International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry

Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

A CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES AND

MASONRIES FOR THE ADEQUATE CHOICE OF REPAIR

Luigia Binda, Giuliana Cardani, Antonella Saisi

DIS – Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Abstract
The research emphasises the necessity of a deep knowledge of the wall
morphology and of the components, of their characteristics and of the
eventual state of damage and its causes , when approaching the modelling
of an historic stone masonry structure. A classification of historic masonry
buildings together with a classification of single and multiple leaf masonry
sections according to the number of leaves and their connections as a result
of a long term investigation carried out in different Italian Regions will be
presented. It will also be shown how without this knowledge incompatible
techniques for repair can be adopted which can cause damages under
seismic events.

1. INTRODUCTION
An extensive research has been carried out by the authors within the
frame of National contracts supporting the study of vulnerability of historic
centres in Italy [1]. Buildings and dwellings of these centres were not
declared as monuments and for a long time were considered as “minor”
architectures; hence to them the preservation principles were not applied.
This caused the application of heavy repair techniques which turned out to
be incompatible with the original structures and materials causing high
damages under the last earthquakes [2].
The structural performance of a masonry can be understood provided
the following factors are known: (i) its geometry; (ii) the characteristics of

20
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

its texture (single or multiple leaf walls, connection between the leaves);
(iii) the physical, chemical and mechanical characteristics of the
components (brick, stone, mortar); (iv) the characteristics of masonry as a
composite material [3].
The worst defect for a masonry wall is to show no monolithic behaviour
in the lateral direction; this can happen for instance when the wall is made
by small pebbles or by two external leaves even well ordered but not
mutually connected, sometime containing a rubble infill. This causes the
wall to become more brittle particularly when external forces act in the
horizontal direction. The same problem can happen under vertical loads if
they act eccentrically [4].
A systematic survey of the buildings allow the authors to classify their
typology according also to their structural behaviour under in-plane and
out-of-plane actions during seismic events; this is a way to avoid the
application of inappropriate mathematical models to verify their safety
state and to choose appropriate repair techniques.
The investigation on masonry textures also allow to classify the wall
morphology. It is worth to remark that textures appearing regular on the
external surface of a wall often correspond disordered arrangement in the
section (Fig. 1). Therefore, a correct analysis of the mechanical behaviour
of existing masonry structures, especially when multi-leaf walls are
present, can not disregard the proper investigation of the arrangement of
materials in the thickness of the wall itself.

Regular texture Irregular courses

Figure 1: Masonry textures and sections

A classification of historic masonry walls has also been carried out in

different Italian Regions according to the construction technique. The wall
sections were carefully surveyed and subdivided as single and multiple leaf
masonry sections according not only to the number of leaves but also to the
connections between the leaves. In the meantime the masonry elements

21
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

(stones, bricks, mortars) were characterised in laboratory and the masonry

were tested on site by flat-jack and sonic tests.
A Data Base has been also prepared containing the masonry prospects
and sections and their characteristics.

2. BUILDING TYPOLOGIES
The mathematical models used to detect the load carrying capacity of
the masonry constructions should take into account the many different
types of structures which are representative of the building function:
houses (isolated, in rows, etc.), palaces, churches, towers, castles,
fortifications, etc.
Each type has its own behaviour under the external actions. Frequently
they suffer from structural damages typical of the special typology. For
example a crack pattern denoting damage under compression is typical of
heavy structures as towers, bell towers, fortified walls, church pillars, etc.
When this type of damage is present, the vulnerability of the building to
synergetic external actions can be high. The lack of maintenance can also
increase the vulnerability level of the structure causing damages to the
timber structural elements as floors and roofs; in these cases the structure
can partially or totally collapse under events like earthquakes or floods. Also
other elements as vaults and arches can show damages due to lack of
maintenance.
The mechanisms of damage and failure under horizontal actions are
different for different type of structures. According to their behaviour it is
possible to distinguish: isolated buildings, row houses, complex
agglomerates of houses frequently found in historic centres, with a
complex volumetric evolution [5].
A classification of the main types of masonry structures is proposed in Fig.
2. According to the complexity of the structure and also of its eventual
evolution in time the model must simulate the right structural behaviour.
Each of the classes needs appropriate models for calculation. Input data
necessary to the model can only come from a careful investigation on site
aimed to know the geometry, the technique of construction, the evolution
of the structure along the time, the crack pattern survey and the damage
survey; a laboratory investigation is also needed to characterise the
materials. The choice of the appropriate analytical models strongly

