## 2 Refinement 1: Definition of Tailored Performance Targets  
A schematic representation of the strengthening technique employed hereafter is shown in Figure 2a; hysteretic dampers are inserted along diagonal braces arranged on two levels. Indeed, despite warehouses usually featuring only one storey, this layout is more suitable to compensating for the sharp reduction of the lateral stiffness due to the presence of the upper windowed band (i.e., discontinuity of the masonry infills). If missing, chain-elements (e.g., edge RC or steel beams) are introduced to horizontally link the columns at the nodes of the two levels attracting the horizontal inertia forces towards the spans with the diagonal braces. In this section, two performance targets \(d_{PP,L1}\) and \(d_{PP,L2}\) are formulated, in terms of the maximum allowable inter-storey lateral displacement to tailor the hysteretic braces to the presence of masonry infills; furthermore, glazed curtain walls are proposed. In the proposed approach, the contribution of the masonry infills is exploited to equilibrate the seismic inertia forces at the expense of their partial damage (e.g., diagonal cracks). An effective alternative aiming at avoiding any damage could be to isolate the infills from the main RC frame through the definition of gaps and/or sliding joints [34; 35]. However, based on our experience this would lead to considerably higher costs of the intervention (e.g., larger hysteretic dampers). **Target-1**: the first \"inter-storey\" displacement target (suffix L1), or performance point \(d_{PP,L1}\) (see Figure 2a), for the frame in the braced (i.e., strengthened) layout is established in order to attain an acceptable level of damage of the bottom masonry infills under the ULS design earthquake:  
\[d_{PP,L1}\leq min(\Delta_{w,1};\ \Delta_{w,2}) \tag{1a}\] \[\Delta_{w,1}=min\bigg{[}\bigg{(}\frac{d_{w,m,i}+d_{w,r,i}}{2}\bigg{)}\text{- cos}\theta_{i}\bigg{]}\] (1b) \[\Delta_{w,2}=0.004h \tag{1c}\]  
where: (i) \(h\) is the inter-storey height (in this case \(h=h_{1}\)); (ii) \(\theta_{i}\) is the inclination angle of the \"equivalent strut\" of the \(i\)th masonry infills (see Figure 2a; and (iii) \(d_{w,m,i}\) and \(d_{w,r,i}\) are the displacements corresponding to the maximum (\(F_{w,m,i}\)) and minimum (\(F_{w,r,i}\)) axial strengths of the \(i\)th wall (see Figure 2b). In this regard, these parameters are evaluated hereinafter through the \"diagonal no-tension strut\" model originally proposed by [PERSON] [36; 37]. This formulation, based on the geometrical and mechanical properties of the infills, can account for four different failure mechanisms: (1) crushing in the center; (2) crushing in  
Figure 2: Refinement 1 adopted in “Method-B1”: (**a**) qualitative representation of the two inter-storey displacement targets; (**b**) axial response (force–displacement) of equivalent struts of masonry infills according to the Decanini model [36]; and (**c**) kinematics of glazed curtain walls under lateral seismic loads. the corners of the panel; (3) sliding along the mortar joints; and (4) diffuse cracking due to diagonal traction. Moreover, the updated version of Decanini model [37] allows for simulation of the weakening effects on the lateral strength of the infills due to the presence of openings (e.g., doors and windows). A reduction factor (\(\rho<1\)), which in case of wide openings devoid of any reinforcements can reach values as low as 0.2, is applied to both the maximum strength and effective stiffness of the equivalent strut. For the sake of brevity, the equations of the Decanini model are not repeated in this paper; they can be found in [36,37]. Moreover, it is worth noting that the second term in the brackets of Equation (1) represents the safer estimation provided in the Italian Building Code (SS C.8.7.1.3.1.1) [26] of the ultimate lateral deformation of infills made with hollow bricks (for solid bricks, this becomes 0.005\(h_{1}\) ).