In situ and nondestructive characterization of mechanical properties of heritage stone masonry

  • Orenday-Tapia Edith Estefanía 
  • Pacheco-Martínez Jesús 
  • Padilla-Ceniceros Raudel 
  • López-Doncel Rubén Alfonso 
Thematic Issue
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Stone in the Architectural Heritage: from quarry to monuments – environment, exploitation, properties and durability


The necessity of conserving and preserving the heritage is nowadays a developing study line for several researchers. From a civil engineering perspective, one of the most important issues for the conservation of historical buildings is to ensure the structural stability. For this purpose, it is necessary to determine the mechanical properties of the ancient construction materials. However, these structures cannot be evaluated by destructive tests due to politics and restrictions for preserving the heritage built. As a consequence, new methods that do not put in risk the integrity of the materials and the structure are becoming useful tools for researchers who work on structural engineering of heritage buildings. This paper presents a nondestructive method (NDM) that has been used to characterize the mechanical properties of different constructive systems of the San Antonio de Padua Temple, which is a religious icon in Aguascalientes, Mexico. This method includes the measuring of seismic waves’ travel time in order to obtain shear and compressional velocity waves. Results show that with this method mechanical properties of masonry can be obtained such as Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio and bulk density, which are needed for the structural analysis using numerical simulation models.


Nondestructive method Masonry mechanical characterization Cultural heritage Temple of San Antonio de Padua 



We appreciate the support of Armando Mendez during the experimental measurements taken in the temple. Also, we thank the Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes (UAA) and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) for their support during the course of this investigation.


  1. Almeida C, Guedes JP, Arêde A et al (2012) Physical characterization and compression tests of one leaf stone masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 30:188–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arêde A, Costa C, Gomes AT et al (2017) Experimental characterization of the mechanical behaviour of components and materials of stone masonry railway bridges. Constr Build Mater 153:663–681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM E111-17 (2017) Standard test method for young’s modulus, tangent modulus, and chord modulus. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  4. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Constitutive models for tuff masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 22:1102–1111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BS EN 1052-1 (1999) British Standard. Methods of test for masonry—Part 1: Determination of compressive strength. CEN European Committee for Standardization. Central Secretariat: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, September, 1998.
  6. Calderoni B, Cordasco EA, Guerriero L et al (2009) Mechanical behaviour of post-medieval tuff masonry of the Naples area. J Int Mason Soc 21(3):85–116Google Scholar
  7. Capozzoli L, Rizzo E (2017) Combined NDT techniques in civil engineering applications: laboratory and real test. Constr Build Mater 15:1139–1150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CESI 2005 (2005) Research project PON T.E.M.P.E.S.—tecnologie e materiali innovativi per la protezione sismica degli edifici storici-Google Scholar
  9. Cook NGW (1992) Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and seismic behaviour and properties under normal stress. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29(3):198–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eitzenberger A (2012) Wave propagation in rock and the influence of discontinuities. Doctoral thesis, Luleå University of Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophys Soc Explor Geophys 39(6):770–780Google Scholar
  12. GEOMETRICS (2016) Geode specifications. Specifications for seismometer Geode mode. In: Accessed 10 Apr 2016
  13. Han D, Nur A, Morgan D (1986) Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones. Geophys Soc Explor Geophys 51(11):2093–2107. Google Scholar
  14. Harvey D Jr, Schuller M (2010) Nondestructive evaluation: structural performance of masonry. Practice points 9, Association for Preservation Technology International, Illinois, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  15. Jafari S, Rots J, Esposito R, Messali F (2017) Characterizing the material properties of Dutch unreinforced masonry. Procedia engineering. International conference on analytical models and new concepts in concrete and masonry structures AMCM’2017, vol 193, pp 250–257.
  16. Jain A, Kathuria A, Kumar A et al (2013) Combined use of non-destructive tests for assessment of strength of concrete in structure. Procedia engineering. The 2nd international conference on rehabilitation and maintenance in civil engineering (ICRMCE), vol 54, pp 241–251.
  17. Lee J-S, Yoon H-K (2014) Porosity estimation based on seismic wave velocity at shallow depths. J Appl Geophys 105:185–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magenes G, Penna A, Galasco A, Rota M (2010) Experimental characterisation of stone masonry mechanical properties. In: Proceedings of the eight international masonry conference. International Masonry Society, Technische Univesität Dresden, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcari G, Fabbrocino G, Lourenço PB (2009) Investigation on compressive behaviour of tuff masonry panels. In: Atti del workshop wonder masonry 2009, University of Florence. Polistampa, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. Marcari G, Fabbrocino G, Lourenço PB (2010) Mechanical properties of tuff and calcarenite stone masonry panels under compression. In: Proceedings of the eight international masonry conference. International Masonry Society; Technische Univesität Dresden., Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  21. McCann DM, Entwisle DC (1992) Determination of Young’s modulus of the rock mass from geophysical well logs. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 65:317–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCann DM, Forde MC (2001) Review of NDT methods in the assessment of concrete and masonry structures. NDT and E Int 34(2):71–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MDTI (2009) Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617. Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle « Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni » di cui al decreto ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008. Gazzetta Uff. 446Google Scholar
  24. Navarro-Hernandez M (2013) Geometric and damage survey of San Antonio temple and structural analysis of the real situation (In Spanish). M. Eng. thesis, Universidad Autónoma de AguascalientesGoogle Scholar
  25. Oliveira D (2000) Mechanical characterization of stone and brick masonry. University of Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal. Report 00-DEC/E-4Google Scholar
  26. Orenday-Tapia E (2016) Study of the characterization of the mechanical properties of the San Antonio Temple for its dynamic analysis (In Spanish). M. Eng. thesis. Universidad Autónoma de AguascalientesGoogle Scholar
  27. Reyes-Rodriguez A (2013) Refugio Reyes, a life. The learning (In Spanish). National Council for Culture and the Arts, CONACULTA, AguascalientesGoogle Scholar
  28. Schuck DA, Lange G (2007) Seismic methods. Environmental geology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 337–402.
  29. Schuller MP (2003) Nondestructive testing and damage assessment of masonry structures. Prog Struct Mater Eng 5:239–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuller MP (2006) Nondestructive testing and damage assessment of masonry structures. In: B. Kasal, R. Anthony, M. Drdacky (eds) RILEM/NSF international engineering research and education workshop “in-situ evaluation of masonry and wood historic structures: challenges and opportunities”. RILEM Publications SARL, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  31. Sheriff RE, Geldart LP (1995) Exploration seismology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vasanelli E, Colangiuli D, Calia A et al (2015) Ultrasonic pulse velocity for the evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of a highly porous building limestone. Ultrasonics 60:33–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vasanelli E, Calia A, Colangiuli D et al (2016) Assessing the reliability of non-destructive and moderately invasive techniques for the evaluation of uniaxial compressive strength of stone masonry units. Constr Build Mater 124:575–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vasanelli E, Colangiuli D, Calia A et al (2017) Combining non-invasive techniques for reliable prediction of soft stone strength in historic masonries. Constr Build Mater 146:744–754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vekey RC (1988) IBMAC 1988. In: 8th International brick and block masonry conference. Dublin, Ireland, pp 1673–1681Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Ciencias del Diseño y de la Construcción, Universidad Autónoma de AguascalientesAguascalientesMexico
  2. 2.CeGeA SC – Consultores en Geociencias Aplicadas SCJesús MaríaMexico
  3. 3.Instituto de Geología de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luís PotosíSan Luis Potosí, S.L.P.Mexico

Personalised recommendations