See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363891421

Seismic retrofit of a RC school building with traditional and innovative

techniques

Conference Paper · September 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 107

7 authors, including:

Milena Casto Daniele Perrone

University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia Università del Salento
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    120 PUBLICATIONS   1,284 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roberto Nascimbene Maria Antonietta Aiello

University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia Università del Salento
156 PUBLICATIONS   3,192 CITATIONS    209 PUBLICATIONS   4,470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings and interaction with infill panels View project

CADS - Creazione di un Ambiente Domestico Sicuro (Development of a safe living environment) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Milena Casto on 28 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & SEISMOLOGY
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA, 2022

Seismic retrofit of a RC school building with traditional and innovative

techniques
Milena Casto - University School for advances studies, Pavia, Italy, e-mail: milena.casto@iusspavia.it
Fabio Menardo - ISAAC Antisismica, Milano, Italy, e-mail: fabio.menardo@isaacsrl.com
Matteo Rosti - ISAAC Antisismica, Milano, Italy, e-mail: matteo.rosti@isaacsrl.com
Daniele Perrone – University of Salento, Lecce, Italy, e-mail: daniele.perrone@unisalento.it
Giuseppe Antonino Mesiano - University of Salento, Lecce, Italy, e-mail: giuseppe.mesiano@unisalento.it
Roberto Nascimbene - University School for advances studies, Pavia, Italy, e-mail:
roberto.nascimbene@iusspavia.it
Maria Antonietta Aiello - University of Salento, Lecce, Italy, e-mail: antonietta.aiello@unisalento.it
Abstract: A large part of the Italian existing building portfolio was not designed according
to seismic code provisions. This study deals with the seismic vulnerability assessment and
retrofit of an existing RC school building located in Lecce, in southern Italy. Two retrofit
solutions have been investigated. In the first retrofit scheme the critical structural elements
were retrofitted using the FRP technique, while in the second retrofit alternative an innovative
system was installed on the roof of the building to control the structural dynamic behaviour.
It is an innovative inertial system acting as Active Vibration Control. The benefits of the two
retrofit solutions have been compared in terms of structural performance by analysing the
global seismic vulnerability as well as acceleration and drift profiles. The results of the study
pointed out the advantages of the innovative technique also in regions characterized by a low
seismic hazard.

Keywords: Seismic vulnerability, retrofit, RC school buildings, Active Mass Damper

1. Introduction

Extensive damage and structural collapse observed in Italian school buildings during past
seismic events, such as 2002 Molise Earthquake (Augenti et al. 2004), 2007 L’Aquila
Earthquake (Ricci et al. 2011), 2012 Emilia Earthquake (Meroni et al. 2017) and 2016
Amatrice Earthquake (Sorrentino et al. 2019), have pointed out the need for seismic risk
mitigation programmes. In the absence of any other constraints, it would clearly be desirable
to upgrade all buildings to the level of seismic resistance required under modern design
provisions (Grant et al. 2007). This would involve seismic assessment of every building,
and, if necessary, retrofit to the code design level. However, even if an unlimited budget was
available, this is a prohibitive process and prioritization scheme should be implemented.
These should identify the most vulnerable building typologies and reduce the earthquake-
related economic losses and casualties through adequate seismic retrofit strategies (Carofilis
et al. 2020). The accurate selection of the more suitable retrofit solutions to achieve the
requirements prescribed by the modern performance-based earthquake engineering
methodologies is not a simple task because many parameters are involved in the retrofit
design and in the performance assessment. In this study, the effectiveness of different retrofit
techniques in the achievement of code requirements was investigated in order to identify the
best retrofit alternative, also for buildings located in regions characterized by low seismicity.
A case study RC school building has been analysed and the improvements in the seismic
performance due to the implementation of a traditional and an innovative retrofit technique
have been investigated.
2. Summary of the case study RC building

2.1. Description of the building

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional and innovative seismic retrofit techniques
a five-storey RC school building was analysed in this study. The building was built in the
middle of 1900, and it is located in the southern Italy (Figure 1). According to the code
provisions available in the construction period, the building was designed only for gravity
loads.

