1. Introduction
The bell tower of the church of Saint Felix, together with the Cathedral, forms part of Girona’s skyline. The construction of this Gothic tower began in 1368 under the direction of master stonemason Pere Sacoma. In the building records, the Saint Felix church appears cited as Pere Sacoma, Pere ça Coma, Pere de Coma, or Pere de Comes, and the ground plan of the bell tower, drawn by the same architect, has also survived [1,2]. He worked on the church and in the bell tower until around 1391. The construction of this building can be fully traced through the accounts, which detail day by day the work carried out, the materials used, the workers and their salaries, the tools used, and other details relating to its construction [3]. The bell tower was finally completed at the end of the 16th century (probably in 1572), as it appears on the keystone of the last level with the participation of at least three different master masons, Joan de Bellojch, Enric Gelabert, and Pere Boris.
Despite the date of its completion, the entire structure of the Saint Felix belfry follows Gothic typology. The tower was built in three phases. The first, which reached the level of the church roof, was built under the supervision of Pere Sacoma. The second, built in the middle of the 16th century, reached the level of the bells. And finally, in the last phase, the construction reached the level where the truncated spire begins, together with the pinnacles. Thus, the type of bell tower, with an irregular plan, is made up of three stepped bodies supported by eight buttresses crowned by pinnacles and a truncated central spire [4].
Inadequate maintenance and management of architectural heritage endangers both its conservation and public safety. In their research [5], the authors propose a methodology for evaluating the factors that threaten heritage conservation. Until the intervention described in this article was carried out, only one previous intervention on the bell tower of Saint Felix, dating from 1924, was known. This date appears in graffiti inside the spire. According to the reports in the press of the city of Girona, the accident may have been caused by lightning striking the top of the bell tower. Work was carried out on the spire but not on the pinnacles. Undoubtedly, there was a risk, as any part of the pinnacles falling could have affected neighbouring buildings or fallen directly onto the public road, endangering pedestrians.
Numerical modelling of the contact between courses has been a key issue. The properties that enable the interaction between these interfaces depends on whether the analysis is performed on a micro-, meso-, or macroscale. In [6], the specifics of this question when applied to dry-joint masonry structures are described.
The use of multi-approach strategies has been a successful tool in choosing the scale to analyze numerical models. In [7], a two-step strategy considering limit analysis and FE models describing the structure at a micro- and macroscale is presented.
The failure mechanism of different dry-joint masonry structural members has been tested in a laboratory. In [8], the particular case of overturning masonry walls was simulated. Two types of local stone—one calcareous and the other basaltic—were used in the tests. For this purpose, a tilting platform rotating on a horizontal axis parallel to the length of the specimen was used as a destabilizing factor. In [9], the behaviour of dry-joint masonry was tested in a scaled-up set of arches. The triggering effect for the instability of the structure involved imposed displacements at the lateral restrains. Similar tests performed using different materials were summarized in this report.
Another important issue to be considered when deciding how to carry out such an intervention is how to address issues such as reversibility or which materials are more suitable for restoration [10,11,12]. In the case studied, the element used to reinforce the pinnacle remains unseen. However, its design and implementation are not a trivial choice. In the available literature, the use of different types of stainless-steel alloys and other materials with similar properties, applied as a reinforcement of historic masonry, is extensively described. An excellent example of their use can be found in the pinnacles of the Jaen cathedral [13,14]. The confinement techniques of various masonry elements, based on fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP), fibre-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM), or carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which have been extensively studied in the literature, are not applicable, as the pinnacles cannot be coated [15,16,17,18,19].
On the other hand, we have reinforcement based on carbon fibre rods and with titanium alloy rods. The main advantage of carbon fibre bars, apart from their corrosion resistance, is their high strength-to-weight ratio and their good bonding to the cement-based matrix [20]. Titanium alloy rods are being used in the reinforcement of structural elements due to their high corrosion resistance and high strength [21,22].
There are several strategies for evaluating the nonlinear behaviour of this type of structure under seismic demands. It is common practice to use simplified models. Some of them are presented in [23]. In [24,25], the effect of seismic forces on this type of structure is evaluated, considering two possible failure mechanisms. The effect of horizontal forces on nonstructural elements or isolated elements that are part of more complex structures can be quantified using the procedures presented in [26].
The aim of this article is to analyze the behaviour of the pinnacles of the bell tower of the Saint Felix church, some of which are in poor condition, under the combined influence of self-weight, wind, and seismic forces. Their behaviour is evaluated using numerical and scaled models. The scaled real model was used to calibrate a numerical model. Once the calibration is complete, the model can reproduce the load test performed in the scaled real model under laboratory conditions, and a new numerical model of the real pinnacle is defined, including the properties updated in the previous step. A new reinforcement is proposed to replace the wooden rod that was previously placed in the central core of the pinnacles (Figure 1). The possible existence of sliding and overturning phenomena between the vertical distributed stone rings that make up the pinnacles are used as verification criteria.
2. Structural Analysis
2.1. Basics
Lateral stability and, to some extent, the transfer of load between the different layers of stone were previously ensured by a wooden bar located in the central part of the pinnacles. Restorations carried out during the 20th century on the pinnacles of other buildings, such as the church of Santiago de Jerez de la Frontera or the Palace of Westminster documented the presence of metal reinforcing bars inside the pinnacles [27,28]. Due to the passage of time, environmental conditions, and biotic agents, the rudimentary connection between the successive rings that form the pinnacles of the church of Saint Felix no longer exists.
After evaluating various alternatives, the restoration team decided to use a titanium rod—instead of other commonly used materials such as CRFP (carbon fibre-reinforced polymers) or BFRP (basalt fibre-reinforced polymers)—to replace the function performed by the old connector due to its high strength, fracture toughness, plasticity, and low crack propagation rate [21,22]. Functional issues, as well as the cost of purchasing and installing this element, justified the study of how to minimize the length of this reinforcement.
The self-weight of stone structures of this nature rarely represents a critical state and generally has a stabilizing effect. As emphasized in [29], the theory of limit analysis applied to masonry structures states that the allowable compressive stress can be considered infinite. Although this statement was mentioned in the specific context of arches and vaults, it can also be applied to the pinnacles, since these can be considered as belonging to masonry structures working at low tension.
Due to its location, the pinnacle is mainly affected by horizontal forces of wind and seismic activity. The value of these forces has been calculated using Spanish regulations [30,31]. These forces introduce bending moments and shear forces into the structure.
Due to the lack of continuity between the constituent elements—stone masonry laid with dry joints (without mortar)—this type of structure cannot transmit tensile forces. Stability is therefore provided by equilibrium, ensuring that the resultant load remains in the central core defined by the middle third rule.
The failure modes considered in the study are sliding (horizontal displacement between layers of masonry stone) and overturning (rotation of the section due to the presence of excessive tensile stress).
2.2. Geometry
The plan projection of the bell tower of the church of Saint Felix consists of an octagon with irregular sides. A sudden change in the elevation dimension allows one to define the geometry of the upper part of the tower and accommodate the eight pinnacles under study.
The pinnacles are approximately eight metres high. The chosen model of the pinnacle is composed of 32 courses of Girona stone ashlars of various dimensions, averaging 24 cm in height. The cross-section of the pinnacles at the starting point corresponds to a rectangle measuring 1.25 × 1.11 m. The pinnacle’s cross-section decreases in height. The cross-sectional dimensions at the highest point are approximately 0.54 × 0.53 m (Figure 2).
2.3. Stone of Girona
The bell tower of the Saint Felix church was built with a limestone known as “Girona stone”. It is a compact, coherent, and relatively homogeneous nummulitic limestone rock formed in the Middle Eocene period (Lutecian). It has a massive microcrystalline appearance where fossilized nummulites ranging from 0.5 to 6 cm in diameter stand out. Nummulites are an extinct genus of benthic foraminifera (unicellular organisms that lived in the depths of seas and oceans). They are well preserved to the present day because they had a fairly resistant calcareous shell.
Girona’s stone has three main varieties, but its chemical composition is mainly made up of the following minerals: calcite (83.00%), dolomite (2.50%), feldspar (9.50%), and quartz (5.00%). It has a low open porosity, a low and a relatively slow absorption capacity, a slow rate of drying, a high resistance to compression, and a medium modulus of elasticity [32].
Table 1 show the properties of the stone used in the pinnacle construction.
Compression stress and flexural stress, determined using a four-point test, for different varieties of Girona’s stone were determined in [33] in an extensive experimental campaign. The results are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
Additional tests were carried out to characterize some of the critical properties. The most relevant was the friction coefficient. No information was available on this variable. This prompted a testing campaign to determine it. The result was 0.66. Although there are many tests to determine this value, for the sake of simplicity, the one chosen was the so-called tilt test.
The Poisson ratio was considered to be 0.20. The Young’s modulus value was 1.0 × 103 Mpa. Both values were within the range of those proposed by other authors. As indicated in [9], the Young’s modulus of stone as a material differs considerably from that corresponding to dry-joint masonry. For reference, the relationship between them is around 3.5–7.5%.
2.4. Load Estimation
2.4.1. Gravitational Forces
Gravitational forces are primarily due to self-weight. The density of the material was determined experimentally and compared with values available in the literature. The volume was calculated from the graphic documentation included in the restoration project.
2.4.2. Wind Forces
Wind is a dynamic phenomenon that can be described by decoupling it into different effects. A rigorous analysis of the wind affecting the pinnacle using tunnel wind tests is beyond the scope of the project. It is therefore a matter of carefully choosing the hypotheses to be used in the calculation to guarantee that the intervention to be carried out is safe enough.
Stone pinnacles have been studied in wind tunnel tests [34]. The static wind forces are expressed using the standard drag equation:
(1)
where ρair is the density of the air, υ is the wind speed, and A is frontal area over which the force of the wind is applied.The drag coefficient (Cd) was established using the results of the wind tunnel tests through back-calculation from measured strains. The chosen values range between 1.20–1.50. The values are according to the literature [35,36].
The study concludes that, for this kind of structure, the dynamic effects are small. In [37], the vibrating behaviour of stone pinnacles was studied, arriving at a similar conclusion. The basic value of the dynamic pressure of wind was determined similarly in [38]. The basic velocity of wind to be applied is 29 m/s. The standard drag equation will be used in this study.
2.4.3. Seismic Forces
For the sake of simplicity, the pinnacle is considered as a cantilever structure, fixed at the base, as if the bell tower is not attached to the building. This consideration defines an unfavourable scenario which will result in a conservative estimate of the seismic forces.
In [39], a non-destructive test to determine the fundamental natural frequencies of the colonnade of the Dome of the Siena Cathedral was carried out. A similar approach was used in the monumental complex of Sacro Monte in Ghiffa (Italy) [40]. These analyses were performed in the upper colonnades. The influence of these elements on the overall behaviour of the building due to the mass ratio between them is negligible.
In [41], the influence on the dynamic behaviour of a belfry depending on its relative position with respect to the rest of the church is briefly explained. The slenderness of these structures makes them especially vulnerable to the effects of horizontal forces. Therefore, their connection to the main body of the church both protects and enhances their ability to withstand such forces.
The simplified method proposed In the regulations [30], where the structure can be compared to a pendulum with concentrated masses, was considered sufficiently representative for this study (Figure 3).
The eight-block discretization (see Figure 3) was chosen for its suitability for representing the three distinct zones that characterizes the pinnacle’s geometry. The model produces sufficiently accurate results. This geometric simplification has also been used in the equilibrium approach presented in Section 3.7.
The basic seismic acceleration to be applied in Girona is 0.08 ag/b, and the contribution coefficient equals 1.00. Therefore, the seismic constraints are not extremely demanding. The problem stems from the position of the element and its weakness against horizontal forces.
The church of Saint Felix is founded on rock. The soil coefficient considered is 1.00. Live loads are negligible compared to dead loads. Consequently, the mass considered in the calculations will correspond mainly to its self-weight. The parameters affecting ductility must be chosen carefully, considering that this type of structure is incapable of dissipating energy.
The fundamental period of the tower was calculated applying the procedures described in [30], and the result was approximately 0.40 s. Accordingly, the contribution of a single mode shape has been considered when determining the seismic forces. The effect of the seismic forces on the pinnacle has been calculated considering the total height of the bell tower.
3. Analysis Approaches
3.1. Introduction
To analyze the pinnacle’s behaviour, numerical and experimental models were combined. The first approach consists of calibrating the problem using a scaled real model (scale 1:5) under laboratory conditions. The scale model had the same number of courses as the real one, although the ornamental details were omitted. Once a representative numerical model of the scaled structures will be available, the analysis will be transferred to a real-life situation (Figure 4).
3.2. Experimental Scaled Model
A 1:5 scaled model of the pinnacle (Figure 5) was made using the same material and construction method. This model was used to simulate the effect of horizontal forces on it. For this purpose, a laboratory test was designed.
A step-by-step procedure was followed. It consisted of successively applying to each course the resultant of all the forces present above its position. The resultant force was applied by using a hydraulic piston.
A displacement transducer was used to identify the start of the ring’s displacement. In this way, it was possible to experimentally evaluate the behaviour of the pinnacle against sliding caused by horizontal loads.
Two tests were used to calibrate the numerical model as follows: a. A horizontal load was applied to the fifth course starting from the top of the scale model until sliding was detected. A force of 340 N was obtained. b. A horizontal load was applied to the top of the base until a vertical displacement—due to rotation—of 1.0 mm relative to the ground, was measured. The applied force was 330 N.
These tests were subsequently simulated on the scale numerical model to calibrate it.
3.3. Numerical Scaled Model
Once the experimental scaled model response was determined, an equivalent numerical model was calibrated. Masonry components were modelled using SOLID185 from ANSYS® (Canonsburg, PA, USA). It is an eight-node solid element, with three degrees of freedom at each node (translations in nodal x, y, and z directions). It supports plasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain [Ansys].
The variables to calibrate were related to the behaviour of the contact surface between the rings. Such contact surface was represented using CONTA174 and TARGET170.
3.4. Frictional Model
The frictional model was based on Coulomb’ law:
τlim = μ·P + b,(2)
where μ = coefficient of friction for isotropic friction; P = contact normal pressure; and b = cohesion.The limit condition is represented by
||τ|| ≤ τlim,(3)
It was considered that cohesion could not be guaranteed. Then the original formula for Coulomb’s law is
τlim = μ·P,(4)
where μ was assigned according to the experimentally determined value.3.5. Contact Model
The contact model is based on augmented Lagrange, a penalty-based formulation where the contact stiffness is used to determine the degree of penetration between two consecutive courses. In this contact formulation, the contact stiffness value depends on the stress level in the material. The requirement for zero penetration between bodies is imposed, in which the augmented Lagrange multiplier is used to improve deconvergence. In this kind of nonlinear problem—where the contact properties vary during the process—this strategy allows for a gradual transition, enhancing the stability and the quality of the solution.
The numerical model’s ability to reproduce both the sliding and rotation of the courses was checked. The preliminary results are presented below (Figure 6).
3.6. Scale Model Adjustments and Full-Scale Model
A scaled real model was used to calibrate a numerical model. Once the calibration is complete, the model can reproduce the load test performed in the real model under laboratory conditions, and a full-scale numerical model of the real pinnacle is defined, including the properties updated in the previous step.
Only slight changes were necessary in the numerical model to achieve a satisfactory similarity with the experimental results. The updated parameter was the material’s density. Its value was reduced by approximately a 6% compared to the initial estimate.
After the calibration, the calculated forces due to the influence of wind and earthquakes were applied to the full-scale model. The model’s response was compared with the results of the equilibrium approach. Good agreement was observed between the two approaches.
3.7. Equilibrium Approach
An equilibrium approach based on the middle third rule has been used as a complementary tool to verify the quality of the results. The aim is to identify the loss of contact between consecutive layers of stone masonry based on the appearance of tensile stresses in the area of interest.
As a work hypothesis, it is assumed that the area has no capacity to cope with this kind of stress. This assumption is consistent with the physical reality of a masonry structure without mortar in the joints.
In Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, the eccentricities induced by geometry and the horizontal forces (wind and earthquakes) are determined. Afterwards, these elemental hypotheses are combined.
Once the elemental cases were analyzed, the most feasible combinations were studied. The combination corresponding to a transitory situation (Ctransitory) is proposed as follows:
Ctransitory = γG · egeometric + γQ · ewind,(5)
where γG = 1.35 and γQ = 1.50 represent the value of the safety coefficients corresponding to dead loads and live loads, respectively.The combination corresponding to an accidental situation (Caccidental) is proposed as follows:
Caccidental = γG · egeometric + γQ · ewind + γA · eseismic,(6)
where γA represents the value of the safety coefficient of the accidental loads.3.8. Result of Overturning Analysis
In Table 7 and Table 8, the eccentricity due to two different combinations is calculated (emax) and compared with the maximum allowable eccentricity before the appearance of tensile stresses in the plane studied (middle third rule). The enveloping hypothesis gives the result that the allowable eccentricity is exceeded at each level considered. This result implies—assuming that no tensile stresses can be transmitted through the stone rings—that the titanium bar must be installed along the entire height of the pinnacle.
3.9. Result of Sliding Analysis
Equilibrium in the horizontal direction provides the necessary information to determine whether sliding is a critical failure mode. The horizontal component of wind and seismic forces has been determined and accumulated. The horizontal response of the masonry components depends on the friction that the surface under analysis is capable of developing under the effect of incident vertical loads.
A general overview of dry block masonry and the kinematic phenomena affecting it is given in [42]. In [43], the coefficient of friction is determined experimentally for the case of dry block masonry walls. Rocking-sliding mechanisms have been detected depending on the point where the force was applied. The coefficient of friction determined experimentally is similar to the one proposed in this study.
In Table 9, the balance between horizontal forces is stablished. The result confirms that the stability of the pinnacle does not depend on its safety against the sliding phenomenon.
4. Design of Reinforcement
4.1. Inner Bar
A titanium bar was chosen as the material for reinforcing the pinnacles. The reasons for choosing this material are its exceptional durability, very high specific strength, a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to that of construction materials, and low weight density [42]. In addition, its resistance to alkaline agents present in masonry, without the need for complementary protections, was considered a fundamental issue. These properties make this material extremely suitable for achieving the requirements of durability, compatibility, and reversibility.
Prior to its selection, other materials such as steel alloys or FRP (fibre-reinforced polymers) were considered. FRP bars were rejected due to their poor durability without additional protection. Titanium was preferred to steel alloys because of its elastic strength and its performance in terms of corrosion.
To determine the required cross-section, the design axial force that the titanium bar must withstand was previously calculated (Table 10) and then the required diameter was determined based on the properties of the material to be used (Table 11). The most restrictive combination was chosen as a calculation hypothesis.
D is the distance between the compressed zone and the position of the titanium bar, A equals the compressed area (b multiplied by the length of the perpendicular edge (Ledge)), F is the force supported by the reinforcement, and Cstress is the compression stress in the masonry specimen due to the bending moment:
The geometry of the approach can be seen in Figure 7. To determine it, the combination that resulted in a higher bending moment was chosen, which was the accidental combination.
The result indicates that the pinnacle remains precariously stable under the loading states represented by the elementary hypotheses. However, the calculations indicate that the pinnacle cannot withstand the combined hypotheses.
Inserting a titanium bar with a diameter of 20 mm in the centre of the pinnacle, surrounded by a fibre-reinforced mortar filling the surrounding space of roughly 100 mm, was enough to reinforce the pinnacle. The stability analysis performed indicated that the reinforcement solution should be as long as the pinnacle itself.
Determining its cross-section is straightforward. The usage of the concepts of admissible stress and area and applying a safety coefficient of 1.50 for actions and 1.10 for the material, results in the following:
593.00 MPa < 800.00 MPa(7)
4.2. Filler
The last step consists of verifying the interface between the mortar surrounding the titanium bar and the perimeter of the hole made inside the pinnacle. Some studies exist that affirm that when repairing stone monuments, the strength of the mortar used for this purpose must be lower than that of the stone support [44]. Pull-out tests were used to define the adhesion strength between surfaces.
Although the pull-out tests present better results when the contact surface is pretreated (i.e., sandblasted or water jet blasted), the values corresponding to untreated surfaces were used in the calculations. This is because it was unfeasible to apply such treatments to the pinnacles.
The averaged value for adhesion was 0.22 ± 0.04 Mpa [44]. This value was used to verify the described situation. In [45], similar results were achieved.
There is not a standard procedure for evaluating the adhesion of the mortar to the inner faces of the cavities created in the pinnacles. To evaluate it, it was assimilated into the geotechnical verification corresponding to the failure due to pulling out of the injected zone of an anchor to the ground.
In [46,47], the formulation to determine the slip resistance is as follows:
(8)
where Lb is the necessary contact length to transfer the effort, PT is the contact perimeter—the average diameter in this case is 65 mm, τlim corresponds to the average value for adhesion, and γR, is a safety factor (1.20 in the reference).Isolating the necessary contact length, (Lb) can be determined as follows:
(9)
The result indicates that in the worst case, the contact length would be around 4.75 m, a value compatible with the total injected length (the entire height of the pinnacle).
5. Conclusions
Dynamic effects have been analyzed as a quasi-static phenomenon. This is a simplified description of the physical process. Based on the work of other researchers who have studied this type of structure, it can be concluded that the resulting loss of accuracy does not invalidate the analysis.
In ill-defined situations involving a high degree of uncertainty where comprehensive studies incorporating numerical models of the entire monument and complete material characterizations are unavailable, a multi-approach procedure based on the combination of experimental and numerical models has proven to be a powerful tool.
The effects of wind and earthquakes were simulated under laboratory conditions on a scale model of the pinnacle. The results were then used to calibrate a numerical model in two steps. First, a model representing the scale pinnacle was calibrated. After adjusting the selected design variables—density, Young’s modulus, and contact between courses—the results were transferred to a numerical model representing the real pinnacle.
As a complementary and subsequent verification tool, manual calculations based on equilibrium conditions were made. Good agreement was found between numerical models and handmade approximations.
Therefore, to guarantee the stability of a pinnacle exposed to wind and seismic loads, it is necessary to reinforce it along its entire length with a 20 mm diameter titanium bar. The transfer of the titanium bar to the courses was also verified, resulting in a transfer lower than that required for other considerations (overturning and sliding).
From the study carried out, it can be concluded that the stability of a pinnacle is mainly related to its capacity to withstand the overturning phenomenon, with sliding between stone layers being a secondary issue.
Conceptualization, M.L. and M.À.C.; methodology, M.L.; software, I.C.; validation, I.C., M.L. and M.À.C.; formal analysis, E.G.; investigation, M.L.; resources, E.G.; data curation, M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and M.À.C.; visualization, J.F.; supervision, E.G. and J.F.; project administration, M.À.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
We would like to thank David Garcia and Mireia Fabregas for their technical support for this work.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 View of the hole where the wooden log was formerly allocated. (a) Hole at the highest piece of the pinnacle. (b) Stone pieces of the pinnacle disassembled.
Figure 2 Truncated spire and pinnacles of Saint Félix church. (a) Detail of vertical deformation of pinnacle; (b) general view of deformation of pinnacles; and (c) drawing of pinnacle.
Figure 3 Simplification of the real structure to a model of a pendulum with concentrated masses.
Figure 4 (a) Scaled models; (b) real-scale pinnacle models.
Figure 5 Scaled model of pinnacles. (a) Scheme of test; (b) test in laboratory conditions.
Figure 6 Numerical simulation in scaled model. (a) Sliding phenomenon; (b) overturning phenomenon.
Figure 7 Schematic of the configuration used to determine the compression stress in the stone.
Properties of Girona stone.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| density | 27.00 kN/m3 |
| absorption coefficient | 0.30% |
| compression strength (generic value) | 73.20 MPa |
| bending strength | 9.00 MPa |
Compression strength (for different types of stone).
| Direction of Effort | Compression Values | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| White Stone | Blue Stone | Grey Stone | |
| Perpendicular to the vein | 100.60 | 131.60 | 111.90 |
| Parallel to the vein | 84.40 | 95.30 | 108.00 |
Flexural strength (for different types of stone).
| Flexural Stress Values | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| White Stone | Blue Stone | Grey Stone | |
| Parallel to the vein | 9.50 | 12.00 | 10.20 |
Geometric eccentricities.
| Element | Height | X Dimension | Y Dimension | Volume | Weight | Accumulated | egeometric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.28 | 1.11 | 1.32 | 1.88 | 50.64 | 169.02 | 0.10 |
| 2 | 1.11 | 1.06 | 1.18 | 1.38 | 37.31 | 118.38 | 0.05 |
| 3 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.69 | 18.51 | 81.07 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 0.74 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.58 | 15.74 | 62.57 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.48 | 13.02 | 46.83 | 0.00 |
| 6 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.39 | 10.50 | 33.80 | 0.00 |
| 7 | 0.74 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 8.37 | 23.31 | 0.00 |
| 8 | 1.97 | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 14.94 | 14.94 | 0.00 |
Wind eccentricities.
| Element | Force Wind | Bending Moment Wind | ewind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.10 | 33.49 | 0.20 |
| 2 | 1.80 | 21.16 | 0.19 |
| 3 | 1.10 | 14.83 | 0.14 |
| 4 | 1.00 | 10.54 | 0.16 |
| 5 | 0.90 | 7.28 | 0.17 |
| 6 | 0.80 | 4.66 | 0.18 |
| 7 | 0.70 | 2.81 | 0.19 |
| 8 | 1.50 | 1.44 | 0.20 |
The concept “force wind” expresses the force on each of the elements due to wind pressure. The notion “bending moment wind” expresses the accumulated bending moment due to the forces located above the base of the element in question.
Seismic eccentricities.
| Element | H | ϕ | Weight | η1 | S1 | F1 | M1 | eseismic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 56.30 | 0.02 | 50.64 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 4.10 | 39.05 | 0.23 |
| 2 | 57.50 | 0.02 | 37.31 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 3.00 | 23.88 | 0.20 |
| 3 | 58.40 | 0.02 | 18.51 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 1.50 | 15.01 | 0.19 |
| 4 | 59.10 | 0.02 | 15.74 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 1.30 | 10.27 | 0.16 |
| 5 | 59.90 | 0.02 | 13.02 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 1.10 | 6.83 | 0.15 |
| 6 | 60.60 | 0.02 | 10.50 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 0.90 | 4.21 | 0.12 |
| 7 | 61.30 | 0.02 | 8.37 | 0.99 | 0.08 | 0.70 | 2.47 | 0.11 |
| 8 | 62.70 | 0.02 | 14.94 | 1.00 | 0.08 | 1.30 | 1.25 | 0.08 |
Where H is the height of the centroid of the element with respect to the ground; ϕ, η1, and S1 are parameters to calculate the equivalent seismic forces [
Persistent or transitory combination.
| Element | egeometric | ewind | Combination | emax * |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.22 |
| 2 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.20 |
| 3 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.16 |
| 4 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.15 |
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.14 |
| 6 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
| 7 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| 8 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
* Maximum eccentricity for the middle third rule.
Accidental combination.
| Element | egeometric | ewind | eseismic | Combination | emax * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.53 | 0.22 |
| 2 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.20 |
| 3 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.16 |
| 4 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.15 |
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.14 |
| 6 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.26 | 0.12 |
| 7 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.11 |
| 8 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.08 |
* Maximum eccentricity for the middle third rule.
Sliding verification.
| Element | Horizontal Forces | Vertical Forces | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wind | Seismic | Acum. Resultant | Gravitational | Friction Comp. | |
| 1 | 2.10 | 4.10 | 23.80 | 169.02 | 111.55 |
| 2 | 1.80 | 3.00 | 17.60 | 118.38 | 78.17 |
| 3 | 1.10 | 1.50 | 12.80 | 81.07 | 53.55 |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.30 | 10.20 | 62.57 | 41.29 |
| 5 | 0.90 | 1.10 | 7.90 | 46.83 | 30.80 |
| 6 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 5.90 | 33.80 | 22.30 |
| 7 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 4.20 | 23.31 | 15.38 |
| 8 | 1.50 | 1.30 | 2.80 | 14.94 | 9.86 |
Force in titanium bar (F) and stresses in masonry (due to bending moment).
| Element | D | X Dimension | Y Dimension | A | Bending M | F | Cstress |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 1.11 | 0.07 | 2.68 | 13.23 | 0.18 |
| 2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 1.06 | 0.11 | 5.27 | 21.08 | 1.91 |
| 3 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.96 | 0.13 | 8.87 | 31.67 | 2.43 |
| 4 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 11.12 | 37.00 | 2.31 |
| 5 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.80 | 0.20 | 20.81 | 61.20 | 3.06 |
| 6 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.23 | 29.83 | 80.00 | 3.48 |
| 7 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.63 | 0.31 | 51.96 | 118.10 | 3.81 |
| 8 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 89.45 | 178.90 | 4.96 |
Mechanical properties of titanium bar.
| Alloy | Young’s Modulus | Yield Strength | Ultimate Strength | Ultimate Strain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ti-6AI-7Nb | 114.00 | 880.00 | 900.00 | 8.00 |
1. Chamorro Trenado, M.A.; Zaragozá Catalán, A. La traza de la torre campanario de la iglesia de San Félix de Gerona. Goya Rev. De Arte Publicación Bimest. De La Fund. Lázaro Gald.; 2012; 338, pp. 3-15.
2. Chamorro, M.À.; Soler, J.; Ripoll, R.; Vilagran, E. Vilagran, Building contracts in the city of girona from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Construction History (6ICCH 2018); Brussels, Belgium, 9–13 July 2018; pp. 449-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780429506208-60]
3. Chamorro Trenado, M.À. The Construction of the Saint Felix Church Tower in Girona, During the Fourteenth Century: Workers, Materials and Equipment. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History, NEUNPLUS1; Cottbus, Germany, 20–24 May 2009; pp. 347-354.
4. Chamorro, M.A.; Llorens, F. Els Campanars gòtics a les comarques gironines; Diputació de Girona: Girona, Spain, 1993.
5. Ruggiero, G.; Marmo, R.; Nicolella, M. A Methodological Approach for Assessing the Safety of Historic Buildings’ Façades. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 2812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13052812]
6. Vakis, A.I.; Yastrebov, V.A.; Scheibert, J.; Nicola, L.; Dini, D.; Minfray, C.; Almqvist, A.; Paggi, M.; Lee, S.; Limbert, G.
7. Funari, M.F.; Silva, L.C.; Savalle, N.; Lourenço, P.B. A concurrent micro/macro fe-model optimized with a limit analysis tool for the assessment of dry-joint masonry structures. Int. J. Multiscale Comput. Eng.; 2022; 20, pp. 65-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1615/IntJMultCompEng.2021040212]
8. Costa, I.; Llorens, J.; Chamorro, M.À.; Fontàs, J.; Soler, J.; Gifra, E.; Savalle, N. Experimental Study of Mechanical Behavior of Dry-Stone Structure Contact. Buildings; 2024; 14, 3744. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123744]
9. Lourenço, P.B.; Oliveira, D.V.; Roca, P.; Orduña, A. Dry joint stone masonry walls subjected to in-plane combined loading. J. Struct. Eng.; 2005; 131, pp. 1665-1673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:11(1665)]
10. Fonti, R. Heritage for a sustainable future—The theoretical principle of reversibility and its reflections on architecture. Agathon—Int. J. Archit. Art Des.; 2024; 16, pp. 144-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19229/2464-9309/16122024]
11. Balaban Okten, B.; Haydaroglu, C.; Benzoni, G. Structural engineering perspective on historic building restoration. Proc. Int. Struct. Eng. Constr.; 2016; 3, pp. 583-587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.res.2016.32]
12. Turk, J.; Mauko Pranjić, A.; Hursthouse, A.; Turner, R.; Hughes, J.J. Decision support criteria and the development of a decision support tool for the selection of conservation materials for the built cultural heritage. J. Cult. Herit.; 2019; 37, pp. 44-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.10.001]
13. Corradi, M.; Di Schino, A.; Borri, A.; Rufini, R. A review of the use of stainless steel for masonry repair and reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater.; 2018; 181, pp. 335-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.034]
14. Salmeron Escobar, P. Intervención en los pináculos de la Catedral de Jaén. Cuadernos de Arte de La Universidad de Granada; 1992; pp. 597-614. Available online: https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/caug/article/view/10946 (accessed on 26 March 2025).
15. Micelli, F.; Cascardi, A.; Aiello, M.A. A removable use of FRP for the confinement of heritage masonry columns. Mater. Struct.; 2023; 56, 184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-023-02270-1]
16. Aiello, M.A.; Bencardino, F.; Cascardi, A.; D’Antino, T.; Fagone, M.; Frana, I.; La Mendola, L.; Lignola, G.P.; Mazzotti, C.; Micelli, F.
17. Cascardi, A.; Dell’Anna, R.; Micelli, F.; Lionetto, F.; Aiello, M.A.; Maffezzoli, A. Reversible techniques for FRP-confinement of masonry columns. Constr. Build. Mater.; 2019; 225, pp. 415-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.124]
18. Alecci, V.; De Stefano, M.; Galassi, S.; Luciano, R.; Pugliese, D.; Stipo, G. Influence of Different Mortar Matrices on the Effectiveness of FRCM Composites for Confining Masonry Columns. J. Test. Eval.; 2022; 51, pp. 735-750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1520/JTE20220323]
19. Yazdani, N.; Beneberu, E.; Mohiuddin, A.H. CFRP retrofit of concrete circular columns: Evaluation of design guidelines. Compos. Struct.; 2018; 202, pp. 458-464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.066]
20. Thiagarajan, G. Experimental and Analytical Behavior of Carbon Fiber-Based Rods as Flexural Reinforcement. J. Compos. Constr.; 2003; 7, pp. 64-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:1(64)]
21. Hua, K.; Ding, H.; Sun, L.; Cao, Y.; Li, X.; Wu, H.; Wang, H. Enhancing high-temperature fretting wear resistance of TC21 titanium alloys by laser cladding self-lubricating composite coatings. J. Alloys Compd.; 2024; 977, 173360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.173360]
22. Wang, H.; Ban, C.; Zhao, N.; Kang, Y.; Qin, T.; Liu, S.; Cui, J. Enhanced strength and ductility of nano-grained titanium processed by two-step severe plastic deformation. Mater. Lett.; 2020; 266, 127485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2020.127485]
23. Shen, Y.; Hesham El Naggar, M.; Zhang, D.; Huang, Z.; Du, X. Optimal intensity measure for seismic performance assessment of shield tunnels in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils. Undergr. Space; 2025; 21, pp. 149-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2024.03.008]
24. Curti, E.; Podestá, S.; Scandolo, L. Simplified mechanical model for the seismic vulnerability evaluation of belfries. Int. J. Archit. Herit.; 2012; 6, pp. 605-625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.594932]
25. Funari, M.F.; Mehrotra, A.; Lourenço, P.B. A tool for the rapid seismic assessment of historic masonry structures based on limit analysis optimisation and rocking dynamics. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11030942]
26.