22
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

Type A) Type B) Row Houses Type C) Palaces

Isolated houses
and/or dwellings

Consoli Palace in
Ms7 axonometric Sel UMI 23 – axonometric view Gubbio
Type D) Type E) Arenas
Bell-Towers

The
Torrazzo
of
Cremona

plan section
The Colosseum in Rome
Type F) Churches and Cathedrals

F1) Churches: F2) Churches: central plan

plan based on latin cross scheme

S. Maria del
Fiore: plan Gothic Cathedral San Vitale: plan and axonometry

Figure 2: Building typologies

depends on the level of knowledge, on the complexity of the structure and

on the types of actions acting on it.

3. UNSUCCESSFUL REPAIR CAUSED BY LACK OF

KNOWLEDGE
The relevant damages surveyed in stone-masonry buildings after the
Umbria-Marche earthquake (1997-98), together with the contributions of
several theoretical and experimental studies carried out in the '90s have
confirmed the need of improving the knowledge of the seismic response of
old masonry buildings and the need of reliable retrofitting techniques. The
1997 earthquake was not so much destructive to leave only ruins. The
damages caused to non repaired and repaired buildings could be used to
learn a better approach to modelling and retrofitting of stone masonry
structures [5]. The effects of the event have shown that in several cases the
adopted structural models were not adequate and the retrofitting techniques
had not provided the expected effects. The earthquake stressed, in fact, the

23
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

cases of incompatibility between the existing damaged structure and the way
the repair technique were applied. Most of the failures were due to lack of
knowledge of the materials and of the construction details and this caused a
wrong choice of the technique of repair but they were also due to a poor
application of the technique caused by lack of skill [1], [2], [6], [7].
Some failures of application of modern repair techniques are discussed
in the following.

3.1 Substitution of timber floors and use of concrete tie beams.

Concrete ties, floors and roofs were frequently adopted to substitute
timber floors and roofs. The tie is positioned along the four sides of the
structure as a connection floor to walls. In an existing building, the ties at
each floor can only be inserted in a limited part of the wall section after
partial demolition of it. In this case it is very difficult to realise a stiff
connection to the existing wall. In general this connection is even more
difficult when the wall is made of a multiple leaf irregular stone masonry. Fig.
3 shows the effects of the tie insertion under an earthquake.
The damages observed more frequently were the following: (i) partial
eccentric loading of the walls (Fig. 3) [6], (ii) lack or poor connection of
the tie beam to the walls [8].
The seismic events, then, showed that these elements cannot transmit
the horizontal actions to the walls, neither can connect the two masonry
leaves, of which one remains free and can rotate freely and overturn [7]. In
Figure 4 the flux of stresses is qualitatively represented: a) after
excavation, b) after positioning of the tie beam, c) under out of plane
action.

Figure 3: Failure of the tie beam insertion at each Figure 4: Failure of

floor under vertical and horizontal actions [6]. the repair under out
of plane actions.

24
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

The most frequent collapse mechanism of the masonry is not for in plane
shear as expected after the floor substitution, but a partial overturning
mechanism of the external leaf of the wall which starts for lower values of
the expected collapse coefficient.

3.2 Grout injection.

Repair and retrofitting of the masonry walls is extensively performed by
grout injections, which for years have been considered as a suitable
technique to restore the homogeneity, uniformity of strength and continuity
of masonry walls.
In general, the aims of the technique are: (i) to fill large and small voids
and cracks increasing the continuity of the masonry and hence its strength,
(ii) to fill the gaps between two or more leaves of a wall, when they are
badly connected.
The aim can be fulfilled only knowing with good precision: (i) the
morphology of the wall section, (ii) the materials constituting the wall and
their composition in order to avoid chemical and physical incompatibility
with the grout, (iii) the crack distribution, (iv) the size, percentage and
distribution of voids [8], [9].
The main problems connected to the grout injection can be summarised
as follows: a) the lack of knowledge on the size distribution of voids in the
wall, b) the difficulty of the grout to penetrate into thin cracks (2-3 mm),
even if microfine binders are used; c) the presence in the wall of fine and
large size voids, which makes difficult choosing the most suitable grain
size of the grout (injecting large size voids with a fine grained mix can in
fact induce segregation); d) the segregation and shrinkage of the grout due
to the high rate of absorption of the material to be consolidated; e) the
difficulty of grout penetration, especially in presence of silty or clayey
materials but also of any type of loose materials (in Fig. 5 a failed injection
is shown); f) the need for sufficiently low injection pressure to avoid either
air trapping within the cracks and fine voids or even wall disruption.
Multiple leaf walls can be made with very poor mortars and stones but
have very low percentage of voids (a wall with less than 4% of voids is not
injectable) and have internal filling with loose material, which is not
injectable [9]. Figs 6, 7 show two of the cases where injection was very
poor.

25
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

Figure 5: Failed injection Figure 6: Poor results Figure 7: Only some

in a laboratory specimen, of applied injection. spots were injected in
which contained loose the case of this wall
material. with a very low
percentage of voids.

New grouts with specific properties such as a low salt content and a
ultra fine size of the aggregate and the improvement of the technology of
injection such as the injection pressure or the distance between the
injectors, in function of the masonry characteristics, have brought in the
last years to better results.

3.3 Wall and pier jacketing

The aim of the technique is to connect better the different leaves of a
wall in damaged conditions producing a new section constituted by the old
one increased by the two jacketed reinforced parts. The idea behind it is to
have a thicker section and to increase compressive, tensile and shear
strength and ductility [10]. The same technique has also been applied to
connect load-bearing and shear walls and large cracks, as well. The
technique consists in positioning a reinforcing net (φ= 6 to 8mm) on both
faces of a wall, connecting the two nets with frequent steel connectors and
applying on the two faces a cement mortar based rendering, which
constitutes a sort of slab.
This technique was largely applied particularly to irregular multiple leaf
stone- walls in Italy and it was recommended by the Italian Code.
Nevertheless, its execution on site is not very easy due to the inhomogeneity
of the walls, to the cost and difficulty of connecting the two faces of the
wall. Figure 8 shows how the technique can be wrongly applied in case of

26
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

Figure 8: Difficulty in the application of jacketing to

multiple leaf stone masonry.

stone-works. In some cases the connectors cannot be continuous through the

wall which will easily separate under vertical and horizontal actions.

4. MASONRY MORPHOLOGY
When considering the mechanical and more generally the physical
behaviour of masonry structures it should not only be remembered that
masonry is a non homogeneous material, but that there are many types of
masonries. In fact the differences are not only given by the use of materials
according to the local possibilities (stones, bricks, earth, various types of
mortars, etc.) but also due to various construction technologies.
Furthermore when modelling the behaviour of a masonry structure the
complexity of its geometry and volumes makes difficult the choice of an
appropriate model [5].
Therefore, given the great number of existing masonries, a systematic
study of the mechanical behaviour of brick- and stonework masonry should
begin from an extensive investigation of the different geometry and
building techniques taking into account the number of leaves often
constituting a wall and the kind of constraints which may or may not be
present between the leaves themselves. In fact the ancient building
techniques and particularly those adopted in the poorer architecture still
need to be carefully investigated.
An extensive research was carried out and is still in progress in different
Italian regions [8], studying brick and stonework walls of buildings, the
internal cross sections of which could be inspected; the operation can be
more easily conducted in those areas where the buildings were damaged by
the earthquake and have not yet been repaired [11].

