|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 233
Diagnosis and Prognosis
of-Stnlctural integrity
NEAL FITZSIMONS and JAMES COLVILLE
Present deficiencies in historic masonry monuments and buildings may be
generally classified as structural, aesthetic, or both. Decisions related to pres-
ervation and/or restoration of such structures depend on accurately assessing
the existing structural condition and identifying the cause of the deficiency.
This paper presents a general methodology for the diagnosis and prognosis of
structural integrity in masonry structures. Basic steps in this procedure include
preliminary evaluation, on-site investigation, off-site research, preliminary
analysis, laboratory and field tests, and structural evaluation. The paper also
outlines a deficiency correction process, identifies major areas of needed re-
search, and makes specific recommendations that can be implemented re-
gardless of the structure under study.
Any discussion of the structural integrity of historic structures is com-
plicated by the variety of construction materials and types of construc-
tion and architecture encountered. Adding to the complexity is the
extreme range of condition and age of historic structures. Associated
with existing condition and age are differing concepts of adequacy.
Thus, structural problems in the Tower of Pisa or in castle ruins in
Scotland, for example, are related to preservation of the existing struc-
ture, while in other, more modern historic structures the objective
may be restoration to the as-built condition. Finally, a successful I.e.,
Neal FitzSimons is Principal Engineering Counsel, Kensington, Maryland. James Col-
ville is Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park.
233
OCR for page 234
234
CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC STONE BUILDINGS
accurate) diagnosis and prognosis of structural integrity, upon which
the identification of proper remedial action hinges, is greatly influenced
by limited availability of resources, missing historical information, and
limited material sampling.
In view of these complications the main purpose of this paper is to
present a general methodology for diagnosis and prognosis of structural
integrity in masonry structures. In particular, certain basic procedures
and guidelines are presented along with specific recommendations and
approaches that can be applied regardless of the particular structure
under study. Most of the material presented is drawn from past ex-
periences of the authors and from a recent report to the National Bureau
of Standards by the senior author.) This report also contains a com-
prehensive bibliography of pertinent publications.
GENERAL REVIEW OF PROBLEM
That a great majority of historic and other older structures are of
masonry construction is, in itself, testimony to the durability of ma-
sonry materials, which include burned-cIay units, concrete masonry
units, and natural stones bonded together with a cementitious material
such as mortar. Such construction materials can be manufactured lo-
cally and, properly used, provide aesthetically pleasing structures. Ra-
tional methods of design of load-bearing masonry structures, based on
modem engineering principles, however, have been developed only
recently. Before World War II, masonry design was based on a few
empirical rules developed from experience gained over hundreds of
years of construction dating back to Roman times.
Present deficiencies in historic masonry monuments and buildings
may be classified as structural, aesthetic, or both. Structural deficien-
cies may result from a number of factors. In relatively new construc-
tion, problems may generally be attributed to faulty design, including
the use of improper or incompatible materials or poor workmanship.
In older construction that has survived years of use with limited dam-
age from normal foundation settlement and gradual deterioration, faulty
design can be dismissed as the principal reason for recently accelerating
decay. Rapidly increasing deterioration of basically sound original `de-
signs may be attributed to such factors as excessive loading, accident,
human action, and/or significantly increased environmental exposure.
Excessive loading includes any loading greater than that considered in
the original design, such as sonic booms and vibration resulting from
traffic. Accident could include seismic disturbances and other natural
phenomena. Human action includes increased tourism, vandalism, arid
OCR for page 235
Diagnosis and Prognosis of Structural Integrity
235
improper remedial treatment. Finally, recent escalations in environ-
mental pollution acid rain, for instance also cause significant de-
t-erioration.
Assessing the structural condition of an existing building may be a
difficult problem, depending on the extent of damage. Even more com-
plex in many cases is identifying the cause of the damage, which is
essential to the development of appropriate corrective action. The in-
vestigator's basic objective is to arrive at a course of action that will
reestablish structural adequacy, and eliminate or minimize the cause
of the existing damage without creating new hazards.
Various problems are encountered in the preservation and/or res-
toration of historic masonry structures. Many of these lie outside the
traditional scope of the art and science of engineering. Thus, basic
questions relating to the validity of solutions that alter the natural
environment, including removal of the structure, protective coatings
and enclosures, concealed structural appendages, or partial replace-
ment with simulations, must be addressed. More technical problems
development of structural and architectural restoration criteria, iden-
tification of structural analysis methodologies, research to establish
appropriate nondestructive testing methods, and research to categorize
and identify deficiences—can be resolved with proper resources and
support.
Obviously, cooperation and contributions in the development of
needed knowledge and philosophy will be needed from a variety of
disciplines.
THE DIAGNOSIS
The evaluation of existing structural integrity is only one phase in the
overall rehabilitation process, which also includes social, economic,
and political considerations. A flow diagram of the evaluation process
(Figure 1) should be followed in this process. Major elements of the
diagram are described below.
Preliminary Evaluation Plan
The preliminary evaluation plan involves establishing procedures for
preparing a project dossier, including methods of organizing informa-
tion and of documenting and recording data obtained in the diagnostic
activities. However, concurrent with organization of the diagnostic
effort, pertinent available information concerning the structure should
OCR for page 236
236
| On-Sit , |
| I nvestigation |
CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC STONE BUILDINGS
Plan
| Prel imi nary
Evaluation
Preliminary |
Analysis I
r
Laboratory
Tests
_ Final Analysis
| Field
| Tests
r
_ Strut tural
_ Ev~l~tinn
_ _.
Report on
Structural
I ntegrity
FIGURE 1 Flow diagram of evaluation process.
Off-Site
Research
1
Additional
Investigative Research
OCR for page 237
Diagnosis and Prognosis of Structural Integrity 237
be collected, including relevant maps, plans and drawings, photos, and
other documents.
Site Investigation
A first step in site evaluation is a detailed visual examination of the
structure to assess its overall condition and to seek broad clues con-
cerning the severity and possible causes of the damage.
In practice, marufestations of structural deficiencies may be obvious
or difficult to detect. Attention should be concentrated on examining
rectilinearity of the structure and its apertures. Any rotation or trans-
lation of the structure should be investigated. Distress in the major
structural components as evidenced by cracking, spelling, or bowing
should be noted. Deficiencies providing access to water should be
sought, since water penetration can have serious deleterious effects on
both structural and nonstructural masonry components. Many of these
external deficiencies can be detected by visual examination. More pre-
cise observations, if necessary, may be obtained using a variety of
measuring and/or surveying instruments.
If possible, each deficiency should be categorized as one of the fol-
Towing types: distress, deterioration, damage, or defect. Distress results
from loadings in excess of the structure's design capacity. Deterioration
is defined as the result of erosion of structural capacity by environ-
mental attack. Damage is the result of extraordinary Toads. A defect
is a variation from the intended structural plan that is serious enough
to affect structural capacity. In practice it may not be possible to
classify the deficiency easily; many deficiencies result from an inter-
action of these effects.
Randomly located deficiencies complicate the diagnosis. Therefore,
from the beginning of the investigation, it is important to identify any
patterns of deficiencies. Because cracking is a significant indication of
potential structural problems, the location, magnitude, and extent of
cracking should be carefully noted and studied.
In masonry construction in general, points of high shear and low
moment should be identified and examined, because joints, bearings,
and connections are normally the most vulnerable ~n(l critical areas
of a structure.
Testing Alternatives
Visual site investigation, along with a review of available documents,
is intended to permit identification of deficient portions of the struc-
OCR for page 238
238
CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC STONE BUILDINGS
sure. Further investigation is necessary if it is prudent to validate ob-
servations and assumed or calculated data.
In normal situations where the condition of the construction ma-
terials is suspect, it is possible to remove samples from several areas
of interest and perform laboratory tests of the properties of the ma-
terials. In historic buildings this may not be possible, and in situ,
nondestructive measurements and testing will be required to diagnose
structural damage. For example, standard surveying techniques can be
used in the investigation of most foundation problems. Differential
levels and distances accurate to one minute of angle and 0.01 It (3.048
mm), respectively, are precise enough for most situations. Special
equipment con be used to measure vibrations in the structure if they
are considered a potential source of distress. Crack sizes can be mea-
sured using the simple monocular reticule and feeler gauges. Judgment
is required in determining the type and extent of such measurements
and the number, size, and location of material samples for further
study.
If the cause of the damage is considered to be water penetration and
permeance, it may be necessary to use special nuclear instruments to
discover the source and extent of the unwanted water and moisture.
Testing alternatives may also include nondestructive, full-scale testing
of portions of the structure. Such tests can be short-term or long-term.
Short-term loading tests are generally more feasible and may consist
of static or dynamic load tests. Dynamic tests may be further subdi-
vided into impact and cyclic tests. With the exception of Tong-term
tests involving implanted instrumentation, the scope of full-scale
structural tests is usually very limited.
