Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DELIVERABLE D6
Review of innovative techniques for the knowledge of
cultural assets
Date of preparation:
Delivery date:
10/2010
12/2010
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
AUTHORS:
Bosiljkov V., V. Bokan-Bosiljkov, B. Strah, J. Velkavrh, P. Coti (UL)
CONTRIBUTORS:
Cattari S., Lagomarsino S. (UNIGE)
Ginanni Corradini R., Piovanello, V. (CENACOLO)
Lead Beneficiary:
UL
Reviewer in charge:
WP:
Task:
4
4.1 Definition of the complete records (sets of information) for the
seismic assessment of cultural assets.
R
PU
Nature:
Dissemination Level:
SUMMARY
The document presented herein contains review of innovative techniques for the knowledge of
cultural assets and sets of information related to definition of the complete records for the seismic
assessment of cultural assets. In the first part review of different methodologies (Italian guidelines
for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage, ICOMOS, European Council) for
collecting data regarding the knowledge of cultural heritage assets are summarized and
presented. On the basis of these reviews, sets of information related to particular architectonic or
cultural asset are proposed in the form of tables. Following this, review of different
methodologies/techniques for in-situ testing of masonry structures are presented, where for each
method scope of testing, principle of test, figure of test set-up, test procedure and measurements,
results, notes for the interpretation of results together with code provisions and references are
presented. Particular attention is focused to the application of NDT/MDT and DT methodologies
regarding their intrusiveness and effectiveness for the assessment of both AA (architectonic
asset) and CA (cultural or artistic asset). In the last chapter guidelines for the design of
interventions are given with attention on planning in-situ investigation, applicability of different
testing technique as well as their cost.
2/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
INDEX
1
2.1
2.1.1 Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites [14] ................. 6
2.1.1.1 The Reasons for Recording ..................................................................................... 6
2.1.1.2 Responsibility for Recording .................................................................................... 7
2.1.1.3 Planning for Recording ............................................................................................ 7
2.1.1.4 Content of Records .................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1.5 Management, Dissemination and Sharing of Records.............................................. 9
2.1.2 Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of
architectural heritage [15] .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2.1 General criteria ...................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2.2 Acquisition of data: information and investigation ................................................... 11
2.1.2.3 Structural behaviour ............................................................................................... 13
2.1.2.4 Diagnosis and safety evaluation............................................................................. 16
2.2
Core data index to historic buildings and monuments of the architectural heritage [12] ..... 20
2.2.1
2.2.2
Location ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3
2.2.4
Persons and organisations associated with the history of the building ........................... 21
2.2.5 Dating (allows for precise dating when it is known, or date ranges or periods when it is
imprecise) ................................................................................................................................. 21
2.3
2.4
Recording according to Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural
heritage [13] .................................................................................................................................. 24
3
Set of information necessary for the application of the PERPETUATE methodology for
the seismic assessment ............................................................................................................. 26
4
State-of-the-art of techniques for survey and investigation of architectonic and artistic
assets .......................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1
3/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3 Description of the methods for the evaluation of architectonic assets ............................ 47
4.2.3.1 Active Thermography (N1) ..................................................................................... 48
4.2.3.2 Geoelectrical Tomographies (N2) .......................................................................... 52
4.2.3.3 Impact-echo (N3) ................................................................................................... 55
4.2.3.4 Pachometer (Magnetometry) (N4).......................................................................... 58
4.2.3.5 Pulse Sonic Test (N5) ............................................................................................ 59
4.2.3.6 Radar (echo method) (N6) ..................................................................................... 62
4.2.3.7 Ultrasonics (echo and through transmission) (N7) ................................................. 67
4.2.3.8 Hardness test (N8) ................................................................................................. 71
4.2.3.9 Transducer Movement Sensing (N9) ..................................................................... 72
4.2.3.10 Coring and sampling (including local in depth inspection) (M1) .............................. 75
4.2.3.11 Hole Drilling Method (M2) ...................................................................................... 77
4.2.3.12 Optical and Digital Endoscopy/Boroscopy (M3) ..................................................... 78
4.2.3.13 PNT-G method (M4) .............................................................................................. 79
4.2.3.14 Single Flat Jack Test (M5) ..................................................................................... 81
4.2.3.15 Double Flat Jack Test (M6) .................................................................................... 84
4.2.3.16 In-situ compressive tests (D1)................................................................................ 87
4.2.3.17 In-situ shear tests (D2)........................................................................................... 89
4.2.3.18 In-situ diagonal tests (D3) ...................................................................................... 92
4.2.3.19 In-situ shear test with Flat Jack (D4) ...................................................................... 94
4.2.3.20 In-situ shear test Shove test (D5) ........................................................................ 96
5
5.1
5.2
Applicability of different testing technique depending on the mechanical model .............. 100
5.3
Use of different testing technique depending on the classification of architectonic and
artistic assets .............................................................................................................................. 102
5.4
5.5
4/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Heritage records must clearly and accurately identify and locate the heritage places and their
setting, and note the sources of all related information. They must also include metric, quantitative,
and qualitative information about the assets, their values and significance, their management, their
condition, their maintenance and repairs, and the threats and risks to their safekeeping. Recording
and other heritage information activities should be undertaken to an appropriate level of detail to
provide information for sensitive and cost-effective planning and development; for efficient
research, seismic assessment, conservation work, site management, and maintenance; and for
creating permanent records. The selection of the appropriate scope, level, and methods of
recording requires that the methods of recording and type of documentation produced are
appropriate to the type of architectonic asset, importance of the heritage place, applied model of
analysis and the resources available. Regarding the seismic assessment of architectonic assets,
the sets of information may depends regarding the scale of the numerical analysis (territorial or
particular object) and should encompass wide range of data related to geometry of the asset,
technological detail, historical information, material properties, typology of the foundation system,
topographic relief characteristics, etc. For each sets of information methodology for its evaluation
differs. However, due to the nature and sensitivity of architectonic and cultural assets, particular
attention is focused to the application of NDT methodologies and to the complementary use of
different techniques depending from their intrusiveness.
2
The topic of investigation of monumental buildings is handled by different documents, that state the
importance of a deep knowledge with proper techniques, taking into account the conservation of
the cultural heritage asset.
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings can be followed through the codes issued by
the European Technical Committee CEN TC 250 Structural Eurocodes [10]. Hence, seismic
assessment of existing buildings made of the more commonly used structural materials: concrete,
steel, and masonry is regulated in more details by Eurocode 8-3 [11]. However, in the same
document CEN TC 250 clearly stated that although the provisions of this Standard are applicable
to all categories of buildings, the seismic assessment and retrofitting of monuments and historical
buildings often requires different types of provisions and approaches, depending on the nature of
the monuments.
The European Technical Committee - CEN TC 346 - Conservation of Cultural Property is preparing
a set of standards on the survey and visual inspection of movable and immovable heritage, as well
as on terminology and definitions in the field of conservation of cultural property. These standards
are still under development..
There is no standardized method for the collection of data needed for the seismic assessment of
architectonic and artistic assets. Apart from the methodology developed through Guidelines for
evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage [12], among other documents that that
may be directly related to PERPETUATE methodology in the following also principles and
guidelines according to ICOMOS (International Scientific Committee for Analysis and Restoration
5/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
of Structures of Architectural Heritage) [14,15], Council of Europe [12] and Getty Conservation
Institute [8] are summarized and presented.
In this chapter documents from four main sources are briefly summarized and presented:
2.1
The document Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites
ratified by the 11thICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, October 1996 [14] as well as
Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural
heritage ((Part I- Principles according to the document ratified by the ICOMOS General
Assembly in Zimbabwe, October 2003; Part II-Guidelines approved in the meeting held by
the committee at Barcelona,2005). ) [15];
Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage (Italian Ministry
of Cultural Heritage, 2008) [13]
ICOMOS charters [14, 15]
2.1.1 Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites [14]
2.1.1.1 The Reasons for Recording
The recording of the cultural heritage is essential:
a) to acquire knowledge in order to advance the understanding of cultural heritage, its values
and its evolution;
b) to promote the interest and involvement of the people in the preservation of the heritage
through the dissemination of recorded information;
c) to permit informed management and control of construction works and of all change to the
cultural heritage;
d) to ensure that the maintenance and conservation of the heritage is sensitive to its physical
form, its materials, construction, and its historical and cultural significance.
Recording should be undertaken to an appropriate level of detail in order to:
a) provide information for the process of identification, understanding, interpretation and
presentation of the heritage, and to promote the involvement of the public;
b) provide a permanent record of all monuments, groups of buildings and sites that are to be
destroyed or altered in any way, or where at risk from natural events or human activities;
c) provide information for administrators and planners at national, regional or local levels to
make sensitive planning and development control policies and decisions;
6/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
d) provide information upon which appropriate and sustainable use may be identified, and the
effective research, management, maintenance programs and construction works may be
planned.
Recording of the cultural heritage should be seen as a priority, and should be undertaken
especially:
a) when compiling a national, regional, or local inventory;
b) as a fully integrated part of research and conservation activity;
c) before, during and after any works of repair, alteration, or other intervention, and when
evidence of its history is revealed during such works;
d) when total or partial demolition, destruction, abandonment or relocation is contemplated, or
where the heritage is at risk of damage from human or natural external forces;
e) during or following accidental or unforeseen disturbance which damages the cultural
heritage;
f) when change of use or responsibility for management or control occurs.
2.1.1.2 Responsibility for Recording
1. The commitment at the national level to conserve the heritage requires an equal
commitment towards the recording process.
2. The complexity of the recording and interpretation processes requires the deployment of
individuals with adequate skill, knowledge and awareness for the associated tasks. It may
be necessary to initiate training programs to achieve this.
3. Typically the recording process may involve skilled individuals working in collaboration,
such as specialist heritage recorders, surveyors, conservators, architects, engineers,
researchers, architectural historians, archaeologists above and below ground, and other
specialist advisors.
4. All managers of cultural heritage are responsible for ensuring the adequate recording,
quality and updating of the records.
7/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
c) Records should be searched for through consultation with individuals and organizations
who have owned, occupied, recorded, constructed, conserved, or carried out research into
or who have knowledge of the building, group of buildings or site.
Arising out of the analysis above, selection of the appropriate scope, level and methods of
recording requires that:
a) The methods of recording and type of documentation produced should be appropriate to
the nature of the heritage, the purposes of the record, the cultural context, and the funding
or other resources available. Limitations of such resources may require a phased approach
to recording. Such methods might include written descriptions and analyses, photographs
(aerial or terrestrial), rectified photography, photogrammetry, geophysical survey, maps,
measured plans, drawings and sketches, replicas or other traditional and modern
technologies;
b) Recording methodologies should, wherever possible, use non-intrusive techniques, and
should not cause damage to the object being recorded;
c) The rationale for the intended scope and the recording method should be clearly stated;
d) The materials used for compiling the finished record must be archivally stable.
2.1.1.4 Content of Records
Any record should be identified by:
a) the name of the building, group of buildings or site;
b) a unique reference number;
c) the date of compilation of the record;
d) the name of the recording organization;
e) cross-references to related building records and reports, photographic, graphic, textual or
bibliographic documentation, archaeological and environmental records.
The location and extent of the monument, group of buildings or site must be given accurately. This
may be achieved by description, maps, plans or aerial photographs. In rural areas a map reference
or triangulation to known points may be the only methods available. In urban areas an address or
street reference may be sufficient.
1. New records should note the sources of all information not obtained directly from the
monument, group of buildings or site itself.
2. Records should include some or all of the following information:
a) the type, form and dimensions of the building, monument or site;
b) the interior and exterior characteristics, as appropriate, of the monument, group of buildings
or site;
c) the nature, quality, cultural, artistic and scientific significance of the heritage and its
components and the cultural, artistic and scientific significance of:
8/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
ancillary structures, the gardens, landscape and the cultural, topographical and
natural features of the site;
d) the traditional and modern technology and skills used in construction and maintenance;
e) evidence to establish the date of origin, authorship, ownership, the original design, extent,
use and decoration;
f) evidence to establish the subsequent history of its uses, associated events, structural or
decorative alterations, and the impact of human or natural external forces;
g) the history of management, maintenance and repairs;
h) representative elements or samples of construction or site materials;
i)
j)
an assessment of the visual and functional relationship between the heritage and its setting;
k) an assessment of the conflicts and risks from human or natural causes, and from
environmental pollution or adjacent land uses.
3. In considering the different reasons for recording different levels of detail will be required.
All the above information, even if briefly stated, provides important data for local planning and
building control and management. Information in greater detail is generally required for the site or
building owners, managers or users purposes for conservation, maintenance and use.
2.1.1.5 Management, Dissemination and Sharing of Records
1. The original records should be preserved in a safe archive, and the archives environment
must ensure permanence of the information and freedom from decay to recognized
international standards.
2. A complete back-up copy of such records should be stored in a separate safe location.
3. Copies of such records should be accessible to the statutory authorities, to concerned
professionals and to the public, where appropriate, for the purposes of research,
development controls and other administrative and legal processes.
4. Up-dated records should be readily available, if possible on the site, for the purposes of
research on the heritage, management, maintenance and disaster relief.
5. The format of the records should be standardized, and records should be indexed wherever
possible to facilitate the exchange and retrieval of information at a local, national or
international level.
6. The effective assembly, management and distribution of recorded information requires,
wherever possible, the understanding and the appropriate use of up-to date information
technology.
9/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
the study and the reliability of the results. This report requires a careful and critical analysis of the
safety of the structure in order to justify any intervention measures. It will facilitate the decisions to
be taken and the final judgement on the safety of the structure.
The evaluation of a building requires a holistic approach considering the building as a whole rather
than just the assessment of individual elements.
2.1.2.2 Acquisition of data: information and investigation
The investigation of the structure requires an interdisciplinary approach that goes beyond simple
technical considerations because historical research may explain aspects of structural behaviour
while structural behaviour may answer some historical questions. Therefore it is important that an
investigating team be formed that incorporates a range of skills appropriate to the characteristics of
the building and which is directed by someone with adequate experience.
Knowledge of the structure requires information on its conception, on its constructional techniques,
on the processes of decay and damage, on changes that have been made and finally on its
present state. This knowledge can usually be reached by the following steps:
significance;
historical research covering the entire life of the structure including both changes to
A pre-survey of both the site and the building should guide these studies.
Because these can all be carried out at different levels of detail, it is important to establish a costeffective plan of activities proportional to the structures complexity and architectural value, which
takes into account the benefit to be obtained from the knowledge gained. In most cases it is
appropriate to undertake these studies in stages beginning with the simplest and broadest, moving
on to the more detailed.
Historical and architectural investigations
The purpose of the historical investigation is to understand the conception and the significance of
the building, the techniques and the skills used in its construction, the subsequent changes in both
the structure and its environment and any events that may have caused damage. Such events
include and additions or changes of use, failures, reconstructions and restoration work or structural
modifications that might have been recorded.
11/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Documents used for this should be noted and the sources assessed for their reliability as a means
of reconstructing the history of construction. Their careful interpretation is essential if they are to
produce reliable information about the structural history of a building. It should be remembered that
documents that might be available were usually prepared for purposes other than structural
engineering and may therefore include technical information which is incorrect and/or may omit or
misrepresent key facts or events which are structurally significant. Assumptions made in the
interpretation of historical material should be made clear.
Investigation of the structure
Direct observation of the structure is an essential phase of the study, usually carried out by a
qualified team to provide an initial understanding of the structure and to give an appropriate
direction to the subsequent investigations. The main objectives include:
deciding whether or not there are immediate risks and therefore urgent measures to be
undertaken,
The study of structural faults begins by mapping visible damage. During this process interpretation
of the findings should be used to guide the survey, and the expert already developing an idea of
the possible structural behaviour so that critical aspects of the structure may be examined in more
detail. Record drawings should map different kinds of materials, noting any decay and any
structural irregularities and damage, paying particular (but not exclusive) attention to crack patterns
and crushing phenomena.
Geometric irregularities can be the result of previous deformations, or can merely indicate the
junction between different building phases or alterations to the fabric.
It is important to discover how the environment may be damaging a building, since this can be
exacerbated by poor original design and/or workmanship (e.g. lack of drainage, condensation,
rising damp), the use of unsuitable materials, and/or inadequate (or nonexistent) maintenance. For
example, observation of areas where damage is concentrated as a result of high compression
(zones of crushing) or high tensions (zones of cracking or the separation of elements) and the
direction of the cracks, together with an investigation of soil conditions, may indicate the causes of
this damage. This may be supplemented by information acquired by specific tests.
Field research and laboratory testing
The schedule of tests should be based on a clear preliminary view of which phenomena are the
most important to understand. Tests usually aim to identify the various mechanical, physical and
chemical characteristics of the materials, the stresses and deformations of the structure and the
presence of any discontinuities within it. The first of these will include the materials strength and
elastic properties the second such characteristics as their porosity.
As a rule, the schedule of tests should be divided into stages, starting with the acquisition of basic
data, followed by a more detailed examination with tests based upon an assessment of the
12/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
implications of the initial data. However, testing should not be undertaken until its need has been
established.
Non-destructive tests should be preferred to those that involve alterations to a structure. If these
are not sufficient, it is necessary to assess the benefit to be obtained by opening up the structure in
terms of reduced structural intervention against the loss of culturally significant material (a costbenefit analysis).
Tests should always be carried out by skilled persons able to gauge their reliability correctly and
the implications of test data should be very carefully assessed. If possible different methods should
be used and the results compared. It may also be necessary to carry out tests on selected samples
taken from the structure.
Monitoring
Structural observation over a period of time may be necessary, not only to acquire useful
information when progressive phenomena is suspected, but also during a step-by- step procedure
of structural renovation. During the latter, the behaviour is monitored at each stage (observational
approach) and the acquired data used to provide the basis for any further action. A monitoring
system usually aims to record changes in deformations, cracks, temperatures, etc. Dynamic
monitoring is used to record accelerations, such as those in seismic areas. Monitoring can also act
as an alarm bell.
As a general rule, the proposed adoption of a monitoring system should be subjected to a costbenefit analysis so that only data strictly necessary to reveal progressive phenomena are gathered.
The simplest and cheapest way to monitor cracks is to place a tell-tale across them. Some cases
require the use of computerised monitoring systems to record the data in real time.
2.1.2.3 Structural behaviour
The behaviour of any structure is influenced by three main factors:
a) the construction, i.e. the structural form, its quality and the connections between structural
elements;
b) the construction materials and
c) both the mechanical actions (forces, accelerations and deformations) and the chemical and
biological actions.
The structural scheme and damage
The real behaviour of a building is usually too complex to fully model so that it is necessary to
represent it with a simplified 'structural scheme', i.e. an idealisation of the building, which shows, to
the required degree of precision, how it resists the various actions.
The structural scheme shows how the building transforms actions into stresses and deformations
and ensures stability. A building may be represented under varying actions by different schemes
with different complexity and different degrees of approximation to reality. The scheme used in the
structural analysis is usually a compromise between one close to reality but too complex for
calculation and one easy to calculate but too far from the reality of the building. Judgement is
essential in choosing an appropriate scheme.
13/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
The original structural behaviour may have changed as a result of damage (cracks, etc.),
reinforcements, or other modifications of the building. The scheme used has to take into account
any alterations and weakening, such as cracks, disconnections, crushing, leaning, etc., which may
significantly influence the structural behaviour. These alterations may be produced either by
natural phenomena or by human interventions. The latter includes the making of openings, niches,
etc.; the elimination of arches or other structural elements, which create unbalanced forces;
increases in height of the structure, which increase weights; excavations, galleries, nearby
buildings, etc., which reduce the soil bearing capacity and induce movements.
The scheme should consider to an appropriate degree the interaction of the structure with the soil,
except on those cases where it is judged to be irrelevant. Structural damage occurs when the
stresses produced by one or more action exceed the strength of the materials, either because the
actions themselves have increased or because strength has been reduced. Substantial changes in
the structure, such as partial demolition, may also be a source of damage. Manifestation of
damage is related to the kinds of actions and construction materials. Brittel materials will fail with
low deformations while ductile materials will exhibit considerable deformation before failure.
The appearance of damage, and in particular cracks, is not necessarily an indication of risk of
failure in a structure because cracks may relieve stresses that are not essential for stability and
may, through changes in the structural system, allow a beneficial redistribution of stresses.
Damage may also occur in non-structural elements, such as cladding or internal partitions, as a
result of stresses developed within those elements due to deformations or dimensional changes
within the structure.
Material characteristics and decay processes
Material characteristics (particularly strength and stiffness), which are the basic parameters for any
calculation, may be reduced by decay caused by chemical, physical or biological action. The rate
of decay depends upon the properties of the materials (such as porosity) and the protection
provided (roof overhangs, etc.) as well as maintenance. Although decay may manifest itself on the
surface, and so be immediately apparent from superficial inspection (efflorescence, increased
porosity, etc.), there are also decay processes that can only be detected by more sophisticated
tests (termite attack in timber, etc.).
Material decay is brought about by chemical, physical and biological actions and may be
accelerated when these actions are modified in an unfavourable way (e.g. by pollution). The main
consequences are the deterioration of surfaces, the loss of material and a reduction of strength.
Stabilisation of material characteristics is therefore an important task for the conservation of
historic buildings. A programme of maintenance is an essential activity because, while preventing
or reducing the rate of change may be possible, it is often difficult or even impossible to recover
lost material properties.
Actions on the structure and the materials
'Actions' are defined as any agent (forces, deformations, etc.) which produce stresses and strains
in the structure and any phenomenon (chemical, biological, etc.) which affects the materials,
usually reducing their strength. The original actions, which act from the beginning of construction
and the completion of the building (dead loads, for example), may be modified during its life, and it
is often these changes that produce damage and decay.
14/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Actions have very different natures with very different effects on both the structure and the
materials.
Often more than one action (or, change to the original actions), will have affected the structure and
these must clearly be identified before selecting the repair measures.
Actions may be divided into mechanical actions that affect the structure and chemical and
biological actions that affect the materials. Mechanical actions are either static or dynamic the
former being either direct or indirect.
Mechanical actions acting on the structure produce stresses and strains in the material possibly
resulting in visible cracking, crushing and movement. This can be static or dynamic.
i) Static actions can be of two kinds:
a) Direct actions i.e. applied loads such as dead loads (weight of the building, etc.) and live loads
(furniture, people, etc.). Changes in loads - mainly increases - are sources of increased
stresses and thus of damage to the structure. However reductions in load can also be a
source of damage to the structure.
b) Indirect actions are either deformations imposed on the boundaries of the structure, such as soil
settlements, or produced within the body of the materials, such as thermal movements,
creep in timber, shrinkage in mortar, etc. These actions, which may vary continuously or
cyclically, only produce forces if deformations are not free to develop. The most important
and often most dangerous of all indirect actions are soil settlements (produced by change
in the water table, excavations, etc.) which may create large cracks, leaning, etc.
A number of indirect actions are cyclic in nature. These include temperature changes and some
ground movements due to seasonal variation in ground water levels. The effects are usually cyclic
too, but it is possible for there to be progressive deformation or decay if each cycle produces some
small but permanent change within the structure.
The temperature gradient between external surfaces and the internal body may cause differential
strains in the material and therefore stresses and micro-cracks, which further accelerate decay.
Indirect actions can also be produced by the progressive reduction of the stiffness of elements of
an indeterminate (hyperstatic) structure resulting in a redistribution of stresses.
ii) Dynamic actions are produced when accelerations are transmitted to a structure, due to
earthquakes, wind, hurricanes, vibrating machinery, etc.
The most significant dynamic action is usually caused by earthquakes. The intensity of the forces
produced is related to both the magnitude of the acceleration and to the natural frequencies of the
structure and its capacity to dissipate energy. The effect of an earthquake is also related to the
history of previous earthquakes that may have progressively weakened the structure.
Physical, chemical, and biological actions are of a completely different nature from those
described above and act on the materials changing their nature, often resulting in decay and in
particular affecting their strength. These actions may be influenced and accelerated by the
presence of water (whether in the form of rain, humidity, ground water), by wetting and drying
cycles, organic growth, variations in temperature (causing expansion and contraction) frost action,
15/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
etc.). They may also be affected by microclimatic conditions (pollution, surface deposition, changes
in wind speeds due to adjacent structures, etc.).
Fire can be considered as an extreme change of temperature producing both rapid and permanent
changes in the materials. While this might not result in immediate structural distress it may leave
latent weaknesses.
Material properties may also change over time due to natural processes characteristic of the
material, such as slow hardening of lime mortar or slow internal decay. While chemical changes
may occur spontaneously because of the inherent characteristics of the material they may also be
produced as a result of external agents, such as the deposition of pollutants, or the migration of
water or other agents through the material.
A very common action is the oxidation of metals. This may be visible on the surface or may be
occurring to metal reinforcing placed inside another material (such as concrete) and therefore only
apparent through secondary effects, such as splitting and spalling of the other material. Biological
agents in timber, i.e. rot and insect attack, are often active in areas not easily inspected.
2.1.2.4 Diagnosis and safety evaluation
General principles
Diagnosis and safety evaluation of the structure are two consecutive and related stages
undertaken to determine the need for and extent of treatment measures. If these stages are
performed incorrectly, the resulting decisions will be arbitrary; poor judgement may result in either
conservative, and therefore heavy-handed conservation measures, or conversely, inadequate
safety levels.
Evaluation of the safety of the building should be based on both qualitative methods, based on
documentation and observation of the structure, and quantitative methods based on experimental
and mathematical techniques that take into account the effect of the various phenomena on
structural behaviour.
Any assessment of safety is influenced by two types of problem:
the uncertainty attached to data describing actions, resistance and deformations, and the
laws, models and assumptions used in the research;
It therefore seems reasonable to try different approaches, each providing its own contribution, but
which when combined produce the best possible verdict based on the data at our disposal.
When assessing safety, it is necessary to include some indication, even if only qualitative, of the
reliability of the assumptions made, and hence of the results, and of the degree of caution implicit
in the proposed measures.
Modern legal codes and professional codes of practice adopt a conservative approach involving
the application of safety factors to take into account the various uncertainties. This is appropriate
for new structures where safety can be increased with modest increases in member size and cost.
However, such an approach is not appropriate in historic structures where requirements to improve
16/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
the strength may lead to the loss of historic fabric or to changes in the original conception of the
structure. A more flexible and broader approach, where calculations are not the only means of
evaluation, needs to be adopted for historic structures to relate the remedial measures more
clearly to the actual structural behaviour and to retain the principle of minimum intervention while
avoiding risk to human life.
The verdict on a structure's safety is based on an evaluation of the results obtained from the three
diagnostic procedures that will be discussed below. This acknowledges that the qualitative
approach plays a role, which is as important as the quantitative approach.
It also has to be noted that the safety factors established for new buildings take into account the
uncertainties of construction. In existing buildings these uncertainties are often reduced because
the real behaviour of the structure can be observed and monitored. If more reliable data can be
obtained, theoretically reduced factors of safety do not necessarily correspond to a real reduced
safety. However there are cases where the contrary is true and data are more difficult to obtain for
historic structure.
Identification of the causes (diagnosis)
Diagnosis identifies the causes of damage and decay, on the basis of the acquired data. This
comes under three headings:
Historical analysis
Qualitative analysis
Quantitative analysis, which includes both mathematical modelling and testing.
Diagnosis is often a difficult phase, since the data available usually refer to the effects, while it is
the cause or, as it is more often the case, the several contributary causes that have to be
determined. This is why intuition and experience are essential components in the diagnostic
process. A correct diagnosis is indispensable for a proper evaluation of safety and a rational
decision on the treatment measures to be adopted.
Safety evaluation
The problem of safety evaluation
Safety evaluation is the next step towards completion of the diagnostic phase. Whilst the object of
diagnosis is to identify the causes of damage and decay, safety evaluation must determine
whether or not the safety levels are acceptable, by analysing the present condition of both
structure and materials. The safety evaluation is therefore an essential step in the project of
restoration because this is where decisions are taken on the need for and the extent of any
remedial measures.
However, safety evaluation is also a difficult task because methods of structural analysis used for
new construction may be neither accurate nor reliable for historic structures and may result in
inappropriate decisions. This is due to such factors as the difficulty in fully understanding the
complexity of an ancient building or monument, uncertainties regarding material characteristics, the
unknown influence of previous phenomena (for example soil settlements), and imperfect
knowledge of alterations and repairs carried out in the past. Therefore, a quantitative approach
17/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
based on mathematical models cannot be the only procedure to be followed. As with the diagnosis,
qualitative approaches based on historical research and on observation of the structure should
also be used. An approach based on specific tests may also be useful in some situations.
Each of these approaches, which are discussed below, can inform the safety evaluation, but it is
the combined analysis of the information obtained from each of them, which may lead to the 'best
judgement'. In forming this judgement both quantitative and qualitative aspects should be taken
into account having been weighed on the basis of the reliability of the data and the assumptions
made. All this needs to be set out in the EXPLANATORY REPORT already referred to.
It must be clear, therefore, that the architect or engineer charged with the safety evaluation of an
historic building should not be legally obliged to base his decisions solely on the results of
calculations because, as already noted, they can be unreliable and inappropriate. This is a matter
for building regulations and control and again highlights the need for experience and judgement.
Similar procedures have to be followed to evaluate the safety levels after the design of any
proposed interventions in order to assess their benefits and to ensure that their adoption is
appropriate, neither insufficient nor excessive.
Historical analysis
Knowledge of what has occurred in the past can help to forecast future behaviour and can be a
useful indication of the level of safety provided by the present state of the structure. History is the
most complete, life-size, experimental laboratory. It shows how the type of structure, building
materials, connections, joints, additions and human alterations have interacted with different
actions, such as overloads, earthquakes, landslides, temperature variations, atmospheric pollution,
etc., perhaps altering the structure's original behaviour by causing cracks, fissures, crushing,
movement out-of-plumb, decay, collapse, etc. The structural task is to discard superfluous
information and correctly interpret the data relevant to describing the static and dynamic behaviour
of the structure.
Although satisfactory behaviour shown in the past is an important factor for predicting the survival
of the building in the future, it is not always a reliable guide. This is particularly true where the
structure is working at the limit of its bearing capacity and brittle behaviour is involved (such as
high compression in columns), when there are significant changes in the structure or when
repeated actions are possible (such as earthquakes) that progressively weaken the structure.
Qualitative analysis
This approach is based on the comparison between the present condition of the structure and that
of other similar structures whose behaviour is already understood. Experience gained from
analysing and comparing the behaviour of different structures can enhance the possibility of
extrapolations and provide a basis for assessing safety.
This approach (known in philosophical terms as inductive procedure) is not entirely reliable
because it depends more upon personal judgement than on strictly scientific procedures.
Nonetheless, it can be the most rational approach where there are such uncertainties inherent in
the structure that other approaches only give the appearance of being more rigorous and reliable
but are not so in fact.
18/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Having observed the behaviour of different structural types in varying stages of damage and decay
caused by different actions (earthquakes, soil settlement, etc.), and having acquired experience of
their soundness and durability, it is possible to extrapolate this knowledge to predict the behaviour
of the structure under examination. The reliability of the evaluation will depend on the number of
structures observed and, therefore, on the experience and skills of the individuals concerned.
Reliability can be increased by an appropriate programme of investigation and monitoring of
progressive phenomena.
The quantitative analytical approach
This approach uses the methods of modern structural analysis which, on the basis of certain
hypotheses (theory of elasticity, theory of plasticity, frame models, etc.), draws conclusions based
on mathematical calculations. In philosophical terms it is a deductive procedure. However, the
uncertainties that can affect the representation of the material characteristics, and the imperfect
representation of the structural behaviour, together with the simplifications adopted may lead to
results that are not always reliable and may even be very different from the real situation. The
essence of the problem is the identification of meaningful models that adequately depict both the
structure and the associated phenomena with all their complexity, making it possible to apply the
theories at our disposal. Naturally the complexity of the model used is likely to depend upon the
scale and importance of the monument.
Structural analysis is an indispensable tool commonly using mathematical models. Models
describing the original structure, if appropriately calibrated, allow comparison of the theoretical
damage produced by different kinds of action with the damage actually surveyed, providing a
useful tool for identifying their causes. Mathematical models of the damaged, and the subsequently
reinforced structure, will help to evaluate present safety levels and to assess the benefits of
proposed interventions.
Even when the results of calculations and analysis cannot be precise, they can indicate the flow of
the stresses and possible critical areas. But mathematical models alone are usually not able to
provide a reliable safety evaluation. Grasping the key issues, and correctly setting the limits for the
use of mathematical techniques, depends upon the expert's use of his scientific knowledge. Any
mathematical model must take into account the three aspects described in section 3: the structural
scheme, the material characteristics and the actions to which the structure is subjected.
The experimental approach
Specific tests (such as test loading a floor, a beam, etc.) will provide a direct measure of safety
margins, even if they are applicable only to single elements rather than to the building as a whole.
However one, or even a few test may not necessarily be representative of the behaviour and
hence the adequacy of the overall building.
Judgement on safety
Judgements about a structure's safety are based on the results of the three (or four) main
approaches described above (the fourth having a limited application). If analysis shows inadequate
safety levels, it should be checked to see if it is based on either insufficiently accurate data or
excessively conservative assumptions. This might lead to the conclusion that more investigation is
necessary before an assessment can be made.
19/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
As safety is of a probabilistic nature, the greater the uncertainties the more severe will be the level
of intervention. As methods of investigation and structural analysis improve one would expect the
analytical approach to become more reliable and so play a more prominent part in safety
evaluation. Nevertheless, other methods will remain indispensable for a full understanding of the
structural behaviour of the monument.
Note that time factors may be an important aspect of safety and deadlines may have to be set for
decisions on interventions. The factors affecting any deadline will depend on three types of
phenomena:
2.2
continuous processes (for example decay, slow soil settlements, etc.) which will eventually
reduce safety levels to below acceptable limits. Measures must be taken before that
occurs;
phenomena of cyclical nature (variation in temperature, moisture content, etc.) that produce
increasing deterioration;
In the document prepared by the ad hoc group for inventory and documentation within the
Technical Co-operation and consultancy Program published by Council of Europe Publishing,
Strasbourg [12] for the purpose of collecting data of cultural heritage asset at Republic of Kosovo,
a complete overview on principles and the state of the art in the field of inventory of built heritage is
presented. The volume is a compilation and an update of work carried under programs of the
Council of Europe since the 1990s. It is based on the Core Data Index adopted by the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1995. Herein, an extract regarding the data for the purpose
of PERPETUATE project are presented.
2.2.1 Names and references
a) Name of the building (a free-text field which record the name by which a building is
known)
b) Unique reference number (the number of charters, which uniquely identifies each
building by responsible organisation)
c) Cross-reference to related building records (this enables cross-referencing to related
record, enabling, for example, the relating of a building record to its wider complex
record)
d) Cross-reference to records of fixtures and fitting (the same related to stained glass,
wall paintings, sculptural decoration etc., which relate to the building)
e) Cross-reference to documentation (photographic, graphic, textual, bibliographic)
f)
20/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
2.2.2 Location
a) Administrative location (State, Geo-political unit, State administrative division,
administrative sub-division etc.)
b) Address (postal name, number of the street/road, locality, town/city, postal code)
c) Cartographic reference
d) Cadastral reference/land unit (enables cross-reference to the land unit/parcel)
2.2.3 Protection/legal status
a) Type of protection
b) Grade of protection
c) Date at which protection was granted
2.2.4 Persons and organisations associated with the history of the building
a)
Person or organisation
b)
2.2.5 Dating (allows for precise dating when it is known, or date ranges or periods when it is
imprecise)
a) Period
b) Century
c) Date range
d) Absolute date
1. History of building
a. Historical summary
b. Descriptive summary
2. Functional type
3. Illustrations
a. Extract from map
b. Ground plan
c. Photograph(s)
4. Building materials and techniques
a) Main materials and structural techniques (main walling materials, morphology etc.) A
controlled vocabulary is desirable.
b) Covering materials
5. Physical condition
a. Condition priority (related to the integrity of the building - demolished, ruined,
remodelled, restored)
b. Condition quality (related to its state good, fair, poor, or bad)
21/114
2.3
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
In the document for Recording, Documentation, and Information Management for the Conservation
of Heritage Places produce under umbrella of the Getty Conservation Institute, is stated that the
conservation process of cultural heritage places cannot be expressed as yet in terms of an
international standard of practice. International heritage conservation organizations and institutions
have not come to an agreement on such a standard. A consensus has been reached among them,
however, concerning important steps, activities, and products or outputs of the conservation
process (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Diagram showing the phases and required outputs of the conservation process [18].
In the contemporary world of new-building construction, the project management process is well
understood. In the cultural heritage field, things are different. Conservation professionals have to
do all of the above, but because they deal with cultural heritage placesarchaeological sites,
buildings, and city neighbourhoods they need to spend more time and resources to understand
the site and to assess its physical condition.
Figure 2 illustrates the central role of heritage information and summarizes the types of records
and documents that are acquired or generated during each phase of the conservation process.
22/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Figure 2: Diagram showing the conservation process and related project information activities [18].
Following the process for the conservation purposes, for the purpose of seismic assessment of AA
and following the proposed methodology of PERPETUATE project, this approach may be extended
as presented in Figure 3:
23/114
Architecture ,
geometric
surveying
Engineering
(materials,
structural el.,
damage)
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Management
&
Mainentance
planning/
Monitoring
Geotechnical/
Geological/
Landscape
Identifying
structure
Seismic
assessment of
architectonic
assets
Archeological
Research
Scientific
research
Historical
Research
Seismic
hazard
Artistic Research
Figure 3: Chart showing different aspects regarding the evaluation of seismic assessment of
architectonic assets.
2.4
Recording according to Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural
heritage [13]
According to the proposed methodology formulated in document Guidelines for evaluation and
mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage [13], in the section Knowledge of the Building, the path
to knowledge is broken into following activities:
The identification of the building, its location in relation to particular risk areas, and the
rapport of the same within its surrounding urban context; the analysis consists in an initial
schematic survey of the building and in the identification of eventual noteworthy elements
(decorated fixed to the walls, antique furniture) that may condition the level of risk;
The geometric relief of the building in its actual state, intended as the complete stereo
metric description of the structure including eventual cracking and deforming phenomena;
The identification of the evolution of the building, intended as the sequence of the phases of
constructive transformation, from the hypothetical original configuration to the present state;
The identification of the elements which make up the resistance organisms, in the material
and constructive acceptance with particular attention turned to construction techniques to
construction details and their connections to the other elements;
24/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
The identification of material, their state of decay and their mechanical properties;
The knowledge of the foundation and its structures with reference to variations which
occurred over time and relative instability as well.
25/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Set of information necessary for the application of the PERPETUATE methodology for
the seismic assessment
The PERPETUATE methodology is aimed to the preservation of cultural heritage assets, both
architectonic and artistic, in seismic areas. To this end different phase of investigation can be
considered: a) a first census of the cultural heritage assets in the Region (in order to know the
conscious of the consistency of the heritage); b) the evaluation of the vulnerability and risk at
territorial scale - WP6 (in order to single out the assets which are in worst safety conditions); c) the
detailed seismic assessment on each single building - WP5; d) the design of strengthening
interventions, in order to plan mitigation actions for the protection of the cultural heritage.
The aim of this chapter is to list the set of information required to the survey and investigation
techniques for the application of the methodology.
Following the synthesis of different methodologies for collecting data and building knowledge of
particular architectonic asset, set of information related to general knowledge and data regarding
seismic analysis is prepared according to methodology from Deliverable D4 [1]. The table is
organized into four main categories:
26/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
o Data for vulnerability evaluation collection of data aimed for simplified vulnerability
evaluation as proposed in D5 and D8.
o Data for safety verification collection of data for performance based assessment of
the asset according to the requirements from D7.
o Data for interventions (or mitigation interventions)
Depending from the phase of the assessment collection data are identified as:
Essential
Qualifying
Data are not indispensable for the phase of assessment, though improve final output
or are necessary but with a limited degree of accuracy
In the tables for the collection of data regarding general sets of information and information for the
assessment of seismic resistance according to PERPETUATE methodology, following
abbreviations were used:
AA Architectonic Asset;
CH Cultural Heritage;
D4 Delivery D4 of PERPETUATE project;
D5 Delivery D5 of PERPETUATE project.
DT Destructive Technique;
GIS - Geographic Information System;
HoME Horizontal Macroelements;
MDT Minor Destructive Technique;
NDT Non Destructive Technique;
SE Structural Element;
StME Staircases Macroelement;
VaME - Vaulted Macroelement;
VeME Vertical Macroelements;
27/114
Architectonic
asset
G
Artistic asset
Geographic
situation
Address location
Reference number according to classification of national body responsible for the protection of
CH.
Planimetric extract
Adjacent properties
To define relation between raster or vector images and geographical coordinates using
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
3
reference points
GIS
Historical
research
Set of tools for the capturing, storing, analyzing, managing, and presenting data that are linked
to certain location
Archive searches
Thematic researches
Archaeological
research
Seismic action
Standardized documentation
Aerial prospection
Photographs
Excavating
Building archaeology
Geophysical methods
Depending from the level of exposure: Unused or rarely used, frequent, very frequent.
Occurrence probability of return period, to be used for the verification of target performance
level
Response spectrums
Site amplification effects soil amplification
Site amplification effects morphological
amplification
29/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Micro-zoning
Geotechnical
research
Orographic characteristics
If the building is located in-plane or near crests, precipices,. Indicate the slope of the terrain.
Geo-morphologic characteristics
Ground modifications
Changes to water tables, flooding, breaking of aqueducts, droughts, excavations, surveys etc.
Dynamic interaction of terrain, foundation and structure (shear resistance in draining and nondraining conditions, shear deformity modules and damping coefficient etc.)
Susceptibility to liquefaction and the cyclic mobility
Verification of the stability of natural slopes.
Underground structures
Vulnerability
general
Configuration
Geometric survey
Building height and number of stories
Codification of Macroelements
Vulnerability
construction
details
30/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
VulnerabilityMain structural
elements
Codification,
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (inside and outside).
Codification
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (inside and outside).
Codification
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (inside and outside).
Codification,
Codification,
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Codification,
Codification,
31/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
3
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Codification,
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Codification,
Typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (ends).
Codification,.
Codification
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Codification,
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Codification,
Morphology, typology, constructive techniques,
Typology of finishing elements (top and bottom).
Vulnerabilitymaterial
properties
Type of stone, regularity, cut or not, dressed, solid), thickness of the joints, length of
overlapping of the units
32/114
Preventive intervention
2
vaults and domes) Arches, Transversal
Arches, Ribs
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
2
connections, the presence of transversal
connection elements, % of voids
Vulnerabilitymechanical
parameters
Vulnerabilityfoundations
Wells or ditches excavations along the perimeter of the building. NDT methods (georadar and
sonar, thermal and electric tomography).
Structural damage
Causes of damage according to the typology (detachment, rotation, creep, out-of-plane displ.)
and deformation (apparent out-of-plumb, bulging, sagging in vaults, etc.)
Material damage
Causes of damage
- friction
E modulus of elasticity
G- shear modulus
w specific weight of the masonry
Vulnerabilitystate of
preservation
33/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Damage level
In-situ tests
Vulnerabilitylevels of
knowledge
Confidence factors
State of
preservation of
Artistic assets
For each structural element that correspond to artistic or historic value (decorated wall panels,
ancient construction techniques, built-in furnishings).
Cultural asset
Management &
Maintenance
34/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
planning
Safeguarding plans
Regulations/recommendations
Sketches/Hand drawing
Photography
3D scanning
Collecting data about the shape and the appearance of a real-world object. The collected data
are used to construct digital 3D models.
Inspection reports
Scientific reports
35/114
Preventive intervention
Safety verification
What
Vulnerability evaluation
Category of data
Identification of asset
Phase of assessment
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
In order to perform reliable seismic assessment of architectonic and artistic assets, it is necessary
to define the state of the asset and its load bearing capacity. In reference to architectonic asset is
needed to determine the parameters for the characterisation of the structural typology, the
geometry (external and internal) and the mechanical properties of their materials and further, if the
structure is damaged, the type, level and extension of the damages and its influence on the
mechanical behaviour of the structure. Regarding the artistic asset, set of needed parameters are
slightly different, however most of the techniques (NDT techniques) are similar as for the
architectonic assets. In conservation, there are two distinct areas of survey and recording, with a
degree of overlap between them:
Metric surveying and recording.
This area is used to establish the quantifiable physical disposition of form and space. Base
documentation can be employed in subsequent complementary phases of a conservation project
to map historical, technical, and other data for assessment, analysis, and synthesis of information
to create a plan, then inform, guide, and instruct others in taking conservation action.
This also so-called Base recording is a term often used for the gathering of measurements and
data to create a document, drawing, or photograph that will be used to make future conservation
decisions. This base record will be added to as conservators, engineers, or architects work with the
monument or site.
Diagnostic surveying and recording.
This area is used to locate, isolate, assess, or monitor physical phenomena affecting the heritage
asset. Additional documentation can overlay base documentation and further inform the
conservation projects development in relation to buried or concealed features, deforming or
moving components and providing indications about their condition and performance in time.
Many techniques are available and can be classified into: Non-Destructive (NDT), MinorDestructive testing methods (MDT) and Destructive testing (DT).
In particular diagnostic surveying is aimed to different aims:
-
36/114
4.1
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
37/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
38/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
has been particularly valuable in the area of land surveying and in surveying large, complex
archaeological sites. At first sight, the system seems to have little to do with conventional survey,
but in fact GPS follows a traditional method of survey or, more strictly, a principle of trigonometry: If
the lengths of the three sides of a triangle are known, the angles in between can be calculated.
This means that if two corners of the triangle are fixed or located, the position of the third can be
calculated. The satellites provide the known points and intersections for at least three satellites.
There are two general categories of GPS radio receivers: consumer handheld units, which range in
accuracy from 5 to 15 meters (and have contributed to the widespread use of GPS), and more
professional or survey-grade units. From professional instruments, astonishing accuracies are
possible down to 10 to 20 mm. This means that site surveys and external building profiles can be
surveyed directly with GPS instrumentation rather than having to set up theodolites and make
conventional measurements. A ground based system using the same triangulation principles as
GPS can also be used for surveying, but with transmitter base stations set up locallythat is,
without the use of satellites.
4.1.3 Image-Based Documentation Methods
The value of the photograph in all conservation work is inestimable, whether represented by
todays ongoing site-record photographs or early photographs consulted for historic information (it
is often forgotten that photographic technology is now more than 150 years old). Image-based
documentation can generally be classified into three types: pictorial imagery, rectified photography,
and photogrammetry.
4.1.3.1 Pictorial Imagery
Pictorial imagery constitutes the bulk of standard or ordinary photographs taken in conservation,
usually with the camera oblique to the subject and utilizing any of a wide range of everyday
cameras, from auto-focus to professional models. Although it is a primary form of documentation,
pictorial imagery is not generally meant to be used for measured survey purposes. Nevertheless, it
can be used for measurement with two methods. Every conservation professional will, from time to
time, take a photograph containing a scale against the object being photographed to gauge some
dimension. This is a very useful method, but it must be treated with caution as accurate scaling on
pictorial photographs is difficult to achieve. If at least two photographs of the same scene are
available, a second method can be applied to pictorial photographs to provide a source of
measurements. Technically, this process needs the services of a professional photogrammetrist,
although with some of the computer programs available today, some measurements may be
extracted by the photographer. Video photography can also be considered as part of pictorial
photography. An invaluable way of recording a great deal of information quickly, video not only
records a buildings features but can document its construction, use, and contextual significance as
well. Video has the added advantage of simultaneously documenting images and audio
commentary.
4.1.3.2 Rectified Photography
This is the first step up to a method that can provide reasonably accurate measurements from
photography. Rectified photography is the process of photographing a facade by aligning the
images to be as parallel as possible to the section of facade to be recorded. It includes the use of a
relational scale so that dimensions can be measured. The resulting scaled print provides a
39/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
reasonably true-to-scale image of the facade. Whereas the photography part of the process is
nowadays still quite straightforward, traditionally the printing and scaling were somewhat more
complicated. With advances in computers, however, this latter process has become simpler. The
photograph is now captured often obliquely to the facade and usually with a digital camera.
Through the computer, in a fraction of the time it used to take, the digital image can be
manipulated, a scale introduced, and tilts and distortion corrected. Rectification is done using a
variety of software and can be a useful, rapid, and inexpensive form of documentation, particularly
where the facade is made up of small components such as bricks, earth construction, or rubble
walling. Although its main use is in recording flat building facades, it is often used for features such
as floor surfaces, ceilings, and painted surfaces. If high accuracy is required for example, to
assess structural conditionsit is not appropriate. Rectified photography is generally provided by
specialists, but it can also be done by conservators, depending on the standards required,
availability of time, and resources.
4.1.3.3 Photogrammetry
Here the tools become more complex. As a source of measurement, photogrammetry still seems
to be regarded as something of a novelty, yet it was first applied to building surveying as early as
the 1870s. The modern use of photogrammetry for survey safely dates to the late 1930s through
the 1950s and has since been in continuous use in many countries around the world.
Photogrammetry is a much more complicated process than any other type of photography. It is the
science of obtaining detailed measurements from photographs, often for the purpose of creating
drawings, and encompasses both stereophotogrammetry and orthophotography.
Stereophotogrammetry involves taking stereo-pair photographs with calibrated cameras, then
using the resulting images in a photogrammetric plotting device or computer to extract accurate
measurements with which to produce drawings. This method is most appropriate in situations
where a high level of detail or a great deal of irregularity needs to be recorded.
Orthophotography is a true-to-scale process that combines the benefits of a photograph with its
wealth of detailed information and the geometric measurement accuracy of a survey with
instruments. This is a complicated process that actually builds on using stereo-pairs of
photographs. Very simply, a stereo-pair is captured and an entire series of corrections is made to
the positions of identical points in the two photographic images. The result is a true-to-scale
photographic image, or orthophotograph. With computerization, this process has become easier,
faster, of better quality, and much more inexpensive. It is suitable for the representation of some
types of features, such as drums or circular towers, and is also effective in representing irregular or
complex facades.
In relation to the quality and quantity of data provided, photogrammetry usually is not expensive;
however, a trained professional and special equipment are required. If only simple building outlines
are needed, it is unlikely that photogrammetry will be economically justified, but for the highestquality drawings of major facades, showing all stonework jointing and much architectural detail,
photogrammetry remains an important tool.
4.1.4 Data Management
All the methods mentioned above will provide surveys adequate for most conservation work. After
being collected, the data must be managed, an increasing role for both conservators and surveyors
40/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
involved in documentation and conservation. In the following section, related data management
techniques are introduced. As with data collection techniques, they may be stand-alone or used in
various combinations.
4.1.4.1 Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CAD)
CAD for the preparation and subsequent presentation of survey data has become an increasingly
important tool in documentation. A CAD program allows the spatial data or drawingswhich have
been captured from many different sourcesto be displayed, edited, and presented on a
computer. CAD enables users to view drawings, zoom in and out, add and delete information,
prepare specifications, print, and transmit information over the Internet. It is an immensely powerful
tool now used in almost all aspects of documentation. Most of the illustrated examples in this book
utilize CAD in some way in preparing data.
4.1.4.2 Computer Modelling
Computer modelling takes CAD a dimension further. Utilizing the capabilities of 3 dimensional
modelling, the survey and image data for a historic structure can be viewed on screen. The model
can be scaled, rotated, and viewed in various ways. This enables a conservation team to assess
the effect of likely alterations to a historic building or site.
4.1.4.3 Databases
A database is a collection of data, usually text, which is separated and systematically stored in
tables with key identifiers. Records are often separated into sets, themes, and fields that allow for
easy retrieval and recombination, or queries of data. Databases can be as simple as a few lines
of data to keep track of the windows in a small historic building, or as complex as multiple tables
for keeping an inventory of all the historic buildings in a region. Other types of data such as
images, drawings, measurements, and videos are now stored in multimedia databases. A
database can be useful in conservation, not only to keep track of surveys and drawings but also to
inform the public or organize and plan a conservation project.
4.1.4.4 Geographic Information System (GIS)
The concept behind GIS is quite simple, whereas its application can be very complex. GIS is
similar to CAD in that it displays graphic information, and similar to databases in that it contains
tabular data. The advantage of GIS is that it combines both CAD and databases. Information about
a subject can be classified in two ways: first, the position or the spatial location (drawing) of a
feature, and second, the descriptive information (text or other form). If these two classes of
information are brought together with a computer program, then a GIS has been created. A floor
plan of a historic building provides a simple example. To each room in the plan, a set of attributes
such as size, function, and features can be ascribed in a text format. This plan can then be
combined with the text attributes in a GIS. With one click on the electronic drawing, the attributes
can be displayed or the database searched, and the appropriate portion of the drawing displayed.
This is useful in managing data for complex or large sites with numerous features or elements;
however, its usefulness is questionable for smaller sites or single structures.
A wide range of tools for documentation are available, and all professionals involved with
conservation should know their advantages and disadvantages. Architects certainly will be
involved, but engineers, archaeologists, and conservators must also be informed and concerned
41/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
regarding the processes of documentation. As mentioned earlier, others not directly involved with
conservation, such as land surveyors or professional photographers, may carry out surveys, and it
is important for conservators to understand the tools and processes involved in order to
communicate effectively and obtain the best results. In addition, the role of the amateur should not
be forgottenin many countries, and for many years, invaluable work has been done by
volunteers and students.
Thus, the documentation of our cultural heritage of historic buildings, structures, and sites is a vital
and ongoing process. Though not a new activity in the last half century, the importance and value
of documentation has been increasingly recognized within the conservation community. The value
of good documentation assists informed decision making and ongoing maintenance for
conservation. The wide range of examples in this publication illustrate the many methods and
standards that can assist the conservation professional in choosing and applying the most
appropriate technique or tool in any given circumstance.
4.2
Nowadays most of architectonic assets (historical buildings and monuments) suffer structural
problems. In order to assess their structural service life it is necessary to define the type, level and
extension of the damage and the load carrying capacity of these constructions. It is needed to
determine the parameters for the characterisation of the structural typology, the geometry (external
and internal) and the mechanical properties of their materials and further, if the structure is
damaged, the type, level and extension of the damages and its influence on the mechanical
behaviour of the structure. These parameters have to be measured using different techniques
(NDT, MDT or DT), in order to preserve the historic constructions without disturbing the state of
stress and strain and their external appearance. In the following, different testing objectives are
listed.
Table 1: Classes of problems depending from testing objectives
Morphology of masonry and
construction details
Mechanical properties
Control of effectiveness of
intervention
Structural monitoring
42/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
As it concern problems that might affect the performance of artistic assets, they are identified
according to UNI 11182 document (Italian Standards for Cultural heritage - Natural and artificial
stone materials - Description of the type of alteration: Terms and definitions) as:
Table 2: Reliability of particular method of testing
Pre-seismic decay
presence of openings
biological colonization
crust
irreversible deformation
differential degradation
disaggregation
detachment
efflorescence
exfoliation
crack
rising damp front
lacuna
stain
lack
presence of vegetation
swelling
chipping
Seismic damage
detachment
crack
irreversible deformations
dislocations (translation or
rotation)
unthreading
loss of stability
overturning
partial collapse
total collapse
43/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
There are three forms of standards that have to be considered prior application of different
techniques:
Technical standards, which are the most exacting and when followed correctly yield
identical results;
Conventions, which are more flexible, accommodate local variations and produce similar
but not necessarily identical results;
Guidelines, which are a broad set of practice or service criteria against which products or
programmes can be measured.
The following general recommendations are based on the experiences gained through RILEM
SAM
(Structural
Assessment
of
Masonry)
committee
[19],
research
project
ONSITEFORMASONRY [2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21 ,22, 24, 25] and Italian National research
project ReLUIS [23].
4.2.2 General classification and description of the methods
Here, the methods of testing are classified into different classes depending from the level of
intrusiveness as:
Non-Destructive Techniques
Minor-Destructive Techniques
Destructive Techniques
Following the classification of damage classes and sub-classes for architectonic and artistic assets
from D4 Tables 4.2 and 5.2 [1], recommendation was given as:
Recommended
With limitations or in combination with other techniques
Not effective
For clarity, the following tables summarize the damage classes and sub-classes as proposed in
D4.
44/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Description
Damage to monodimensional
masonry elements
Damage to domes
45/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Damage sub-class
A-a: generic cracking
A-b: cracks in piers
Damage to domes
It should be noted that recommendations are made on the basis whether some method can
provide data which are directly applicable to characterize the mechanical properties which have to
be introduced in models. Others recommendations provide information which cannot be directly
introduced in models but which can address the choice on the proper modelling strategy to be
adopted (i.e. diagnostic techniques addressed to investigate the quality of connection between
different macroelements or that of multi-leaf panels).
Regarding the application on artistic assets, for each method, information whether the method
require contact with the surface or not is provided in the form of:
Contact to surface required with coupling agent
Contact to surface required
Contact to surface not required
In this SofArt some of laboratory techniques for the assessment of artistic assets such are
Macroscopic description, Cross section, Thin section, Ionic chromatography, Electric conductibility,
Water pondered content, SEM, X Ray Diffraction, Thermo analysis TG-DSC, Mercury porosimetry,
46/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Microbiologic analysis and Wooden essence identification are omitted. Applicability of these
methods for the evaluation of the state of artistic assets is presented in following table:
MACROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION
CROSS SECTION
THIN SECTION
IONIC CROMATOGRAPHY
ELECTRIC CONDUCTIBILITY
WATER PONDERAL CONTENT
SEM
X RAY DIFFRACTION
TERMIC ANALYSIS TG-DSC
MERCURY POROSIMETRY
MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
WOODEN ESSENCE IDENTIFICATION
Scope of testing;
Principle of test;
Test results;
Notes for the interpretation of results, including reliability of data and safety issues;
Code/recommendation references;
References.
47/114
Exfoliation
presence of vegetation
crack
exfoliation
efflorescence
detachment
disgregation
differential degradation
irreversible deformation
crust
biological colonization
presence of openings
Table 5: Set of methods for the evaluation of artistic assets depending from the type of damage
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
specimen
d
d
cd
defect
... density
emitted
surface
radiation
non stationary
heat flow
48/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
active thermography for solving the testing problem in advance, numerical simulation programs based
on Finite Differences are helpful.
Set-up of the equipment:
The selection of the equipment should be related to the requirements described above.
The heating source has to be placed close to the surface under investigation (distance 10 to 20 cm) and
should be moveable to obtain a homogeneous heating. A respective power supply must be available.
The camera should be positioned on a fixed tripod on a stable basement at a distance of 2 m or more,
depending on the size of the investigated area and on the spatial resolution of the camera/objective system.
The required objective has to be selected (wide angle, normal, tele). Before starting data acquisition, the
camera should be switched on for at least 30 min. An operational test should be performed measuring the
surface temperature of a known object (reference object).
Additional direct or indirect radiation should be avoided.
Environmental and material parameters:
The following environmental and material parameters have to be known and noted during the measurement
campaign:
Emissivity of the surface of the structure under investigation
Geometrical data of the investigated area
Distance camera object surface
Distance heating source object surface
Temperature of air
Humidity of air
Wind strength
Dust
The knowledge of the following material parameters is helpful, but not urgently required (only for quantitative
analysis):
Thermal properties of the bulk material (thermal conductivity, density, specific heat capacity)
Thermal properties of the inhomogeneity or defect
Data acquisition
Before the heating process is started, a first thermogram of the surface to be investigated should be recorded
to have a reference image in more or less thermal equilibrium. Also a photo from the area should be taken for
analysing surface inhomogeneities.
During the heating process, which can take several seconds up to one hour, the IR camera should be
switched on for immediately surface temperature recording after the heating source has been removed.
In most cases, the following measurement parameters have to be selected and can be adjusted directly at the
camera or in the acquisition software:
Focus
o
Temperature range (e. g. -20 to 50 C)
Image rate (e. g. 10 Hz)
Data storage depth (e. g. 12 bit)
Whole time range for data recording (e. g. 2 h)
During the whole time range of data recording, it should be ensured that nothing and nobody is passing the
area between camera and observed surface.
Test results
During data processing, information is extracted from the data enabling interpretation and visualisation of the
results and presenting these to the customers. If the testing problems are simple and the experimental data
are very clear, the processing and visualisation of the results can already be performed at the building site.
But in the case of more complex challenge and large amounts of data sets, it is required to perform data
processing and visualisation separately, after the measurement campaign.
49/114
Tmax
30
reference point
defect
temperature difference
1.5
1.0
26
24
0.5
22
T in K
T in K
28
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
0.0
20
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
cooling time in s
Transient curves above a reference point and The palace ofthe Wartburg: Phase image at minimum frequency showing
above a defect and the respective difference the masonry structure aswell as the top arc of the walled up door behind
curve with a maximum temperature Tmax at a the plaster.
distinct time tmax.
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM D4788-03 Standard Test Method for Detecting Delaminations in Bridge Decks Using Infrared
Thermography
References
1. Maierhofer, C., Brink, A., Rllig, M. and Wiggenhauser, H., Transient thermography for structural
investigation of Concrete and Composites in the Surface Near Region, Infrared Physics and
Technology 43, (2002), pp. 271 278.
2. Wedler, G., Brink, A., Rllig, M., Weritz, F. and Maierhofer, C., Active Infrared Thermography in Civil
Engineering - Quantitative Analysis by Numerical Simulation, in: DGZfP (Ed.); International
Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September
16-19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD, V80, 2003, Berlin.
3. Maldague, X., Theory and practice of infrared technology for non-destructive testing, (John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 2001).
4. Maldague, X. and Marinetti, S., Pulse Phase Thermography, J. Appl. Phys. 79 (5), (1996), pp.
2694-2698
50/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
5. Busse, G., Wu, D. and Karpen, W., Thermal wave imaging with phase sensitive modulated
thermography, J. Appl. Phys. 71, (1992), p. 3962
6. Vavilov, V. and Marinetti, S., Thermal Methods Pulsed Phase Thermography and Fourier-Analysis
Thermal Tomography, Russian Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 35 (2), (1999), pp. 134 145.
7. Maldague, X. and Couturier, J.-P., Review of pulsed phase thermography, Invited Lecture, 15./16.
Sept. 1997, Florence, Italy, in: Abozzo, L. R., Carlomagno, G. M., Corsi, C., (eds)., Atti della Fondazi
one G. Ronchi, Firenze, 53, [1], 1997, pp. 271-286.
8. Maierhofer, Ch., Brink, A., Hillemeier, B., Rieck, C., Rllig, M. und Wiggenhauser, H., Struktur- und
Feuchteuntersuchung in Betonstrukturen mit der Impuls-Thermografie, Bauphysik 25 (2003) 1, S. 2226
9. Wedler, G., Brink, A., Maierhofer, Ch., Rllig, M., Weritz, F. and Wiggenhauser, H., Active Infrared
Thermography in Civil Engineering - Quantitative Analysis by Numerical Simulation, in: DGZfP (Ed.);
International Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany,
September 16-19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD, P24, Berlin (2003)
51/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
52/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
VICOPISANO: two geoelectrical tomographies carried on the ground near the same wall helped to estimate the depth of
the foundations The first one was obtained with a profile near the wall (0.5 m); the second one, not be disturbed by it,
was made more than 5 m away; the third figure was obtained by subtracting, point by point, the "undisturbed" values from
the first one. The depth of the foundations can be estimated to about 2-2.5 m. The presence of subsurface anomalies is
put in evidence.
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
53/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Moisture condition of investigated media should be known in order to accurately assest collected data.
Code/recommendation references
Ministre de lIndustrie Sous Direction Qualit-Normalisation, APPLIED GEOPHYSICS OF PRACTICE,
1992
References
1. Cardarelli, E., Godio, A., Morelli ,G., Sambuelli, L., Santarato, G. and Socco, L. V., Integrated
geophysical surveys to investigate the scarsella vault of St Johns Baptistery in Florence, The
Leading Edge, 21 (2002), pp. 467-470.
2. Polder, R.B., Test methods for on site measurement of resistivity of concrete - a RILEM TC-154
technical recommendation, Construction and Building Materials, 15, (2001), pp. 125-131.
3. Reynolds, J. M., An Introduction to Applied Geophysics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, (1997), 806 pages.
4. Edwards, L. S., A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP. Geophysics, 42 (1977), pp. 10201036.
5. SASAKI, Y., Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation, Geophysical
Prospecting 40, (1992), pp. 453-463.
6. ONSITEFORMASONRY, Deliverable D11.1 (2004).
7. Cosentino, P., Fiandaca, G., Martorana, R. and Messina, P., New 3D electrical tomography technique
rd
for investigations on vulnerable surfaces, Proceedings of 3 International Study Meeting The
material and the signs of history. Palermo, October 18-21, 2007, Book of abstracts, p. 51.
8. Coggon, J. H., Electromagnetic and electrical modelling by the finite element method, Geophysics,
36 (1971), pp. 132-155.
9. Dey, A. and Morrison, H. F., Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional structures,
Geophysics, 44 (1979), pp. 753-780.
10. Furman, A., T. P., Ferre, A., and Warrick, A. W.,A Sensitivity Analysis of Electrical Resistivity
Tomography Array Types Using Analytical Element Modeling, Vadose Zone Journal 2 (2003), pp.
416-423.
11. Hennig, T. and Weller, A., Two dimensional object orientated focussing of geoelectrical multielectrode
measurements, Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the EAGE Near Surface Geophysics Conference,
Palermo, Italy (2005).
12. Stummer, P., Maurer, H., and Green, A. G. Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that
provide optimum subsurface information, Geophysics, 69 (2004) pp.120-139.
13. Wilkinson, P.B. Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E, Kuras, O. and Ogilvy, R.D., Improved strategies for
the automatic selection of optimised sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement
configurations, Geophysical Journal International, 167 (2006) pp. 1119-1126.
14. Athanasiou, E., Tsourlos, P., Papazachos, C. B. and Tsokas, G. N. Optimising resistivity array
configurations by using a non-homogeneous background model, Proceedings of the 12th meeting of
the EAGE Near Surface Geophysics Conference, Helsinki, Finland (2006).
15. Tikhonov A. N. and Arsenin V. Y., Solutions of ill posed problems, V. H. Winston and Sons (1977),
xiii + 258 pp.
16. Portniaguine, O., Zhdanov MS., Focusing geophysical inversion images, Geophysics, 64 (1999) pp.
874887.
17. Kumar, R. K., Potential Theory in Applied Geophysics (2008), XXIV, 652 p. ISBN: 978-3-540-720898, Springer.
18. Ref 18 Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D., Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data
inversion, Geophysical Prospecting, 44 (1996), pp. 499-523.
19. Ref 19 LaBrecque, D. J., Morelli, G., Daily W., Ramirez, A., and Lundegard, P., 1999, Occam's
Inversion of 3D ERT data: in: Spies, B., (Ed.), Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics, SEG, Tulsa, 575590.
20. Ref 20 Schueremans, L., Van Rickstal, F., Verderickx, K. and Van Gemert, D., Evaluation of
masonry consolidation by geo-electrical relative difference resistivity mapping, RILEM Materials &
Structures, 36(1) (2003) pp. 46-50.
54/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Visualisation of impact-echo
data.
55/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Line 166
V
Li
Line
ne 10
10
BS
Li
Line
ne 44
Example for the detection of voids in a masonry test specimen. Test specimen and Impact-echogram of line 4.
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
56/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Code/recommendation references
ASTM C 1383 98 Standard test method for measuring the p-wave speed and the thickness of concrete
plates using the impact-echo method
References
1. Sansalone, M.J. & Street, W.B.: Impact-Echo, Nondestructive Evaluation of Concrete and Masonry,
Bullbrier Press, Ithaca, N.Y., USA, 1997.
2. Wiggenhauser, H.: Homemade Datenanalyse und Visualisierung mit freier Software. In: iX Magazin
fr professionelle Informationstechnik, Vol. 12/2003, pp.96-99
3. Colla, C.: 2-Dimensional Impact-Echo for NDT testing of Masonry Bridges: in: Fairfield, C. (ed.);
Proceedings of ARCH`01 3rd International Conference on Arch Bridges, September 19-21, 2001,
Paris, Presses ENPC
4. Kompendium online presence: www.bam.de/zfpbau-kompendium.htm, BAM Berlin 2004
5. Schubert, F., Lausch, R., Wiggenhauser, H.: Geometrical Effects on Impact-Echo Testing of Finite
Concrete Specimens. In: DGZfP (Ed.); International Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September 16-19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD, V39,
Berlin (2003)
6. Wiggenhauser, H.: Duct inspection using scanning impact-echo. In: DGZfP (Ed.); International
Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September
16-19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD, V101, Berlin (2003)
7. Petersen, C. G., Davis, A., Delahaza, A.: Impact-Echo testing of steel cable ducts for injection
grouting quality International. In: DGZfP (Ed.); Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September 16-19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD,
V102, Berlin (2003)
8. Tinkey, DY, Olson, L. D., Bedon, R., Lieberle, C.: Impact Echo Scanning Technology for Internal
Grout Condition Evaluation in Post-Tensioned Bridge In: DGZfP (Ed.); International Symposium NonDestructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September 16-19, 2003,
Proceedings on BB 85-CD, V041, Berlin (2003)
57/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Pachometer
Test procedure and measurements
Depending from the type of pachometer the procedure of measurements may differ. More sophisticated
instruments are more data can be gained. For the purpose of PERPETUATE project simple location of
anchors or metal/iron ties, their length may be sufficient.
Test results
Location of anchors/ties, their length and position. In the case of more sophisticated pachometers diameter
of bars may be obtained.
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
References
1.
58/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Scheme of sonic pulse velocity test with direct (left), semi-direct (middle) and
indirect (right) transmission method.
59/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
as v=l/tm where: v is the pulse velocity, [m/s]; l is the distance between transducer, [m]; tm is the transit
time, [s].
Date: 18/07/03
10
11
12
Sonic Velocity
(m/sec)
380
360
13
14
15
16
17
18
340
320
300
280
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
260
240
220
200
180
a)
b)
Results of direct sonic test carried on Piece
Castle /Slovenia: a) Low velocity contour map
revealed former fireplace behind the layer of
masonry; b) fireplace examined with
videoboroscopy
Results of direct sonic tests carried out on the Cittadella Town Walls
(Italy): a) velocity contour map before injection; b) velocity contour map
after injection using the same colour scale; c) contour map of percentage
difference of pulse velocity before and after intervention; d) histogram
with sonic pulse velocity before and after injection.
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
RILEM Recommendation TC 127-MS, MS.D.1 Measurement of mechanical pulse velocity for masonry,
(published in Materials and Structures, Vol. 30, July 1997 pp. 463-466)
NORMAL 22/86, Misura in laboratorio e in sito della velocit apparente (o virtuale) di propagazione del suono
(onde longitudinali) nel materiali porosi da costruzione
ASTM C597-83 Standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete
References
1. Abbaneo, S., Berra, M., Binda, L. (1996) Pulse velocity test to qualify existing masonry walls:
usefulness of waveform analyses. Proc. 3rd Conference: Non destructive evaluation of civil
structures and materials; Boulder, Colorado, September 1996; pp. 81-95.
2. Berra, M., Binda, L., Anti, L., Fatticcioni, A. (1992) Non destructive evaluation of the efficacy of
masonry strengthening by grouting techniques. Proc. International workshop: Effectiveness of
injection techniques for retrofitting of stone and brick masonry walls in seismic areas; Polytechnic of
Milan, March 1992; pp. 63-70.
3. Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G., Anzani, A. (1998) Tecniche di indagine e di consolidamento per
le murature in pietra, in Ambiente costruito, aprile-giugno, pp. 39-47.
4. Binda, L., Saisi, A., Zanzi, L. (2003) Sonic tomography and flat jack tests as complementary
investigation procedures for the stone pillars of the temple of S.Nicol LArena (Italy), NDT&E
International Journal, 36, pp. 215-227.
5. Bongiovanni, G., Celebi, M., Clemente, P., (1990) The Flaminio obelisk in Rome: vibrational
characteristics as part of preservation efforts, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
19, pp.107-118.
6. da Porto ,F. (2000). Indagini sperimentali sullefficacia di tecniche di consolidamento di murature
storiche in pietra. Graduation thesis (in Italian), Tutor Prof. C. Modena, University of Padua.
7. Epperson, G. S., Abrams, D. P. (1989) Non destructive evaluation of masonry buildings, Advanced
60/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Construction Technology Center, Doc. N. 89-26-03, Urbana Illinois, October 1989, 208 pages.
8. Forde, M. C., Birjandi, K. F., Batchelor, A. J. (1985) Fault detection in stone masonry bridges by nondestructive testing, Proc. 2nd International Conference Structural Faults & Repair, Engineering
Technics Press, Edinburgh, pp. 373-379.
9. Loeffelstiel, E. D. (2004) Metodologie non distruttive per la diagnosi delle strutture murarie:
applicazione di prove soniche e confronto con procedure di maggiore invasivit, Graduation thesis (in
Italian), University of Padua, Italy.
10. Modena, C. (1997) Criteria for cautious repair of historic buildings, , Evaluation and Strengthening
of Existing Masonry Structures, L. Binda & C. Modena Ed., RILEM, pp 25-42.
11. Modena, C. (2002) Sistema fortificato di Cittadella. Intervento di consolidamento statico su un tratto
di cinta compreso tra Porta Treviso e Porta Bassano, in Lavori in corso, nuovi progetti a Cittadella,
edited by Associazione Architettando, Stampa Grafiche Antiga, Aprile 2002.
12. Monteforte, N. (1998) Applicazione della tomografia sonica nei problemi di diagnosi strutturale.
Graduation Thesis (in Italian), Tutor C. Modena. University of Padua, 1997-1998.
13. Riva, G., Bettio, C., Modena, C. (1997) The use of sonic wave technique for estimating the efficiency
of masonry consolidation by injection, Proc. 11th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference,
Shangai, China, October 1997, pp. 28-39.
14. Riva, G., Bettio, C., Modena, C. (1998) Valutazioni quantitative di caratteristiche meccaniche di
muratura in pietra esistenti mediante prove non distruttive, Materiali e Strutture, L'ERMA di
Bretschneider Ed., n 1.
15. Rossi, P. P. (1990) Non destructive evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of masonry
structures, in Quaderni dellISMES, n. 278.
16. Schuller, M., Berra, M., Fatticcioni, A., Atkinson, R., Binda, L. (1994) Use of tomography for diagnosis
and control of masonry repairs Proc. 10th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Calgary,
Canada, July 1994, pp. 438-447.
17. Valle, S., Zanzi, L., Binda, L., Saisi, A., Lenzi, G. (1998) Tomography for NDT applied to masonry
structures: Sonic and/or EM methods In Arch bridges, A. Sinopoli Editor, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
243-252.
18. Valluzzi, M. R., da Porto, F., Casarin, F., Monteforte, N., Modena, C (2009) A contribution to the
characterization of masonry typologies by using sonic waves investigations, Proc. of the NonDestructive Testing in Civil Engineering, July 2009.
19. Valluzzi, M. R, Mazzon, N., Munari, M., Casarin, F., Modena, C. (2009). Effectiveness of injections
evaluated by sonic tests on reduced scale multi-leaf masonry building subjected to seismic actions.
In: Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Non Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering.
Nantes (Francia), June 30th - July 3rd, 2009.
61/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
62/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
affected by frequency so that the depth range of the detectable targets will decrease as we move to higher
frequency antennas.
Some applications are conditioned by the existence of a sufficient permittivity or conductivity contrast between
different materials that is essential to generate a radar return in a reflection experiment or a velocity anomaly
in a tomographic reconstruction (e.g., detection of multiple leaves, of masonry inhomogeneities, of detached
external leaves, of different materials).
The detection of an hidden crack pattern is also conditioned by the prevalent orientation of the cracks. The
most favourable situation is when the cracks are oriented parallel to the investigation surface so that a 3D
reflection experiment can succesfully map the presence, the position and the extension of the cracks. On the
opposite, when the cracks are orthogonal to the investigation surface they become invisible to the radar
unless they are so large (e.g., some millimeters or more) to create a radar diffraction.
Since the radar signal is totally reflected by a metal plate, radar profiles over metal plates covering cavities or
infrastructure boxes in a floor or in a wall are useless. Although the high frequency antennas are normally
shielded, external metal structures like scaffoldings, reinforcement rings or other elements might severely
affect the radar data so that the location of radar profiles should be planned sufficiently far from these
elements.
The radar method is totally non invasive and thus does not present any risk of damage for the building.
Nevertheless, care might be needed when the antenna must be moved on a precious surface decorated with
frescos or with delicate bas-reliefs. For these cases, a good practice consists of protecting the delicate
surface with a cardboard or a plastic sheet.
For application in civil engineering, different antennas emitting at nominal frequencies from 500 MHz to 2.5
GHz are used. The impulses/waves are radiated by an antenna (transmitter) which is generally very close
(few cm) to or in contact with the structure under investigation and which is moved along the surface. The
antenna can either be moved manually recording the traces with a survey wheel or using an automated
scanning system, which assures an enhanced lateral resolution and reproducibility. The transmitting impulses
are reflected at interfaces of materials with different dielectric properties, i.e. at surfaces, rebars, tendon ducts,
voids, interfaces of multi-layers and at the backside of the structure under investigation. The reflected
impulses are detected by a second antenna (receiver), which is also positioned on the same surface. In most
of the cases both antennas are close to each other, in the same housing (bistatic antenna).
The echoes are processed in order to extract signals from clutter and the travel time is restituted as distance
of the transmitter from the target, having fixed the propagation velocity. Due to the movement of the antenna,
concentred targets are viewed as hyperboles and due to the radiation pattern all the targets in a volume are
represented in a single section. These two characteristics make necessary to explore a surface along an
hortogonal grid.
It is also possible to work with arrays of multiple antennas, also at different frequencies, even in bistatic
configuration, with transmission at a frequency and reception at another, with advantages in terms of
resolution and false alarm/detection probability. Also the travel time and thus the propagation velocity
depends on the dielectric properties, i.e. the travel times (and attenuation) increase with increasingmoisture
content of the same structure. Therefore, radar can also be used for moisture detection and quantification.
Other interesting information can be extracted from the analysis of the velocities when it is possible to perform
speed calibration on masonry.
Test results
Standard representation of a 2D radar section. Data Parallel sections of unmigrated data. 3D investigation on the
collected on a stone wall of a castle affected by several floor of a church. A cavity is intersected by the four sections on
large cracks that reflect the radar wave.
the left.
63/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
64/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Code/recommendation references
DGZfP, Merkblatt ber das Radarverfahren zur Zerstrungsfreien Prfung im Bauwesen (B10), Deutsche
Gesellschaft fr Zerstrungsfreie Prfung e.V., Berlin (2001)
ONSITEFORMASONRY project, Deliverable D11.3 Page 37, 2004
ASTM D 4748 98, Standard Test Method for Determining the Thickness of Bound Pavements Layers Using
Short-Pulse Radar , ASTM International
The concrete Society: Guidance on Radar testing of Concrete Structures
Slough: Concrete Society Technical report 48 (1997) 88 p.
RILEM Committee TC127MS-D.3: Radar Investigation of masonry
RILEM Committee MDT/99/06: Determination of moisture content and distribution in masonry with radar
References
1. Daniels, D.: Surface-Penetrating Radar, London: The Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1996.
2. Binda, L., Colla, C., Forde, M.C. (1994) Identification of moisture capillarity in masonry using digital
impulse radar, J. Construction & Building Materials, 1994, 8 N.2, 101-107.
3. Binda, L., Saisi, A., Zanzi, L., 2003a, Sonic tomography and flat jack tests as complementary
investigation procedures for the stone pillars of the temple of S.Nicolo LArena (Italy), NDT&E
International Journal, 36, 215-227.
4. Binda, L., Zanzi, L., Lualdi, M., Condoleo, P., 2003b, Complementarity of ND techniques in the
diagnosis of damaged historic structures, Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on Structural Faults and
Repair 2003, July 1-3, London, pp.9.
5. Binda, L., Lualdi, M., Saisi, A., Zanzi, L., Gianinetto, M., Roche, G., 2003c, NDT applied to the
diagnosis of historic buildings: a case history, Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on Structural Faults and
Repair 2003, July 1-3, London, pp.10.
6. Binda, L., Cantini, L., Fernandes, F., Saisi, A., Tedeschi, C., Zanzi, L., 2004, Diagnostic investigation
on the historical masonry structures of a Castle by the complementary use of non destructive
techniques, Proceedings 13th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, July 4-7,
Amsterdam, pp.10.
7. Colla, C., Forde, M.C., McCann, D.M., & Das, P.C. (1995) Investigation of masonry arch bridges using
non-contacting NDT, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Structural Faults & Repair-95, London, July 1995, Vol. I,
Engineering Technics Press, 235-239.
8. Colla, C., Das, P.C., McCann, D.M., Forde, M.C. (1995) Investigation of stone masonry bridges using
sonics, electromagnetics & impulse radar, Proc. Int. Symp. Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
Engineering (NDT-CE), BAM, Berlin, Germany, September 1995, Vol I, 629- 636.
9. Colla, C., Forde, M.C., Das, P.C., McCann, D.M.: Radar imaging in composite masonry structures,
Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Structural Faults & Repair-95, Edinburgh, July 8-10, 1997, Vol. 3, Engineering
Technics Press, 493-504.
10. Colla, C., Forde, M.C., Das, P.C., McCann, D.M., Batchelor, A.J.: Radar tomography of masonry arch
bridges, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Structural Faults & Repair-95, Edinburgh, July 8-10, 1997, Vol. 1,
Engineering Technics Press, 143-151.
11. Daniels, D.: Surface-Penetrating Radar, London: The Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1996.
12. Lualdi, M., Zanzi, L., 2002, GPR investigations to reconstruct the geometry of the wooden structures
in historical buildings, Proceedings 9th Int. Conf. on Ground Penetrating Radar GPR2002, April 29 May 2, Santa Barbara (CA), USA, 63-67.
13. Lualdi, M., Zanzi, L., Binda, L., 2003, Acquisition and processing requirements for high quality 3D
reconstructions from GPR investigations, Proceedings of the International Symposium Non
Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering NDT-CE 2003, September 16-19, Berlin, pp.13.
14. Maierhofer, C. and J. Wstmann: Investigation of dielectric properties of brick materials as a function
of moisture and salt content using a microwave impulse technique at very high frequencies, in:
NDT&E International, Vol.31 (1998a), 259-263.
15. Maierhofer, C., Leipold, S., Wiggenhauser, H.: Investigation of the influence of moisture and salt
content on the dielectric properties of brick materials using radar, Proc. 7th International Conference
on Ground Penetrating Radar, May 27-30, 1998b, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, Vol.2, 477-484.
16. Maierhofer, C., Leipold, S., Schaurich, D., Binda, L., Saisi, A.: Determination of the moisture
distribution in the outside walls of the S.Maria Rossa using radar, Proc. 7th International Conference
on Ground Penetrating Radar, May 27-30, 1998c, Lawrence, Kansas, USA,
17. Vol.2, 509-514.
18. Maierhofer, C., Wstmann, J., Schaurich, D. and M. Krause: Radar Investigation of Historical
Structures, in: Uomoto, T. (Ed.); Seiken Symposium No. 26, "Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
65/114
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
66/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Engineering 2000" in Tokyo, Japan, 25.-27. April 2000, Amsterdam-Lausanne-New York- OxfordShannon-Singapore-Tokyo: Elsevier 2000, pp. 529-537
Maierhofer, C.: Radar investigation of masonry structures, NDT&E International 34 (2001) 9, pp. 139147
The Concrete Society: Guidance on Radar Testing of Concrete Structures, Slough: Concrete Society
Technical Report 48 (1997) 88 p.
Valle, S., Zanzi, L., 1998, Traveltime radar tomography for NDT on masonry and concrete structures,
European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol.2, N.3, 229-246.
Valle, S., Zanzi, L., Rocca, F., 1999, Radar tomography for NDT: comparison of techniques, Journal
of Applied Geophysics, 41, 259-269.
Valle S., Zanzi, L., Sgheiz, M., Lenzi, G., Friborg, J., 2000, Ground Penetrating Radar antennas:
theoretical and experimental directivity functions, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol.39, N.4, 749-759.
Zanzi, L., Lualdi, M., Saisi, A., 2003, Sonic and radar tomography on masonry structures,
Proceedings RILEM 177-MDT Workshop on On-Site Control and Non-Destructive Evaluation of
Masonry Structures, November 12-14, 2001, Mantova, 239-250.
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
67/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
68/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Test results
Test results are presented in either in transit time measurement for singular signal or in tomographic mode.
Left: Plan view with the measuring line. Middle: Cross section. Right:
Tomographic reconstruction, measured with an ultrasonic frequency of 25
kHz
Structural investigation of an outside stone wall: Left: outside trace, propagation velocity 3108 m/s, middle: inside trace,
propagation velocity 3304 m/s, right: Cross section of the thickness of the inner filling of the wall
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
69/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Code/recommendation references
Merkblatt fr Ultraschall-Impuls-Verfahren zur Zerstrungsfreien Prfung mineralischer Baustoffe und Bauteile
(B4), Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Zerstrungsfreie Prfung e.V., Berlin (1999)
ASTM C 597 83 (91) Standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete
DIN EN 13296 Bestimmung der Ultraschallgeschwindigkeit (1998)
References
1. Olson, Larry D., Hollema, David A. (2003): Crosshole Sonic Logging and Velocity Tomography
Imaging of Drilled Shaft Foundation, International Symposium, Non- Destructive Testing in Civil
Energeering (NDT- CE 2003)
2. Binda, L., Saisi, A. and Tiraboschi, C. (2001): Application of sonic tests to the diagnosis of damaged
and repaired structures, NDT&E International 34, pp.123- 138
3. Wstenberg., H., Erhard, A., Austel, W., Klanke, H. P. (1988): Ultrasonic echo tomography. A new
procedure for defect presentation. Ultraschall- Echo- Tomographie, ein neues Verfahren fr die
Darstellung von Fehlern. Konferenz- Einzelbericht: Pressure Vessel Technology. Sixth International
Conference page 1481 1492 (12 pages, 14 figures, 2 tables, 9 sources), Oxford: Pergamon Press
4. Schickert, M. (1996): The Use of Ultrasonic A-Scan and B-Scan and SAFT Techniques for Testing
Concrete Elements, Second International Conference on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete in the
Infrastructure, Nashville, Tennessee, Bethel, Connecticut: Society for Experimental Mechanics, pp.
135-142
5. Kroggel, O., Jahnson, R. and M. Ratmann (1995): Novel Ultrasound System to Detect Voids Ducts in
Posttensioned Bridges, Forde, M. C. (Ed.); Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Structural Faults and Repair, London, UK, Vol.1, pp. 203-208, Engineering Technics Press
6. Krause, M., Mller, W. and H. Wiggenhauser (1997): Ultrasonic Inspection of Tendon Ducts in
Concrete Slabs using 3D-SAFT, Acoustical Imaging Vol. 23 pp. 433-439
7. Schickert, M., Krause, M. and W. Mller (2003): Ultrasonic Imaging of Concrete Elements Using
Reconstruction by Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
(JMCE), ASCE Vol. 15- 3, pp. 235-246
8. Krause, M., Mielentz, F., Milmann, B., Streicher, D., Mller, W. (2003): Ultrasonic imaging of concrete
elements: State of the art using 2D synthetic aperture, DGZfP (Ed.); International Symposium NonDestructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, September 16-19, Proceedings
on BB 85-CD, V51, Berlin
9. Kurz, J.H. (2002/03): Advances in automatic acoustic emission analysis. IWB Jahresbericht/Activities
10. Brauchler, R., Liedl, R., Dietrich, P. (2003):A travel time based hydraulic tomographic approach.
Water Resour. Res., 39(12), 1370-1380
11. Tronicke, J., Dietrich, P., Appel, E. (2002): Quality improvement of crosshole georadar tomography:
pre- and post-investigation data analysis strategies. European Journal of Environmental and
Engineering Geophysics, 7, 59-73
12. Becht, A., Tronicke, J., Appel, E., Dietrich, P.: Invesion strategy in crosshole radar tomography using
information of data subsets
13. Jackson, M., J., Tweeton, D., R.: MIGRATOM Geophysical Tomography Using Wavefront Migration
and Fuzzy Constraints, United States department of the interior, bureau of mines, report of
investigation 9497
14. Jackson, M., J., Tweeton, D., R.: MIGRATOM Geophysical Tomography Using Wavefront Migration
and Fuzzy Constraints, United States department of the interior, bureau of mines, report of
investigation 9497
15. Schickert, M., Krause, M. and W. Mller (2003): Ultrasonic Imaging of Concrete Elements Using
Reconstruction by Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
(JMCE), ASCE Vol. 15 -3, pp. 235-246
70/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
References
2.
71/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Symptom or feature
Damage detection (cracks), repair intervention control, foundation settlements
Measurable entitiy
Displacement
Assessment Technique
Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDT), cable extension transducers, linear potentiometers, laser
measurement sensors, mechanical rod extensometers (single or multiple base),
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Symptom or feature
Out-of-plumb detection (e.g. high rise masonry towers), indirect measurement of deflection, displacements,
settlements,
Measurable entitiy
Tilt measurements
Assessment Technique
Direct/inverse pendulum, laser measurement sensors + digital image acquisition systems, tiltmeter (vibrating
wire, electrolytic, ), inertial based inclinometers,
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
72/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Symptom or feature
Vibrations induced damage, seismic structural response
Measurable entitiy
Acceleration
Assessment Technique
Acceleration transducers (piezoelectric, capacitive, servo force balance),
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Symptom or feature
Crack propagation,
Measurable entitiy
Acoustic emission or attenuation
Assessment Technique
Acoustic emission monitoring systems based on pressure sensors, piezoelectric sensors,
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Symptom or feature
Changes in the load pattern (e.g. tensile force in tie-beams, compressive force in the foundation piles) due
to several reasons (settlements, viscous effects, tilting.),
Measurable entitiy
Force
Assessment Technique
Load cells (vibrating wire, electrical resistance strain gages), strain gages
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
73/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Symptom or feature
Changes in the stress pattern (e.g. stress in masonry elements) due to several reasons (settlements, tilting),
Measurable entitiy
Pressure
Assessment Technique
Pressurized jacks connected to pressure sensors (piezorestitive pressure sensors, electrical resistance straingages, )
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Symptom or feature
Water table level, soil-structure interaction
Measurable entitiy
Water level
Assessment Technique
Piezometers (vibrating wire),
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
74/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
75/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
aggregates can also be measured by separating the binder from the aggregates through chemical or thermal
treatments. The above-mentioned tests allow the determination of the composition of the existing mortars and
permit the reproduction of mortars and grouts for repairing the masonry.
When masonry is damaged by aggressive agents the decay is never uniform; if maintenance is needed and
only some bricks or stones or decorations are affected by the damage, the best remedy is frequently the
substitution of the most decayed elements. In this case, laboratory tests can give useful information for the
choice of the appropriate material for substitution. When substitution is not possible, a surface treatment may
be required. The tests have to be carried out on both deteriorated existing bricks (or stones) and on
undamaged as well. The following test are suggested: mechanical compressive and splitting tests, physical
tests to study the porosity of the material, chemical tests, optical and mineralogical analysis and durability
tests.
Test results
Test results may differ depending from the samples and purpose of investigation. For the purpose of
PERPETUATE methodology most important results are revealed morphology of walls, mechanical
properties of masonry and stone/brick units (elastic modulus, compressive and tensile strength, density) and
mortar (composition, type, compressive strength from extracted tablets from mortar joints).
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
References
10.
76/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM E 837-95, Standard test method for determining residual stresses by the Hole-drilling strain gage
method.
ASTM E 1237-93 (2003), Standard guide for installing bonded resistance strain gages.
References
1.
77/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Endoscopy
Videoboroscopy
Drilling the hole of 10 cm diameter
Test procedure and measurements
This method involves the drilling of a small-diameter hole to reveal the interior of a structure. Depending from
the type of used endoscope or videoscope, the diameter of the hole could vary from 10 mm upward. The
examination can be recorded on videotape or photographically. it can reveal: morphological variations in the
masonry, the thickness of mortar layers and their state of conservation, the possible presence and shape of
cracks and internal cavities. If repeated in different sections of a structure, these examinations can also
provide information on the homogeneity of the masonry.
In the case of videoboroskoping, survey may be carried out with two different cameras:
a fix light model that can be managed by a stiff cable for the holes
a head-moving model that can be managed by a stiff cable for remarkable voids
Test results
Results of testing represent revealed morphology of masonry, position of layers, voids etc.
1 /1
25
1/2
1 /3
12
10
1/4
18
1/5
1 /6
14
1 /7 1 /8
15
17
158 cm
Revealed morphology
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
References
78/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
79/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
actions in durability testing it is sufficient to calculate the mean of the ten (or more) measurements. If absolute
indications of equivalent strength properties such as cube strength, flexural strength or tensile strength are
required the data must be transformed using a suitable calibration curve. Previous calibration trials indicate
that the relationship between drilling energy and strength properties is not linear thus each individual
measurement must be transformed before the mean is calculated. A calibration for cube strength is supplied
with the commercial system but other parameters would require further data.
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
1. RILEM MS-D.10: Measurement of moisture content by drilling, Materials and Structures, V30, pp
323-328, 1997.
References
1. F.Chagneau and M.Levasseur, Control des materiaux de construction par Dynamostratigraphie,
Materiaux et Constructions, 22, p231, 1989
2. de Vekey,R.C., In-situ tests for masonry, Proc. 9th Intl. Brick and block Mas. Conf., V1, p621-627,
1991
3. N Gucci, R Barsotti, Determination in-situ of mortar load capacity by a drilling technique Proc. 10th
IBMaC, page 1315-1324, Calgary, 1994.
4. N Gucci, M.Sassu, P.P.Rossi, A.Pulcini, Proc.STREMA 95, vol2, page , Chania, 1995
5. de Vekey,R.C. and Mauro Sassu, Comparison of non-destructive in-situ mechanical tests on masonry
mortars: The PNT-G method and the Helix method, Proc. 11th IBMAC, Shanghai, V.1, p376 - 384,
1997.
6. PNT-G Instructions manual
80/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
81/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
be easier to remove the shims first to ease the jack especially where the stress measured was high (>
2
2N/mm ).
In a brick masonry, the cut can be easily made in the horizontal joints. For this type of masonry a rectangular
flat-jack is used (120*240*8mm / 400*200*8 mm).
The cut can also be made by a steel disk, with a diamond cutting edge. The flat-jack has the same shape of
the cut (350*250*4mm).
Potentiometric linear variable differential transducers or a mechanical meter are used with a sensitivity of
about 0.001mm.
Test results
Test results represent state of compressive stresses in investigated structural element. Note, that in the case
of large massive walls obtained result may represent local state of stresses.
The restoring stress value (Sr) at the testing point is given by the relation:
Sr = Ke . p . Aslot/Aje
Where: Ke is a dimensionless geometrical efficiency constant which takes into account the position of the slot
in relation to the mortar joints, the relative size of the jack and the units and the geometrical characteristics of
the jack. (This constant is determined by means of a calibration test on masonry subjected to a known stress
field within a compression testing machine); Aslot is the area of the slot; Aje is the effective area of the flat jack
and p is the pressure which restores the original strain condition.
Where calibration data is not available to determine Ke then it may be taken to be 1. In this case the stress
value will be overestimated but this will normally be on the safe side.
For typical European brick units with plan dimensions of around 200 - 300 mm by 75 - 125mm, where the jack
is the same dimension as the unit and is placed in a bed joint, the value of Ke is normally around 0.83. Values
for other situations are available from the bibliographical references.
Correlation regarding demage classes for architectonic and artistic assets
A-a
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
a
b
c
1) Deformation of the edges of the cut
Therefore there will be a concentration of tensile stresses at the middle of the slot and highest values of
compressive stresses beyond its end. In the middle of the slot the situation of unloading by cutting and
successive loading by the flat jack is represented in Fig. 2. Obviously in the case of cracking due to the tensile
stresses born at the top of the slot (Fig. 1, c) or consequent rigid movements of the upper parts of the slot, the
situation of Fig. 3 can be obtained. On the contrary, the corners and the lateral parts of the cut are under
compression increasing after the cut has been made. Therefore the situation at the ends of the cut is such
that higher stresses have to be applied to recover the relaxation displacement and to oppose the compressive
stress. In any case the measurements carried out in the four chosen points will never give the same value
and, after the flat jack has been inflated, very seldom will the original distance will be attained in all the four
measuring points (Fig.4).
82/114
Stress
Stress
l
Displacement
1000
Displacement [micron]
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
800
3
4
600
5
2
400
6
1
200
0
Displacement
0
5
10
15
20
25
2) Stress displacement in the 3) Stress-displacement in the
middle
of
the
slot
in
case
of
Pressure
[bar]
middle of the slot
hinge formation or rigid 4) Pressure in the jack against measured displacements
displacement
Code/recommendation references
ASTM C 1196 (1991), Standard test method for in-situ compressive stress within solid unit masonry estimated
using the flat-jack method, Philadelphia, ASTM.
ASTM C 1197 (1991) - Standard test method for in-situ measurement of masonry deformability properties
using the flat jack methodRilem Lum 90/2 Lum D.2 (1990) In-situ stress based on the flat jack
RILEM Lum 90/2 Lum D.2 (1990) In-situ stress based on the flat jack RILEM Lum 90/2 Lum D3 (1990)- Insitu strength and elasticity tests based on the flat jack.
References
1. ASTM C 1196 (1991), Standard test method for in-situ compressive stress within solid unit masonry
estimated using the flat-jack method, , Philadelphia, ASTM.
2. Ronca, P.(1996), "New Developments on the Mechanical Interpretation of the In-Situ Flat jack Test",
National Congress 'La Meccanica delle Murature tra Teoria e Progetto', University of Messina, Italy18/20 Sept. 1996, pp. 135-143.
3. Ronca P., Tiraboschi C., Binda L. (1997), In-situ flat-jack tests matching new mechanical
interpretations, 11th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf. Shanghai, China, Vol. 1, 1997, pp. 357-366.
4. Rossi P.P., Analysis of mechanical characteristic of brick masonry tested by means of in-situ tests,
6th IBMaC, 1982, Rome, Italy
5. R.C.de Vekey, Measurement of load eccentricity using flat jacks, Proc.Brit.Mas.Soc (9) (Proc.6th IMC)
V1, pp79-85, 2002
6. R.C.de Vekey, Measurement of horizontal compressive stress in masonry using flat jacks, Acta
Polytechnica V36, No.2, pp 117-126, 1996.
83/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
84/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Test results
The stress in the masonry between the jacks fm is given by the relation:
fm = Ke . p . Aslot/Aje
Where: Aslot is the average of the area of the two slots; Aje is the average of the effective area of the two flat
jacks and p is the hydraulic pressure in the jack lines. In absence of calibration data the default value of the
geometrical efficiency factor Ke should be taken as 1.
The tangent modulus of elasticity, Et, at any given level of stress is given by the relation:
Et = dfm/dem
Where dfm is the increment of stress and dem is the increment of strain at the chosen stress level.
The secant modulus of elasticity, Es, at any given level of stress is given by the relation:
Es = fm/em
Where fm is the cumulative stress and em is the cumulative strain increment.
a) Stress-strain diagram obtained from a irregular stone b) Stress-Strain diagram obtained from a double flat jack test.
block masonry.
The overcoming of thelinear-elastic range is evident.
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM C 1196 (1991), Standard test method for in-situ compressive stress within solid unit masonry estimated
using the flat-jack method, Philadelphia, ASTM.
ASTM C 1197 (1991) - Standard test method for in-situ measurement of masonry deformability properties
using the flat jack methodRilem Lum 90/2 Lum D.2 (1990) In-situ stress based on the flat jack
85/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
RILEM Lum 90/2 Lum D.2 (1990) In-situ stress based on the flat jack RILEM Lum 90/2 Lum D3 (1990)- Insitu strength and elasticity tests based on the flat jack.
References
1. Rossi, P. P., (1982), Analysis of mechanical characteristics of brick masonry tested by means of
non-destructive in-situ tests. Paper presented at the 6th International Brick Masonry Conference,
Rome.
2. Sacchi Landriani, G. and Taliercio, A. (1986), Numerical Analysis of the Flat Jack Test on Masonry
Walls, Journal of theoretical and applied mechanics. Vol.5 No.3,.
3. Noland, J. L., Atkinson, R. H. and Schuller, M. P., (1990), A Review of the Flat-jack Method for
Nondestructive Evaluation. Proceedings of Non-destructive Evaluation of Civil Structures and
Materials. Colorado, October.
4. R.C.de Vekey, Thin stainless steel flat-jacks: calibration and trials for measurement of in-situ stress
and elasticity of masonry, Proc 7th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Hamilton, V2, pp1174-1183,
1995.
5. Bettio C., Gelmi A., Modena C., Rossi P.P. (1993), Caratterizzazione meccanicae consolidamento
statico delle murature dei centri abitati di antica origine della provincia di Trento: rapporto preliminare
sui risultati delle indagini svolte, Convegno Murature, sicurezza, recupero, Trento, 185-222
6. Binda L. (1999), Caratterizzazione delle murature in pietra e mattoni ai fini dellindividuazione di
opportune tecniche di riparazione, Unit di Ricerca di Milano, Relazione Finale, Contratto CNR/GNDT
7. Binda L., Anzani A.(1993), The time-dependent behaviour of masonry prisms: an interpretation, The
Masonry Society Journal, vol.11, n.2, pp.17-34
8. Binda L., Gatti G., Mangano G., Poggi C., Sacchi Landriani G. (1991), The collapse of the Civic Tower
of Pavia: a survey of the materials and structure, Masonry International, vol. 6, n.1, pp.11-20
9. Binda L., Modena C., Baronio G.(1993), Strengthening of masonries by injection technique,
Proceedings of 6 NaMC, Vol.I, Philadelphia, pp.1-1 4
10. Binda L., Tiraboschi C., Tongini Folli R. (1998), On site and laboratory investigation on materials and
nd
structure of the Bell Tower in Monza, 2 Int. Conf. RILEM on Rehabilitation of structures, Highett,
Australia, pp.542-556
86/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
f c ,inf the lowest value for the vertical stress, v,sup vertical deformation of the k-th
deformeter base at the maximum load, v,inf vertical deformation of the k-th
deformeter base at the minimum load
The elastic modulus for the test until the panel collapses:
87/114
Es ,1/3 =
f c ,1/3 f c ,inf
v ,1/3 v ,inf
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
RILEM TC 76-LUM, General recommendations for methods of testing load-bearing masonry,1988.
D.M. LL.PP. del 14/01/2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
C.M. LL.PP. N. 617 del 02/02/2009, Istruzioni per lApplicazione delle NTC 2008.
D.M. LL. PP. 20/11/1987, Norme tecniche per la progettazione esecuzione e collaudo degli edifici in muratura
e per il loro consolidamento
References
1. A. Borri, M. Corradi, A. Vignoli, Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry walls,
Construction and Building Materials, N. 17, 2003, pp. 325-337.
2. S. Chiostrini, L. Galano, A. Vignoli, Shear and compression testing of stone masonry walls, Atti del
Seminario CIAS Evoluzione nella Sperimentazione per le Costruzioni, Merano, 1994, pp. 223-250.
3. S. Chiostrini, A. Vignoli, In situ determination of the strength properties of masonry walls by
destructive shear and compression tests, Masonry International, The British Masonry Society, Vol. 7,
N. 3, 1994, pp. 84-96.
88/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Compressive-shear test
u =
Fu
,
2A
89/114
u =
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Tinf,u
, Tinf,u maximum horizontal load of the lower semi panel
A
f t = 0.5 0 + (0.5 0 )2 + ( b u ) 2 , where b represent shear distribution factor, while 0 represents stresses
due to normal loading.
The tangential modulus at 1/3 of the maximum load for both tests
2
1
E
1.2hinf
G hinf
=
=
1 +
140
120
Sila [kN]
100
80
Ke=197,5 kNmm
Hu=110 kN
ft = 0,14 MPa
60
40
20
Obvojnica
Idealizirana obvojnica
Eksperiment
0
0
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
RILEM TC 76-LUM, General recommendations for methods of testing load-bearing masonry, 1988.
D.M. LL.PP. del 14/01/2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
C.M. LL.PP. N. 617 del 02/02/2009, Istruzioni per lApplicazione delle NTC 2008.
D.M. LL. PP. 20/11/1987, Norme tecniche per la progettazione esecuzione e collaudo degli edifici in muratura
e per il loro consolidamento.
References
1. A. Bernardini, C. Modena, V. Turnesek, U. Vescovi, A comparison of three laboratory methods to
determine the shear resistance of masonry walls, Proceedings of 7th WCEE, Instanbul, 1980.
2. A. Borri, M. Corradi, A. Vignoli, Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry walls,
90/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
91/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
ft = 0.5
Fu
A
A cross section of the panel, Fu maximum diagonal force applied on the panel
0 =
ft
1.5
The secant shear modulus that can be determined at each point of the shear-stress curve:
G=
1.05 F
, average angular defletion of the panel
=
92/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM E 519-02, 2002. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry
Assemblages, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials.
RILEM TC 76-LUM, 1991. Diagonal Tensile strength tests of small wall specimens.
NTC 2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, DM 14 Gennaio 2008, Gazzetta Zecca dello Stato, Roma.
(Tabella C8A.2.1 di appendice C8A di Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617).
References
1. Brignola A., Podest S., Lagomarsino S., 2006. Experimental Results of Shear Strenght and Stiffness
of Existing Masonry Walls. Proceedings of V International Conference on Structural Analysis of
Historical Constructions, New Delhi, India, 6-8 November 2006, pp. 767-774.
2. Brignola A., Frumento S., Lagomarsino S., Podest S., 2009 Identification of shear parameters of
masonry panels through the in-situ diagonal compression test, International Journal of Architectural
Heritage. Vol 3, Issue 1 January 2009, pp. 52-73.
3. Turnek V., aovi F. 1971. Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonrywalls,
Proceeding of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke on Trent, 1971; pp. 149-156.
93/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
F = p Am Km ,
u = 0 + n
It is reasonable to assume that the sliding occurs along the horizontal mortar layers (area Am) and the area
around the jack (area Ap). The horizontal mortar layers are subjected to normal stresses that are considered
to be known from the results of the single flat jack test while the normal stresses along the area around the
jack are considered to be zero. Therefore the equilibrium condition can be as following:
Flim = Ap 0 + Am ( 0 + n )
94/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
In the test, the shear stress 0 and the friction angle have to be determined. 0 can be estimated as a value
of the friction angle, known for a typical masonry:
0 = ( Flim Am n ) / ( Ap + Am )
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM C 1197-91, Standard test method for in-situ measurement of masonry deformability properties using
the flatjack method.
RILEM Technical Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Construction Materials, LUM.D.3 In-situ
strength/elasticity tests based on the flat jack (E & FN Spon, London, 1994) 503-508.
References
1. Binda, L., Tiraboschi, C., Flat-Jack Test as a Slightly Destructive Technique for the Diagnosis of Brick
and Stone Masonry Structures, Int. Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments, Int.
Zeitschrift fur Bauinstandsetzen und Baudenkmalpflege, Zurich, pp. 449-472, 1999.
2. A. Vignoli, L. Galano, E. Del Monte, 2007, Determinazione sperimentale delle caratteristiche
meccaniche delle murature e specifiche di prova, allegato 3b.3 UR10-1.
95/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
a)
b)
d)
c)
Test procedure and measurements
Once a location has been establiched (not around oppenings), a single brick, djacent to the test brick, is
removed by drilling out the surrounding mortar joints. Head joint on the opposite site of the test brick is also
removed by drilling out the mortar. The test brick is thus isolated so that an applied horizontal force will be
reisted in shear along the two bed joint and the collar joint. Measurements are made of the dimensions of the
test brick and any visible flaws in the mortar joints are noted before load is applied.Load applied to the test
brick is increased gradually until sliding of the brick is first observed. The shear strength is then computed as
the maximum applied force divided by the effective area of the resisting bed joints and the collar joint.
Three methods are provided depending from the control of normal compressive stresses:
a) Method A (with Flatjacks Controlling Normal Compressive Stress)For determining mortar joint shear
strength index when the state of normal compressive stress at the test site is controlled during the test using
the flatjack method. Horizontal displacement of the test unit is monitored throughout the test.
b) Method B (without Flatjacks Controlling Normal Compressive Stress)For determining mortar joint shear
strength index when using an estimate of the normal compressive stress at the location of the test site.
Horizontal displacement of the test unit is not monitored during this procedure.
c) Method C (with Flatjack Applying Horizontal Load)For determining mortar joint shear strength index using
an estimate of the normal compressive stress at the location of the test site. Horizontal displacement of the
test unit is generally not measured during this procedure.
96/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Test results
A-b
A-c
A-d
B-a B-b
E-a E-b
E-c
Code/recommendation references
ASTM C 1531-03 Standard Test Methods for In Situ Measurement Of Masonry Mortar Joint Shear Strength
Index
References
1.
97/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
The reliability of the seismic assessment is strongly influenced by the completeness and the
accuracy of surveying and investigations. Considering cultural heritage assets, the wish of
documentation is even greater than for ordinary buildings.
The complexity of ancient masonry buildings, often subjected to many transformations along their
life, would require a detailed investigation in all structural and non structural elements, because it is
difficult to extend data acquired in one single point to other part of the building.
However, the diagnostic activity may be intrusive and non compatible with the conservation of the
cultural properties of the asset. Moreover, testing are expensive and it is necessary to consider the
available budget. Some indications on the unitary cost of each method are given in 5.4.
It is therefore necessary to find the optimal balance among all the above mentioned aspects.
The information that are necessary for the seismic assessment can be subdivided into two
categories:
1. qualitative information (constructive details, connections between structural elements, etc.):
these data can be obtained by visual inspection or inferred by other information; in this case,
depending on the assumed data, the mechanical model produces different single results;
2. quantitative information (thickness of elements, material parameters, etc.): in this case the
uncertainties can be taken into account by a probabilistic approach (e.g.: mean value and
coefficient of variation) or a fuzzy approach (giving an interval of plausible values); uncertainties
can be of different nature:
-
statistic uncertainties: if you measure the same parameter more times on the same material
you do not obtain the same value;
epistemic uncertainties: due to the fact that masonry is a non homogeneous material, thus
in each point it has different characteristics, even if made in the same period and with the
same constitutive elements.
98/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
The plan of investigations must consider all these aspects and try to be as complete as possible,
avoiding to be very detailed on some parameters and completely lacking in others.
A preliminary mechanical model can be very useful for a sensitivity analysis, aimed to single out
the parameters that have a stronger influence on the results; investigations should be focused on
those ones.
In order to take into account in the assessment all these sources of uncertainties, different
approaches can be adopted:
-
logic tree approach: considering for all uncertain parameters a plausible interval and
making a set of deterministic analysis, assuming proper weights to each one;
deterministic approach, with the use of confidence factors: in this case the quality and
completeness of data are summarized by a coefficient, to be applied to the material
parameters (for example, if the level of knowledge is low, strengths are reduced in order to
take into account the related uncertainties).
The last approach is the one proposed in EC8-3 [11], for the assessment of existing buildings. The
Italian guidelines [12] propose the adoption of partial confidence factors, correlated to different type
of information (see 5.4).
In 4 set of tables where presented for each technique of testing, where one of the parameters
which was considered was also the reliability of particular method (measure uncertainties and
interpretation uncertainties). The results are summarized in following table. Note that the most of
NDT methods are marked as medium or low reliable, since for the confirmation of the results of
NDT testing should be always accompanied with some MDT or DT technique to confirm the
results. More the nature of testing technique is destructive more reliable results are.
Table 6: Reliability of particular method of testing
High
Medium
Low
99/114
N6
N7
N8
N9
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
D1
Geoelectrical
Tomographies
Impact-echo
Pachometer
Radar
Ultrasonics
Hardness test
Transducer Movement
Sensing
Endoscopy/Boroscopy
Method (PNT-G)
In-situ
tests
D2
D3
D4
D5
N5
N4
N3
N2
compressive
N1
Active Thermography
Reliability
5.2
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Regarding the methods illustrated in previous sections and the modelling strategies described in
Deliverable D7, it seems important noting how:
-
Legend:
All sub-classes of models as illustrated in Deliverable D7 need the definition of these parameters
Only some sub-classes of models as illustrated in Deliverable D7 need the definition of these
parameters
In general it may be stated that the information obtained by tests addressed to investigate
Morphologic properties may be useful for all modelling strategies, even in different ways: in some
100/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
case, data will be directly introduced in models, in other ones they will be used in indirect way by
providing useful information to properly characterize mechanical properties of models. As an
example, information related to the location of detachments of the outer layer should be modelled
in detail only by adopting very detailed modelling strategies (e.g. in case of discrete or finite
element models), but anyway should be included also in structural element models by properly
modifying strength parameters.
In particular, with reference to NDT and MDT methods illustrated and objectives listed in 4.2, the
following tables summarize the more appropriate methods which may be applied depending from
observed problem.
Table 8. Investigation of morphological properties
Morphologic properties
Parameter examined
Thickness of structures, which are only accessible from
one side (e. g. basement, vault, etc.)
Location of detachments
Detection of multiple layers of masonry, determination of
the thickness of single layers
101/114
5.3
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Use of different testing technique depending on the classification of architectonic and artistic
assets
Methods for Metric Surveying and Recording (see 6.2), can provide reliable data considering each
methods accuracy (including factors such are experts knowledge and experience as well as
instruments performance) regarding identification of damage classes of AA and CA. On the other
hand the results from methods for Diagnostic Surveying and Recording should be discussed
regarding the outcome of testing that is to be expected (mechanical properties, dimension,
presence of different material etc.).
Summary of in-situ applicable NDT, MDT and DT methods regarding damage classes for
architectonic and artistic assets. Note, that where applicable, abbreviation MP (mechanical
parameters) or QA (quality assessment meaning that is not related to MP) are provided in order
to clarify type of information that should be expected.
Table 10: Applicability of particular testing technique depending from observed damage class
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
M6
M5
M3 M4
M2
M1
Method (PNT-G)
N9
Endoscopy/Boroscopy
N8
Pachometer
N7
Impact-echo
N6
Transducer Movement
Sensing
Geoelectrical Tomographies
N5
Hardness test
N4
Ultrasonics
N3
Radar
N2
N1
Active Thermography
Damage class
A-a
QA
QA
MP
QA QA MP MP MP MP MP MP MP
A-b
QA
QA
MP
QA QA MP MP MP MP MP MP MP
A-c
QA
QA
MP
QA QA MP MP MP MP MP MP MP
A-d
QA
QA
MP
QA QA
MP MP MP MP MP
B-a
QA
QA
QA
MP
QA MP MP MP
B-b
QA
QA
QA
MP
QA MP MP MP MP MP MP MP
QA
QA
MP MP QA QA MP MP MP
QA
QA
MP
QA
E-a
QA QA QA QA
QA QA QA
MP
QA QA
MP
E-b
QA QA QA
QA QA QA
MP
QA QA
MP
E-c
QA QA QA
QA QA QA
MP
QA QA
MP
QA
QA
MP
QA
G-a
QA
QA
G-b
QA
G-c
QA
102/114
QA
QA
QA
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Q-a
5.4
D1
QA
MP
QA
QA
QA
MP
QA
QA QA QA QA QA
MP
QA
QA QA QA
D2
D3
D4
D5
M6
M5
M3 M4
M2
Method (PNT-G)
M1
Endoscopy/Boroscopy
N9
Pachometer
N8
Impact-echo
N7
QA
QA
N6
Transducer Movement
Sensing
Geoelectrical Tomographies
N5
Hardness test
N4
Ultrasonics
N3
Radar
N2
N1
Active Thermography
Damage class
MP MP MP MP
QA QA QA QA
Q-b
QA QA QA
Q-c
QA
R-a
QA QA QA
R-b
QA QA
R-c
QA
QA
MP MP MP MP
MP
MP
MP
The cost of investigation of the asset can be conveniently split into two categories:
professional fees (time based closely comparable to hourly rates of other professionals)
and
expenses (including subsistence, travel, equipment costs and charges.
Time spent on collection and analysis is the major cost element in NDT/MDT/DT investigation.
Here, two governing parameters are:
the size of the asset and
the nature of the information required
The size of the asset that is going to be investigated will influence the amount of time that must be
spent collecting a representative sample of data. This will affect the site expenses and the amount
of time spent in analysis.
The nature of information required will affect the strategy of the investigation and therefore the
choice of techniques deployed. The costs for each individual method of testing are summarized in
following table:
103/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
NDT
Technique
Visual inspection and crack pattern
survey
Crack pattern survey (direct
inspection)
Gypsum or glass strips
NDT
Levelling
NDT
Thermography (N1)
NDT
Impact-echo (N3)
NDT
NDT
Pachometer (N4)
Manual percussion
NDT
NDT
Sonic (N5)
NDT
Radar in reflection or in
tomographic mode (N6)
Ultrasonic impulse-echo (N7) and
tomography
Coring and direct visual inspection
by boroscopy or fiberscope or
videocamera (M1, M3)
Prismatic sample testing (M1)
NDT
NDT
NDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
DT
104/114
Cost
750 /day,
2
m /day: variable
750 /day,
2
m /day: variable
Labour cost corresponding to 30 minutes for a strip +
inspection and evaluation time costs (might be high
according to travel distance).
It is no possible to give a value because of the great number
of different cases; the costs depend on the technical
specifications of the equipment, the accessibility to the
measuring points, the installation technique of the sensors,
the frequency of measuring,
etc.
2500 /day
Duration of measurement depends on many factors. With
artificial heat source only relatively small areas can be
investigated. Examples:
Masonry with plaster 3cm: 2m require 90min
plaster 1cm: 2m require 10min
2500 /day
2
3 m /day
500 /day
Equal to cost of labour per time necessary to investigations.
Time consumption of about 15 min/m2 in average dependent
on documentation technique. (Without scaffolding costs).
1000 /day,
2
20 m /day for sonic plus
40 /h for calibration by core drilling
1000 /day for transmission,
2
20 m /day or 2000 /day for tomography
2-3 tomographic sections
1000-2000 /day, 100 mq/day or 2-4 tomographic sections
2500 /day
2
5 m /day
40 /h
5.5
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
There are two possible options to identify the effect of knowledge of AA on the obtained seismic
resistance. The first one is according to EC8-3 methodology and by defining proper confidence
factors according to pre-defined knowledge levels. Alternative to this approach is through
sensitivity analysis of mechanical parameters considering their deviation or coefficient of variation.
Once the constructions have been identified in relation to the depth of the geometric survey, the
material and constructive surveys, and the mechanical research regarding the terrain and
foundation, the designer assigns a confidence factor FC, ranging from 1 to 1.35, which grades the
reliability of the structural analysis model and the evaluation of the seismic safety index.
The confidence factor, that reflects uncertainties on the mechanical properties and hypotheses
adopted in different modelling strategies, is applied differently depending on the model for
evaluating seismic safety. They can be classified as follows:
1. Models which consider the deformability and the resistance of the materials and structural
elements (Continuum Constitutive Laws Models, Structural Element Models, Interface
Models);
2. Models which consider the balance limits of the various elements of the structure, taking
into account the masonry materials as stiff and non-resistant to traction (the creation of
kinematic models of rigid blocks, by means of the introduction of justifiable separations Macro-Blocks Models).
In the first case, the confidence factor is applied to the properties of the materials, reducing both
the plastic model as well as the resistance. The starting values of the mechanical characteristics to
which the confidence factor is applied will be defined in intervals after the usual construction
techniques of the age, on the basis of the resultants of the materials surveys and the construction
details.
In the second case, regarding rigid blocks, in which the resistance of the materials is not taken into
consideration, the confidence factor is applied directly to the structural capacity. In other words, by
reducing the corresponding acceleration to the various limit states. Whenever surveys are
conducted on the mechanical properties of masonry, a partial confidence factor FC3, a value lower
than 0.12 may be assigned only when the resistance of the masonry under compression is
considered in the evaluation model.
In both cases, the definition of confidence factors should refer to the material/typology which most
significantly penalises the specific mechanism of damage/collapse under question.
For example, the confidence factor may be determined by defining diverse partial confidence
factors, FCk (k=1,4), on the basis of the numerical coefficients reported in following table, in which
values are associated to four categories of research and to the level of depth reached:
FC = 1+FCk (k=1,4)
The definition of the level of the depth of research on diverse aspects of knowledge and relative
partial confidence factors:
105/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
FC1=0.05
FC2=0.12
FC3=0.12
Terrain and
Foundations
limited survey of terrain and
foundations, in absence of
Geological data or availability
of information about the
foundation
FC4=0.06
The Geometric survey has
been completed along with
the graphic rendering of
cracking and deformations
FC2=0.06
FC3=0.06
extensive research of
mechanical parameters of
materials
extensive or exhaustive
research on the terrain and
foundation
FC3=0
FC4=0
FC1=0
FC4=0.03
FC2=0
The geometric survey in any case, must be developed to a level of detail coherent with the needs
of the adopted geometric model in the analytical evaluation and/or the necessary qualitative
considerations. The material research (typology and texture of the masonry, and the state of the
floors, structures, and filled arches, etc.) and of the constructive details (wall clamping, eventual
weaknesses, entities and types of horizontal supports, measure taken for thrust containment,
material decay, etc.) must tend to be compatible with the necessities of protecting the building,
ascertaining the various construction typologies present, their placement and repetition, with
particular attention to all aspects which may trigger local collapse mechanisms.
When diverse structural materials are present, the level of depth and the consequent confidence
factor FC3 may refer to materials or the most significant materials which influence the assigning of
the seismic safety index. When the seismic analysis is based on an evaluation which differs from
local mechanisms levels of partial confidence factors relative to each modelled portion may be
utilised.
In the case of evaluation of local characteristics when information regarding terrain and the
foundations does not bear any relation to the specific collapse mechanisms, a partial confidence
factor FC4 of 0 may be assigned. In other cases, as far as knowledge regarding terrain and
foundations is concerned, aspects linked to the definition of the ground categories should be
distinguished from those relating to the transmittance of actions of the structure to the ground
(Geometry of foundations and geotechnical parameters of foundational terrain).
106/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
References
1. Abbas N., Calderini C., Cattari S., Lagomarsino S., Rossi M., Ginanni Corradini R.,
Marghella G., Piovanello V. PERPETUATE, Deliverable D4, Classification of the cultural
heritage assets, description of the target performances and identification of damage
measures, July 2010;
2. Binda, L, Anzani, A., Tiraboschi, C. et al. On-site investigation techniques for the structural
evaluation of historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an
appropriate use of the suggested equipment Flat Jack Tests, POLIMI, Milano, 2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
3. Bosiljkov, V., Maierhofer, C., Binda, L., da Porto, F. et al., ONSITEFORMASONRY. On-site
investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of historic masonry buildings.
Deliverable D10.2 & 10.4, Report on the evaluation at pilot sites (Report for owners of
historic buildings) : pilot site: Piece / Slovenia : revised report., Slovenian National Building
and Civil Eng. Inst., Ljubljana, 2004. http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
4. Bosiljkov, V., Maierhofer, C., Binda, L., et al., ONSITEFORMASONRY. Deliverable D11.3
final draft ver.04, Recommendations for the end users (December 2004): revised report.
Ljubljana: Zavod za gradbenitvo Slovenije, 2004. http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de.
5. Bosiljkov, V., Maierhofer, C., Binda, L., Valuzzi, M. et al., On-site investigation techniques
for the structural evaluation of historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.3 final draft
ver.04, Recommendations for the end users (December 2004) : revised report. Slovenian
National Building and Civil Eng. Inst., Ljubljana, 2004. http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
6. Calderini, C., Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S. and Rossi, M. PERPETUATE, Deliverable D7,
Review of existing models for global response and local mechanisms, September, 2010
7. DAyala D., Novelli V. PERPETUATE, Deliverable D5, Abacus of the most common seismic
damage, September, 2010.
8. DAyala D., Novelli V. PERPETUATE, Deliverable D8, Review and validation of existing
vulnerability displacement-based models, September, 2010.
9. Da Porto, F., Binda, L. et al. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of
historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use
of the suggested equipment Sonic pulse velocity test, UNIPD, Padua 2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
10. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, CEN/TC 250, Brussels, Belgium, October 30, 2003
11. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buldings, CEN/TC 250, Brussels, Belgium, November, 2004.
12. Guidance on Inventory and Documentation of the Cultural Heritage , Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg, 2001;
107/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
13. Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage, Directive of the
Prime Minister, 12/10/2007, G.U. n.24 of 29/1/2008, Gangemi Editor, Rome. ISBN 978-88492-1269-3, 2007 (harmonized with the text of DM 14.01.2008 according to approval of
23/07/2010).
14. ICOMOS, Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings and Sites,
Ratified by the 11th ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, October 1996.
15. ICOMOS, Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of
architectural heritage, International Scientific Committee for Analysis and Restoration of
Structures of Architectural Heritage,, (Part I- Principles ratified as ICOMOS document by
the General Assembly in Zimbabwe,October 2003; Part II-Guidelines approved in the
meeting held by the committee at Barcelona, 2005).
16. Kpp, C., Wiggenhauser, H. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of
historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use
of
the
suggested
equipment
Impact-echo,
BAM,
Berlin,
2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
17. Kpp, C., Wiggenhauser, H. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of
historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use
of the suggested equipment Ultrasonic Methods, BAM, Berlin, 2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
18. Letellier R., Schmid W. and LeBlanc F., Recording, Documentation, and Information
Management for the Conservation of Heritage Places Guiding Principles, The Getty
Conservation Institute, 2007;
19. Maierhofer C., V. Bosiljkov, L. Binda, C. Modena, R. Van Hees, B. Lubelli, J. Akerboom, M.
Forde, C. Hennen, D. Biggs, M. Schuller and F. Casarin, RILEM TC SAM Strategies for
the assessment of historic masonry structures with NDT: State-of-the-Art for the
assessment of historic masonry structures with NDT, Report draft Version No.08, 2009
20. Maierhofer, C., Bosiljkov, V., Binda, L., da Porto, F. et al.,. On-site investigation techniques
for the structural evaluation of historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical
guidelines for an appropriate use of the suggested equipment : revised report., BAM, Berlin,
2004. http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
21. Maierhofer, C., et al. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of historic
masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use of the
suggested
equipment
Active
Thermography,
BAM,
Berlin,
2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
22. Marchisio, M., DOnofrio, L. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of
historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use
of the suggested equipment Geoelectric Tomography, UNIPI, Pisa, October, 2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
108/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
23. Modena, C., Vignoli, A. et al., ReLUIS progetto - Linea di Ricerca N.1: Valutazione e
riduzione della vulnerability di edifice in muratura, Taskt 3b Murature, Prodotti Finali Sub
Task 3b.3 Indagini diagnostiche su tipologie murarie, Marzo, 2009.
24. Zanzi, L., Maierhofer, C., et al. On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation
of historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate
use
of
the
suggested
equipment
Radar,
BAM,
Berlin,
2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
25. Zulueta,A., Barrallo, J., On-site investigation techniques for the structural evaluation of
historic masonry buildings. Deliverable D11.1, Technical guidelines for an appropriate use
of the suggested equipment Hole drilling, GEOCISA, October, 2004.
http://www.onsiteformasonry.bam.de
109/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Survey form
What
FORM A Building
Information
110/114
Explanatory Notes
Survey form
What
A14. Other documentation
FORM B. Sensitivity
Factors
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Explanatory Notes
Attach any other available documentation (blueprints, maps, aerial
photography, prints of reliefs, images, reports, administrative acts,
detailed modules).
Specify the details of eventual provisions of cultural interest (binding
decrees or declarations). Only when conducting seismic safety
evaluations, indicate the importance of the landmark, expressed in
terms relative to the following categories: limited, average, high.
Contain the necessary data for determining the rapport between the
building and its territorial context as an ends of classifying particular
sensitivity factors.
B1 Dimensional Characteristics
B1a. Covering surfaces
B1b. Gutter height
B1c. Number of floors underground
B1d. Number of floors above ground
B1e. Eidotype
B2 Localisation
B2a. Territorial zone
B5 Accessibility
B6 State of Use
FORM C Morphology
of the Elements
111/114
Survey form
What
C1 Codification of Structural Elements
C2 Possibility of Inspection
C3. Morphology
C4. Typology of structural elements
C8 Mechanical Parameters
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
Explanatory Notes
Identify the structural elements that are recognisable at a planimetric
level with alpha-numeric progressive codes according to the
categories below:
For each element codified in point C1, specify whether inspection,
partial inspection or no inspection is possible.
For each element codified in point C1 describe the morphology of:
For each element codified in point C1 describe the constructive
typology according to the terminology elaborated on the regional
level. For example:
For each element codified in point C1 describe the typology of the
finishing elements according to the vocabulary elaborated on the
regional level. For example: plaster, stone wall coverings, wood,
ceramics, lowered ceilings, structures in view, etc. Specify the
finishing element is inside or outside, intrados or extrados.
For each element codified in point C1 describe the constructive
typology according to the vocabulary elaborated at the regional
level. Masonry must be analysed utilising survey forms which must
contain:
- descriptions of the characteristics of the materials that make up the
components, the geometric rapport between the height of the block
and the thickness of the horizontal diaphragms, placement and
alignment deduced from the texture and the masonry equipment.
- evaluation of the interlocking of the blocks (placement of both
bands and regularly placed elements),conservation state and level
of disorganisation in the masonry
For each element codified in point C1 describe the constructive
typology according to the vocabulary elaborated at the regional
level.
For each element codified in point C1 report the mechanical
parameters obtained by diagnostic research done on the structure
or by analogy.
gn = Average resistance to compression
t0 = Shear resistance
E = Average value of normal elasticity
G = Average value of tangential elasticity
W =Average specific weight
For each element codified in point C1 identify and describe any
eventual elements of artistic value: decorated wall panels (friezes,
frames, frescoes, paintings, coats of arms, sculpture, etc.), ancient
construction techniques (plaster, wall treatments, beams, metallic
elements, particular wall textures), built-in furnishings (tapestries,
pictures, altars, statues, tabernacles, etc.).
For each element codified in point C1, and for eventual valuable
elements present, identify their materials through a visual analysis
or laboratory tests if available.
Out of plumb
Wall swelling
Vertical translation
Horizontal translation
Passing cracking
Collapse
112/114
To be identified for each element listed in point C1. For fissures, the
evaluation is meant as the relief of the position of the cusps and of
cyma, maximum distance between the fissured edges and the
relative out-of-plane shifting of fissured edges.
Survey form
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
What
Explanatory Notes
Fragile Breakage
Type of Support
Misalignment of support
Collapse
D1d. Articulated wooden structures
Fragile Breakage
Inflexion
Collapse
Separation
Erosion
Break-up
D2b. Simple and articulated wooden
structures
rottenness
termite damage
D3 Causes of Damage
D3a. Intrinsic causes
humidity
Thermal cycles
vegetation
not estimable
D3b. Extrinsic causes
Seismic events
Landslides/flooding
Explosions/fires
Anthropic actions
not estimable
D4 Analysis of structural details
113/114
Survey form
What
Explanatory Notes
114/114
Deliverable D6 31/10/2010
contiguous elements
Actions of contiguous elements