Ground penetrating radar prospection of the construction phases of theHoly Aedicula of the Holy Sepulchre in correlation with architecturalanalysis

Kyriakos C. Lampropoulos a, Antonia Moropoulou a,⇑, Manolis Korres b

aNational Technical University of Athens, School of Chemical Engineering, 9 Iroon Polytechniou Street, Zografou Campus, Athens GR15780, GreecebNational Technical University of Athens, School of Architecture, 28 Oktovriou (Patision) 42, Patision Complex, Athens GR10682, Greece

h i g h l i g h t s

� GPR and architectural analysis revealed the construction layers of the Holy Aedicula.� Remnants of the original monolithic dodecagon Aedicula were identified, embedded within the structure.� Part of the 11th c. masonries were retained, upon which new masonries were constructed in 1810.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 February 2017Received in revised form 4 August 2017Accepted 9 August 2017Available online 20 August 2017

Keywords:Ground penetrating radarNon-destructive testingChurch of the Holy SepulchreHoly AediculaHistoric masonry

a b s t r a c t

The Holy Aedicula of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was surveyed by ground penetrating radar in cor-relation with an architectural analysis, following a methodology suited for built cultural heritage assets.The construction layers of the building were revealed. Remnants of the original monolithic Aedicula wereidentified and comprise of two rock blocks surrounded by a masonry dating mainly to the 1810 construc-tion phase. Results indicate that parts of the 11th century structure may have been retained in the 1810reconstruction, such as the lower part of the masonry of the north side of the Chapel of the Angel. Thesouth rock block appears to be fractured and the influence of two pillars that support the dome of theburial chamber and which are based on the rock block is assessed.

� 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Built Cultural Heritage (CH), in all its diverse physical forms, isan important component of collective and individual identity. It isa non-renewable resource which is being lost at an alarming rate,not only due to natural decay but also as a result of human inter-ventions, natural hazards and environmental changes. The signifi-cance and vulnerability of built CH has been the driving forcebehind the current trend for a holistic approach on its effectivesafeguarding and management. Innovative materials and tech-niques for more efficient conservation and rehabilitation of CHare applied, based on integrated decision making methodologies.Such an approach entails a systematic documentation of CH assets,a multi-modal assessment of their state of preservation [1–4],analysis of the natural and human-induced decay factors and haz-ards and their impact on the CH assets and their surroundings

[5,6], design and application of effective and compatible materialsand interventions, and monitoring of the CH assets to assess theeffectiveness of their rehabilitation [7]. This is necessary, sincebuilt CH, unlike modern structures, is generally associated with alimited degree of structural knowledge [3]. Historical structureswere constructed, modified and rehabilitated in the past withmaterials and construction technologies that are not documentedin adequate detail, and have been subjected to largely unknownenvironmental loads. The inherent requirement to preserve valuesimposes further restrictions in the field of built CH protection. Con-sequently, heritage sites involve comprehensive and interdisci-plinary conservation, reinforcement and repair interventions.

Within the above framework, non-destructive testing (NDT)provides key scientific support delivering information which isintegrated in an overall decision making process [4,5,7]. Groundpenetrating radar (GPR), is an established NDT [8,9] that offersunique advantages in the field of built CH protection with its abil-ity to prospect the internal structure of an asset without the needof sampling. The application of GPR can be successful when the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.0440950-0618/� 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail address: amoropul@central.ntua.gr (A. Moropoulou).

Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 307–322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /conbui ldmat

morphological and diagnostic problems to be solved are suffi-ciently clarified and supported by deep knowledge of the construc-tion [10]. Relevant GPR applications can be categorized into twomain groups. The first one relates to the prospection of a historicbuilding in order to study its internal layering [11], geometryand reveal any hidden structural elements [12]. In such applica-tions, GPR surveys are conducted over interior [13,14], exterior[15] and ground [16–18] surfaces of the building with the aim toprovide a pseudo-3D imaging of the internal structure and theunderground environment of the surveyed building [19]. In mostcases, however, 3D visualization is partially feasible due to accessi-bility issues or the lack of adequate flat areas (especially on thevertical surfaces of historic buildings) over which GPR surveyscan be conducted [20]. These difficulties are partly overcome byintegrating data from other NDTs such as Electrical ResistivityTomography [21,22], infrared thermography, sonic tests [23,24],geomatic measurements, laser scanning, digital terrestrial pho-togrammetry [25] and other analytical tools [26]. The second maingroup of applications relates to the assessment of the state ofpreservation of built CH [12,27]. GPR is used to detect internalvoids, cracks, features [28], interfaces with loss of cohesion, orother damaged areas which can be detrimental to the structuralperformance of the surveyed building. Likewise, GPR is used toassess the effectiveness of conservation, reinforcement and repairinterventions [29]. This second main group of applications is alsosubjected to the aforementioned accessibility limitations as wellas to the general lack of information regarding the evolution ofenvironmental loads onto the historic building. As in the firstgroup, the combined use of other NDTs and analytical tools aimsto address these limitations.

From both groups of applications, it appears that the effective-ness of GPR as a tool to provide 3Dimensional structural informa-tion at the level of a historic building is often hindered byaccessibility issues. The combined use of other non-destructive oranalytical techniques is the main approach to address this prob-lem. However, even these techniques are often hindered by thesame accessibility issues relevant to GPR. The present work aimsto provide a methodology suited for built CH through which GPR

in correlation with architectural analysis can reveal essential struc-tural information of historical buildings. The Holy Aedicula of theHoly Sepulchre is an emblematic case study that demonstratesall stages of this methodology.

2. General description

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the city of Jerusalem is oneof the most important religious sites of Christianity and accordingto tradition is the scene of Christ’s death and resurrection [30–34].The Church dates back to 326AD, when Emperor Constantine Iordered the construction of a basilica incorporating the tomb ofChrist (within a Rotunda area which contained the Holy Aediculain its centre) and the hill of Golgotha [35]. This building was dam-aged by fire in 614 when the Persians invaded and destroyed Jeru-salem. Patriarch Modestos rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchrein 617. In 1009, the Caliph of Egypt El-Hakem ordered the completedestruction of the church; the Holy Aedicula was damaged as well.During the reign of Constantine Monomachus, Patriarch Nikiforospersuaded the Emperor to offer money for the reconstruction ofthe Holy Sepulchre (1027–1048). After the capture of Jerusalemby the Crusaders the Holy Sepulchre was repaired and a vestibule(Chapel of the Angel) was added in 1119 at the eastern side of theAedicula. The Aedicula was reconstructed again in 1555 by Bonifaceof Ragusa, the Custos of the Holy Land and possibly involved thedemolition of the Byzantine structure and its reconstruction [35].In 1808, an accidental fire became uncontrolled, which causedthe dome of the Rotunda to collapse over the Aedicula, inflictingto it severe damage. After permission from Sultan Mahmud II, theofficial architect ‘‘Kalfas” Komnenos rebuilt the Aedicula in the con-temporary Ottoman Baroque style [36]. The restored Church wasinaugurated on 13th September 1810.

However, after the last reconstruction, the marble shell of theAedicula gradually presented a strong buckling. By 1947 the defor-mation was intense, forcing the British Authority to take immedi-ate measures. The Aedicula (Fig. 1) was encased in a cradle of steelgirders which was present until recently, and which through tim-ber wedges inserted between the steel and the stone columns pre-

Fig. 1. The Holy Aedicula of the Holy Sepulchre prior to the rehabilitation Works. A. South view; B. North view; C. Main Façade (east); D; The Arcosolium inside the Tombchamber; E. Typical deformation of the structure (northeast corner).

308 K.C. Lampropoulos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 307–322

https://isiarticles.com/article/150809