a) b)
Figure 1 – (a) Main front of the building; (b) Posterior facade of the building

The presence of the original drawings allowed to identify all the structural detailing and the
structural material properties. The structural system consists of three RC frames along the
longitudinal direction and two transverse RC frames in lateral sides. The interstorey height
is equal to 3.3m (with the only exception of the ground floor which is characterized by a
height of 3.7m) for a total height of the building equal to 22m. The foundation system is
composed of RC isolated plinths. The structure is composed of four identical modules
separated by thermal joints with a width equal to 5cm. The staircases consist of curved RC
walls connected to the main structure trough transverse RC walls. In this study, only one
module has been analysed because the structural configuration is almost the same for all the
blocks (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Plan view of the case study building.

The original drawings, as well as the in-situ inspections, allowed to identify the dimensions
of the structural elements and the structural detailing. The section of the columns at the
ground floor is 500x500 mm, while it reduces to 300x300 mm at the top floor. The steel
reinforcements in the columns are characterized by a diameter of 22mm (16mm at the top
floor). The stirrups spacing is equal to 250 mm. The dimensions of the beams are more
variable and it was possible to observe both flat and deep beams.
The floor slab system is the so called laterizio system (Bacco, 2009). This floor system was
quite common in Italy for RC buildings built in the 1960s. Based on engineering judgement,
such a floor system was not deemed flexible enough to have a great impact on the structural
analysis results and was therefore assumed rigid. According to the seismic hazard map for
the Italian territory (NTC 2018), the building is located in a low seismic zone characterized
by a design peak ground acceleration on firm soil of about 0.1g.

2.2. Diagnostic and structural detailing

In order to acquire an appropriate level of knowledge in-situ inspections were carried out to
characterize the soil typology as well as the mechanical properties of the structural materials.
Based on data from the geotechnical investigation, a soil type A, according to the NTC 2018
classification, has been assumed. The material properties were taken from the original
drawings and were verified through non-destructive tests. The concrete is characterized by
a compressive strength equal to 25 MPa while steel rebars have a yielding strength equal to
215 MPa (FeB22K). These properties are quite common in the Italian RC building portfolio
built between 1950 and1980 (Verderame et al. 2002, Masi et al. 2014).
According to the Italian Building Code (NTC 2018), based on the level of knowledge
acquired during the in-situ inspections, a confidence factor should be accounted for during
the analyses. Based on the information gained during the in-situ inspections a confidence
coefficient equal 1.20 has been adopted. This confidence coefficient corresponds to a level
of knowledge LC2 according to NCT 2018.

2.3. Numerical modelling and seismic vulnerability

The structure has been modelled in SeismoStruct (Seismosoft 2014), a Finite Elements
software widely adopted to analyse existing RC buildings through static and dynamic non-
linear analyses (Figure 3). To simulate the nonlinear cyclic behaviour of the concrete
elements, the constitutive relationship proposed by Mander et al. (1988) and the cyclic rules
proposed by Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai (1997) were implemented in the numerical
models whereas a bilinear stress-strain model with kinematic strain hardening was chosen
for the steel rebars. The members were modelled using force-based nonlinear structural
elements; the floor slabs were modelled as rigid diaphragms; and the geometric nonlinearity
(P-Δ effects) was also considered.

Figure 3 – 3D Structural model

Non-linear time history analyses (NLTHAs) have been carried out to investigate the
structural performance of the building. Three pairs of accelerograms have been selected for
a return period equal to 475 years (design return period). According to the Italian Code
prescriptions, two ground motions are simultaneously applied in the two main directions. If
the analysis is performed in the longitudinal direction the ground motions applied in the
transverse direction is reduced by a scaling factor equal to 0.3. A similar consideration
applies when the analysis is performed in the transverse direction. Three artificial
accelerograms have been used. They have been created in such a way as to ensure
compatibility with the regulatory spectra for the location of the building. A trapezoidal
envelope was used so as to allow the creation of accelerograms lasting 25 s, with a stationary
part of 10 s. The different time histories were obtained, paying attention that the average
spectral ordinate has a deviation of less than 10% with respect to the corresponding elastic
spectrum component.
Table 1 reports the results of the NLTHAs comparing, for the three ground motions, the peak
ground acceleration of the ground motion (PGAD) with the acceleration at which the life
safety limit state is achieved (PGAC). The parameter zE is the ratio between the PGAC and
the PGAD. The preliminary results reported in Table 1 demonstrate the vulnerability of the
structure and the need for a seismic retrofit, although the structure is located in a low seismic
zone. Table 2 reports the maximum displacements achieved in the two main directions for
each analysis. Analysing the results, it is possible to state that in almost all the cases the
displacement achieved at the top of the building is larger than the dimension of the thermal
joint, this consideration is of paramount importance because, although the building is not
characterized by significant structural deficiencies, pounding effects could be observed.

Table 1. Vulnerability assessment Table 2. Maximum displacement

Accel Direction 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐶 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐷 𝜁𝐸 Accel Direction 𝐷(𝑥)𝑚𝑎𝑥 [𝑚] 𝐷 (𝑦)𝑚𝑎𝑥 [𝑚]

1_Y 30%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 1_Y 30%x- 0,066 0,077

100%y 100%y
1_X 100%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 1_X 100%x- 0,062 0,054
30%y 30%y
2_Y 30%x- 0,067 0,102 0,66 2_Y 30%x- 0,070 0,068
100%y 100%y
2_X 100%x- 0,062 0,102 0,61 2_X 100%x- 0,083 0,046
30%y 30%y
3_Y 30%x- 0,075 0,098 0,76 3_Y 30%x- 0,065 0,066
100%y 100%y
3_X 100%x- 0,045 0,098 0,47 3_X 100%x- 0,098 0,055
30%y 30%y

3. Seismic retrofit solutions

3.1 Traditional retrofitting technique: FRP

The first alternative adopted to improve the seismic performance of the case study structure
consists in strengthening structural elements with fibre reinforced polymers (FRP). The use
of this technique has been extensively experimentally investigated both for RC and URM
structures (Ilki et al., 2004; Marcari et al. 2007). Its application is fast and relatively simple
with low invasiveness that reduces labour cost and time. Additionally, as a lightweight
material, FRP does not modify neither cross sectional properties of elements nor overall
structural stiffness, as explained by Elnashai and Pinho (1998). Furthermore, FRP is less
vulnerable to corrosion in comparison with other materials and its very high tensile strength
provides not only strength improvement, but also a better deformation capacity to structural
members. Many researchers have found that FRP composites applied to the RC members
provide efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness in rehabilitation (Rabinovitch AT AL.
2003, Dong-Suk Yang AT AL. 2008). In Italy, to design the FRP reinforcement the guideline
provided by the National Research Council (CNT DT-200, 2014) can be adopted. In this
study, FRP has been adopted for the strengthening of the critical structural elements
identified in the seismic vulnerability assessment of the existing structure. Damages due to
shear stresses and bending stresses has been observed. The identified critical columns and
beams have been reinforced with two sheets of FRP. In particular, the beams at the centre of
the basement floor and the external beams connected to the stairwell of the ground floor,
first and second floor have been reinforced. The two columns at the side of the elevator have
been also wrapped with FRP material, for the entire building's height. Carbon fibres with
density of 1,78-1,81 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 and equivalent thickness of 0,337 𝑚2 were chosen.

3.2 Innovative retrofitting technique: I-PRO 1

The I-Pro 1 is an active smart system for the seismic dynamic response control of existing
buildings. It is composed by four distinct sub-systems (Figure 4.(a) and Figure 4.(b) show
the sub-system IP-D 01) installed on the building. Here a brief description of each:
1. Machines IP-D 01: inertial masses moved by hydraulic actuators, allowing the
generation of control forces, together with the electrical cabinets and the oil recovery
units. They are installed in multiple arrays thanks to a supporting frame which connect
the machines with the roof of the building.
2. Sensors IP-S: analog accelerometer sensors with low electrical noise. They are installed
on critical points of the building, allowing the structural monitoring and dynamic
response control during an earthquake event.
3. Central Computer IP-UT: real-time computational unit which acquire data from all the
sensors installed and process them accordingly with the ISAAC control algorithm.
4. Buffer Batteries IP-A: external power supply units together with UPS, supplying all the
system with energy even in presence of electrical blackout.

