Review Not peer-reviewed version

A Comparative Analysis of Retrofitting

Techniques for Seismically Vulnerable
Historical Building

John Philip M. Rivera *

Posted Date: 27 May 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

Keywords: Retrofitting; Seismic Resilience; Historical Buildings; Base Isolation; Strengthening of Masonry;
Steel Bracing Systems; FRP Wrapping; Damping Devices

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Article

A Comparative Analysis of Retrofitting Techniques for

Seismically Vulnerable Historical Building
John Philip M. Rivera
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Graduate School of Engineering, Sta. Mesa, Manila,
[email protected]; Tel: +639156024216

Abstract: This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of retrofitting techniques aimed at
enhancing the seismic resilience of seismically vulnerable historical buildings. Recognizing the dual objectives
of structural safety and architectural preservation, this research evaluates and compares several advanced
retrofitting methods, including base isolation, strengthening of masonry, steel bracing systems, Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping, and damping devices. Each technique is critically assessed based on its
effectiveness in mitigating seismic risks, its compatibility with historical architectural features, and its
applicability to various building types. Base isolation is highlighted for its ability to decouple buildings from
ground motion, thereby significantly reducing seismic forces and protecting architectural integrity.
Strengthening of masonry through the use of fiber-reinforced polymers and steel elements enhances the
ductility and strength of masonry walls, making them more resilient to seismic forces. Steel bracing systems
are shown to provide essential lateral support, particularly in timber-framed structures, improving overall
stability and reducing deformation during earthquakes. FRP wrapping is identified as a versatile technique
that strengthens structural elements without compromising aesthetic value, making it suitable for reinforcing
concrete and masonry components. Damping devices, including viscous dampers and tuned mass dampers,
are discussed for their ability to dissipate seismic energy and control structural vibrations, offering a minimally
invasive solution that preserves historical aesthetics. The study also addresses several challenges and research
gaps associated with these retrofitting techniques, such as ensuring architectural compatibility, assessing long-
term material performance, optimizing cost-effectiveness, and navigating complex regulatory frameworks. By
advancing knowledge in these areas, the research aims to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation
in the development of retrofitting solutions. Ultimately, this study contributes to the ongoing efforts to
safeguard historical buildings against seismic hazards. By leveraging cutting-edge technologies and best
practices in structural engineering and architectural conservation, stakeholders can develop sustainable, cost-
effective, and culturally sensitive retrofitting strategies that protect valuable cultural heritage for future
generations.

Keywords: Retrofitting; Seismic Resilience; Historical Buildings; Base Isolation; Strengthening of

Masonry; Steel Bracing Systems; FRP Wrapping; Damping Devices

1. Introduction
The preservation of historical buildings, especially those located in seismically active regions,
presents a complex challenge at the intersection of architectural conservation and structural
engineering [2]. Seismically vulnerable historical buildings are valuable cultural assets that require
specialized retrofitting techniques to enhance their structural integrity and mitigate earthquake-
induced damage [4]. Retrofitting techniques for such buildings involve a nuanced approach that
balances structural reinforcement with the preservation of historical authenticity [7].
Retrofitting techniques encompass a range of methodologies aimed at upgrading existing
structures to withstand seismic forces. These techniques are designed to enhance the overall
structural performance of buildings by improving load-bearing capacities, ductility, and energy
dissipation characteristics [1]. Key elements of retrofitting include the addition of supplemental
structural elements, modification of existing structural elements, and the application of advanced
materials to enhance seismic resistance [3].

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

In the context of seismically vulnerable historical buildings, retrofitting techniques must be

carefully tailored to address unique challenges such as architectural constraints, material
compatibility, and preservation ethics [5]. Historical buildings often possess architectural significance
and embody cultural heritage, necessitating retrofitting approaches that respect their intrinsic value
while ensuring structural safety.
The importance of preserving historical buildings extends beyond cultural and aesthetic
considerations. These structures serve as tangible links to the past, embodying architectural styles,
craftsmanship, and societal values of previous eras. Preserving historical buildings through effective
retrofitting not only safeguards cultural heritage but also contributes to the socio-economic fabric of
communities by promoting tourism, enhancing property values, and fostering a sense of identity [10].
This comparative analysis explores various retrofitting techniques employed in the preservation
of seismically vulnerable historical buildings. By examining the efficacy, practicality, and
sustainability of different retrofitting strategies, this study aims to provide insights that can inform
best practices in the field of architectural conservation and seismic retrofitting. Through a rigorous
comparative analysis, this paper seeks to elucidate the complexities inherent in retrofitting historical
buildings and highlight the importance of adopting context-sensitive approaches to ensure the
longevity and resilience of these invaluable cultural assets.

2. Theory and Methods

The theory underpinning the seismic retrofitting of historical buildings is grounded in principles
of structural dynamics, material science, and architectural conservation. The primary objective is to
enhance the seismic resilience of these structures while preserving their historical and aesthetic
integrity. This involves understanding the behavior of buildings under seismic loads, identifying
vulnerabilities, and applying appropriate retrofitting techniques to mitigate potential damage.

2.1. Seismic Behavior of Structures

The seismic behavior of buildings is characterized by their response to ground motion, which
includes horizontal and vertical displacements, accelerations, and internal forces. Historical
buildings, often constructed with materials and techniques that predate modern engineering
standards, tend to have inherent vulnerabilities such as weak connections, brittle materials, and lack
of lateral load resistance [8]. Unreinforced masonry (URM), timber frames, and other traditional
construction methods are particularly susceptible to seismic damage due to their limited ductility
and tensile strength [5]. Understanding these vulnerabilities is crucial for developing effective
retrofitting strategies.

2.2. Retrofitting Techniques

The retrofitting techniques examined in this study include base isolation, strengthening of
masonry, steel bracing systems, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping, and damping devices.
Each technique offers distinct mechanisms for improving seismic performance:
1. Base Isolation: This technique involves decoupling the building from ground motion through the use
of flexible bearings or isolators. By allowing the building to move independently of the ground, base
isolation reduces the transmission of seismic forces to the structure, thereby minimizing damage [2].
The theory behind base isolation is rooted in the concept of period elongation, which shifts the
building’s natural frequency away from the dominant frequencies of ground motion, reducing the
resonant response.

2. Strengthening of Masonry: Strengthening involves enhancing the load-bearing capacity and ductility of
masonry walls using materials such as FRPs or steel elements. The application of FRPs, which are high-
strength fibers embedded in a polymer matrix, provides additional tensile strength and confinement to
the masonry [11]. Steel elements, such as braces or ties, improve the lateral stiffness and integrity of the
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

walls. The theory is based on increasing the ductility and strength of the masonry to better withstand
seismic forces.

3. Steel Bracing Systems: Steel bracing systems introduce additional lateral stiffness and resistance to
seismic loads by incorporating diagonal braces into the building’s framework. These braces are
designed to absorb and dissipate seismic energy, reducing structural deformations and enhancing
stability [18]. The theoretical foundation of this method lies in improving the building's lateral load path
and distributing seismic forces more evenly throughout the structure.

4. FRP Wrapping: FRP wrapping involves applying composite materials around structural elements to
enhance their strength and ductility. The high tensile strength of the fibers in the FRP materials provides
reinforcement, while the polymer matrix ensures adhesion and durability [22]. The theory behind FRP
wrapping is based on the composite action between the FRP and the existing structure, which improves
the seismic performance by confining and reinforcing the structural elements.

5. Damping Devices: Damping devices, including viscous dampers, tuned mass dampers (TMDs), and
friction dampers, are designed to dissipate seismic energy and reduce structural vibrations. Viscous
dampers convert kinetic energy into heat through fluid flow, TMDs use a secondary mass to counteract
the building’s movements, and friction dampers dissipate energy through controlled sliding friction
[17]. The theoretical basis for these devices is the enhancement of energy dissipation capacity, which
reduces the amplitude of vibrations and the resulting structural displacements.

Methodology
The methodology for this study involves a systematic review of existing literature, case studies,
and technical reports on seismic retrofitting techniques for historical buildings. The following steps
outline the research approach:
1. Literature Review: A comprehensive review of academic journals, conference proceedings, and
technical standards was conducted to gather information on the principles, applications, and
effectiveness of various retrofitting techniques [22]. This included an analysis of the theoretical
foundations of each technique and their practical implementations in historical buildings.
2. Case Study Analysis: Selected case studies of historical buildings that have undergone seismic
retrofitting were analyzed to understand the application and outcomes of different techniques [3]. These
case studies provided insights into the challenges and successes associated with each method, as well
as the impact on the buildings' structural integrity and architectural aesthetics.
3. Comparative Analysis: A comparative analysis of the retrofitting techniques was conducted to evaluate
their relative advantages, limitations, and suitability for different types of historical buildings [4].
Criteria for comparison included effectiveness in reducing seismic vulnerability, ease of
implementation, impact on historical integrity, and cost considerations.
4. Expert Consultation: Consultations with structural engineers, conservationists, and architects
specializing in historical buildings were carried out to validate the findings and gain expert perspectives
on best practices and emerging trends in seismic retrofitting [2].
5. Synthesis and Recommendations: The findings from the literature review, case studies, and expert
consultations were synthesized to develop comprehensive recommendations for the seismic retrofitting
of historical buildings [11]. These recommendations aim to guide practitioners in selecting and
implementing appropriate retrofitting techniques that balance structural safety with historical
preservation.
In conclusion, the theory and methods section outlines the scientific and practical framework for
evaluating and applying seismic retrofitting techniques to historical buildings. By integrating
structural dynamics principles with material science and conservation strategies, this study provides
a robust foundation for enhancing the seismic resilience of heritage structures while preserving their
cultural and historical significance.

3. Retrofitting Techniques
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

Propone
Retrofitting
nt and Characteristics Use Cases
Technique
Year
Uses flexible bearings or
isolators to decouple the
Kelly and Historic structures with significant
Base building from ground
Kausel, architectural value in high seismic
Isolation motion, reducing seismic
1982 zones.
forces transmitted to the
structure.
Involves reinforcing
masonry walls with
Strengtheni Priestley Historic buildings with unreinforced
additional materials (e.g.,
ng of et al., masonry walls prone to seismic
fiber-reinforced polymers,
Masonry 2007 damage.
steel elements) to improve
ductility and strength.
Filiatraul Installs steel braces or
Steel Timber-framed historical buildings
t and trusses to enhance lateral
Bracing requiring lateral support in seismic
Bennett, stiffness and resistance
Systems areas.
1994 against seismic forces.
Utilizes Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) wraps
Chaallal Reinforcement of vulnerable concrete
FRP around structural elements
et al., or masonry elements in historic
Wrapping (columns, beams) to
2001 buildings.
enhance strength and
ductility.
Incorporates damping
systems (e.g., viscous
Historical structures requiring
Damping Kelly et dampers, tuned mass
minimally invasive seismic retrofitting
Devices al., 1998 dampers) to dissipate
solutions.
energy and reduce seismic
vibrations.

The comparative analysis of retrofitting techniques for seismically vulnerable historical

buildings explores several key methods used to bolster the structural resilience of these culturally
significant assets against seismic events. Each retrofitting technique offers distinct advantages and
considerations tailored to address the specific challenges posed by historical buildings in earthquake-
prone regions.
Base Isolation, introduced by Kelly and Kausel in 1982, involves the installation of flexible
bearings or isolators beneath a building's foundation [6]. This technique effectively decouples the
structure from ground motion, reducing the seismic forces transmitted to the building [8]. Base
isolation is particularly valuable for protecting historic structures with significant architectural value
located in regions prone to high seismic activity.
Strengthening of Masonry, as advocated by Priestley et al. in 2007, entails reinforcing masonry
walls in historical buildings to improve their ductility and strength [18]. This technique typically
involves adding supplementary materials such as fiber-reinforced polymers or steel elements to
masonry, enhancing its resistance to seismic forces and reducing the risk of collapse during
earthquakes [19].
Steel Bracing Systems, promoted by Filiatrault and Bennett in 1994, involve the use of steel
braces or trusses to enhance lateral stiffness and resistance in historical buildings against seismic
loads [20]. This approach is particularly beneficial for timber-framed structures, providing essential
lateral support to mitigate structural damage risks in areas prone to earthquakes [22].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

FRP Wrapping, introduced by Chaallal et al. in 2001, utilizes Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
wraps around structural elements like columns and beams to improve their strength and ductility
[23]. FRP wrapping is a versatile retrofitting technique suitable for reinforcing vulnerable concrete or
masonry elements in historical buildings without compromising their architectural integrity [24].
Damping Devices, as proposed by Kelly et al. in 1998, involve the use of damping systems such
as viscous dampers or tuned mass dampers to dissipate seismic energy and reduce vibrations in
historical structures [25]. Damping devices offer a minimally invasive retrofitting solution ideal for
preserving the aesthetics and authenticity of historical buildings while enhancing their seismic
performance [26].
Each identified retrofitting technique represents a specialized approach to improving the seismic
resilience of seismically vulnerable historical buildings [29]. By understanding the characteristics and
applications of these techniques, stakeholders can make informed decisions regarding the
preservation and protection of valuable cultural heritage in earthquake-prone regions.

3.1. Base Isolation

Base isolation is a sophisticated seismic retrofitting technique that entails the strategic
installation of flexible bearings or isolators beneath a building's foundation to mitigate the effects of
ground motion during earthquakes [16]. The primary objective of base isolation is to decouple the
superstructure from the ground, thereby reducing the transfer of seismic forces to the building. This
technique is particularly effective for seismically vulnerable historical buildings, where preserving
architectural integrity is paramount while ensuring structural safety against seismic events [27].
The design and implementation of base isolation systems involve careful consideration of
structural dynamics and material properties [28]. Various types of base isolators are utilized,
including high-damping rubber bearings, lead-rubber bearings, and sliding bearings [29]. These
isolators are selected based on factors such as load capacity, damping characteristics, and
compatibility with the building's structural system.
One key characteristic of base isolation is its ability to significantly reduce the acceleration and
displacement demands experienced by a building during an earthquake. By introducing flexible
elements at the building's base, base isolation systems allow the structure to effectively "float" or
move independently of the ground motion [30]. This dynamic response dissipates seismic energy and
minimizes structural deformation, thereby enhancing the building's overall seismic performance.
The use of base isolation in historical buildings requires a nuanced approach that considers
architectural constraints and preservation objectives. Engineers must carefully assess the building's
structural system, foundation conditions, and expected seismic loads to design appropriate base
isolation systems that optimize both structural safety and heritage preservation [31]. Special attention
is given to ensuring that the retrofitting does not compromise the building's historical significance or
aesthetic value.
Base isolation has been successfully implemented in numerous historical buildings worldwide,
demonstrating its effectiveness in protecting valuable cultural assets against seismic hazards. Case
studies have shown that base isolation can significantly reduce damage and downtime following
earthquakes, thereby prolonging the lifespan of historical structures and preserving their cultural
heritage for future generations [19,31,32].
Base isolation is a sophisticated retrofitting technique that offers an effective solution for
enhancing the seismic resilience of seismically vulnerable historical buildings. Through careful
design, implementation, and monitoring, base isolation systems can mitigate seismic risks while
respecting the unique architectural and historical attributes of these invaluable cultural assets [11].

3.2. Strengthening of Masonry

The strengthening of masonry is a fundamental retrofitting technique aimed at improving the
seismic performance of historical buildings constructed with masonry walls, which are particularly
vulnerable to earthquake-induced damage. This technique involves reinforcing existing masonry
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

elements to enhance their ductility, strength, and energy dissipation capacity, thereby reducing the
risk of structural failure during seismic events [33].
To strengthen masonry, engineers employ various strategies that typically involve the addition
of supplementary materials and structural interventions. Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) and steel
elements are commonly used to augment the strength and stiffness of masonry walls. FRP materials,
such as carbon or glass fibers embedded in a polymer matrix, are applied externally to masonry
surfaces to provide additional tensile strength and confinement, thereby improving the overall
structural performance of the walls [35].
Steel elements, such as anchors, ties, or plates, can be strategically embedded within masonry
walls to enhance their load-bearing capacity and resistance to lateral forces [34]. These elements help
redistribute loads more efficiently during seismic events, reducing stress concentrations and
preventing brittle failure modes like shear or flexural cracking.
The selection of strengthening techniques for masonry depends on several factors, including the
type and condition of existing masonry, structural configuration, seismicity of the region, and
preservation goals. Engineers must carefully assess the compatibility of strengthening materials with
historical masonry constructions to ensure that the interventions do not compromise the architectural
integrity or aesthetics of the building [36].
One of the primary objectives of strengthening masonry is to improve the seismic resilience of
historical buildings while minimizing invasive structural modifications. By reinforcing vulnerable
masonry elements, engineers can mitigate the risk of collapse or extensive damage during
earthquakes, thus preserving the structural integrity and cultural significance of historical masonry
buildings [37].
Case studies and experimental research have demonstrated the effectiveness of masonry
strengthening techniques in enhancing the seismic performance of historical buildings [2,17,38].
Properly executed strengthening interventions can extend the lifespan of masonry structures and
contribute to the long-term preservation of cultural heritage.
The strengthening of masonry is a critical retrofitting strategy employed to mitigate seismic risks
in historical buildings with masonry construction. Through innovative materials and careful design
considerations, engineers can enhance the structural resilience of these buildings while honoring
their architectural heritage and cultural value.

3.3. Steel Bracing Systems

Steel bracing systems represent a robust retrofitting technique used to enhance the seismic
performance of historical buildings, particularly those with timber-framed structures or other
vulnerable lateral load-resisting systems. This method involves the strategic installation of steel
braces or trusses within the building's framework to improve lateral stiffness, increase resistance
against seismic forces, and reduce structural deformation during earthquakes [39].
The design and implementation of steel bracing systems require a comprehensive
understanding of structural dynamics and the behavior of historical buildings under seismic loading.
Bracing elements are strategically placed to form a robust lateral load path, allowing them to absorb
and dissipate seismic energy while minimizing deformations and preventing progressive collapse
[40].
Various types of steel bracing systems can be utilized, including X-bracing, chevron bracing,
concentric diagonal bracing, and eccentrically braced frames (EBFs). The selection of bracing
configuration depends on factors such as building geometry, architectural constraints, and seismic
design considerations [33]. Engineers must carefully evaluate the structural capacity of existing
components and design bracing systems that integrate seamlessly with the historical building's
architectural fabric.
Steel bracing systems offer several advantages for retrofitting historical buildings. They provide
a cost-effective solution compared to more invasive structural interventions, allowing for targeted
reinforcement of critical building components [21]. Additionally, steel bracing can be implemented
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

with minimal disruption to the building's interior spaces, making it suitable for retrofitting projects
where preservation of historical aesthetics is paramount.
The effectiveness of steel bracing systems in enhancing seismic resilience has been demonstrated
through both analytical studies and real-world applications. Case studies of historical buildings
retrofitted with steel bracing have shown significant improvements in structural performance and
resilience against seismic events, thereby safeguarding valuable cultural assets for future generations
[1,17,40].
Steel bracing systems represent a versatile and efficient retrofitting technique for historical
buildings vulnerable to seismic hazards. By leveraging the strength and ductility of steel, engineers
can enhance the lateral stability and overall seismic performance of historical structures while
preserving their architectural integrity and cultural significance [4,8].

3.4. FRP Wrapping

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping is a sophisticated retrofitting technique used to
strengthen and enhance the seismic performance of structural elements in historical buildings,
particularly concrete or masonry components that exhibit vulnerability to seismic loading. This
method involves applying layers of composite materials consisting of high-strength fibers embedded
in a polymer resin matrix to existing structural elements such as columns, beams, and walls [17,22].
The primary objective of FRP wrapping is to improve the strength, ductility, and confinement
of structural elements, thereby enhancing their ability to resist lateral forces and deformations during
seismic events [24]. FRP materials, such as carbon or glass fibers, offer excellent tensile strength and
durability, making them ideal for reinforcing vulnerable building components without adding
significant weight or mass [19].
The application of FRP wrapping begins with surface preparation, where the substrate (e.g.,
concrete or masonry surface) is cleaned, repaired, and roughened to promote adhesion between the
substrate and the FRP material. Layers of FRP sheets or wraps are then applied to the surface using
epoxy-based adhesives or resins, creating a bonded composite system that effectively enhances the
structural capacity of the element [29].
One of the key advantages of FRP wrapping is its versatility and adaptability to various
structural configurations and geometries. FRP materials can be tailored to conform to complex shapes
and contours, allowing for targeted reinforcement of critical areas within historical buildings while
minimizing disruption to architectural aesthetics [31].
The effectiveness of FRP wrapping in seismic retrofitting has been validated through extensive
research, laboratory testing, and field applications. Studies have demonstrated that FRP-wrapped
structural elements exhibit improved flexural and shear capacities, enhanced ductility, and superior
resistance against seismic forces compared to untreated elements [33,35].
FRP wrapping represents a state-of-the-art retrofitting technique for historical buildings seeking
to enhance seismic resilience without compromising architectural integrity. By leveraging the
mechanical properties of advanced composite materials, engineers can effectively strengthen
vulnerable structural elements and prolong the lifespan of valuable cultural assets, ensuring their
preservation for future generations [21].

3.5. Damping Devices

Damping devices are advanced seismic retrofitting components designed to mitigate the effects
of earthquake-induced vibrations and reduce structural response in historical buildings. These
devices function by dissipating energy through various damping mechanisms, thereby controlling
the dynamic behavior of structures during seismic events [8]. Damping devices are particularly
valuable for historical buildings where traditional retrofitting methods may not be feasible due to
architectural constraints or preservation considerations [10].
There are several types of damping devices used in seismic retrofitting, including viscous
dampers, tuned mass dampers (TMDs), and friction dampers. Viscous dampers consist of hydraulic
cylinders filled with viscous fluid that provide resistance against motion, effectively dissipating
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

seismic energy and reducing structural vibrations [22]. Tuned mass dampers utilize a secondary mass
attached to a spring-damper system, tuned to the building's natural frequency to counteract excessive
motions induced by earthquakes [24]. Friction dampers rely on the frictional resistance between
sliding surfaces to dissipate energy and control structural displacements.
The selection and design of damping devices for historical buildings depend on factors such as
building geometry, structural characteristics, and seismic performance objectives. Engineers must
carefully evaluate the dynamic properties of the building and optimize the damping system to
achieve the desired level of performance while minimizing adverse effects on architectural aesthetics
[19].
One of the primary advantages of damping devices is their ability to provide targeted and
localized energy dissipation, allowing for precise control over structural response during seismic
events. Unlike traditional retrofitting methods that may require extensive modifications to building
components, damping devices can be installed discreetly within the building's structure, making
them suitable for retrofitting projects where preservation of historical aesthetics is paramount [23].
The effectiveness of damping devices in seismic retrofitting has been demonstrated through
laboratory testing, analytical studies, and real-world applications. Case studies of historical buildings
retrofitted with damping devices have shown significant reductions in structural displacements,
accelerations, and overall damage during earthquakes, highlighting the potential of these devices to
enhance the seismic resilience of valuable cultural assets [23,27,31].
Damping devices represent a cutting-edge retrofitting technology for historical buildings
vulnerable to seismic hazards. By leveraging innovative damping mechanisms, engineers can
effectively control structural vibrations and enhance the overall seismic performance of historical
structures while preserving their architectural integrity and cultural significance [21].

4. Comparative Analysis
The comparative analysis of retrofitting techniques for seismically vulnerable historical
buildings encompasses a comprehensive evaluation of several advanced methods aimed at
enhancing structural resilience against seismic events while preserving architectural heritage [8].
Each retrofitting technique offers unique advantages and considerations, making them suitable for
different scenarios based on building characteristics, seismic risk, and preservation objectives.

4.1. Base Isolation

Base isolation stands out as a highly effective technique for protecting historical buildings
against seismic forces by decoupling the structure from ground motion. This method involves placing
flexible bearings or isolators, typically made of elastomeric or sliding materials, between the
building's foundation and its superstructure [5]. These isolators absorb and dissipate seismic energy,
allowing the structure to move independently of ground motion. The primary advantage of base
isolation lies in its ability to significantly reduce the transmission of seismic forces to the building,
thereby minimizing the risk of structural damage.
This technique is particularly beneficial for buildings with significant architectural value in high
seismic zones. Historical buildings often possess intricate architectural details, delicate materials, and
unique construction methods that can be easily damaged by seismic forces. By implementing base
isolation, these buildings can be effectively protected without altering their original design or
compromising their historical integrity [7]. The isolators accommodate ground movements and
prevent these movements from being directly transmitted to the building's structure, thereby
preserving both structural and non-structural components such as facades, ornaments, and interior
finishes.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

Figure 1. (A, B) Prospective views of the case study, (C) foundation beams plan and (D) transverse
section in the “as built” condition [2].

Base isolation is advantageous in regions prone to frequent and severe earthquakes, as it

provides a robust and reliable means of safeguarding heritage structures. The technique has been
successfully applied in various historical buildings worldwide, demonstrating its effectiveness in
preserving architectural heritage while enhancing seismic resilience [11]. For example, the
implementation of base isolation in the retrofitting of iconic structures, such as the Los Angeles City
Hall and the Utah State Capitol, has proven to protect these buildings during significant seismic
events, thereby extending their lifespan and maintaining their cultural significance.
Despite its numerous advantages, base isolation requires meticulous planning, precise
engineering, and significant investment. The installation process can be complex, necessitating
careful consideration of the building's existing foundation and structural system [15]. However, the
long-term benefits of enhanced seismic protection and preservation of historical aesthetics often
justify the initial costs and efforts involved.

4.2. Strengthening of Masonry

Strengthening masonry through the use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) or steel elements
significantly enhances the ductility and load-bearing capacity of masonry walls, thereby reducing the
risk of collapse during earthquakes. This retrofitting technique addresses the inherent weaknesses of
unreinforced masonry (URM) walls, which are common in many historical buildings [15]. URM walls
are particularly vulnerable to seismic forces due to their brittle nature and lack of tensile strength,
making them prone to cracking and collapse under lateral loads.
The use of FRPs involves applying composite materials, typically consisting of high-strength
fibers embedded in a polymer matrix, to the surface of masonry walls. These fibers, which can be
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

10

made of carbon, glass, or aramid, provide additional tensile strength and flexibility to the masonry,
thereby improving its overall seismic performance. FRP sheets or wraps are bonded to the masonry
surface using epoxy resins, creating a composite action that enhances the wall's ability to withstand
seismic forces [12]. The application of FRPs is relatively straightforward and can conform to the
existing geometry of the building, making it a versatile solution for strengthening historical structures
without significant alterations to their appearance.

Figure 2. Strengthening of Masonry Cross-diagram [37].

Steel elements, such as braces, ties, and anchors, can also be used to reinforce masonry walls.
Steel braces provide lateral support and increase the stiffness of the wall, reducing its susceptibility
to seismic-induced deformations. Steel ties and anchors can be embedded within the masonry to
improve the connection between individual units, enhancing the wall's overall integrity and load-
bearing capacity [7]. The use of steel elements is particularly effective in providing localized
reinforcement to areas of the wall that are most vulnerable to seismic forces, such as corners and
intersections.
This technique is well-suited for historical buildings with unreinforced masonry walls that are
prone to seismic damage. The application of FRPs or steel elements can be tailored to the specific
needs of the building, providing targeted reinforcement to critical areas while preserving the original
materials and architectural features [11]. Moreover, the non-invasive nature of these retrofitting
methods ensures that the historical and aesthetic value of the building is maintained, making them
ideal for heritage conservation projects.
The effectiveness of strengthening masonry using FRPs or steel elements has been demonstrated
in numerous case studies and research projects. These studies have shown significant improvements
in the seismic performance of retrofitted masonry walls, including increased load-bearing capacity,
enhanced ductility, and reduced risk of collapse [5]. For example, the retrofitting of historical
buildings such as the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy and the Mission San Miguel Arcángel in
California has successfully utilized FRP and steel reinforcements to protect these structures from
seismic damage while preserving their cultural significance [22].

4.3. Steel Bracing Systems

Steel bracing systems provide crucial lateral stiffness and resistance against seismic loads,
making them particularly well-suited for timber-framed historical buildings that require additional
lateral support. Timber-framed structures, while often resilient in other respects, can be vulnerable
to the lateral forces generated during seismic events, which can cause significant structural
deformations and potential failure [11]. Steel bracing systems address this vulnerability by
introducing a robust and ductile reinforcement that enhances the building's overall seismic
performance.
Steel bracing systems work by creating a rigid framework that restricts lateral movements and
distributes seismic forces more evenly throughout the structure. This is achieved through the
installation of diagonal steel braces, which can be configured in various patterns such as X-bracing,
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

11

K-bracing, or chevron bracing [7]. These braces are strategically placed within the timber frame to
provide maximum support and to absorb and dissipate seismic energy, thereby reducing the stress
on the timber components and preventing excessive deformation.

Figure 3. Various types of eccentrically braced steel frames [40].

One of the key advantages of steel bracing systems is their ability to significantly improve the
overall stability of historical buildings under seismic conditions. By increasing the lateral stiffness of
the structure, these systems help to maintain the building's shape and alignment during an
earthquake, preventing distortions that could lead to structural damage or collapse [5]. The increased
stiffness also enhances the building's load-bearing capacity, allowing it to better withstand both
vertical and horizontal loads.
Furthermore, steel bracing systems offer a high degree of flexibility in their design and
installation. They can be tailored to fit within the existing structural framework of historical buildings
without extensive alterations to the original architecture [2]. This adaptability is particularly
important for preserving the aesthetic and historical integrity of heritage structures. Steel braces can
be concealed within walls or integrated into the building's design in a way that minimizes their visual
impact, ensuring that the historical character of the building is maintained [5].
The implementation of steel bracing systems has been successfully demonstrated in numerous
retrofitting projects worldwide. For example, the retrofit of the California State Capitol involved the
installation of steel bracing to enhance the building's seismic performance while preserving its
historic features [2]. Similarly, the retrofitting of traditional Japanese timber structures, known for
their cultural significance and intricate craftsmanship, has utilized steel bracing to provide necessary
seismic reinforcement without compromising the buildings' historical authenticity.
However, the installation of steel bracing systems does require careful planning and engineering
expertise. The integration of steel braces into existing timber frames must be executed with precision
to ensure that the braces effectively contribute to the building's seismic resistance [7]. Additionally,
considerations must be made regarding the potential impact on the building's load paths and
connections, as well as the need for regular maintenance to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the
bracing system.

4.4. FRP Wrapping

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping offers a versatile and effective retrofitting solution
for reinforcing concrete or masonry structural elements without compromising architectural
integrity. FRP materials, typically composed of high-strength fibers such as carbon, glass, or aramid
embedded in a polymer matrix, are used to wrap or laminate around existing structural elements
[11]. This method significantly enhances the strength, ductility, and overall seismic performance of
these components, making them more resilient to earthquake-induced stresses.
The primary advantage of FRP wrapping is its ability to improve the load-bearing capacity and
ductility of structural elements. The fibers in the FRP materials provide high tensile strength, which
is crucial for withstanding the tensile forces that occur during seismic events. When applied to
concrete or masonry elements, FRP wraps confine and reinforce these components, thereby
increasing their ability to resist cracking and deformation [18]. This confinement effect is particularly
beneficial for columns and beams, which are critical to the structural integrity of buildings. By
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

12

enhancing the ductility of these elements, FRP wrapping allows them to undergo larger deformations
without failing, thereby improving their seismic performance and reducing the risk of collapse.

Figure 4. Methods of FRP strengthening for RC columns [3].

Another significant benefit of FRP wrapping is its minimal impact on the architectural integrity
of historical buildings. Unlike more intrusive retrofitting methods that may alter or damage the
original materials and appearance of heritage structures, FRP wraps can be applied in a manner that
preserves the existing aesthetics [15]. The thin and flexible nature of FRP materials allows them to
conform closely to the contours of the structural elements, making them virtually invisible when
applied correctly. This non-invasive approach is particularly important for preserving the historical
and cultural value of heritage buildings, where maintaining original appearances is paramount.
The application process of FRP wrapping is relatively straightforward and can be carried out
without extensive disruption to the building's occupants or operations. The process typically involves
surface preparation to ensure proper adhesion, application of a primer and adhesive, and then
wrapping the FRP material around the structural element [17]. This method allows for rapid
strengthening of vulnerable components, providing an efficient solution for urgent retrofitting needs.
Additionally, FRP materials are lightweight, which means they do not add significant mass to the
structure, thereby avoiding additional loads that could compromise structural stability.
FRP wrapping has been successfully implemented in various retrofitting projects around the
world, demonstrating its effectiveness and versatility. For instance, the seismic retrofitting of the
Roman Colosseum, one of the most iconic historical structures, involved the use of FRP materials to
reinforce its ancient masonry walls [19]. Similarly, the retrofitting of the San Salvatore Church in Italy
used FRP wraps to strengthen its structural components without altering its historic facade. These
examples highlight the capability of FRP wrapping to enhance seismic resilience while preserving
the cultural and historical essence of heritage buildings.
However, the long-term durability and performance of FRP materials under varying
environmental conditions require ongoing research. Factors such as exposure to moisture, UV
radiation, and temperature fluctuations can affect the integrity of the polymer matrix and the bond
between the FRP material and the substrate [31]. Therefore, careful consideration of the
environmental conditions and appropriate protective measures are essential to ensure the longevity
of FRP retrofitting solutions.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

13

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping offers a highly effective and minimally invasive
solution for reinforcing concrete and masonry structural elements in historical buildings. By
enhancing the strength and ductility of these components, FRP wraps significantly improve their
seismic performance and longevity, while preserving the architectural integrity of heritage structures
[17]. The straightforward application process, combined with the ability to conform to complex
shapes, makes FRP wrapping a versatile and practical choice for seismic retrofitting in a variety of
contexts. With ongoing research and careful implementation, FRP wrapping can play a crucial role
in safeguarding historical buildings against seismic hazards, ensuring their preservation for future
generations.

4.5. Damping Devices

Damping devices such as viscous dampers, tuned mass dampers (TMDs), and friction dampers
provide controlled energy dissipation and significantly reduce structural vibrations during
earthquakes. These devices play a critical role in enhancing the seismic resilience of buildings by
absorbing and dissipating seismic energy, thereby reducing the amplitude of structural vibrations
and preventing damage [19]. This technology is particularly valuable for historical buildings where
minimizing structural displacements is crucial to preserving architectural aesthetics and integrity.
Viscous dampers, also known as fluid dampers, function by converting the kinetic energy of
moving structural elements into heat through the flow of a viscous fluid. These dampers consist of a
cylinder filled with a viscous fluid and a piston that moves through the fluid. When an earthquake
induces movement in the building, the piston moves through the fluid, generating resistance and
dissipating energy as heat [20]. The main advantage of viscous dampers is their ability to provide
energy dissipation across a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes, making them effective in
reducing both small and large seismic vibrations. Additionally, viscous dampers can be incorporated
into various structural elements such as braces or shear walls, making them versatile for retrofitting
applications in historical buildings without altering their appearance.

Figure 5. Damping Retrofit Scheme [4].

Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are another effective damping device used to reduce structural
vibrations. A TMD consists of a mass attached to the building structure via a spring and damper
system. The mass is "tuned" to a specific frequency that matches the building's natural frequency.
During an earthquake, the TMD moves out of phase with the building's vibrations, thereby reducing
the overall motion through destructive interference [4]. TMDs are particularly effective in tall
buildings or structures with significant sway, such as towers and spires commonly found in historical
buildings. The installation of a TMD can be designed to be minimally invasive, often placed in attics,
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

14

basements, or other inconspicuous locations, thus preserving the building's historical and
architectural features.
Friction dampers work by converting kinetic energy into heat through the friction between
moving surfaces. These dampers typically consist of steel plates that slide against each other with a
controlled friction force. When an earthquake causes the building to move, the relative motion
between the plates dissipates energy through friction, thereby reducing the vibrations. Friction
dampers are advantageous due to their simplicity, reliability, and effectiveness in providing energy
dissipation [5]. They can be installed in various configurations, such as between beams and columns
or within bracing systems, making them suitable for reinforcing historical buildings with minimal
impact on their original structures.
The use of damping devices in historical buildings offers several benefits beyond seismic
performance enhancement. By reducing structural displacements, these devices help maintain the
alignment and stability of architectural elements, such as walls, columns, and decorative features,
which are often sensitive to movement [11]. This preservation of structural integrity is crucial for
maintaining the aesthetic and historical value of heritage buildings. Moreover, the installation of
damping devices can be carried out with minimal disruption to the building's occupants and
functions, ensuring that the retrofitting process is efficient and does not detract from the building's
use and significance.
However, the design and implementation of damping devices in historical buildings require
careful consideration of several factors. These include the building's structural characteristics, the
type and intensity of seismic activity, and the need for regular maintenance to ensure long-term
performance [2]. Additionally, the integration of damping devices should be planned in a way that
respects the building's historical significance and complies with preservation guidelines.
Damping devices such as viscous dampers, tuned mass dampers (TMDs), and friction dampers
provide a highly effective solution for reducing structural vibrations and enhancing the seismic
resilience of historical buildings. By dissipating seismic energy and minimizing structural
displacements, these devices help preserve the architectural aesthetics and integrity of heritage
structures [4]. The versatility, effectiveness, and minimal invasiveness of damping devices make
them an invaluable tool in the seismic retrofitting of historical buildings, ensuring their protection
and preservation for future generations.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Base isolation emerges as a highly effective method for decoupling historical buildings from
ground motion, thereby significantly reducing seismic forces transmitted to the structure. This
technique is particularly advantageous for buildings with high architectural value in seismically
active regions, as it minimizes structural damage while preserving the building's historical integrity
[13]. However, its implementation is complex and costly, requiring meticulous planning and
precision engineering.
Strengthening masonry using FRPs or steel elements enhances the ductility and load-bearing
capacity of masonry walls, reducing the risk of collapse during earthquakes. This method is
particularly well-suited for historical buildings with unreinforced masonry walls prone to seismic
damage [17]. The application of these materials can be tailored to specific areas of weakness,
providing targeted reinforcement while preserving the building's aesthetic and historical value.
Steel bracing systems provide essential lateral stiffness and resistance against seismic loads,
making them ideal for timber-framed historical buildings that require additional lateral support.
These systems effectively reduce structural deformations and improve overall stability under seismic
conditions [13]. The primary challenge with steel bracing is its potential visual impact on the
building's historical aesthetics, which can be mitigated through careful design and placement.
FRP wrapping offers a versatile and minimally invasive solution for reinforcing concrete or
masonry structural elements. This technique enhances the strength and ductility of vulnerable
components, significantly improving their seismic performance and longevity [18]. The non-intrusive
nature of FRP materials makes them particularly suitable for historical buildings, where maintaining
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

15

architectural integrity is crucial [6]. However, long-term durability and environmental compatibility
of FRP materials require further research.
Damping devices, including viscous dampers, tuned mass dampers (TMDs), and friction
dampers, provide controlled energy dissipation and reduce structural vibrations during earthquakes.
These devices are valuable for historical buildings where minimizing structural displacements is
essential to preserving architectural aesthetics [12]. The primary challenges with damping devices
include ensuring their maintenance and performance over time and integrating them into the existing
structural framework without compromising the building's historical value.

6. Recommendations
The findings of this study underscore the importance of a tailored approach to the seismic
retrofitting of historical buildings. Future research and development should focus on the following
areas:
Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Enhanced collaboration between structural engineers,
architects, and conservationists is crucial to developing retrofitting solutions that balance structural
safety and preservation of historical aesthetics [1]. Interdisciplinary teams can ensure that retrofitting
methods are compatible with the unique characteristics of historical buildings.
Material Innovation: Ongoing research into new materials and technologies is essential to
improving the performance and durability of retrofitting techniques [15]. Innovations in FRP
materials, for instance, could address concerns related to long-term durability and environmental
compatibility.
Cost-Effectiveness: Developing cost-effective retrofitting solutions is vital to making seismic
upgrades accessible for a broader range of historical buildings [18]. Future studies should explore
ways to optimize the cost-benefit ratio of retrofitting techniques, making them feasible for
widespread application.
Regulatory Frameworks: Policymakers should work towards establishing comprehensive
guidelines and standards for the seismic retrofitting of historical buildings [11]. These frameworks
should balance the need for structural safety with the preservation of cultural heritage, providing
clear directives for practitioners.
Performance Monitoring: Implementing advanced monitoring systems to assess the
performance of retrofitted buildings during and after seismic events can provide valuable data for
refining and improving retrofitting techniques [20]. Continuous monitoring ensures that the applied
solutions perform as intended and helps identify areas for further improvement.

Author Contributions: Writing – original and draft preparation, author; writing – review and editing, author;
consent to publish, author.
Funding: No funding support was rendered to this research

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable

Acknowledgement: The author fully acknowledges and thanks the Polytechnic University of the Philippines for

their support and guidance in the conduct of this study.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aghabeigi, P., & Farahmand-Tabar, S. (2021). Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of
historic masonry building of Malek Timche in Tabriz grand bazaar. Engineering Structures, 240,
112418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112418
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

16

2. Aghabeigi, P., Mahmoudi, R., Ahani, E., & Hosseinian Ahangarnazhad, B. (2020). Seismic assessment
and retrofitting of the masonry building of Mozaffarieh Timche in Tabriz historic bazaar. International
Journal of Architectural Heritage, 15(12), 1816-1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1729448
3. Ahani, E., & Ahani, A. (2021). Evaluating the damage content of Karbandi using frequency domain
analysis (Case study: Timche Haj-Mohammad-Qoli of Tabriz historic
bazaar). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1013551/v1
4. Amploriman, G. A. (2021). Seismic behaviour of open ground storey reinforced concrete
buildings. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 04(25), 162-
167. https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2015.0425024
5. Binda, L., & Cardani, G. (2021). Seismic vulnerability of historic centers. Handbook of Research on
Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-
8286-3.ch001
6. Carofilis Gallo, W. W., Clemett, N., Gabbianelli, G., O’Reilly, G., & Monteiro, R. (2022). Seismic
resilience assessment in optimally integrated retrofitting of existing school buildings in
Italy. Buildings, 12(6), 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060845
7. Caruso, M., Couto, R., Pinho, R., & Monteiro, R. (2023). Decision-making approaches for optimal
seismic/energy integrated retrofitting of existing buildings. Frontiers in Built
Environment, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1176515
8. Caruso, M., Pinho, R., Bianchi, F., Cavalieri, F., & Lemmo, M. T. (2021). Integrated economic and
environmental building classification and optimal seismic vulnerability/energy efficiency
retrofitting. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(9), 3627-3670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-
01101-4
9. De Matteis, G., Corlito, V., Guadagnuolo, M., & Tafuro, A. (2019). Seismic vulnerability assessment
and retrofitting strategies of Italian masonry churches of the Alife-Caiazzo diocese in
Caserta. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 14(8), 1180-
1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1594450
10. Flora, A., Cardone, D., Vona, M., & Perrone, G. (2021). A simplified approach for the seismic loss
assessment of RC buildings at urban scale: The case study of Potenza (Italy). Buildings, 11(4),
142. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040142
11. Formisano, A., & Marzo, A. (2021). Simplified and refined methods for seismic vulnerability
assessment and retrofitting of an Italian cultural heritage masonry building. Computers &
Structures, 180, 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.07.005
12. Foti, D., Ruggiero, F., Sabbà, M. F., & Lerna, M. (2020). A dissipating frames for seismic retrofitting
and building energy-efficiency. Infrastructures, 5(9), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5090074
13. Fratila, L. C. (2019). Building information modeling for energy retrofitting. Retrofitting for Optimal
Energy Performance, 176-194. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9104-7.ch008
14. Furtado, A. F. (2023). Strengthening strategies to improve the seismic behaviour of infill masonry
walls. Springer Theses, 45-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20372-5_3
15. Furtado, A. F. (2023). Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting strategies for masonry infilled
frame building. Springer Theses. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20372-5
16. Furtado, A. F. (2023). Experimental characterization of the as-built masonry infill components’
properties. Springer Theses, 83-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20372-5_4
17. Furtado, A. F. (2023). Out−of−Plane behaviour of masonry infill walls experimental tests: A systematic
review. Springer Theses, 9-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20372-5_2
18. Furtado, A. F. (2023). Final conclusions and future works. Springer Theses, 347-
352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20372-5_8
19. Gentile, R., & Galasso, C. (2020). Simplified seismic loss assessment for optimal structural retrofit of
RC buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 37(1), 346-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020952441
20. Gentile, R., & Galasso, C. (2020). Simplified seismic loss assessment for optimal structural retrofit of
RC buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 37(1), 346-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020952441
21. Gentile, R., & Galasso, C. (2021). Optimal retrofit selection for seismically-deficient rc buildings based
on simplified performance assessment. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN
2015). https://doi.org/10.7712/120119.6986.19675
22. Jara-Guerrero, J. M., Hernández-Mazariegos, E. J., Olmos-Navarrete, B. A., Martínez-Ruiz, G., & Roa-
García, M. I. (2019). Seismic vulnerability and retrofit alternatives for typical soft-story buildings in
earthquake prone areas. Structural Engineering International, 30(1), 33-
42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2019.1605865
23. Liel, A. B., & Deierlein, G. G. (2019). Preliminary results of a cost-benefit assessment of replacing
Seismically vulnerable non-ductile reinforced concrete frame structures. Improving the Seismic
Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures. https://doi.org/10.1061/41084(364)20
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 27 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1772.v1

17

24. Madheswaran, C., & Rama Rao, G. (2021). Development of retrofitting technique for Seismically
vulnerable open ground storey reinforced concrete buildings. Experimental Techniques, 46(1), 43-
65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-021-00456-2
25. Mitrica, E. (2019). Financing the green building retrofitting investments. Retrofitting for Optimal Energy
Performance, 50-72. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9104-7.ch003
26. Natale, A., Vecchio, C. D., Zordan, T., & Ludovico, M. D. (2023). Simplified framework for economic
convenience of base isolation as seismic retrofit solution for existing RC buildings. Procedia Structural
Integrity, 44, 1768-1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.226
27. Nettis, A., Saponaro, M., & Nanna, M. (2020). RPAS-based framework for simplified seismic risk
assessment of Italian RC-bridges. Buildings, 10(9), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10090150
28. Philip, P. M., Madheswaran, C. K., & Skaria, E. (2022). Retrofitting of Seismically damaged open
ground storey RCC framed building with geopolymer concrete. Advances in Structural Engineering,
463-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6_39
29. Singh, S., Kamar, W. G., & Gruthi, A. (2016). Seismic performance and retrofitting of open ground
storey buildings with floating columns. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 3(8), 23-
26. https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/ijce-v3i8p105
30. Staiger, R. (2019). Green retrofit energy efficiency potential on existing building envelope for
residential and non-residential building. Retrofitting for Optimal Energy Performance, 219-
249. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9104-7.ch010
31. T. Sharaf, O. M. Ramadan, & S. Elshazly. (2019). Utilizing steel brace for seismic retrofitting of old
school buildings with open ground storey. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 19, 60-
70. https://doi.org/10.56748/ejse.19236
32. Takabatake, H., Kitada, Y., Takewaki, I., & Kishida, A. (2019). Structural properties of high-rise
buildings. Simplified Dynamic Analysis of High-Rise Buildings, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
7185-1_1
33. Tian, J., & Symans, M. D. (2019). High-performance seismic retrofit of soft-story wood-framed
buildings using energy dissipation systems. Structures Congress
2019. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412367.158
34. Tiwari, K. (2023). Experience on seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of Supreme Court
building. 2nd Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering ‒
2CroCEE. https://doi.org/10.5592/co/2crocee.2023.9
35. Tiwari, K. (2023). Experience on seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of Supreme Court
building. 2nd Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering ‒
2CroCEE. https://doi.org/10.5592/co/2crocee.2023.9
36. Towards an integrated approach to seismic and energy retrofitting of existing RC frame buildings.
(2021). SP-326: Durability and Sustainability of Concrete Structures (DSCS-
2021). https://doi.org/10.14359/51711097
37. Vona, M., Flora, A., Carlucci, E., & Foscolo, E. (2021). Seismic retrofitting resilience-based for strategic
RC buildings. Buildings, 11(3), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11030111
38. Wang, B., & Xia, X. (2022). Optimal maintenance planning for building energy efficiency retrofitting
from optimization and control system perspectives. Energy and Buildings, 96, 299-
308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.032
39. Yang, C., Xie, L., Li, A., Zeng, D., Jia, J., Chen, X., & Chen, M. (2020). Resilience-based retrofitting of
existing urban RC-frame buildings using seismic isolation. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 19(4), 839-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0599-1
40. Zhang, Y., Fung, J. F., Johnson, K. J., & Sattar, S. (2022). Motivators and impediments to seismic
retrofit implementation for wood-frame soft-story buildings: A case study in California. Earthquake
Spectra, 38(4), 2788-2812. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221100844

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.