Experimental Testing and Didactic Observation of the Collapse of Scaled Brick Structures Built with Traditional Techniques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes an interesting educational effort to acquaint architecture students with some of the principles of the design and construction of masonry arches and vaults. It is an effort worthy of publication on those grounds.
The plastic analysis as applied to arches is overworked and does not apply well to actual support and loading conditions. As an academic exercise, this issue does not apply very much. However, I would like to see acknowledgement of this in the article and especially in the authors' discussions with students. The support conditions of the constructed arches are fictitious, especially in the omission of backing masonry. The loading condition--a single concentrated load at the crown of the arch or along the rib of the vault is very unrealistic and it should be pointed out that different results would be produced in a realistic arch.
Except for terminology 'yield line' hinge, etc. the plastic analysis theory breaks down or is unusable--there is a contrast between the discussions of arch behavior and vault vault behavior.
I have noted some ambiguities in the description in the attached file. I would appreciate the authors considering them carefully.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript focuses on the experimental testing of scaled brick and tile vaults constructed using traditional techniques. The study provides valuable insights into the load-bearing behavior and collapse mechanisms of masonry structures through direct observation, while also comparing the outcomes with theoretical and numerical approaches. By integrating modern digital tools such as photogrammetry and motion tracking, the work bridges theoretical assumptions with empirical evidence, offering significant contributions both to structural engineering research and to architectural education. Moreover, it highlights the educational and heritage value of traditional construction practices, ensuring their transmission to future generations
Although the manuscript is well-structured, it is not expressed scientifically in a clear manner. Therefore, it is important to address the following major revisions.
Abstract:
The abstract is a section that should clearly present the aim, scope, contribution, and results of the manuscript. Although the authors have provided the aim and content of the study, they do not present a numerical analysis regarding the results. It is important that the results are included in the abstract.
Introduction:
The introduction section lacks up-to-date literature. Some important references related to the study are not presented in the manuscript. Studies such as 10.29128/geomatik.560179 and https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-025-02665-2 should be added to the literature review. These papers are only examples. The author should strengthen the literature review by considering other works of the authors of the suggested articles as well as other relevant studies in the field.
Brick tile vault workshop development:
The method used in the manuscript is described in detail. This is useful to some extent; however, since the method includes many process steps, presenting it in a workflow diagram would make it easier to understand.
Conclusion:
The conclusion section should include the aim, scope, contribution of the study, the advantages of the method used, the important features that distinguish it from previous studies, its limitations, and suggestions for future studies. In the current study, the conclusion section is written superficially and does not meet these criteria. I recommend that this section be rewritten.
In addition, the resolution of the figures should be checked to ensure compliance with the journal’s policies.
After the above revisions, I would like to review the manuscript again.
Author Response
Please, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article reports on the experimental work carried out by the Department of Structures and Building Physics at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. It is part of the tradition that this School has been promoting for more than twenty years, especially in the study of masonry and thin-tile vaults.
The paper describes the teaching experimentation on masonry mechanical elements with ceramic sections, with particular emphasis on the conclusions. The experimental workshop on masonry vaults has provided valuable insights into both the structural behavior of thin-tile construction and its pedagogical value within architectural education. From the load tests of the arches, the students confirmed that, in well-constructed small arches with mortar joints, flexural resistance contributes to an increase in load-bearing capacity.
The study also addresses the use of new technologies within the Department’s research activities. I believe the true value of this work lies in its pedagogical character and the transmission of knowledge about structural systems whose tradition has been lost. The recognition and explanation of complex mechanical issues—absent from most architecture curriculms—constitute the main contribution of a possible publication. This would justify submitting the paper to Heritage, under the section Sensing technologies for diagnostics and monitoring of architectural and artistic heritage, emphasizing the transmission of construction heritage through scientific methodology, once the experimental methods of master builders have been lost.
