Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 413–438 | Cite as

Mechanical characterisation of Tuscany masonry typologies by in situ tests

  • Sonia Boschi
  • Luciano Galano
  • Andrea Vignoli
Original Research


The paper reports the results of 105 in situ tests performed on undamaged masonry panels carried out by the authors during the last 20 years. The panels, mostly stone and brickwork masonry, were selected in 59 buildings in Tuscany (Italy) and had different texture and section typologies. The tests, aimed to evaluate both shear strength and deformability parameters, included 50 diagonal tests and 55 flat-jack tests. Main results of tests are supported by a qualitative description of the masonry textures. As a general result, a good agreement was found between the experimental shear strength and the range of values provided by the Italian Building Code. On the contrary, significant differences were obtained with respect to the longitudinal and the shear modules of elasticity. This is probably due to the high sensibility of these values to the method used to treat the data records. The results here presented, together with further data on the subject, are included in a web page named “Tuscany Masonry DataBase”. The database constitutes an effective set of experimental results that can be employed to extract reference values (both quality and mechanical properties) for masonry typologies at local level.


Historic masonry Mechanical properties In situ tests Diagonal test Flat-jack test Masonry database 



This project was supported by the Tuscany Region and by the ReLUIS 2014-16 research program on masonry buildings. Authors thank the Universities of Tuscany, all the private Societies and the persons who took part in the research.


