses or borders 1.3 1.2 1.1 Transverse connections 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.3 Mortar injections 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.5 Reinforced plaster 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 APPENDIX 11.E CRITERIA FOR STRENGTHENING INTERVENTIONS IN MASONRY BUILDINGS The current appendix furnishes general criteria for strengthening interventions in masonry buildings with reference to some modern techniques. Obviously, intervention techniques eventually not cited here, innovative methodologies or particular solutions identified by the professional to be adequate for a specific case are not to be considered excluded beforehand. Strengthening interventions are applied as much as possible in a regular and uniform manner to the structure. The execution of interventions on limited portions of the building is appropriately evaluated and justified by calculating the effect in terms of the variation in stiffness distribution. In case, a decision to intervene on single parts of the structure is taken, the effect in terms of variation of stiffness distribution is evaluated. Particular attention has to be paid even to the implementation phase of the intervention, ensuring real effectiveness, since any probable poor execution can result in a worsening of the masonry characteristics or the global response of the building. The indications that follow should not be understood as a list of interventions to be however carried out everywhere, but only as possible solutions to be adopted in cases where insufficiency of the actual state of the building and the beneficial effect of the intervention have been demonstrated.
Interventions aimed at reducing deficiency of connections

Such interventions are aimed at ensuring a good response of the entire construction by means of good interlocking (quoins) between walls and efficient connections between walls and floors; moreover, potential thrusts produced from vaulted structures have to be efficiently counteracted and malfunctioning of thrusting roofs has to be corrected. The implementation of these interventions is a prerequisite for the application of the methods of global seismic analysis of the building, which are based on in-plane response of masonry walls, and that implicitly presume stability for out-of-plane seismic forces. Insertion of tie-rods, either metallic or other materials, aligned in the two principal directions of the building at the level of the floors corresponding to load-bearing walls and secured in the masonry by means of anchors (bolt or plate) can aid in homogeneous behaviour of the building, since it provides a higher degree of connection between orthogonal walls and furnishes an efficient restraint against out-of-plane overturning of masonry panels. Furthermore, the insertion of tie-rods improves the in-plane behaviour of perforated walls, since this helps in the formation of a strut and tie mechanism in the masonry panels above doors (lintels) and below window openings. As regards the anchors, simple bolts are prescribed as they affect a portion of masonry greater than anchor plates; this is preferred in case of masonry of particularly poor quality, carried out with elements of small dimensions (it is generally necessary to carry out a local consolidation of the masonry in the zone of the anchorage). It is inadvisable to embed the anchor within the thickness of the wall, especially in case of masonry made up of multiple disconnected leaves. External hoops, in a few cases, can be made with metallic elements or composite materials, with the scope of closing the masonry box and offering an efficient connection between the orthogonal masonry walls. Such an intervention could be effective in a building of reduced dimensions where the straight tracts of the hoop are not too long, or when there are anchors at the intersecting walls in a T-junctions. Stress concentration in wall corners has to be avoided by means of appropriate distribution plates or alternatively, panels of composite materials may be used to smooth corners. A suitable interlocking, between adjacent parts or intersecting walls needs to be achieved if the connections between the masonry elements are deteriorated (presence of earthquake-induced damages or due to other actions) or are of particularly inferior quality. These interventions of local connections are effective specifically for the homogeneous behaviour of a construction in good quality masonry; whereas for masonry of inferior quality, insertion of tie-rods is preferable, which guarantees a better and comprehensive connection. The intervention is implemented either by means of stitching (stitching technique using stone or brick elements) or local connections in metallic elements or other materials. The use of reinforced perforations should be limited to cases in which other solutions proposed are not practicable due to the invasiveness of such elements and their doubtful efficiency, especially in masonry with multiple, disconnected leaves. In any case, the durability of the inserted element (stainless steel, composite materials or others) and the compatibility of the inserted mortar have to be guaranteed. In this case as well, the good connection achievable locally does not guarantee a significant improvement in the homogeneous behaviour of the entire construction. Ring beams (or tie-beams) at the summit of the masonry walls are an effective solution to connect the walls in a region where the masonry is less cohesive due to the limited amount of compression and to improve the interaction with the roof. Ring beams at intermediate levels within the thickness of the wall are instead avoided (especially if random rubble masonry), given the negative effects that openings in rubble can produce in the stress distribution on the wall leaves. These can be implemented in the following way:

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 - In reinforced masonry, which allows a connection by means of a technique aimed at maximum conservation of the characteristics of the existing masonry. In fact, they have to be constructed with good quality masonry and for the entire thickness of the wall. Generally, the most natural solution is the use of brick masonry. The metal reinforcement is accommodated within the masonry and bonded to the masonry ring beam by means of a conglomerate such as cementetious mortar. The connection between the ring beam and the masonry wall through inclined reinforced perforations will be effective only if the masonry if of good quality. In other cases, it would be appropriate to carry out strengthening of the masonry wall near the summit and rely upon the bonding and friction. - In steel, representing a valid alternative due to their lightness and limited invasiveness. This is achieved by means of a light reticular structure using metallic angles and plates, or by means of flat bars or sections on the two leaves connected to each other using linking bars. In both the cases, it is possible to create a satisfactory connection with the masonry walls without recourse to reinforced perforations. With inferior quality masonry, the intervention has to be accompanied by improvement of the related masonry panel. The metallic ring beams permit particularly good connection of wooden elements of the roof and contribute in eliminating potential thrusts. - In r.c., only if the ring beam is of limited height to avoid excessive loading and stiffening, which has proven to be damaging as it produces high diagonal stresses between the ring beam and the masonry wall resulting in sliding and disintegration of the latter. In particularly, such effects are manifest in cases where even the roof structure is stiffened and loaded. Strengthening the masonry in the vicinity of the ring beam is appropriate in case of r.c. ring beams, as the stiffness of the two elements is, however, different. The connection between the ring beam and the masonry wall can be improved by means of reinforced perforations, as per conditions previously illustrated. Efficient connection of the floors and the roofs to the masonry walls is necessary in order to avoid slippage of the beams resulting in the collapse of the floor, and permits the floors to uniformly distribute horizontal forces and contain the walls. The connections can be achieved locally, for example in cores within the walls, and at the same time should not excessively disturb or damage the masonry. In case of intermediate floors, heads of timber beams can be anchored to the masonry through elements either metallic, or other materials, capable of resisting tension and anchored on the opposite wall leaf. Ring beams inserted within the masonry wall thickness should be avoided at intermediate levels, while, steel ring beams constructed with flat bars or sections on the wall leaves connected by linking bars, might be helpful. These provide the walls with a certain out-of-plane bending stiffness and prevent the development of collapse mechanisms of the masonry panels above doors (lintels) and below windows (strut-tie mechanism).
Interventions aimed at reducing the thrusts of arches and vaults

Interventions on arched or vaulted structures can be carried out by means of the traditional technique of chains or steel ties that offset the thrusts introduced on the supporting masonry and prevent relative displacements. The chains are placed on the back (extrados) of the arches and vaults. If such an arrangement is not possible, the chains can be placed at different levels as long as the effectiveness in offsetting the thrust is verified. These chains should be provided with adequate stiffness (preferably large diameter bars of limited lengths so far as possible). The chains have to be engaged adequately prestressed, so as to absorb the estimated thrusting forces (excessive tension can introduce local damages). In case of the presence of cracks and/or deformations, the repair must reconstruct the connection between separated parts so that the stress is transferred over an adequate surface and creates a suitably resistant configuration. The possibility of constructing counteracting buttresses or masonry prop walls to absorb the thrusts from arches and vaults should not be excluded. Though these produce a certain visual impact on the construction, they are reversible and are coherent with conservation criteria. Their effectiveness is dependent on a good interconnection with the existing wall, which has to be implemented using discrete connections in stone or brick elements, and the possibility of creating an adequate foundation. The alternative of wrapping techniques with bands of composite materials on the extrados is possible. Reinforced or unreinforced concrete counter-vaults have to be avoided, unless the need is demonstrated, and have to be constructed to limited thickness using lightweight aggregated. Wrapping composite materials on the intrados is effective if a back arch capable of avoiding debonding of the wrapping can be constructed.
Interventions to reduce the excessive deformability of floors

The role of floors in the seismic response of masonry buildings is that of transferring horizontal forces that they receive to the walls in the direction parallel to the ground motion. In addition, the floor forms a restraint for those walls that respond to forces orthogonal to their plane. The need for stiffening to differently redistribute the seismic forces between vertical elements

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 is, instead, not very frequent. For the aforementioned reasons, even a limited stiffening of floors is sometimes necessary and the effects of this are evaluated. Inevitably, this leads to an increase in the strengths of the structural elements, which would improve the robustness of the building. Even limited stiffening of floors, in order to redistribute the seismic forces between the vertical elements in a different way, generally involves an increase in the strength, which makes the structure more robust. In case of wooden floors the intervention can be implemented by operating on the upper surface of the wood floor. One option would be to construct a second wooden floor over the existing one, arranging it either orthogonally or inclined and paying particular attention to the connection with the peripheral walls. Alternatively, or in addition, reinforcement with metallic strips or strips of composite materials can be fixed on the wooden floors in a criss-cross manner. Strengthening of the wooden beams can be carried out by increasing the load-bearing section in the compressed zone using additional elements appropriately connected. In case there is a need for strengthening of the floor for bending forces, it is possible through wood-wood techniques to implement simultaneous in-plane and out-of-plane stiffening by placing over the existing wooden floor new continuous beams longitudinally with respect to the primary beams and connected to them by means of wooden wedges and stiffened in the plane of the floor by apply a second wooden floor finish. The technique of strengthening with a secondary floor in lightweight concrete stiffens the floor in-plane as well. The effects of such an intervention are evaluated both in terms of redistribution of forces between the vertical elements and the increase of mass. In case the wooden elements are not adequately connected to the masonry, the secondary floor has to be connected to the walls by means of local connecting elements already indicated, or to the tie-beams, if present, as explained successively. In case of floors with wooden beams and clay panels, which have limited in-plane strength, reinforced lightweight concrete blocks may be used on the upper surface and appropriately connected to the perimeter masonry walls and the wooden beams. In case of floors with steel beams and clay vaults or tiles it is appropriate to stiffen the floor by means of small reinforced beams well connected to the steel sections and the perimeter walls. In case of floors with metallic structure with interposed clay tiles, the steel sections have to be connected amongst themselves by means of transverse metallic strips placed either on the extrados or the intrados. Moreover, in case of significant spacing, the bordering elements have to be connected in the middle to the masonry (the same problem arises with one-way wooden floors as well).
Interventions on roofs

Maintenance of a wooden roof is, in general appropriate, as it restricts the mass of the building in the higher parts and guarantees a level of elasticity comparable to the underlying masonry body. It is favourable to use strengthening elements, where possible, in the points of contact between the masonry and the roof. Apart from connections with anchors to prevent translations, tie-beams and tension ties, either in metal or in wood may be used, appropriately connected, both to the masonry and to the primary wooden beams of the roof. This creates a border for the masonry resistant to tensile forces, an element to redistribute loads to the supports of the primary beams of the roof and at the same time as a hinge between the masonry and the roof beams. Wherever roofs are of thrusting type, as in inclined roofs without chains in the floors, the thrusts have to be compensated. In case of truss roofs, a good connection between the nodes should be present in order to avoid slipping and detachment due to horizontal forces. This can be improved with bars and plates in metal or other materials (for example fibre reinforced). In general, the connections between the ends of the masonry walls and the frame of the roof and the planks have to be well developed, pursuing configurations and techniques that are compatible with the diverse local construction practices.
Interventions that modify the distribution of the vertical resisting elements

The insertion of new walls allows limiting the problems derived from irregularities in plan and height of the building and increases the resistance to seismic forces. Such effects have to be adequately verified. The creation of new openings, if not strictly required, must be possibly avoided. In case the consequent reduction in stiffness poses problems in the global response, a closed frame must be inserted with stiffness and strength aimed at restoring, as much as possible, the original condition.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 An increase in the stiffness of the masonry walls with a consequent modification of the seismic behaviour can be obtained by closing niches, chimney flues or other voids as long as an effective connection between the new elements and the existing masonry is established by means of the stitching technique. This intervention of creating continuity in the masonry structure has a positive effect with respect to connection in the building.
Interventions aimed at increasing the strength of masonry piers

