PSI - Issue 78

Vincenzo Calvanese et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1134–1142

1137

deteriorated over time, the application of technologies derived from various scientific fields, and even authentic replanting of vegetation. All these works require in-depth knowledge, beginning with surveys and diagnostic investigations, and involving ongoing monitoring during the works, aimed at identifying areas at risk of collapse and heritage degradation. The study of the pattern of cracks is fundamental for understanding the various actions that have affected the archaeological structures: ancient and recent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, subsidence, wartime bombardments, and deterioration due to lack of maintenance. This knowledge is essential for selecting the appropriate intervention to protect such a complex heritage. Compared to typical historical buildings, the design process for archaeological sites is significantly more intricate, Zuchtriegel et al. (2024). The structural detailing for such sites presents challenges, primarily due to the often concealed nature of their foundational and subterranean elements. The real dimensions, the actual degradation level, and the connection types of these buried structures frequently remain unknown until extensive excavation is undertaken. This poses a considerable problem because such vital information is often unavailable during the initial design phase. For these unique structures, prioritizing the conservation of the historical fabric's authenticity is paramount. The design process, as illustrated in the flowchart (see Fig. 2), highlights that certain design activities can only be finalized after comprehensive non-destructive testing. This testing, in some cases, can only be conducted during the execution of works. The ultimate design is thus informed by the outcomes of diagnostic campaigns that accurately identify the existing damage and the load-bearing capacity of walls and foundations, reference by Calvanese and Zambrano (2021). Crucially, knowledge of material characteristics is sometimes acquired solely through excavation during the construction phase. In other instances, the efficacy of masonry rehabilitation takes precedence in the design and is assessed throughout the execution of the project. This fundamental data, gathered during the construction phase, enables the refinement of the structural model and the creation of a definitive detailed design.

Fig. 2 The Design Approach

As depicted in the flowchart (see Fig. 2), the process begins with a preliminary executive design, informed by an initial diagnostic campaign, a thorough literature review, and documentation studies. Subsequently, during construction and after an assessment of rehabilitation efforts within the construction period, diagnostic survey allow to optimize the design, reference by Zambrano et al. (2024). In fact, another experimental campaign is often carried out to assesses the effectiveness of the interventions, identifies any remaining weak points in the structure, and facilitates the design of localized repairs where the desired level of rehabilitation has been achieved. Consequently, the final structural details are determined once a target quality of the masonry is attained and the efficiency of the connections is verified through experimental testing. The refined structural model then allows for sensitivity analyses and a thorough check of the effectiveness of both the repairs and the proposed solutions. It is then essential the monitoring over time.