Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp 3083–3105 | Cite as

Fragility curves for old masonry building types in Lisbon

  • Ana SimõesEmail author
  • Jelena Milošević
  • Helena Meireles
  • Rita Bento
  • Serena Cattari
  • Sergio Lagomarsino
Original Research Paper


Improving the seismic resistance of traditional buildings is essential for preserving cultural heritage and increasing their safety. This is especially important for old masonry buildings in Lisbon (“Pombalino”, “Gaioleiro” and “Placa”), which are still used for housing and services. Taking this into account, this paper is focused on the seismic assessment of these three types of buildings. The buildings were modelled based on the equivalent frame model approach, their dynamic characteristics were determined and non-linear static (pushover) analyses were performed. Furthermore, for the seismic demand of Lisbon, the seismic performance of such building classes was defined and compared. Finally, with the aim of supporting seismic risk and loss estimation studies, a probabilistic assessment was carried out and the fragility curves for each building type derived.


Masonry buildings Performance-based assessment Non-linear static (pushover) analysis Fragility curves 



The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Portugal) through the Research Project PTDC/ECM/100872.


  1. 3Muri Program, S.T.A.DATA s.r.l., release 5.0.4Google Scholar
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA Publication 365, Federal Emergency Management Society, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton J (2005) Rehabilitation of Gaioleiro buildings, 1st edn. Orion Editors, Lisbon (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  4. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2013) Seismic assessment of mixed masonry–reinforced concrete buildings by non-linear static analysis. Earthq Struct 4(3):241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EC8-1)Google Scholar
  6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings (EC8-3)Google Scholar
  7. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979:AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Instituto Nacional de Estatísticas (INE – Portugal Statistics) (2011) Census 2011. Instituto Nacional de Estatísticas (INE—Portugal Statistics).
  9. Italian Code for Structural Design (Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni – NTC) (2008) D.M. 14/1/2008, Official Bulletin Nº 29 of February 4, 2008 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  10. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014) Fragility functions of masonry buildings. In Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A (eds) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, buildings, lifelines, transportation networks and critical facilities series, vol 27. Geothechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, pp 111–156. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6_5
  11. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47. doi: 10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443. doi: 10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2012) TREMURI program: seismic analyses of 3D masonry buildings, Release 2.0. University of Genoa, Italy (mail to: Scholar
  14. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopes M, Azevedo J (1997) Assessment of the seismic behaviour of a Lisbon masonry building. In: Proceedings of the 3rd seismology and seismic engineering meeting, Lisbon, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  16. Lopes M, Meireles H, Cattari S, Bento R, Lagomarsino S (2014) Pombalino constructions: description and seismic assessment. In: Costa A, Guedes J, Varum H (eds) Structural rehabilitation of old buildings, building pathology and rehabilitationm, vol 2. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39686-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lourenço P, Mendes N, Ramos L, Oliveira D (2011) Analysis of masonry structures without box behaviour. Int J Archit Herit 5(4-5):369–382. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2010.528824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meireles H, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2012) A hysteretic model for “frontal” walls in Pombalino buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 10(5):1481–1502. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9360-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meireles H, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2014) Seismic assessment and retrofitting of Pombalino buildings by pushover analyses. Earthq Struct 7(1):57–82. doi: 10.12989/eas.2014.6.7.000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendes N, Lourenço P, Costa A (2014) Shaking table testing of an existing masonry building: assessment and improvement of the seismic performance. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):247–266. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milošević J, Gago A, Lopes M, Bento R (2013) Experimental assessment of shear strength parameters on rubble stone masonry specimens. Constr Build Mater 47:1372–1380. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milošević J, Bento R, Cattari S (2014) Seismic assessment of a “Placa” building in Lisbon. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  23. Monteiro M, Lopes M, Bento R (2005) Dynamic behaviour of Pombalino Quarter. In: Proceedings of the 250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreira S, Oliveira D, Ramos L, Lourenço P, Fernandes R, Guerreiro J (2012) Experimental study on the seismic behaviour of masonry wall-to-floor connections. In: Proceedings of the 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, pp 32–92Google Scholar
  25. Oliveira C (2004) Update of the data-base on fundamental frequencies of building structures, bridges, viaducts, pedestrian crossings based on in situ measuring. In: Proceedings of the 6th national meeting on seismology and earthquake engineering (Sísmica 2004), Aveiro, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  26. Pagnini L, Vicente R, Lagomarsino S, Varum H (2011) A mechanical model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of old masonry buildings. Earthq Struct 2(1):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Proença J, Gago A (2011) Seismic strengthening of school buildings, 1st edn. Parque Escolar, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  28. Santos S (1997) Tests on Pombalino Walls. Report Nº 15/97, Núcleo de Comportamento de Estruturas (NCE), Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Lisbon, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  29. Sequeira A (1999) Characterization and assessment of the market related to maintenance and conservation of the architectural heritage. Report GEcORPA—Grémio do Património, Lisbon, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  30. Silva V, Soares I (1997) Seismic vulnerability of the Gaioleiro buildings of Lisbon and possible measures to reduce it. In: Proceedings of the 3rd seismology and earthquake engineering meeting, Lisbon, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  31. Simões A, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2014a) Seismic performance-based assessment of “Gaioleiro” buildings. Eng Struct 80:486–500. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simões A, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2014b) Seismic assessment of “Gaioleiro” buildings in Lisbon. In: Proceedings of the 9th international masonry conference, Guimarães, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  33. Turnšek V, Sheppard P (1980) The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the international research conference on earthquake engineering, Skopje, Macedonia, pp 517–573Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Simões
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelena Milošević
    • 1
  • Helena Meireles
    • 1
  • Rita Bento
    • 1
  • Serena Cattari
    • 2
  • Sergio Lagomarsino
    • 2
  1. 1.CERIS, ICIST, DECivil, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering (DICCA)University of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations