Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2010 (6) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (6) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Radar (3)
- Masonry (2)
- Non-destructive testing (2)
- Compaction faults (1)
- Complex resistivity (1)
- Concrete (1)
- Data fusion (1)
- Destructive and non-destructive tests (1)
- Diagnostics (1)
- Electrical (1)
Building stones are porous media and they can deteriorate through moisture ingress and secondary damage such as crystallization of soluble salts. Not only is this due to the increasing number of flood events in the past years but also structural damages of houses from activity such as leakage or rising moisture (groundwater) are the main causes. The potential benefit of several nondestructive testing methods to assess water damage in building stone has been studied in a field-scale experiment. Three testing walls made of fired clay brick, sandstone, and spongilite were flooded and their drying behavior monitored using infrared thermography, complex resistivity, ground penetrating radar, and ultrasonics. The results were compared to the average moisture content determined by gravimetric weighing of the specimens. Qualitatively, the results of the different nondestructive testing methods matched well. But in terms of quantitative data, some scatter was observed and the results should be viewed with care. Collecting time-consuming calibration data would help to overcome this problem, but especially when dealing with historic building structures, this is not always possible in practice.
Moisture ingress is one of major damaging factors for masonry buildings. As the complex resistivity (CR) is sensitive to textural properties as well as to the pore fluid chemistry of wet porous media, its non-destructive application can provide helpful information for conservators. In a comprehensive laboratory study it has been shown that CR might even be able to distinguish between salt content and saturation degree in only one measurement. The combined use of electrical and electromagnetic measurement techniques in two field-scale flooding experiments has shown some unexpected differences. Possible reasons are discussed and it is shown that bringing together the information of both methods leads to a clearer picture.