Context

Do you know your building's seismic risk? Most have never been assessed.

Portugal has real seismic risk and an old building stock, designed before modern seismic codes. For extension, alteration or reconstruction works, Portaria n.º 302/2019 sets out when an assessment of the building's seismic vulnerability is required — and, when capacity falls below 90 % of the demand, it makes a seismic strengthening design mandatory. For buildings within their domain, LNEC's rapid methods carry out that assessment with little data, from the model or the drawings.

Built with rigour

Three reasons to trust the result.

The method is LNEC's. We apply the rapid seismic vulnerability assessment methods published by LNEC, the body to which Portaria n.º 302/2019 (art. 1.º, n.º 4) assigns that competence: for masonry with rigid or flexible floors, those of the Revista Portuguesa de Engenharia de Estruturas, Série III, n.º 12, 14 and 16; for reinforced concrete, the LNEC/SPES Guião and LNEC Report 81/2019. With the published expressions and tables.
The software reproduces the published cases. Before assessing your building, we reran the examples with which LNEC and SPES published the methods, value by value and storey by storey. Every published verdict comes out the same; the largest deviation is 2.49 % in one of the 42 wall capacities, traced to a published input value that was already rounded; 0.5 % in storey shear resistance; and 0.15 kN in the reference column.
The calculations are in plain sight. You receive a spreadsheet with formulas, not pasted values: you can change the seismic zone, the ground type or the materials and watch the verdict recalculate. Recalculated in Microsoft Excel and compared cell by cell with the software, it has no diverging formula. And the report states what had to be estimated, and on what basis.

Download the validation technical note (PDF, 11 pages, in Portuguese) →

On your side

What we need

The structural BIM model (Revit or IFC) — without a model, CAD or paper plans and sections will do
Year of construction and structural system — masonry (rigid or flexible floors) or reinforced concrete — and whatever exists on the materials (original design, tests)
For Method II in reinforced concrete: the column reinforcement detailing

On our side

What you receive

Signed technical report, by a civil engineer who is a senior member of the Ordem dos Engenheiros
The classification under Portaria n.º 302/2019, on three levels: meets the demand · does not meet it, with no strengthening obligation (capacity between 90 % and 100 % of the demand) · seismic strengthening design mandatory (capacity below 90 %, art. 1.º, n.º 3)
The storey-by-storey verdict, with the governing method stated in full
The spreadsheet, with every formula and editable input data
Support for licensing, urban rehabilitation or purchase due diligence, within the domain of the methods

Sample deliverable

Seismic assessment, element by element.

Choose your building's typology to see the matching report — excerpt from the Sismica.xlsx file, simplified example.

Sismica.xlsx

See the exact scope of the assessment ↓

Reference project: masonry house — rigid floors · 4 floors · seismic zone 1.3 · soil type B. GREEN

Building	Single-family house
Structural system	Masonry — rigid floors
No. of floors	4
Seismic zone	1.3
Soil type	B
Regulation	NP EN 1998-3:2017 (Anexo C) + AN
Overall result	GREEN

Capacity below 90 % of the demand → seismic strengthening design mandatory (Portaria n.º 302/2019, art. 1.º, n.º 3). Method I is a conservative filter; it is Method II, checking wall by wall, that determines the overall result — which is why a RED under Method I sits alongside an overall GREEN verdict.

Criterion	Status	Value
No. of floors ≤ 5	GREEN	4 floors
Plan area ≤ 350 m²	GREEN	52 m²
Soil type A/B/C	GREEN	soil B
Plan slenderness λ ≤ 4	GREEN	λ ≈ 1.3 (Lmax/Lmin)
No partition walls < 0.10 m counted in resistance	GREEN	excluded (0): —
Plan regularity (NP EN 1998-1)	YELLOW	mass/stiffness symmetry on 2 axes; setbacks ≤ 5% of area; e0x ≤ 0.30·rx; rx ≥ ls
Elevation regularity (NP EN 1998-1)	YELLOW	continuous systems; setbacks: (L1−L2)/L1 ≤ 0.20; single < 15%H: (L3+L1)/L ≤ 0.50
Interaction with adjacent buildings	YELLOW	band: slab offset Δh ≤ 2/3·t (party wall); continuous party walls
Traditional masonry; in-plane mechanisms (box behaviour)	YELLOW	out-of-plane collapse not covered; ensure wall tying/restraint
Overall applicability		YELLOW

Methods I and II apply to this building, based on NP EN 1998-3 (Annex C) — criteria marked amber need on-site/design confirmation.

