PSI - Issue 78

Valentina Buonocunto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 169–176

172

2b. This finding is consistent with the historical use of local stone materials, particularly in central and southern Italy, where industrial brick production only became widespread in the second half of the 20th century.

Table 1. C rresp n ence etween ‘CA TIS’ an C mmentary N . /201 mas nry types . Type of masonry according to CARTIS database (Zuccaro et al., 2015)

Type of masonry according to Commentary n.7/2019 (MIT, 2019)

A1 – Irregular stone masonry (with pebbles erratic and irregular stone units)

Irregular stone masonry

A2 – Irregular stone masonry (with pebbles erratic and irregular stone units)

Roughly cut stone masonry with non-homogeneous thickness

B1 – Roughly cut stone masonry

Irregular stone masonry with soft stone

B2 – Roughly cut stone masonry with good bond

Roughly cut stone masonry with good bonding

C1 – Ashlar masonry with regular squared blocks and mortar joints

Ashlar masonry with regular squared blocks (Tuff masonry)

C2 – Solid fined clay bricks

Solid/Semi-solid fined clay bricks

11

A1

2

1 1 1 1 1

A2

1

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2

1

2

10

C1

C2

1

1

12

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Distribution of buildings by (a) age of construction and (b) masonry type. Over time, a gradual shift from irregular to more regular and engineered masonry types can be observed. In buildings constructed before 1919, A2 masonry represents 58% of the stock, while regular types such as C2 (solid clay brick masonry) account for only 23%. This trend is progressively reversed in newer buildings, with C2 reaching 86% of the masonry stock in the post-1981 class. The evolution of masonry typologies across construction periods is illustrated in Figures 3a through to 3f. This transformation reflects industrial advancements, the introduction of more stringent building codes, and greater availability of standardized construction materials. The reduction in the presence of irregular masonry also improves compatibility with modern seismic design criteria In addition to the temporal evolution of masonry typologies, a significant correlation emerges with the geographic and demographic characteristics of municipalities. For this purpose, the dataset was disaggregated based on two key parameters: • Altitude class, defined as follows:

o Plain municipalities: altitude below 300 m above sea level. o Hilly municipalities: altitude between 300 m and 600 m. o Mountain municipalities: altitude above 600 m. o Small municipalities: population under 2,000 inhabitants.

• Demographic class, defined by total resident population: