9

th
International Masonry Conference 2014 in Guimares
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014 1
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings
through a discrete verification of structural elements
MARTINS, L.
1
; PADRO, J.
2
; VICENTE, R.
3
; VARUM, H.
4
; COSTA, A.
5
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses a methodology for the assessment of the seismic capacity of old
masonry buildings, based on the load bearing capacity analysis of stone masonry walls. A review of
some methods on discrete limit analysis, namely based on the control of shear and compressive
strength, out-of-plane and axial stability of masonry walls, is carried out. A case study of an old
masonry building is presented. An individual assessment of each structural element is carried out,
both in terms of out-of-plane and in-plane shear stability of walls. The collapse mechanisms most
likely to occur, given the extensive experience on seismic behaviour and seismic damage, are
compared with those provided by the results of the analysis of the building, and the differences
observed are discussed. The advantages of simplified assessment methodologies, if well calibrated
and tested, are reliable expedite approaches for old masonry buildings, essential in routine
inspections or after the occurrence of a seismic event. Simple software tools may support the
assessment actions.
Keywords: Old masonry buildings, stone masonry walls, seismic assessment, simplified methodologies
NOTATION
a design seismic horizontal acceleration;
c collapse coefficient;
f
vk
characteristic shear strength of masonry;
f
vk0
characteristic shear strength of masonry, under zero compressive stress;
g gravity acceleration;
h clear height of a wall;
h
ef
effective height of a wall;
l length of a wall;
t
ef
effective thickness of a wall;
t
ef,min
minimum effective thickness of a wall;
friction coefficient;

d
design compressive stress;
1)
Master in Construction and Rehabilitation Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, luismsoaresmartins@gmail.com
2)
Assistant Professor, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Department of Civil Engineering, jpadrao@dcivil.estv.ipv.pt
3)
Auxiliar Professor, U. Aveiro, Department of Civil Engineering, romvic@ua.pt
4)
Associate Professor, U. Aveiro, Department of Civil Engineering, hvarum@ua.pt
5)
Full Professor, U. Aveiro, Department of Civil Engineering, acosta@civil.ua.pt
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
2
1 INTRODUCTION
The masonry buildings constitute an important part in the Portuguese housing stock. According to
Censos 2011 [1], 19% of the buildings in Portugal have masonry as their main structural material, and
a large amount of those need interventions to re-establish security and comfort for their inhabitants.
Given the widespread of masonry constructions trough the Portuguese territory, and the seismic risk
of some national areas, is of importance finding an economic and quick way of analysing the
structural behaviour of old masonry buildings under seismic loads.
In this paper a set of simple mechanisms to evaluate the security of masonry walls, especially
stone ones, is described. A quick review of the masonry behaviour under compressive and shear
loads, focusing on the maximum strength under those loads, is followed by a description of the two
most used constitutive models.
The cinematic analysis for evaluating the stability of the wall panels, both for in-plane and out-of-
plane collapses, is addressed as an effective way of evaluating the most common types of building
damages on an earthquake. For the in-plane behaviour, the three main types of failure are described,
and framed on the combination of vertical and horizontal loads that generates them. The safety check
of stresses and buckling of individual wall panels is of most importance, and a set of them is
mentioned for both horizontal and vertical loads.
A case study of a building damaged by the 1998 Faial, Azores earthquake is presented. An
analysis of it is made applying cinematic methods, as well as a stress and buckling check. The
obtained results are compared with the real damages resulting from the earthquake, as well with
those from a finite element model. Finally, the applicability and relevance of the methods applied is
discussed, with some proposals regarding their correct use to obtain the best results possible.
2 ANALYSIS METHODS FOR MASONRY STRUCTURES
2.1. Masonry mechanical resistance
When analysing any masonry building, perhaps the most important informations are the
compressive and shear strengths of its walls. Counterpointing the concrete and steel buildings, where
the material properties are more or less well known even in old structures, in ancient masonry
buildings it is of extreme importance the correct determination of the material properties, given the
large dispersion of its values, even in the same building. This can only be successfully attained by an
extensive and well planned testing campaign on any structure to be analysed.
