KNOWLEDGE PATH

The Chiesa della Beata Vergine del Carmine e San Rocco is a church in
Soragna, Italy. It’s also known as the Oratory of San Rocco. It is a place of
Catholic worship located in Viale Giuseppe Verdi 18.

The convent was built in 1640, in the period of Marques Diofebo III, who
entrusted it to the Carmelites Fathers. The works adjoined to the church
were nally completed in 1661.

The monastery was enlarged to accommodate numerous friars but due to the
suppression of orders by the prime minister, the building was taken away from
the Carmelites and became a women’s orphanage in 1780.

In 1862, management was in hands of the Daughters of the cross, and later
on in the 20th century, Little Daughters managed it. Before the de nitive
closure, it became a kindergarten and for some classes of the local middle
school.

Due to the damage caused by the earthquakes pf December 23rd 2008, the
rst consolidation interventions were started in 2011, that involved the unsafe
bell tower and the church. In 2015, when it was completely restored, was
opened. The convent is still in a state of decay waiting for renovation works.

As we can see in the convent, numerous parts are damaged due to the
earthquakes, but we can also appreciate there are some humidities.

In general, we can see a strong decay of bricks, may be caused by

disintegration, fragmentation and a large decreased mechanical strength due
to earthquakes. For this, we should use de MQI method to assess the quality
of masonries checking diverse parameters. Both vertical and horizontal forces
have affected to the preservation of masonry.
MQI METHO

HJ WC SS VJ SD MM SM

PF PF NF PF NF PF PF

In terms of Vertical Actions, MQI = 0.7 * 3 = 2.1, which means Category C,

inadequate behavior of masonry.
For Out of plane actions, MQI = 2.45, Category C, inadequate behavior of
masonry
For In plane actions, MQI = 2.45, Category C, inadequate behavior of
masonry
fi
fi

fi

 HJ WC SS VJ SD MM SM

NF PF NF NF NF NF NF

In terms of Vertical Actions, MQI = 0.3, which means Category C,

inadequate behavior of masonry.
For Out of plane actions, MQI =0.75, Category C, inadequate behavior
of masonry
For In plane actions, MQI = 0.3, Category C, inadequate behavior of
masonry

In the front part of the porche, column is damaged as well as walls. Bricks are
not in the right position and due to shear, mortar has lost its function. Some
parts of walls have been restored with plaster due to losses in mortar
mechanical characteristics

In the case of wood, we see variations depending on the beams. The upper
horizontal one conserves good characteristics such as not visible cracks and
no rots. The worst one is the lowest beams due to bigger loads due to
positions. Cracks and rots are visible. The rest ones have some less visible
cracks.

In the secondary front elevation, we can nd rests from the porta morta, also
seen in the principal front elevation. Porta morta is a typical ancius part …
We can deduce this part of the building was built later because is covered by
the walls. In this facade we can also see numerous cracks and humidities. A
wooden beam can be seen from the outside, that’s why we can deduce that
the main structure is made up of it

For interior part, we can nd signi cant breaks that leads up to the separation
between walls and oors. Due to it, we can see a gap of approximately 4 cm.
Walls have numerous internal cracks due to shear and soil movements.
Mortar has worn due to meteorological agents and the friction caused by
earthquakes.

fl
fi
.

fi
.

fi

Interventions

Paulina Widomska, Laura Paris & Lucía Andrés.

 Now we are going to analyze and comment on the main points where we must act
with greater urgency. To focus on them, we have followed a series of conditions on
intervention priorities.
In the first place, we must know the different ways that there are, mode 0, mode 1 and mode
2. The first of them, “Mode 0” (crumbling) cannot be modeled numerically: the risk of
crumbling can only be identified through a careful knowledge path, and the MQI is made out
of plane. The second, “Mode 1” (overturning) is rather easy to model, once the macro
-elements at risk are identified: cinematic linear or non -linear analysis. In order to reach this
relatively easy calculation, it is necessary to make a thorough and specific knowledge path.
And the last one, “Mode 2” (shear) is easily represented by numerical models, which are
particularly suitable to follow the evolution of global mechanisms, but it is important to recall
that these models represent the structure’s behavior only once the first two modes are
excluded. We also divide on buildings priority list, in our case is a single building and just a
part of it. Therefore we remain on the criteria of the local analisis.

In our particular intervention there are three particular criticalities that need to be
solve with urgency. In order or priority, we should first interven on the south facade. On the
inside we appreciate there is a 4cm horizontal crack which separates the facade from the
ceiling and on the outside the facade is bendig. The second criticality is what the portamorta
is causing to the facade, many diagonal cracks coming from the right part of this structural
element is making the structure of the facade become more inestable and less strong. Last
fact to improve is the mesh of the bricks in all the walls and facades, it has been degraded
due to atmospheric agents and because of time, and needs to be improved to increase its
capacities and mechanical and adherence resistance.

To understand better when we have to improve any element, we need to do some

evaluations.

The safety assessment and the intervention project must be extended to all parts of the
structure potentially affected by changes in behavior, as well as to the structure as a whole.
For the seismic combination of actions, the value of ζE can be less than unity. Unless
specific situations relating to cultural heritage, for class III buildings for school use and class
IV the value of ζE, following the improvement interventions, must in any case be no less than
0.6, while for the remaining buildings of class III and for those of class II the value of ζE,
again following the improvement interventions, must be increased by a value not less than
0.1. In the case of interventions that involve the use of insulation systems, for the verification
of the insulation system, there must be at least ζE = 1.0.

We also need to know according to construction and restoration laws.

Related with the adaptation:

The construction adjustment intervention is mandatory when it is intended: a) to raise the

building; b) expand the building through works structurally connected to it and such as to
significantly alter the response; c) make changes in intended use that lead to increases in
the overall vertical loads in the foundation of more than 10%, evaluated according to the
characteristic combination referred to in equation 2.5.2 of § 2.5.3, including only the
gravitational loads. However, the obligation to proceed with the local verification of the
individual parts and / or elements of the structure remains unaffected, even if they affect
limited portions of the building; d) carry out structural interventions aimed at transforming the
building through a systematic set of works that lead to a structural system different from the
previous one; in the case of buildings, carry out structural interventions that transform the
structural system through the use of new vertical load-bearing elements which bear at least
50% of the total gravitational loads referred to the individual floors. e) make changes to class
of use that lead to class III buildings for school use or class IV.

In any case, the project must refer to the entire construction and must report the checks of
the entire post-intervention structure, according to the indications in this chapter. In cases a),
b) and d), for the verification of the structure, one must have ζE ≥ 1.0. In cases c) and e) we
can assume ζE ≥ 0.80. However, the obligation to proceed with the local verification of the
individual parts and / or elements of the structure remains unaffected, even if they affect
limited portions of the building. A change in the height of the building due to the construction
of top curbs or to changes in the roof that do not lead to increases in living area, is not
considered an extension, pursuant to condition a). In this case it is not necessary to proceed
with the adjustment, unless one or more of the conditions referred to in the other previous
points are met.
 There are an incredible number of tests and inspections we can do to improve our
knowledge on these criticalities. On one hand we have non destructive tests, they define the
materials strength through parameters connected to it, without causing substantial damages
to materials and structures, indirect inspections. For example; sonic tests, mortar
characterization , penetrometric tests, sclerometric tests, tie-rods tensioning measure,
pacometric tests, thermography, injectability tests, humidity analyses and test loads.

On the other hand, medium destructive tests, these ones causes a certain level of damage
on the inspected elements, therefore it requires caution and specialized workers, careful
planning to optimize the number of tests, direct inspections and they get certain (but not
necessarily meaningful and representative) results. For instance; flat jacks, shove tests,
corings, endoscopies and pull out tests.

Specifically in our case we could use:

On one hand the following non-destructive tests:
Sonic tests for the masonry to know the quality of our walls and facades. This test give
qualitative information on the characteristics of the masonry. And would qualify the
morphology of the cross section, spotting the voids, defects and cracks. And also check the
characteristics of the masonry before and after our strengthening interventions. In our walls
we would make it direct or in a transparent way.
Mortar characterization, to analyze the mastic which joins the blocks. With this test we can
define the composition and texture of the aggregates and of the binders. This allows us to
assess qualitatively the consistency and the conservation status of the mortars. And would
also be useful later for us to define the most suitable and compatible materials for the
restoration and strengthening interventions. To perform this test we would need material that
can be taken from joints or with small cores in the masonry, being very careful to choose non
disturbed samples for example from the north facade. A few square cm would be enough.
Another solution to analyze the mortar could be with a penetrometric test, which is done
on-site but would be better just for the parts which are in a better condition. Or even the
sclerometric test known because it's recommended to use it together with the analysis of
mortar samples, and it is quick and cheap.
Thermography. Another test with a huge range of information, it allows to survey in a quick
and non-invasive manner information about elements which are not in sight: masonry
texture; presence of different materials; constructive anomalies; discontinuities, cracks,
voids, thermal bridges; and humidity rise or infiltrations.
Tie rods tensioning measures. Tie rods are fundamental for the stability of masonry
structures, especially when vaults and arches are present. In our case we have arches on
the facades that come from an old porta morta which has been restored and filled.
Therefore, it is fundamental to assess their effectiveness, measuring the axial tensile force.
This can be done either with static or dynamic tests. On the static, applying one or more
vertical concentrated loads and measuring the deflection of the tie rod allows one to easily
calculate its tensile force. And the dynamical, applying an accelerometer along the tie rod
and producing a vibration on it allows to measure the frequencies of vibration and as a
consequence to calculate the tensile force. To run this test in our porta morta, we should
have to remove the bricks added after and then put the tie-rod and get the tensioning
measures. As it is such an expensive task to perform we would discuss on the intervention
part whether to make this kind of test or not.
Shove-test. Consists on a local shear test on a single brick (or regularly cut stone). The test
is aimed at defining the mean value of shear strength of a masonry, also assessing the
cohesion between mortar and bricks. Perfect for all our facades.

On the other hand the following medium destructive tests:

Flat jacks. There are simple and double, in our case we would use the double flat jacks.
Allows to define the deformability of a masonry and its compression strength. It is done
making a second cut in a masonry joint close to the first one and loading the masonry
between the two jacks.
Endoscopies. Could be a really useful way to analyze the ceiling of the first floor, the
endoscopie can be introduced by the hole on the floor and in the crack between the floor and
the facade wall. With this method we can get a visual inspection of cavities or otherwise
inaccessible parts of the masonry, through its thickness. The probe can be inserted in holes
as mentioned and allow registering the view with photos or videos.
 As we mentioned before, we have three main urgings: the bending south facade with
the separation/crack on the inside of the first floor with the ceiling structure. The portamorta
which is making weight and generating cracks on the same facade. And last one, the mortar
of the brick walls.

For the first problem, our solution is a tie-rod on the first floor, which ties north and south.
The insertion of tie-rods is one of the most ancient strengthening methods and it is also now
one among the best ones, because it has a limited encumbrance, it is economical and easy
to apply. It does not increase the mass of the building. Also it satisfies the principles of
conservation of cultural heritage: it is reversible, compatible, distinguishable, durable, and in
most cases it represents the minimum intervention possible. Not only does it not interfere
significantly with the global behavior of the structure in case of an earthquake, but it
eliminates the most dangerous mechanisms. But also it can be pre-stressed and the tension
can be checked and modified in time. The cons are in the details. The same intervention can
be more or less effective and correct depending on the details adopted in its realization. We
can choose between using an external tie-rod or Internal tie-rod. For the external we would
need anchorages (poles,plates,recessed,adherent..) in our case all of them could be a
solution but we would use poles. For the joints we can choose: at the end (bolts or wedges)
or in the middle (sleeves or forks), we would choose bolts or wedges for the end and leave
the middle empty. On the discussion whether to choose external tie-rods or internat, we
need to take into account pros and cons. External pros: reversible, recognizable, compatible
and cons: Higher aesthetic impact, to be evaluated and limited (thinking also to aesthetic
and functional aspects, not only structural). It is possible to exploit the timber beams of the
existing floors structures as tie-rods: it is enough to connect with steel elements to external
anchorages. On the other side, internal pros: Less aesthetic problems. Internal cons: There
are technical problems (particularly when three-leaf masonry is concerned) and theoretical
(non reversible, more invasive, less recognizable,…) Both of them could be a solution for us,
but we would rather run the external one because it is less invasive and reversible. Exterior
ones are theoretically more acceptable, and mostly suitable for archeological restoration
cases.

Another solution could be ring beams on top of the masonry. This can constitute an effective
solution to connect the walls in this upper area in which masonry is less cohesive due to the
limited compression level and could improve the interaction with the roof structure.

The second problem to treat is the portamorta which has been closed by indented patching
to modify the distribution of the vertical resistant elements. Even though that is already a
strengthening intervention we need to add a more resistant one to avoid the cracks and
future detachment of the facade. This portamorta is in both south and north facade, and
under it on both parts there is a door, therefore we should strengthen the walls around the
opening and also close a steel frame around the opening to reinstate the previous
conditions. To increase the strength of the walls, we can also add vertical pre-stressed
tie-rods. Internal to the masonry. Inserting new vertical elements that contribute to the
reduction of the eccentricity between center of the masses and center of the stiffnesses. To
solve the cracks we have different solutions, for example artificial transverse connections.
This connections are made the following way, and would be done on the south facade:
1. Creation of transverse through holes, for the insertion of stainless steel pipes with
distributed holes.
2. Application of anchorage plates at the ends of the pipe to subject the masonry to
transverse compression.
3. Application of connection bushings to the mortar injectors.
4. Injection of the mortar into the cavities of the masonry.
5. Removal of the anchorage plates after hardening and consequent relaxation of the
masonry.
6. Elimination of protruding parts of the pipe and sealing of holes.
Another solution could be adding anti-expulsion transverse ties. They connect the different
layers of the wall and it is possible to prestress them, in order to reconnect already detached
layers and to apply a confinement effect.
To sum up with this point, normally in the facades of the aggregate buildings the crack
pattern is characterized by a central section without cracks, while in the extremities there are
frequent overturning phenomena. This happens to us with our portamorta, that is generating
cracks on the right extrem of the south facade.

For the last criticalitie in our list, the mesh and resistance of our masonries. We have
decided to apply mortar injections. They can be local: to reinstate the continuity of the wall
along a crack, also in the thickness. Global: to improve the material properties. Even though
we have to remember that not all masonries are injectable and there are some pros and
cons, such as no minimum intervention, it's not reversible, it has an unknown durability and a
compatibility issue. In our case it would be appropriate to apply these mortar injections all
over our walls, on the inside and on the outside. Leaving apart the ground floor where after
those injections we will have to put another layer of plaster and the first floor the inner walls
of the bathrooms, which are also made of plaster and concrete.

All in all, when we restore any kind of building we have many methods as we already studied
to make the intervention. However, we need to choose with daintiness which methods to
use, so that the spirit and the history of the building remains even though all the
interventions on it.