The strengthening interventions of masonry are aimed at curing and repairing deteriorated and damaged masonry and at improving their mechanical properties. They are not sufficient to ensure an improvement in the overall structural integrity if carried out independently. The type of intervention to be used is evaluated based on the typology and the quality of the masonry. Materials with similar physical, chemical and mechanical characteristics have to be utilised in the interventions have and however, as much as possible, compatible with the existing materials. The intervention should be aimed at a substantially uniform retrieval of the strength of the wall with continuity in stiffness and creating appropriate interlocking, if found deficient. The introduction of materials different from masonry, and particularly elements of cementetious mix, have to be used with care and only where the rapport between the effectiveness obtained and the impact provoked is lesser than other interventions, as in the case of damaged and particularly stressed architraves. The procedure is as follows, depending on the case: - Localised repair of the damaged or degraded parts; - Reconstruction of the masonry entity subsequent to tampering of cavities, chambers of different nature (drains, chimney flues, etc.); - Improvement of the characteristics of the masonry units, bonding and/or the binding agents for particularly inferior quality masonry; The stitching technique is aimed at restoring the continuity in masonry along lines of cracking and the refurbishment of portions of masonry that have deteriorated gravely. The use of materials similar in form, dimensions, stiffness and strength to the original is advisable by connecting the new elements to the existing masonry adequately bonded in the plane of the wall and, if possible, even transversally to the wall in order to ensure maximum homogeneity and monolithic behaviour of the repaired wall. This intervention can also be utilised for the closing of niches, chimney flues and for the reduction of voids, particularly when the niche/opening/cavity is close to intersections in angled walls or T-junctions. The use of injections of binding mixtures is aimed at improvement of the mechanical characteristics of the masonry to be strengthened. This technique, if used alone, cannot be relied upon to create effective interlocking between walls and consequently to improve the global behaviour of the building. This intervention would be unproductive if it is used to on masonry types that are can scarcely be injected (scarce presence of voids and/or poorly interconnected voids). Particular attention has to be paid to the pressure at which the mixture is injected, in order to avoid the formation of transverse dilations due to the pressurised mixture. In case the injection technique is supposed to be appropriate for incoherent and irregular masonry, necessary measures have to be taken to reduce the risk of disintegration of the masonry and dispersion of the mixture. Particular care has to be adopted in the choice of the injection mix, ensuring chemical, physical and mechanical compatibility with the masonry typology on which the intervention is being implemented. Reconstruction of the masonry joints can improve the mechanical characteristics of the masonry, particularly in walls of limited thickness and, if carried out for satisfactory depth from both sides. If this is implemented on masonry walls of medium or large thickness with incoherent facing, poorly connected to each other, the intervention may not be sufficient to guarantee a consistent increase in strength and therefore advisable to be executed in combination with other interventions. Particular care has to be taken in the choice of the mortar to be used. Insertion of small bars or straps, either in metal or in fibre-reinforced materials, can further improve the effectiveness of the intervention. Insertion of artificial through-stones in reinforced mixtures (either metal or fibre-reinforced) within cored holes can create an effective connection between masonry facing walls by preventing the detachment of the walls or the triggering of instability due to compression. In addition, this intervention bestows monolithic behaviour to the wall for horizontal in-plane forces. The intervention is particularly suited for masonry walls with disconnected facing leaves. In case of deteriorated facing leaves, they should be appropriately improved by means of the techniques described above (mortar injections, reconstruction of joints). Where the masonry portion to be repair is limited, a valid alternative is given by anti-expulsive tie-rods, which are made up of thin transverse bars bolted to the walls using washers. Slight prestressing applied to the bars renders this intervention suitable in case of bulging of the wall due to detachment of the facing. This technique can be applied to regularly coursed masonry in dimensioned stone, bricks or blocks.

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 The use of a widespread system of tie-rods in the three orthogonal directions, particularly in the transverse direction, helps to improve the monolithic response and mechanical behaviour of the masonry structure by increasing the in-plane and out-ofplane shear and the flexural strength. Jacketing the masonry wall with reinforced plaster can be useful in case of heavily damaged and incoherent masonry, in which other types of interventions may not be effectively possible, or in limited portions of masonry heavily damaged by vertical loads. The systematic use of this intervention over all the walls of the building is not advisable due to the considerable increase in the stiffness and mass, apart from reasons of conservation and functionality. This intervention is effective only if the reinforced plaster is applied to either sides of the wall with adequate transverse connections (injected bars). Jacketing with fibre-reinforced fabrics or plates is normally used in case of regularly coursed brick or block masonry. This intervention is more effective if executed on either sides of the wall but by itself does not guarantee transverse connection and therefore its effectiveness has to be evaluated case by case. Insertion of post-tensioned vertical tie-rods is an intervention applicable only in particular cases and if the masonry is capable of supporting the increase in vertical stresses, both locally and globally at the points of the anchoring. In any case, the initial loss of tension due to the deferred deformation in masonry has to be taken into consideration.
Pilasters and columns

Considering that columns and pilasters are essentially meant to support vertical loads with moderate eccentricity, the interventions proceed in the following manner: - Restitution of the original strength under normal stress, wherever lacking, through measures such as circumferential hoops and jacketing; - Elimination or at least, containment of the horizontal thrusts through measures such as counteracting chains for arches, vaults and roofs, and wherever appropriate, construction or strengthening of buttresses. Reconstruction of the connections aimed at transferring the horizontal forces to masonry elements of higher stiffness; Insertion of metallic bodies, reinforced perforations, prestressing, and in general, unless deemed necessary, irreversible interventions aimed at providing flexural and shear strength to the columns and pilasters that modify the global response of the structure, are to be avoided, but for specific technical details of the alternatives.
Interventions aimed at strengthening walls around openings

Architraves and cornices in steel or concrete of adequate strength and stiffness have to be inserted, creating perfect contact with the existing masonry. Whenever the need for a new opening arises, the opportunity of constructing circumferential hoops around the opening, in steel for example, should be evaluated.
Interventions on stairs

For all interventions on load-bearing masonry stairs, strengthening techniques that do not alter the architectonic characteristics and their form and type, may be adopted.
Interventions aimed at fastening connections of non-structural elements

Connections of the important non-structural elements (cornices, parapets, chimneys) have to be checked taking into account the potential amplification of accelerations along the height of the building.
Interventions on foundations

All obtainable information on the history of the construction has to be considered in the choice of the intervention technique on the foundation. Structural interventions on the foundation and the relative verifications can be omitted the following conditions are simultaneously present: a. Important instabilities of any kind attributable to settlement of the foundation are not present in the construction and that instabilities of the same nature have not even occurred in the past; b. Interventions that have been design do not involve substantial alteration of the structural scheme of the building; c. These interventions do not bring about prominent modifications in the forces transmitted to the foundations; d. Phenomena of overturning of the construction due to seismic forces are excluded;

English version of Chapters 8 & 11: Annexe 2: Buildings Ordinance PCM 3274 & modifications OPCM 3431 of 3/05/05 Inadequacy of the foundation is rarely the cause for damage observed in post-earthquake surveys. However, in cases where the foundation rests on ground with mechanical characteristics inadequate to transfer loads or with local settlements, measures for the strengthening of the foundation by one of the following techniques or an suitable combination have to be implemented, after examination of the existing foundation. Enlargement of the foundation by means of r.c. tie-beams or reinforced bed. This intervention has to be carried out such that there is adequate collaboration between the new and existing foundations, taking particular care for the connections between the new and existing foundation in order to obtain a monolithic body aimed at spreading the forces uniformly. A rigid connection (r.c. beam, steel cross-beams of suitable stiffness, post-tensioned bars that provide frictional force) capable of transferring parts of the load coming from the superstructure to the new element, has to be provided. In case of differential settlement of the foundation, it is appropriate to evaluate the effects on the entire structure and consequently decide on the widening required for the foundation. Consolidation of the foundation soil. Interventions to consolidate the foundation soil can be carried out by means of injections of cementetious mixtures, resins (e.g. polyurethane that expands within the ground) or other chemical substances. Insertion of deep sub-foundations (micropiles, or piles drilled through existing structure). This intervention can be implemented as an alternative to the previous one. In case of foundation settlements involving single portions of the building, the intervention can be carried out limited to the area concerned provided it is coherent with the problems of the foundation. Suitable connections between micropiles and the existing masonry structure have to be provided (e.g. a reinforced tie-beam rigidly connected to the masonry), unless the micropiles are drilled through the masonry with a bore depth sufficient to transfer loads to the micropiles by friction. In situations where slope instability activated by earthquake is potential, the problem has to be confronted at the level of the ground and not merely of the foundation.
Construction of seismic joints

It is rather frequent, especially in historical centres, that there are masonry buildings adjacent to each other or even structurally connected. Construction of joints would be appropriate in case of adjacent structures with marked differences in heights which result in pounding and therefore produce concentrated damage at the point of contact with the summit of the shorter building. In such cases, the alternative solution of creating structural connections can be explored. In particular, the connections have to be constructed at the level of the floors is: a) if the floors are approximately coplanar, b) the resulting complex has characteristics of symmetry and regularity not worse than those of the two original parts.

English translation by Arun Menon, PhD student, ROSE School