Regardless of the testing to be performed, specific objectives of the
tests must be determined well in advance. In general, test objectives
may be classified according to the type and condition of the structure
new, extent, distressed, deteriorated, damaged, defective, or repaired.
A research project is finder way to assess the applicability of four
nondestructive test (NDT) methods currently used for evalution of soil,
rock, and concrete to the evaluation of masonry structures.2 The four
NOT methods are: harness, mechanical pulse velocity, ultrasonic pulse
velocity, and dynamic response vibration techniques.
Analytical Techniques
The strength, stiffness, and stability of a structure must be determined
from the data gathered through investigation and testing. This infor-
mation, at best, will be incomplete. Analysis of a structure is based
OCR for page 239
Diagnosis and Prognosis of Structural Integrity
239
on known geometry and material properties and characteristics, from
which allowable stresses are estimated. The analysis produces values
of allowable loads or factors of safety with respect to design loads.
Often, funds, time, or circumstances lead to analyses based on incom-
plete data. In such cases certain statistical techniques may prove help-
ful when combined with real but incomplete data.
The basic components in masonry construction wfl} be the masonry
units, mortar, ties, and reinforcements. Masonry units vary widely in
strength and durability. This is also true of mortars, which, until fairly
recently, were lime-based-with no Portland cement. The compressive
strengths of mortars can be extremely variable, ranging from less than
100 psi to more than 3,000 psi. Brick units, depending on their new
materials and manufacturing processes, can have ranges in compressive
strength from 1,500 psi to more than 16,000 psi. Structural tiles have
similar variations, with compressive strength varying from 1,100 psi
to more than 10,000 psi. Concrete block units, although highly con-
trolled in recent years, will also display significant ranges in properties,
as will stone units.
Some structures may have been designed using the rule-of-thumb
approach, and an analysis using modem techniques may indicate con-
siderable latent capacity. Inclucing nonstructural elements in the analysis
may also reveal significant influences on structural stability.
Structural Evaluation
Final structural evaluation should include a description of existing
deficiencies along with a discussion of the causes of such deficiencies.
The present condition of the structure should be defined, with de-
scnptions of both sound and deficient sections. Finally, the conclusion
should be presented along with substantiating documentation con-
. .
coming t :~e as-is capacity.
THE PROGNOSIS
After the diagnosis of structural integrity, an equally difficult but nec-
essary part of the overall process is to determine recommended re-
medial action. The necessity of such action and the type of action
recommended depend on accurate prognosis of structural adequacy
with and without corrective action. These prognoses wiD depend on
the combined effects of reducing vulnerability once improving the struc-
ture. The remedial plan, which includes the definition of tasks and
OCR for page 240
240 CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC STONE BUILDINGS
time and cost estimates, should have these two objectives clearly be-
fore it. A satisfactory solution may involve either or both of them.
A typical deficiency-correction process is illustrated in Figure 2.
Elimination of the cause of the problem may be a sufficient solution.
Elimination of the effect of the problem may not be a lasting solution.
Minimizing vulnerability to the cause is a valid objective. But finally,
minimizing or eliminating both cause and effect provides the optimum
solution.
Care is needed if part of the solution is to create a new environment
Detection of Deficiency
Definition of Problem
I.
r
Diagnosis f Causes
| Determinatio ~ of Remedies |
~ .
_ _
Decision f Remedy
1
Elimination of Causes
1
Correction of Deficiency
FIGURE 2 Deficiency-correction process.
OCR for page 241
Diagnosis and Prognosis of Structural Integrity
for the structure. Changes in ambient internal moisture and temper-
ature may create more problems than are solved. In particular, new
conditions resulting from improving the structural capacity may in
themselves lead to secondary problems that hopefully will be minor.
All changes should be carefully evaluated with respect to their effect
on the structure's foundations. Addition of members, walls, materials,
etc., to improve the capacity of the superstructure may cause redis-
tributions of loading with subsequent detrimental effects on the sub-
structure. All major modes of foundation failure, subsidence, rotation,
and translation should be considered in the final report.
Finally, after completion of remedial work, it is important to monitor
the pe~fo~ance of the structure penodically to assess the impact of
the intervention on its physical life.
241
REFERENCES
1. FitzSimons, N. Structural Evaluation Guide for Building Rehabilitation. Report
submitted to National Bureau of Standards, July 18, 1979.
2. Noland, J.L., and Atkinson, R.H. An Evaluation of Non-destructive Test Methods
Applied to Masonry. Proceedings, Conference on Research in Progress in Masonry Con-
struction, ~arch, 1980, Marina Del Ray, California.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
masonry structures