The masonry compressive strength is very important while analysing the building under non-
seismic conditions, given that even under only its own weight the structure can be unsafe (considering
the appropriate security coefficient). This property is influenced both by the stone/brick and the joints
(filled with mortar or not) strengths. Eurocode 6 [2], in its section 3.6.1.2, provides formulas for the
determination of the compressive strength of modern masonry, knowing the strengths of both bricks
and mortar. Other similar simple formulas have been proposed, and while their results for specific
cases is sometimes very accurate, there is a large dispersion of results when applying even a small
set of expressions. Therefore, the theoretical determination of the masonry compressive strength is to
be avoided for using on structural analysis, and in-situ testing is preferred.
The masonry shear resistance is strongly dependant of the vertical compression stress. Most
models considerer an initial shear resistance without any compression on the masonry (cohesion),
due to the resistance of the joint mortar or the friction between the stones. Under a compressive
stress, there is an increase (linear or not) on the shear resistance, with an increment of the shear
resistance as a fraction of the vertical stress. That fraction, known as friction coefficient (similarly as in
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings through a discrete verification of structural elements
9
th
International Masonry Conference Guimares 2014
3
soil analysis), usually varies between 0,3 and 0,65, with Eurocode 6 adopting a value of 0,4. The
Mohr-Coulomb model for shear strength can be transcribed as follows:
(1) f
vk
= f
vk0
+
d
While in the most commonly used Mohr-Coulomb model there is no limit for the predicted
resistance, other models (Berndt and Mann-Muller being the most used) establish a limit value for the
masonry shear resistance, due to a tensile rupture in the stones and compressive rupture of the
mortar. On the majority of the masonry buildings the vertical stresses are not sufficient to achieve the
limit shear stress above mentioned, the Mohr-Coulomb model is usually enough to properly
characterize the masonry shear stress resistance.
2.2. Cinematic analysis and panel stability
During seismic events, other than the mechanical failure of the masonry, the loss of equilibrium of
the building as a whole or, more frequently, of parts of it, is the major cause of damage to the
constructions and their surroundings.
Of the several approaches to the cinematic security assessment, the use of macroelements is one
of the most divulged. The concept was deduced by the observation of the buildings damage patterns
of several seismic events, and a set of defined collapse mechanisms is being compiled since.
The macroelement approach assumes that during an earthquake there are parts of the building
that behaves as a rigid body, capable of rotations and translations. The set of the different
macroelements and the releases between them characterizes the entire structure. The
macroelements cinematic models are simplified models, of easy calculation, dependent of few
parameters, mainly the geometrical characteristics of the structures, their mass, and the inter-
relations between a set of macroelements (if applicable).
The analysis is made through the comparison of the collapse coefficient c with the ratio between
the design seismic horizontal acceleration and the gravity acceleration (a/g). The security is
guaranteed if the collapse coefficient is smaller than the a/g ratio. The collapse coefficient c is the
seismic mass multiplier that satisfies the limit equilibrium conditions, and given that is a dimensionless
value, it proves very effective comparing the structural safety of several structures, accessing the
necessity of rehabilitation, and prioritizing the necessary interventions.
Figure 1. Typical failure curve for masonry under shear and axial stress [14]
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
4
The cinematic models can be divided in two main groups, according to the failure direction
regarding the walls plane: in-plane collapse and out-of-plane collapse. The out-of-plane collapse is
characterized by the loss of equilibrium/overturning perpendicular to the wall plane, while in the in-
plane collapse the wall suffers from rotation (as a whole, or just of part of it) in its own plane. The
horizontal forces acting in each of these groups are not the same, given that in the out of plane
mechanisms they are normal to the wall plane, while in in-plane mechanisms it is parallel. Given that
in real seismic events it is very unlikely that only normal or parallel forces to the plane walls occur, a
combination of these two sets of mechanisms is to occur. In practice, given that a model with
combined in plane and out-of-plane behaviour is of difficult analysis, for a given wall (or set of walls)
only the two extreme cases are analysed.
In general, the out-of-plane collapse mechanisms are more likely to occur, given their usually
smaller collapse coefficients. This is motivated by the high slenderness of the walls in one or both of
their plane orthogonal directions.
Regarding the in-plane failure of masonry panels, three modes are usually considered: rocking,
sliding shear, and diagonal cracking. The failure modes are mainly conditioned by the width/height
relations (aspect ratio) and the vertical stress acting on the panel. The rocking failure mode occurs in
slender panels with small vertical stress, while the sliding shear failure mode occur in in panels with
high width/height relations and minor vertical stress. The diagonal cracking, regarded as an
intermediate failure mode, occur for medium to large vertical compression forces, and for width/height
relations from 0.5 to 2. For the rocking failure mode, a crushing of the most compressed zone of the
panel can occur, originating by a compressive rupture of the masonry.
Although all walls pertaining to a building are subjected to horizontal forces during a seismic event,
they must oblige with certain characteristics to be considered as shear walls, i.e. being able to
contribute to the global resistance of the building to horizontal forces. Those geometric characteristics
are, according to EC8 section 9.5.1(5):
(2) t
ef
t
ef,min
(3) h
ef
/ t
ef
(h
ef
/ t
ef
)
max
(4) l / h (l / h)
min
Figure 2. Typical in-plane failure modes of masonry panels: (a) rocking, (b) sliding shear, (c)
diagonal cracking [3]
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings through a discrete verification of structural elements
9
th
International Masonry Conference Guimares 2014
5
The limit values for unreinforced masonry are, according to EC8 Portuguese National Annex,
t
ef,min
= 240mm, (h
ef
/ t
ef
)
max
= 10 and (l / h)
min
= 0,4.
2.3. Structural safety checks
The structural checks to be made on a masonry building can be of several types. The most
common ones are: maximum compression and shear stress, simplified global checks, stability under
vertical loads, and stability under combined horizontal and vertical loads.
The evaluation of the masonry strength for compression and shear loads is made on each wall
panel, usually on its top and bottom levels. For the shear stresses, the top of the panel is usually the
most critical level, given the smaller vertical stress comparing to the panel base. In case of doubt, the
shear stress must be analysed at least in the top, bottom and in a mid-section of the panel. For the
compression stress, usually only the bottom section of the panel must be analysed.
The simplified global checks are an auxiliary tool for assessing the structural vulnerability of the
buildings, and they can be a good indicative of the global safety of the structures, given the
complexity of a thorough analysis [4]. They can be applied to masonry buildings with regular layouts,
with a high symmetry, and with pavements acting like rigid diaphragms. Given that this conditions
cant always by satisfied by the majority of the old masonry buildings, the global checks are only
indicative of the structural safety regarding horizontal actions, mainly seismic ones. Three indexes are
considered: 1 (percentage of wall area in plan), 2 (ratio between the effective area and weight), and
3 (base shear check). These indexes can be determined through the following expressions, for each
of the building plan orthogonal direction i (usually matching the directions of the walls):
(5)
1,i
= A
pi
/ S
(6)
2,i
= A
pi
/ G
(7)
3,i
= V
Rd
/ V
Sd
The reference values that guarantee the security of the building in seismic areas are usually
considered as follow:
1,i
0,1,
2,i
1,2 m
2
/MN, and
3,i
1.
The stability for vertical loads depends mostly of the load eccentricity on the top of the walls. It is
important to determine the point of application of the loads from the pavements and roof structures,
usually supported by imbrication of wooden beams in the walls sections, given that small variation of
the load eccentricity leads to significant variations on the predicted resistance. Two methods are
provided by EC6: the most exact one is contemplated in 6.1.2.1(2)P of EC6-1-1 [2], while a
simplified approach is allowed by the annex A1(1) of EC6-1-3 [7], if certain requirements for the wall
in analysis are met. The clause 6.1.2.1(2)P method is preferable, given that takes in account with
important variables not considered it the simplified approach, and allows the safety check to be made
in different height levels of the wall. The simplified approach is a global one, depending on the
slenderness of the panel and the masonry compressive strength.
The resistance for combined horizontal and vertical loads is only to be supported by shear walls.
So, a distribution of these forces trough the various shear walls is to be made, regarding both their
stiffness and geometrical distribution. One of the simplest approaches to this problem is to consider
several frames, distributed either in two orthogonal directions or in any intermediate direction (in this
case, a decomposition of the forces in in-plane and out-of-plane orientations to the wall plane is
necessary). The forces acting on each frame can be computed taking in account its distance to the
buildings gravity and stiffness centres. Given that is usual in ancient buildings a change in the walls
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
6
plan layout across the different storeys, as well as a change in the walls thickness, is recommendable
that the distribution of forces to be computed for each storey. The forces distribution in height can be
either made in accordance to the mass distribution in each level of the building or taking in account
the structure vibration modes.
The structural safety checks are made for the three in-plane failure modes described above. A
review of the most used expressions used can be found through the literature [5],[6].The predicted
failure mode is the one which presents the lowest strength to horizontal forces.
3 EXEMPLE OF APPLICATION
3.1. The 1998 Azores earthquake
On the 9th of July 1998, the Faial Island in the Azores archipelago suffered an earthquake with 6.1
magnitude, originated an epicentre 10 km off the coast and 2 km deep. This earthquake caused major
damage trough the island, but more intensely in the NW area. The accelerogram can be seen in
Figure 3, for which corresponds a major acceleration peak of approximately 0,35g, for the xx
component.
The typology and construction type of the buildings in the Faial Island is diverse, but the majority of
the affected structures were constituted by stone masonry and wood elements [9]. A detailed account
on the structural damage caused and rehabilitation measures can be found in the literature [10];[11].
3.2. Case study building
A building affected by the Faial earthquake was selected as an example for the application of the
simplified analysis methods described above. The selected building was already the focus of some
structural assessment and rehabilitation efforts [9],[13]. A panoramic view of the selected building can
be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Accelerogram of 3 components of the 1998 Faial earthquake: (a) xx component,
(b) yy component, (c) zz component [9]
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings through a discrete verification of structural elements
9
th
International Masonry Conference Guimares 2014
7
The building is an isolated structure, with two elevated floors, and approximately square in plan
view [9]. There are two staircases which connect to the 1st level. The medium wall thickness is of
0,66 m, and the 1
st
floor pavement is composed by 7x16 cm
2
wooden beams (48 cm spacing) parallel
to the main faade, with an intermediate support by a 20x20 cm
2
wooden beam. The hipped roof has
a set of 7x18 cm
2
wooden beams with 90 cm spacing, with a central 20x20 cm
2
wooden beam. The
parameters used in the model can be found on Table 1.
Table 1. Parameters for the building modelling
Masonry density 18 KN/m
3
Tabique walls 1,35 KN/m
3
Wooden beams 2,65 KN/m
3
Floors 0,60 KN/m
2
Roof coverings 0,60 KN/m
2
Pavement live load 2,00 KN/m
2
Roof live load 0,30 KN/m
2
3.3. Analysis methodology and results
The performance of the case study building to the Faial 1998 earthquake was evaluated, using both
the simplified methods previously described, as well as a finite element analysis. The masonry walls
were modelled by shell elements, with a maximum mesh size of 0,3 meters, although it was refined in
the zones with higher stress density. The pavements were considered as rigid diaphragms, and the
wooden beams were modelled as bar elements. The connections between the walls were considered
was pinned, given that their capacity of transferring rotations between the orthogonal panels was not
Figure 4. Three-dimensional scheme and panoramic of the analysed building [9]
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
8
known. The connection between the walls and the building foundations were considered to allow all
the rotations, but restrain all the translations.
A modal analysis of the whole building was performed with the software Robot Structural Analysis,
and the first 6 vibration modes were taken into account. Their frequencies were of 4,87 Hz, 4,98 Hz,
6,21 Hz, 6,55 Hz, 10,44 Hz and 11,95 Hz. The seismic forces were applied on two directions,
corresponding to the 2 orthogonal directions of the building resistant walls.
In the distribution of forces on the building for the evaluation trough the simplified methods, the
eccentricity of the rotation centre regarding the geometrical centre was taken into account. Given that
some walls in the building did not carried significant loads, due to their small stiffness, compressive
and shear resistance (partitions), the criteria recommended for shear walls in EN 1998-1 were
followed [8]. The distribution in height of the horizontal forces is proportional to the vertical loads at
each level. Given that the distribution of the in-plane force within each wall is affected by the presence
of openings, and the difficulty of their determination, the amount of the total horizontal force acting on
the panels between the several openings was computed regarding the ratio between the wall total
plan area and the area of each of the wall panels between openings.
The kinematic stability of the masonry panels cant be assessed directly from the used shell model,
given that it does not incorporate the possibility of fracture of the material. The analysis of the walls
more prompt for kinematic instability was made by computing the total normal force acting on each of
the wall panels, and thus determining if that force could cause the overturn of the panel. The
maximum observed force on the FEA was of 132 KN, which indeed caused an overturning of the wall.
For the whole building, only 2 walls should collapse, with a maximum ratio of stabilizing
forces/destabilizing forces of 1,23.
Regarding the kinematic analysis with the simplified expressions cited above (kinematic equilibrium),
a global analysis of the building has shown that 28% of the walls would collapse if the structural
model was that of a simply supported wall. If the contribution of the shear walls is to be considered
(with an angle of 30 with a vertical plane, for the contributing part of the shear wall), the percentage
of collapsed panels dropped to 12%.
The maximum shear stress observed in the FEA model was of 0,26 MPa. Those stresses did not
exceed the maximum allowable shear stress, because they occur in in the buildings base, together
with high compression stresses. The maximum stress calculated using the simplified method
described above is of 0,19 MPa, also at the buildings base. Rocking was the most commonly
observed failure mode by in-plane shear.
Figure 5. Three-dimensional view of the buildings structural model
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings through a discrete verification of structural elements
9
th
International Masonry Conference Guimares 2014
9
The average compressive stress at buildings base obtained in a static distribution of forces is of 0,15
MPa, with a maximum of 0,22 MPa in the most stressed wall. These values do not take in to account
the seismic action. The difference in the compression stress in the building is due to the load
distribution of both pavements and roof. In the FEA model, the maximum observed compression
stress is of 0,71 MPa, significantly higher than the stress for computed for non-seismic loads.
The maximum observed displacement of 1,5 cm is located in a corner at the top of the building, which
corresponds to a maximum drift of 0,3%.
Figure 6. 2 envelope with the seismic action acting along X (left) and Y (right) global axes
Figure 7. Maximum stress 1 envelope with the seismic action acting along X (left) and Y (right)
global axes
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
10
3.4. Results discussion
The obtained vibration modes in the model were different from those obtained in other analysis of the
building, as well as in the in-situ testing [13]. This difference can be explained by the use of shell
elements instead of 3D solid type elements, and by the type of connections between the walls. During
the buildings numerical modelling is was observed that the type of connection releases between the
walls, and the support degrees of freedom strongly influence the frequencies. Despite these
differences in the frequencies, the observed displacements in the FEA model were similar to those
previously calculated, the same happening with the stresses [9].
The differences between the shear stresses observed in the FEA model and those calculated from a
simplified distribution of the horizontal forces not negligible, and derive from a concentration near the
corners of the wall panels. That concentration is due to the in-plane flexibility of the masonry walls, as
well as the rigid body rotation of the panels in the rocking failure mode, leading to areas in the panels
being less stressed than others, although the mean value in a given wall obtained by each method is
similar.
The concentration of compression stress at the toe of the masonry panels is even more important,
given that the value from the FEA model is 3,23 times higher than that given by a static analysis.
Although in this case the compression in the masonry is inferior than its resistance, if this difference is
to be observed in most buildings, an analysis which does not incorporates the increment of stress due
to the wall bending (both for in-plane and out-of-plane loads) can lead to false results by a large scale.
The kinematic stability results are also different if analysed from the FEA model of from the simplified
methods of equilibrium, with the FEA model predicting less wall collapses. This difference is due to
several factors: the equilibrium methods consider the horizontal forces acting on a wall to be directly
proportional to its mass, which is not true in the FEA model, given that it takes into account its
stiffness into the load distribution and displacements; using the simplified methods, given a constant
thickness and wall height, the acceleration which leads to the wall collapse is constant regardless of
their position concerning shear walls, while in the FEA there is a higher concentration of forces near
the shear walls.