Wall	Dir	Floor	t	l	h
W324757	X	Floor 1	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W324759	X	Floor 1	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W324758	Y	Floor 1	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m
W324760	Y	Floor 1	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m
W334410	X	Floor 2	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W334411	Y	Floor 2	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m

+ 6 additional walls in the full report (floors 2 and 3), each with the seismic capacity calculation (Method II) per floor and direction.

	Method I	Method II
Direction X	RED	GREEN
Direction Y	RED	GREEN

Capacity below 90 % of the demand → seismic strengthening design mandatory (Portaria n.º 302/2019, art. 1.º, n.º 3). Method I is a conservative filter; it is Method II, checking wall by wall, that determines the overall result — which is why a RED under Method I sits alongside an overall GREEN verdict. Rigid floors: correction by expression (3) of RPEE III-14, checked storey by storey against the published Table 16.

Sismica.xlsx

Reference project: masonry house — flexible floors · 4 floors · seismic zone 1.3 · soil type B. GREEN

Building	Single-family house
Structural system	Masonry — flexible floors
No. of floors	4
Seismic zone	1.3
Soil type	B
Regulation	NP EN 1998-3:2017 (Anexo C) + AN
Overall result	GREEN

Capacity below 90 % of the demand → seismic strengthening design mandatory (Portaria n.º 302/2019, art. 1.º, n.º 3). Method I is a conservative filter; it is Method II, checking wall by wall, that determines the overall result — which is why a RED under Method I sits alongside an overall GREEN verdict.

Criterion	Status	Value
No. of floors ≤ 5	GREEN	4 floors
Plan area ≤ 350 m²	GREEN	52 m²
Soil type A/B/C	GREEN	soil B
Plan slenderness λ ≤ 4	GREEN	λ ≈ 1.3 (Lmax/Lmin)
No partition walls < 0.10 m counted in resistance	GREEN	excluded (0): —
Plan regularity (NP EN 1998-1)	YELLOW	mass/stiffness symmetry on 2 axes; setbacks ≤ 5% of area; e0x ≤ 0.30·rx; rx ≥ ls
Elevation regularity (NP EN 1998-1)	YELLOW	continuous systems; setbacks: (L1−L2)/L1 ≤ 0.20; single < 15%H: (L3+L1)/L ≤ 0.50
Interaction with adjacent buildings	YELLOW	band: slab offset Δh ≤ 2/3·t (party wall); continuous party walls
Traditional masonry; in-plane mechanisms (box behaviour)	YELLOW	out-of-plane collapse not covered; ensure wall tying/restraint
Overall applicability		YELLOW

Same geometry and walls as the rigid-floor variant — applicability doesn't depend on floor stiffness.

Wall	Dir	Floor	t	l	h
W324757	X	Floor 1	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W324759	X	Floor 1	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W324758	Y	Floor 1	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m
W324760	Y	Floor 1	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m
W334410	X	Floor 2	0,29 m	6,0 m	3,0 m
W334411	Y	Floor 2	0,29 m	8,0 m	3,0 m

Same geometry and walls as the rigid-floor variant. + 6 additional walls in the full report (floors 2 and 3), each with the seismic capacity calculation (Method II) per floor and direction.

	Method I	Method II
Direction X	RED	GREEN
Direction Y	RED	GREEN

Capacity below 90 % of the demand → seismic strengthening design mandatory (Portaria n.º 302/2019, art. 1.º, n.º 3). Method I is a conservative filter; it is Method II, checking wall by wall, that determines the overall result — which is why a RED under Method I sits alongside an overall GREEN verdict. Flexible floors: correction by Table 6 of RPEE III-16, checked against the published example.

Sismica.xlsx

Reference project: concrete frame house · 3 floors · seismic zone 1.3 · soil type B. METHOD I: GREEN METHOD II: GREEN

Building	Single-family house
Structural system	Reinforced concrete (frame structure)
No. of floors	3
Seismic zone	1.3
Soil type	B
Regulation	NP EN 1998-3:2017 + AN · Guião LNEC/SPES · Relatório LNEC 81/2019
Method I RC (column area ratio)	GREEN
Result (Method II RC, per column)	GREEN

Method I RC is a conservative filter (column area per storey). Method II RC checks column by column and governs when the reinforcement is known; without it, the report says so and Method I governs.

Column	Floor	b	h	area
C332790	Floor 1	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
C332791	Floor 1	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
C334398	Floor 2	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
C334399	Floor 2	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
C334408	Floor 3	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
C334409	Floor 3	0,30 m	0,30 m	0,09 m²
Σ column area (18)				1,62 m²

+ 12 additional columns in the full report (floors 1 to 3). No structural concrete walls detected (or not provided); if present, they're reported but not added to the column area.

Column	Floor	N	Vflexure	Vshear	Vmin	mechanism
C332790	Floor 1	224,8 kN	48,8 kN	75,9 kN	48,8 kN	flexure
C332791	Floor 1	224,8 kN	48,8 kN	75,9 kN	48,8 kN	flexure
C334398	Floor 2	149,9 kN	42,9 kN	70,8 kN	42,9 kN	flexure
C334399	Floor 2	149,9 kN	42,9 kN	70,8 kN	42,9 kN	flexure
C334408	Floor 3	74,9 kN	36,3 kN	65,1 kN	36,3 kN	flexure
C334409	Floor 3	74,9 kN	36,3 kN	65,1 kN	36,3 kN	flexure

+ 12 additional columns in the full report, with the same value within each floor due to symmetric geometry (equal sections and loads); axial load N decreases floor by floor.

By floor — overall check floor 1 (governing)

Floor	V_H	CS_C	η_j	CS_E,j	verdict
Floor 1	293,0 kN	0,217	1,0	0,170	GREEN
Floor 2	257,4 kN	0,191	0,83	0,141	GREEN
Floor 3	218,1 kN	0,162	0,5	0,085	GREEN

	Result
Method I RC (column area ratio)	GREEN
Method II RC (per column, governing floor)	GREEN

Method I RC: column area of each storey, as % of the footprint — conservative filter, columns only. Method II RC: per column V=min(flexure, shear); per storey and direction CS_C,j=V_H,j/W_E ≥ η_j·CS_E. Capacity below 90 % of the demand → seismic strengthening design mandatory (Portaria n.º 302/2019, art. 1.º, n.º 3).

Every result — Cover, Applicability or Columns, calculation per wall or per column, Report — comes in the same Excel file, with editable input data and every formula visible.

Who it's for

Municipalities, insurers, condominiums, and anyone doing rehabilitation work.

Municipal councils and urban rehabilitation managers, insurers, condominiums of older buildings, developers buying to refurbish, and architecture studios that need a technical opinion before designing an intervention.

Pricing

Clear pricing, per building.

Two scopes, within the domain of the rapid methods. All work is done from the file. The prices below assume you already have a structural BIM model (Revit or IFC) — without one, see the modelling add-on below.

Project country

Base

€950per building

Masonry up to 5 storeys and 350 m² in plan, or reinforced concrete up to 4 storeys and 400 m² — one structural type
Masonry: Methods I and II · reinforced concrete: Method I
Signed technical report, with the classification under Portaria n.º 302/2019
5–10 working days

Request assessment

Extended

€1.500per building

The same domain, with more demanding geometry — several blocks, setbacks within the regularity limits
Reinforced concrete also by Method II, from the column reinforcement detailing; cross-check by Methods I and II
Signed technical report, with the classification under Portaria n.º 302/2019
Timeline confirmed case by case

Request assessment

Don't have a BIM model of the building?

