This article was downloaded by: [193.194.88.

27] On: 19 February 2012, At: 06:16 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

Light Vaults With Frescoes or Stuccoes Strengthened by Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) the Role of the Reinforcement on Intrados Strains: First Experimental Data
Enrico Quagliarini & Marco D'Orazio
a a a

Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

Available online: 11 Jun 2010

To cite this article: Enrico Quagliarini & Marco D'Orazio (2010): Light Vaults With Frescoes or Stuccoes Strengthened by Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) the Role of the Reinforcement on Intrados Strains: First Experimental Data, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration, 4:4, 320-336 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583050903115069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 4: 320336, 2010 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1558-3058 print / 1558-3066 online DOI: 10.1080/15583050903115069

LIGHT VAULTS WITH FRESCOES OR STUCCOES STRENGTHENED BY GLASS FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (GFRP) THE ROLE OF THE REINFORCEMENT ON INTRADOS STRAINS: FIRST EXPERIMENTAL DATA Enrico Quagliarini and Marco DOrazio
Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

In many historical buildings built between the 16th and 19th centuries, light vaults are present made by wooden structures and mats of reeds and plaster carrying frescoes or stuccoes of architectural and historical value on the lower surface. Some of these structures today are in a precarious state of conservation, and a wide program of rehabilitation has started, especially with the use of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bandages on the upper surface. This article experimentally evaluates the effect that GFRP extrados bandages may have on the mechanical behavior of this system. In particular, the main issue is to evaluate how GFRP extrados reinforcement affects the intrados surface strains of the fresco or stucco plaster. Results show that GFRP reinforcement changes the mechanical behavior of the original system. In particular, under a particular load condition, intrados plaster surface and thus frescoes or stuccoes may deform more in the reinforced case than in the original case. Thus, looking forward to have more experimental results, GFRP strengthening should be carefully applied to this historic system to avoid frescoes and stuccoes on the intrados surface that could more easily crack for loads that were carried with no fissures before GFRP strengthening. KEY WORDS: plaster and reeds vaults, light wooden vaults, glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) strengthening, frescoes, stuccoes, architectural restoration, monoaxial tensile test

1. RESEARCH AIMS In many Italian buildings (e.g., palaces, churches, theatres) built between the end of the 1500 and the end of the 1800, suspended ceiling light structures (plaster and reeds vaults) are present, usually called camorcanna vaults (Figure 1). They are connected to wooden framework by nails and are made by mats of reeds and plaster carrying frescoes and/or stuccoes of architectural and historical value on the lower surface (Figure 2). Many of these structures are today in a precarious state of maintenance due to several issues: intrinsic degradation factors due to the materials from which they are made; the disarrangement events connected to particular static or dynamic events; and the greater thermal-hygrometric loads due to the adaptation of modern new airconditioning systems (Quagliarini et al. 2004b). That poor maintenance state is reflected in a precarious degradation of the plaster, most serious in relationship to
Received 9 February 2009; accepted 13 June 2009. Address correspondence to Enrico Quagliarini, Department of Architecture Constructions and Structures, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy. E-mail: e.quagliarini@univpm.it 320

LIGHT VAULTS

321

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 1. Photograph of the typical arrangement of the extrados fabric of reeds suspended by wooden light structures. It is important to note the different penetration of the plaster between and over the reeds (figure is provided in color online).

Figure 2. Photograph of the precious intrados with frescoes and stuccoes of the hall vault of the 19th-century theatre La Fenice (Amandola, Italy) (figure is provided in color online).

the presence on the lower surface of frescoes and/or stuccoes of remarkable artistic value. In particular, the 1997 earthquake that hit central Italy damaged several precious vaults of this type (Figure 3). In this way, new techniques have started to be used to recover these vaults (Quagliarini et al. 2004a). These techniques have been especially borrowed from the technologies for consolidation of masonry vaults based on fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bandages (De Lorenzis et al. 2007; Valluzzi et al. 2001; Triantafillou, 1998). These techniques are usually the application of multiple layers of glass fibers and epoxy resin bandages applied uniformly or in bands on the upper surface of the vault and above the wooden framework. This intervention allows
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

322

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 3. Photograph of some of the cracks that appeared at the frescoed intrados of the Eneide vault in Macerata (Italy), after the 1997 earthquake (figure is provided in color online).

the reattachment of the mat of plaster and reeds to the wooden structure, at the same time allowing consolidation of the mat. Recent experimental and analytical studies (Quagliarini et al. 2006) have pointed out that we have to consider this intervention with extreme caution. These results showed that an extensive use of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) at the extrados brought about both unwanted mechanical effects and, under the same conditions, the development of tensile stress at the intrados, and consequent cracking of the paintings and decorations, whereas the stress was not there before consolidation. This is the reason why we present the results of a subsequent experimental campaign to better evaluate the effects that GFRP strengthening has on these vaults and, in particular, on the bottom fresco or stucco surface, and provide general action criteria that could ensure proper conservation of intrados surface decorations. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS The research program was articulated in the following phases and with the following methodologies. To characterize the bond between plaster and reeds and thus how the intrados fresco or stucco surface deforms, both before and after the GFRP reinforcement, six representative samples were made without wooden structures. Materials similar to that ones found on site or suggested by historical authors were used (Stazi et al. 2002): extra-ventilated lime, gypsum plaster, sand (whose texture was 1 mm), mixed together by a volume ratio of 1:1:2, and 20-mm diameter reeds. Table 1 reports the mechanical characterization of plaster, reeds, and GFRP (Quagliarini et al. [2006] provides further details). The reeds were divided into four sections and weaved to form an orthogonal fabric: the reeds were close one to another along the principal direction, and they were separately placed into groups of three or four along the orthogonal direction, as these
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

LIGHT VAULTS Table 1. Mechanical characterization of plaster, reeds, and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) Characterization Reed Plaster GFRP

323

Young modulus , 1300 000 daN/cm2 Compressive strength

, 50,000 daN/cm2 , 58 daN/cm2 Bottom resin . 500 daN/cm2 Upper resin . 380 daN/cm2 Tensile strength Glass woven mat , 1760 daN/m (principal direction) 1580 daN/m (secondary direction) Flexural strength , 33 daN/cm2 Tensile breaking load , 85 daN (1-quarter reed)

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

plaster and reeds vaults were historically usually built. In this way, to characterize the mechanical behavior of the system in these two directions, two different types of samples were tested under tensile load applied to the reeds1 (Figure 4):  The A-type: where the loaded reeds are straight and they are separately placed into two groups of four along the applied tensile force;  The B-type: where the loaded reeds are sinusoidal shaped and they are close one to another along the applied tensile force. The dimensions of the samples are reported in Figure 5. Both typologies had an approximately one-quarter-ring section with concavity towards the plaster. Three A-type samples (A1, A2, A3) and three B-type samples (B1, B2, B3) were made and were tested under tensile load applied to the reeds, through loading and unloading cycles. The A1, A2, B1, and B2 samples were tested without FRP strengthening. The A3 and B3 samples were only tested with GFRP strengthening on the extrados reeds. Finally, the damaged A2 and B2 samples were reinforced by GFRP on the extrados reeds (called, A2C and B2C, respectively, in the following). These were then tested to see how the behavior of the samples varied according to the reinforcement and to assess any difference between broken reinforced samples and sound reinforced samples. The GFRP strengthening (Figure 6) was carried out by qualified staff from the company KIMIA SpA (Perugia, Italy), which has been in the market for years with products and technologies aimed at the sector of construction rehabilitation. The used loading device was a universal machine for tensile and compression tests by Metrocom Engineering SpA (Garbagna Novarese, Italy) (Figure 7). The force was applied to the sample by special metal plates glued to the reeds outside. The system was brought to breaking point to evaluate the loads causing the plaster to crack and break off and the reed grid to unravel. From Table 1, the expected magnitude of the breaking value of each quarter of reed was approximately 85 daN; thus it was chosen as an end first-cycle load value lower than this one per each quarter of reed. 2
It was decided to pull the reeds because: 1) loads are usually transmitted from reeds to plaster in this particular constructive system; and 2) the orthogonal fabric of the reeds may be assimilated to have a membrane behavior. Plaster has no tensile strength, so if one simultaneously pulls plaster plus reeds, plaster could easily crack and reeds keep on withstanding the tensile stress. 2 It is worth pointing out that the load condition is not centered on the whole plaster and reeds system. Furthermore, the loaded reeds, having an approximately one-quarter-ring section with concavity towards the plaster, are straight in the A-samples, whereas they are sinusoidal shaped in the B-samples. Thus, there is a tensile-bending condition in the loaded reeds as well as in the plaster. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336
1

324

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 4. Photographs of the two tested sample typologies: A) A-sample extrados and B) B-sample extrados; C) photograph of their intrados plaster (figure is provided in color online).

Six electric transducers (as shown in Figure 8) were used to measure longitudinal and transversal deformations of the bottom plaster surface and the orthogonal displacements along the orthogonal direction of the applied load. All the experimental data were processed, and the following quantities were determined:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

LIGHT VAULTS

325

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 5. Schematic illustration showing the geometric dimensions of the two tested typologies. All the samples had the dimensions of 0.25 0.50 m2. The reeds only stuck out for 0.25 m from it on the short side to allow the hook-up to the tensile machine and for 0.125 m on the other side. The thickness of the intrados plaster was 0.015 m.

Figure 6. Schematic illustration showing the glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing layers on the samples, using glass fiber bi-directional fabric. The GFRP reinforcement was also applied on the side of the free reeds and on the steel plates to prevent the reeds from breaking before the strengthened sample had deformed. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

326

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 7. Photograph of the experimental apparatus. Mono-axial tensile tests were performed on the samples with and without the glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement, with load and unload cycles. The system was hooked making the reeds stick out from the plaster and coupling these inside of steel designed plates by resins (figure is provided in color online).

 f {(4) [(5)(6)]/2} (mm), the middle deflection, where (4), (5) and (6) are the measure in mm recorded by transducers as in Figure 8;  Ru the breaking load value (daN); and  Rc the cracking load value of the intrados plaster surface (daN).

3. EXPERIMENTAL DATA Figures 916 show the measured intrados strains and the middle deflection f of the samples. All the breaking load values Ru, the cracking load values of the intrados plaster Rc, the way of cracking and breaking of the samples are reported in Table 2.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

LIGHT VAULTS

327

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 8. Schematic illustration showing the six transducers used to assess an average behavior of the sample. Two longitudinal deformations on the first two halves of the plaster were measured by transducers (1) and (2); one transversal deformation of the plaster close to the middle zone was measured by transducer (3); three displacements of the reeds along the orthogonal direction of the applied load were measured by transducers (4), (5), and (6), respectively, as well as the deflections of the centre line, and of the upper and lower bounds.

Figure 9. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (1) for A-samples (figure is provided in color online).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

328

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Figure 10. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (2) for A-samples (figure is provided in color online).

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 11. Graph of the experimental values of the fourth cycle of transducer (1) for A-samples between 0 and 900 daN (figure is provided in color online).

Figure 12. Graph of the middle deflection f of A-samples (figure is provided in color online). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

LIGHT VAULTS

329

Figure 13. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (3) for A-samples (figure is provided in color online).

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 14. Photograph of the A3-sample after the tensile test. Three roughly horizontal cracks are evident (figure is provided in color online).

3.1. A-Samples: A1, A2, A3, and A2C Looking at Figures 9 and 10, all the reinforced samples show higher intrados surface strains than those unreinforced at the same load, even with a difference of one order of magnitude. This is true for all cycles, considering the slopes of the curves and that low residues can occur after every load and unload cycle. Figure 11 reports a zoom of the fourth cycle as an example. This means that after the GFRP reinforcing the plaster has a stronger bond with the reeds and it participates to bear the applied
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

330

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Figure 15. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (1) for B-samples (figure is provided in color online).

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 16. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (2) for B-samples (figure is provided in color online).

loads more. In the same way, the middle deflection f always shows higher values in the reinforced condition (Figure 12). In the unreinforced samples both the transducers (3) do not reveal significant intrados strains (Figure 13), while in the reinforced samples all the transducers (3) give comparable, even if low, tensile strain values: this means that now intrados plaster takes part in a more significant manner. No cracks have appeared on the intrados plaster surface of the unreinforced samples (three reeds have broken off at breaking). In this case plaster does not seem to affect the test much, as nearly all the load being withstood by the reeds, which on average reached the expected breaking value. The A3 and A2C-samples have shown no intrados cracks up to approximately 10001200 daN, both under the transducers (1), (Figures 9 and 10). In both cases, after intrados cracking, all the corresponding transducers change from compression to tensile strain values, thus the intrados plaster now goes in traction. At the end of the test, the cracks of the intrados plaster were roughly horizontal (Figure 14). No significant differences seem to be present between broken reinforced sample (A2C) and sound reinforced sample (A3). The breaking loads of the strengthened samples have been at least more than three times and half higher than the respective unstrengthened samples, and they made all the reeds break off. 3.2. B-Samples: B1, B2, B3, and B2C As Figures 15 and 16 reveal, reinforced and unreinforced samples show comparable intrados strains at the same load. Figure 17 reports a zoom of the first cycle before
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Table 2. Mechanical parameters of the tested samples A1 840 8 105.0 90.6 1 2 3 4 All reeds Reeds #6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17 NO 610 8 76.3 3820 8 477.5 1290 16 80.6 1 2 3 4 5 Reeds #6, 7, 8 A2 A3 A2C B1 B2 B3 B2C 6000 16 375.0 1 (,550 daN) 2 (,1500 daN) 3 (,2100 daN)

Sample

Ru (daN) 1 quarter-loaded reeds Load per 1 quarter reed (daN) Average load per 1 quarter reed (daN) Way of cracking (cracking load)

331

3070 8 383.8 430.6 1 (,1200 daN) 2 (,1400 daN) 3 (,1800 daN)

1020 16 63.8 72.2 (,1000 daN) 1 (,500 daN) (,1300 daN) (,2000 daN) (,2500 daN)

Way of breaking

Reeds #4, Reeds #6, All reeds 5, 6 7, 8

5690 16 355.6 365.3 (,500 daN) (,1500 daN) (,1800 daN) (,2200 daN) (,2500 daN) All reeds

All reeds

Ru, the breaking load value (daN).

332

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 17. Graph of the experimental values of the first cycle of transducer (2) for B-samples between 0 and 600 daN (figure is provided in color online).

the first crack of the intrados surface, as an example. This is true up to the first intrados crack, which appears at approximately 400500 daN for B1-sample (as its transducer [1] shows in Figure 15) and for B3- and B2C-samples (as their transducers [2] show in Figure 16). This can be observed in Figure 16, too. No cracks, instead, appear on the intrados plaster of B2-sample. After the first intrados crack, the intrados plaster surfaces of the reinforced samples change from compression to tensile strain values, as their transducers (2) show in Figure 16. The intrados plaster surface of the unreinforced B1-sample, instead, keeps on working by compression (as its transducer (1) reveals in Figure 15). This can be appreciated even looking at Figure 18: the middle deflections f of the reinforced samples are initially towards the reeds (extrados) as in the unreinforced condition, and then towards the plaster (intrados). At the end of the test, the cracks of the intrados plaster were principally roughly horizontal with some other small ramifications (Figure 19). All the transducers (3) reveal no significant values (Figure 20). No significant differences seem to exist between broken reinforced sample (B2C) and sound reinforced sample (B3). The breaking loads of the strengthened samples are at

Figure 18. Graph of the middle deflection f of B-samples (figure is provided in color online). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

LIGHT VAULTS

333

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

Figure 19. Photograph of the B2C-sample after the tensile test. Three principal approximately horizontal cracks are evident together with other branched small cracks (figure is provided in color online).

Figure 20. Graph of the experimental values of transducer (3) for B-samples (figure is provided in color online). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

334

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

least more than four times higher than the respective unstrengthened samples, and, even in this case, they made all the reeds break off.

4. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 4.1. Samples Without Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening: A1, A2, B1, and B2 From experimental data the following observations can be drawn:  Settling movements have been recorded especially after the first loading cycle, whereas the following loading cycles have been usually more regular with low residues. A possible explanation is that the reeds are initially not completely in tension, and then they can slide on each other. Moreover, the different penetration of the plaster between and over the reeds, making the plaster linked to the reeds in a punctual and inhomogeneous manner, could help these settling movements. The stronger is this link, the stronger the plaster will follow the deformation of the reeds up to its cracking (B1). The weaker is this link, the easier the possibility of local plasticization will be as noted in following text.  All the transducers (1) and (2) give compression strain values, when re-loaded, thus plaster intrados surface does not suffer from tensile stress when the reeds are pulled.  A-samples arrive at breaking point (610840 daN) with no cracks on the intrados plaster surface. One of the B-samples, namely B1, cracks (400500 daN) before reaching its breaking load (1020 daN). The different geometric arrangement of the reeds could have a role for this different behavior, and further experimental campaigns are needed in order to better evaluate this parameter. In this case, anyway, B1-samples only crack has started at the extrados plaster surface (for tensile stress) and the intrados plaster surface has kept on suffering from compressive strains, as its transducer (1) shows, preventing this crack to extend. This can be appreciated by considering the middle deflections f that are always towards the reeds (extrados), that is plaster concavity is towards the plaster (intrados): in this way the intrados plaster surface always suffers from compressive stress.  All the transducers (3) have given no significant values for each sample typology. This means that plaster does not participate to transverse deformations.  There is a slight but similar difference of the breaking load value between the same typology samples (approximately 20%30%) and further experimental campaigns are needed in order to have better statistical values. Anyway, this difference can almost surely be ascribed to the non-homogeneity of the samples due to its own constructive technology (i.e., the actual shape and section of every single reeds, the actual thickness of the plaster along and between every single reeds and the exact contact points or contact surfaces between reeds and plaster). 4.2. Samples With Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening: A3, A2C, B3, and B2C From experimental data the following observations can be drawn:  All the reinforced samples has shown intrados surface strains much more higher (A-samples) or comparable (B-samples) than unreinforced samples, up to the first
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

LIGHT VAULTS

335

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

intrados surface crack. After this point, the intrados surface near this crack goes in traction and keeps on enlarging this crack. All the intrados surfaces of the samples crack several times before reaching their breaking point. Cracks always start from intrados plaster surface (our high value surface) that reached high tensile strains. The middle deflections f, after the first intrados surface crack, are always towards the plaster (intrados) for strengthened B-samples, that is plaster concavity is towards the reeds (extrados): in this way the intrados plaster surface (our high value surface) suffers from tensile stress. This surely shows that the GFRP strengthening changes the mechanical behavior of the original system. The unstrengthened samples, in fact, have their middle deflections f always towards the extrados, even if cracked (B1-sample), at the same load condition. Moreover, all the transducers (3) of the strengthened A-samples show comparable, even if low, tensile strain values, while unstrengthened A-samples have negligible values. All the samples have generally shown a more regular behavior than the corresponding unstrengthened samples, and the load-strain or load-displacement diagrams seem to have a closely linear trend with very low residues. All the samples collapsed with all the reeds breaking at the same time owing to the resin coming off from the anchoring plate. The average breaking load values of strengthened samples are at least 4.75 higher than unstrengthened samples. There is a slight difference of the breaking load value between A-samples (approximately 20%), whereas there is no significant difference between B-samples (approximately 5%).

5. CONCLUSIONS The main issue of the research was to determine if, under any identical load conditions, intrados plaster surface, and thus frescoes or stuccoes, could more easily crack or deform if reinforced on the upper reeds by GFRP. The mono-axial tensile tests have confirmed the hypotheses initially put forward of a changing in the mechanical behavior of the original system when fully strengthened by extrados GFRP. As expected, the ultimate load has considerably increased due to the fact that now we relied on the FRP strength, but this has not prevented the strengthened samples from showing higher intrados surface strains versus unreinforced samples for particular load conditions (particularly evident for A-samples), a confirmation of the fact that plaster is bound to the reeds through a less continuous and less strong constraint than that created by the FRP reinforcement. In particular, all the reinforced samples have shown intrados surface strains much more higher (A-samples) or comparable (B-samples) than unreinforced samples, up to the first intrados surface crack. After this point, all the reinforced samples have shown that the intrados surface near this first crack goes in traction and keeps on enlarging this crack. However, the intrados plaster surface of the only unreinforced sample (B1) that cracked continued experiencing compressive strains, preventing this crack from extending. As a matter of fact, the middle deflections f of the reinforced samples were higher (A-samples), or in a completely different direction (B-samples) than in the original situation. Thus, these first results seem to underline that frescoes and stuccoes on the intrados surface could more easily deform till cracking in the reinforced case and that
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336

336

E. QUAGLIARINI AND M. DORAZIO

the same original nature of such vaults tends to preserve the precious intrados surface from possible and wide cracks. In this way, looking forward to have more experimental results, GFRP strengthening should be carefully applied on this historic system. Further researches and further experimental campaigns are still undergoing to provide a much more detailed mechanical knowledge of this constructive system, to have better statistical data and to propose new techniques of intervention for a better care and safeguard of frescoes and stuccoes frequently present on the intrados vault.

REFERENCES
De Lorenzis, L., Dimitri, R., and La Tegola, A. 2007. Reduction of the lateral thrust of masonry arches and vaults with FRP composites. Construction and Building Materials 21: 14151430. Quagliarini, E., DOrazio, M., and Stazi, A. 2006. Rehabilitation and consolidation of highvalue camorcanna vaults with FRP. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7(1):1322. Quagliarini E., Giacchetti R., DOrazio M., and Stazi A. 2004a. Criteria for the restoration and consolidation of camorcanna vaults with precious intrados. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Innovative Materials and Technologies for Construction and Restoration, June 69, 2004, Lecce, Italy. Napoli, Italy: Liguori Editore, vol. 2, 403416. Quagliarini E., DOrazio M., and Stazi A. 2004b. Durability assessment of FRP wraps applied on high artistic plaster and reeds vaults. In Proceedings of 4th International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, November 1013, 2004, Padova, Italy. London, UK: A. A. Balkema Publishers, vol 2, 883889. Stazi, A., DOrazio, M., and Quagliarini, E. 2002. Il recupero delle strutture lignee rivestite con stuoiati: Dalla conoscenza del sistema costruttivo alle tecniche di intervento [in Italian]. Recupero e Conservazione, De Lettera Editore 43:6267. Triantafillou, T. C. 1998. Composites: A new possibility for the shear strengthening of concrete, masonry and wood. Composites Science and Technology 58(8):12851295. Valluzzi, M. R., Valdemarca, M., and Modena, C. 2001. Behavior of brick masonry vaults strengthened by FRP laminates. Journal of Composites for Construction 5(3):163169.

Downloaded by [193.194.88.27] at 06:16 19 February 2012

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 4(4): 320336