PSI - Issue 5

PP1

PP2

PP1

PP2

Rachel Martini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 1108–1115 Martini et al/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000 – 000

1114

7

PP1

PP2

and the third, three joints. This behavior remains relatively constant, with the responses of accelerometers 2 and 3 being sometimes almost constant. It is interesting to note that in the PP4 wall, where there is no presence of the cross block, this behavior appears irregularly. This confirms that cross block provides structural stability, and this is reflected in the results of the waves velocity propagation in the medium.

Typology

Chart velocity

Typology

Chart velocity)

PP3 PP1

PP2

PP1

PP1

PP4

PP3

PP4

PP1

PP2

PP4

PP3

PP4

PP5

PP5

PP2

PP2 PP3

PP5

PP5

PP4

PP3

PP4

PP3

PP3 PP5

PP4

Fig. 4: Sonic indirect test results.

With the results of the indirect tests, Tab. 2, despite the typology variation, it was not possible to establish a correlation between the obtained data. According to the configuration of the tests used (direct and indirect) and related conventional interpretation, it was assumed that the direct tests indicated P wave velocities and the indirect tests, R wave velocities. According to the standard (BSI, 2004), the ratio between Young's static and dynamic modulus ranges from 0.5 to 0.9. The values obtained with the dynamic tests resemble the expected modules of the static compression tests. PP5 PP5

PP5

Tabel 2: Sonic indirect tests’ results linear regression. Col. PP1 PP2

PP3

PP4

PP5

Vel. (m/s)

r 2

Vel. (m/s)

r 2

Vel. (m/s)

r 2

Vel. (m/s)

r 2

Vel. (m/s)

r 2

1 2 3

293.26 283.38 311.14

0.94 0.99 0.96

600.96 888.44 519.48

0.92 0.95 1.00

416.64 483.19 299.62

0.95 0.93 1.00

515.88 321.32 384.32

0.99 0.93 0.93

247.4 147.24 340.43

1.00 0.90 0.91