27. Pinto Puerto, F. La reconstrucción de los pináculos y gárgolas de la iglesia de Santiago de Jerez de la Frontera (1961–1965). Revista de Historia de Jerez; 2022; 25, pp. 235-254.
28. Ellis, B.R. Non-destructive dynamic testing of stone pinnacles on the palace of westminster. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Struct. Build.; 1998; 128, pp. 300-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/istbu.1998.30464]
29. Heyman, J. The Mansonry Arch. 1982; Available online: https://archive.org/details/masonryarch0000heym/page/n7/mode/2up (accessed on 26 March 2025).
30. Norma, D.C.S. Parte general y edificación (NCSE-02). BOE; 2002; 244, 2.
31. Documento Básicao SE-A. Código Técnico de Edificación. Documento Básicao de Seguridad Estructural; Acero. Ley; 2006; No. 38 Available online: https://www.codigotecnico.org/pdf/Documentos/SE/DBSE-A.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
32. Esbert Alemany, R.M.; Marcos Fierro, R.M.; Ordaz Gargallo, J.; Montoto San Miguel, M.; Suárez del Río, L.M.; Gómez Ruiz de Argandoña, V.; Calleja Escudero, L.; Alonso Rodríguez, F.J.; Rodríguez Rey, Á.M. Petrografía, propiedades físicas y durabilidad de algunas rocas utilizadas en el patrimonio monumental de Catalunya (España). Materiales de construcción; 1989; 39, pp. 37-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3989/mc.1989.v39.i214.808]
33. Verges Roig, S. Analisis de la pedra de Girona y comparació amb la pedra de Sant Vicenç; Final Degree Project; Universitat de Girona: Girona, Spain, 1998.
34. Cocking, S.; Price, S.; DeJong, M. The effects of wind on the loading and vibration of stone pinnacles. Mason. Int.; 2017; 29, pp. 53-60.
35. Dawood, A.O.; Sangoor, A.J.; Al-Rkaby, A.H.J. Behavior of tall masonry chimneys under wind loadings using CFD technique. Case Stud. Constr. Mater.; 2020; 13, e00451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00451]
36. Jansen, L.; Korswagen, P.A.; Bricker, J.D.; Pasterkamp, S.; de Bruijn, K.M.; Jonkman, S.N. Experimental determination of pressure coefficients for flood loading of walls of Dutch terraced houses. Eng. Struct.; 2020; 216, 110647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110647]
37. Heyman, J. The vibration of masonry pinnacles. Trans. Built Environ.; 1997; 26, pp. 429-436. Available online: https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/STR97/STR97041FU.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
38.
39. Bartoli, G.; Betti, M.; Facchini, L.; Orlando, M. Non-destructive characterization of stone columns by dynamic test: Application to the lower colonnade of the Dome of the Siena Cathedral. Eng. Struct.; 2012; 45, pp. 519-535. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.024]
40. Grazzini, A.; Fasana, S.; Zerbinatti, M.; Lacidogna, G. Non-destructive tests for damage evaluation of stone columns: The case study of sacro monte in ghiffa (Italy). Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 2673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10082673]
41. Ivorra, S.; Pallarés, F.J.; Adam, J.M. Masonry bell towers: Dynamic considerations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build.; 2011; 164, pp. 3-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.9.00030]
42. Casapulla, C.; Giresini, L.; Lourenço, P.B. Rocking and kinematic approaches for rigid block analysis of masonry walls: State of the art and recent developments. Buildings; 2017; 7, 69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings7030069]
43. Casapulla, C.; Argiento, L.U. In-plane frictional resistances in dry block masonry walls and rocking-sliding failure modes revisited and experimentally validated. Compos. Part B Eng.; 2018; 132, pp. 197-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.09.013]
44. Szemerey-Kiss, B.; Török, Á. Failure mechanisms of repair mortar stone interface assessed by pull-off strength tests. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.; 2017; 76, pp. 159-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0964-5]
45. Ramos, N.M.M.; Simões, M.L.; Delgado, J.M.P.Q.; De Freitas, V.P. Reliability of the pull-off test for in situ evaluation of adhesion strength. Constr. Build. Mater.; 2012; 31, pp. 86-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.097]
46.
47. Documento Básico SE-C. Codigo Tecnico de la Edificacion (CTE). Documento Basico de Seguredad Estructural; Cimientos. Ley; 2006; No. 38 Available online: https://www.codigotecnico.org/pdf/Documentos/SE/DBSE-C.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Chamorro, Miquel Àngel
; Costa Irieix
; Fontàs Joan
; Gifra Ester