Issue 74

N. Meddour et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 74 (2025) 227-261; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.74.16

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d) (f) Figure 16: Scanning electron microscopy analysis (SEM) of the T2 stone type, before (a,b,c) and after (d,e,f) ageing test with HCl in the presence of moisture test. (a) x2.88k,(b) x31,(c)x383,(d)x376,(e) x2.14k,(f)x25. (e)

ρ b (g/cm 3 )

C (g/m 2 . s − ½ )

po (%)

A b (%)

V p (km /s)

σ c (MPa)

σ f (MPa)

R

Parame ter

type

Stone

T1 1-3 T2 2-4

4.26±1.93 n=4 27.57±9.86 n=3

1.68±0.19 n=6 2.22±0.19 n=3

30.22±5.12 n=6 8.59±1.68 n=3

16.08±6.19 n=6 3.31±0.47 n=3

41.58±227.77 n=5

-

-

1.35±0.18

3.73±0.42 n=3

1.93±12.24 n=3

24.28±6.21

3.59±0.06

Values

ρ b = Density, po = Porosity, A b =Water absorption by atmospheric pressure, C = Water absorption by capillarity, V p = Ultrasonic wave velocity, σ c = Uniaxial compressive strength, R = Schmidt hammer rebound strength, σ f = flexural strength, n = number of the used samples Table 13: Recap of the physico-mechanical properties of the two stone types T1 and T2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 17: Water absorption: (a) block type T1 (sample PE1-5); (b) block type T2 (sample PE2-6).

245