27
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

The geometrical survey consists of a graphic and photographic

procedure which includes taking a picture with a camera having the lens of
50 mm, using a tripod in order to ensure the parallelism between the plane
of the picture and that of the wall section. The metric survey of the walls is
then graphically reproduced on a PC, so that it is possible to calculate the
percentage of voids, bricks (stones) and mortar (Fig.9).
A Data Base was produced containing more than 300 masonry sections
from various Italian Regions (Lombardia, Friuli, Liguria, Basilicata,
Trentino, Toscana, Umbria, Sicily) [3]. The survey of the wall sections
allowed to define some important parameters like: (i) the percentage
distribution of stones, mortar, voids which allows to make comparisons
between the percentage of materials and voids for the different Regions
(Fig. 10); (ii) the ratio between the dimensions of the different layers and
that between the dimension of each layer and the whole cross section; the
dimension and distribution of voids in the cross section. These parameters,
together with the chemical, physical and mechanical properties of the
materials give the possibility of better describing the masonry and
constitute a fundamental basis for the mathematical modelling and for the
appropriate choice of repair techniques.
y [%]
uenc
WALL SECTION Freq
90
Geometrical survey Distribution of stones, mortar and voids in the
detail wall section 80
100

80
70
60 60
[%]

40
50
20

0
40
% Stone % Mortar % Voids
30
Distribution of the voids dimension (cm2) 20
0 .2 5

10
0 .2 0

0 .1 5
0
Lombardia

Veneto

Friuli

Trentino

Liguria

stone

0 .1 0
Emila Romagna

Toscana

mortar
Umbria

Sicilia

voids

0 .0 5

0 .0 0
Region
1 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 0 0 .0 0

Figure 9: Form representing the Figure 10: Percentage of mortar

wall section and the void vs. percentage of stones referred
calculation [11] to the area of the cross section of
stonework walls in various
Italian regions

28
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

5. THE BEHAVIOUR OF MULTIPLE LEAF STONE-MASONRY

WALLS
It is clear that there is a real need of classification of the most common
different types of sections, since the behaviour of masonry highly depends
on the technique of construction which is shown from the prospects, but
better from the sections. This was clearly emphasised by the ancient
treaties (e.g. Rondelet and Breymann treaties), where the masonry was
classified considering both the aspects. In fact the prospect is not revealing
how the masonry section is built and to the same type of prospect there
may correspond different types of sections (Fig.1) [12].
The first results of the before mentioned investigation showed the
presence of four main types of sections in stone masonry: a) single leaf or
solid, b) two leaves without connection, c) two leaves with connection, d)
three leaves (Fig. 11). The systematic investigation on the morphology of
masonry sections on the Italian territory was started in the early nineties by
L. Binda and her collaborators [8], [13], as a necessity to define some
guidelines for repair by grout injection, following studies on mortars and
grout for repair [8], [9] and more recently modelling the multiple leaf walls
behaviour [14].

a) b) c) d)
Figure 11 - Classification of the cross sections of stonework walls:
a) a single leaf; b) two leaves without connection; c) two leaves with
connection d) three leaves.

Contemporarily Giuffrè carried out in the early '90s [4] the first studies
about the mechanical behaviour of the stonework masonry typologies
based on visual inspection to recognise characteristics of the "rule of art".
The studies were part of a more general analysis on the vulnerability of
some historical centres like Ortigia, Palermo [4], [15]. In each case the

29
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

local masonry typologies and materials were carefully studied and reported
in an abacus. The presence of some characteristics, like the connection
elements called diatons, can be a discriminating parameter for the
evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of the wall.
Other parameters can be: dimension of the elements, shape and workability
of the stones, masonry texture, mortar quality, mortar quantity, presence of
wedges, presence of clear horizontal courses, presence of diatons,
characteristic of the section. Each masonry behaviour is then qualitatively
evaluated.
Giuffrè [4], [15] proposed a classification based on a parameter which
indicates the ratio of the distance “d” between two subsequent diatons to the
thickness “s” of the masonry wall. The parameter is representative of the
bending resistance of the wall.
The study of the masonry section can have different aims with respect to
diagnosis and repair. One of the most delicate parts of the study concerns the
structural analysis with numerical methods to which a detailed survey of the
wall and building geometry can provide important input data.
The study carried out by L. Binda and others [3], [8], [13] led from the
initial simple classification of Figure 11 to a subsequent more refined
classification based on the number of different leaves and on the type of
constraint between them (Fig. 12). Whereas the first kind of classification
allows to evaluate the injectability of the wall, the second one allows to
formulate important hypothesis on the mechanical behaviour of the
masonry. Figure 13 represents the connection between the walls surveyed
by L. Binda and the mechanical models of Giuffrè [16]

6. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SECTION MORPHOLOGY

The described damages (sec. 3) enhance the necessity of a deep
knowledge of masonry morphology before planning the structural
intervention [17].
The usual approach to characterise the masonry section requires drilling
cores. Nevertheless, the results are frequently very poor. Coring should be
done with a rotary driller using a diamond cutting edge. This operation is
rather simple but has limits. The drilled core is usually very decohesioned
(Fig. 14) so it is almost impossible to detect the quality of the original

30
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

Figure 12: Classification of stone Figure 13: Qualitative behaviour of a

masonries [3] single and multiple leaf stone masonry

Figure 14: Drilling core phases Figure 15: Core reconstruction

materials. The mortars are powdered by the invasivity of the operation and
removed by the water use to cool the driller. Inside the boreholes

31
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

additional investigations can be made by the use of borescopy. A small

camera may be inserted into the borehole allowing a detailed study of its
surface and try a reconstruction of the wall section. The coring results
often show an apparent absence of mortar (Fig. 15). This fact is frequently
the origin of the exaggerate use of grout injection. Furthermore no
information is given on the organisation of the masonry texture in the
section. It should in fact be remembered that boroscopy can only give a
general stratigraphy of the section. In order to understand the morphology of
a masonry wall it is much more important a direct inspection. When possible
it can be performed by removing few bricks or stones, surveying
photographically and drawing the section of the wall.

7. CONCLUSION
As in the case of conservation of monumental buildings, compatible
repair techniques and materials have to be applied even to dwellings.
The knowledge of the structure typology, of the masonry morphology
and of the material chemical, physical and mechanical properties, is
necessary through an onsite and laboratory investigation carried out on
each building.
The repair and retrofitting techniques have to be properly chosen
according to the structure and material characteristics. There is not one
single technique for the masonry or for the structural elements, but only the
most appropriate choice for every structure or masonry typology. The
proposed classification of masonry sections has the aim of showing the
differences of brick and stone masonries constructed in different times and
sites. When implementing constitutive laws for the structural analysis of
masonry structures these differences should be taken into account, because
they produce certainly different mechanical behaviour of the masonry
elements. Even if at the end homogenised models will be applied, it will
not be possible to have a unique generally valid model. The model has to
be previously adjusted to the masonry morphology
5. References
1. Binda, L., Cardani, G., Saisi A., Modena, C. and Valluzzi, M.R., ‘Multilevel
approach to the analysis of the historical buildings: application to four centers
in seismic area finalised to the evaluation of the repair and strengthening

