Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

High-Temperature Stone Behavior: Insights from a Global Heritage Stone Resources

Altmetrics

Downloads

66

Views

44

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

01 October 2024

Posted:

02 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Throughout history, natural stone has been a crucial building material due to its strength, durability, and aesthetic qualities. Today, it continues to be a valuable resource, representing both a cultural heritage asset and a significant economic material. However, the increasing frequency of heat waves and fires driven by climate change poses a growing threat to stone building materials. This paper presents a literature review aimed at assessing the effects of high temperatures on Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR). GHSR is an international classification designed to enhance the recognition and status of building stones. The study identifies a critical need for research to better understand how those stone materials behave when exposed to high temperatures in order to predict and mitigate the effects of external threats such as fires.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Geochemistry and Petrology

1. Introduction

In a world where climate change is increasing the frequency of fires, understanding the resilience of natural stone to high temperatures is both a scientific and global concern. This issue is closely related to its historical application and its cultural heritage value. Throughout history, stone has been used for various urban infrastructure needs, including road construction [1], facade cladding, ashlar or masonry walls [2], and for decorative purposes and sculptural endeavors [3]. Natural stone is essential for preserving and integrating architectural heritage, and its continued use in modern applications highlights its inherent sustainability, even amidst the prevalence of concrete in contemporary construction [1]. As a building material, natural stone is considered one of the earth’s most sustainable mineral resources [2], offering greater durability than alternative materials and consuming less energy while producing fewer toxic by-products [3]. Its global production is increasing due to ongoing research, and understanding natural stone behavior in different conditions has gained attention in recent decades for its performance in civil engineering and architecture [4,5,6,7].
As the world prioritizes sustainable development, studying stone materials is crucial for addressing both immediate challenges and long-term goals outlined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8]. This framework underscores the importance of natural resources like stone in fostering economic prosperity, environmental protection, and climate resilience. Understanding how stone materials perform under high temperatures can enhance structural integrity, promote the design of fire-resistant buildings, and improve safety regulations, thereby safeguarding human lives and minimizing economic losses.
Studying the impact of fire on stone materials also contributes to reducing disaster risk. Incorporating fire-resilient strategies into infrastructure planning enhances overall resilience, aligning with SDG Goal 9, which focuses on building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation. Additionally, understanding stone behavior under high temperatures is vital for the preservation and restoration of cultural heritage sites, ensuring their longevity for future generations. Integrating stone that performs well under high temperatures into urban infrastructure can improve disaster risk reduction efforts and protect urban populations, in line with SDG Goal 11, which focuses on protecting cultural and natural heritage. Furthermore, addressing the impacts of climate change supports SDG Goal 13, which focuses on combating climate change and its effects.
Given the non-renewable nature of stone and its substantial cultural, social, and economic value [9,10], it is crucial to ensure its protection through informed material choices and effective preservation techniques. Scientific research on stone materials is essential for preserving heritage against the effects of time, physical forces, and environmental conditions. Heritage stones are found in architectural structures worldwide, representing various historical periods and styles [11].
Despite the recognized importance of Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR) and given their key role of natural stone in heritage, it is imperative to understand their behavior under extreme conditions, especially in the context of increasing climate change impacts. This comprehensive review aims to evaluate the attention given by the scientific community to the challenges posed by high temperatures on GHSR. By highlighting existing research, this paper identifies critical challenges where further study is needed to ensure the preservation and resilience of these important materials, thereby improving predictions and mitigation strategies for potential damage from events such as fires.
Given the critical importance of GHSR, no comprehensive approach has yet been applied to assess the extent of research focused on their response to high temperatures. This paper seeks to fill this gap by providing a detailed review of the current state of knowledge and highlighting the need for additional research.

2. Global Heritage Stone Resources

The concept of Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR) was initially introduced by the International Association of Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG), specifically through Commission 10 - Building Stones and Ornamental Rocks (C-10), in late 2007. The concept underwent thorough discussion by the Executive Committee of IAEG throughout 2008, culminating in its formal deliberation during a meeting held in Madrid in September of that year. Furthermore, the proposal for Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR) was introduced at the 33rd International Geological Congress in Oslo in August 2008 [12], and it garnered attention in the primary forum of the International Union for the Geological Sciences (IUGS), where it received support from the IUGS [3].
For a lithotype to attain recognition as a Global Heritage Stone Resource (GHSR), it must satisfy precise criteria, including: (i) a history of significant and prolonged use (30 years or 50 years have been recommended), (ii) widespread geographic utilization (international use highlights a material's historical importance, but regional appreciation should also be valued), (iii) involvement in significant projects (considerate vital the utilization of the candidate in human projects now considered to have major heritage significance), (iv) cultural significance and recognition (artistic and architectural masterpieces, heritage construction, as well as utilitarian applications), (v) quarrying and availability (continuing availability of a GHSR will allow both the repair of heritage construction, encourage the building of future stone heritage as well as promote the sustainability of stone use), and (vi) potential socio-economic and environmental benefits [13,14].
The designation of GHSR does not discourage ongoing quarrying activities for these stones; rather, it advocates for their sustainable use, ensuring availability for heritage structure repairs, future stone heritage construction, and overall sustainable stone utilization. Moreover, it fosters the exploration of new materials for contemporary projects, which may potentially earn GHSR recognition in the future [3]. Preserving historical quarries that have supplied stones for architectural heritage remains of paramount importance. Neglecting proper stone selection or employing incompatible mortars during restoration efforts can result in structural and financial repercussions, jeopardizing aesthetic integrity [13].
Additionally, the GHSR stimulates scientific research and encourages international cooperation in the study and utilization of natural stone resources. The associated papers with this classification play a crucial role by serving as opportunities for further investigation and documentation of heritage stones on a global scale [11].
As of the latest update in April 2023, the scope of this classification encompasses 32 lithotypes. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of the number of GHRS considering the information obtained by IAEG. The analysis of his figure allows a clear insight into the prominence of limestones among ornamental lithologies within the GHSR classification, highlighting their substantial representation and importance. Marbles follow closely, with granites and sandstones also featuring prominently in the GHSR classification.
Analyzing the continental distribution of GHSR reveals a significant concentration in Europe, where 72% of lithotypes are found, as depicted in Figure 2. This graphical representation emphasizes the extensive scope of this study and highlights Europe's predominant role, likely due to historical factors that facilitated the construction of numerous stone monuments in the region. The Americas account for 16% and Asia for 12% of the total lithotypes, demonstrating a substantial presence of GHSR beyond Europe. These findings suggest that Europe's prominence in GHSR may be influenced by historical and cultural factors, possibly related to its long-standing architectural heritage and construction practices. In contrast, the lower percentages observed in the Americas and Asia could be attributed to regional differences in geological composition, construction traditions, and historical contexts. Understanding these regional dynamics is crucial for developing tailored conservation strategies and promoting sustainable management practices for GHSR globally. This highlights the importance of international collaboration and research initiatives. As of the latest update in April 2023, Africa and Oceania remain the only continents without any classified GHSR.
Figure 3 features photos of two architectural heritage buildings that use Lioz Limestone This lithotype integrates de GHSR list and falls under both the limestone classification and Europe group, as it originates from Portugal.
In Figure 4a, the geographical distribution of all Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR) worldwide up to April 2023 is depicted. In Figure 4b, a closer view of Europe is provided, showing that it hosts 72% of the GHSR. This view is overlaid with a layer highlighting burned areas from 2000 to 2023. This overview underscores the susceptibility of these valuable materials to fire incidents, highlighting that areas previously affected by such phenomena remain at risk of future occurrences. Given the significance of these stones for global heritage and the challenges posed by high temperatures, it is imperative to conduct thorough studies to anticipate and understand their behavior when confronted with such challenges.

3. Methods

3.1. Selection of Database

The initial bibliographic filtering process began by searching for relevant articles related to each lithotype using the specific terms found in the GHSR publication, including the lithotype name and its geological identification (Figure 5). This method was chosen since certain lithologies are often studied under different names. However, considering all possible variations would be impractical. Therefore, the use of standardized classification terms was believed the most effective approach for filtering, as these are the most widely recognized denominations. The variability of the designations, which has been a longstanding issue within the scientific community, underscores the need for standardizing lithology nomenclature to allow a more accurate assessment of the scientific research conducted on these materials. With that settled, the search for each recognized lithology was conducted as this example: Bath limestone used the query TS = (bath) AND TS = (limestone). This search was conducted within the keywords, titles, and abstracts of papers indexed by SCOPUS, with no restrictions on publication year to minimize constraints on the filtered articles. The initial search returned a large volume of papers, totaling more than 20,000 across all 32 lithologies.
Figure 6 presents the frequency of papers filtered from the first process across all the 32 GH SR’s, allowing for an analysis of the research intensity for each stone. The findings highlight significant disparities in the level of attention each stone has received in the literature.
Several stones have no studies associated with them. These include Teozantla Tuff, Pietra Mar del Plata, and Tennessee Marble. The absence of research on these stones highlights potential study opportunities that could be explored in future studies.
Some stones have gotten very little attention, with fewer than five studies each. For instance, Échaillon Stone, Tyndall Stone, Hallandia Gneiss, and Kolmarden Serpentine Marbles each have only one study. Similarly, Rochlitz Porphyry tuff and Arrábida Breccia have just two studies each.
In the category of a few studies, ranging from five to ten studies, there are stones like Larvikite and Rosa Beta Granite, both with five studies each. Alpedrete Granite, Petit Granit, Pietra Serena, and Podpec Limestone each have nine studies, while Villamayor Sandstone has ten studies. Although these stones have received slightly more attention than those in the very few studies category, they still represent a relatively under-researched group.
Some stones fall into the category of having a moderate number of studies, ranging from ten to fifty studies. These include Lede Stone with twelve studies, Makrana Marble with sixteen studies, and Connemara Marble with twenty studies. Lioz Limestone, Alwar Quartzite, and Jacobsville Sandstone also belong to this group, with Lioz Limestone having twenty-one studies, Alwar Quartzite twenty-two studies, and Jacobsville Sandstone twenty-four studies. Other stones in this category are Jaisalmer Limestone with twenty-six studies, Estremoz Marble with twenty-nine studies, Bath Stone with thirty-one studies, and Macael Marble with forty-two studies. The inclusion of these stones in this category suggests that, although they have been relatively well-researched, there remains ample opportunity for further investigation.
A few stones have undergone more extensive research, with fifty and one hundred studies. Notable examples include Welsh Slate, with fifty-nine studies, and Lower Globigerina Limestone, with sixty-three studies, are noted examples. These stones have attracted a moderate level of academic attention, reflecting their significance, likely due to their historical or architectural importance.
Carrara Marble stands out in with an impressive 516 studies dedicated to it, highlighting its prominence and widespread use in sculpture and construction. This substantial body of research underscores its historical and artistic value.
Notably, no stones fall within the range of five hundred to one thousand studies, revealing a gap between moderately researched stones and those extensively studied. The most extensively researched stones, with more than five thousand studies each, are Deccan Basalt and Portland Limestone. Deccan Basalt, with a staggering 12,114 studies, and Portland Limestone, with 2,190 studies, are the most extensively studied stones in this dataset. Their extensive coverage reflects their geological significance, widespread use, and economic importance. Deccan Basalt, in particular, stands out as the most researched stone by a substantial margin.
In conclusion, the distribution of research across these stones is markedly uneven. While stones like Deccan Basalt and Portland Limestone have been extensively studied, many others, particularly those with fewer than ten studies, remain largely unexplored. This disparity highlights significant opportunities for future research, especially for stones that received little to no attention. Investigating the factors behind these imbalances could provide valuable insights into what drives research interest and investment in the study of different stone types.
To address this imbalance and ensure the focus remained on the relevant material, a second filtering process was deemed necessary. This involved identifying and excluding papers that were not pertinent to the specific lithotype. For instance, the initial search for Portland Limestone yielded 2,190 papers, many of which were related to Portland cement rather than the Global Heritage Stone Resource itself. By applying the exclusion criterion TS = (cement), the number of papers was significantly reduced to 122. This exclusion step was essential to focus the review on relevant studies and was uniquely applied to Portland Limestone due to the high prevalence of cement-related articles.
Following this refinement, the final step aimed to ensure the scientific relevance of the selected papers. Papers were ranked using the SCOPUS relevance tool, which employs a vector model to calculate relevance based on keyword frequency and position. To balance the thoroughness of the review with practical considerations, a cap of 70 papers per lithotype was established. This limit was selected as it aligns with the median initial count of around 24 articles per lithotype, ensuring a representative sample while minimizing the inclusion of less relevant information. Without this relevance filter and cap, many articles meeting the initial criteria were found to be only tangentially related. The limit was particularly essential for lithotypes like Deccan Basalt and Carrara Marble, which initially returned 12,114 and 551 articles, respectively.
The total number of papers considered for each lithotype, resulting from this meticulous process, is detailed in Figure 5. This approach reveals some disparities in the number of articles per lithotype, which can be attributed to factors such as historical context, worldwide recognition, the type of applied built heritage, and the year of inclusion in the GHSR list. These factors suggest that longer classification durations are linked to greater recognition and heightened academic attention.
This structured methodology highlights the study’s rigor, ensuring a review that is both comprehensive and focused on the most pertinent and impactful research related to each lithotype. Importantly, no restrictions were placed on SCOPUS categories, as stone resources are frequently interconnected with other scientific fields besides geology. A total of 639 papers were identified using the defined search criteria. Subsequently, additional criteria were applied to evaluate the level of scientific attention each lithology has received, aiming for a more nuanced and detailed analysis.

3.2. Database Analyses Criteria

Through this method and a systematic analysis of the articles obtained from SCOPUS search, the goal was to assess the scope of scientific research on stone resources and interpret quantitative findings, particularly regarding the effects of high temperature on GHSR stones.
It was considered important to analyze in a first assessment if the paper referred to different denominations of the lithology in order to evaluate if we could have a significant number of research that could have been excluded from the analyses, resulting from the main use of different names.
After that, it was settled that viewing if any composition reference was made, with the goal to observe if the lithology instigated an interest regarding its composition in the scientific community. Similarly, it was also considered important to examine if physical and/or mechanical properties were specified. Comparing these two aspects provides valuable insights into the primary lithological characteristics of GHSR as a geological material. Additionally, it was essential to determine whether the analyzed papers included information on the behavior of these materials at high temperatures.
In Other Nomenclatures: The goal was to determine whether the lithotype is commonly referred to by alternative names, as it can complicate the identification of all relevant scientific publications. Variations in terminology may arise from different commercial names or from distinct facies of the lithotype, each of which may be associated with different properties and behaviors.
The aim was to determine the level of attention given by the scientific community to the significance of mineralogical, petrographic and chemical composition of the lithotypes, as they play a crucial role in understanding the behavior of stone materials.
In Physical and/or Mechanical Properties: The purpose was to investigate the extent of research conducted regarding physical and mechanical properties, as it is essential to understand how stone materials can be affected when exposed to various hazards. This is a very inclusive category, encompassing a wide range of properties with the goal to achieving an optimistic outcome of the research done in the studied lithologies.
In High Temperatures: The goal was to obtain an overview of the extent of investigation being conducted on the effects of high temperatures on stone materials, given its importance highlighted in this study. The minimum temperature considered was 120ºC since 100ºC it’s usually the limit temperature that studies consider for freeze-thaw tests [15] [16] and it was intended to extend that temperature 20ºC with the aim to exclude this specific test. Other studies, such as [17] consider 100ºC as the temperature for drying stone samples before conducting further tests, assuming that it won’t affect their previous properties. This consideration also supported the choice made in this methodology.
All of the information of the papers that fit the criteria is presented in Appendix A. In Table 1 the consider criteria is detailed described. Each article was considered for inclusion in the specific category only if it contained information that met the predefined criteria in order to have an overview of the studied subjects.

4. Results

The applied methodology resulted in a Main Table (Appendix A – Figure A1) presenting information on each lithotype, including lithology, place of origin, year of entrance into the GHSR catalog, and the reference paper leading to its classification.
Figure 7 displays the total number of papers that meet the specific criteria for each GHSR topic. Carrara Marble (75), Macael Marble (67) and Portland Limestone (54) stand out among the lithotypes. This observation can be justified by the large number of total papers reviewed, with Carrara Marble and Portland Limestone having the maximum number of 70 papers reviewed. Although this fact by itself is not enough to justify this data, since Macael Marble is also in that category and had 42 papers, fewer than the other two lithotypes. For that reason, it’s considered that lithology status also plays a significant role in the scientific attention given to the natural stone since Macael is a worldwide recognized marble that has been appreciated since the Neolithic period (3400–3000 years B.C.) and still applied in prominent international buildings [18] Examples like Deccan basalt, Lower Globigerina and Wesh slate also support that theory. Deccan Basalt was also one of the lithotypes with 70 reviewed papers but is not among the most rated lithotypes, with 25 papers. The observation during the literature review supports that the reason behind that data is that a large scale of the papers filtered for Deccan Basalt referred to other facies associated with the lava flows that origin this lithology. A similar occurrence happened for Lower Globigerina Limestone and Welsh Slate, since with the first example many studies regarding the stratigraphic series relating to this limestone occurrence emerged and for the second case studied a large part of the selected papers fall into the scientific fields of Arts and Humanities as well as social Sciences.
As previously noted in this study, the longer a lithology has been classified, the more likely it is to attract increased attention from researchers. For this reason, the year of entrance was also considered for inclusion in Figure 7. The results of this assessment are reflected in Figure 8, where it’s evident that the years with the major total number of entrances are 2019 and 2017. However, upon analyzing the data for the total number of lithologies per year, it becomes apparent that the average decreases in the most recent years (Figure 9) corroborating this theory. However, it's important to note that many of the lithotypes had been studied prior to the establishment of its Global Heritage Stone Resource status.
Figure 10 presents the results detailing the number of papers associated with each individual topic. The results reveal that 67 papers (14.3%) mentioned alternative names for the analyzed GHSR (Figure 11). This suggests that the potential for additional scientific research, not captured by this methodology, is higher for lithotypes with multiple denominations.
Figure 12 illustrates the proportion of studies focusing on overall properties. compared to those addressing high temperature effects. Out of 32 lithotypes, only 6 have been studied in relation to high temperatures. This indicates that research on high-temperature behavior is less prevalent compared to general studies. This data underscores the need for more focused research on the high-temperature properties of these culturally significant lithotypes.
Among the selected papers on fire studies, a broad temperature range is observed, from 200°C to 900°C (Figure 13). The most frequently studied temperatures are 200°C, 250°C, 300°C, 400°C, and 600°C. This selection is justified by the need to evaluate stone behavior at temperatures relevant to high-enthalpy geothermal applications (from room temperature to 250ºC) [19]. Other studies focus on temperature ranges such as 300°C, 400°C, and 600°C to simulate fire scenarios, and assess the performance of stones in heritage applications.
When analyzing the focus on Global Heritage Stone Resources concerning their lithology, it becomes apparent that they predominantly consist of limestones and marbles (Figure 1).
The geometry of the studied samples is also an important factor when comparing results. Figure 14 shows that the predominant geometry chosen by researchers is cylindrical (62.5%), followed by cubic (18.75%) and parallelepiped (6.65%), and other geometries (18.75%). The studies categorized under "Other" encompass those involving disk morphology and a U-shaped notch. These morphologies were grouped under "Other" to facilitate the conduct of specific tests.
In addition to geometry, the heating rate, and the duration of sample exposure to the heat source play a crucial role in determining the results. Since the scope of this study intends to call the attention of the fire threat to cultural heritage and the need to understand the stone’s behavior it’s important to state that these laboratorial parameters should try to mimic the natural conditions as closely as possible. While some of the studies filtered in this research focus on geothermal applications [19,20,21,22,23], which typically involve a slower heating rate and longer exposure times, it's important to note that real fire scenarios often entail rapid heating rates. Additionally, the duration of exposure can be unpredictable and depends on available extinguishing methods and combustible material available. However, in the context of cultural heritage preservation, exposure times are anticipated to be shorter due to the valued nature of these resources and the implementation of efficient protective measures.
The filtered studies employ various methods of exposure to the heating source. Some immediately expose the samples to the chosen temperature, while others control the heating rate, ranging from 0.05ºC/min to 9.6ºC/min (Figure 15). Regarding the duration of exposure, intervals of 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours (at least) were commonly selected, suggesting a tendency towards either shorter or longer periods of time (Figure 16).
In all previously mentioned papers, the study samples were heated in a laboratorial setting using heating equipment mainly referred to as a muffle or oven. However, none of them explored case studies following real fire scenarios, despite some authors having already focused on these types of assessments [24,25,26,27,28,29]. This type of evaluation can be more complex, as the natural heating process involves variations regarding temperature penetration and velocity spread throughout the stone material, making it challenging to assess mineralogical, physical, and mechanical properties. Additionally, sample assessment can be challenging since preventing damage to the applied heritage should be a priority. This aspect can contribute to the preference for laboratory evaluation where this concern doesn’t exist, and the heating process can be controlled.
The findings from the analyzed laboratory-filtered studies highlight that the assessment of Physical-Mechanical properties tends to exceed the Minerochemical ones, except for Makrana Marble. This data suggests that studies prioritize assessing the performance of natural stones when exposed to the threat of high temperatures and are interested in assessing how the stone will behave as an architectural and building material. Although it’s also important to understand the minerochemical changes that occur since they are intrinsically related with the overall behavior. Another significant aspect highlighted in Figure 17 is that all lithotypes have some properties analyzed in both categories, which can be highly useful for correlating these properties and understanding their associations.
Figure 18 summarizes the properties identified in the filtered papers of this study. The properties were identified by their main group classification. The Physical-Mechanical category encompasses a greater number of registered properties. This fact may be interpreted as a sign of significant interest within the scientific community to understand the natural stones. Given their application as heritage materials, their integrity in the face of threats from high temperatures is of particular concern.
Within Minerochemical properties, SEM and Polarizing microscopy are the most popular, which may be due to the importance of understanding with a high definition the mineralogic and structural changes in a smaller scale, since one of the most damaging aspects resulting from high temperatures influences are fissures and fractures leading in a higher scale to cracks and deformation [25,27,30–35].
Within the Physical-Mechanical group, the assessment of open porosity and water absorption stands out. These properties are deemed valuable for understanding the impact extent on stone’s internal structure [7]. Open porosity provides critical insights into the increase of voids in the natural stone, while water absorption identifies the influence of variations on water-stone interaction.
Analyzing the filtered studies on the effects of high temperatures on Global Heritage Stone Resources reveals a consistent finding: temperature has a significant impact on stone materials. Both Mineralogical and physical-mechanical properties are reported to be affected by temperature variations.
Similar to the findings of the previous study, other research has also reported changes in the stone’s microstructure. For example, intense thermal micro-fissuring has been documented using techniques such as ultrasonic tomography and FESEM [23], Another study highlighted increases in open porosity and water absorption following heating, which the authors attributed to the anisotropic thermal deformation caused by micro-cracks and grain decohesion [36].
In some cases, the anisotropy increase happens due to thermal expansion of calcite grains [37,38]. This was an expected observation since it was already recognized that the microstructure deformation induced in calcite crystals exhibited a pronounced variation under the influence of temperature [39,40].
In addition to anisotropy, chemical changes also take place, for example, marble at temperatures between 500 and 700 °C resulted in the formation of calcium and magnesium oxides confirmed by thermodynamic analysis [36]. Limestone, on the other hand, at temperatures between 800 and 1000 °C decomposes to calcium oxide [37]. Some lithologies exhibited an increase in compressive and tensile strength due to chemical-physical transformations undergone by secondary mineralogical fractions at high temperatures [41]. These chemical changes can manifest as a volume increase, reduced bearing capacity, increased mass loss rate, and structural damage, ultimately resulting in a distinct change in P-wave velocity [36]. Processes of vaporization-escaping of adhered water, bound water, and structural water are also stated at elevated temperatures [36].
Stone attributes such as porosity, grain size, and microstructure directly influenced the mechanical behavior [20]. Fracture toughness, for instance, exhibited varying trends with temperature, increasing for porous stone samples and decreasing for non-porous ones [42,43]. The influence of temperature on the tensile strength alongside the fracture behavior of natural stone was also evident [44,45]. Porous samples exhibited an initial increase in tensile strength and fracture toughness up to a critical temperature, followed by a decrease due to thermally induced microcracks. Non-porous samples displayed a gradual strength decrease, and reduced trends after a heating-cooling cycle [46]. For a marble case study, the initial deformation stage became more nonlinear with increasing temperature, shifting stress–strain behavior from brittle to ductile [36].
Petrophysical values, elastic parameters, and mechanical properties exhibited a significant reduction at high temperatures, indicating intense thermal micro-fissuring [23,41].
Fracture toughness was considered a key parameter characterizing the residual strength of rocks under temperature influence [20]. Areas more affected by high temperatures, such as the ones directly exposed to heat exhibited lower P-wave velocity and more intense fissuration, whereas the areas more protected showed thermal etch pits structures [36].
The studies collectively emphasize the significant impact of high temperatures on natural stone, affecting microstructure, porosity, and mechanical properties [19,20,36,44–47]. Considering lithotype-specific characteristics is crucial when assessing thermal decay and deciding on remediation measures, like consolidants application. Heating was found to be an effective method for inducing artificial weathering in stone samples, facilitating consolidant testing. However, adjustments to heating procedures and complementary methods are necessary based on lithotype microstructural characteristics [41]. Consolidating actions studied in [23] showed a good strengthening effect in some cases. However, authors highlight that the effectiveness on weathered substrates remains an area that needs further understanding and focus from the scientific community. Ethyl silicate showed better performance than nanolime in a study performed using a limestone sample. 3D ultrasonic tomography allowed estimating the depth reached by this consolidant, proven to be a useful technique for assessing not only heat damage but also the consolidation efficiency of consolidants [47].
Throughout the analysis of the filtered papers, in addition to the previously mentioned high temperature studies, other studies focusing on external factors that influence stone properties were also identified. These include the effects of feral pigeon excrement [48], salt crystallization [49,50,51,52,53], and interactions with acid rain [54,55] on certain classified Global Heritage Stone Resources.
Although feral pigeon excrement can significantly damage natural stone, particularly limestone, due to its acidic nature [48, 56] it’s the only external factor that is not in a way related to climate change. Salt crystallization on natural stone is related to climate change, as it is influenced by humidity conditions as well as temperature variations [57,58]. These settings can promote stone decay, particularly in the presence of specific salts such as halite, nitratine, niter, and mirabilite [59]. One of the key factors contributing to the significance of this aspect in the context of stone heritage decay is the potential for minimal quantities of salts to induce substantial changes, particularly in the case of daily fluctuations in climate and periods of severe drought [60]. Climate change has also been connected to influencing the acidity of rainfall [61,62] since the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels associated with climate change contribute to higher concentrations of carbonic acid in the water system [54].
These studies are crucial in the characterization of heritage stones, as they evaluate how materials respond to extreme external factors. Their significance stems from their ability to reveal irreversible damage analogous to that caused by high temperatures. Consequently, such assessments should be incorporated into the comprehensive understanding of each lithology due to the valuable insights they offer.

5. Conclusions

The Global Heritage Stone Resource classification is a key initiative for natural stones used in heritage applications, enhancing their protection and social recognition. This recognition often correlates with a rise in scientific interest from the academic community. Additionally, it is important to note that multiple designations for certain lithologies can significantly hinder the assessment of the overall scientific output related to applications, enhancing their protection and social recognition. This recognition often correlates with a rise in scientific interest from the academic community. Additionally, it is important to note that multiple designations for certain lithologies can significantly hinder the assessment of the overall scientific output related to these materials in literature reviews.
Compared to the study of general properties, the issue of high temperatures remains relatively underexplored, despite its significant impact, particularly for European countries, which account for 75% of the total Global Heritage Stone Resources.
Studies evaluating the impact of high temperatures on Global Heritage Stone Resources reveal significant disparities in methodologies. This variability makes it challenging to compare the behavior of different lithologies, a situation that is anticipated due to the lack of established standards for guiding and assessing changes caused by high-temperature exposure.
Studies analyzing the impact of high temperatures on Global Heritage Stone Resources often focus on sound lithologies. However, it is important to note that lithologies subjected to the effects of fire may exhibit additional damages, especially given their application in heritage contexts and extensive historical background. Consequently, a variation between laboratory results and real-world scenarios is anticipated. This variability arises from the inherent susceptibility of these materials to diverse factors over time, emphasizing the complex interaction and different degrees of these influences on the lithology.
It’s also important to highlight that studying the impact of high temperatures on heritage stones contributes directly to the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda, particularly those focused on environmental conservation and heritage preservation. This research addresses the urgent need to combat climate change by offering valuable insights into the vulnerability of heritage stone resources. Such understanding fosters g a more sustainable and resilient approach to preserving these materials, safeguarding cultural heritage, and advancing global efforts toward a more sustainable and climate-resilient future.
In conclusion, the thorough analysis of studies on the effects of high temperatures on Global Heritage Stone Resources reveals the intricate relationship between temperature, microstructure, and mechanical properties. Grasping these interactions is essential for maintaining the integrity of stone materials and ensuring their effective preservation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.L., A. D. and G. P.; methodology, R.L.; validation, R.L., A. D. and G. P.; formal analysis, R.L., A. D. and G. P.; investigation, R.L.; data curation, R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.L., A. D. and G. P.; writing—review and editing, R.L., A. D. and G. P.; supervision, A. D. and G. P.; project administration, A. D. and G. P.; funding acquisition, A. D. and G. P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by strategic project CERENA FCT-UIDP/04028/2020, grant number UI/BD/152298/2021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Compilation of the main information assessed regarding each GHSR.
Table A1. Compilation of the main information assessed regarding each GHSR.
Name and Visual Aspect Lithology Place of Origin Year of entrance Reference for application Total nr of papers found Search words Other nomenclatures Composition Physical and/or Mechanical Properties High Temperatures
Sedimentary stones Preprints 120010 i001 Limestone Bath, United Kingdom July 2019 Marker, 2015 31 Bath stone + Limestone 1 [63] 1 [64] 12 [48,49,54,63–71] 0
Preprints 120010 i002 Sandstone Michigan, USA January 2019 Rose et al. 2017 24 Jacobsville + Sandstone 1 [72] 2 [73,74] 1 [72] 0
Preprints 120010 i003 Sandy Limestone Brusssels, Belgium January 2019 De Kock et al. 2015 9 Lede Stone + Limestone 2 [75,76] 3 [76,77,78] 4 [76,77,78,79] 0
Preprints 120010 i004 Limestone Lisbon, Portugal July 2019 Silva, 2019 21 Lioz + Limestone 1 [80] 4 [81,82,83,84] 4 [47,80,81,85] 3 [36,47,86]
Preprints 120010 i005 Limestone Malta January 2019 Cassar et al. 2017 63 Globigerina + Limestone 0 9 [87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95] 14 [50,51,87,88,90–99] 1 [41]
Preprints 120010 i006 Limestone Namur, Belgium December 2017 Pereira et al. 2015 9 Petit Granit + Limestone 5 [100,101,102,103,104] 3 [100,101,105] 3 [101,103,105] 0
Preprints 120010 i007 Sandy limestone / Sandstone Florence, Italy July 2019 Fratini et al. 20115 9 Pietra Serena + Limestone 0 8 [41,106–112] 5 [41,106,108,109,113] 1 [41]
Preprints 120010 i008 Limestone Podpeč, Slovenia December 2017 Kramar et al. 2015 9 Podpeč + Limestone 1 [114] 3 [114,115,116] 1 [114] 0
Preprints 120010 i009 Limestone Portland, United Kingdom December 2017 Hughes et al. 2013 2 190 Portland + Limestone 6 [52,117–121] 20 [55,117–120,122–136] 27 [52,55,118,120–123,125,126,128–145] 0
Preprints 120010 i010 Sandstone Salamanca, Spain February 2018 Garcia-Talegon et al. 2015 10 Villamayor + Sandstone 2 [146,147] 8 [147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154] 8 [146–148,150,152–155] 0
Preprints 120010 i011 Limestone Alps, France April, 2023 Dumont, 2020 1 Echaillon Stone + Limestone 1 [156] 1 [156] 1 [156] 0
Preprints 120010 i012 Breccia Arrábida, Portugal April, 2023 2 Arrábida + Breccia 2 [157,158] 1 [159] 0 0
Preprints 120010 i013 Dolomitic limestone Manitoba, Canada April, 2023 1 Tyndall Stone + Limestone 1 [160] 0 1 [160] 0
(not found) Tuff Mexico April, 2023 0 Teozantla + Tuff - - - -
Igneous stones Preprints 120010 i014 Limestone Jaisalmer, India April, 2023 [161] 26 Jaisalmer + Limestone 1 [162] 2 [162,163] 1 [162] 0
Preprints 120010 i015 Granite Alpedrete Province, Madrid, Spain July 2019 Freire-Lista et al. 2015 8 Alpedrete + Granite 4 [164,165,166,167] 6 [53,164–168] 7 [53,164–169] 0
Preprints 120010 i016 Monzonite Larvik, Norway December 2017 Heldal et al. 2015 5 Larvikite + Monzonite 1 [170] 4 [170,171,172,173] 1 [170] 0
Preprints 120010 i017 Orthoquartzite Mar del Plata, Argentina January 2019 Cravero et al.2015 0 Piedra Mar del Plata + - - - -
Preprints 120010 i018 Granite Italy July 2019 Careddu et al. 2015 5 Rosa Beta + Granite 2 [174,175] 4 [174,176–178] 4 [174,176–178] 0
Preprints 120010 i019 Porphyry tuff Rochlitz, Germany April 2023 [179] 2 Rochlitz + Porphyry Tuff 1 [180] 2 [180,181] 1 [180] 0
Metamorphic stones Preprints 120010 i020 Deccan Deccan, India April 2023 12114 Deccan + Basalt 0 19 [182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200] 6 [182,183,190,201–203] 0
Preprints 120010 i021 Marble Tuscany, Italy December 2017 Primavori, 2015 560 Carrara + Marble 3 [38,87,204] 26 [37,87,205–228] 35 [37,38,205–211,213–219,221–239] 6 [37,38,208,218,222,240]
Preprints 120010 i022 Marble Estremoz, Portugal February 2018 Lopes & Martins, 2015 29 Estremoz + Marble 10 [241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250] 10 [241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251] 4 [242–244,249] 0
Preprints 120010 i023 Gneiss Getinge, Sweden December 2017 Schouenborg et al. 2015 1 Hallandia + Gneiss 1 [252] 1 [252] 1 [252] 0
Preprints 120010 i024 Serpentine Marble Kolmarden, Sweden January 2019 Wikstrom & Pereira, 2015 1 Kolmarden Serpentine + Marble 1 [253] 1 [253] 1 [253] 0
Preprints 120010 i025 Marble Almeria, Spain July 2019 Navarro et al. 2015 42 Macael + Marble 12 [18,248,254–263] 22 [15,18–20,248,254–256,258–262,264–272] 22 [15,18,19,44,46,255–262,265–267,270–275] 4 [19,20,46,273]
Preprints 120010 i026 Marble Makrana, India July 2019 Garg et al. 2019 16 Makrana + Marble 1 [276] 4 [23,276–278] 4 [23,276,279,280] 1 [23]
Preprints 120010 i027 Marble Tennessee, USA July 2019 Byerly & Knowles, 2017 0 Tennesse + Marble - - - -
Preprints 120010 i028 Slate Wales, United Kingdom January 2019 Hughes et al. 2016 59 Welsh + Slate 2 [281,282] 5 [281,282,283,284,285] 4 [281,284–286] 0
Preprints 120010 i029 Sillimanite-grade ophicarbonate Connemara, Ireland April, 2023 [287] 20 Connemara + Marble 2 [288,289] 10 [55,288–296] 3 [289,290,293] 0
Preprints 120010 i030 Phyllite Lugo, Spain April, 2023 [297] 1 Bernardos + Phyllite 1 [298] 1 [298] 1 [298] 0
Preprints 120010 i031 Quartzite Delhi, India April, 2023 [299] 22 Alwar + Quartzite 2 [300,301] 6 [300,302–306] 6 [300,301,303,304,307,308] 0

References

  1. Sims, I. Natural stone: sustaining the future of the world’s oldest construction material. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2015, 166, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1680/CIEN.2013.166.4.149. [CrossRef]
  2. Cooper, B.J. Sustainable Development: An Opportunity for Dimension Stone. Roc Maquina 2004, 54, 12–17.
  3. Cooper, B.J. Toward establishing a “Global Heritage Stone Resource” designation. Proc. Geol. Soc. Am. 2010.
  4. Adorni, E.; Venturelli, G. Mortars and stones of the Damascus Citadel (Syria). Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2010, 4, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050903121851. [CrossRef]
  5. Pinho, F.F.S.; Lúcio, V.J.G. Rubble Stone Masonry Walls in Portugal: Material Properties, Carbonation Depth and Mechanical Characterization. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2017, 11, 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1289424. [CrossRef]
  6. Winkler, E. Stone in Architecture: Properties, Durability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997.
  7. Martinho, E.; Dionísio, A. Assessment Techniques for Studying the Effects of Fire on Stone Materials: A Literature Review. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2018, 14, 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1535008. [CrossRef]
  8. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  9. Ross, S.M. Saving heritage is key to sustainable development. Herit. Can. Found. J. 2006, Spring. Available online: https://archive.nationaltrustcanada.ca (accessed on 13 September 2024).
  10. Carter, B.; Grimwade, G. Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 1997, 3, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527259708722186. [CrossRef]
  11. Hannibal, J.T.; Kramar, S.; Cooper, B.J. Worldwide examples of global heritage stones: An introduction. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2020, 486, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP486-2020-84. [CrossRef]
  12. Cooper, B.J. Recognition of a “World Heritage Stone Resource": A proposal. Presented at the International Conference on Heritage Stone Designation, 2008.
  13. Pereira, D. The value of Global Heritage Stone Resource Designation in enhancing and recovering our legacy and culture. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2015.
  14. Cooper, B.J.; Marker, B.R.; Thomas, I.A. Towards international designation of a heritage dimension stone. Proc. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 2013.
  15. Rodríguez Gordillo, J.; Sáez Pérez, M.P. Performance of Spanish white Macael marble exposed to narrow- and medium-range temperature cycling. Mater. Constr. 2010, 60, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2010.44107. [CrossRef]
  16. Costa, M.M.; Falcão, P.; Paneiro, G. Finishing Surface Influence on Stone Thermal Behaviour. Hydrogeol. Eng. Geol. Geotech. 2015.
  17. Andriani, G.F.; Germinario, L. Thermal decay of carbonate dimension stones: fabric, physical and mechanical changes. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3160-6. [CrossRef]
  18. Navarro, R.; Pereira, D.; Cruz, A.S.; Carrillo, G. The Significance of “White Macael” Marble Since Ancient Times: Characteristics of a Candidate as Global Heritage Stone Resource. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0264-x. [CrossRef]
  19. Justo, J.; Lagüera, A.; Castro, J.; Miranda, M.; Sagaseta, C. Influence of temperature on the tensile strength of a limestone and a marble. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ECSMGE 2019, Reykjavík, Iceland, 1–6 September 2019.
  20. Justo, J.; Castro, J.; Cicero, S.; Sánchez-Carro, M.A. Influence of temperature on the fracture toughness of several rocks. Proc. ECSMGE 2019, Reykjavík, Iceland, 1–6 September 2019.
  21. Justo, J.; Castro, J. Mechanical properties of 4 rocks at different temperatures and fracture assessment using the strain energy density criterion. Geomech. Energy Environ. 2021, 25, 100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2020.100212. [CrossRef]
  22. Justo, J.; Castro, J.; Cicero, S.; Sánchez-Carro, M.A.; Husillos, R. Notch effect on the fracture of several rocks: Application of the Theory of Critical Distances. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2017, 90, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2017.05.025. [CrossRef]
  23. Gautam, P.K.; Jha, M.K.; Verma, A.K.; Singh, T.N. Experimental study of thermal damage under compression and tension of Makrana marble. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2020, 139, 609–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08403-5. [CrossRef]
  24. Dionísio, A.; Martinho, E.; Pozo-António, J.S.; Sequeira Braga, M.A.; Mendes, M. Evaluation of combined effects of real-fire and natural environment in a building granite. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 277, 122327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122327. [CrossRef]
  25. Dionísio, A. Stone decay induced by fire on historic buildings: the case of the cloister of Lisbon Cathedral (Portugal). Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 2007, 271, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.271.01.10. [CrossRef]
  26. Pozo-Antonio, J.S.; Sanmartín, P.; Serrano, M.; De la Rosa, J.M.; Miller, A.Z.; Sanjurjo-Sánchez, J. Impact of wildfire on granite outcrops in archaeological sites surrounded by different types of vegetation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.141143. [CrossRef]
  27. Chakrabarti, B.; Yates, T.; Lewry, A. Effect of fire damage on natural stonework in buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10, 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(95)00076-3. [CrossRef]
  28. Gillhuber, S.; Lehrberger, G.; Göske, J. Fire damage of trachyte: investigations of the Teplá monastery building stones. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 2010, 333, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP333.8. [CrossRef]
  29. Hajpál, M. Changes in sandstones of historical monuments exposed to fire or high temperature. Fire Technol. 2002, 38, 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020174500861. [CrossRef]
  30. Gomez-Heras, M.; McCabe, S.; Smith, B.J.; Fort, R. Impacts of fire on stone-built heritage: An overview. J. Archit. Conserv. 2009, 15, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2009.10785047. [CrossRef]
  31. Franzen, C.; Krause, D.; Siedel, H.; Ullrich, B. Temperature impact on Cotta sandstone. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257304809_Impact_of_temperature_on_Cotta_sandstone (accessed on 13 Sept 2024).
  32. Sanjurjo-Sanchez, J.; Gomez-Heras, M.; Fort, R. Dating fires and estimating the temperature attained on stone surfaces: The case of Ciudad de Vascos (Spain). Microchem. J. 2016, 124, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2015.09.014. [CrossRef]
  33. McCabe, S.; Smith, B.J.; Warke, P.A. Exploitation of inherited weakness in fire-damaged building sandstone: The “fatiguing” of “shocked” stone. Eng. Geol. 2010, 115, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.06.003. [CrossRef]
  34. Heidari, M.; Torabi-Kaveh, M.; Mohseni, H. Artificial weathering assessment of Persepolis stone due to heating to elucidate the effects of the burning of Persepolis. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2016, 75, 979–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0887-1. [CrossRef]
  35. Koca, M.Y.; Ozden, G.; Yavuz, A.B.; Kincal, C.; Onargan, T.; Kucuk, K. Changes in the engineering properties of marble in fire-exposed columns. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2006, 43, 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.09.007. [CrossRef]
  36. Martinho, E.; Mendes, M.; Dionísio, A. 3D imaging of P-waves velocity as a tool for evaluation of heat induced limestone decay. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 135, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.192. [CrossRef]
  37. Lu, C.; Jackson, I. Seismic-frequency laboratory measurements of shear mode viscoelasticity in crustal rocks I: Competition between cracking and plastic flow in thermally cycled Carrara marble. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1996, 94, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(95)03079-4. [CrossRef]
  38. Ruf, M.; Steeb, H. Effects of thermal treatment on acoustic waves in Carrara marble. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2022, 159, 105205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2022.105205. [CrossRef]
  39. Casey, M.; Rutter, E.H.; Schmid, S.M.; Siddans, A.W.B.; Whalley, J.S. Texture development in experimentally deformed calcite rocks. Presented at the Conference on Deformation Mechanisms in Rocks, London, UK, 1978.
  40. Hacker, B.R. High-pressure deformation of calcite marble and its transformation to aragonite under non-hydrostatic conditions. J. Struct. Geol. 1993, 15, 1207–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(93)90158-R. [CrossRef]
  41. Franzoni, E.; Sassoni, E.; Scherer, G.W.; Naidu, S. Artificial weathering of stone by heating. J. Cult. Herit. 2013, 14, 0–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.11.026. [CrossRef]
  42. Feng, G.; Kang, Y.; Meng, T.; Hu, Y.Q.; Li, X.H. The Influence of Temperature on Mode I Fracture Toughness and Fracture Characteristics of Sandstone. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2017, 50, 2007–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017-1226-y. [CrossRef]
  43. Al-Shayea, N. Comparing reservoir and outcrop specimens for mixed mode I–II fracture toughness of a limestone rock formation at various conditions. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2002, 35, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-002-0027-z. [CrossRef]
  44. Justo, J.; Castro, J.; Cicero, S. Notch effect and fracture load predictions of rock beams at different temperatures using the Theory of Critical Distances. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2020, 125, 104161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104161. [CrossRef]
  45. Justo, J.; Castro, J. Application of the TCD for the fracture prediction of rocks with U-shaped notches at different temperatures. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress on Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, ISRM 2019; Fuenmayor, F., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1242–1249.
  46. Justo, J.; Castro, J. Mechanical properties of 4 rocks at different temperatures and fracture assessment using the strain energy density criterion. Geomech. Energy Environ. 2021, 25, 100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2020.100212. [CrossRef]
  47. Martinho, E.; Dionísio, A.; Mendes, M. Simulation of a Portuguese limestone masonry structure submitted to fire: 3D ultrasonic tomography approach. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 8, 565–580.
  48. Channon, D. Feral pigeon excrement on heritage stonework. Constr. Build. Mater. 2004, 1, 24–28.
  49. Viles, H.A.; Goudie, A.S. Rapid salt weathering in the coastal Namib desert: Implications for landscape development. Geomorphology 2007, 85, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.03.025. [CrossRef]
  50. Roussel, E.; Vautier, F.; Voldoire, O.; André, M.-F.; Cassar, J.; Fronteau, G.; Phalip, B.; Thomachot-Schneider, C.; Toumazet, J.-P. Quantifying 450 years of limestone weathering induced by salt crystallization on fortifications in Malta and Gozo. Geomorphology 2021, 378, 107614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107614. [CrossRef]
  51. Graziani, G.; Sassoni, E.; Scherer, G.W.; Franzoni, E. Phosphate-based treatments for consolidation of salt-bearing Globigerina limestone. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; pp. 1–7.
  52. Wilhelm, K.; Viles, H.; Burke, Ò. The Influence of Salt on Handheld Electrical Moisture Meters: Can They Be Used to Detect Salt Problems in Porous Stone? Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2016, 10, 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1109733. [CrossRef]
  53. López-Arce, P.; Varas-Muriel, M.J.; Fernández-Revuelta, B.; Álvarez de Buergo, M.; Fort, R.; Pérez-Soba, C. Artificial weathering of Spanish granites subjected to salt crystallization tests: Surface roughness quantification. Catena 2010, 83, 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.08.009. [CrossRef]
  54. Thornbush, M.J.; Viles, H.A. Simulation of the dissolution of weathered versus unweathered limestone in carbonic acid solutions of varying strength. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2007, 32, 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1441. [CrossRef]
  55. Compton, R.G.; Walker, C.T.; Unwin, P.R.; House, W.A. Dissolution kinetics of Carrera marble, Portland stone and several limestones in acid waters. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1990, 86, 849–854. https://doi.org/10.1039/FT9908600849. [CrossRef]
  56. Giunchi, D.; Baldaccini, N.E.; Sbragia, G.; Soldatini, C. Feral pigeons: problems, dynamics and control methods. In: Brooks, S. (Ed.), Pest Control Solutions for Urban Environments; Springer: New York, 2012; pp. 23–46.
  57. Viles, H.A.; Taylor, M.P.; Yates, T.J.S.; Massey, S.W. Soiling and decay of N.M.E.P. limestone tablets. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 292, 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(01)01124-X. [CrossRef]
  58. Giunchi, D.; Baldaccini, N.E.; Sbragia, G.; Soldatini, C. Feral pigeons: problems, dynamics and control methods. In: Brooks, S. (Ed.), Pest Control Solutions for Urban Environments; Springer: New York, 2012; pp. 23–46.
  59. Laue, S. Salt Weathering of Porous Structures Related to Climate Changes/Klimaabhängige Salzverwitterung poröser Strukturen. Restor. Build. Monum. 2005, 11, 381–390.
  60. Godts, S.; Hayen, R.; De Clercq, H. Investigating salt decay of stone materials related to the environment: A case study in the St. James Church in Liège, Belgium. Stud. Conserv. 2017, 62, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2016.1236997. [CrossRef]
  61. Davies, T.D.; Kelly, P.M.; Brimblecombe, P.; Farmer, G.; Barthelmie, R.J. Acidity of Scottish rainfall influenced by climatic change. Nature 1986, 322, 359–361.
  62. White, J.; Wagner, W.; Beal, C. Global Climate Change Linkages: Acid Rain, Air Quality, and Stratospheric Ozone; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, 1989.
  63. Allen, G.C.; El-Turki, A.; Hallam, K.R.; McLaughlin, D.; Stacey, M. Role of NO2 and SO2 in degradation of limestone. Br. Corros. J. 2000, 35, 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1179/000705900101501047. [CrossRef]
  64. Marker, B.R. Bath Stone and Purbeck Stone: A comparison in terms of criteria for Global Heritage Stone Resource designation. Episodes 2015, 38, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2015/v38i2/008. [CrossRef]
  65. Viles, H.A.; Gorbushina, A.A. Soiling and microbial colonisation on urban roadside limestone: A three-year study in Oxford, England. Build. Environ. 2003, 38, 1217–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(03)00078-7. [CrossRef]
  66. Pesce, G.L.; Morgan, D.; Odgers, D.; Henry, A.; Allen, M.; Ball, R.J. Consolidation of weathered limestone using nanolime. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 2013, 166, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1680/coma.12.00051. [CrossRef]
  67. Thornbush, M.J.; Viles, H. Changing patterns of soiling and microbial growth on building stone in Oxford, England after implementation of a major traffic scheme. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 367, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.11.022. [CrossRef]
  68. Laycock, E.A.; Spence, K.; Jefferson, D.P.; Hetherington, S.; Martin, B.; Wood, C. Testing the durability of limestone for Cathedral façade restoration. Environ. Geol. 2008, 56, 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1333-x. [CrossRef]
  69. Elliott, G.M.; Brown, E.T. Yield of a soft, high porosity rock. Geotechnique 1985, 35, 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1985.35.4.413. [CrossRef]
  70. Nuño, M.; Pesce, G.L.; Bowen, C.R.; Xenophontos, P.; Ball, R.J. Environmental performance of nano-structured Ca(OH)2/TiO2 photocatalytic coatings for buildings. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.028. [CrossRef]
  71. Forrest, M. Secure Heritage; Heritage Council of New South Wales: Sydney, 2007.
  72. Sherman, H.M.; Gierke, J.S.; Anderson, C.P. Controls on spatial variability of uranium in sandstone aquifers. Ground Water Monit. Remediat. 2007, 27, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2007.00142.x. [CrossRef]
  73. Kerfoot, W.C.; Hobmeier, M.M.; Green, S.A.; Yousef, F.; Brooks, C.N.; Shuchman, R.; Sayers, M.; Lin, L.; Luong, P.; Hayter, E.; Reif, M. Coastal ecosystem investigations with LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and bottom reflectance: Lake Superior reef threatened by migrating tailings. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091076. [CrossRef]
  74. Mitchell, R.L.; Sheldon, N.D. Sedimentary provenance and weathering processes in the 1.1Ga Midcontinental Rift of the Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan, USA. Precambrian Res. 2016, 275, 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2016.01.017. [CrossRef]
  75. De Kock, T.; Turmel, A.; Fronteau, G.; Cnudde, V. Rock fabric heterogeneity and its influence on the petrophysical properties of a building limestone: Lede stone (Belgium) as an example. Eng. Geol. 2017, 216, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.11.007. [CrossRef]
  76. Dewanckele, J.; Boone, M.A.; De Kock, T.; De Boever, W.; Brabant, L.; Boone, M.N.; Fronteau, G.; Dils, J.; Van Hoorebeke, L.; Jacobs, P.; Cnudde, V. Holistic approach of pre-existing flaws on the decay of two limestones. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 447, 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.12.094. [CrossRef]
  77. De Kock, T.; Van Stappen, J.; Fronteau, G.; Boone, M.; De Boever, W.; Dagrain, F.; Silversmit, G.; Vincze, L.; Cnudde, V. Laminar gypsum crust on lede stone: Microspatial characterization and laboratory acid weathering. Talanta 2017, 162, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2016.10.025. [CrossRef]
  78. De Kock, T.; Turmel, A.; Fronteau, G.; Cnudde, V. Rock fabric heterogeneity and its influence on the petrophysical properties of a building limestone: Lede stone (Belgium) as an example. Eng. Geol. 2017, 216, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.11.007. [CrossRef]
  79. Schröer, L.; De Kock, T.; Cnudde, V.; Boon, N. Differential colonization of microbial communities inhabiting Lede stone in the urban and rural environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 733, 139339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139339. [CrossRef]
  80. Mozer, A.G.S.; Castro, N.F.; Mansur, K.L.; Ribeiro, R.C.C. Mapping Lioz Limestone in Monuments at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Geoheritage 2022, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00682-z. [CrossRef]
  81. Da Conceição Ribeiro, R.C.; Marques Ferreira de Figueiredo, P.; Silva Barbutti, D. Multi-analytical investigation of stains on dimension stones in master Valentim’s fountain, Brazil. Minerals 2018, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100465. [CrossRef]
  82. Miller, A.; Dionísio, A.; Macedo, M.F. Primary bioreceptivity: A comparative study of different Portuguese lithotypes. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2006, 57, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2006.01.003. [CrossRef]
  83. Polck, M.A.R.; Siqueira, L.M.P.; Barreto, A.M. An urban geotourism route in the city of Recife (PE), based on fossiliferous stones | Um roteiro geoturístico urbano na cidade do Recife (PE), com base em rochas fossilíferas. Anuário do Instituto de Geociências 2020, 43, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.11137/2020_3_425_435. [CrossRef]
  84. Silva, Z.C.G. Lioz—a Royal Stone in Portugal and a Monumental Stone in Colonial Brazil. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0267-7. [CrossRef]
  85. Pozo-Antonio, J.S.; López, L.; Dionísio, A.; Rivas, T. A study on the suitability of mechanical soft-abrasive blasting methods to extract graffiti paints on ornamental stones. Coatings 2018, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings8100335. [CrossRef]
  86. Pozo-Antonio, J.S.; Otero, J.; Alonso, P.; Mas i Barberà, X. Nanolime- and nanosilica-based consolidants applied on heated granite and limestone: Effectiveness and durability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 852–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.213. [CrossRef]
  87. Eichert, D.; Vergès-Belmin, V.E.; Kahn, O. Electronic paramagnetic resonance as a tool for studying the blackening of Carrara marble due to irradiation by a Q-switched YAG laser. J. Cult. Herit. 2000, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(00)00151-5. [CrossRef]
  88. Bianco, L. Geochemistry, mineralogy and textural properties of the lower globigerina limestone used in the built heritage. Minerals 2021, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11070740. [CrossRef]
  89. Bianco, L. Petrological, mineralogical and geochemical characteristics of the globigerina limestone outcropping at Fomm IR-RI¯ H¯, Malta. Comptes Rendus de L’Academie Bulgare des Sciences 2020, 73, 985–991. https://doi.org/10.7546/CRABS.2020.07.12. [CrossRef]
  90. Briffa, S.M.; Vella, D.A. The behaviour of as-applied and artificially weathered silica–epoxy consolidants on a typical Mediterranean porous limestone: A comparison with TEOS. Herit. Sci. 2019, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-019-0270-1. [CrossRef]
  91. Cataldo, A.; De Benedetto, E.; Cannazza, G.; D’Amico, S.; Farrugia, L.; Misfud, G.; Dimech, E.; Sammut, C.V.; Persico, R.; Leucci, G.; De Giorgi, L. TDR-based water content estimation on globigerina limestone through permittivity measurements. In: IMEKO International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, MetroArchaeo 2017; pp. 528–533, 2019.
  92. Andreotti, S.; Franzoni, E.; Ruiz-Agudo, E.; Scherer, G.W.; Fabbri, P.; Sassoni, E.; Rodriguez-Navarro, C. New polymer-based treatments for the prevention of damage by salt crystallization in stone. Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr. 2019, 52. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1309-6. [CrossRef]
  93. Cataldo, A.; De Benedetto, E.; Cannazza, G.; D’Amico, S.; Farrugia, L.; Mifsud, G.; Dimech, E.; Sammut, C.V.; Persico, R.; Leucci, G.; De Giorgi, L. Dielectric permittivity diagnostics as a tool for cultural heritage preservation: Application on degradable globigerina limestone. Measurement (Lond.) 2018, 123, 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.03.078. [CrossRef]
  94. Bianco, L. Petrological characteristics of blue lenticular patches occurring in the lower globigerina building limestone of Malta | Caracteristicile petrografice ale intercalațiilor lenticulare albastre care apar în nivelul inferior al calcarului cu globigerine pent. Rev. Romana Mater. 2018, 48, 115–120.
  95. Cassar, J.; Torpiano, A.; Zammit, T.; Micallef, A. Proposal for the nomination of lower globigerina limestone of the Maltese Islands as a “global Heritage Stone Resource.” Episodes 2017, 40, 221–231. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2017/v40i3/017025. [CrossRef]
  96. Grøntoft, T.; Cassar, J.A. An assessment of the contribution of air pollution to the weathering of limestone heritage in Malta. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09027-x. [CrossRef]
  97. Dreyfuss, T. Artificially induced calcium oxalate on limestone in urban environments – New findings. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 42, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.06.011. [CrossRef]
  98. Camilleri, D.H. Malta’s heritage in stone: From temple builders to Eurocodes 6/8. Masonry Int. 2019, 31, 49–65.
  99. Cabello-Briones, C.; Viles, H.A. Evaluating the effects of open shelters on limestone deterioration at archaeological sites in different climatic locations. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2017, 11, 816–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1300710. [CrossRef]
  100. Hibo, D. The “petit granit’’ from the Meuse Valley and Soignies Basin mines: a sedimentological examination and comparison | Le ‘petit-granit’’ de la vallee de la Meuse et du bassin carrier de Soignies: approche du contexte sedimentologique et comparaison.’” Bull. - Soc. Belge Geol. 1993, 102, 359–378.
  101. Pereira, D., Tourneur, F., Bernáldez, L., Blázquez, A.G. Petit Granit: A Belgian limestone used in heritage, construction and sculpture. Episodes 2015, 38, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2015/v38i2/003. [CrossRef]
  102. Groessens, E. The origin and evolution of the expression “Petit Granit” | L’origine et l’evolution de l’expression ‘Petit Granit’.’ Bulletin - Societe Belge de Geologie 1993, 102, 271–276.
  103. Netels, V., Doyen, L. Geoelectrical and electromagnetic mapping of a faulted and karstified limestone deposit under a thick Tertiary overburden. Resolution of a hydrological problem at Carrierres du Hainaut (Soignies, Belgium) | Cartographie geoelectrique et electromagnetique. Bulletin - Societe Belge de Geologie 1997, 105, 15–28.
  104. Pereira, D., Perez-Castro, P. Art Museums: a Good Context for Outreach Activities on Natural Stones and Heritage. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0265-9. [CrossRef]
  105. Dubois, C., Quinif, Y., Baele, J.-M., Dagrain, F., Deceuster, J., Kaufmann, O. The evolution of the mineralogical and petrophysical properties of a weathered limestone in southern Belgium. Geologica Belgica 2014, 17, 1–8.
  106. Coli, M., Livi, E., Pandeli, E., Tanini, Ch. Pietra Serena mining in Fiesole. Part II: Geological situation. J. Min. Sci. 2003, 39, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025761227284. [CrossRef]
  107. Clausi, M., Magnani, L.L., Occhipinti, R., Riccardi, M.P., Zema, M., Tarantino, S.C. Interaction of metakaolin-based geopolymers with natural and artificial stones and implications on their use in cultural heritage. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2016, 7, 871–884.
  108. Santo, A.P., Centauro, I., Pecchioni, E. Walking Through Florence to Discover the Stone-Built Cultural Heritage. (2022).
  109. Sorace, S. Long-term tensile and bending strength of natural building stones. Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr. 1996, 29, 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02485993. [CrossRef]
  110. Coli, M., Ciuffreda, A.L., Donigaglia, T., Tanganelli, M. The Building Stones of Prato’s Cathedral and Bell Tower, Italy. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/app121910132. [CrossRef]
  111. Sassoni, E., Franzoni, E., Pigino, B., Scherer, G.W., Naidu, S. Consolidation of calcareous and siliceous sandstones by hydroxyapatite: Comparison with a TEOS-based consolidant. J. Cult. Herit. 2013, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.11.029. [CrossRef]
  112. Fratini, F., Cantisani, E., Pecchioni, E., Pandeli, E., Vettori, S. Pietra Alberese: Building material and stone for lime in the Florentine territory (Tuscany, Italy). Heritage 2020, 3, 1520–1538. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3040084. [CrossRef]
  113. Bargossi, G.M., Gamberini, F., Gasparotto, G., Grillini, G.C., Marocchi, M. Dimension and ornamental stones from the Tosco-Romagnolo and Bolognese Apennine. Period. Mineral. 2004, 73, 171–195.
  114. Kramar, S., Bedjanič, M., Mirtič, B., Mladenović, A., Rožič, B., Skaberne, D., Gutman, M., Zupančič, N., Cooper, B. Podpeč limestone: A heritage stone from Slovenia. (2015).
  115. Rožič, B., Gale, L., Brajković, R., Popit, T., Žvab Rožič, P. Lower Jurassic succession at the site of potential Roman quarry Staje near Ig (central Slovenia). Geologija 2018, 61, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.5474/geologija.2018.004. [CrossRef]
  116. Gale, L. Lower Jurassic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of Podpeč Limestone (External Dinarides, Slovenia). Geologija 2014, 57, 119–146. https://doi.org/10.5474/geologija.2014.011. [CrossRef]
  117. Marinelli, A., Stewart, M.R. Comparative experimental study of the mechanical and fracture properties of Portland limestone and Corsehill sandstone. Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale 2019, 13, 438–450. https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.50.37. [CrossRef]
  118. Hughes, T., Lott, G.K., Poultney, M.J., Cooper, B.J. Portland stone: A nomination for “global heritage stone resource” from the United Kingdom. Episodes 2013, 36, 221–226. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i3/004. [CrossRef]
  119. Falcon-Lang, H. The isle of Portland, Dorset, England, (2011).
  120. Butler-Warke, A., Warke, M.R. Foundation stone of empire: The role of Portland stone in ‘heritage’, commemoration, and identity. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2021, 46, 958–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12462. [CrossRef]
  121. Eklund, J.A., Zhang, H., Viles, H.A., Curteis, T. Using handheld moisture meters on limestone: Factors affecting performance and guidelines for best practice. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2013, 7, 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.626491. [CrossRef]
  122. Dubelaar, C.W., Engering, S., Van Hees, R.P.J., Koch, R., Lorenz, H.-G. Lithofacies and petrophysical properties of Portland Base Bed and Portland Whit Bed limestone as related to durability. Heron 2003, 48, 221–229.
  123. Kirkitsos, P., Sikiotis, D. Deterioration of pentelic marble, Portland limestone and baumberger sandstone in laboratory exposures to gaseous nitric acid. Atmos. Environ. 1995, 29, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00230-I. [CrossRef]
  124. Kirkitsos, P., Sikiotis, D. Deterioration of Pentelic marble, Portland limestone and Baumberger sandstone in laboratory exposures to NO₂: A comparison with exposures to gaseous HNO₃. Atmos. Environ. 1996, 30, 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(95)00297-9. [CrossRef]
  125. Allison, R.J. A non-destructive method of determining rock strength. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1988, 13, 729–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290130807. [CrossRef]
  126. Searle, D.E., Mitchell, D.J. The effect of coal and diesel particulates on the weathering loss of Portland Limestone in an urban environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 370, 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.07.005. [CrossRef]
  127. Viles, H.A. The early stages of building stone decay in an urban environment. Atmos. Environ. Part A Gen. Top. 1990, 24, 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1686(90)90459-Z. [CrossRef]
  128. Cabello Briones, C., Viles, H. An Assessment of the Role of an Open Shelter in Reducing Soiling and Microbial Growth on the Archaeological Site of the Bishop’s Palace, Witney, England. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2018, 20, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2018.1430437. [CrossRef]
  129. Allison, R.J., Kimber, O.G. Modelling failure mechanisms to explain rock slope change along the Isle of Purbeck coast, UK. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1998, 23, 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199808)23:8<731::AID-ESP885>3.0.CO;2-F. [CrossRef]
  130. Bijeljic, B., Mostaghimi, P., Blunt, M.J. Signature of non-fickian solute transport in complex heterogeneous porous media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.204502. [CrossRef]
  131. Cooper, T.P., O’Brien, P.F., Jeffrey, D.W. Rates of deterioration of portland limestone in an urban environment. Stud. Conserv. 1992, 37, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1992.37.4.228. [CrossRef]
  132. Alyafei, N., Blunt, M.J. The effect of wettability on capillary trapping in carbonates. Adv. Water Resour. 2016, 90, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.02.001. [CrossRef]
  133. Perry, S.H., Duffy, A.P. The short-term effects of mortar joints on salt movement in stone. Atmos. Environ. 1997, 31, 1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(96)00290-7. [CrossRef]
  134. Hutchinson, A.J., Johnson, J.B., Thompson, G.E., Wood, G.C., Sage, P.W., Cooke, M.J. The role of fly-ash particulate material and oxide catalysts in stone degradation. Atmos. Environ. Part A Gen. Top. 1992, 26, 2795–2803. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1686(92)90017-F. [CrossRef]
  135. Roots, O. ICP materials: Long-term studies at the Lahemaa monitoring station, Estonia. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. 2015, 64, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2015.1.06. [CrossRef]
  136. Carmona-Quiroga, P.M., Martínez-Ramírez, S., Viles, H.A. Efficiency and durability of a self-cleaning coating on concrete and stones under both natural and artificial ageing trials. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 433, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.10.052. [CrossRef]
  137. Johnson, J.B., Montgomery, M., Thompson, G.E., Wood, G.C., Sage, P.W., Cooke, M.J. The influence of combustion-derived pollutants on limestone deterioration: 2. The wet deposition of pollutant species. Corros. Sci. 1996, 38, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(96)00118-7. [CrossRef]
  138. Wilhelm, K., Viles, H., Burke, O., Mayaud, J. Surface hardness as a proxy for weathering behaviour of limestone heritage: a case study on dated headstones on the Isle of Portland, UK. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5661-y. [CrossRef]
  139. Hennah, S.J., Astin, T.R., Sothcott, J., McCann, C. Relationships between rock heterogeneity, attenuation and velocity dispersion at ultrasonic and sonic frequencies. (2003).
  140. Cabello Briones, C. Effects of open shelters on limestone decay: The case-study of the bishop’s palace archaeological site in Witney (England). In: Science, Technology and Cultural Heritage - Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Science and Technology for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, 2014, pp. 41–46.
  141. Grossi, C.M., Esbert, R.M., Díaz-Pache, F. Decay and durability of building stones in urban environments | Degradación y durabilidad de materiales rocosos de edificación en ambientes urbanos. Materiales de Construccion 1998, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.1998.v48.i252.461. [CrossRef]
  142. Daengprathum, N., Onchang, R., Nakhapakorn, K., Robert, O., Tipayarom, A., Sturm, P.J. Estimation of Effects of Air Pollution on the Corrosion of Historical Buildings in Bangkok. Environ Nat Resour J. 2022, 20, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.32526/ennrj/20/202200071. [CrossRef]
  143. Inkpen, R. Errors in measuring the percentage dry weight change of stone tablets. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1995, 20, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290200904. [CrossRef]
  144. Inkpen, R., Viles, H., Moses, C., Baily, B. Modelling the impact of changing atmospheric pollution levels on limestone erosion rates in central London, 1980-2010. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.042. [CrossRef]
  145. Roots, O.O., Roose, A., Eerme, K. Remote sensing of climate change, long-term monitoring of air pollution and stone material corrosion in Estonia. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 9691–9705. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2011.574163. [CrossRef]
  146. García-Talegon, J., Vicente, M.A., Vicente-Tavera, S., Molina-Ballesteros, E. Assessment of chromatic changes due to artificial ageing and/or conservation treatments of sandstones. Color Res. Appl. 1998, 23, 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6378(199802)23:1<46::AID-COL7>3.0.CO;2-3. [CrossRef]
  147. Ordaz, J., Alonso, F.J. Caracteristicas del sistema poroso de la arenisca de Villamayor (Salamanca). Trabajos de Geologia, Universidad de Oviedo 1983, 13, 83–92.
  148. Martin Patino, M.T., Madruga, F., Saavedra, J. The internal structure of the Villamayor sandstone as it affects its use as a construction material. Appl. Clay Sci. 1993, 8, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-1317(93)90026-W. [CrossRef]
  149. Marcos Laso, B. Biodiversity and lichenic growth on some monuments in Salamanca City | Biodiversidad y colonización liquénica de algunos monumentos en la ciudad de Salamanca (España). Bot. Complut. 2001, 93–102.
  150. Vielba Cuerpo, C., Hernández Olivares, F. Tests to characterize the behaviour of natural stone in contact with water | Ensayos de caracterización del comportamiento frente al agua de la piedra natural. Materiales de Construccion 2002, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2002.v52.i267.325. [CrossRef]
  151. Schleicher, N., Hernández, C.R. Source identification of sulphate forming salts on sandstones from monuments in Salamanca, Spain-a stable isotope approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2010, 17, 770–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0196-3. [CrossRef]
  152. Grondona, I., Monte, E., Rives, V., Vicente, M.A. Lichenized association between Septonema tormes sp. nov., a coccoid cyanobacterium, and a green alga with an unforeseen biopreservation effect of Villamayor sandstone at “Casa lis” of Salamanca, Spain. Mycol. Res. 1997, 101, 1489–1495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953756297004309. [CrossRef]
  153. Arco, M.D., Carballo, A.M., Holgado, M.J., Martín, C., Rives, V. A microporosity study of Villamayor Sandstone (Salamanca, Spain). Appl. Clay Sci. 1987, 2, 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-1317(87)90043-3. [CrossRef]
  154. Vicente, M.A., Brufau, A. Weathering of the Villamayor arkosic sandstone used in buildings, under a continental semi-arid climate. Appl. Clay Sci. 1986, 1, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-1317(86)90003-7. [CrossRef]
  155. Saavedra, J., Madruga, F., Martin Patino, M.T. Classification of Villamayor sandstone (Salamanca) from technological characteristics and internal structure | Clasificacion de la arenisca de Villamayor (Salamanca) por sus caracteristicas tecnologicas y estructura interna. Boletin Geologico y Minero 1993, 104, 655–663.
  156. Dumont, T. Échaillon stone from France: a global heritage stone resource proposal. (2020).
  157. Kullberg, J.C., Coelho, C., Prego, A. Geological and Cultural Routes of the Arrábida Breccia: A Contribution to the Nomination of Arrábida for UNESCO’s Mixed World Heritage List. (2014).
  158. Kullberg, J.C., Prego, A. The Historical Importance and Architectonic Relevance of the “Extinct” Arrábida Breccia. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0272-x. [CrossRef]
  159. Kullberg, J.C., Prego, A. The Historical Importance and Architectonic Relevance of the “Extinct” Arrábida Breccia. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0272-x. [CrossRef]
  160. Brisbin, W.C., Young, G., Young, J. Geology of the parliament buildings 5: Geology of the Manitoba legislative building. Geoscience Canada 2005, 32, 177–193.
  161. Kaur, G., Kaur, P., Ahuja, A., Singh, A., Saini, J., Agarwal, P., Bhargava, O.N., Pandit, M., Goswami, R.G., Acharya, K., Garg, S. Jaisalmer Golden Limestone: A Heritage Stone Resource from the Desert of Western India. Geoheritage 2020, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00475-2. [CrossRef]
  162. Kaur, G., Kaur, P., Ahuja, A., Singh, A., Saini, J., Agarwal, P., Bhargava, O.N., Pandit, M., Goswami, R.G., Acharya, K., Garg, S. Jaisalmer Golden Limestone: A Heritage Stone Resource from the Desert of Western India. Geoheritage 2020, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00475-2. [CrossRef]
  163. Sen, P., Ghosh, J., Prabhulingaiah, G., Sekhar, D.M.R. Internal morphology of SMS grade limestone samples. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., Sect. C: Mineral Process. Extract. Metall. 2006, 115, 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1179/174328506X99952. [CrossRef]
  164. Freire-Lista, D.M., Fort, R. Exfoliation microcracks in building granite. Implications for anisotropy. Eng. Geol. 2017, 220, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.01.027. [CrossRef]
  165. Freire-Lista, D.M., Fort, R., Varas-Muriel, M.J. Thermal stress-induced microcracking in building granite. Eng. Geol. 2016, 206, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.03.005. [CrossRef]
  166. Freire-Lista, D.M., Fort, R. Heritage stone 4. The piedra berroqueña region: Candidacy for global heritage stone province status. Geoscience Canada 2016, 43, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.12789/geocanj.2015.42.076. [CrossRef]
  167. Freire-Lista, D.M., Fort, R., Varas-Muriel, M.J. Alpedrete granite (Spain). A nomination for the “Global Heritage Stone Resource” designation. Episodes 2015, 38, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2015/v38i2/006. [CrossRef]
  168. Sanz, M., Oujja, M., Ascaso, C., Pérez-Ortega, S., Souza-Egipsy, V., Fort, R., de los Rios, A., Wierzchos, J., Cañamares, M.V., Castillejo, M. Influence of wavelength on the laser removal of lichens colonizing heritage stone. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 399, 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.12.032. [CrossRef]
  169. Fort, R., de Buergo, M.A., Perez-Monserrat, E.M., Gomez-Heras, M., Jose Varas-Muriel, M., Freire, D.M. Evolution in the use of natural building stone in Madrid, Spain. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2013, 46, 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2012-041. [CrossRef]
  170. Heldal, T., Meyer, G.B., Dahl, R. Global stone heritage: Larvikite, Norway. (2015).
  171. Andersen, T. Crystallization history of a Permian composite monzonite-alkali syenite pluton in the Sande cauldron, Oslo rift, southern Norway. Lithos 1984, 17, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-4937(84)90016-1. [CrossRef]
  172. Ramberg, I.B. Braid perthite in nepheline syenite pegmatite, Langesundsfjorden, Oslo Region (Norway). Lithos 1972, 5, 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-4937(72)90085-0. [CrossRef]
  173. Andersen, T., Erambert, M., Larsen, A.O., Selbekk, R.S. Petrology of nepheline syenite pegmatites in the Oslo Rift, Norway: Zirconium silicate mineral assemblages as indicators of alkalinity and volatile fugacity in mildly agpaitic magma. Journal of Petrology 2010, 51, 2303–2325. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egq058. [CrossRef]
  174. Careddu, N., Grillo, S. Rosa Beta granite (Sardinian Pink Granite): A heritage stone of international significance from Italy. (2015).
  175. Del Lama, E.A., Costa, A.G. Global Heritage Stones in Brazil. Geoheritage 2022, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00661-4. [CrossRef]
  176. Cuccuru, S., Puccini, A. Petrographic, physical–mechanical and radiological characterisation of the rosa beta granite (Corsica-sardinia batholith). (2015).
  177. Cuccuru, S., Cherchi, G.P. The Bassacutena district: Quarrying aspects and physicomechanical characterization of “Rosa Beta” granite | Il Polo Estrattivo di Bassacutena: aspetti giacimentologici e caratterizzazione fisico-meccanica del granito “Rosa Beta.” Rendiconti Online Societa Geologica Italiana 2008, 3, 282–283.
  178. Puccini, A., Xhixha, G., Cuccuru, S., Oggiano, G., Xhixha, M.K., Mantovani, F., Alvarez, C.R., Casini, L. Radiological characterization of granitoid outcrops and dimension stones of the Variscan Corsica-Sardinia Batholith. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 71, 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2442-8. [CrossRef]
  179. Siedel, H., Rust, M., Goth, K., Krüger, A., Heidenfelder, W. Rochlitz porphyry tuff (“Rochlitzer Porphyrtuff”): A candidate for “global Heritage Stone Resource” designation from Germany. Episodes 2019, 42, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2019/019007. [CrossRef]
  180. Siedel, H., Rust, M., Goth, K., Krüger, A., Heidenfelder, W. Rochlitz porphyry tuff (“Rochlitzer Porphyrtuff”): A candidate for “global Heritage Stone Resource” designation from Germany. Episodes 2019, 42, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2019/019007. [CrossRef]
  181. Takahashi, Y. Some topics in English newsmagazines in 2019, with special reference to mineral resources, building stones, and a revised classification of igneous rocks | 2019 年の地質鉱物関連英文ニュース誌の話題 「鉱物資源，石材および火成岩記載法」. Japanese Magazine of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences 2020, 48, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.2465/GKK.200221. [CrossRef]
  182. Vedanti, N., Malkoti, A., Pandey, O.P., Shrivastava, J.P. Ultrasonic P- and S-Wave Attenuation and Petrophysical Properties of Deccan Flood Basalts, India, as Revealed by Borehole Studies. Pure Appl Geophys. 2018, 175, 2905–2930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-1817-x. [CrossRef]
  183. Prasanna Lakshmi, K.J., Senthil Kumar, P., Vijayakumar, K., Ravinder, S., Seshunarayana, T., Sen, M.K. Petrophysical properties of the Deccan basalts exposed in the Western Ghats escarpment around Mahabaleshwar and Koyna, India. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 84, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.08.028. [CrossRef]
  184. Das, A., Krishnaswami, S. Barium in Deccan Basalt Rivers: Its abundance, relative mobility and flux. Aquat Geochem. 2006, 12, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10498-005-5856-4. [CrossRef]
  185. Sukheswala, R.N., Poldervaart, A. Deccan basalts of the Bombay area, India. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 1958, 69, 1473–1494. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1958)69[1473:DBOTBA]2.0.CO;2. [CrossRef]
  186. Kulkarni, H., Deolankar, S.B., Lalwani, A., Joseph, B., Pawar, S. Hydrogeological framework of the Deccan basalt groundwater systems, west-central India. Hydrogeol J. 2000, 8, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100400000079. [CrossRef]
  187. Salil, M.S., Shrivastava, J.P., Pattanayak, S.K. Similarities in the mineralogical and geochemical attributes of detrital clays of Maastrichtian Lameta Beds and weathered Deccan basalt, Central India. Chem. Geol. 1997, 136, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2541(96)00128-3. [CrossRef]
  188. Chandrasekharam, D., Vaselli, O., Sheth, H.C., Keshav, S. Petrogenetic significance of ferro-enstatite orthopyroxene in basaltic dikes from the Tapi rift, Deccan flood basalt province, India. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2000, 179, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00131-X. [CrossRef]
  189. Kulkarni, Y.R., Sangode, S.J., Meshram, D.C., Patil, S.K., Dutt, Y. Mineral magnetic characterization of the Godavari river sediments: Implications to Deccan basalt weathering. J. Geol. Soc. India 2014, 83, 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-014-0054-x. [CrossRef]
  190. Malik, A., Chakraborty, T., Rao, K.S., Kumar, D., Chandel, P., Sharma, P. Dynamic Response of Deccan Trap Basalt under Hopkinson Bar Test. In: Procedia Engineering 2017, pp. 647–654.
  191. Kumar, A., Shrivastava, J.P. Carbon capture induced changes in Deccan basalt: a mass-balance approach. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 2019, 9, 1158–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1923. [CrossRef]
  192. Bhattacharya, S.K., Ma, G.S.-K., Matsuhisa, Y. Oxygen isotope evidence for crustal contamination in Deccan Basalts. Chemie der Erde 2013, 73, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2012.11.007. [CrossRef]
  193. Sano, T., Fujii, T., Deshmukh, S.S., Fukuoka, T., Aramaki, S. Differentiation processes of Deccan Trap basalts: Contribution from geochemistry and experimental petrology. Journal of Petrology 2001, 42, 2175–2195. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/42.12.2175. [CrossRef]
  194. Kumar, A., Shrivastava, J.P. Thermodynamic Modelling and Experimental Validation of CO<inf>2</inf> Mineral Sequestration in Mandla Basalt of the Eastern Deccan Volcanic Province, India. J. Geol. Soc. India 2019, 93, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-019-1173-1. [CrossRef]
  195. Santosh, M., Hari, K.R., Chatterjee, A.C. Fluid inclusions in Deccan basalt. (1988).
  196. Choubey, V.D. Long-Distance correlation of deccan basalt flows, Central India. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 1973, 84, 2785–2790. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84<2785>2.0.CO;2. [CrossRef]
  197. Das, A., Krishnaswami, S. Elemental geochemistry of river sediments from the Deccan Traps, India: Implications to sources of elements and their mobility during basalt-water interaction. Chem. Geol. 2007, 242, 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2007.03.023. [CrossRef]
  198. Keays, R.R., Lightfoot, P.C. Crustal sulfur is required to form magmatic Ni-Cu sulfide deposits: Evidence from chalcophile element signatures of Siberian and Deccan Trap basalts. Miner Depos. 2010, 45, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00126-009-0271-1. [CrossRef]
  199. Sayyed, M.R.G., Hundekari, S.M. Preliminary comparison of ancient bole beds and modern soils developed upon the Deccan volcanic basalts around Pune (India): Potential for palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Quaternary International 2006, 156–157, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QUAINT.2006.05.030. [CrossRef]
  200. Mishra, S., Misra, S., Vyas, D., Nikalje, D., Warhade, A., Roy, S. A 1251m-thick Deccan flood basalt pile recovered by scientific drilling in the Koyna region, western India. J. Geol. Soc. India 2017, 90, 788–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-017-0792-7. [CrossRef]
  201. Chaudhary, M., Sharma, R., Kapoor, D., Sadiq, M. Formation evaluation of Deccan (basalt) trap basement of Kutch Offshore basin, Gulf of Kutch, India. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110854. [CrossRef]
  202. Liu, D., Agarwal, R., Liu, F., Yang, S., Li, Y. Modeling and assessment of CO<inf>2</inf> geological storage in the Eastern Deccan Basalt of India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 85465–85481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21757-y. [CrossRef]
  203. Deolankar, S.B. The Deccan basalts of Maharashtra, India - their potential as aquifers. Ground Water 1980.
  204. Coli, M., Criscuolo, A. The Carrara Marble: Geology, geomechanics and quarrying. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2021.
  205. Borla, O., Lacidogna, G., Carpinteri, A. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy on fracture surfaces of Carrara marble specimens crushed in compression. In: 19th European Conference on Fracture: Fracture Mechanics for Durability, Reliability and Safety, ECF 2012 2012.
  206. Carpinteri, A., Lacidogna, G., Borla, O. Alpha particle emissions from Carrara marble specimens crushed in compression and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of correlated nuclear transmutations. 2016.
  207. Cheng, Y., Wong, L.N.Y., Maruvanchery, V. Transgranular Crack Nucleation in Carrara Marble of Brittle Failure. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 3069–3082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0976-2. [CrossRef]
  208. Bruijn, R.H.C., Kunze, K., Mainprice, D., Burlini, L. Mechanical and microstructural development of Carrara marble with pre-existing strain variation. Tectonophysics 2011, 503, 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.09.029. [CrossRef]
  209. Kandula, N., Cordonnier, B., Boller, E., Weiss, J., Dysthe, D.K., Renard, F. Dynamics of Microscale Precursors During Brittle Compressive Failure in Carrara Marble. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2019, 124, 6121–6139. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017381. [CrossRef]
  210. Ree, J.-H., Ando, J.-I., Han, R., Shimamoto, T. Coseismic microstructures of experimental fault zones in Carrara marble. J. Struct. Geol. 2014, 66, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.05.012. [CrossRef]
  211. Vaselli, L., Cortecci, G., Tonarini, S., Ottria, G., Mussi, M. Conditions for veining and origin of mineralizing fluids in the Alpi Apuane (NW Tuscany, Italy): Evidence from structural and geochemical analyses on calcite veins hosted in Carrara marbles. J. Struct. Geol. 2012, 44, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2012.09.016. [CrossRef]
  212. Giresse, P., Bromblet, P., de Barrau, C. Carrara marble in the 11th century Romanesque works of Roussillion (lintel of Saint-Genis-des-Fontaines, lintel and altar table of Saint-André-de-Sorède, Eastern Pyrénées). Textural and isotopic analysis. ArcheoSciences 2020, 44, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.4000/archeosciences.7332. [CrossRef]
  213. Cheng, Y., Wong, L.N.Y., Zou, C. Experimental study on the formation of faults from en-echelon fractures in Carrara Marble. Eng. Geol. 2015, 195, 312–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.004. [CrossRef]
  214. Luzin, V., Nikolayev, D., Siegesmund, S. Temperature induced internal stress in Carrara marble. 2014.
  215. Molli, G., Cortecci, G., Vaselli, L., Ottria, G. Fault zone structure and fluid-rock interaction of a high angle normal fault in the Carrara marble (NW Tuscany, Italy). Rendiconti Online Societa Geologica Italiana 2009, 5, 142–143.
  216. Aidun, J.B., Gupta, Y.M. Shear wave measurements for improved characterization of shock-Induced phase transformations in Carrara marble. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1989, 16, 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1029/GL016i002p00191. [CrossRef]
  217. Tal, Y., Evans, B., Mok, U. Direct observations of damage during unconfined brittle failure of Carrara marble. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2016, 121, 1584–1609. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012749. [CrossRef]
  218. Nardini, L., Rybacki, E., Döhmann, M.J.E.A., Morales, L.F.G., Brune, S., Dresen, G. High-temperature shear zone formation in Carrara marble: The effect of loading conditions. Tectonophysics 2018, 749, 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.10.022. [CrossRef]
  219. Doan, M.-L., Billi, A. High strain rate damage of Carrara marble. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, 38. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049169. [CrossRef]
  220. Bruni, S., Cariati, F., Bianchi, C.L., Zanardini, E., Sorlini, C. Spectroscopic investigation of red stains affecting the Carrara marble façade of the Certosa of Pavia. Archaeometry 1995, 37, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1995.tb00741.x. [CrossRef]
  221. Schubnel, A., Walker, E., Thompson, B.D., Fortin, J., Guéguen, Y., Young, R.P. Transient creep, aseismic damage and slow failure in Carrara marble deformed across the brittle-ductile transition. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026619. [CrossRef]
  222. Covey-Crump, S.J. The application of Hart’s state variable description of inelastic deformation to Carrara marble at T < 450°C. J. Geophys. Res. 1994, 99. https://doi.org/10.1029/94jb01797. [CrossRef]
  223. Bonazza, A., Sabbioni, C., Messina, P., Guaraldi, C., De Nuntiis, P. Climate change impact: Mapping thermal stress on Carrara marble in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 4506–4512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.04.008. [CrossRef]
  224. Wong, L.N.Y., Xiong, Q. A Method for Multiscale Interpretation of Fracture Processes in Carrara Marble Specimen Containing a Single Flaw Under Uniaxial Compression. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2018, 123, 6459–6490. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015447. [CrossRef]
  225. Covey-Crump, S.J. The high temperature static recovery and recrystallization behaviour of cold-worked Carrara marble. J. Struct. Geol. 1997, 19, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(96)00088-0. [CrossRef]
  226. Zou, C., Cheng, Y., Li, J. Strain rate and size effects on the brittleness indexes of Carrara marble. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2021, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2021.104860. [CrossRef]
  227. Wielgosz-Rondolino, D., Antonelli, F., Bojanowski, M.J., Gładki, M., Göncüoğlu, M.C., Lazzarini, L. Improved methodology for identification of Göktepe white marble and the understanding of its use: A comparison with Carrara marble. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2020, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.105059. [CrossRef]
  228. Molli, G., Cortecci, G., Vaselli, L., Ottria, G., Cortopassi, A., Dinelli, E., Mussi, M., Barbieri, M. Fault zone structure and fluid-rock interaction of a high angle normal fault in Carrara marble (NW Tuscany, Italy). J. Struct. Geol. 2010, 32, 1334–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2009.04.021. [CrossRef]
  229. Zhang, Y.-H., Zhou, Y.-S., Yao, W.-M., He, C.-R., Dang, J.-X. Experimental Study on the Effect of Water on the Strength and Deformation Mechanism of Carrara Marble at High Temperature. Dizhen Dizhi 2017, 39, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2017.01.004. [CrossRef]
  230. Affuso, A.M.G., Garzonio, C.A. Analysis of the correlation between bending phenomena and physical-mechanical and petrographic parameters of Carrara marble slabs. In: 10th ISRM Congress, 2003, pp. 1–6.
  231. Coli, M., Livi, E., Baldi, M., Coli, N. Studies for rockburst prediction in the Carrara Marble – II: Geostructural/geomechanical revisitation and 2D FEM modeling of a large underground quarry. In: ISRM International Symposium - EUROCK 2012, 2012.
  232. Scheffzük, Ch., Siegesmund, S., Hoffmann, A., Nikolayev, D.I. Texture and residual strain in Carrara marbles measured by TOF neutron diffraction. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Heritage, Weathering and Conservation, HWC 2006, 2006, pp. 547–553.
  233. Song, J., Zhou, Y., Dang, J., Yao, W. An experimental study on pressure solution creep and micro-crack healing of Carrara marble. Zhongguo Shiyou Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue Ban)/Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science) 2017, 41, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-5005.2017.05.006. [CrossRef]
  234. Royer-Carfagni, G., Salvatore, W. Localized fatigue damage of Carrara marble. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Damage and Fracture Mechanics, 1998, pp. 65–76.
  235. Chaye D’albissin, M., Yokoyama, Y., Massot, J.-C. Effect of experimental deformation on ESR spectrum of Carrara Marble: application to tectonized marbles. Comptes Rendus - Académie des Sciences, Série II: Sciences de la Terre et des Planètes 1994, 318, 405–410.
  236. Zhang, G., Song, M., Li, J., Shao, T., Ji, S., Wang, H. Microstructural Characteristics and Deformation Mechanism of Carrara Marble in Axial Compression Experiments. Geotectonica et Metallogenia 2018, 42, 786–797. https://doi.org/10.16539/j.ddgzyckx.2018.05.001. [CrossRef]
  237. Miller, J.T., Einstein, H.H. Crack coalescence tests on granite. In: 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics - 2nd U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, 2008.
  238. Zou, C., Wong, L.N.Y. Size and Geometry Effects on the Mechanical Properties of Carrara Marble Under Dynamic Loadings. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0899-3. [CrossRef]
  239. Lissa, S., Ruf, M., Steeb, H., Quintal, B. Effects of crack roughness on attenuation caused by squirt flow in Carrara marble. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2020, pp. 2439–2443.
  240. de Raadt, W.S., Burlini, L., Kunze, K., Spiers, C.J. Effect of pre-existing crystallographic preferred orientation on the rheology of Carrara marble. J. Struct. Geol. 2014, 68, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.07.011. [CrossRef]
  241. Soutelo, S.G., Garcia-M, A.G., Bordas, H.G., Savin, M.-C. Epigraphic and archaeometric study of the roman funerary plaque of Cela (Mos, Pontevedra): New approach to its interpretation. Estudos do Quaternario 2019, 71–84. https://doi.org/10.30893/eq.v0i20.193. [CrossRef]
  242. Lopes, L., Martins, R. Global Heritage Stone: Estremoz Marbles, Portugal. 2015.
  243. Lapuente Mercadal, P., Savin, M.-C., González Soutelo, S., Gutiérrez Garcia-M, A., Chapoulie, R., Laborde Marqueze, A., Pérez García, P.P. Marble Pieces in the Romanesque Portal of Glory of the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral. New Data through a Multi-Analytical Approach. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1602683. [CrossRef]
  244. Menningen, J., Siegesmund, S., Lopes, L., Martins, R., Sousa, L. The Estremoz marbles: an updated summary on the geological, mineralogical and rock physical characteristics. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7328-3. [CrossRef]
  245. Moreira, N., Pedro, J., Santos, J.F., Araújo, A., Dias, R., Ribeiro, S., Romão, J., Mirão, J. 87 Sr/ 86 Sr applied to age discrimination of the Palaeozoic carbonates of the Ossa-Morena zone (SW Iberia Variscides). Int. J. Earth Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-019-01688-9. [CrossRef]
  246. Moreira, N., Pedro, J., Lopes, L., Carneiro, A., Mourinha, N., Araújo, A., Santos, J.F. The Ossa-Morena marbles used in classical antiquity: Review of their petrographic features and isotopic data. Comunicacoes Geologicas 2020, 107, 81–89.
  247. Ochoa, C.F., Galán, M.B., García-Entero, V., Álvarez, S.V. Cover of the sarcophagus with the cycle of Jonah found in Carranque (Toledo). Archivo Español de Arqueología 2011, 84, 231–242. https://doi.org/10.3989/aespa.084.011.009. [CrossRef]
  248. Origlia, F., Gliozzo, E., Meccheri, M., Spangenberg, J.E., Memmi, I.T., Papi, E. Mineralogical, petrographic and geochemical characterisation of white and coloured Iberian marbles in the context of the provenancing of some artifacts from Thamusida (Kenitra, Morocco). Eur. J. Mineral. 2011, 23, 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1127/0935-1221/2011/0023-2145. [CrossRef]
  249. Siegesmund, S., Ruedrich, J., Koch, A. Marble bowing: Comparative studies of three different public building facades. Environ. Geol. 2008, 56, 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1307-z. [CrossRef]
  250. Taelman, D., Elburg, M., Smet, I., De Paepe, P., Vanhaecke, F., Vermeulen, F. White, veined marble from Roman Ammaia (Portugal): Provenance and use. Archaeometry 2013, 55, 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00691.x. [CrossRef]
  251. Taelman, D., Elburg, M., Smet, I., De Paepe, P., Lopes, L., Vanhaecke, F., Vermeulen, F. Roman marble from Lusitania: petrographic and geochemical characterisation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 2227–2236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.030. [CrossRef]
  252. Schouenborg, B., Andersson, J., Göransson, M., Inger, L. The Hallandia gneiss, a Swedish heritage stone resource. 2015.
  253. Wikström, Pereira, D. The Kolmården serpentine marble in Sweden: A stone found both in castles and people’s homes. 2015.
  254. Lapuente, P., Rodà, I., Gutiérrez Garcia-M, A., Brilli, M. Addressing the controversial origin of the marble source used in the Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagi of Gadir (Cadiz, Spain). Archaeometry 2021, 63, 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12623. [CrossRef]
  255. Navarro, R., Pereira, D., Gimeno, A., Del Barrio, S. Influence of natural carbonation process in serpentinites used as construction and building materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.100. [CrossRef]
  256. Navarro, R., Cruz, A.S., Arriaga, L., Baltuille, J.M. Characterization of the main types of marble extracted in the area of Macael (Almeria, southeastern Spain) and its historical importance. Boletin Geologico y Minero 2017, 128, 345–361. https://doi.org/10.21701/bolgeomin.128.2.005. [CrossRef]
  257. Rey, J., Martínez, J., Vera, P., Ruiz, N., Cañadas, F., Montiel, V. Ground-penetrating radar method used for the characterisation of ornamental stone quarries. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 77, 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.076. [CrossRef]
  258. Navarro, R., Pereira, D., Gimeno, A., Del Barrio, S. Characterization of the natural variability of Macael serpentinite (Verde Macael) (Almería, south of Spain) for their appropriate use in the building industry. 2015.
  259. Navarro, R., Pereira, D., Gimeno, A., Del Barrio, S. Verde Macael: A serpentinite wrongly referred to as a marble. Geosciences 2013, 3, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences3010102. [CrossRef]
  260. Luque, A., Ruiz-Agudo, E., Cultrone, G., Sebastián, E., Siegesmund, S. Direct observation of microcrack development in marble caused by thermal weathering. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 62, 1375–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0624-1. [CrossRef]
  261. Sáez-Pérez, M.P., Rodríguez-Gordillo, J. Structural and compositional anisotropy in Macael marble (Spain) by ultrasonic, XRD and optical microscopy methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2121–2126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.10.013. [CrossRef]
  262. Rodríguez-Gordillo, J., Sáez-Pérez, M.P. Effects of thermal changes on Macael marble: Experimental study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.061. [CrossRef]
  263. Mehiri, K., Vieville, P., Lipinski, P., Tidu, A., Tijeras, V. Initiation and coalescence of local damages on blanco de Macael marble. In: Fracture of Nano and Engineering Materials and Structures - Proceedings of the 16th European Conference of Fracture. 2006, pp. 545–546.
  264. Cámara, B., de Buergo, M.Á., Bethencourt, M., Fernández-Montblanc, T., La Russa, M.F., Ricca, M., Fort, R. Biodeterioration of marble in an underwater environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.103. [CrossRef]
  265. Martínez, J., Montiel, V., Rey, J., Cañadas, F., Vera, P. Utilization of integrated geophysical techniques to delineate the extraction of mining bench of ornamental rocks (marble). Remote Sens. (Basel) 2017, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9121322. [CrossRef]
  266. Burgos-Cara, A., Ruiz-Agudo, E., Rodriguez-Navarro, C. Effectiveness of oxalic acid treatments for the protection of marble surfaces. Mater. Des. 2017, 115, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.11.037. [CrossRef]
  267. Luque, A., Cultrone, G., Mosch, S., Siegesmund, S., Sebastian, E., Leiss, B. Anisotropic behaviour of White Macael marble used in the Alhambra of Granada (Spain). The role of thermohydric expansion in stone durability. Eng. Geol. 2010, 115, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.06.015. [CrossRef]
  268. Tucci, P., Marrese, G., Polvorinos, A., Azzaro, E. Italica (Seville, Spain): Use of local marble in Augustan age. Periodico di Mineralogia 2010, 79, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.2451/2010PM0025. [CrossRef]
  269. Morbidelli, P., Tucci, P., Imperatori, C., Polvorinos, A., Preite Martinez, M., Azzaro, E., Hernandez, M.J. Roman quarries of the Iberian peninsula: “Anasol” and “anasol”-type. Eur. J. Mineral. 2007, 19, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1127/0935-1221/2007/0019-0125. [CrossRef]
  270. Benavente, D., Martínez-Verdú, F., Bernabeu, A., Viqueira, V., Fort, R., García del Cura, M.A., Illueca, C., Ordóñez, S. Influence of Surface Roughness on Color Changes in Building Stones. Color Res. Appl. 2003, 28, 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.10178. [CrossRef]
  271. Bello, M.A., Martin, L., Martin, A. Decay and treatment of Macael white marble. Studies in Conservation 1992, 37, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1992.37.3.193. [CrossRef]
  272. Bello, M.A., Martin, L., Martin, A. Scanning electron microscopy to establish the marble weathering mechanism in the Alhambra of Granada (Spain). Scanning Microsc. 1991, 5, 645–652.
  273. Justo, J., Castro, J., Miranda, M., Gatica, D., Cicero, S. The theory of critical distances applied to fracture of rocks with circular cavities. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 2022, 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103530. [CrossRef]
  274. Acampa, G., Grasso, M. Integrated Evaluation Methods to HBIM for the Management of Cultural Heritage: The case study of the Colonnade of Patio de los Leones, Alhambra-Granada. Valori e Valutazioni 2021, 133–153.
  275. Garcia-Guinea, J., Crespo-Feo, E., Correcher, V., Iordanidis, A., Charalampides, G., Karamitou-Mentessidi, G. New data on the cathodoluminescence of white marbles: Interpretation of peaks and relationships to weathering. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2010, 10, 107–114.
  276. Garg, S., Kaur, P., Pandit, M., Fareeduddin, Kaur, G., Kamboj, A., Thakur, S.N. Makrana Marble: a Popular Heritage Stone Resource from NW India. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-00343-0. [CrossRef]
  277. Pappu, A., Chaturvedi, R., Tyagi, P. Sustainable approach towards utilizing Makrana marble waste for making water resistant green composite materials. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2133-5. [CrossRef]
  278. Bhadra, B.K., Gupta, A.K., Sharma, J.R., Choudhary, B.R. Mining activity and its impact on the environment: Study from Makrana marble and Jodhpur sandstone mining areas of Rajasthan. J. Geol. Soc. India 2007, 70, 557–570.
  279. Dwivedi, R.D., Singh, P.K., Singh, T.N., Singh, D.P. Compressive strength and tensile strength of rocks at sub-zero temperature. Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 1998, 5, 43–48.
  280. Kaul, B.K., Chattopadhyay, B.C. Effect of the volume of the specimen on the flexural strength of Makrana marble. 1973, 200–203.
  281. Hughes, T., Horak, J., Lott, G., Roberts, D. Cambrian age Welsh Slate: A global heritage stone resource from the United Kingdom. Episodes 2016, 39, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2016/v39i1/89236. [CrossRef]
  282. Attewell, P.B., Taylor, R.K. A microtextural interpretation of a Welsh slate. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1969, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(69)90011-4. [CrossRef]
  283. Price, W.R., Ronck, C.L. Quarrying for World Heritage Designation: Slate Tourism in North Wales. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1839–1854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00402-0. [CrossRef]
  284. Girdler, R.W. Some Preliminary Measurements of Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibility of Rocks. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 1961, 5, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1961.tb00427.x. [CrossRef]
  285. Fuller, M.D. Anisotropy of susceptibility and the natural remanent magnetization of some Welsh slates. Nature 1960, 186, 791–792. https://doi.org/10.1038/186791a0. [CrossRef]
  286. Rathore, J.S., Henry, B. Comparison of strain and magnetic fabrics in Dalradian rocks from the southwest Highlands of Scotland. J. Struct. Geol. 1982, 4, 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(82)90020-7. [CrossRef]
  287. Wyse Jackson, P.N., Caulfield, L., Feely, M., Joyce, A., Parkes, M.A. Connemara marble, Co. Galway, Ireland: A global heritage stone resource proposal. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2020, 486, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP486.6. [CrossRef]
  288. Kollar, A.D., Feely, M., Joyce, A., Fedosick, R., Hughes, K., Costanzo, A. Carnegie Institute Extension Connemara Marble: Cross-Atlantic connections between western Ireland and gilded age architecture in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Ann. Carnegie Mus. 2020, 86, 207–253. https://doi.org/10.2992/007.086.0301. [CrossRef]
  289. Wyse Jackson, P.N., Caulfield, L., Feely, M., Joyce, A., Parkes, M.A. Connemara marble, Co. Galway, Ireland: A global heritage stone resource proposal. 2020.
  290. Yardley, B.W.D., Lloyd, G.E. An application of cathodoluminescence microscopy to the study of textures and reactions in high-grade marbles from Connemara, Ireland. Geol. Mag. 1989, 126, 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800006531. [CrossRef]
  291. Max, M.D. Connemara Marble and the industry based upon it. Report Series - Geological Survey of Ireland. 1985.
  292. Feely, M., Wilton, D.H., Costanzo, A., Kollar, A.D., Goudie, D.J., Joyce, A. Mineral Liberation Analysis and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Connemara Marble: New mineral distribution maps of an iconic Irish gem material. J. Gemmology 2019, 36, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.15506/JoG.2019.36.5.456. [CrossRef]
  293. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessy, R., Thompson, J. Visualization of folding in marble outcrops, Connemara, western Ireland: An application of virtual outcrop technology. Geosphere 2008, 4, 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00147.1. [CrossRef]
  294. Leake, B.E., Tanner, P.W.G., Senior, A. The composition and origin of the Connemara dolomitic marbles and ophicalcites, Ireland. J. Petrology 1975, 16, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/16.1.237. [CrossRef]
  295. Cliff, R.A., Yardley, B.W.D., Bussy, F. U–Pb isotopic dating of fluid infiltration and metasomatism during Dalradian regional metamorphism in Connemara, western Ireland. J. Metamorphic Geol. 1993, 11, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1314.1993.tb00141.x. [CrossRef]
  296. Senior, A., Leake, B.E. Regional metasomatism and the geochemistry of the Dalradian metasediments of Connemara, Western Ireland. J. Petrology 1978, 19, 585–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/19.3.585. [CrossRef]
  297. Cárdenes, V., López-Piñeiro, S., Ruiz de Argandoña, V.G. The relevance of the green phyllites of Lugo (Spain) in the architectural heritage: An exceptional roofing slate resource. Geoheritage 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00537-z. [CrossRef]
  298. Cárdenes, V., Rubio, A., Ruiz de Argandoña, V.G. Roofing slate from Bernardos, Spain: A potential candidate for global heritage stone. Episodes 2021, 44, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.18814/EPIIUGS/2020/0200S07. [CrossRef]
  299. Kaur, G., Agarwal, P., Garg, S., Kaur, P., Saini, J., Singh, A. The Alwar Quartzite Built Architectural Heritage of North India: A case for global heritage stone resource designation. 2021.
  300. Kaur, G., Agarwal, P., Garg, S., Kaur, P., Saini, J., Singh, A., Pandit, M., Acharya, K., Rooprai, V.S., Bhargava, O.N., Kumar, M., Ahuja, A. The Alwar Quartzite Built Architectural Heritage of North India: A case for global heritage stone resource designation. Geoheritage 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00574-8. [CrossRef]
  301. Mahajan, A.K., Shukla, A.K., Pandey, A., Chauhan, M., Chauhan, N., Rai, N. Shear wave velocity investigation for ten representative sites of national capital territory, New Delhi, India. Int. J. Geotech. Earthquake Eng. 2011, 2, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgee.2011010103. [CrossRef]
  302. Pathak, A.K., Tripathi, S., Maurya, A.K., Das, P., Ranjan, J., Patel, A.K., Misra, P., Kumar, A. High resolution heliborne magnetic, radiometric and time domain electromagnetic data interpretation of Chomun-Alwar tract of Alwar sub-basin, North Delhi Fold Belt, Northern India as an aid to uranium exploration. Explor. Res. Atomic Minerals 2020, 28, 24–35.
  303. Muthamilselvan, A. Application of supervised classification and Crosta technique for lithological discrimination in parts of South Khetri Belt, Sikar District, Rajasthan. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2017, 45, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-016-0589-y. [CrossRef]
  304. Kaur, P., Zeh, A., Chaudhri, N., Gerdes, A., Okrusch, M. Archaean to Palaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Aravalli mountain range, NW India, and its hinterland: The U-Pb and Hf isotope record of detrital zircon. Precambrian Res. 2011, 187, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2011.03.005. [CrossRef]
  305. Kaur, G., Mehta, P.K. Geochemistry and petrogenesis of Jasrapura granitoid, north Khetri Copper Belt, Rajasthan: Evidence for island arc magmatism. J. Geol. Soc. India 2007, 69, 319–330.
  306. Powar, M.M., Mathur, A.B. Geology and geochemistry of amphibolites from Ghataser area, Mahendragarh District, Haryana. Indian Minerals 2004, 58, 27–34.
  307. Verma, V.K. Ripple marks in Alwar quartzites east of Mera ka Gurha near Udaipur, Rajasthan. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. - Sect. A 1964, 59, 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03046445. [CrossRef]
  308. Zaheeruddin, Khurshid, S. Aquifer geometry and hydrochemical framework of the shallow alluvial aquifers in the western part of the Yamuna River Basin, India. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 2004, 39, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2004.020. [CrossRef]
  309. Layers sources: OpenDataSource (2023) World countries layer – QGIS EFFIS (2023) - https://forest-fire.emergency.copernicus.eu.
Preprints 120010 g001
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of Global Heritage Stone Resource regarding its geological classification.
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of Global Heritage Stone Resource regarding its geological classification.
Preprints 120010 g001
Preprints 120010 g002
Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of Global Heritage Stone Resource.
Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of Global Heritage Stone Resource.
Preprints 120010 g002
Preprints 120010 g003
Figure 3. Global Heritage Stone Resource Lioz Limestone applications on heritage architectural buildings (Portugal): a) Belém Tower; b) Jerónimos Monastery.
Figure 3. Global Heritage Stone Resource Lioz Limestone applications on heritage architectural buildings (Portugal): a) Belém Tower; b) Jerónimos Monastery.
Preprints 120010 g003
Preprints 120010 g004aPreprints 120010 g004b
Figure 4. Global Heritage Stone Resource’s world distribution (A) and the burned areas since 2000 to 2023 of European countries (B). Data sources: World countries layer – OpenDataSource (2023); Fire layers - EFFIS (2023).
Figure 4. Global Heritage Stone Resource’s world distribution (A) and the burned areas since 2000 to 2023 of European countries (B). Data sources: World countries layer – OpenDataSource (2023); Fire layers - EFFIS (2023).
Preprints 120010 g004aPreprints 120010 g004b
Preprints 120010 g005
Figure 5. Flowchart illustrating the selection process for the analyzed papers.
Figure 5. Flowchart illustrating the selection process for the analyzed papers.
Preprints 120010 g005
Preprints 120010 g006
Figure 6. Number of filtered papers resulting from the first filtering process. .
Figure 6. Number of filtered papers resulting from the first filtering process. .
Preprints 120010 g006
Preprints 120010 g007
Figure 7. Total number of criteria identification papers for each GHSR (total nr=639).
Figure 7. Total number of criteria identification papers for each GHSR (total nr=639).
Preprints 120010 g007
Preprints 120010 g008
Figure 8. Box plot of the results from the Total number of criteria identification papers for each GHSR.
Figure 8. Box plot of the results from the Total number of criteria identification papers for each GHSR.
Preprints 120010 g008
Preprints 120010 g009
Figure 9. Number of papers selected for Global Heritage Stone Resources by year of inclusion.
Figure 9. Number of papers selected for Global Heritage Stone Resources by year of inclusion.
Preprints 120010 g009
Preprints 120010 g010
Figure 10. Number of papers for each individual topic.
Figure 10. Number of papers for each individual topic.
Preprints 120010 g010
Preprints 120010 g011
Figure 11. Total number of papers on each topic.
Figure 11. Total number of papers on each topic.
Preprints 120010 g011
Preprints 120010 g012
Figure 12. Comparative Analysis of High Temperature Studies versus Overall Properties of Global Heritage Stone Resources.
Figure 12. Comparative Analysis of High Temperature Studies versus Overall Properties of Global Heritage Stone Resources.
Preprints 120010 g012
Preprints 120010 g013
Figure 13. Distribution of papers based on temperature range.
Figure 13. Distribution of papers based on temperature range.
Preprints 120010 g013
Preprints 120010 g014
Figure 14. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and tested geometry.
Figure 14. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and tested geometry.
Preprints 120010 g014
Preprints 120010 g015
Figure 15. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and heating rate.
Figure 15. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and heating rate.
Preprints 120010 g015
Preprints 120010 g016
Figure 16. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and time of exposure.
Figure 16. Graph illustrating the correlation between the number of papers and time of exposure.
Preprints 120010 g016
Preprints 120010 g017
Figure 17. Number of properties regarding each Global Heritage Stone Resource.
Figure 17. Number of properties regarding each Global Heritage Stone Resource.
Preprints 120010 g017
Preprints 120010 g018
Figure 18. Number of papers that studied minerochemical and physical-mechanical properties.
Figure 18. Number of papers that studied minerochemical and physical-mechanical properties.
Preprints 120010 g018
Table 1. Identified information and topics considered in the four different categories analyzed.
Table 1. Identified information and topics considered in the four different categories analyzed.
Categories Identified information for selection / Topic detected for selection
Other nomenclatures References to other facies of the same lithotype
Different commercial names for the same lithotypedata
Composition Mineralogic and petrographic composition
Chemical composition
Physical and/or Mechanical Properties Properties that characterize the stone as a material, some examples found: porosity, capillarity, structure properties, color measurements, gloss.
High Temperatures Exposition of stone to temperatures above 120º Celsiusdata
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated