See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266391190

Analysis and classification of historic construction within the north-east of

England.

Conference Paper · July 2014

CITATIONS READS

8 446

6 authors, including:

Marco Corradi Adelaja Israel Osofero

Northumbria University University of Aberdeen
199 PUBLICATIONS   2,992 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kathryn Coventry Alan Richardson

University of East Anglia Northumbria University
26 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Reinforcement and Repair Materials for Masonry Structures" MATERIALS Impact Factor: 2.467 View project

constructionarium project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Corradi on 10 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 
ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
THE NORTH-EAST OF ENGLAND

M Corradi, A I Osofero, K Coventry, A Richardson, C Udeaja & T Vo

Department of Mechanical & Construction Engineering
Northumbria University
Wynne-Jones Building, NE1 8ST, Newcastle upon Tyne (UK)

KEYWORDS: Historic masonry, stone masonry, mechanical properties, analysis.

ABSTRACT
Utilising a numerical index, developed to classify the condition of historic masonry buildings in the Umbrian
region of Italy, a clear description of the typological and morphological characteristics of historic masonry
structures in the North East of England, is presented in this paper. This description facilitates the
understanding of the mechanical behavior of historic masonry typologies and assists in determining the most
suitable analysis and design strategy to inform approaches to the conservation and preservation of historic
buildings. This paper describes the method adopted and applies the approach to wall sections selected
throughout the county of Northumberland. On the basis of this preliminary investigation, a comprehensive
research program has been recently carried out at the University of Northumbria at Newcastle.

INTRODUCTION
The conservation and preservation of historic buildings affords many challenges to those who aim to retain
our building heritage. While there have been documented attempts to classify and analyze historical masonry
typologies in England in the past, these contributions have rarely included an experimental investigation
regarding the mechanical characteristics of masonry, due to the difficulties involved in the determination of
these characteristics. However, the existence of better technical information regarding the mechanical
characteristics of historic masonry structures would assist in the preservation of our building heritage.

Attempts to classify the mechanical characteristics of masonry structures in Slovenia, based on compression
and shear strength, were reported by Turnšek and Sheppard (1980). These authors carried out several shear-
compression tests on panels from structures originating from the city of Lubiana. Similar testing was
executed by Chiostrini and Vignoli (1994) whose test samples were selected from historical buildings within
the Italian region of Tuscany. Following the Umbria-Marche earthquake of 1998, several experimental tests
have been performed by Borri et al. (2000), Corradi et al. (2003, 2008), Binda et al. (2000). On observation
of the findings of these studies, it becomes apparent that the lack of conformity in the test methodologies
adopted, together with the variation in masonry materials tested, has resulted in a large degree of scatter with
respect to the quantification of the parameters presented. While the development and adherence to a rigorous
test specification for historic masonry structures could address some aspects of this scatter, conducting
compression and shear tests on masonry panels cut from load bearing walls, remains expensive. Furthermore,
there is the potential for costs to escalate due to the need to ensure the representivity of test samples and the
need to address the natural variation of the material within a given construction. The scale of these issues
compromises modeling based on physical testing of the original structure.
Consideration of research based on the numeric modeling of historic masonry structures (Valluzzi et al., 2004
and Lourenço et al., 2011) negates the problems encountered with large scale testing however, the lack of
material uniformity associated with historic masonry, and the problems encountered with the modeling of
wall connections and the presence of cracks or defects, may compromise the reliability of these models. A
simple approach could be to analyse masonry structures based on the consideration of the behavior of ‘ideal’
masonry construction, and the mechanical properties of the constituent materials (stones, bricks, mortars,
etc.). This paper explores such a method, the Masonry Quality Index method (MSI), as proposed by Borri
and De Maria (2009) and integrated into the design code of the Umbrian region of Italy to inform
interventions on existing historical buildings (Regione dell’Umbria, 2003) and its application to historic
masonries of the county of Northumberland.

THE MASONRY QUALITY INDEX

From its implementation into the Umbrian design codes in 2003, the application of the Masonry Quality
Index (MQI) was further explored between 2005 and 2008 under a ReLUIS project funded by the Italian
ministry of research, to improve its reliability.

On consideration a given masonry structure, the initial assumption of the integrity of the structure is based on
the ideal that might be afforded for a particular stone/ brick construction in a given conservation state
(namely, parameter SM). From this position, a further six parameters may contribute to a reduction factor
which impacts upon the index representing the ideal state, to produce a value more reflective of its actual
state, given the imperfections observed in the masonry’s materials and workmanship. The estimation of the
mechanical properties and parameters of historic masonry requires an in-depth knowledge of historical
construction methods due to the demands placed upon the engineer to categorise each parameter under three
possible outcomes: Fulfilled – F, Partially Fulfilled – PF, Not Fulfilled – NF, (Borri and De Maria, 2009)
(Regione dell’Umbria, 2003). Table 1 illustrates the criteria for application of these categories to stone/ brick
construction relative to their conservation states, in order to realize the initial SM value.

Table 1 Criteria for analysis of stone/brick mechanical properties and

conservation state (SM).
Degraded/damaged elements (˃50% of total number of elements)
Hollow bricks (solid < 30%)
NF Mud bricks
Unfired bricks
Presence of degraded/damaged elements (≥10%, ≤50%)
PF Hollow bricks (55 ≥ solid ≥ 30%)
Sandstone or tuff elements
Un-damaged elements of degraded/damaged elements < 10%
Solid fired bricks
F Hollow bricks (55% < solid)
Concrete blocks
Hardstone

The six remaining parameters considered as contributing to the reduction factor impacting upon the SM value
are presented below. The associated tables represent the associated assessment categories.

1. Stone/Brick dimension properties (SD) (Tab. 2)

 Table 2 Criteria for analysis of stone/brick dimensions (SD).
Presence of more than 50% of elements with large dimension < 20cm
NF
Brick bond pattern made of only head joints

Presence of more than 50% of elements with large dimension 20-40cm

PF
Co-presence of elements of different dimensions

F Presence of more than 50% of elements with large dimension ˃ 40cm

2. Stone/Brick shape (SS) – The shape ranges from pebbles to perfectly cut stones (Fig. 1 and Tab. 3)

Figure 1 Typology of the quality of historic masonry wall: example of wall characterized by different
mechanical properties (Gurrieri, 1999).

Table 3 Criteria for analysis of stone/brick shape (SS).

NF Rubble, rounded or pebble stonework (predominant) on both masonry leaves
Co-presence of rubble, rounded or pebble stonework and barely/perfectly cut
stone and bricks on both masonry leaves
One masonry leaf made of perfectly cut stones or bricks
PF
Masonry made of irregular (rubble, rounded, pebble) stones, but with presence of
pinning stones
Barely cut stones or perfectly cut stones on both masonry leaves (predominant)
F
Brickwork
3. Wall leaf connections (WC) – Connection between adjacent leaves have considerable effect on the
global behaviour of masonry structure. This varies from cases where there is no connection between
the wall leaves to ones with well-constructed connection between the leaves (Tab. 4)

Table 4 Criteria for analysis of wall leaf connections (WC).

Visible section Non-visible section
Ml < 1.25 Small stones compare to wall thickness;
NF No headers.
Small stones (for any Ml value)
For double-leaf wall:
PF 1.25 < Ml < 1.55 Presence of some headers,
Wall thickness larger than stone large dimension.
Wall thickness similar to stone large dimension.
F Ml ˃ 1.55 Systematic presence of headers.

4. Horizontal bed joint characteristics (HJ) – Depending on the shapes and construction techniques, bed
joint thickness varies widely from 0 mm to > 50 mm. In addition, the horizontality of the bed joint
varies from perfectly horizontal to barely horizontal (Fig. 2 and Tab.5).

Figure 2 Horizontality of bed joints (HJ).

Table 5 Criteria for analysis of horizontality of bed joints (HJ).

NF Bed joints not continuous.

Intermediate situation between NF and F;

PF For double-leaf wall:
Only one leaf with continuous bed joints

Bed joints continuous.

F Stone masonry wall with bricks courses (distance between courses < 60cm).

5. Vertical joint characteristics (VJ) – The vertical joint of a masonry wall could be well staggered,
partially staggered or not staggered as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 6.
 (a) Staggered (b) Partially staggered (c) Not staggered

Figure 3 Stagger properties of vertical joints.

Table 6 Criteria for analysis of stagger properties of vertical joints (VJ).

Quantitative analysis Qualitative analysis

Single-leaf wall (Ml <1.4) Aligned vertical joints.

Double-leaf wall (Ml <1.4 for one masonry Aligned vertical joints for at least 2 large stones.
NF leaf, M <1.6 for the second one)
l Solid brick wall made of only headers
Wall made of very small stones

Single leaf wall 1.4< Ml <1.6

Partially staggered vertical joints
Double-leaf wall: (vertical joint between 2 brick is not placed in the middle of
a) Both leaves 1.4< Ml <1.6 adjacent upper and lower brick)
PF b) For at least one leaf Ml ˃ 1.6
c) First leaf Ml ˃1.6
d) Second leaf 1.4< Ml <1.6

Properly staggered vertical joints

(vertical joint between 2 stones is placed in the middle of
Single leaf wall Ml ˃1.6 adjacent upper and lower stone)
F not to consider here
Double-leaf wall (both leaves Ml ˃1.6) walls made of only
headers:

In order to evaluate the wall leaf connection and the stagger properties of vertical joints, the “minimum
length” Ml between two points have been used in Table 4 and 6. This non-dimensional value is the ratio
between the minimum distance to connect two points on the wall surface passing only through mortar joints
and the straight distance between the two points. The straight distance is usually assumed to be equal to 1 m,
but smaller values up to 50 cm can be used.

6. Mortar mechanical properties (MM) – Mortars used in historical buildings are always lime-based.
However, the variation in the volumetric ratio of lime: sand, the quality of the lime and the type of
lime (hydraulic or aerial) does have considerable effect on the mechanical properties of the mortar.
The quality of the bonding between mortar and the stones/bricks should also be considered (Table 7).
 Table 7 Criteria for analysis of mortar properties (MM).
Very weak mortar, dusty mortar with no cohesion
No mortar (rubble or pebble stonework)
NF
Large bed joints made of weak mortar (thickness comparable to stone/brick thickness)
Porous stones/bricks with weak bonding to mortar

Medium quality mortar, with bed joints not largely notched

PF Masonry made of irregular (rubble) stones and weak mortar, but with presence of pinning
stones

Good quality and non-degraded mortar, regular bed joint thickness or large bed joint
F thickness made of very good quality mortar
Masonry made of large perfectly cut stones with no mortar or very thin bed joint thickness

Based on analysis results, a numerical value is given to each parameter based on its fulfillment category, in
accordance with Table 8. The SM is then factored by the summation of the values assigned to the remaining
six parameters to produce the value of the final index representing the quality of the masonry, MQI.

Table 8 Numerical values for analysis.

Vertical loading Horizontal Horizontal
in-plane loading out-of-plane loading
NF PF F NF PF F NF PF F
HJ 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
WC 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
SS 0 1.5 3 0 1.5 3 0 1.5 3
VJ 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
SD 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
MM 0 0.5 2 0 0.5 2 0 0.5 2
SM 0.3 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1

The numerical values presented in Table 8 are used in eq. (1) to evaluate the Masonry Quality Index (MQI).

MQI  SM SD  SS  WC  HJ  VJ  MM  (1)

Eq. (1) can lead to three different values, one for each loading condition, because a single wall panel could be
subjected to varying loading conditions which directly affect the masonry quality.

In the last decade, Augenti (2008) and Borri and De Maria (2009) proposed a numerical index (Masonry
Quality Index - MQI) varying between 0 and 10 depending on the type of masonry and the possible loading
condition (vertical static load, horizontal in-plane and out-of plane loading). The analysis presented in this
paper is based upon a single wall panel. Its masonry quality is evaluated with regards to its ability to support
a vertical static load. The ideal masonry wall is considered to have been constructed such that it achieves
uniformity of material specification and quality of workmanship, thus guaranteeing the monolithic behaviour
of the masonry wall panel. The categorisation of masonry parameters for the masonries of the North East of
England, as considered in this study, demands the acquisition of knowledge of the historic influences and
geological references that have supported Northumberland’s heritage of masonry construction.
HISTORIC MASONRY CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH EAST
The North East of England has a mix of open moorland and an urban environment comprising of towns,
cities and villages from the coast to the Pennine mountain range. Northumberland is the 6th largest county
(5013 km2) and the most sparsely populated county in England. With only two towns of any significant size
– Morpeth and Alnwick – and a wide scattering of predominantly small villages and isolated hamlets, its
landscape is dominated by natural rather than the man-made features (Office for National Statistics, 2011).
The historical boundaries of the county of Northumberland include Newcastle upon Tyne.

The most common material used for construction during the Norman period in the North-East of England
was the sandstone. The Northumberland Sandstone Hills, including those at Harbottle, Simonside,
Chillingham, Alnwick Moor, Kyloe and Ford Moss-Fowberry Moor, extend from the border moors and
forests to swing across the center of the county in a wide arc of high ground which separates the vales of the
Cheviot Fringe from the Northumberland Coastal Plain. However sandstone is relatively soft and
characterized by poor mechanical properties (Bell, 1978), making it easy to carve. Most sandstone is also not
particularly resistant to weathering. Historic constructions made of sandstone often necessitate repair and
replacement in older buildings.

With the exception of rare Roman-period military and civic structures, the most ancient masonry
constructions date back to the beginning of XII century. After 1066, the Normans, introduced both new
masonry skills and new stones in England. The extensive use of sandstone in the region probably reflects as
much on the poor state of the overland transportations routes between London and its provinces, as on the
quality of the sandstone itself, which did not prove to be very durable.

William I left a legacy of several castle constructions in Northumberland, reflecting his pre-occupation with
defense. The Norman monarchy was also closely linked to the Church - William I's invasion of England was
endorsed by Pope Alexander II (1061-73): this lead to the prioritizing of constructions (or reconstruction) of
churches, monasteries and priories in all new conquered territories (Graham, 1976). The Normans rebuilt the
Anglian monasteries of Lindisfarne, Hexham and Tynemouth, and founded Norman abbeys at Newminster
(1139), Alnwick (1147), Brinkburn (1180), Hulne, and Blanchland. Castles were built at Newcastle (1080),
Alnwick (1096), Bamburgh (1131), Harbottle (1157), Prudhoe (1172), Warkworth (1205), Chillingham, Ford
(1287), Dunstanburgh (1313), Morpeth, Langley (1350), Wark and Norham (1121), the latter an enclave of
the palatine bishops of Durham.

The development of the construction “industry” started in this period. Traditional farm buildings are among
the most ubiquitous of historic building types in the countryside of North East of England. Only a small
proportion of these buildings are currently protected through government listing consequently many are
subjected to invasive interventions with the aim of reuse. The importance of understanding the mechanical
properties of historic stone masonry as well as the structural behaviour of these constructions has been
underestimated in the past. This has led to the adoption of inappropriate repair/ refurbishment techniques
which have impacted upon the construction either by causing damage to the intrinsic character, or, in some
cases, promoting structural failure in the resisting elements (walls, vaults, floors, etc.).

The industrial heritage of the North East has left its legacy upon the landscape in terms of worker
accommodation for the ship building, mining and steel making industries. Stately homes commissioned by
wealthy mine or shipping owners reflect quality stone built structures, whilst terraced housing is a legacy of
the worker’s accommodation. Buildings in stone and later in brick, roofed with tile or slate, increasingly
replaced buildings in clay, timber and thatch from the later 18th century. The arrival of first canals and then
railways, allowed the easier transportation of building materials, especially bricks.
Northumberland, as a whole, is a county characterized by historic buildings constructed from sandstone
However, a number of rock types in addition to sandstone have been utilized within the county. Erratic
boulders from superficial deposits such as till, glacial sand and gravel, or river deposits have yielded small,
but locally important, sources of building material. Many have been obtained as clearance stones from fields.
They may comprise of a variety of rock types. Carboniferous sandstones and limestone, and Whin Sill
dolerite are most abundant, though greywacke sandstones and granitic rocks from south-west Scotland and a
variety of volcanic rocks from the Lake District may also be conspicuous. Walls and buildings constructed
from these stones can generally be recognized from the varied nature of the stones and their commonly
rounded shape.

In England, as well as the rest of Europe, most regions where historic constructions are located in rural areas,
are characterized by “poor” masonry. In Northumberland, roughly cut stones and lime-based mortars have
been used in construction for centuries and all these materials were obtained from quarries located near the
urban centers. The dimensions of masonry sections in these regions, is determined by the number of storeys
of these buildings, while the thickness of the construction is in the order of 45 to 60 cm. All of these results
in a substantial similarity of construction techniques, but a strong variation in the masonry constituting
materials linked to the site availability.

THE STUDY OF HISTORIC MASONRY STRUCTURES OF NORTHUMBERLAND

In this research 12 religious buildings, 26 private (residences and farmhouses) and 7 civil structures (castles,
representative buildings, etc.) have been considered. The criteria for building selection was primarily focused
towards verification of the construction technology- stone-masonry construction using lime-based mortar-
and the historic credentials of the structures – construction occurred before the 20th century. In qualification
of this later criterion, all religious and civil buildings in this study date back to before the English
Reformation era (1527-1547) while the private structures were constructed intermittently between 15th and
20th century. The evaluation of both WC (wall leaf connections) and VJ stagger properties of vertical mortar
joints) parameters has been carried out using a qualitative analysis due to the fact that the wall sections were
usually not visible.

(1) Results and analysis

Table 9, illustrates the quantities assigned to the seven assessed parameters considered in the determination
of the MQI. The final value of MQI for all structures considered in this study, are presented.

The results shown in Table 9 can be contextualised from a historic perspective. For example, it is evident that
the quality of the masonry construction of residential buildings and farm-houses was very scattered as a
consequence of the different financial capability of the land owners. However, the large divergence in the
quality only started from 18th-19th century when the English middle class began to construct country
residences outside the urban agglomerates. The historic masonry typologies of the previous centuries are
more similar and the masonry quality is generally much lower compared to castles or religious constructions.

