PSI - Issue 78

Cristoforo Demartino et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 2126–2132

2127

1. Introduction

In seismically active countries, school buildings are widely recognized as critical infrastructure — not only for their educational function, but also due to their role as emergency shelters and community hubs in the aftermath of earthquakes. In Italy, this dual function is particularly significant, as the country sits within the Mediterranean seismic belt and experiences frequent moderate-to-severe seismic events. According to ISTAT and MIUR data, the national school stock comprises more than 50,000 buildings, with over 60% constructed prior to the introduction of seismic codes, Sergiovanni et al. 1999, Coleman 1988. Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of schools in Italy. The structural fragility of this building stock is well documented. However, recent earthquakes have drawn attention to a second, equally important dimension of risk: the performance of nonstructural elements (NSEs), such as infill walls, ceilings, partitions, mechanical systems, and furnishings. Failures of these components have been shown to cause injuries, block evacuation routes, and severely impair the usability of school facilities, even in the absence of structural collapse. A tragic example occurred in 2008 at Darwin High School in Rivoli, where the detachment of a suspended ceiling caused the death of a student and injured several others, De Angelis et al. 2015. Beyond safety concerns, nonstructural damage also has critical implications for functional continuity, a key consideration in school buildings which must remain operational not only for education but also for emergency management. Italian technical codes (NTC 2018) classify schools as Importance Class III or IV, recognizing their essential role in post-earthquake response and requiring higher performance levels for both structural and nonstructural systems, Ministero Delle Infrastrutture E Dei Trasporti 2018. This paper presents a critical overview of methods used for the assessment and mitigation of seismic risk in nonstructural elements of Italian school buildings. Drawing upon national databases, research projects, and case studies, the paper highlights observed damage, current assessment practices, retrofitting solutions, and decision making frameworks. Particular emphasis is placed on identifying knowledge gaps and outlining actionable strategies for improving seismic safety in school environments

Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of schools in Italy (a) and cumulative school area exposed to varying seismic hazard levels (b). Authors ’ elaboration based on school data from and PGA for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years without any soil or topograph

2. Observed damage in structural and non-structural components

The Italian school building stock includes a wide range of structural typologies, from unreinforced masonry constructions dating back to the early 20th century, to reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures typical of the post war economic expansion. Many of these buildings were not designed to resist lateral loads and suffer from poor