Recommendations for repairing and strengthening historic buildings after an earthquake and before the next in modern times go back to the contribution to the ICOMOS General Assembly of 1987 by Sir Bernard Fielden "Between two Earthquakes" (Fielden 1987). In that circumstance two important points were made: the first is that failure and damage should be used to understand performance and behaviour, so as to avoid measures that do not work. The second is that the engineer work should be integrated into the architecture historical methodology. Almost 30 years later this contribution investigate to which extent these two recommendations have been fulfilled, whether there is a common understanding between the conservation and the seismic engineering community and whether lessons from past failures are informing new strengthening strategies.
IntroductionThe global seismic response of historic masonry buildings is highly influenced by the integrity of the connections among vertical and horizontal structural elements, to ensure the so-called box behaviour. Such behaviour, providing the transfer of inertial and dynamic actions from elements working in flexure out-of-plane to elements working in in-plane shear, leads to a global response best suited to the strength capacity of the constitutive materials, and hence enhanced performance and lower damage levels. While, many properly designed buildings of the past demonstrated such behavior when exposed to seismic action and successfully survived ground shaking (D'Ayala 2011;Tavares et al. 2014), too often, due to