(a) (b)

Figure 4 – (a) Machine IP-D 01 without covering shelter; (b) Detalied view of the Machine

These sub-systems can be assembled into an Active Mass Damper (AMD) according with
the ISO3010:2017, which allows the use of these devices nationally and internationally. The
AMD proposed in this work is an innovative inertial system used as Active Vibration
Control. Compared to other AMDs, each machine IP-D 01 uses an electro-hydraulic actuator
to move the inertial mass of 2200 kg with a stroke of ±0.5 m and generate forces up to 220
kN in one direction, with an overall size of 4.8m by 1.5m. Together with the machines IP-D
01, the sensors are installed on the building and both are connected to the central computer
IP-UT, which monitors and controls the whole I-Pro 1 system. The electrical power supply
is delivered by the buffer batteries IP-A which are attached to the external electrical network
only for the charger operation. In this way, the UPS guarantees to power the system, for at
least 24 hours, even in presence of an electrical blackout. The purpose of I-Pro 1 technology
is to "counteract", thanks to the generation of forces by each machine IP-D 01, the movement
of the building by reducing the amplitude of oscillation and consequently the stresses applied
on the structural elements. The magnitude of the forces delivered is calculated in real time
by the control algorithms, implemented inside the central computer unit IP-UT, based on the
accelerometric measurements of the building itself, through the sensors IP-S installed in the
significant points of the building. The system reaches the highest efficiency when the
machines are placed on the roof of the building to be protected, to maximise the leverage of
the force delivered with respect to the ground or, more generally, counteracting the first
natural mode of the structure. The vibration control strategy is based on the Sky-Hook
algorithm, where the “counteract” Force is evaluated as the building’s nodes velocity times
the control gain; thus producing an increment of the overall structural damping. More details
regarding the I-Pro 1 technology and its control algorithm can be reached in a dedicated
paper (Rosti et al. 2022).

(a) (b)
Figure 5 – (a) Concept Layout for the installation of the I-Pro 1 technology;
(b) Detailed View of the I-Pro 1 system retrofitting on the case study RC building

This Active Vibration Control solution can be proposed as applicable in scale on buildings
of different plant sizes and height increasing the number of machines IP-D 01 installed,
without changing the actuation system but only with a proper tuning of the control algorithm
accordingly with the structural dynamics characteristics. In Figure 5.(a) is shown a concept
of the I-Pro 1 technology installation. Regarding the case study RC building, in order to
seismic protect the structure, we choose to introduce four machines IP-D 01, two for each
control direction, on the roof. Figure 5.(b) shows the installation layout considering the
overall dimension of the system. For the dynamic analysis post-opera, the four machines
have been approximated as dashpot fixed to the ground and to four roof nodes near the
desired installation positions. The dashpots are similar to viscous damping devices which
can faithfully describe the machines IP-D 01 under particular conditions:
● maximum generated force up to 220 kN
● maximum velocity up to 5 m/s
● maximum displacement up to ±0.5 m
These limitations represent the mechanical boundaries characteristic of the I-Pro 1
technology, which if respected guarantees to obtain a simulation coherent with the machine
behaviour. The damping coefficient of the four dashpot have been tuned in order to obtain
the highest displacement reduction without overcoming the previous restraints.
3.3 Influence of retrofit techniques on the seismic vulnerability of the case study
building

In order to investigate the beneficial effects of the two retrofit alternatives the NLTHAs have
been repeated using the same set of ground motions adopted to assess the original
vulnerability of the case study building. The results are presented in terms of zE (Table 3
and Table 5) and maximum displacements (Table 4 and Table 6). Both retrofit alternatives
allow to achieve a zE equal to the unity for all considered ground motions (with the only
exception of Accel 3_X). This means that, considering the low seismicity of the site, both
alternatives could guaranty the achievement of the life safety limit state for the analysed case
study building.

Table 3. Vulnerability assessment after retrofit Table 4. Maximum displacements after retrofit with
with FRP. FRP.
Acce Directio 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐶 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐷 𝜁𝐸 Accel Direction 𝐷𝑥 𝐷𝑦 𝛥 (%)𝑥 𝛥 (%)𝑦
l n
1_Y 30%x- 0,068 0,081 -3,35% -5,19%
1_Y 30%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 100%y
100%y
1_X 100%x- 0,063 0,048 -1,59% 10,42%
1_X 100%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 30%y
30%y
2_Y 30%x- 0,072 0,067 -2,34% 1,40%
2_Y 30%x- 0,102 0,102 1,0 100%y
100%y
2_X 100%x- 0,089 0,045 -7,17% 2,74%
2_X 100%x- 0,102 0,102 1,0 30%y
30%y
3_Y 30%x- 0,065 0,066 0,00% 0,00%
3_Y 30%x- 0,098 0,098 1,0 100%y
100%y
3_X 100%x- 0,096 0,049 2,15% 11,03%
3_X 100%x- 0,090 0,098 0,93 30%y
30%y

Table 5. Vulnerability assessment after retrofit Table 6. Maximum displacements after retrofit with
with I-PRO1. I-PRO1.
Accel Directio 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐶 𝑃𝐺𝐴𝐷 𝜁𝐸 Accel Direction 𝐷𝑥 𝐷𝑦 𝛥 (%)𝑥 𝛥 (%)𝑦
n
1_Y 30%x- 0,019 0,048 70,34 37,45%
1_Y 30%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 100%y %
100%y
1_X 100%x- 0,037 0,027 39,90 48,81%
1_X 100%x- 0,119 0,119 1,0 30%y %
30%y
2_Y 30%x- 0,025 0,048 63,93 28,87%
2_Y 30%x- 0,102 0,102 1,0 100%y %
100%y
2_X 100%x- 0,049 0,036 40,17 22,33%
2_X 100%x- 0,102 0,102 1,0 30%y %
30%y
3_Y 30%x- 0,021 0,049 67,58 26,22%
3_Y 30%x- 0,098 0,098 1,0 100%y %
100%y
3_X 100%x- 0,049 0,037 50,11 33,18%
3_X 100%x- 0,098 0,098 1,0 30%y %
30%y

However, when dealing with seismic vulnerability assessment and loss estimation of existing
buildings the strength of the structural elements is not the only parameter to be investigated.
The drift and acceleration profiles should be also analyzed to evaluate the possible losses
related to the damage of drift-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements as
well as to assess the effectiveness of structural joints between adjacent buildings. Table 4
and 6 reports the maximum displacements at the top of the building for all considered ground
motions. The results indicate that the maximum displacements in the structure retrofitted
with FRP are similar or greater than displacements of the original structure. This means that
the pounding effect could became an issue in case of earthquake. If I-PRO1 is adopted, a
significant reduction of the maximum displacements is observed. In particular, a mean
reduction of about 55% and 32% has been observed in the X and Y direction, respectively.
Although is not reported for space limitations, similar considerations can be done in terms
of floor acceleration profiles. The FRP technique, acting at the local level, is not able to
provide improvements in terms of displacement and acceleration profiles, while I-PRO1,
acting as an active mass damper, is able to reduce both accelerations and displacements along
the height of the building also significantly reducing non-structural losses. In particular, a
percentage reduction of about 15% is observed in the peak floor accelerations at the top of
the building retrofitted with I-PRO1 in both analyzed directions.

4. Conclusions

This paper discussed about different retrofit strategies aimed at improving the overall
seismic response of existing RC buildings in Italy. A case study RC school building located
in the south of Italy, in a region characterized by low seismicity, has been analysed to assess
the effectiveness of two retrofit alternatives. A traditional retrofit technique which consists
in the use of fibre reinforced polymers for the strengthening of the structural elements and
an innovative technique which consists in the use of a smart active mass damper have been
adopted. The results of the study pointed out that, although both retrofit solutions are able to
improve the structural safety indices, only the innovative technique can act as a protection
system in case of possible pounding effects as well as to mitigate the damage due to drift-
and acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements by reducing the acceleration and
displacements profiles along the height of the building. Although further numerical and
experimental studies are still required, in the author opinion this retrofit solution could
became an interesting alternative also in regions where, due to the low seismicity, the
economic losses are mainly related to the damage of non-structural elements.

References
Augenti N, Cosenza E, Dolce M, Manfredi G, Masi S, Samela L (2004) Performance of school buildings during
the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake, (Italy). Earthquake Spectra 20 (S1):S257-S270.

Bacco V, (2009). Solaio in latero-cemento: Confronto con sistemi alternativi, 56p.,

http://www.solaioinlaterizio.it/user/ConfrontoAlternativi.pdf.

Carofillis W, Perrone D, O’Reilly G.J, Monteriro R, Filiatrault A (2020) Seismic retrofit of existing school
buildings in Italy: Performance evaluation and loss estimation. (Italy). Engineering Structures, 225: 111243,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111243

CNR-DT 200 R1/2013. Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Istruzioni per la progettazione, l’esecuzione ed il
controllo di interventi di consolidamento statico mediante l’utilizzo di compositi fibrorinforzati.

Dong-Suk Yang, Sun-Kyu Park and Kenneth W. Neale (2009) Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with prestressed carbon composites, Engineering, 88: 497-508
 Elnashai AS, Pinho R, (1998).Repair and retrofitting of RC walls using selective techniques. Journal
Earthquake Engineering ; 2(4):525–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469809350334

Grant D, Bommer J, Pinho R, Calvi M, Goretti A, Meroni F. A prioritization scheme for seismic intervention
in school buildings in Italy. Earthquake Spectra 2007;23(2):291–314. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2722784.

Ilki A, Kumbasar N, Koc V, (2004) Low strength concrete members externally confined with FRP sheets.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics,18:1–28, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2004. 18.2.167

Italian Code-NTC (2018) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M. 17.01.18. G.U. No.42, February 4

Mander J B, Priestley M J N, Park R (1988).Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 114(8):1804-1826

Martinez-Rueda J E, Elnashai A S (1997).Confined concrete model under cyclic load, Materials and Structures,
30(197):139-147

Marcari G, Manfredi G, Prota A, Pecce M. (2007) In-plane shear performance of masonry walls strengthened
with FRP. Composites Part B: 38(7):887–901, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.11.004.

Masi A, Digrisolo A, Santarsiero G, (2014). Concrete Strength Variability in Italian RC Buildings: Analysis
of a Large DataBase of Core Tests. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 597:283–290.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.597.283

Meroni F, Squarcina T, Pessina V, Locati M, Modica M, Zoboli R, (2017) A damage scenario for the 2012
northern Italy earthquakes and estimation of the economic losses to residential buildings, (Italy). International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science 8 (3): 326–341, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-017-0142-9

Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y (2003) Experiments and analytical comparison of RC beams strengthened with CFRP
composites, composite part B: Engineering, 34: 663-677, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-8368(03)00090-8

Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame G.M (2011) 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete
building performance,(Italy). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9 (1): 285–305,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9204-8

Rosti M, Cii S, Bussini A, Calvi PM, Ripamonti F, (2022). Design and Validation of a Hardware-In-the-Loop
Test Bench for Evaluating the Performance of an Active Mass Damper. Journal of Vibration and Control, in
press

Seismosoft (2014) "SeismoStruct v7.0 – A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures" available from http://www.seismosoft.com.

Sorrentino L, Cattari S, da Porto F, Magenes G, Penna A, (2019) Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry
buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes,(Italy). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17: 5583–
5607, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0370-4.

Verderame GM, Polese M, Cosenza E, Manfredi G (2002) Vulnerability analysis of a pre-seismic code R.C.
building in Catania, in seismic behavior of GLD R.C. buildings. (E. Cosenza Ed.), CNR – GNDT, Rome, Italy

View publication stats