Paper contribution

Semi-destructive determination of compressive strength of building and decorative stone based on its drillability

Martin Vavro; Leona Vavro; Libor Žídek

Proceedings
EUROCK 2026
Pages
1243-1248
Submitted
28 January 2026
Accepted
15 June 2026
Published
12 August 2026

Summary

Abstract

The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) represents a basic material parameter of intact rock determining mechanical resistance and failure behaviour under loading conditions. Although the standard direct method for determining the UCS of rocks is relatively simple to perform and evaluate, it requires a large number of precisely prepared test specimens, usually cylindrical in shape. Obtaining samples of the required quality is problematic in some cases, for example, the preparation of standard cylindrical test samples in weak or weathered rock is quite difficult. Also in the case of historical constructions or works of art, the preparation of samples for destructive determination of UCS is essentially impossible. For this reason, numerous other testing methods using other rock properties such as Schmidt hardness rebound number, point load index, density, porosity, ultrasonic wave velocity or abrasivity index, are utilized in engineering practice for indirect estimation of UCS value. The paper deals with the possibility of using the so-called Kučera`s drill for semi-destructive testing of the strength of natural stone, specifically sandstones. These represent one of the most commonly used materials for stone masonry and historical architectural elements. In common construction diagnostic practice, the Kučera`s dril is currently used mainly for determining the strength properties of brick masonry and mortars. The relationship between compressive strength and drilling resistance was verified on five types of sandstone with different strengths that are currently mined in the Czech Republic. In addition to the Kučera`s drill, a Schmidt hammer was also used for non-destructive strength determination in order to compare the applicability of both methods. The results of the research can be applied in the diagnostics of building structures, e.g. in the reconstruction of historical buildings and in restoration work, but also in mining activities in a quarry, for example to select a sandstone material with the required properties.

Contributors

Authors

  1. Martin Vavro Institute of Geonics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic ORCID 0000-0003-1446-460X
  2. Leona Vavro Institute of Geonics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic ORCID 0000-0002-4830-8691
  3. Libor Žídek STP Group, s.r.o., Czech Republic

Index terms

Keywords

Full text

Attachments

Works cited

References

  1. Aladejare AE, Alofe ED, Onifade M, Lawal AI, Ozoji TM, Zhang ZX (2021) Empirical estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock: Database of simple, multiple, and artificial inteligence-based regressions. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 39(6): 4427–4455. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-021-01772-5.
  2. Aydin A (2009) ISRM suggested method for determination of the Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: Revised version. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 46(3): 627–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.01.020.
  3. Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Engineering Geology 81(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.06.006.
  4. Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 74(8): 312–320.
  5. Brabec M, Krmíček L (2024) Schmidt rebound hardness dependence on the core-size: A correction model presented and tested on greywacke. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 52(4): 2663–2673. DOI: 10.1520/JTE20230628.
  6. Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bulletin of Engineering geology and the Environment 57(1): 17–30. DOI: 10.1007/s100640050017.
  7. Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 38(7): 981–994. DOI: 10.1016/S1365-1609(01)00039-9.
  8. Koudelka P, Fila T, Rada V, Zlamal P, Sleichert J, Vopalensky M, Kumpova I, Benes P, Vavrik D, Vavro L, Vavro M, Drdacky M, Kytyr D (2020) In-situ X-ray differential micro-tomography for investigation of water-weakening in quasi-brittle materials subjected to four-point bending. Materials 13(6): 1405. DOI: 10.3390/ma13061405.
  9. Kytýř D, Koudelka P, Drozdenko D, Vavro M, Fíla T, Rada V, Vavro L, Máthis K, Souček K (2024) Acoustic emission and 4D X-ray micro-tomography for monitoring crack propagation in rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 183: 105917. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2024.105917.
  10. Oderian OA, Bassagi M (2014) Preliminary field measurement of the uniaxial compressive strength of migmatite using N-type Schmidt rebound hammer. The International Journal of Engineering and Science 3(8): 11–17.
  11. Pamplona M, Kocher M, Snethlage R, Barros LA (2007) Drilling resistance: overview and outlook. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaftfür Geowissenschaften 158(3): 665–679. DOI: 10.1127/1860-1804/2007/0158-0665.
  12. Přikryl R, Snížek P (2023) Critical assessment of the “non-destructiveness” of Schmidt hammer test on monumental sandstones: A microscopic and microstructural approach. Journal of Cultural Heritage 59: 247–254. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2022.12.011.
  13. Schmidt E (1951) A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete 59(8): 34–35.
  14. Siedel H, Pfefferkorn S, von Plehwe-Leisen E, Leisen H (2010) Sandstone weathering in tropical climate: Results of low-destructive investigations at the temple of Angkor Wat, Cambodia. Engineering Geology115(3-4): 182–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.07.003.
  15. Tiano P, Viggiano A (2000) A new diagnostic tool for the evaluation of the hardness of natural and artificial stone. Internationale Zeitschrift für Bauinstandsetzen und Baudenkmalpflege6(5): 555–566.
  16. Vavrik D, Benes P, Fila T, Koudelka P, Kumpova I, Kytyr D, Vopalensky M, Vavro M, Vavro L (2021) Local fracture toughness testing of sandstone based on X-ray tomographic reconstruction. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 138:104578. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104578.
  17. Vavro L, Malíková L, Frantík P, Kubeš P, Keršner Z, Vavro M (2019) An advanced assessment of mechanical fracture parameters of sandstones depending on the internal rock texture features. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 16(2): 157–168. DOI: 10.13168/AGG.2019.0013.
  18. Vavro L, Vavro M, Nag A, Klichová D, Stolárik G, Gupta MK, Hloch S (2025) Erosive wear behavior of sandstone under low-pressure pulsating water jet. Tribology International 203: 110411. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2024.110411.
  19. Vavro M, Souček K, Vavro L, Georgiou L, Mrógala J (2026) Study of the microstructure and permeability of building stone using X-ray micro-tomography. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering 70(1): 11–27. DOI: 10.3311/PPci.42434.
  20. Vavro M, Vavro L, Martinec P, Souček K (2016) Properties, durability and use of glauconitic Godula sandstones: a relatively less known building stone of the Czech Republic and Poland. Environmental Earth Sciences 75(22): 1437. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-016-6248-3.
  21. Xie WQ, Liu XL, Zhang XP, Liu QS, Wang EZ (2024): A review of test methods for uniaxial compressive strength of rocks: Theory, apparatus and data processing. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (article in press). DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2024.05.003.