The focus could also have been appropriate for the Journal of Architectural Education, highlighting the methodology, objectives, and teaching framework of the workshop in which the experience was carried out.
From an experimental standpoint, the work lacks the rigor of a laboratory scientific methodology in terms of the selection of measurements, forms, and possible comparisons—particularly between the Catenary arch and the Pointed arch studied by Prof. Santiago Huerta at this University.
Arch type | Span (m) | Height (m)
Segmental arch | 1.740 | 0.435
Catenary arch | 1.215 | 0.965
Pointed arch | 1.210 | 0.840
Basket-handle arch | 1.691 | 0.640
Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, it would be necessary to explain the choice of typologies.
Consequently, I consider it essential to clearly define the object of study and how it is presented, as well as to state the limitations of the research.
It would also be advisable to review the state of the art, noting that this research is framed within the tradition of the Madrid School, whose experimental pedagogical systems have identifiable references and are essential for understanding the study.
In addition, the title should be redefined, as it is currently overloaded with adjectives:
- Current proposal: Experimental Testing and Collapse Observation of Scaled Brick Structures Built with Traditional Techniques.
- Suggested alternative: Experimentation and Pedagogy of the Collapse of Ceramic Structures.
Regarding keywords, the current list is excessive and does not accurately reflect the paper:
Current: arches; architecture; collapse mechanisms; domes; experimental testing; masonry structures; photogrammetry; plastic limit analysis; scaled models; tile vaults; traditional construction techniques.
Suggested: Architectural Education; collapse mechanisms; experimental testing; Escuela Arquitectura UPM.
From my perspective, there are no objections to the scientific proposal or the analysis of results. However, the writing and structure should be thoroughly revised, eliminating redundant content that specialized readers are already familiar with, and presenting more clearly the intrinsic values of the research as part of the trajectory developed by the Escuela de Arquitectura at UPM.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the professors for their pedagogical efforts in explaining aspects of constructive tradition that are now preserved only in a few universities worldwide.
Author Response
Please, see the file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached manuscript
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, see the file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
Following my initial review and the authors’ thorough revisions, I am pleased to report that the manuscript has been substantially improved and now meets the publication standards of Heritage. The abstract has been strengthened with quantitative outcomes from the collapse tests; the Introduction has been updated with relevant and recent literature (including SfM photogrammetry, structural performance of modern masonry systems, and AR-assisted guidework); the method is clarified with a helpful workflow diagram; and the Conclusions have been rewritten to clearly state aim, scope, contribution, distinguishing features, limitations, and directions for future work. High-resolution figure files have also been provided.
Accordingly, I recommend acceptance. I only request one minor bibliographic correction in the reference list:
- As currently listed in the manuscript (incorrect title):
Ulvi, A., Yakar, M., Yiğit, AY, Kaya, Y. Obtaining 3D Model and Point Cloud of Aksaray Red Church Using UAV and Terrestrial Photogrammetric Techniques. Geomatik 2020, 5(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.560179
- Correct title (please replace the title only; other details may remain):
Production of 3 Dimensional Point Clouds and Models of Aksaray Kizil Kilise by Using UAVs and Photogrammetric Techniques.
With this small fix, the manuscript is ready for publication.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Reviewer comment:
I only request one minor bibliographic correction in the reference list:
As currently listed in the manuscript (incorrect title):
Ulvi, A., Yakar, M., Yiğit, AY, Kaya, Y. Obtaining 3D Model and Point Cloud of Aksaray Red Church Using UAV and Terrestrial Photogrammetric Techniques. Geomatik 2020, 5(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.560179
Correct title (please replace the title only; other details may remain):
Production of 3 Dimensional Point Clouds and Models of Aksaray Kizil Kilise by Using UAVs and Photogrammetric Techniques.
Authors' response:
We thank the reviewer for their comment. The correction of the title has been made as indicated (Lines 779-780)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed all the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for their insightful comments, which have helped us to improve our manuscript.
