## 4 Discussion
The obtained results have laid the foundation for the treatments of various zones for the restoration of both the facade elements and the restoration of some masonry areas, which, due to degradation, have locally detached and been rebuilt. However, as is well known, the wide variety of situations that can be encountered in the existing built environment, related to typologies, age, degree of wear, site conditions, and heritage value, cannot be framed--except for an overly simplistic view--within current technical prescriptions and regulations. It is enough to consider that these regulations are based on elements of repeatability of the materials and current building technologies, ensuring a standard level of quality attributed to performance parameters, which define quality as a statistical average [44; 45; 46]. In contrast, in the rehabilitation of historic buildings, the main objective is precisely to conserve and enhance characteristics of irreplaceability, rarity, and originality. Even regarding seismic risk, international practice observes a nuanced attitude when it comes to historic buildings. From this perspective, recent approaches worldwide correlate the assessment of safety in the current state with the knowledge of technological characteristics that, at a certain point in time, ensured the fulfillment of safety requirements. From this viewpoint, the structural logic and resistance mechanisms inherent to the building are considered characteristics that must be preserved and valued through intervention measures. Traditional masonry reinforcement solutions consist of repairing or rebuilding affected areas with classic materials (simple or reinforced mortars, welded meshes, ties, steel bars and profiles). The most common traditional masonry repair works include filling cracks by injection, partial dismantling of walls followed by restoration, the loosening and cleaning of mortar joints followed by their deep restoration, stitching cracks with steel staples, and various surface consolidation techniques, such as cladding with reinforced plaster [45; 46]. However, traditional methods have two major drawbacks. The first is that the added elements and associated structures considerably increase the permanent loads. Furthermore, the installation technologies may damage the degraded element (e.g., stitching cracks with steel ties may induce additional degradation of the elements to which they are attached). The second disadvantage concerns the duration required for the intervention works, which is often quite long and affects the normal operation of the building. The disadvantages introduced by applying traditional methods can be eliminated by adopting modern strengthening methods based on materials with advantageous mechanical properties and low mass (i.e., composite materials) [47]. These can be classified into two main categories: the first refers to fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials (FRP), used in the form of strips, bars, or profiles, while the second category includes glass, carbon, and aramid fiber fabrics, applied to the wall surface through impregnation with resins or mortars. In the case of the evaluated historical monument, the Costache Conachi Manor, both traditional and modern methods of strengthening can be applied to restore the safety and functionality levels of the masonry elements and structures. Traditional solutions use materials and principles common to the methods developed for the reinforcement of reinforced concrete elements. On the other hand, modern strengthening methods for masonry constructions are based on complex systems, made by combining low-mass materials with advantageous mechanical properties. The selection and application of a strengthening method are determined by a series of parameters referring to both the potential to improve the structural response (particularly to shear) and the compatibility of the component elements and architectural requirements [48].