## 2 Knowledge-Based Procedure
### Exhaustive Knowledge Acquisition: KL3
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Knowledge Level 3** & **KL3** \\ \hline Architectural survey & Complete & Laser scanning survey \\ \hline Structural characterization & Complete & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Thermography campaign \\ GPR survey \\ Trial holes + endoscopy \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Mortar characterization & Accurate &
\begin{tabular}{c} Mineralogic + petrographic \\ analysis \\ Drilling tests \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Elastic Young’s modulus & In situ & Double flat-jack test \\ \hline Shear resistance & In situ & Shove test \\ \hline Compressive strength on the & Laboratory & Compressive test \\ resistant elements & Laboratory & Uni-axial compressive test \\ \hline Compressive strength of the & Laboratory & Uni-axial compressive test \\ concrete & CF3 & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Investigations conducted on the building. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Clay Brick Masonry**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rough-Block Stone Masonry**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **M1** & **M2** & **M3** & **M4** \\ \hline Flat-jack test & E (MPa) & 1194 & 2952 & 603 & 869 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Shove test} & \(\tau_{0}\) (MPa) & 0.165 & 0.403 & 0.013 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(\mu\) (-) & 0.144 & 0.259 & 0.022 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Destructive tests executed at the masonry panel scale. Figure 3: Double flat-jack results for the two masonry types according to the four executed tests: (**a**) clay brick masonry; (**b**) rough-block stone masonry. the two tests provide a mean value equal to 2073 MPa, which is higher than the maximum value assumed for general masonry. Two above tests were executed on the clay elements of the brick masonry, while only one test was performed on the stone masonry. The first two tests provided the mean shear resistance of the clay brick masonry \(\tau_{0}\) and the friction coefficient \(\mu\). For the two tests, the \(\tau_{0}\) values were 0.165 and 0.403 MPa (mean value of 0.284 MPa), while the computation of \(\mu\) led to 0.144 and 0.259, respectively (mean value of 0.403). The test on the stone masonry yielded values of 0.013 MPa for \(\tau_{0}\) and 0.022 for \(\mu\). In addition to these tests executed on the panels, in situ and laboratory tests were conducted on the singular elements composing the masonry panels. Cubic samples extracted from the stones and the clay bricks were shaped and tested in the laboratory (32 and 28 samples, respectively) in order to investigate the compressive strength \(\mathrm{f_{m}}\) of the materials (Figure 4). For the stone elements, a mean value around 80 MPa was derived, while for the brick elements, the analysis led to compressive values around 15 MPa with a mean value of 23.1 MPa. Assessment of the mortar involved laboratory analysis and drilling tests. Laboratory tests were conducted on two mortar samples extracted from the two masonry typologies in the building. Mineralogic and petrographic analyses were carried out. The mineralogic tests were performed by X-ray diffractometry using a diffractometer; the petrographic analyses were conducted through an optic microscope. The results of these analyses revealed the composition of the mortar of the masonry panels. They are made of aerial lime produced in the traditional way and characterized by a dimensional ratio between the inert materials and the binders equal to 3 to 1. In addition, drilling tests on the mortar layers were executed to determine the compressive strength of the element. The tests were performed with a PNT-G penetrometer (Pizzi Instruments). For each test, 15 different trials were conducted, then the mean value of the experiments was considered excluding the minimum and maximum values. The energy released was converted into a resistance value through the Gucci and Barsotti procedure [46]. The drilling tests indicated poor mechanical values for all the executed tests, with resistance strength of the mortar always below 0.70 MPa except for one case (Figure 5).