The role of ultrasonic velocity and Schmidt hammer hardness - The simple and economical non-destructive test for the evaluation of mechanical properties of weathered granite

An empirical classification method for South Pars marls by Schmidt hammer rebound index

“…(2013) Sandstone Indonesia (Tutupan) 10 - 26 6.53–23.2 [26] Mudstone Indonesia (Tutupan) 10 - 28 6.53–25.6 Selçuk and Yabalak (2014) Calcareous marl Turkey (Van) 27 - 29.7 38.6–41.3 [27] Marlstone Turkey (Van) 20 - 26 4.5–9.5 Claystone / Argillaceous marl Turkey (Van) 10 - 22 2.5–4.5 Kesimal and Kesimal (2015) Limestone Turkey (Trabzon) 37.6 - 39.5 75–120 [28] Sandy limestone Turkey (Trabzon) 30.6 - 31 22.5 Biomicritic limestone Turkey (Trabzon) 13.5 - 17.5 7.7–18.9 Jobli et al. (2016) Marlstone Sungai Buloh 25.85 20–25 [29] Calcareous marl Sungai Buloh 37.38 30–35 Calcareous marl Sungai Buloh 59.51 38–43 Limestone Sungai Buloh 59.2 42–46 Azimian (2017) Limestone Iran (Shiraz) 59 - 22 28.7–118.4 [30] Rajabi et al. (2017) Limestone Iran (Saveh) 21.3 - 29.6 33.5–42.6 [31] Török (2018) Oolitic limestone Hungary (Budapest), Austria (Vienna) 37–17 18.7–35 …”

Nondestructive Determination of Strength of Concrete Incorporating Industrial Wastes as Partial Replacement for Fine Aggregate

“…However, the nondestructive test becomes very important for structures that are already existing or a building 2 of 15 that needs maintenance which cannot be achieved by the destructive test methods [3] due to several aspects such as preservation of samples or structure, simplicity and flexibility. Hence, this test method is rated as dependable [4,5] for evaluating the strength properties of existing engineering materials and structures (metals, rocks, concrete pavements, bridges and buildings). Since there is no sample loaded directly until failure occurs, the strength of materials using the nondestructive test is derived based on estimation, and no absolute strength value is provided [6].…”

“…Numerous studies have underscored the reliability of the nondestructive test in terms of assessing the mechanical properties of materials and existing building structures [7][8][9]. Correlation and prediction of compressive strength of materials or structures have been studied previously [3,4,10,11]. The results from these studies showed a good relationship between compressive strength and the nondestructive test values (UPV values and rebound hammer number) and can be useful in testing in situ compressive strength and prediction of the strength of structures.…”

“…The results from these studies showed a good relationship between compressive strength and the nondestructive test values (UPV values and rebound hammer number) and can be useful in testing in situ compressive strength and prediction of the strength of structures. Different precise studies have been done using Schmidt rebound hammer test, such as evaluation of rock weathering [4,12,13], uniaxial compressive strength of rock [14], prediction of durability and compressive strength of limestone rocks [15], and relationship between unconfined compressive strength and Schmidt rebound number of gypsums using empirical equation [16]. Evaluation of concrete structures has also been reported using the Schmidt rebound hammer test and UPV test [5].…”

“…The use of industrial waste materials such as alum sludge, quarry dust and limestone dust will reduce the excessive consumption of natural river sand, which is being depleted with time. Most studies from the literature focused on existing reinforced structures [17,19,23] and materials such as weathered rock [4,13], granite and bricks [3,26], while in this study, the experimental studies on laboratory-produced concrete materials made with industrial waste materials such as alum sludge, quarry dust and limestone dust are the focus. The aim is to determine the compressive strength of the produced concrete using a nondestructive approach.…”