heritage

Article
An Experimental Study on the Effect of Water on
Historic Brickwork Masonry
Domenico Giaccone 1, * , Ulderico Santamaria 1 and Marco Corradi 2
1 Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of Tuscia,
01100 Viterbo, Italy; santamaria@unitus.it
2 Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, 06125 Perugia, Italy; marco.corradi@unipg.it
* Correspondence: d.giaccone@unitus.it; Tel.: +39-(0)761-357-645; Fax: +39-(0)761-357-676




Received: 13 December 2019; Accepted: 8 January 2020; Published: 10 January 2020


Abstract: Architectural heritage is deeply threatened by extreme weather events due to ongoing
climatic change. Since these phenomena are becoming more and more serious, their effects cannot
be neglected when a reliable assessment of a historic masonry structure is required. In this paper,
the phenomenon of rising damp was studied, focusing on the influence of water on the unit
weight of masonry walls made from fired clay bricks and lime mortar. This study consists of a basic
experimental research on the variations in the unit weight of masonry undergoing an ageing treatment,
which was simulated through some cycles of capillary water absorption and temperature changes.
The experimental study proves that penetrating damp causes an increase in masonry unit weight
of more than 20%. This basic result is significant in the structural assessment of historic masonry
buildings. Subsequent papers will analyze the interaction with strengths parameters.

Keywords: water effect; historic masonry; architectural heritage; lime mortar; clay bricks

1. Introduction
Architectural heritage has always suffered damage, which is the result of the decay of the masonry
materials that occurs over time. Restorers and other professional figures involved in its conservation
can slow down this process, but natural hazards are more and more serious and their effects cannot
be ignored.
Nowadays, the awareness that architectural heritage is deeply threatened by climate change is
becoming ever more apparent [1–3]. Changes in average climatic conditions occurring over a long
period of time, result in an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as
the rise in environmental temperature, relative humidity, and freeze-thaw cycles. These phenomena
directly affect the physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms, which can cause the deterioration
of construction materials and therefore of the cultural assets themselves. Measuring the effects of
these phenomena is a necessary condition for the analysis of the heritage assets, and will allow us to
undertake a reliable assessment of the risks facing such assets and decide on an appropriate course of
action for their protection.
Water is one of the most serious causes of damage to masonry architectural heritage [4–6]. It is
the main actor in hazards, which lead both to sudden and slow disasters, such as floods on the one
hand, and precipitations and water intrusion on the other [7]. With an increased strain on resources for
conservation and protection, these natural events represent a major threat to architectural heritage.
Heavy rain falls and flooding recently struck many parts of Europe, causing heavy damages and the
collapse of important heritage structures. The city walls of Amelia [8], Italy, Cockermouth Castle,
UK [9,10], and the fortress of Magliano (Figure 1) [11], also in Italy, are examples of heritage masonry
structures recently collapsed or damaged due to water-related issues.

Heritage 2020, 3, 29–46; doi:10.3390/heritage3010003 www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage

Heritage 2020, 3 30
Heritage
Heritage 2020,
2020, 33 FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 22

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 1.1. Example
Exampleofof
1. Example ofthethe effect
effect
the of
of heavy
of heavy
effect and
and extended
and extended
heavy rainfalls:
rainfalls:
extended the citythe
rainfalls: city
wall
the wall
of the
city of
of the
theoffortress
wallfortress of
Magliano,
fortress of
Magliano, Italy,
Italy, suddenly
Magliano, suddenly
Italy,collapsed collapsed
suddenlyincollapsed in
2012: (a)in 2012:
before (a)
2012:the before the
(a) collapse;
before the collapse;
(b) (b) after.
after. (b) after.
collapse;

If
If water
water penetrates
penetrates from
from the
the ground,
ground, thethe rising damp
rising damp phenomenon
phenomenon occurs.
damp phenomenon occurs. It
ItIt can
can affect
can affect any
affect any
building element which is close to the ground,
ground, such
such as
as the
the wall
wall structures.
structures. Figure
Figure
building element which is close to the ground, such as the wall structures. Figure 2 shows two 2 shows two
representative
representative examples
examples in
in Rome.
Rome. The
The first
first relates
relates to
to one
one of
of the
the aulae
the aulae of
aulae of the
of the former
the former Bath
former Bath of
Bath of Diocletian,
of Diocletian,
Diocletian,
now
now a National Museum, while the second relates to one of the lateral chapels of the San Pietro
a National Museum,
Museum, while
while the
the second
second relates
relates to
to one
one of the lateral chapels
chapels of the San Pietro in
in
Vincoli church.
Vincoli church.

(a)
(a)
Figure 2. Cont.
Heritage 2020, 3 31
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 3

(b)

(a) Diocletian
Figure 2. (a) Diocletian Bath,
Bath, Rome;
Rome; (b) San Pietro in Vincoli church, Rome, Italy.
(b) San Italy.

The
The deterioration
deterioration due due to to rising
rising dampdamp can can bebe initiated
initiated by by different
different factors
factors linked
linked to to both
both thethe
physical properties of the building’s materials, such as porosity, and
physical properties of the building’s materials, such as porosity, and to errors in design, such as the to errors in design, such as the
lack
lack ofof aa water-proof
water-proof system system for for the
the protection
protection of of the
the wall
wall basement.
basement.
Rising damp triggers physical, chemical,
Rising damp triggers physical, chemical, and biological processes and biological processes of of alteration
alteration and and deterioration,
deterioration,
very often concurrently
very often concurrently [12]. [12].Visible
Visible signs
signs (such(such as color
as color change),
change), environmental
environmental discomfort,
discomfort, and
and
worsening of performances are some of the effects of these processes. The latter consistsconsists
worsening of performances are some of the effects of these processes. The latter of several of
several
factors, factors,
including including those concerning
those concerning mechanical mechanical
behavior. behavior.
From this Frompoint thisof point
view, of view, authors
several several
authors have studied the problem, focusing mainly on the degradation
have studied the problem, focusing mainly on the degradation in terms of ultimate strength and in terms of ultimate strength and
stiffness. In 1972, Stang et al. [13] carried out an extensive experimental
stiffness. In 1972, Stang et al. [13] carried out an extensive experimental campaign of tests on masonry campaign of tests on masonry
walls
walls made
made of of fired
fired clay
clay bricks
bricks and and limelime mortar,
mortar, and and proved
proved thatthat water
water reduces
reduces the the compressive
compressive
strength
strength of bricks, mortar, and masonry as a whole. Franzoni et al. [14] used masonry triplets
of bricks, mortar, and masonry as a whole. Franzoni et al. [14] used masonry triplets mademade
of
of fired
fired clay
clay bricks
bricks andand cement
cement mortar,mortar, and and proved
proved that that water
water cancan cause
cause aa decrease
decrease in in compressive
compressive
and
and shear
shear strength,
strength, as as well
well as as aa non-relevant
non-relevant change change in in stiffness. Amde et
stiffness. Amde et al.
al. [15]
[15] obtained
obtained similarsimilar
results. They performed experiments on masonry specimens
results. They performed experiments on masonry specimens made of bricks and cement-lime mortar, made of bricks and cement-lime mortar,
and
and proved
provedthat thatthe theratio
ratiobetween
betweenthe thecompressive
compressive strength
strengthmeasured
measured in wet
in wetandanddry specimens
dry specimens is 0.81,
is
while the ratio between the corresponding elastic moduli is
0.81, while the ratio between the corresponding elastic moduli is 0.88. Graubohm and Brameshuber0.88. Graubohm and Brameshuber [16]
studied
[16] studiedthe problem,
the problem,also considering
also considering the effect the of effect
freeze-thaw cycles, concluding
of freeze-thaw that the mechanical
cycles, concluding that the
properties of the masonry are not significantly
mechanical properties of the masonry are not significantly affected. affected.
Knowing
Knowing how how these
these parameters
parameters change change in in aa damaged
damaged building element compared
building element compared to to aa healthy
healthy
building, allows one to conduct a more reliable structural analysis;
building, allows one to conduct a more reliable structural analysis; this is important to understand this is important to understand
their
their behavior
behaviorand andprevent
prevent their ruin.ruin.
their AlthoughAlthough thesethese
parameters are significant,
parameters they are they
are significant, not sufficient
are not
to define the mechanical behavior of the wall completely. In fact, in
sufficient to define the mechanical behavior of the wall completely. In fact, in the simplest situations, the simplest situations, one also
needs
one also to needs
know, to at know,
the very at least,
the very the least,
unit weight.
the unit weight.
This
This study consists of a basic experimental research,
study consists of a basic experimental research, whichwhich aimsaims to to investigate
investigate how how the the unit
unit
weight of masonry varies when it is affected by rising damp.
weight of masonry varies when it is affected by rising damp. This was done using a set of masonry This was done using a set of masonry
specimens,
specimens, which whichunderwent
underwent ananageing
ageing treatment
treatment in the inlaboratory
the laboratoryin order in to simulate
order being exposed
to simulate being
to severe environmental conditions.
exposed to severe environmental conditions.
Unit
Unit weight
weight or or weight
weight density
density is is defined
defined as as the
the ratio
ratio between
between the the weight
weight and and thethe unit
unit volume
volume
(usually, measured in kg/m 3 ). In the field of material science, two definitions of density are provided.
(usually, measured in kg/m ). In the field of material science, two definitions of density are provided.
3

Real
Real density
density is is the
the ratio
ratio between
between the the weight
weight of of the
the solid
solid particles
particles andand their
their volume. Apparent density
volume. Apparent density
is
is the
the ratio
ratio between
between the the weight
weight and and thethe volume,
volume, also also including
including internal
internal voids.
voids.
Masonry can be considered a composite material
Masonry can be considered a composite material with a heterogeneous with a heterogeneous and hierarchical structure,
and hierarchical
because
structure, because it is an assemblage of units (such as bricks or stones) and mortar which, in turn, of
it is an assemblage of units (such as bricks or stones) and mortar which, in turn, is a mixture is
aa binder and an aggregate. As a result of this structure, defining the
mixture of a binder and an aggregate. As a result of this structure, defining the density of the density of the masonry is a difficult
task,
masonry sinceisita isdifficult
influencedtask,not since only byinfluenced
it is the intrinsic notphysical
only by properties
the intrinsic of physical
the constituent
properties materials,
of the
but also by workmanship, method of construction, wall
constituent materials, but also by workmanship, method of construction, wall arrangement arrangement and deterioration. In a wall
and
affected
deterioration. In a wall affected by rising damp, the voids are filled with water, which contributes of
by rising damp, the voids are filled with water, which contributes to the increased weight to
the increased weight of the masonry itself. As a consequence, the apparent density and the weight
Heritage 2020, 3 32

Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 4

the masonry itself. As a consequence, the apparent density and the weight density increase. Moreover,
density increase.
rising damp usuallyMoreover,
does notrising
affect damp
the wholeusually
wall,does not affect
but only the whole
its lowest part. Itwall, but only
is therefore its lowest
appropriate
part.
to divide the wall into different homogeneous parts, and to assign to them the correspondingassign
It is therefore appropriate to divide the wall into different homogeneous parts, and to value toof
them the corresponding
the weight density. value of the weight density.
To simulatetypical
To simulate typicalmoisture
moistureconditions,
conditions, Smith
Smith [17]
[17] proposed
proposed conjectural
conjectural models,models, validated
validated by
by data
data collected by other scholars [18–22]. From a macroscopic point of view, it is possible
collected by other scholars [18–22]. From a macroscopic point of view, it is possible to recognize at least to recognize
at least
three three sections
sections in a wallinaffected
a wall affected
by risingby risingthe
damp: damp: the which
lowest, lowest,iswhich
alwaysischaracterized
always characterized by
by a critical
alevel
critical level of water content, the uppermost, where the amount of water is
of water content, the uppermost, where the amount of water is not to be considered pathological,not to be considered
pathological, and the intermediate,
and the intermediate, where the amount where ofthe amount
water changesof water changes
cyclically cyclically
depending depending
on the on the
environmental
environmental
conditions. Theconditions. The latterby
latter is delimited is the
delimited
lowestby andthehighest
lowestwater
and highest
marks,water marks,
that is, that is, two
two borderlines
borderlines (MinBIh and MaxBIh), within which, the rising front ranges
(MinBIh and MaxBIh), within which, the rising front ranges periodically. These borderlines identify periodically. These
borderlines
iso-humidityidentify iso-humidity
(IH) surfaces, (IH)
so called surfaces,
because sopoint
each calledofbecause
masonry each point oftomasonry
belonging them hasbelonging
the same
to them has
content the same
of water. content
Looking of water.
at the Lookingofatthe
cross section thewall,
crossiso-humidity
section of thesurfaces
wall, iso-humidity
define, moresurfaces
or less,
define, more or less, a Gaussian
a Gaussian curve, as shown in Figure 3. curve, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Typical situation of a masonry wall affected by rising damp.

Figure 3. Typical situation of a masonry wall affected by rising damp.

Water, which rises from the ground and enters the masonry via capillary action, spreads in a way
Water, which rises from the ground and enters the masonry via capillary action, spreads in a
that is closely linked both to the brick bonding pattern and to the thermo-hygrometric conditions to
way that is closely linked both to the brick bonding pattern and to the thermo-hygrometric conditions
which the two sides of the wall are exposed.
to which the two sides of the wall are exposed.
In a wall characterized by a homogeneous material and which has its sides exposed to the same
In a wall characterized by a homogeneous material and which has its sides exposed to the same
environmental conditions, MinBIh and MaxBIh on both wall sides are approximately horizontal and
environmental conditions, MinBIh and MaxBIh on both wall sides are approximately horizontal and
have the same height from the ground. A schematic representation of this situation is shown in
have the same height from the ground. A schematic representation of this situation is shown in Figure
Figure 3.
3.
In the past, several scholars proposed mathematical formulas to relate the height of the rising
In the past, several scholars proposed mathematical formulas to relate the height of the rising
front to the other physical parameters that characterize the phenomenon [23–26]. The mechanism of
front to the other physical parameters that characterize the phenomenon [23–26]. The mechanism of
moisture transport within a porous material is complex, thus, many parameters influence the height
moisture transport within a porous material is complex, thus, many parameters influence the height
of the rising front. In actual conditions, a direct survey is the most reliable way to check the level of
of the rising front. In actual conditions, a direct survey is the most reliable way to check the level of
damage. It can be done by means of diagnostic instruments or through a sensitive experience, which is
damage. It can be done by means of diagnostic instruments or through a sensitive experience, which
the simplest way. The lowest section of a wall affected by rising damp is easily recognizable thanks to
is the simplest way. The lowest section of a wall affected by rising damp is easily recognizable thanks
the permanent change of color due to the wetting effect. In the intermediate section, the color changes
to the permanent change of color due to the wetting effect. In the intermediate section, the color
cyclically, and efflorescences may be also found due to salts carried by the water being layered down
changes cyclically, and efflorescences may be also found due to salts carried by the water being
before evaporating.
layered down before evaporating.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparing the Materials

This study was carried out on small brickwork masonry specimens, made of a few units joined
by mortar courses (bed joints). They were made in the laboratory, following traditional building
techniques and using materials readily available in northern Latium, Italy.
Heritage 2020, 3 33

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparing the Materials

This study was carried out on small brickwork masonry specimens, made of a few units joined
by mortar courses (bed joints). They were made in the laboratory, following traditional building
techniques and using materials readily available in northern Latium, Italy.
The units used for construction are fired clay bricks with nominal dimensions of 100 × 210 ×
20 mm. They were manufactured in a local kiln following a traditional process consisting of several
steps: hand-molding the pieces using wooden molds; natural drying; firing in a wood-fired oven
reaching a temperature of about 1000 ◦ C, for 85 h, consecutively; natural cooling for five days.
A2020,
Heritage pozzolanic
3 FOR PEERmortar
REVIEWwas used for construction. This was prepared by mixing three parts of 5
aggregate and one of binder, according to a traditional method that already known by the Romans [27]
The units
and widely used for construction
reproduced in the following are centuries
fired clay[28].
bricks
Thewith
mixnominal dimensions
was prepared of 100 × 210
in the laboratory × 20
where
mm. They were manufactured
the environmental temperature wasin a 24 ◦ C kiln
local following
and the relativeahumidity
traditionalwasprocess consistingwere
70%. Elements of several
mixed
steps:
through hand-molding
a trowel, until the
anpieces
adequateusing wooden
blend molds; natural
and consistency drying; firing
was obtained. in a wood-fired
The water/binding oven
ratio by
reaching
volume was a temperature of about
1/4. The binder was 1000 °C, for 85 h,available
a commercially consecutively; natural
lime-putty, andcooling for five
its physical days.
characteristics
A pozzolanicinmortar
are summarized wasThey
Table 1. usedwerefor construction. This was prepared
determined according to the ENby mixing
459-1 three [29]
standard partsand
of
aggregate
provided by andthe
onemanufacturer.
of binder, according to a traditional
The aggregate method
consisted that already
in a pozzolana came known
fromby the Romans
a local quarry.
[27]
It wasand widely reproduced
characterized throughin the following
a sieving centuriesin
test, performed [28]. The mix with
accordance was prepared
the EN 933-1 in the
[30]laboratory
standard.
where the environmental
Test results temperature
are shown in Figure 4 and in was 24 °C
Table 2. and the relative humidity was 70%. Elements were
mixed through
The masonrya trowel, until(Figure
specimens an adequate blend and
5) reproduce consistency
a single-leaf wallwas
withobtained.
a stretching Thebonding
water/binding
pattern.
ratio by volume
According was 1/4. The
to bibliographical binder
sources was experimental
[31,32], a commercially work available
aimed tolime-putty,
characterize andwetits physical
masonry is
characteristics
usually conducted are summarized
on single-leafinmasonry
Table 1. They were determined
specimens with stacking according
or runningto the
bondENpatterns.
459-1 standard
In this
[29]
study,andtheprovided
second was by preferred
the manufacturer.
because itThe aggregate
allowed consisted
us to take in a pozzolana
into account came from
vertical mortar jointsa (head
local
quarry. It was characterized through a sieving test, performed in accordance with
joints). According to Massari [33], this is a significant feature because water rises with a different the EN 933-1 [30]
standard.
velocity inTest results
bricks and are shown
mortar in Figure
joints 4 anddifferent
due to their in Tableresponses
2. to water intrusion.

Table
Table 1. Properties
Properties of
of the
the lime
lime putty.
putty.

Apparent
Apparent Density
Density 13001300
kg/m 3
kg/m3
Type
Type of lime
of lime CL 90
CLS-PL
90 S-PL
Grain sizesize
Grain min 98% lower thanthan
min 98% lower 0.1 0.1
mm mm
CaCO3 max 4%
CaCO3 max 4%
CL 90 S-PL = Calcium lime with CaO + MgO content ≥ 90%, in the form of lime putty, in accordance. with 4.4 of EN
CL 90 S-PL = Calcium lime with CaO + MgO content ≥ 90%, in the form of lime putty, in accordance.
459-1:2010.
with 4.4 of EN 459-1:2010.

100

80
Passing (%)

60
Poz1
40
Poz2
20
Poz3
0
<0.063

0.063

0.125

0.25

0.5

>5

Sieve Opening (mm)

Figure 4. Grain-size distribution of the pozzolana.

Figure 4. Grain-size distribution of the pozzolana.

Table 2. Cumulative passing fraction of pozzolana after the sieving test.

Sieve Size (mm) Poz1 Poz2 Poz3

<0.063 0.09 0.09 0.03
0.063 13.77 14.95 15.37
0.125 21.46 22.66 22.97
0.25 29.84 31.37 31.42
0.5 40.72 42.74 42.69
Heritage 2020, 3 34

Table 2. Cumulative passing fraction of pozzolana after the sieving test.

Sieve Size (mm) Poz1 Poz2 Poz3

<0.063 0.09 0.09 0.03
0.063 13.77 14.95 15.37
0.125 21.46 22.66 22.97
0.25 29.84 31.37 31.42
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW0.5 40.72 42.74 42.69 6
1 54.86 57.28 57.36
mortar joints (head joints). According
2 to Massari
71.65 [33], this 74.71
is a significant feature because water rises
74.41
>2 and mortar joints
with a different velocity in bricks 100 due to their100 different responses
100 to water intrusion.

Figure 5. A brickwork masonry specimen.

Each masonry
Each masonry specimens
specimens had had aa nominal
nominal size
sizeof 100×× 210
of100 210 × 155 mm.
× 155 mm. TheThe ratio
ratio between
between the
the brick
brick
and the
and the mortar
mortar volumes
volumes in in each
each masonry
masonry specimen
specimen waswas 6:1. The ratio
6:1. The ratio between
between the the brick
brick and
and bed
bed joint
joint
thicknesses was 1.4. This value was rather low compared to that suggested by
thicknesses was 1.4. This value was rather low compared to that suggested by the “Rule of the Art” the “Rule of the Art” (i.e.,
technical
(i.e., expedients
technical to respect
expedients the building
to respect and obtain
the building theobtain
and best structural
the bestperformances), according to
structural performances),
which the thickness of bed joints should be as small as possible. However,
according to which the thickness of bed joints should be as small as possible. However, the the use of thick beduse
jointsof
was very common in Latium, especially during Roman times and the Middle
thick bed joints was very common in Latium, especially during Roman times and the Middle Ages Ages [34,35] (Figure 6).
[34,35] Masonry
(Figurespecimens
6). were constructed using the following process: several bricks were initially
cut inMasonry
half using specimens weredisc
a hand-held cutter with
constructed a diamond
using blade. process:
the following Bricks were subsequently
several bricks were soaked in
initially
deionized
cut in half water
using for a durationdisc
a hand-held of about
cuttersix hours,
with in orderblade.
a diamond to prevent
Bricksthem
werefrom absorbing soaked
subsequently the water in
from the mortar
deionized water forjoints. Meanwhile,
a duration thesix
of about lime mortar
hours, was prepared
in order to preventandthemspecimens were assembled.
from absorbing the water
They
from the were left outdoors
mortar for curing,the
joints. Meanwhile, for lime
a duration
mortar of four
was months,and
prepared sheltered
specimens fromwere
rainassembled.
and wind,
in thermo-hygrometric
They were left outdoorsconditions
for curing,thatfor aallowed
durationforofthe
fourphenomenon of setting
months, sheltered fromwithout
rain and the risk of
wind, in
deterioration [Temperature (T) = 18–20 ◦ C; Relative Humidity (HR) = 80%–95%].
thermo-hygrometric conditions that allowed for the phenomenon of setting without the risk of
In addition
deterioration to masonry (T)
[Temperature specimens,
= 18–20 six
°C; brick specimens,
Relative Humidity measuring 20 × 20 × 20 mm, were cut out
(HR) = 80%–95%].
from one brick, and three mortar specimens, 40 × 40 × 40 mm in dimensions, were made by pouring
the same mixture used for the construction of the masonry specimens into polymethylmethacrylate
(PMMA) molds. The complete set of the specimens is shown in Figure 7. The specimens are designated
by an alphanumeric code: two letters specified the type of material (Br = Brick, Mo = Mortar,
Ma = Masonry) while a number was used to identify each tested specimen.

(a) (b)
cut in half using a hand-held disc cutter with a diamond blade. Bricks were subsequently soaked in
deionized water for a duration of about six hours, in order to prevent them from absorbing the water
from the mortar joints. Meanwhile, the lime mortar was prepared and specimens were assembled.
They were left outdoors for curing, for a duration of four months, sheltered from rain and wind, in
thermo-hygrometric
Heritage 2020, 3 conditions that allowed for the phenomenon of setting without the risk of 35
deterioration [Temperature (T) = 18–20 °C; Relative Humidity (HR) = 80%–95%].

(a) (b)

Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 7

In addition to masonry specimens, six brick specimens, measuring 20 × 20 × 20 mm, were cut out
from one brick, and three mortar specimens, 40 × 40 × 40 mm in dimensions, were made by pouring
the same mixture used for the(c) construction of the masonry specimens (d) into polymethylmethacrylate
(PMMA) molds. The complete set of the specimens is shown in Figure 7. The specimens are
Examples of
Figure 6. Examples of historic
historic brickwork
brickwork masonry
masonry with
with thick
thick bed joints: (a)
(a) the
the archaeological
archaeological site
site of
designated by an alphanumeric code: two letters specified the type of material (Br = Brick, Mo =
Ostia Antica; (b)
(b) the
theBaths
BathsofofCaracalla,
Caracalla,Rome;
Rome;(c)(c)
the Flavian
the Amphitheatre
Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum), Rome;
(Colosseum), (d) the
Rome; (d)
Mortar, Ma = Masonry) while a number was used to identify each tested specimen.
Santi
the Nereo
Santi e Achilleo
Nereo church,
e Achilleo Rome,
church, Italy.Italy.
Rome,

Figure 7.
Figure Differenttypologies
7. Different typologiesofof tested
tested specimens
specimens (letter
(letter designation:
designation: Br = Br = Brick,
Brick, Mo= Mortar,
Mo= Mortar, Ma =
Ma = Masonry).
Masonry).

Tests were
Tests were carried
carriedout
outinin order
order to get
to get information
information aboutabout
their their response
response to water.
to water. Several Several
studies
studies propose to use Fick’s laws to study the diffusion of moisture in a porous
propose to use Fick’s laws to study the diffusion of moisture in a porous material [36–38]. Fick’s material [36–38].
first
Fick’s first law relates to the flux of the diffusing substance through the unit area of a section,
law relates to the flux of the diffusing substance through the unit area of a section, to the concentration to the
concentration gradient, measured normal to the section, by means of the diffusion coefficient,
gradient, measured normal to the section, by means of the diffusion coefficient, in a steady state. in a steady
state. Fick’s
Fick’s secondsecond
law is law
usedistoused to study
study the diffusion
the diffusion in a dynamic
in a dynamic condition,
condition, i.e., toi.e., to consider
consider the
the time-
time-dependence. The simplest form of the two
dependence. The simplest form of the two Fick’s laws is: Fick’s laws is:

dCdC
FF==−D
− Ddx , , (1)
(1)
dx
dC d2 C
dC = D d22,C (2)
dt = Ddx 2 , (2)
where: F (m/s) is the diffusion flux per unit dt dx
area of section; C (%) is the concentration of diffusing
substance;
where: x (m)
F (m/s) is is
thethe space coordinate
diffusion measured
flux per unit area of normal
section;to
C the
(%) section; D (m2 /s) is the
is the concentration diffusion
of diffusing
coefficient; t (s) is the time.
substance; x (m) is the space coordinate measured normal to the section; D (m /s) is the diffusion
2

coefficient; t (s) is the time.

These laws can be used for thin and homogeneous specimens, and in this case the solutions to
the equations can be easily obtained [39,40]. For 3D (three-dimensional) specimens (i.e., prisms), the
equations and their solutions are more complex. Moreover, generally the diffusion coefficient D can
depend on the concentration of the diffusing substance C, and on the homogeneity of the specimen.
Heritage 2020, 3 36

These laws can be used for thin and homogeneous specimens, and in this case the solutions
to the equations can be easily obtained [39,40]. For 3D (three-dimensional) specimens (i.e., prisms),
the equations and their solutions are more complex. Moreover, generally the diffusion coefficient D can
depend on the concentration of the diffusing substance C, and on the homogeneity of the specimen.
For this reason, it is usually determined experimentally [41–43].
The tests for the determination of the water absorption by capillarity, the water absorption at
atmospheric pressure, and the drying properties were performed according to the standards EN
15801 [44], EN 13755 [45], and EN 16322 [46], respectively. The requirements of the EN 13755 standard
were partially changed and adapted to the specific test program: deionized water was used instead of
tap water in order to avoid the introduction of external salts into the tested materials. For the brick
and masonry specimens, the ratio between the surface area and the apparent volume was 0.30 and
0.04 mm−1 , respectively. The geometrical features of the specimens are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Geometrical properties of the specimens.

Total Base Total Surface

Number of Dimensions Volume
Material Surface Surface Area/Volume
Specimens (mm) (mm3 )
Area (mm2 ) Area (mm2 ) (mm−1 )
Brick 6 20 × 20 × 20 8.0 × 103 2.40 × 103 4.0 × 102 0.30
Mortar 3 40 × 40 × 40 6.4 × 104 9.60 × 103 1.6 × 103 0.15
Masonry 3 100 × 210 × 155 3.25 × 106 1.38 × 105 2.1 × 104 0.04

The specimens used for this study are prisms, and the masonry ones are also layered. According
to the experiment design, the flux of the water occurs in all three directions. These conditions make
Fick’s laws difficult to apply. However, other tests were carried out in order to get information about
the attitude of specimens toward water.
Data derived from these tests were used to calculate the water absorption coefficient by capillary
action (AC), the water absorption coefficient at atmospheric pressure (Ab), the drying index (ID),
and the flow velocity of the water (v) 24 h after the beginning of the tests. The latter was determined
by using the following inverted formula of the mass flow rate:
m
v= , (3)
ρ×A

where ṁ is the mass flow rate (kg/s), % is the weight density of water (0.997 g/ml at 24 ◦ C), and A
is the absorbent/dispersive surface (m2 ), that is the base surface area (for absorption by capillarity)
or the total surface area. In addition to these tests, the masonry specimens were weighted with
a 1g-precision scale, and their surface temperature was measured with a Protimeter MMS2 BLD8800
digital thermo-hygrometer. Moreover, specimens were photographed, and their color was recorded
both in the correspondence of the bricks and the mortar by making a comparison with the palettes,
which are in the Munsell Book of Colors [47,48]. After this phase, the masonry specimens underwent
an ageing treatment, specifically designed to simulate the effects of wetting/drying cycles, induced by
rising damp and temperature changes.

2.2. The Ageing Treatment

The ageing treatment was drawn up starting from the past experimental processes described
in [34,35] and from relevant standards [49–52]. The aim was to study the effect of placing the specimens
in contact with water and exposing them to thermal variations. The ageing treatment (the duration of
exposure to low and high temperatures, a number of cycles, and a range of temperatures) was chosen in
such a way that the specimens underwent a thermal excursion comparable to those occurring in actual
situations. Specimens were initially dried in an oven at 60 ± 5 ◦ C for a duration of 48 h, photographed
and weighed, and their surface temperature was measured. Then, they were placed into closed PMMA
Heritage 2020, 3 37

boxes, laid on a 5 mm thick absorbent paper substrate soaked with distilled water. They remained in
this condition for seven days, during which water was absorbed by capillary action (Figure 8).
Subsequently, each specimen was inserted into a polyethylene (PE) bag in order to protect it
(Figure 9), and was buried in a refrigerating mixture made by adding 23 g of sodium chloride per
kg of ice (Figure 10). Specimens were left curing for 8 h. During this period, the environmental
temperature gradually reduced to −18 ◦ C, and then increased again. As a consequence of this,
the surface
Heritage 2020, 3temperature of the specimens was also varied in order to reach the thermal equilibrium.
FOR PEER REVIEW 9
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 9
Finally, the specimens were removed from the PE bags and placed into the oven at 60 ◦ C for 16 h
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 9
(Figure 11).

Figure 8. Masonry specimens inside the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) boxes.

Figure 8. Masonry specimens inside the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) boxes.
Figure 8. Masonry specimens inside the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) boxes.
Figure 8. Masonry specimens inside the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) boxes.

Masonry specimens
Figure 9. Masonry specimens inside the polyethylene (PE) bags.
Figure 9. Masonry specimens inside the polyethylene (PE) bags.
At the end
end of the Figure
ageing 9. treatment,
Masonry specimens
specimensinside the weighed
were polyethylene
and(PE) bags.
photographed again, and
and the
At
At the
the end ofof the
the ageing
ageing treatment,
treatment, specimens
specimens were
were weighed
weighed andand photographed
photographed again,again, and thethe
surface
surface temperature
temperature was
was recorded.
recorded. They
They were
were re-placed
re-placed into
into the
the PMMA
PMMA boxes,
boxes, over
over a sheet
aa sheet of
of soaked
soaked
surface temperature
Atand
the underwent was
end of the ageingrecorded. They
treatment, were re-placed
specimens were into the
weighed PMMA boxes,
andDuring over
photographed sheet
again,of soaked
and the
paper,
paper, aa new ageing cycle. This was repeated 88 times. this period,
period, specimens
paper, and
surfaceand underwent
underwent
temperature wasa new
new ageing
ageing
recorded. They
cycle.
cycle. This
This
were
was
was repeated
repeated
re-placed into the8 times.
times.
PMMA
During
During
boxes,
this
this
over period,
a sheet
specimens
specimens
of soaked
were
were accurately weighed
weighedon on adaily
daily (24h)h)basis
basis in order to record the amount of absorbed water.
were accurately
paper,accurately
and weighed
underwent a on aaageing
new daily (24
(24 h) basis
cycle. This
in
in order
wasorder to
to record
repeated record
8
the amount
the During
times. amountthis of
of absorbed
absorbed
period,
water.
water. At
specimens At
At
thethe
endend
of of
thethe 8 cycles,
88 cycles, a full
aa full photographic
photographic survey
survey was
was undertaken,
undertaken, in
in order
order to
to analyze
analyze the
the level
level of
of
the
wereend of the
accurately cycles,
weighed full
on aphotographic
daily (24 h) survey
basis in was
order undertaken,
to record thein order
amount to
of analyze
absorbed the level
water. of
At
damage [53].
damage [53]. The
The color
color change was was also examined,
examined, bothboth in
in the bricks
bricks and
and inin the mortar.
damage
the [53].
end of theThe color change
8 cycles, change was also
also examined,
a full photographic survey both in the
the bricks in
was undertaken, and in the
orderthe mortar.
tomortar.
analyze the level of
damage [53]. The color change was also examined, both in the bricks and in the mortar.

Figure 10. Masonry

Masonry specimens
specimens buried in the refrigerating mixture.
Figure 10. Masonry specimens buried in the refrigerating mixture.
Figure 10. Masonry specimens buried in the refrigerating mixture.
Heritage 2020, 3 38
Figure 10. Masonry specimens buried in the refrigerating mixture.

Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 10

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Masonry
Masonry specimens
specimens in
in the
the oven.
oven.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Results
3.1. Results
Treated masonry specimens showed a change of color, compared to the untreated ones. Test
Treated
results masonry
related specimens
to the bricks showed
and the a change
mortar of color,
joints are compared
summarized intoTable
the untreated ones.12.
4 and Figure Test results
related to the bricks and the mortar joints are summarized in Table 4 and Figure 12.
Table 4. Color changes of the bricks and mortar.
Table 4. Color changes of the bricks and mortar.
Condition Hue Value Chroma Reflectivity (%)
Condition Hue Value Chroma Reflectivity (%)
Un- Brick 5YR 6 4 -
Un-
Treated Brick
Brick 7.5YR5YR 6 6 4 4 - -
Treated Brick
Mortar 7.5YR
7.75N 7 6 0 4 54.80 -
Mortar 7.75N 7 0 54.80
Mortar
Mortar
7.5N 7.5N
7 7
0 0
50.7050.70
Brick
Brick 5YR5YR 4 4 4 4 - -
Treated
Treated Brick
Brick 7.5YR
7.5YR 4 4 4 4 - -
Mortar
Mortar 10G10G 5 5 1 1 - -
Mortar 5G 5 1 -
Mortar 5G 5 1 -

Figure 12. Color

Color changes
changes between
between the untreated (left) and the treated (right) bricks and mortar joints.

According to the Munsell reference [47,48], the color of any material can be defined using three
components that
components thatare Hue,
are Value
Hue, (degree
Value of lightness/darkness),
(degree and Chroma
of lightness/darkness), (color purity).
and Chroma (color By referring
purity). By
the masonry
referring the specimens used in this
masonry specimens usedresearch,
in this the color of
research, thethe bricks
color changed
of the bricksfrom a dull
changed orange
from to
a dull
a dull reddish
orange brown,
to a dull that brown,
reddish is, Hue and
that Chroma
is, Hue didandnot change,
Chroma while
did not Value
change,decreased. Withdecreased.
while Value regards to
the mortar
With regardsjoints in an
to the untreated
mortar jointscondition, these were
in an untreated a greenish
condition, white,
these werebelonging
a greenishtowhite,
the neutral color
belonging
palettes, while,color
to the neutral after palettes,
treatment, they turned
while, to greenish
after treatment, grey,
they belonging
turned to the green
to greenish tonal palettes.
grey, belonging to the
The response
green tonal palettes. of the brick, mortar, and masonry specimens toward water intrusion and release
was studied according
The response to standard
of the tests. and
brick, mortar, AC, masonry
Ab, and ID were determined,
specimens toward waterand the flow velocity
intrusion (v) of
and release
the water
was studiedthat was absorbed
according or released
to standard tests.was
AC,also
Ab, calculated
and ID were using Equation and
determined, (3). the flow velocity (v)
of the water that was absorbed or released was also calculated using Equation (3).
With regards to absorption by capillary action, the test results are summarized in Table 5, while
Figures 13–15 show the amount of water absorbed by the three different types of specimens as a
function of the square root of the time. Bricks and mortar absorbed a high amount of the water in the
first hour of the test, while the absorption rate was almost constant for masonry specimens. It can be
 Heritage 2020, 3 39

With regards to absorption by capillary action, the test results are summarized in Table 5,
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 11
while Figures 13–15 show the amount of water absorbed by the three different types of specimens as
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 11
a function of the square root of the time. Bricks and mortar absorbed a high amount of the water in the
Table 5. Water absorption by capillary action (mean test conditions: T = 24 °C, relative humidity
first hour
Tableof
5. the test,
Water while the
absorption byabsorption rate (mean
capillary action was almost constantTfor
test conditions: masonry
= 24 specimens.
°C, relative humidity It can be
(HR) = 53%).
noted that the flow velocity was higher in the mortar
(HR) = 53%).than in the brick and masonry specimens.
AsA WbAT WDry Wcap24h Mcap24h Wcap7d Mcap7d v AC
Table 5. Water absorption by capillary action (mean test conditions: T = 24 C, relative humidity
AsA
(mm 2) W (g)
bAT W (g)
Dry W (g)
cap24h M (%)
cap24h W (g)
cap7d M (%)
cap7d v◦
(m/s) (kg/mAC 2s0.5)