Without a digital model, we build the structural model from your plans and sections before running the assessment — +€300 on the Base scope, +€700 on the Extended scope, depending on the building's size and complexity.

Prices exclude VAT.

Domain of the methods: besides the number of storeys and the plan area, ground type A, B or C and regularity in plan and elevation; for masonry, plan slenderness up to 4; for reinforced concrete, importance class I or II. We confirm the building is within the domain before accepting the work.

Geographic scope: buildings in Portugal. The demand tables derive from the Portuguese National Annex to NP EN 1998-3, and the mandatory-strengthening threshold is the one set by Portaria n.º 302/2019 — they cannot be carried over to another country by translation, because each country has its own seismic zoning and national annex.

The assessment is carried out from the model or plans you send us, and assumes that information reflects the building as built. We do not confirm dimensions, materials, or the structure's condition on site.

How it works

Three steps, no red tape.

Send us the model or the plans — the structural BIM model (Revit or IFC) or, without a model, plans and sections in PDF or CAD (in that case, the modelling add-on from the pricing section applies). After filling in the form below, reply to our email with the file attached; for large files, a free service like WeTransfer (no account needed) sent to geral@cubicasolutions.com avoids any size-limit issues.
We confirm scope, price and timeline — based on what you send, we confirm by email whether the building is within the domain of the methods, which of the two scopes applies, whether modelling from plans is needed, and the delivery date.
Payment and delivery — bank transfer details follow by email after confirmation; the signed technical report is delivered on the agreed date.

Difference

Why not by hand, and why not a generic tool

Better than calculating by hand

Outside the tables' domain, the engine refuses to give a result.It does not extrapolate nor fall back to the nearest value. A building outside the domain is always flagged, even when the ratios would look good.
Every wall is classified one by one, and the numbers close element by element.Partitions, fragments and walls with no resisting function are left out, and every exclusion is recorded with its reason, rather than simply not appearing.
For each wall the three failure modes are computed, and the worst one stands.Which one governed is recorded. Each floor's load comes from the real walls at that level, not from a building average.
An incomplete assessment is flagged as such, instead of returning a verdict.If one of the seismic actions is missing, the result does not turn green just because the numbers worked out.

What generic tools do not do

The Excel you receive carries formulas, not pasted values.Recalculated in Microsoft Excel and compared cell by cell with the software: no diverging formula, and every verdict the same. You can open it and redo the maths.
If the internal checks fail, no file is written at all.No Excel, no report. We would rather not deliver than deliver a number that does not hold up.
We reproduce the published cases before assessing yours.The official tables were checked against the publications and, in the LNEC and SPES application examples, every verdict comes out the same — with a largest deviation of 2.49 % in one wall capacity. That is what lets you defend the result in front of an expert, and it is all in the technical note.
A result sitting on the boundary is flagged, not given as decided.The tables are published rounded; we compare against the exact value. Someone reading the printed table cannot see they are on the boundary.

What turns a ratio into a defensible verdict are the coefficients. Wall area over floor area you can pull from the model. The coefficients by seismic zone, soil type and storey count come from the official tables — and we reproduce them before using them. That reproduction is what lets you put the result in front of an expert.

Every number in this section comes from real measurements and can be substantiated on request. What we have not measured, we do not claim.

Scope

The assessment applies the rapid seismic vulnerability assessment methods published by LNEC, the body to which Portaria n.º 302/2019 (art. 1.º, n.º 4) assigns that competence, within the domain of application of those methods, and is signed by a civil engineer, senior member of the Ordem dos Engenheiros. A building outside that domain is not assessed with these methods: we say so before accepting the work.

Rapid seismic assessment.
Built with rigour.

Do you know your building's seismic risk? Most have never been assessed.