Figure 8. Displacements envelope with the seismic action acting along X (left) and Y (right) global
axes
Simplified seismic assessment of old masonry buildings through a discrete verification of structural elements
9
th
International Masonry Conference Guimares 2014
11
4 CONCLUSIONS, FINAL REMARKS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The results of the analysis with the simplified methods are not coincident with those from a FEA
model, mainly for the assessment of the kinematic stability and compressive stresses. The observed
differences arise mainly from the following: the simplified methods do not take into account the
stiffness of the walls and their deformation; the distribution of forces in plan and in height made in the
two methods is not the same, because its not trivial to properly assess how the loads are going to
distribute within the wall; the connections capability of transmitting rotation along the wall corners also
affect the distribution of the stresses and displacements, which is not taken into account by the
simplified methods. Given all these remarks, the analysis by any of the two methodologies should be
made with great care and by knowledgeable professionals.
Given the limitations of the comparison between the two methodologies of analysis (FEA end
simplified methods), a more detailed analysis is necessary in the future, to determine whether the
encountered differences can be extrapolated to a larger set of buildings, or even certain typologies.
The use of a discrete element analysis software would also help to clarify where is most probable for
collapses to occur. The determination of the blocks to be kinematically analysed is also a problem if
the set of walls is large; an algorithm to determine all the possible combinations of panels to analyse
would also be of great interest.
REFERENCES
[1] Instituto Nacional de Estatstica: Censos 2011:resultados definitivos, Instituto Nacional de
Estatstica 2012.
[2] prNP EN 1996-1-1: 2008: Eurocdigo 6: Projecto de estruturas de alvenaria - Parte 1-1: Regras
gerais para alvenaria armada e no armada. CEN - Comit Europen de Normalisation:
Brussels 2008.
[3] Calderini, C., Cattari, S. & Lagomarsino, S.: In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers.
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 38 (2009), 243-267.
[4] Roque, J. C. A. & Loureno, P. B.: Mtodos simplificados na avaliao ssmica de edifcios
histricos. In: SSMICA 2004 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica,:
Guimares 2004, 419-428.
[5] Tomaevi, M.: Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press:
London 1999.
[6] Martins, L. M. S.: Desenvolvimento de ferramenta de clculo para uma avaliao expedita de
estruturas de alvenaria antiga de pedra. MSc-Thesis, ESTGV-IPV, 2011.
[7] prEN 1996-3 :2005: Eurocode 6 - Design of masonry structures- Part 3: Simplified calculation
methods for unreinforced masonry structures. CEN - Comit Europen de Normalisation:
Brussels 2005.
[8] NP EN 1998-1-1:2010: Eurocdigo 8 Projecto de estruturas para resistncia aos sismos -
Parte 1: Regras gerais, aces ssmicas e regras para edifcios. CEN - Comit Europen de
Normalisation: Brussels 2010.
[9] Cunha, S. A. D.: Tcnicas de reforo em edifcios de alvenaria. MSc-Thesis, Aveiro
University,Aveiro 2013.
[10] Martins, N.: Anlise de Solues de Reforo Usadas na Reabilitao da Ilha do Faial. MSc-
Thesis, Aveiro University,Aveiro 2009.
[11] Neves, F: Avaliao da vulnerabilidade ssmica do parque habitacional da ilha do Faial. MSc-
Thesis, Aveiro University,Aveiro 2008.
[12] Instituto Nacional de Estatstica: Censos 2011:resultados definitivos, Instituto Nacional de
Estatstica 2012.
MARTINS, L.; PADRO, J.; VICENTE, R.; VARUM, H.; COSTA, A.
9
th
International Masonry Conference, Guimares 2014
12
[13] Costa, A. & Arde, A.: Strengthening of structures damaged by the Azores earthquake of 1998.
Construction and Building Materials, 20.4 (2006): 252-268.
[14] Proske, D. & Gelder, P. van.: 2009. Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, Springer, Berlin
2009.