  1. ASTM C 1197-14 (2014) Standard test method for in situ measurement of masonry deformability properties using the flat-jack methodGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM E 519–07 (2007) Standard test method for diagonal tension (Shear) in masonry assemblages. West Conshohocken, ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  3. Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2008) Seismic response of masonry plane walls: a numerical study on spandrel strength. AIP Conf Proc 1020(1):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2014) Comparative analysis on the seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct 61:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betti M, Galano L, Petracchi M, Vignoli A (2015) Diagonal cracking shear strength of unreinforced masonry panels: a correction proposal of the b shape factor. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3151–3186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betti M, Borghini A, Boschi S, Ciavattone A, Vignoli A (2017) Comparative seismic risk assessment of basilica type churches. J Earthquake Eng. Google Scholar
  7. Binda L, Saisi A, Tiraboschi C (2000) Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of historic masonries. J Constr Build Mater 14:199–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binda L, Borri A, Cardani G, Doglioni F (2009) Scheda qualità muraria: relazione finale e linee guida per la compilazione della scheda di valutazione della qualità muraria. Report progetto ReLUIS 2005–2008 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  9. Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M, Speranzini E (2011) Shear behavior of unreinforced and reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests. Constr Build Mater 25(12):4403–4414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M (2015a) Determination of shear strength of masonry panels through different tests. Int J Archit Herit 9(8):913–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borri A, Corradi M, Castori G, De Maria A (2015b) A method for the analysis and classification of historic masonry. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2647–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boschi S, Bernardini C, Borghini A, Ciavattone A, Del Monte E, Giordano S, Signorini N, Vignoli A (2016) Mechanical characterisation of particular masonry panels in Tuscany. In: XVI International brick and block masonry conference 27–29 Giugno 2016, pp. 1447–1455. ISBN: 978-1-138-02999-6Google Scholar
  13. Brignola A, Frumento S, Lagomarsino S, Podestà S (2008) Identification of shear parameters of masonry panels through the in situ diagonal compression test. Int J Archit Herit 3(1):52–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calderini C, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2010) The use of the diagonal compression test to identify the shear mechanical parameters of masonry. Constr Build Mater 24:677–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cescatti E, Dalla Benetta M, Modena C, Casarin F (2016) Analysis and evaluations of flat-jack test on a wide existing masonry buildings sample. In: XVI international brick and block masonry conference. ISBN: 978-1-138-02999-6Google Scholar
  16. Cescatti E, Taffarel S, Leggio A, Da Porto F, Modena C (2017) Macroscale damage assessment of URM churches after the 2016 earthquake sequence in Centre of Italy. In: Proceedings of XVII ANIDIS conference. ISBN: 978-886741-8541Google Scholar
  17. Chiostrini S, Vignoli A (1992) An experimental research program on the behavior of stone masonry structures. J Test Eval 20(3):190–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiostrini S, Vignoli A (1993) In-situ determination of the strength properties of masonry walls by destructive shear and compression tests. Masonry Int 7(3):87–96Google Scholar
  19. Corradi M, Borri A (2017) A database of the structural behavior of masonry in shear. Bull Earthquake Eng (2018) 16:3905. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D’Ayala DF, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. D’Ayala D, Speranza E (2003) Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings. Earthq Spectra 19(3):479–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Meschini A, Petrucci E, Zona A (2018) Integrated approach for seismic vulnerability analysis of historic massive defensive structures. J Cult Herit. Google Scholar
  23. Del Monte E, Vignoli A (2008) In situ mechanical characterization of the mortar in masonry buildings with DRMS. In: 1st international RILEM symposium on site assessment of concrete, masonry and timber structures, Varenna, Italy, 1–2 September 2008, pp 421–430Google Scholar
  24. Magenes G, Penna A, Galasco A, Rota M (2010) Experimental characterization of stone masonry mechanical properties. In: Proceeding of the 8th international masonry conference, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Milani G, Valente M (2015) Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Eng Fail Anal 54:13–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MIT 2009 (2009) Circolare n. 617 del 2 febbraio 2009. Istruzioni per l’Applicazione Nuove Norme Tecniche Costruzioni di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008, (in Italian)Google Scholar
  27. Morandi P, Magenes G, Albanesi L (2012) Mechanical characterization of different typologies of masonry made with thin shell/web clay units. In: Proceeding of the 12th Canadian masonry symposiumGoogle Scholar
  28. NTC 2008 (2008) D.M. del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti del 14/01/2008. Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. G.U. n. 29 del 04.02.2008, S.O. n. 30, (in Italian)Google Scholar
  29. NTC 2018 (2018) D.M. del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti del 17/01/2018. Aggiornamento delle “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni”. G.U. n. 42 del 20 febbraio 2018, (in Italian)Google Scholar
  30. Penna A, Morandi P, Rota M, Manzini CF, Da Porto F, Magenes G (2014) Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2255–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ReLUIS (2009) Linea di Ricerca 1 - Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilità di edifici in muratura - Sub Task 3b3 - Indagini diagnostiche su tipologie murarie, (in Italian)Google Scholar
  32. RILEM TC (1994) 76-LUM Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens, In RILEM, recommendations for the Testing and Use of Constructions Materials. London: E&FN SPON, 488–489Google Scholar
  33. Rilem TC (2004) In situ stress-strain behaviour tests based on the flat jack. Mater Struct 37:497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossi PP (1982) Analysis of mechanical characteristics of brick masonry tested by means of in situ tests. In: 6th IBMaC, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva B, Dalla Benetta M, da Porto F, Modena C (2014) Experimental assessment of in-plane behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 53:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turnšek V, Sheppard PF (1980) The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the research conference on earthquake Eng., SkopjeGoogle Scholar
  37. Vicente R, Ferreira TM, Mendes da Silva JAR, Varum H (2015) In situ flat-jack testing of traditional masonry walls: case study of the old city center of Coimbra, Portugal. Int J Archit Herit 9(7):794–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vignoli A, Corradi M, Borri A (2003) Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 17:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vignoli A, Boschi S, Modena C, Cescatti E (2016) In-situ mechanical characterization of existing masonry typologies: a research project in Italy finalized to update the structural codes. In: Proceedings of XVI international brick and block masonry conference 27–29 Giugno 2016, Padova, Italia, pp. 1983–1991. ISBN: 978-1-138-02999-6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations