PSI - Issue 78

Matilde Natalizi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 449–456

453

a)

b)

Fig. 2. Percentage distribution of buildings typologies according Table 1: for a) Norcia and b) Arquata del Tronto.

slabs with rigid ones, to support diaphragm behavior in the plane were planned. Therefore, these results demonstrate the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing the vulnerability of

masonry buildings to seismic events, as confirmed in Central Italy 2016 earthquake. 5. Strategies for seismic risk mitigation for the municipality of Arquata del Tronto

Considering the traditional consolidation interventions implemented in Norcia, such as the insertion of tie rods, interventions to improve the quality of the masonry, for example Reinforced Composite Mortar (CRM), and floor stiffening, it can be seen that these modify the parameters that define the typology according to the AeDES form (as explained in Chapter 3). It can therefore be assumed that these interventions result in a change of structural typology. For example, a building initially classified as type 6B (i.e. bad quality of masonry, without tie rods and rigid slab) would become type 6C upon the insertion of tie rods (same masonry, with tie rods and rigid slab). If a CRM intervention is then applied, the building would shift to type 6E (good quality of masonry with tie rods and rigid slab). The adopted method allows rapid assessment of the benefits of structural intervention on masonry buildings. Due to the low computational burden required, this approach is particularly suitable for realistic large-scale predictions of seismic vulnerability reduction strategies. This section presents an application to the to the previously analyzed building stock of Arquata del Tronto, whose geometric characteristics (number of floors, height of inter-floor and average surface area) are known, as well as the percentage distribution of the different structural typologies in the sample. In order to perform a cost-benefit analysis, it is also necessary to consider unit intervention costs, assumed with reference to the Marche Region price list of 2024. The evaluation of the , in the case of seismic risk analysis, or ( ) , for scenario analysis, should be performed with the methodology of Sect. 2, where, to quantify economic losses, the following formula is applied: = ∙ ∙ ∙ ( ) = ∙ ( ) (6) = ∙ ∙ ∙ = ∙ (7) where is the unit cost per square meter equal to 1350 €/m 2 (Dolce et al., 2020), is the average floor area, is the average floor number, while is the typology total cost (in euros).