Advertisement

Non-destructive Surface Strength Test—Duroskop a Forgotten Tool; Comparison to Schmidt Hammer Rebound Values of Rocks

  • Ákos TörökEmail author
Conference paper

Abstract

The paper gives an overview of the test mechanism and use of Duroskop and Schmidt hammer in rock strength assessment. Duroskop is a forgotten tool that uses the same principle as a Schmidt hammer: it detects rebound values of tested surfaces. It can be applied for testing the hardness of rock surfaces to detect small scale variations in strength. Rebound values were measured on selected lithologies such as porous limestone, travertine, micro-crystalline limestone, marble, andesite tuff and basalt. The rebound values of Duroskop and 4 types of Schmidt hammer (N-34, L-9, Digi-Schmidt and PT) are compared. Not only fresh but also weathered surfaces were measured in order to assess effect of weathering on rock strength. The obtained rebound values were compared to the standardized laboratory strength test results of the same lithologies. Relationships between Duroskop rebound values and Schmidt hammer values are presented. The values of Schmidt hammer rebound and Duroskop rebound can be correlated. The latter detects minor changes in surface strength but is more sensitive to surface irregularities. Overall, these experiments indicate that special attention is needed for the interpretation of non-destructive strength test results since these tools do not provide exact data on the compressive strength or tensile strength of rocks. Nevertheless, rebound vales of Duroskop, similarly to Schmidt hammer, provide rapid information on the strength of the tested rock.

Keywords

Duroskop Schmidt hammer Surface strength Limestone Travertine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support of the Hungarian National Research, Development, and Innovation Fund (NKFI), for the project K 116532 is appreciated.

References

  1. Al-Omari, A., Beck, K., Brunetaud, X., Török, Á., Al-Mukhtar, M.: Critical degree of saturation: a control factor of freeze-thaw damage of porous limestones at Castle of Chambord, France. Eng. Geol. 185, 71–80 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. Aydin, A.: ISRM suggested method for determination of the Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. In: Ulusay, R. (ed.) The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014. Springer, Cham (2008)Google Scholar
  3. Aydin, A., Basu, A.: The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Eng. Geol. 81, 1–14 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kahraman, S.: Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 981–994 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schmidt, E.: A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete 59, 34–35 (1951)Google Scholar
  6. Tandon, R.S., Gupta, V.: Estimation of strength characteristics of different Himalayan rocks from Schmidt hammer rebound, point load index, and compressional wave velocity. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74, 521–533 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Török, Á.: Surface strength and mineralogy of weathering crusts on limestone buildings in Budapest. Build. Environ. 38, 1185–1192 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Török, Á.: In situ methods of testing stone monuments and the application of nondestructive physical properties testing in masonry diagnosis. In: Bostenaru Dan, M., Přikryl, R., Török, Á. (eds.) Materials, Technologies and Practice in Historic Heritage Structures, pp. 177–193, Springer, Dordrecht (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Török, Á., Vásárhelyi, B.: The influence of fabric and water content on selected rock mechanical parameters of travertine, examples from Hungary. Eng. Geol. 115, 237–245 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Viles, H., Goudie, A., Grab, S., Lalley, J.: The use of the Schmidt hammer and Equotip for rock hardness assessment in geomorphology and heritage science: a comparative analysis. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 36, 320–333 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Yagiz, S.: Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 68, 55–63 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yılmaz, I., Sendir, H.: Correlation of Schmidt hammer rebound number with unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng. Geol. 66, 211–219 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering Geology and GeotechnicsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations