PSI - Issue 78

Maria Eleonora Pipistrelli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1911–1918

1915

Figure 3: crack pattern survey developed for the corner S.U.: (a) north side; (b) east side.

From the historical analysis of the corner S.U. (see Fig. 4-a) it was possible to define all the materials typologies for the walls and all the floor typologies. Figure 4-b schematically shows the types of floor systems and their corresponding layouts identified for the corner S.U. and the adjacent portions of the aggregate. Timber floors with tiles rest directly on the masonry without anchorage or perimeter ties and are in visibly poor condition. Some steel tie rods found at mid-height likely reflect previous, localized stabilization attempts. It can be observed that, in some levels of the buildings, the materials used for the floor structures are similar, supporting the hypothesis of a likely shared historical development. Masonry types are schematically represented in Fig. 4-c, following the categories given in Italian technical standards. More variability is observed compared to the floor systems, both in terms of construction technique and materials. This suggests a sequence of demolition, reconstruction, and vertical extension interventions over the years, which may have led the S.U. to acquire its own configuration, disconnected from that of the adjacent units. It is also important to remark that the buildings surrounding the perimeter of the corner unit have undergone more extensive structural consolidation measures, including reconstruction with higher-strength masonry and the addition of reinforcement systems such as tie rods and buttresses.

Figure 4: 3D schematic representation of the corner S.U.: (a) historical expansions; (b) floor typologies; (c) wall materials