Correlation and correction factor between direct and indirect methods for the ultrasonic measurement of stone samples

  • Chan Hee Lee
  • Young Hoon JoEmail author
Original Article


This study focused on analyzing and calculating the correction factor between direct and indirect methods for the ultrasonic testing of stone monuments using a customized transducer and couplant. To achieve this goal, the P-wave velocity in 11 rock specimens, including two artificially weathered samples, was measured in a laboratory by applying both direct and indirect methods using an ultrasonic tester. Statistical interpretation of the results revealed that the indirect P-wave velocities were always lower than the direct velocities, with the correction factors between them differing by rock type. The average correction factors produced by the indirect method were 1.50 in the medium- to coarse-grained granite sample, 1.37 in fine-grained granite, 1.58 in fine-grained diorite, 1.38 in medium-grained diorite, 1.59 in sandstone, and 1.71 in marble. In addition, the regression equation and coefficient of determination, R 2 were acceptably high, suggesting a sufficient relationship between the two variables for use in engineering. This study will significantly contribute to improving the reliability of ultrasonic testing for weathering evaluation of a stone monument.


Ultrasonic testing Direct and indirect methods Correction factor Correlation Stone monument Weathering evaluation 



This work was supported by the research Grant of the Kongju National University in 2013, Republic of Korea.


  1. Birch F (1961) The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobars, Part II. J Geophys Res 66(7):2199–2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capizzi P, Cosentino PL, Schiavone S (2013) Some tests of 3D ultrasonic traveltime tomography on the Eleonora d’Aragona statue (F. Laurana, 1468). J Appl Geophys 91:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakia S, Takarlia M, Agbodjana WP (2008) Influence of thermal damage on physical properties of a granite rock: porosity, permeability and ultrasonic wave evolutions. Constr Build Mater 22:1456–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Nishiyama T, Kusuda H, Kita H, Sato T (1999) Correlation between microcrack distribution patterns and granitic rock splitting planes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:535–541Google Scholar
  5. Choi JB, Jwa YJ, Kim K, Hwang GC (2006) Analyses of mineral composition of Geochang granitic rocks for stone specification. J Mineral Soc Korea 19:363–381Google Scholar
  6. Darot M, Reuschlé T (2000) Acoustic wave velocity and permeability evolution during pressure cycles on a thermally cracked granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:1019–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fort R, Alvarez de Buergo M, Perez-Monserrat E (2013) Non-destructive testing for the assessment of granite decay in heritage structures compared to quarry stone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 61:296–305Google Scholar
  8. Heinrichs K, Fitzner B (2011) Assessment of weathering damage on the Petroglyphs of Cheonjeon-ri, Ulsan, Republic of Korea. Environ Earth Sci 63:1741–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jo YH, Lee CH (2014) Establishment of ultrasonic measurement method for stone cultural heritage considering water content and anisotropy. J Conserv Sci 30:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jo YH, Lee CH (2015) A study on selection of ultrasonic transducer and contact material for surface irregularities of stone cultural heritage. J Conserv Sci 31:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jo YH, Lee CH, Chun YG (2012) Material characteristics and deterioration evaluation for the 13th century Korean stone pagoda of Magoksa temple. Environ Earth Sci 66:915–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahraman S (2002) Estimating the direct P-wave velocity value of intact rock from indirect laboratory measurements. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahraman S (2007) The correlations between the saturated and dry P-wave velocity of rocks. Ultrasonics 46:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim JH, Lee MS, Lee MH, Lee JM, Park SM (2011) A study on effects of temperature for physical properties change of rocks. J Petrol Soc Korea 20:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee CH, Jo YH (2016) Stone heritage of the Republic of Korea. In: Kato S, Reedman A, Shimazaki Y, Uchida T, Ngoc NTM, Surinkum A (eds) Stone heritage of east and southeast Asia. CCOP, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  16. Lee CH, Jo YH, Chun YG (2009) Establishment of ultrasonic measurement and correlations of direct-indirect method for weathering evaluation of stone cultural heritage. J Conserv Sci 25:233–244Google Scholar
  17. Lee CH, Jo YH, Kim J (2011) Damage evaluation and conservation treatment of the tenth century Korean rock-carved Buddha statues. Environ Earth Sci 64:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lion M, Skoczylas F, Ledésert B (2005) Effects of heating on the hydraulic and poroelastic properties of bourgogne limestone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:508–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohamed Sutan N, Meganathan M (2003) A comparison between direct and indirect method of ultrasonic pulse velocity in detecting concrete defects. Russ J Nondestr Test 8:1–9Google Scholar
  20. Moropoulou A, Labropoulos KC, Delegou ET, Karoglou M, Bakolas A (2013) Non-destructive techniques as a tool for the protection of built cultural heritage. Constr Build Mater 48:1222–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Popovics S (2001) Analysis of the concrete strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity relationship. Mater Eval 59:123–129Google Scholar
  22. Qixian L, Bungey JH (1996) Using compression wave ultrasonic transducers to measure the velocity of surface waves and hence determine dynamic modulus of elasticity for concrete. Constr Build Mater 10:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharma PK, Singh TN (2008) A correlation between P-wave velocity, impact strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial compressive strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simmons G, Cooper HW (1978) Thermal cycling cracks in three igneous rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tharmaratnam K, Tan BS (1990) Attenuation of ultrasonic pulse in cement mortar. Cem Concr Res 20:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turgut P, Kucuk OF (2006) Comparative relationships of direct, indirect, and semi-direct ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements in concrete. J Nondestruct Test 42:745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vasanelli E, Colangiuli D, Calia A, Sileo M, Aiello MA (2015) Ultrasonic pulse velocity for the evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of a highly porous building limestone. Ultrasonics 60:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yagiz S (2010) Geochemical properties of construction stones quarried in South-western Turkey. Sci Res Essays 5:750–757Google Scholar
  29. Yaman IO, Inci G, Yesiller N, Aktan HM (2001) Ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete using direct and indirect transmission. ACI Mater J 98:450–457Google Scholar
  30. Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004) Correlating sound velocity with the density, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:871–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cultural Heritage Conservation SciencesKongju National UniversityGongjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations