‫وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي‬

BADJI MOKHTAR-ANNABA UNIVERSITY ‫ عنابة‬-‫جامعة باجي مختار‬

UNIVERSITE BADJI MOKHTAR-ANNABA

FACULTE DES SCIENCES DE L’INGENIORAT

DEPARTEMENT DE GENIE CIVIL

Rapport

A review on the estimation methods of the mechanical properties in

historical masonry buildings in Algeria

Par :

Seboui Hatem

Directeur de Thèse :
ATHMANI Alla Eddine - MCB - Université de Badji Mokhtar, Annaba

Co-Directeur
FORMISANO Antonio - Professeur- Université de Naples Federico II, Italie

11/03/2021
1. Introduction

Since the northern part of Algeria has a high seismic activity, where traditional existing masonry buildings
typically constitute a vital part, the rehabilitation and conservation of these buildings are therefore necessary.
In particular, there are several difficulties to analyze existing masonry buildings. One of the main challenges
is, in fact, to correctly assess the mechanical properties of the constitutive materials.
Furthermore, masonry is a really anisotropic material. The determination of the material characterization of
existing masonry constructions is therefore not easy. In addition, methods to determine the mechanical
properties of existing masonry are different, each with its own features and problems.
Unfortunately, there is no Algerian regulation or code concerning the estimation of mechanical properties of
old masonry buildings.
In this context, the aim of the present study is to review current methods for material properties assessment of
old masonry buildings and understanding their advantages and disadvantages attempt to find the ideal
techniques that can be used in Algeria.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly describes the components of a historic masonry
building. Following that, a description of the methods used to measure the mechanical properties of masonry
is provided. The penultimate section highlights a discussion of the ideal techniques of estimate the mechanical
properties of historic masonry materials. The final section presents the conclusion.

2. Material properties of masonry

Material properties of masonry structure include properties for unit, mortar, and masonry assembly.

2.1. Stone units

The stones used for masonry constructions come mainly from natural rocks. These natural rocks are cut and
dressed in proper shape in order to use it in masonry constructions. Stones are one of the most durable and
strong building materials. In the Mediterranean region, diverse types of units can be defined (according to their
source) as: sandstone, limestone, travertine, tuff, granite, and other (Fig.1).

Sandstone Limestone Tuff Travertine Granite

Fig.1. Historic stone units [1].

2.2. Clay units

In ancient masonry, there was a range of clay bricks used (Fig.2). We may classify them as adobe or brick units
whether they are sun-dried or burnt in a kiln [2].
 Unburnt Sun-Dried Brick (Mud Brick) Fired Clay Bricks (Red-Bricks) Adobe

Fig.2. Historic clay units [3].

2.3. Mortar

Mortar is a homogeneous combination of binder (cement or lime), sand and water to create a paste with the
requested consistency and is used to supply the units with uniform bedding, level races, and fill the lacuna. The
first mortars consisted of clay or clay–straw mixtures. However, mortar has improved through the centuries as
gypsum mortar and lime mortar.

2.4. Mechanical properties of masonry

As historic masonry structures have bearing walls as load-carrying elements, masonry is designed specifically
to sustain compression loads. Furthermore, all structures can experience earthquakes, which induce shear
forces and deformations to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. Thus, when the design of URM structures
is considered, the most important properties are the compressive strength, elastic modulus, shear modulus, and
shear strength of masonry assemblages [4].

2.5. Testing methods for assessing the mechanical properties of masonry

The testing methods can be classified as destructive, minor destructive and non-destructive.
- Destructive methods
The destructive methods are the most accurate. They are centered either on extracting and testing large
specimens from the existing buildings, or in performing tests directly in situ
- Minor destructive methods
The growing interest in minor-destructive test (MDT) is due to the possibility of a direct evaluation of the
material properties by only causing negligible damage to small or superficial portions of the historical
structural parts. In this way, repair interventions after MDT are usually minor or even unnecessary.
- Non-destructive methods
The non-destructive methods do not compromise the masonry building and can be carried out quickly and with
relatively low costs.

3. Estimation of mechanical properties of masonry

The methods used for estimation the mechanical properties of masonry are shown in Fig.3
 Fig.3. Diagram explaining the methods of measuring the mechanical properties of masonry.

3.1. Indirect approach

3.1.1. Ambient vibration test

The ambient vibration test (AVT), also applied as operational modal analysis (OMA), is well-known non-
destructive methodologies aimed at assessing the structural conditions of historical buildings. The
identification of dynamic characteristics of various full-scale structures is one of the most frequent uses of the
method involves. The equipment used during the ambient vibration tests is composed of seismometers and
CityShark measurement stations as shown in Fig.5. The ambient vibration is useful since light equipment is
usually required. Furthermore, it requires only relatively short and simple field measurements, and the
measuring instruments can be installed and operated by a smaller number of operators [5]. The method is fast
and relatively simple procedure and can be done on a structure in use without disturbing its normal functioning.
The dynamic elastic modulus (Ed) of historical buildings can be measured by means of an ambient vibration
test. A simple application of this procedure is described by Pérez-Gálvez et al [6].

Fig.4. Equipment for ambient vibration measurements [7].

3.1.2. Correlation procedure

This approach is used to estimate the mechanical properties of historic masonry, through a correlation
procedure, from databases that provide similar approximations and it can be considered an interesting
alternative to on-site destructive testing. This method is based on a visual investigation and knowledge of the
type of structure and the walls morphology. The parameters used in this approach can be identified correctly
on masonry walls without plaster and on damaged buildings with collapsed parts. In other cases, when direct
observation of the wall section and masonry texture is not possible, local dismantling, limited coring,
endoscopy techniques or well-known NDT methods as ground penetrating radar (GPR) and infrared (IR)
thermography can be useful.
The correlation procedure descripted in this articles are the Italian Code NTC18 and the Masonry Quality Index
(MQI).

A. NTC18

The Italian Code NTC18 [8] provides reference values of the principal mechanical parameters of different
kinds of historic masonry, whose mechanical properties depend on the so-called knowledge levels, KLs. The
fo11owing three knowledge levels are defined:
KL1: Limited knowledge;
KL2: Normal knowledge;
KL3: Full knowledge.
Table 1 shows the reference values for the masonry properties in the case of low masonry quality, which is the
most commonly encountered condition in vintage URM buildings. In the case of masonry with better
characteristics, the design material parameters shall be corrected by the multipliers (Correction Factors) listed
in Table 2.

A value of the so-called confidence factor (CF) is then associated with each of knowledge levels. The
relationship is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 1. Reference values for different material parameters and specific weight depending on the masonry typology [9].

Compression Shear Young Shear

strength strength Weight
modulus modulus
𝝉𝟎
Masonry typology 𝒇𝒎 (MPa) 𝑬𝒎 (MPa) 𝑮𝒎 (MPa) density
(kPa) 𝑾𝒎
min – (kN/m3)
min – max min – max min – max
max

Irregular stone masonry (pebbles, erratic, irregular stones) 1.0 - 1.8 20 - 32 690 - 1050 230 - 350 19

Uncut stone masonry with facing walls of limited thickness and

2.0 - 3.0 35 - 51 1020 - 1440 340 - 480 20
infill core

Cut stone with good bonding 2.6 - 3.8 56 - 74 1500 - 1980 500 - 660 21

Soft stone masonry (tuff, limestone, etc.) 1.4 - 2.4 28 - 42 900 - 1260 300 - 420 16

90 -
Dressed rectangular stone masonry 6.0 - 8.0 2400 - 3200 780 - 940 22
120

Solid brick masonry with lime mortar 2.4 - 4.0 60 - 90 1200 - 1800 400 - 600 18
Table 2. Correction factors for material parameters in case of specific masonry characteristics [9].

Good Joint Regular Wide and/or

Transverse Grout Reinforced
Masonry typology mortar thickness courses poor internal
connection injection plaster
quality <10 mm of bricks core
Irregular stone masonry (pebbles, erratic,
1.5 - 1.3 1.5 0.9 2 2.5
irregular stones)
Uncut stone masonry with facing walls of
1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.8 1.7 2
limited thickness and infill core
Cut stone with good bonding 1.3 - 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.5
Soft stone masonry (tuff, limestone) 1.5 1.5 - 1.5 0.9 1.7 2
Dressed rectangular stone masonry 1.2 1.2 - 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.2
Solid brick masonry with lime mortar 1.5 1.5 - 1.3 0.7 1.5 1.5

Table 3. Knowledge levels based on available information and corresponding values of the confidence factors for masonry buildings.
[9].

Knowledge Constructive Analysis

Geometry Material properties CF
levels details methods
Limited in situ investigations:
Limited in-situ - Strength: minimum value from table 2.
KL1 1.35
inspection - Modulus of elasticity: average value of the
interval of Table 2
Extensive in situ investigations:
- Strength: average value from Table 2.
KL2 1.20
- Modulus of elasticity average value of the tests
or the interval in Table 2.
Geometric Comprehensive in situ investigations
survey of Case a) availability of at least 3 experimental
masonry, values of the strength:
masonry, - Strength: average experimental value.
floor, vaults, - Modulus of elasticity average value of the tests
staircase. or the interval in Table 2.
Identification
of the loads on Case b) availability of 2 experimental values of the All
each wall Extensive and strength: methods
element, comprehensive - Strength: if the average experimental value is
identification in-situ within the range of Table 2, take the average value
of the type of inspection from the table; if the average experimental value is
KL3 foundation. higher or lower than the range of Table 2, taking 1.00
Identification the experimental value,
of cracks and - Modulus of elasticity same value as LK3 Case a.
deformation.
Case c) availability of a single experimental value
of the strength:
- Strength: if the average experimental value is
within the range of Table 2 or higher, take the
average value of the table; if the average
experimental value is lower than the range of the
table 2, it takes the minimum value of the table,
- Modulus of elasticity same value as LK3 Case c.
B. MQI

In 2002, the authors proposed the Masonry Quality Index (MQI) and recently refine it for various forms of
masonry. The method is proposed in [10, 11]. It is a visual method for the estimation of the mechanical
properties of historic masonry. The method consists of defining the presence, the partial presence, or the
absence of certain parameters that define the ‘‘rule of the art’’.
The following parameters were considered for the assessment (Table 4):
- Mechanical characteristics and quality of masonry units;
- Dimensions of the masonry units;
- Shape of the masonry units;
- Level of connection between adjacent wall leaves / headers;
- Horizontality of mortar bed joints;
- Staggering of vertical mortar joints;
- Quality of the mortar / contact between masonry units / pinnings.
Three evaluations on fulfillment with the parameters of the ‘‘rule of the art’’, Fulfilled (F), Partially Fulfilled
(PF), and Not Fulfilled (NF), were then considered in relation to three types of actions: vertical actions, out of
plain actions, and in-plain actions [11]. The reference values listed in Table 5.
Table 4. Criteria for the analysis of the seven parameters [12].
Parameter Possible Outcome
NF PF F
MM - Very weak mortar, dusty - Medium quality mortar, with - Good quality and non-
Mortar mortar with no cohesion. bed joints not largely notched. degraded mortar, regular
properties - No mortar (dry rubble or - Masonry made of irregular bed joint thickness or large
pebble stonework). (rubble) stones and weak bed joint thickness made of
- Large bed joints made of mortar, but with presence of very good quality mortar.
weak mortar (thickness pinning stones. - Masonry made of large
comparable to stone/brick perfectly cut stones with no
thickness). mortar or very thin bed joint
- Porous stones/bricks with thickness.
weak bonding to mortar.
WC - Small stones compare to - For double-leaf walls : - Wall thickness similar to
Wall leaf wall thickness.  Presence of some headers ; stone large dimension.
connections - No headers.  Wall thickness larger than
stone large dimension.
SS - Rubble, rounded or pebble - Co-presence of rubble, - Barely cut stones or
Stone/brick stonework (predominant) on rounded or pebble stonework perfectly cut stones on both
shape both masonry leaves. and barely/perfectly cut stone masonry leaves
and bricks on both masonry (predominant).
leaves. - Brickwork.
- One masonry leaf made of
perfectly cut stones or bricks.
- Masonry made of irregular
(rubble, rounded, pebble)
stones, but with presence of
pinning stones.
SD - Presence of more than 50% - Presence of more than 50% of - Presence of more than 50%
Stone/brick of elements with large elements with large dimension of elements with large
dimensions dimension < 20 cm. 20-40 cm. dimension ˃ 40 cm.
- Brick bond pattern made of - Co-presence of elements of
only head joints. different dimensions.
VJ - Aligned vertical joints. - Partially staggered vertical - Properly staggered vertical
Stagger - Aligned vertical joints for at joints (vertical joint between 2 joints (vertical joint between
properties of least 2 large stones. brick is not placed in the 2 stones is placed in the
vertical - Solid brick wall made of middle of adjacent upper and middle of adjacent upper
joints only headers. lower brick). and lower stone).
HJ - Bed joints not continuous. - Intermediate situation between - Bed joints continuous.
Horizontality NF and F. - Stone masonry wall with
of bed joints - For double-leaf wall: only one bricks courses (distance
leaf with continuous bed joints. between courses < 60 cm).
SM - Degraded/damaged elements - Presence of degraded/damaged - Un-damaged elements of
Stone/brick (50% of total number of elements (≥10%, ≤50%). degraded/damaged elements
mechanical elements). - Hollow-core bricks < 10%.
properties - Hollow-core bricks (55%≥solid≥30%). - Solid fired bricks.
and (solid<30%). - Sandstone or tuff elements. - Hollow-core bricks (55% <
conservation - Mud bricks. solid).
state - Unfired bricks. - Concrete units.
- Hardstone.

Table 5. Numerical values of the 7 parameters for the calculation of the MQI [10].
Vertical loading (V) Horizontal in-plane loading (I) Horizontal out-of-plane loading (O)
NF PF F NF PF F NF PF F
HJ 0 1 2 0 0.5 1 0 1 2
WC 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1.5 3
SS 0 0.5 3 0 1 2 0 1 2
VJ 0 0.5 1 0 1 2 0 0.5 1
SD 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
MM 0 0.5 2 0 1 2 0 0.5 1
SM 0.3 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1
The scores obtained from Table 4 are then summed to obtain an overall score, determined for each type of
action and named MQI.
According to the MQI, masonries are classified into three parts (Table 6):
 Category A, good behavior of the masonry;
 Category B, behavior of average quality of the masonry;
 Category C, inadequate behavior of the masonry.

Table 6. Range values of MQI in each masonry category [10].

Masonry category Masonry category
C B A
Vertical actions (V) 0 ≤ MQI ≤ 2.5 2.5 ≤ MQI ≤5 5≤ MQI ≤ 10
Out-of plane actions (O) 0 ≤ MQI ≤4 4≤ MQI ≤7 7≤ MQI ≤ 10
In-plane actions (I) 0 ≤ MQI ≤3 3≤ MQI ≤5 5≤ MQI ≤ 10

An estimation of the mechanical parameters of masonry can be obtained through the correlation curves given
in [12]. These curves are obtained through a correlation between mechanical values provided by Italian
building code commentary [8] (corresponding to 74 types of ‘‘virtual’’ wall panels) and the MQI index
assessed for different types of masonry.
 Fig.4.Schema of correlation approach methodology.

2.1.3. Components approach

This method is used to estimate the mechanical properties of the masonry based on the properties of
components (unit and mortar).

1) Preparation of samples

The preparation of samples is the first and important step before the experiment in order to obtain reliable
results from different mechanics experiments of composites of masonry in accordance with the standards of
size and form.
The specimens should be free of cracks, fissures, veins and other flaws which would act as preferential planes
of weakness.
The stone is a strong material, so the extraction of stone samples involves powerful devices. For example, the
coring machine is used to extract the cylindrical specimen in the laboratory. Table 7 shows the typical drill
types and diameters used in the laboratory.
 Table 7. The typical drill types and diameters used in the laboratory.

CORE SIZES Diameter of Core (mm)

NX 54.7

BX 42.0

AX 30.1

EX 21.5

NQ 47.6

BQ 36.5

AQ 27.0

The mechanical properties of stone units have been commonly reported to be influenced by the shape of
samples as follows:
 The diameter (D) of cylindrical specimens and the side length (A) of cubic specimens.
 The height to diameter ratio (r) of cylindrical specimens or the height to width ratio (r) of prismatic
specimens.
 The cross-sectional shape (circle, square, or rectangle).
The recommended shape and size of samples for both units and mortar are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Shape and size of samples for both units and mortar for each test with its reference
Components Test Type Condition Reference

Diameter equal to NX size or more

ISRM[13]
2.5 ≤ r ≤ 3.5

Cylindrical Diameter equal to NQ size or more

ASTM[14]
Uniaxial specimens 2.0 ≤ r ≤ 2.5
compressive
test Diameter between NQ size NX size Chinese
2.5 ≤ r ≤ 3.0 standard[15]

EN
Cubic specimens Edges of 70 mm or 50 mm.
1926[16]

h should be between 25 mm and 100 mm, the total

Stone unit length l should be equal to six times the thickness,
Three-point Prismatic the width b should be between 50 mm and three EN
bending test specimen times the thickness (50 mm ≤ b ≤ 3 h), and the 12372[17]
distance between the supporting rollers l should be
equal to five times the thickness.

Diameter or edge equal to 54.7 mm or more for the

L-type hammer and preferably 84 mm for the N- ISRM[18]
Schmidt All type, and an edge length of at least 6 cm.
hammer test Diameter or edge equal to 54.7 mm or more for the
L-type hammer and preferably 84 mm for the N- ASTM[19]
type, and an edge length of at least 15 cm.
 Diameter equal to NX size or more TS 699[20]
Indirect
Cylindrical 0.5 ≤ r ≤ 2.0 [21]
specimens
tension test Diameter equal to NX size or more
ASTM[19]
1 ≤ r ≤ 2.0
Stone unit
Cylindrical
0.3 ≤ r ≤ 1.0 ISRM[22]
Point load specimens
strength test
cubic specimens 0.3 ≤ r ≤ 1.0, preferably close to 1.0 ISRM[22]

Uniaxial
Edge of 35 mm or 40 mm. EN 772-
compressive cubic specimens
1[23]
test
Clay unit
Three-point prismatic EN 1015-
40 × 40 × 160 mm3
bending test specimen 11[24]

Three-point prismatic EN 1015-

40 × 40 × 160 mm3
bending test specimen 11[24]
Mortar
Double prismatic
40 × 40 × 10 mm3 [25]
punch test specimen

2) Tests on Constituents of Masonry

a) Uniaxial Compression Test

This approach is used to evaluate the uniaxial compressive strength of a stone or brick sample in the form of
regular geometry. The technique consists of the use of cylindrical or cubic specimens loaded axially between
platens in a testing machine. The loading should be applied at constant rate that the failure will occur within 5-
10 min of loading or the stress rate will be 0.5-1 MPa/s. The tests were conducted according to the method
recommended by ISRM [26]and ASTM [27].
The uniaxial compressive strength is determined by:
𝐹
𝜎(𝑃𝑎) = (1)
𝐴
where F (N) is the load measured at failure, A (m2) is the cross sectional area of the specimen.
The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio can be determined by uniaxial compression test by use of strain
gauges and linear variable differential transformers. The method is defined at ISRM Part2 in details[21].