32
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

techniques’, Proc. of an int. conf., (13th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Rai,
Amsterdam, 4-7/7/2004).
2. Penazzi, D., Valluzzi, M.R., Cardani, G., Binda, L., Baronio, G. and Modena,
C., ‘Behaviour of Historic Masonry Buildings in Seisimic Areas: Lessons
Learned from the Umbria-Marche Earthquake’, Proc. of an int. conf., Madrid,
Spain, 2000 (12th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Madrid, 2000) 217-235.
3. Binda, L., Penazzi, D. and Saisi, A., ‘Historic Masonry Buildings: Necessity
of a Classification of Structures and Masonries for the Adequate Choice of
Analytical Models’, Proc. of an Int. Symp. (STRUMAS-6th Symp. Computer
Methods in Structural Masonry, Roma, 2003) 168-173.
4. Giuffrè, A., ‘Sicurezza e conservazione dei centri storici: Il caso Ortigia’,
(Editrice Laterza, Bari, 1993).
5. Modena, C., Valluzzi, M.R., Binda, L., Cardani, G. and Saisi, A.,
‘Vulnerability of historical centres in seismic area: reliability of assessment
methods for different building typologies’, Proc. of Int. Conf., (13th Int.
Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Rai, Amsterdam, 4-7/7/2004), CD-ROM, 2004.
6. Borri, A. and De Maria, ‘Alcune considerazioni in materia di analisi e di
interventi sugli edifici in muratura in zona sismica’, Proc. of a national conf.,
(XI Congresso Nazionale L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Genova, 25-
29/1/2004).
7. Binda, L., Cardani, G., Penazzi, D. and Saisi, A., ‘Performance of some repair
and strengthening techniques applied to historical stone masonries is seismic
areas’, Proc. of an int. conf., (ICPCM a New Era of Building, Cairo, Egypt,
18-20/2/2003), 2, 1195-1204.
8. Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G. and Abbaneo, S., ‘Repair and
investigation techniques for stone masonry walls’, Construction and Building
Materials, 11(3), (1997), 133-142.
9. Binda, L., Modena, C. and Baronio, G. ‘Strengthening of masonries by
injection technique’, Proc. of an int. conf., (6th North American Masonry
Conf., Philadelphia, USA, 1993), I, 1-14.
10. Laefer, D., Baronio, G., Anzani, A. and Binda, L., ‘Measurement of grout
injection efficacy for stone masonry walls’, Proc. of an int. conf., (7th North
American Masonry Conf., Notre Dame, USA, 1996), 1, 484-496.
11. Modena, C., Zavarise, G. and Valluzzi, M.R., ‘Modelling of stone masonry
walls strengthened by r.c. jackets’, Proc. of an int. Symp, (STRUMAS – 4th
Int. Symp. on Computer Methods in Structural Masonry, Florence, Italy,
1997), 285-292.
12. Binda, L., Baronio, G., Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. and Modena, C.,
‘Masonry constructions in seismic areas of central Italy: a multi-level
approach to conservation’, Proc. of an int. conf., (8th North American
Masonry Conf., Austin, USA, 1999), 44-55.
13. Hendry, A. W., ‘Aspects of stability and strength of stone masonry
structures’, Proc. of the 3rd Int. Masonry Conf., The British Masonry Society,
(6), March (1994).
14. Binda, L. (editor), ‘Caratterizzazione delle murature in pietra e mattoni ai fini
dell'individuazione di opportune tecniche di riparazione, (CNR-Gruppo

33
 International RILEM Workshop on Repair Mortars for Historic Masonry
Delft, The Netherlands, 26th - 28th January 2005

Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma 2000)

http://gndt.ingv.it/Pubblicazioni/Binda_copertina_con_intestazione.htm
15. Valluzzi, M.R., Da Porto, F. and Modena, C. (2004). ‘Behavior and modeling
of strengthened three-leaf stone masonry walls’, RILEM Materials and
Structures, MS 267, 37, April (2004), 184-192.
16. Giuffrè, A. and Carocci, C., ‘Codice di pratica per la sicurezza e la
conservazione del centro storico di Palermo’, (Laterza, Bari, 1999).
17. Binda, L., Fontana, A. and Mirabella, G., ‘Mechanical behaviour and stress
distribution in multiple-leaf walls’, Proc. of an int. conf., (10th Int.
Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Calgary, 1994), 1, 51-59.
18. Binda, L., Cardani, G., Saisi, A., Modena, C., Valluzzi, M.R. and Marchetti
L., (2004), ‘Guidelines for Restoration and Improvement of Historical
Centers in Seismic Regions: the Umbria Experience’, Proc. of an int. conf.,
(IV Int. Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, Padova
10-12/11/2004), 1061-1068.

34