The analysis was performed using the values given in Table 8, considering the vertical static loading
condition only. With regard to the religious constructions, the estimated average MQI is high (5.37) as a
consequence of very high values assumed by the HB (1.42) and SS (2.38) indexes. Most of construction
walls fulfilled the criteria for the horizontality of bed joints. The stone elements are mostly properly shaped
with perfectly or well-cut parallelepiped stones. However, low values were observed for the MM and SM
indexes: the mortar is often weak and dusty with most of the joints repointed in recent times (Fig. 4).
 Table 9 Results of masonry analysis.
Masonry
Structure HJ WC SS VJ SD MM SM MQI
No.
STR01 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 7.5
STR02 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 3.85
STR03 2 1 3 0.5 1 2 0.7 6.65
STR04 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 3.85
RELIGIOUS STR05 2 1 3 1 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.6
CONSTRUCTIONS STR06 2 1 3 0.5 1 2 1 9.5
STR07 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 6.5
STR40 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.85
STR41 1 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.8
STR42 2 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.7 5.25
STR43 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 4.5
STR44 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 4.55
1.42 0.83 2.38 0.50 0.67 0.88 0.80 5.37
STR08 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 2 0.7 6.3
STR09 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 2.8
CIVIL STR50 2 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.5
CONSTRUCTIONS STR51 2 1 3 0.5 1 2 0.7 6.65
STR52 1 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 4
STR53 2 0 3 0.5 1 2 1 8.5
STR54 2 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 3.85
1.68 0.48 2.17 0.44 0.71 1.05 0.79 5.12
STR10 1 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.8
STR11 0 1 1.5 0.5 1 0 0.3 1.2
STR12 0 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.2
STR13 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.15
STR14 0 1 3 0 0.5 0 0.7 3.15
STR15 1 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 4.2
STR16 0 0 1.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 1.4
STR17 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 4.55
FARM HOUSES STR18 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.25
AND STR19 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 2 0.7 6.3
RESIDENCIAL BUILDINGS STR20 1 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 4.2
STR21 0 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 4
STR22 1 1 1.5 1 0.5 2 1 7
STR23 2 1 3 1 0.5 2 1 9.5
STR24 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.15
STR25 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.5
STR26 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.15
STR27 1 1 1.5 0 0 0.5 0.7 2.8
STR28 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.25
STR29 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 2.8
STR30 1 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 3.5
STR31 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 4.5
STR32 2 1 3 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 5.6
STR33 0 1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.45
STR34 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 2.8
STR35 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 3.85
0.962 0.885 2.019 0.288 0.538 0.577 0.73 3.89
Since the number of considered structures was limited, results should be confirmed by a broader
experimental program. However, the emerging trend seems quite accurate: the scattering of the results seem
much smaller compared to similar religious constructions in other part of Europe. Part of the authors have a
good knowledge of the Italian situation: the wall structures of this part of England seems to be more
consistent in terms of construction techniques, used materials, stone shape and dimensions compared to Italy.
However, it must be noted that the extensive use of sandstone may lead to a significant reduction in the MQI
index. Sandstones are usually subjected to erosion and cracking due to their characteristic low mechanical
properties. The results in Table 9 should be presented together with the compression strength of the stones,
which is an area of further studies for the authors. These stones may present different mechanical properties
not only depending on the quarry from which they were cut out, but also stones from the same quarry might
have different mechanical properties due to the depth from ground surface.

Figure 4 Examples of masonry textures of religious constructions.

Many of the structures considered in this study have been extended since their original construction.
However in the case of the religious buildings many have remained in their original state representing
production from a single construction event, conducted in a short period of time using similar techniques,
materials and workmanship. This highly simplified the analysis of masonries that were similar among the
whole structure.

In the civil structure category, structures considered were mainly defensive buildings like castles and towers.
The masonries of these structures were essentially made by sand stones, often degraded by the erosion caused
by the wind and by the circumstance that these structures are often located in close proximity to the sea-
coastline. The calculation of the MQI index gave a value of 5.12, similar to the one found for religious
constructions (5.37), albeit slightly lower. Smaller values of the WC for the civil structures (0.48) compared
to that obtained for the religious constructions (0.83) can be attributed to the larger wall thicknesses that
prevented the presence of header stones in the civil structures.
Farmhouses on the other hand shows a lower and more scattered MQI compared to the religious and public
buildings. Almost all the indexes are lower compared to the indexes obtained from the religious
constructions. Of particular note is the HB and VC indexes representing the criteria for analysis of
horizontality of bed joints and the stagger properties of vertical joints respectively. The values of these
indexes for farm houses are just about 60 % - 70 % of the values obtained for the religious building (Fig. 5).
This clearly indicates the variations in the level of attention to construction details and quality of
workmanship depending on intended usage of the masonry construction.
 Figure 5 Examples of masonry textures of farm houses constructions.

CONCLUSION
Forty five historic masonry constructions, comprising of religious buildings, farm houses and public places,
in the Northumberland region of England have been analyzed in this study. In general, the MQI of historic
construction in this region are relatively high compared to other places in Europe, e.g. Italy. This is partly
due to the fact that most of the stones used in the construction are well cut, irrespective of the type of
buildings. In addition, less scatter in the MQI values was recorded compared to the findings of similar studies
on historic buildings in other part of Europe. However, the negative effect of the extensive use of sandstones
in this region on the stone and brick masonry construction MQI is well noted.

Variation of the MQI with change in type and usage of the historic structure was recorded. Religious and
public places generally display a higher MQI when compared to farm houses and residential building. As far
as the authors are aware, this is the first recorded attempt at the analysis and classification of stone and brick
masonry construction within the north-east of England. This work will provide the necessary benchmark for
future work aimed at the analysis, through experimental testing, of the mechanical properties of these typical
wall typologies.

In conclusion, despite the limited number of analyzed structures, the initial trend in these results seems quite
accurate and consistent. However, further experimental campaign, incorporating more historic masonry
constructions from the North East region, should be carried out to validate the current initial results from this
study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to record their appreciation to Prof. Dave Greenwood of Northumbria University and Mr.
David Heslop, County Archaeologist, Tyne and Wear. The authors are also grateful for continuing support
from colleagues in the Mechanical & Construction Engineering Department.

REFERENCES
・Augenti, N. (2008), “Raccolta dati esistenti sui parametri meccanici ed elastici delle murature,” Project
ReLUIS 2005/2008 - Linea di ricerca 1.
・ Bell, F.G. (1978), “The physical and mechanical properties of the Fell Sandstone Northumberland,
England.” Engineering Geology, Vol. 12, 1-29.
・Binda L., Saisi A. and Tiraboschi, C. (2000), “Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of historic
masonries,” Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 14, 199-233.
・Borri, A. and De Maria, A. (2009), “L’indice di Qualità Muraria (IQM): Evoluzione ed Applicazione
nell’Ambito delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni del 2008,” Procedings of 13th Italian National
Conference for Earthquake Engineering, Bologna, Italy
・Borri, A., Corradi, M. and Vignoli, A. (2000). “II comportamento strutturale della muratura nelle zone
terremotate dell'Umbria: alcune sperimentazioni,” Ingegneria Sismica, Vol. 17, 23-33.
・Chiostrini, S. and Vignoli, A. (1994), “In-situ determination of the strength properties of masonry walls by
destructive shear and compression tests,” Masonry International, Vol. 7, No.3, 87–96.
・Corradi, M., Borri, A. and Vignoli A. (2003), “Experimental study on the determination of strength of
masonry walls,” Journal of Construction and Building Material, Vol. 17, 325–37.
・ Corradi, M., Tedeschi, C., Binda, L. and Borri, A. (2008), “Experimental evaluation of shear and
compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: Deep repointing,” Journal of
Construction and Building Material, Vol. 22, 463–472.
・ English Heritage (2012), “The conversion of traditional farm buildings: a guide to good practice”,
Revision Note.
・Graham, F. (1976), “The castles of Northumberland”  published by Frank Graham - Newcastle upon Tyne,
ISBN-10: 0859830195.
・Gurrieri, F. (1999), “Manuale per la riabilitazione e la ricostruzione postsismica degli edifici”, Regione
dell'Umbria, Dei ed., ISBN 10: 8849608519.
・Lagomarsino, S. and Podestà, S. (2004), “Seismic Vulnerability of Ancient Churches: II. Statistical
Analysis of Surveyed Data and Methods for Risk Analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 395-
412.
・Lourenço, P.B., Mendesa, N., Ramosa L.F. and Oliveira D.V. (2011), “Analysis of Masonry Structures
Without Box Behavior”, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and
Restoration, Vol. 5, No. 4-5, 369-382.
・Office for National Statistics. (2011), “UK Standard Area Measurements (SAM)”.
・Regione dell’Umbria, Allegato tecnico al B.U.R., 30.07.2003. “Norme tecniche per la progettazione degli
interventi e la realizzazione delle opere di cui alla L.R. 23.10.2002 n°18 finalizzate alla riduzione della
vulnerabilità sismica”.
・Schuller, M. P., Atkinson, R. H. and Noland J. L. (1995), “Structural Evaluation of Historic Masonry
Buildings,” APT Bulletin, Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) Vol. 26, No. 2/3,
51-61.
・Turnšek, V. and Sheppard, PF. (1980), “The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls”, Proc.
Research Conference on Earthquake Eng., Skopje, Macedonia, September 8–13, 517–573.
・Valluzzi, M. R., Da Porto, F. and Modena, C. (2004), “Behavior and modeling of strengthened three-leaf
stone masonry walls,” Materials and Structures / Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 37, No.4, 184-192.

View publication stats