b) Indirect Tension (Brazil) Test

The Brazilian Test originated from South America. This method is used to measure the uniaxial tensile strength
of masonry unit samples. the method consists of loading a disk of the rock until failure occurs across the
diametrical axis. Loading jaws are used for loading. The load will be applied at a rate for which the failure will
occur at 15-30 seconds. The tests were performed in accordance with the method suggested by ISRM[28] and
ASTM[27].
The tensile strength of the rock is determined by:
2𝐹
𝜎(𝑀𝑃𝑎) = (2)
𝜋𝐷𝑡
where F (N), D (mm) and t (mm) are the load at the failure, diameter and thickness of the sample,
respectively.
 c) Point load strength test

The point load strength test is designed as an index test for rock material strength classification, and is one of
the oldest and most widely used for the determination of the UCS indirectly. The materials used for the test
comprises of conical loading heads, a hydraulic manual pump, and a scale giving the pressure in the pump.
Cylinder core specimens, block or arbitrary shaped samples can be tested. The tests are described in ISRM[29].

d) Schmidt Hammer Test

Surface hardness is measured with a rebound hammer, commonly referred to as a Schmidt hammer. Widely
used in concrete evaluation, The method is often used to detect variations in uniformity of masonry
material[30]. Since the early 1960s, it has been used in masonry mechanics practice as an index test for a quick
masonry unit strength and deformability characterization due to its rapidity and ease of application, simplicity,
portability, low cost and non-destructiveness[31].This test can performed in situ in the building or in the
extracted samples. The uniaxial compression strength of the masonry units can be determined by using the
tables available on the hammer and in the literature, [21].

e) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity testing is a non-destructive approach for the assessment of masonry components
which involves the passage of ultrasonic waves through an object and measure the time the waves take to travel
from one point to another using a set of transducers. The elastic constants of masonry units like modulus of
elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are determined by measuring the velocities of compression and shear waves of
the unit. The UPV testing of the masonry units was performed using the direct transmission method, within the
guidelines of ASTM D2845 – 05[32]. This test can be performed in situ in the building or in the extracted
samples.

f) Three-point bending test

The three-point bending test is used to determine the tensile strength of mortar according to the EN 1015-11
standard [24],the test is also used for clay units[33] [34],and for stone units according to the EN 12372
The samples are positioned on one of the lateral surfaces on the support cylinders in such a way that the
longitudinal axis would be normal to the support cylinders[35].(Fig.5). The test is descripted in [36] [34] [17].

Fig.5. Bending test arrangement (in mm).

3) Homogenization formulas

The estimation of the properties of the masonry is done using formulas available in the scientific literature,
such as those proposed by Tassios and Bröcker [37] and by Eurocode 6 [38]:
𝑓𝑘 = 0.55𝑓𝑏0.7 𝑓𝑚0.3 (3)
where: 𝑓𝑘 =characteristic compressive strength of masonry; 𝑓𝑏 and 𝑓𝑚 =average normalized compressive
strengths of the bricks and mortar specimens, respectively.

3.2. Direct approach

3.2.1. Laboratory tests

These tests are destructive experiments based on extracting specimens, including unit and mortar together,
from the existing buildings using a core drilling machine, and testing them in the laboratory [39-46]. The
drilling has to be large, since the extracted sample must be horizontally extracted and vertically measured.
Hence, it is necessary to extract a wallet, which is feasible but difficult and expensive [47]. Cylindrical cores
can then be extracted from the wallet and tested.

3.2.2. In-situ tests

The most important tests are Shear-compression test, diagonal compression test, flat jack test, shove test, and
pull-out test.

a. Shear-compression test

This kind of test is based on the Sheppard shearing test [48], which is performed by separating the panel from
the masonry (laterally and above) and applying a certain level of compression or, alternatively, separating the
panel from the masonry (left-right), thus using the real value of the compression effort due to the gravitational
loads, which can be measured by performing single flat-jack tests. The typical dimension of the tested masonry
panel is 90x180 cm [49] [50].

Fig. 6. Layout of the shear–compression test [50].

b. Diagonal compression test

This in-situ test is designed to evaluate the shear behavior of masonry panels adapted from the standard
laboratory test [51] [52] according to proposals from the literature [50] [53].

Fig. 7. Layout of the diagonal compression test [54].

The diagonal test was carried out on panels greater than or equal to 120*120 cm2 with a maximum cross-
section thickness of 70 cm. The panel is separated by the adjacent masonry on three sides and is anchored to
the rest of the masonry wall through a part of the 70 cm of the lower horizontal side [50], [54]. The test is
described in Fig.7.

c. Flat jack test

The flat jack test is a direct and in-situ test that requires only the removal of a portion of mortar from the bed
joints (fig.8). It can also be considered a minor-destructive test, since the damage is temporary and after testing
is quickly repaired. Two test methods (single flat jack and double flat jack) are described in American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction
Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM) standards. They have been repeatedly used for the mechanical
characterization of masonry walls since the beginning of the 1980’s[55].
A flat jack is an extremely thin hydraulic pressure cell to be inserted into masonry mortar joints. Different
forms and sizes of jacks are manufactured: rectangular jacks, which fit into slots where the mortar has been
removed by stitch drilling, and semi-circular jacks, which are utilized to match the rotary saw diameter
employed to form a slot. The flat jacks exert stress on the surrounding masonry when pressurized. And
information on the present stress condition, as well as the stiffness and strength of the masonry, can be obtained
by measuring surface deformations [56].

Fig.8. Flat jack test performed on a masonry building[57].

d. Shove test

The masonry shear testing is the assessment, by three different methods (A, B and C) defined in ASTM
C1531[58], of the average in-situ mortar joint shear strength index in existing unreinforced structures. Method
A consists of using the flat jacks at the top and bottom of the unit for which a known compression stress is
tested when measuring the force needed to horizontally push the unit in a previously removed mortar head joint
(fig.9a). Method B involves the use of a hydraulic ram, similarly to Method A, to drive the unit horizontally
(fig.9b). Method C is identical with Method B, except that the lateral force is used by a specially-sized flat jack
placed in an evacuated head joint (Fig.9c) [59].

a) b) c)

Fig.9. ASTM C1531-16 shove test setup[58].

 e. Pull-out test

The method involves inserting a screw into the mortar bed joint, with a depth of 35 mm by drilling. A
hydraulic jack applies a tension force until the screw and a section of the mortar is pulled out of the wall.
Therefore, this force provides a rough approximation of the strength of the mortar. The benefit of the test is
that it can be used with standard 10 mm mortar joints and the damage caused through testing is minor and
easily repaired[60] [61].

4. Comparison

The comparison of all tests mentioned above is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Advantages and disadvantages of methods of measuring the mechanical properties of masonry.

Methods Advantage Disadvantage

- Necessity of experts and specific techniques.
Ambient
- It is Non-destructive - Information on mechanical properties of structure can be
vibration test
- It can be carried out quickly and with obtained only by empirical correlations
Schmidt
relatively low costs. - The non-destructive tests are not sufficient by
Hammer Test
-It can be done on a structure in use themselves. They must always be accompanied by
Ultrasonic
without disturbing its normal destructive or minor-destructive tests.
Pulse Velocity
functioning. - Indirectly providing mechanical properties of masonry
Test

-It extracted from tests conducted in the evaluation of

- It is Non-destructive and cheap and Italian buildings, meaning that the use of these values in
Correlation based on visual observations. existing masonry buildings in other countries may be
procedure - It is applicable to many buildings. inaccurate.
- It requires no much time - Necessity of experts.
- Indirectly providing mechanical properties of masonry

- The extraction of small cores reduces - Difficulties of mortar sampling.

the destruction of the masonry - Information on mechanical properties of structure can be
apparatus. obtained only by empirical correlations
-Using small cores required less - Any mistake in result of mortar properties or unit
Components
powerful machines, and this lead to properties leads to mistake in the final properties of the
approach
reduce the cost. whole masonry
- It allows to obtain more samples and - Indirectly providing mechanical properties of masonry
to offer a solution for the problem of
extraction samples in some masonry
parts with small areas.
- Necessity of experts and specific techniques
- Directly providing mechanical
properties of masonry. - The amount of samples extracted is limited, because the
extraction of many samples of large sizes (wallet) will
Laboratory -The most precise and reliable influence the strength of the existing masonry after
tests techniques in providing the necessary extraction.
information for the structural - Samples cannot be extracted in certain building parts that
assessment of masonry buildings have small areas, such as columns or construction parts
where extracting samples from masonry lead to
deformation or reduce the bearing capacity in that part.
- The extraction of a wallet is difficult and expensive.
 Destructive - The difficulty of extracting and transporting the samples
in-situ tests to be tested in the laboratory.
- It requires repair and high costs.

- The possibility of a direct evaluation

of the material properties by only - The part of the masonry tested must be damaged to
causing negligible damage to small or achieve the specimen failure status to assess the
superficial portions of the structural mechanical properties of masonry. In particular, it is
Minor- parts. impossible to use this method in parts with small areas,
destructive in- such as columns where the damaged zone can reduce the
- It can be performed relatively easily bearing capacity.
situ tests
- Cost issue, since, for instance, flat jack devices and other
- The damage is temporary and is
equipment needed for the test are expensive.
quickly repaired
- Directly providing mechanical
properties of masonry

5. Discussions

From the comparison of tests in table 3, we find that in spite of the destructive methods (laboratory tests and
destructive in-situ tests) are the most precise and reliable techniques in providing the necessary information
for the structural assessment of masonry buildings, for the case of historic structures they could be non-viable.
In addition, Component materials testing is useful for historical buildings with less cost and high accuracy, and
less damage, but it could be impossible to predict the mechanical properties of masonry using mechanical
properties of mortar and unit individually. Therefore, the non-destructive methods (Ambient vibration test)
should be preliminary used for experimental investigations and should be accompanied by component
materials testing.
Thus, the minor-destructive methods are the optimal approach. However, in the case of Algeria, the
unavailability of equipment and the high cost could render them unacceptable.
Then, for using the correlation procedure in Algeria, it should be supported by component materials testing or
an Ambient vibration test.
Ultimately, we conclude that only the indirect approach can be used for estimating the mechanical properties
of historic masonry buildings in Algeria and the discussion summary is shown in Fig.10.

Fig.10. Summary of the estimation techniques of mechanical properties for the masonry materials.

6. Conclusion

There are different ways to determine the mechanical properties of historic masonry buildings. The use of
each method, its advantages and problems, and finding the ideal techniques to estimate the mechanical
properties for masonry materials in Algeria are summarized in this article.
References
1. L. Dipasquale, L. Rovero, et F. Fratini (2016) Ancient stone masonry constructions, in Nonconventional and
Vernacular Construction Materials, Elsevier. p. 301-332.
2. Rowland, I.D. (1999) Vitruvius the Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge University Press.
3. D. A. O. Ibrahim, The mud traditional architecture of the Sudan and Saudi Arabia: The difference in employment
techniques, p. 20.
4. O. Lalaj, Y. Yardim (2013) Determination of Fundamental Properties of Masonry for different cities of Albania.
5. Stubbs, I. R., & McLamore, V. R. (1973, June). The ambient vibration survey. In Proceedings of Fifth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 286-289).
6. Pérez-Gálvez, F., Rodríguez-Liñán, C., & Rubio, P. (2009). Determinación de las características mecánicas de
los muros de fábrica de ladrillo en la arquitectura doméstica sevillana de los siglos XVIII Y XIX. Informes de la
Construcción, 61(514), 19-28.
7. Kibboua, A., Farsi, M. N., Chatelain, J. L., Guillier, B., Bechtoula, H., & Mehani, Y. (2008). Modal analysis and
ambient vibration measurements on Mila-Algeria cable stayed bridge. Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
29(2), 171-186.
8. NTC, 2018. Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, Italy: « Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni » [in
Italian].
9. Circ. (2019). “Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle « Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni » di cui al D.M. 17
Gennaio 2018”. Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, Italy [in Italian].
10. Borri, A., Corradi, M., Castori, G., & De Maria, A. (2015). A method for the analysis and classification of historic
masonry. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(9), 2647-2665.
11. Borri A., De Maria A., 2009. L’indice di Qualità Muraria (IQM): Evoluzione ed Applicazione nell’Ambito delle
Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni del 2008. In: Proceedings of 13th Italian national conference for earthquake
engineering, Bologna, Italy.
12. Borri, A., Corradi, M., & De Maria, A. (2020). The Failure of Masonry Walls by Disaggregation and the Masonry
Quality Index. Heritage, 3(4), 1162-1198.
13. International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock
characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods
prepared by the commission on testing methods. ISRM, compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish National
Group, Kozan Ofset, Ankara, Turkey .
14. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) American Society for Testing andMaterials. Annual
book of ASTMstandards, vol 04.08. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA .
15. Chinese standard (2013) Standard for test methods of engineering rock mass. GB/T 50266-2013 (in Chinese).
16. TS EN 1926. (2013). Natural stone test methods-Determination of uniaxial compressive strength.
17. EN, C. S. (2007). 12372 Natural Stone Test Methods—Determination of Flexural Strength Under Concentrated
Load. BSI: London, UK.
18. ISRM, 1978a. Suggested methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., Geomech. Abstr. 15, 89– 97.
19. ASTM, 2001. Standard test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound hammer method. ASTM
Stand. 04.09 (D 5873-00).
20. TS 699. 1987. Methods of Testing Natural Building Stones. Institute of Turkish Standards: Ankara.
21. Ulusay R, Gökçeoglu C, Binal A. 2001. Rock Mechanics Laboratory Experiments, Turkish Chambers of
Geology Engineers, Ankara, Turkey.
22. ISRM, P. L. T. (1985). Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr, 22(2), 51-70.
23. UNI, E. (2011). 772-1. Methods of test for masonry units. Determination of compressive strength.
24. EN, B. (1999). 1015-11, Methods of test for mortar for masonry–Part 11: Determination of flexural and
compressive strength of hardened mortar. Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels.
25. Henzel, J., & Karl, S. (1987). Determination of strength of mortar in the joints of masonry by compression tests
on small specimens. Darmstadt Concrete, 2(1), 123-136.
26. Bieniawski, Z. T., & Bernede, M. J. (1979, April). Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive
strength and deformability of rock materials: Part 1. Suggested method for determining deformability of rock
materials in uniaxial compression. In International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences &
geomechanics abstracts (Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 138-140). Pergamon.
27. ASTM (2010) Standard test method for compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock Core specimens
under varying states of stress and temperatures. American Standarts for Testing and Materials, D7012–10, United
States.
28. ISRM, R. C. (1981). Testing and Monitoring, lSRM Suggested Methods, Ed. ET Brown Pergamon Press.
29. ISRM, P. L. T. (1985). Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr, 22(2), 51-70.
30. Schuller, M. P. (2003). Nondestructive testing and damage assessment of masonry structures. Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials, 5(4), 239-251.
31. Torabi, S. R., Ataei, M., & Javanshir, M. (2011). Application of Schmidt rebound number for estimating rock
strength under specific geological conditions. Journal of Mining and Environment, (2).
32. ASTM, D. (2005). 2845-05, Standard Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic
Elastic Constants of Rock. ASTM International Standards Worldwide.
33. Marastoni, D., Pelà, L., Benedetti, A., & Roca, P. (2016). Combining Brazilian tests on masonry cores and double
punch tests for the mechanical characterization of historical mortars. Construction and Building materials, 112,
112-127.
34. ASTM, C. (2003). 67-03, Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile.
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
35. Binici, H., Binici, F., Akcan, M., Yardim, Y., Mustafaraj, E., & Corradi, M. (2020). Physical–Mechanical and
Mineralogical Properties of Fired Bricks of the Archaeological Site of Harran, Turkey. Heritage, 3(3), 1018-
1034.
36. TS EN 196-1 (2009). Methods of testing cement-Part 1: Determination of strength, Turkish Standard Institute,
Ankara, Turkey.
37. T. P. Tassios (1987) The Mechanics of Masonry. Athens: Symmetria Publishing.
38. CEN (2005). Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures -Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced
masonry structures.
39. EN 1052-1:1999, Methods of test for masonry. Determination of compressive strength.
40. EN 1052-2:2016, Methods of test for masonry. Determination of flexural strength.
41. EN 1052-3:2002, Methods of test for masonry. Determination of initial shear strength.
42. EN 1052-4:2000, Methods of test for masonry. Determination of shear strength including damp proof course.
43. ASTM C1314-18, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms.
44. ASTM C1717-19, Standard Test Methods for Conducting Strength Tests of Masonry Wall Panels.
45. ASTM E519-15, Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages.
46. ASTM E2126-19, Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical
Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings.
47. RILEM TC 76-LUM-B.1 (1990) Compressive strength of small walls and prisms.
48. Sheppard, P. (1985). In-situ test of the shear strength and deformability of an 18th century stone-and-brick
masonry wall.
49. Ferretti, F., Ferracuti, B., Mazzotti, C., & Savoia, M. (2019). Destructive and minor destructive tests on masonry
buildings: experimental results and comparison between shear failure criteria. Construction and Building
Materials, 199, 12-29.
50. Corradi, M., Borri, A., & Vignoli, A. (2003). Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry
walls. Construction and building materials, 17(5), 325-337.
51. ASTM, E. (2002). 519-02: Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in masonry assemblages. CD,
American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia.
52. LUMB, R. (1991). Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens. TC76-LUM.–5 p.
53. Chiostrini, S., Galano, L., & Vignoli, A. (2000, January). On the determination of strength of ancient masonry
walls via experimental tests. In Proc. of 12th World Conf. Earthquake Engrg.
54. Croce, P., Beconcini, M. L., Formichi, P., Cioni, P., Landi, F., Mochi, C., ... & Serra, I. (2018). Shear modulus
of masonry walls: A critical review. Procedia Structural Integrity, 11, 339-346.
55. Rossi, P. P. (1982, May). Analysis of mechanical characteristics of brick masonry by means of non-destructive
in-situ tests. In Proc 6th international brick masonry conference, Rome (pp. 77-85).
56. Suprenant, B. A., & Schuller, M. P. (1994). Nondestructive evaluation & testing of masonry structures.
57. Barnaure, M., & Cincu, M. (2020, March). Testing methods for the assessment of material properties in historical
masonry structures: a review. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 789, No. 1, p.
012003). IOP Publishing.
58. Standard, A. S. T. M. (2016). C1531: Standard test methods for in situ measurement of masonry mortar joint
shear strength index. ASTM International.
59. A. E. Geister, « Determining Existing Masonry Structural Properties », p. 3.
60. RILEM MS-D9. Determination of Mortar strength by the Screw (Helix) Pull-Out Method. Materials and
Structures, v. 30, p. 325-327, jul. 1997.
61. Croci, G. (1998). The conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage (Vol. 1). WIT Press.