PSI - Issue 78

Anna Lo Monaco et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 544–551

545

1. Introduction and research purposes The assessment of seismic risk of existing buildings is a crucial step for guiding preservation strategies, prioritizing interventions, and informing public policies. Over the years, various methodologies have been developed to evaluate vulnerability and risk at different scales and levels of detail, ranging from large-area screening tools to in-depth structural models. These approaches differ in scope, required data, and intended use: some are designed for rapid territorial assessments, while others support detailed seismic analyses of individual buildings (Lo Monaco et al. , 2024). The Italian Guideline framework (DPM, 2011) outlines a multilevel analytical methodology (Levels LV1 , LV2 , LV3 ) for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings with architectural and cultural value. LV1 is a large-scale screening level, relying on macro-element classification and simplified indices; LV2 includes local kinematic analyses of individual structural elements (macro-elements); LV3 involves a global structural model to capture the global seismic response and interaction between elements. Some applications of the methodology are reported in (D’Amato and Sulla, 2021; Lo Monaco et al. , 2023a, 2023b, 2025; Ranaldo et al. , 2025). Complementing this approach, a simplified pre-assessment level, LV0, has been introduced for preliminary screening without requiring on-site data collection (D’Amato et al. , 2019; D’Amato et al. , 2020). LV0 considers multiple hazards to evaluate an indicator of hazard H and combine it with a vulnerability indicator V , computing a risk indicator R . The multidisciplinary approach is also present in (MIT, 2020), a 5-level risk assessment on existing bridges. Empirical methods are also widely applied. The original Benedetti – Petrini method (Benedetti and Petrini, 1984) evaluates vulnerability through a form containing no. 11 structural parameters, each scored and weighted to compute a vulnerability index ( I V ). This method has been extended in (Apostol, 2020; Mosoarca et al. , 2020; Onescu et al. , 2024), by calculating an I V,CULT to better reflect the complexity of cultural heritage. At a broader scale, statistical and GIS-based approaches, such as those used in the Tuscany Region (Bacci and Di Marco, 2019, 2020), integrate census data with surveyed building characteristics to estimate hazard, vulnerability, and exposure indices. Risk is calculated through additive or matrix-based models, depending on the level of analysis (regional, municipal, or urban). The GNDT methodology (GNDT - Italian Group for the defense against earthquakes, 1994), widely used in Italy, combines vulnerability data from standardized forms ( Levels I and Level II ) with damage scenarios, allowing for calibration of fragility functions and statistical interpretation. International contributions include a three-level Canadian method (Fathi-Fazl et al. , 2020) structured as a decision tree, progressively filtering buildings based on performance criteria. Recent methodologies (Saccucci and Pelliccio, 2022) also integrate digital tools such as 3D modelling, BIM, and photogrammetry, enabling detailed virtual simulations of structural behavior under seismic action. The reviewed methodologies demonstrate the growing importance of multilevel and multicriteria frameworks in seismic risk assessment for cultural heritage. They established a foundation for the development of a new methodology object of this work, tailored to the risk assessment of existing masonry churches. 2. Methodology developed This work presents the first results of ongoing research aiming at developing a new multilevel and multicriteria methodology for risk assessment on cultural heritage, with particular attention to the seismic behavior assessment of existing masonry churches. More specifically, since the new framework intends to address the European churches, Italian and Romanian churches are investigated as case studies to validate the procedure. Five levels of assessment are considered, characterized as reported in Table 1. Each assessment level is accompanied by a form suitable for the information required to assess the parameters of hazard, vulnerability and exposure (and thus risk). The higher the level of analysis, the more detailed the information needed, as well as the documentation to be consulted and the actions required. The forms are developed based on forms in the literature (as the Italian GNDT, AeDES, A-DC model and CARTIS ones). The parameters of hazard, vulnerability, exposure and risk are evaluated according to a score and class method. There are no. 5 classes used, ranging from Low to High. The score assessment is necessary for prioritizing churches