(HR) = 53%).
Brick (mm
4 × 102)2 (g)
14.14 (g)
13.93 (g)
16.63 (%)
16.23 (g)
16.76 (%)
20.31 (m/s)
1.07 × 10 −6 (kg/m 2s0.5)
0.07
Brick
(StD) 4 × 102 14.14
(0.11) 13.93
(0.09) 16.63 (0.08) 16.23 16.76
(0.11) 20.31 1.07 × 10−6 0.07
(StD)
Mortar AsA
1.6 × 10 3 W (0.11) W
(0.09)
78.86 78.06 105.43
bAT Dry W
(0.08)
cap24h M
25.96cap24h (0.11)W
106.65 36.62 2.73 × 10v (m/s) 0.23 AC
cap7d M cap7d −6
(mm2 ) (g) (g) (g) (%) (g) (%) 2 0.5
Mortar
(StD) 1.6 × 10 3 78.86 78.06
(0.82) (0.91) (0.95) 105.43 25.96 106.65
(0.85) 36.62 2.73 × 10−6 0.23(kg/m s )
Brick 2
10 × 104 14.14 13.93 16.63 16.23 (0.85) 16.76 17.6920.31 −6
(StD) 4 ×2.1
Masonry (0.82)
5012 (0.91)4957 (0.95)
5294 6.79 5834 7.80 ×1.0710−7× 10 0.09 0.07
(StD)
Masonry 2.1 × 10 4 (0.11)
5012 (0.09)
4957 (0.08)
5294 6.79 5834 (0.11) 17.69 7.80 × 10−7 0.09
(StD) (39) (37) (35) (68)
Mortar 1.6 × 103 78.86 78.06 105.43 25.96 106.65 36.62 2.73 × 10−6 0.23
AsA (StD)
= absorbing surface (39)
area, W (37)
bAP = (35) of the specimens
weight (68) before the ageing treatment, WDry =
(StD) (0.82) (0.91) (0.95) (0.85)
AsA
weight
Masonry = absorbing
of 2.1 104 surface
the×specimens 5012 area, by
dried W4957 = weight
oven,
bAP 5294of
Wcap24h the 6.79
= weight specimens before the
of the specimens
5834 24ageing
17.69 h after treatment,
10−7 WDryof
the× beginning
7.80 =
0.09
(StD)
weight of the specimens (39)dried by (37)
oven, W (35) = weight of the (68)
specimens
the test, Mcap24h = mass of water absorbed by the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, Wcap7d
cap24h 24 h after the beginning of
the test,= M
AsA
= weight the =specimens
absorbing
ofcap24h mass
surface of area,
waterWbAP
7 days = weight
absorbed
after theby ofthe
thespecimens
beginning specimens 24 h M
of the before
test, after
the the
ageing
cap7d beginning
treatment,
= amount of
WDry
of water =test,
theabsorbed Wcap7d
weight of
bythe
specimens
=capillarity
weight of7the dried by
specimensoven, W cap24h = weight of the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, M cap24h = mass
by of
days after the7 beginning
days after the beginning
of the test, v =offlow
the test, Mcap7dAC
velocity, = amount
= capillary
water absorbed by the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, Wcap7d = weight of the specimens 7 days after
of water
waterabsorbed
absorption
capillarity
coefficient,
the beginning7and
daysStD
of after
the =test,the
standardbeginning
Mcap7d = amount
deviation. of the
of watertest,absorbed
v = flowby velocity,
capillarity AC = capillary
7 days after thewater absorption
beginning of the test,
v = flow velocity,
coefficient, and StD AC= = water absorption coefficient, and StD = standard deviation.
capillary deviation.
standard
8.0
8.0
absorbed
)
absorbed

6.0
2) 2
(kg/m

6.0
(kg/m
of water

4.0
by capillarity
of water

4.0
by capillarity

2.0 SP_Br1 SP_Br2 SP_Br3

Amount

2.0 SP_Br1
SP_Br4 SP_Br2
SP_Br5 SP_Br3
SP_Br6
Amount

0.0 SP_Br4 SP_Br5 SP_Br6

0 0

60 60

120120

180180

240240

300300

360360

420420

480480

540540

600600

660660

720720

780780
0.0
Time (s1/2)
Time (s1/2)
Figure 13.13.
Figure Water absorbed
Water byby
absorbed capillary action
capillary (brick
action specimens).
(brick specimens).
Figure 13. Water absorbed by capillary action (brick specimens).
20.0
absorbed

20.0
)
absorbed
2) 2

15.0
(kg/m

15.0
(kg/m
of water
by capillarity

10.0
of water
by capillarity

10.0
5.0
Amount

SP_Mo1 SP_Mo2
5.0
Amount

SP_Mo3
SP_Mo1 SP_Mo2
0.0 SP_Mo3
0 0

60 60

120120

180180

240240

300300

360360

420420

480480

540540

600600

660660

720720

780780

0.0
Time (s1/2)
Time (s1/2)
Figure 14. Water absorbed by capillary action (mortar specimens).
Figure 14. Water absorbed by capillary action (mortar specimens).
Figure 14. Water absorbed by capillary action (mortar specimens).
50
absorbed

50
)
absorbed

40
2) 2
(kg/m

40
(kg/m

30
of water
by capillarity

30
of water
by capillarity

20
20
Amount

10 SP_Ma1 SP_Ma2
Amount

10 SP_Ma1
SP_Ma3 SP_Ma2
0 SP_Ma3
0 0

60 60

120120

180180

240240

300300

360360

420420

480480

540540

600600

660660

720720

780780

0
Time (s1/2)
Time (s1/2)
 SP_Mo1 SP_Mo2

Amou
by
SP_Mo3
0.0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

720

780
Time (s1/2)
Heritage 2020, 3 40
Figure 14. Water absorbed by capillary action (mortar specimens).

50
Amount of water absorbed
by capillarity (kg/m2) 40

30

20

10 SP_Ma1 SP_Ma2
SP_Ma3
0
0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

720

780
Time (s1/2)

Figure 15. Water absorbed by capillary action (masonry specimens).

With regards to absorption at atmospheric pressure, the test results are summarized in Table 6.
These results are consistent with the ones obtained from the previous tests, but the amount of water
absorbed both after 24 h and 7 days is now smaller because of the larger dimensions of the absorbing
surface area.
For the drying test, results are summarized in Table 7, and the drying curves related to the brick,
mortar, and masonry specimens are shown in Figures 16–18, respectively. Since the specimens were
initially fully imbibed, the maximum amount of water contained by the specimens at the beginning of
the test was 20.45%, 39.52%, and 24.93% of the dry mass of the bricks, mortar, and masonry, respectively.
For the bricks, it is possible to distinguish two drying phases (Figure 16): the water content highly
decreased during the first 12 days of drying, while it stayed almost constant for the remaining 22
days. On the other hand, for the mortar and masonry specimens, the loss of water during the drying
process had a constant negative gradient (Figures 17 and 18). The drying process was rather slow for
all specimens. This is proved both by the timeframe and by the values of the flow velocity, which was
several times lower compared to the absorption tests (Table 6). The weight of the bricks and mortar
specimens stabilized (i.e., it decreased by 0.06% and 0.74%, respectively, between two measures in
a row) after 34 and 36 days, respectively, while the masonry specimens did not reach this condition;
in this experiment, the test was interrupted after 34 days. In order to compare these data with those
referred to in the absorption tests, Table 7 reports the weight of the specimens after 7 days. The amount
of water lost by the bricks during this period was less than half of that absorbed, while for the mortar
and masonry specimens, it was less than a fifth and a tenth, respectively.
The test results demonstrate that the mortar, brick, and masonry exhibit a very different response
toward absorbing and releasing water, in terms of both the amount absorbed/released and the velocity.
Moreover, the tests reveal that the behavior of the masonry specimens cannot be defined as a sum of
the behaviors of their construction materials. Test results also demonstrate the critical influence of the
bonding pattern.

Table 6. Water absorption at atmospheric pressure (mean test conditions: T = 24 ◦ C, HR = 53%).

AsA WbAP WDry WAb24h MAb24h WAb7d MAb7d

v (m/s) Ab (%)
(mm2 ) (g) (g) (g) (%) (g) (%)
Brick 2.4 × 103 14.14 13.93 16.67 19.67 16.79 20.53 1.84 × 10−7 20.53
(StD) (0.11) (0.09) (0.13) (0.13)
Mortar 9.6 × 103 78.86 78.06 106.0 35.84 108.9 39.52 4.82 × 10−7 38.09
(StD) (0.82) (0.91) (0.87) (0.86)
Masonry 1.38 × 105 5012 4957 5382 8.57 6202 25.11 1.49 × 10−7 25.11
(StD) (39) (37) (51) (75)
WAb24h = weight of the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, MAb24h = mass of the water absorbed by the
specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, WAb7d = weight of the specimens after 7 days, MAb7d = mass of the
water absorbed by the specimens after 7 days, Ab = water absorption coefficient at atmospheric pressure.
 Masonry 1.38 × 105 5012 4957 5382 8.57 6202 25.11 1.49 × 10−7 25.11
(StD) (39) (37) (51) (75)
WAb24h = weight of the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, MAb24h = mass of the water
absorbed by the specimens 24 h after the beginning of the test, WAb7d = weight of the specimens after
Heritage 2020, 3MAb7d = mass of the water absorbed by the specimens after 7 days, Ab = water absorption
7 days, 41
coefficient at atmospheric pressure.

Water content (kg/m2) 7.5

7.0

SP_Br1
6.5 SP_Br2
SP_Br3
6.0 SP_Br4
SP_Br5
SP_Br6
5.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW Time (days) 13

Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 16. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (brick specimens). 13
12.0
Figure 16. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (brick specimens).
2)
(kg/m(kg/m

12.0
11.0
content 2)

11.0
10.0
content

10.0 SP_Mo1
WaterWater

9.0
SP_Mo2
9.0 SP_Mo1
SP_Mo3
8.0 SP_Mo2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
SP_Mo3
8.0 Time (days)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Time (days)
Figure 17. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (mortar specimens).
Figure 17. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (mortar specimens).
Figure 17. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (mortar specimens).
45.5
2)

45.5
45.0
(kg/m(kg/m
2)

45.0
44.5
content

44.5
44.0
content

SP_Ma1
WaterWater

44.0
43.5 SP_Ma2
SP_Ma1
SP_Ma3
43.5
43.0 SP_Ma2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40

SP_Ma3
43.0 Time (days)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40

Figure 18. Drying test. Amount of (days)

Time water vs. time (masonry specimens).
Figure 18. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (masonry specimens).
Table 7. Water release by natural drying (mean test conditions: T = 24 ◦ C HR = 53%).
Figure 18. Drying test. Amount of water vs. time (masonry specimens).
Table 7. Water release by natural drying (mean test conditions: T = 24 °C HR = 53%).
DsA WbAP WAb7d WDry24h MDry24h WDry7d MDry7d
2) v (m/s) ID (-)
Table 7. Water release by natural drying (mean test conditions: T = (%)
(mm (g)
WbAP WAb7d WDry24h MDry24h WDry7d MDry7d
DsA
(g) (g) (%) (g)
v 24 °C HR = 53%).
ID
Brick 14.14
(g) 13.93
(g) × 1032)
2.4(mm16.54
(g) −1.51
(%) 15.28
(g) −9.13
(%) −1.79 × 10−8
(m/s) 0.87
(-)
(StD) WbAP (0.09)
(0.11) WAb7d W DsA Dry24h
(0.13) MDry24h (0.17)
WDry7d MDry7d v ID
Brick
Mortar 14.14
78.86(g) 13.93
(g)
78.06 2.4 × 103
16.54
× 1032)
9.6(mm (g)
105.6 −1.51
(%)
−2.99 15.28
(g)
100.9 −9.13
(%)
−7.30 −1.79 × 10
× 10−8
(m/s)
−5.62
−8 0.87
(-)
0.85
(StD)
(StD) (0.11)
(0.82) (0.09)
(0.91) (0.13)
(0.92) (0.17)
(0.80)
Brick 2.4 × 10 3
5 3
14.14 13.93 16.54 −1.51 15.28 −9.13 −1.79 × 10 −8
−8−8
0.87
Mortar
Masonry 1.38 9.6××1010 78.86 4957
5012 78.06 105.6
6152 −0.80
−2.99 100.9
6129 −1.18
−7.30 −1.91 −5.62××1010 0.85
0.98
(StD)
(StD) (0.11)
(39) (0.09)
(37) (0.13)
(74) (0.17)
(72)
(StD) (0.82) (0.91) (0.92) (0.80)
Mortar 9.6 × 103 78.86 78.06 105.6 −2.99 100.9 −7.30 −5.62 × 10−8 0.85
DsA = dispersant
Masonry 1.38 × 10surface
5 area,
5012WAb7d4957 = weight of
6152the specimens
−0.80before drying, −1.18= weight
6129 WDry24h of the
−1.91 specimens
× 10 −8 0.98
(StD) (0.82)
after 24 h of natural drying, MDry24h(0.91)
= mass of(0.92) (0.80)
the water lost by natural drying after 24 h, WDry7d = weight of
(StD)
the specimens (39) (37) (74)
Dry7d = mass
(72)
Masonry 1.38after
× 1075 days of natural
5012 drying, M
4957 6152 of the water
−0.80 6129lost by natural drying
−1.18 −1.91 ×after
10−87 days,
0.98
ID = Drying
DsA Index. surface area, WAb7d = weight of the specimens before drying, WDry24h = weight of the
= dispersant
(StD) (39) (37) (74) (72)
specimens after 24 h of natural drying, MDry24h = mass of the water lost by natural drying after 24 h,
DsA = dispersant surface area, WAb7d = weight of the specimens before drying, WDry24h = weight of the
3.2. The Ageing
WDry7d Treatment
= weight of the specimens after 7 days of natural drying, MDry7d = mass of the water lost by
specimens after 24 h of natural drying, MDry24h = mass of the water lost by natural drying after 24 h,
natural drying after 7 days, ID = Drying Index.
Curves
WDry7d = in Figure
weight 19 show
of the the gain
specimens after of weight
7 days of the drying,
of natural three masonry specimens
MDry7d = mass during
of the water lostthe
byageing
The
treatment.test
natural results
drying
Figure after
20 demonstrate
7 days,
shows the that of
IDamount
= Drying the mortar,
Index.
water brick,byand
absorbed masonry
masonry exhibit during
specimens a veryeach
different
ageing
response
cycle.The toward
Figure absorbing
the and releasing water, in terms of both
of the amount absorbed/released and
test 21 shows
results maximum
demonstrate thatand
theminimum values
mortar, brick, and weightexhibit
masonry measured for each
a very cycle.
different
the velocity. Moreover, the tests reveal that the behavior of the masonry specimens cannot be defined
response toward absorbing and releasing water, in terms of both the amount absorbed/released and
as a sum of the behaviors of their construction materials. Test results also demonstrate the critical
the velocity. Moreover, the tests reveal that the behavior of the masonry specimens cannot be defined
influence of the bonding pattern.
as a sum of the behaviors of their construction materials. Test results also demonstrate the critical
influence of the bonding pattern.
3.2. The Ageing Treatment
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 14
Heritage 2020, 3 42
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 14
seven cycles (dashed line and continuous line), and to the mean value before the start of the ageing
Heritage 2020, 3 FOR PEERline).REVIEW
treatment (dashed-dot
seven cycles line and continuous line), and to the mean value before the start of14the ageing
They are averaged over(dashed
the three specimens and related to the respective mean values over the last
The weight treatment (dashed-dot line). increased by 16.40% (from 5012 g to 5834 g) during the
of the masonry specimens
seven
seven cycles
cycles(dashed
first ageing cycle, and (dashed line
line and
and continuous
continuous line),during
and to
and tothe
thesecond
the meanvalue
mean valuebefore
before the
gthe start
start ofof
thethe ageing
ageing
Theit weight
furtherof increased
the masonry by 5.71%specimens increased by(from
16.40% 5834
(from to 6167
5012 gg).
to The
5834 g) during the
minimumtreatment
treatment (dashed-dot
and(dashed-dot
maximum line).of the weight stabilized at the end of the second and third cycles,
line).
first ageingvalues
cycle, and it further increased by 5.71% during the second (from 5834 g to 6167 g). The
The The
respectively. The weight
weight meanof of
thethe masonry
masonry
values were specimens
specimens
6008 increased
g and increased
6165 byby
g, weight 16.40%
16.40%
respectively, (from
(from 5012
5012
corresponding gg toto 5834
5834 g)g) during
during thethefirst
minimum and maximum values of the stabilized at the end to of an
theincrease
second of and third cycles,
first
ageing ageing
cycle,
19.87% and 23.01% cycle,
and it and
further
from theThe it further
increased
initial increased
weight by 5.71%
(5012 by 5.71%
during
g). 6008 during
the
The standard the
second second
(from
deviation (from
5834 g
was 14.51to5834
6167 g to
g). 6167
The
and 18.75 g in g). The
minimum
respectively. mean values were g and 6165 g, respectively, corresponding to an increase of
theand minimum
maximum
second. These andtwomaximum
values of
values thevalues
wereweight
the ofthresholds
the weight
stabilized stabilized
at the
within end
which atthe
of theweight
the end of of
second the
and second
the third and
cycles,
treated third cycles,
respectively.
masonry
19.87% and 23.01% from the initial weight (5012 g). The standard deviation was 14.51 and 18.75 g in
respectively.
The mean valuesThe mean
were values
6008 gtwo were
and 6008
6165tog, g and 6165
respectively, g, respectively,
corresponding corresponding
to the
an to
testincrease an increase of
specimens varied.
the The latterThese
second. is very similar
values that
were obtained from
the thresholds the absorption
within which ofofthe
at atmospheric
weight 19.87%
treated andmasonry
19.87%
23.01% and
from 23.01% from
the initialvaried. the
weightThe initial
(5012 weight
g).isThe (5012 g). The standard deviation was 14.51 and 18.75 g in
pressure (6202 g).
specimens latter verystandard
similar todeviation was 14.51
that obtained from theandabsorption
18.75 g intest the at
second.
atmospheric
the second.
These two values Thesewere two thevalues were the thresholds within which the weight of the treated masonry
pressure (6202 g).thresholds within which the weight of the treated masonry specimens
specimens varied. The latter is very similar to that obtained from the absorption test at atmospheric
varied.
6400 The latter is very similar to that obtained from the absorption test at atmospheric pressure
pressure (6202 g).
(6202 g).
6400
6000
6400
6000
Weight (g)

5600
6000
Weight (g)

5600 SP_Ma1
Weight (g)

5200
5600 SP_Ma2 SP_Ma1
5200 SP_Ma3 SP_Ma2
4800 SP_Ma1
05200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SP_Ma2
SP_Ma3
4800
0 1 Cycles
2 No.34 5 6 7 8 SP_Ma3
4800 Cycles No.
0 1 Figure2 19. Weight
3 per cycle
4 (masonry
5 specimens).
6 7 8
Cycles No.
Figure 19. Weight per cycle (masonry specimens).

1200
Figure 19. Weight per cycle (masonry specimens).
Figure 19. Weight per cycle (masonry specimens).
1000 1200
SP_Ma1
800 1000
Weight (g)

1200 SP_Ma2 SP_Ma1

600 800 SP_Ma3
Weight (g)

1000 SP_Ma2
400 600 SP_Ma1
800 SP_Ma3
Weight (g)

200 SP_Ma2
600 400
SP_Ma3
0 200
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
200 0
Cycle No.
4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3
Cycle No. 0
1 Figure2 20. Weight 3 of absorbed
4 5 (masonry
water 6 specimens).
7 8
Figure 20. Weight ofCycleabsorbed
No. water (masonry specimens).
Figure 20. Weight of absorbed water (masonry specimens).
6300 6167 6182 6177 6168 6179 6161
6123 20. Weight
Figure of absorbed water (masonry specimens).
Average values of the weight (g)

6165 6167 6182 6177 6168 6179 6161

6100 6300 6123
Average values of the weight (g)

6008 6165
5900 6300 6100 6016 6023 6182 6019 6179
5834 61236010
6008
6167 5986 6177 6016 6168 5985 6161
Average values of the weight (g)

5700 6100 5900 6165 6016 6010 6023 6016 6019 5985
5643 5834 5986
5500 5900 5700 6008 MW_UnT
5834 5643
6016 6010 6023 5986 6016 6019 5985 MWmin_T7
5300 5700 5500 MW_UnT
MWmax_T7
5643 MWmin_T7
5100 5500 5300 MWmin_TMW_UnT MWmax_T7
5012 MWmax_TMWmin_T7 MWmin_T
4900 5300 5100
0 1 2 35012 4 5 6 7 8 MWmax_T7 MWmax_T
5100 4900 MWmin_T
Cycle No.
0 5012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MWmax_T
Figure
Figure 4900Average
21. Average
21. values of theofweight
values over over
the weight each cycle (masonry
each cycle Cycle specimens).
No.
(masonry MW_UnT
specimens). = mean = mean
MW_UnT
weight of the 0
untreated 1
specimens, 2MWmin_T 3 = minimum
4 5 weight6of the treated
mean 7 8
specimens,
weight of theFigure
untreated specimens,
21. Average MWmin_T
values = minimum
of the weight over eachmean
cycleweight of the
(masonry treated specimens,
specimens). MW_UnT = mean
Cycle No.
MWmax_T =weight maximumof themean weightspecimens,
untreated of the treated specimens,
MWmin_T MWmin_T7
= minimum mean=weight
minimum mean
of the weight
treated specimens,
Figure 21. Average values of the weight over each cycle (masonry specimens). MW_UnT = mean
of the treated specimens over the last seven cycles, MWmax_T7 = maximum mean weight of the treated
weight of the untreated specimens, MWmin_T = minimum mean weight of the treated specimens,
specimens over the last seven cycles.
Heritage 2020, 3 43

Table 8 shows the weight values of the untreated and treated masonry specimens. For the treated
specimens, seven weight values are reported: one for each step (i.e., 24-h treatment) of the ageing
treatment. The values were calculated as the arithmetic mean among the three specimens, and were
averaged across the last seven cycles. Starting from these data, the unit weight of the untreated and
treated specimens was determined.
Table 9 reports the values of the environmental parameters, i.e., temperature (Tenv ) and HR,
the surface temperature (Tsurf ), and the mean values of the weights (W). It is worth noting that the
specimens were exposed to a severe temperature (ranging between +60 and −18 ◦ C). However, during
each cycle, their surface temperature ranged from −5.2 to +46.1 ◦ C. These values reflect the actual
weather conditions in the Italian Mediterranean regions [54]. The severe thermal excursions simulate
an extreme weather event, which is one of the most significant effects of the ongoing climate change [55].

Table 8. Mean values of the weights (masonry specimens) over one cycle.

Un-Treated Treated Specimens

Specimens Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
MW (g) 5012 6007 6101 6132 6148 6154 6159 6165
(StD) (39) (74) (60) (47) (37) (28) (19) (14)
∆W1 (%) 0.00 19.9 21.7 22.4 22.7 22.8 22.9 23.0
∆W2 (%) - 0.00 1.56 2.07 2.34 2.44 2.53 2.62
W (kg/m3 ) 1540 1845 1874 1884 1889 1891 1892 1894
MW = mean weight, ∆W1 = weight increment (%) compared to the weight of untreated specimens, ∆W2 = weight
increment (%) compared to the weight at Step 1.

Table 9. Mean values of the HR, Tenv , Tsurf , and the weight of masonry specimens in different conditions.

Conditions HR (%) Tenv (◦ C) Tsurf (◦ C) W (g)

Untreated 40 20.8 20.4 5012
Before ice 34 21.5 21.3 6165
In ice (−18 ◦ C) 100 −18.0 −5.2 -
After oven (+60 ◦ C) 37 20.6 46.1 6008

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the results of an experimental study on the effect of water on the unit weight of
brickwork masonry have been presented. Experimental tests were carried out on masonry specimens
made of fired clay bricks and lime mortar that were exposed to an ageing treatment. During each
wetting/drying cycle, the amount of water, absorbed and rejected by masonry specimens, varied over
time, causing a change in their weight.
The recorded data allowed us to quantify the increase in the unit weight of the masonry due
a water-based treatment. This increase consisted of two rates. The first one is constant, permanent, and is
about 19% of the unit weight of the masonry with a no-pathological water content. The second-rate
ranged between 19% and 23% depending on the environmental conditions inducted during the ageing
treatment. The increase in masonry unit weight was rather fast, and it concentrated in the first two
ageing cycles.
The ageing treatment reproduced through the experiment was chosen considering the typical
conditions of historic masonry structures affected by rising damp. Since the test results demonstrate
that the increase in the unit weight was not negligible, its effect should be considered to assess the
structural response of masonry buildings. For this reason, it is important to identify the areas of
a building affected by damp.
Tests carried out on brick, mortar, and masonry specimens highlighted their different behavior
toward water intrusion and rejection. This means that data obtained through the conducted experiment
are specific and linked to the type of brickwork masonry. This could be considered a limitation of
Heritage 2020, 3 44

this research. However, some interesting conclusions can be drawn. Test results reveal that mortar
joints absorb and reject more water than brick, and that they do so more rapidly. For this reason, it is
expected that the brick’s height/bed joint ratio is a meaningful parameter to estimate the increase of
the masonry unit weight during ageing. In this experiment, the brick’s height/bed joint ratio was 1.4.
More tests will be necessary to confirm this, but the emerging trend seems sufficiently clear. Moreover,
it could also be interesting to consider other types of construction materials and extend the study to
other types of masonry, such as stone masonry, or multi-leaf masonry.
The results of this experiment could be used in conjunction with previous research evidence to
demonstrate that the pathological presence of water in brickwork masonry can lead to a significant
decline in its mechanical properties. When acting forces are inertial (i.e., earthquake loading), an increase
in a masonry’s unit weight may further worsen the structural response of a historic masonry building.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, U.S.; methodology, D.G. and M.C.; formal analysis, D.G.;
writing—original draft preparation, D.G.; writing—review and editing, M.C. and D.G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work has been supported by the STORM E.C. project H2020-DRS-11-2015. 700191.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Alessio Molinari (Structures
Laboratory, University of Perugia. Italy).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Booth, C.A.; Hammond, F.N.; Proverbs, D.G.; Lamond, J. Solutions for Climate Change Challenges in the Built
Environment; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 5.
2. D’Ayala, D.; Aktas, Y.D. Moisture dynamics in the masonry fabric of historic buildings subjected to
wind-driven rain and flooding. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 208–220. [CrossRef]
3. Cavalagli, N.; Kita, A.; Castaldo, V.L.; Pisello, A.L.; Ubertini, F. Hierarchical environmental risk mapping of
material degradation in historic masonry buildings: An integrated approach considering climate change and
structural damage. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 998–1014. [CrossRef]
4. Franzoni, E. State-of-the-art on methods for reducing rising damp in masonry. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 31, S3–S9.
[CrossRef]
5. Borri, A.; Corradi, M. Architectural heritage: A discussion on conservation and safety. Heritage 2019, 2,
631–647. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, J.J. Flood risk maps to cultural heritage: Measures and process. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 210–220.
[CrossRef]
7. STORM Project, Document Ref. D6.1 Classification of Hazards and Climate Change-related Events. Available
online: http://www.storm-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/D6.1-STORM-Models-for-the-Content-
Management.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2019).
8. Ercoli, M.; Brigante, R.; Radicioni, F.; Pauselli, C.; Mazzocca, M.; Centi, G.; Stoppini, A. Inside the polygonal
walls of Amelia (Central Italy): A multidisciplinary data integration, encompassing geodetic monitoring and
geophysical prospections. J. Appl. Geophys. 2016, 127, 31–44. [CrossRef]
9. Creighton, O.H. Castles and Castle Building in Town and Country; Maney Publishing: Leeds, UK, 2005.
10. Spencer, P.; Faulkner, D.; Perkins, I.; Lindsay, D.; Dixon, G.; Parkes, M.; Parkes, A. The floods of December
2015 in northern England: Description of the events and possible implications for flood hydrology in the UK.
Hydrol. Res. 2017, 49, 568–596. [CrossRef]
11. Andreini, M.; De Falco, A.; Giresini, L.; Sassu, M. Recenti eventi di crollo in mura storiche urbane.
In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference Ingegneria Forense- su CRolli, Affidabilità Strutturale, Consolidamento
(IF CRASC’15), Rome, Italy, 14–16 May 2015; Flaccovio: Palermo, Italy, 2015; pp. 239–250. (In Italian)
12. Amoroso, G. Trattato di Scienza della Conservazione dei Monumenti. Etica della Conservazione, Degrado dei
Monumenti, Interventi Conservativi, Consolidanti e Protettivi; Alinea: Florence, Italy, 2002; pp. 91–130. (In Italian)
13. Stang, A.H.; Parsons, D.E.; McBurney, J.W. Compressive strength of clay brick walls. Bur. Stand. J. Res. 1929,
3, 507–571. [CrossRef]
Heritage 2020, 3 45

14. Franzoni, E.; Gentilini, C.; Graziani, G.; Bandini, S. Mechanical properties of fired-clay brick masonry models
in moist and dry conditions. Key Eng. Mater. 2014, 624, 307–312.
15. Amde, A.M.; Martin, J.V.; Colville, J. The effects of moisture on compressive strength and modulus of
brick masonry. In Proceedings of the 13th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 4–7 July 2004.
16. Graubohm, M.; Brameshuber, W. Rehabilitation of Masonry constructions temporarily submerged by
Water-influence of Water on the properties of Masonry and Facings, Drying Methods and their Effect.
In Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada, 31 May–3 June 2009.
17. Smith, B.M. Moisture Problems in Historic Masonry Walls: Diagnosis and Treatment; U.S. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1984.
18. Falchi, L.; Slanzi, D.; Balliana, E.; Driussi, G.; Zendri, E. Rising damp in historical buildings: A Venetian
perspective. Build. Environ. 2018, 131, 117–127. [CrossRef]
19. Hola, A. Measuring of the moisture content in brick walls of historical buildings–the overview of methods.
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 251, 012067. [CrossRef]
20. Hoła, A.; Matkowski, Z.; Hoła, J. Analysis of the moisture content of masonry walls in historical buildings
using the basement of a medieval town hall as an example. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 363–368. [CrossRef]
21. Hoła, J.; Matkowski, Z.; Schabowicz, K.; Sikora, J.; Nita, K.; Wójtowicz, S. Identification of moisture content
in brick walls by means of impedance tomography. COMPEL Int. J. Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng.
2012, 31, 1774–1792. [CrossRef]
22. Sass, O.; Viles, H.A. How wet are these walls? Testing a novel technique for measuring moisture in ruined
walls. J. Cult. Herit. 2006, 7, 257–263. [CrossRef]
23. Jurin, J. An account of some experiments shown before the Royal Society; with an enquiry into the cause of
some of the ascent and suspension of water in capillary tubes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1718, 355, 739–747.
24. Jurin, J. An account of some new experiments, relating to the action of glass tubes upon water and quicksilver.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1719, 363, 1083–1096.
25. Mason, G. Rising damp. Build. Sci. 1974, 9, 227–231. [CrossRef]
26. Hall, C.; Hoff, W.D. Rising damp: Capillary rise dynamics in walls. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
2007, 463, 1871–1884. [CrossRef]
27. Adam, J.P. Roman Buildings. Materials and Techniques; Routledge: London, UK, 2005; pp. 129–134.
28. Arcolao, C. Le Ricette del Restauro. Malte, Intonaci e Stucchi dal XV al XIX Secolo; Marsilio: Venice, Italy, 1998.
(In Italian)
29. EN 459-1. Building Lime. Part 1: Definitions, Specifications and Conformity Criteria. 2015. Available online:
https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/98705147332.pdf?sku=877967_SAIG_NSAI_NSAI_2086537 (accessed
on 28 November 2019).
30. EN 933-1. Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates. Part 1: Determination of Particle Size Distribution.
Sieving Method. 2012. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/doc/223990752/En-933-1-Tests-for-
geometrical-properties-of-aggregates (accessed on 28 November 2019).
31. Sathiparan, N.; Rumeshkumar, U. Effect of moisture condition on mechanical behavior of low strength brick
masonry. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 23–31. [CrossRef]
32. Forghani, R.; Totoev, Y.; Kanjanabootra, S.; Davison, A. Experimental investigation of water penetration
through semi-interlocking masonry walls. J. Archit. Eng. 2016, 23, 04016017. [CrossRef]
33. Massari, G.; Massari, I. Damp Buildings, Old and New. Bull. Assoc. Preserv. Technol. 1985, 17, 2–30. [CrossRef]
34. Marta, R. Tecniche Costruttive a Roma nel Medioevo; Kappa: Rome, Italy, 1989. (In Italian)
35. Montelli, E. Tecniche Costruttive Murarie Medievali. Mattoni e Laterizi in Roma e nel Lazio fra X e XV Secolo;
L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome, Italy, 2011. (In Italian)
36. Vu, H.T.; Tsotsas, E. Mass and heat transport models for analysis of the drying process in porous media:
A review and numerical implementation. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9456418. [CrossRef]
37. Ferretti, D.; Bazand, Z.P. Stability of ancient masonry towers: Moisture diffusion, carbonation and size effect.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 1379–1388. [CrossRef]
38. De Freitas, V.P.; Abrantes, V.; Crausse, P. Moisture migration in building walls—Analysis of the interface
phenomena. Build. Environ. 1996, 31, 99–108. [CrossRef]
39. Crank, J. The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2nd ed.; Oxford Science Publications: Oxford, UK, 1975.
40. Jaeger, J.C.; Carslaw, H.S. Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd ed.; Clarendon: Oxford, UK, 1959; pp. 176–187.
Heritage 2020, 3 46

41. Zhang, J.; Hou, D.; Gao, Y.; Wei, S. Determination of moisture diffusion coefficient of concrete at early age
from interior humidity measurements. Dry. Technol. 2011, 29, 689–696. [CrossRef]
42. Kassem, E.; Masad, E.; Lytton, R.; Bulut, R. Measurements of the moisture diffusion coefficient of asphalt
mixtures and its relationship to mixture composition. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2009, 10, 389–399. [CrossRef]
43. Post, N.L.; Riebel, F.; Zhou, A.; Keller, T.; Case, S.W.; Lesko, J.J. Investigation of 3D moisture diffusion
coefficients and damage in a pultruded E-glass/polyester structural composite. J. Compos. Mater. 2009, 43,
75–96. [CrossRef]
44. EN 15801. Conservation of Cultural Property—Test Methods—Determination of Water Absorption by
Capillarity. 2010. Available online: https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/98698597394.pdf?sku=873949_
SAIG_NSAI_NSAI_2077869 (accessed on 28 November 2019).
45. EN 13755. Natural Stone Test Methods—Determination of Water Absorption at Atmospheric Pressure. 2008.
Available online: https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-us/standards/uni-en-13755-2008-1072611_SAIG_UNI_
UNI_2499726/ (accessed on 28 November 2019).
46. EN 16322. Conservation of Cultural Heritage—Test Methods—Determination of Drying Properties. 2013.
Available online: https://www.ds.dk/~{}/media/DS/Files/Downloads/udvalg/S-388/Udgivne-EN-standarder-
CEN-TC-346---emneopdelt.ashx?la=da (accessed on 28 November 2019).
47. Glenn, J.J.; Killian, J.T. Trichromatic analysis of the Munsell Book of Color. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1940, 30, 609–616.
[CrossRef]
48. Newhall, S.M.; Nickerson, D.; Judd, D.B. Final report of the OSA subcommittee on the spacing of the Munsell
colors. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1943, 33, 385–418. [CrossRef]
49. Cultrone, G.; Sebastian, E.; Huertas, M.O. Durability of masonry systems: A laboratory study. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2007, 21, 40–51. [CrossRef]
50. Uranjek, M.; Bosiljkov, B.V. Influence of freeze–thaw cycles on mechanical properties of historical brick
masonry. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 416–428. [CrossRef]
51. EN 11186. Cultural Heritage—Natural and Artificial Stones—Methodology for Exposure to Freeze—Thawing
Cycles. 2008. Available online: https://www.ds.dk/~{}/media/DS/Files/Downloads/udvalg/S-388/Udgivne-
EN-standarder-CEN-TC-346---emneopdelt.ashx?la=da (accessed on 28 November 2019).
52. Italian Code, No. 2233. Norme per L’accettazione dei Materiali Laterizi. 1939. (In Italian)
53. ICOMOS-ISCS. Illustrated Glossary on Stone Deterioration Patterns. 2008. Available
online: https://www.icomos.org/publications/monuments_and_sites/15/pdf/Monuments_and_Sites_15_
ISCS_Glossary_Stone.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2019).
54. Desiato, F.; Fioravanti, G.; Fraschetti, P.; Perconti, W.; Piervitali, E.; Pavan, V. Gli indicatori del clima in Italia
nel 2018. ISPRA Rep. 2018, 14, 88. Available online: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2019/pubblicazioni/
stato-ambiente/SA_88_19_Indicatori_clima_annoXIV_2018.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2019). (In Italian).
55. Stoker, T.F.; Qin, D. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stoker, T.F., Qin, D., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed on
29 November 2019).

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).