II th INTERNA T/ONAL BRlCKJBLOCK MASONRY CONFERENCE

TON01I UNIVERSITY, SHANOHAI, CHINA, 14 - 16 OCTOBER 1997

NONDESTRUCTlVE IN SITU DETERMlNATlON OF MORTAR LOAD

CAPACITY USING A MODIFIED SCHMIDT REBOUND HAMMER

Robert SChmiedmayer'

I ABSTRACT
The detennination of the characteristic strength of masonry and its components in historic
buildings requires in situ testing methods which are simple to use, reliable and
nondestructive. The basic principies of a nondestructive testing method to determine the
strength of mortar in the masonry wall are shown. The rebound hammer, model Schmidt,
is modified by fixing a triangular plate to the bolt of the hammer. Test results show that
the number of millimeters the plate is driven into the mortar layer between the first and the
tenth impact characterises the strength of the mortar in the masonry wall. A reliable result
cannot be obtained by measuring the rebound factor itself. The research prograrnrne was
part of a doctoral thesis at the Technical University of Vienna.

2 INTRODUCTION
The conservation or restoration of historically valuable buildings made of briek or '
quarrystone masonry usually requires knowledge of the eharacteristie strength of the
construetion. The removal and subsequent testing of a whole wall section may be the most
reliable but a1so most eomplieated way to handle the task. This procedure is expensive and
not aceeptable for use on buildings of historie value. It is easier and causes less damage if
cores are drilled out of the wall [I]. The use of tlat-jacks is a1most nondestructive [2], but
not very easy to carry out.

Keywords: nondestructive testing; mortar strength; in situ; masonry; rebound harnrner.

Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn., lnstitute for Building Materiais

BaumbachstraJ3e 7, D - 81245 Munich - Germany

367

and Construction, Technical

University Munich,

An altemative is to detennine the characteristic strength of the bricks and mortar [3]. The
characteristic strength of the bricks can be found either by removing whole bricks from the
wall or drilling small cores out of the bricks and testing them according to intemational
standards.
It is not possible to test the mortar because standard test specimens cannot be taken.
According to [3,4,5] it is possible to detennine the mortar load capacity by taking mortar
plates out of the bed-joint, levelling them with plaster and measuring the breaking load
between two round metallic plungers ("plunger pressure method "). Due to the low
strength of lime mortar and the bond of the mortar to the brick it is difficult to extract
sufficient specimens without damaging the wall toa much. Other known testing methods
such as the drilling technique [6] are used mostly for stronger mortars only.
The need for a simple to use, reliable and nondestructive in situ method to obtain the
mortar load capacity in the bed-joint led to the investigations described in the following
and finally to the "penetration method ".

3 THE PENETRATION METHOD

The Schmidt rebound hammer is widely used for the nondestructive determination of the
strength of concrete. For light-weight concrete, a modified hammer with reduced impact
energy is used (Modell L) [7]. Both types of the hammer originaly have round bolts and
can not be used for measuring the load capacity of the mortar because the bed-joint is only
about 15 mm thick and the mortar surface is usually behind the face ofthe wall.
The Schmidt rebound hammer is adapted by adding a plate to the boIt of the hammer. This
plate is made of 8 mm, surface hardened steel and screwed to the bolt (see Fig. 1).
The aim of this research program is to:
optimize the shape of the plates used,
determine whether the rebound factor or the penetration depth are reliable
measurements,
find the relationship between the measurements and the load capacity of the mortar in
the bed-joint,
minimize the testing procedure for practicable handling.

rebound hammer

Fig. 1: Adaption of the Schmidt rebound hammer - top view.

368

4 LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Materiais I Testing Specimens
4.1 .1 Bricks
Three different types of brick were used. Most masonry piJlars are made with modem,
extruded solid bricks (mean strength of ",30 N/mm 2 ). In the last third of the testing
programme two additional types of hand made bricks were used (290xI40x70mm3, dated
1890). They had a mean strength of approximately 13 N/mm 2 and were taken from two
demolition sites in Vienna.
4.1.2 Mortar
The mixing proportions of the mortar used are given in Tab. I. In the first haIf of the test
programme, a complete set of three mortar bars (40x40x160 mm3) was cast for each mixo
They were stored under the same conditions as the masonry pillars. Due to the results of
the first part onIy a few mortar bars were cast in the second half of the programme.
rabo 1: Mixing proportions ofthe mortar used

Mortar
Number
MI
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6

Cement
[kg]
1.0
0.6
-

Lime
[kg]
3.0
1.8
3.5
6.0 (slaked lime)
5.0 (slaked lime)
5.0

Aggregate (0/8)
[kg]
20
30
35
18
30
30

Water
,[1]
4.7
5.0
5.75
2.0
2.0
6.5

4.1.3 Masonry Pillars

For each brick mortar combination at least two pillars were made with a totaI numer of 50
specimens for the whole programme. The piJlars had a square base (",250x250 mm2) and
consisted of five brick layers with a total height of about 400 mm. The bed-joint had a
thickness of 12 to 14 mm.
After construction, the pillars were stored in t.he cellar of the institute at a temperature of
17C and a relative humidity of 95 % for at least 1 month at most 18 months. Both
bearing surfaces were levelled with a mixture of fine sand and cement. Seven days prior to
testing they were brought into the laboratory and stored at room cIimate.
4.2 Testing
The pillars were fixed between the compression pIates of a 2 MN testing machine (see Fig.
2). The differently shaped pIates were driven into the mortar layer by twenty successive
impacts. the rebound factor was read after each impact. The penetration depth of the plate
in the mortar was measured continuously with displacement transducers and recorded
together with the readings of the reboun ri factoT.

169

The load capacity of the mortar was tested by two different methods. First according to the
Austrian standard [N B3350] to determine the modulus of rupture and the compressive
strength of mortar bars (40x40x 160 mm3).
For the second method the masonry pillars were carefully dismantled after testing with the
modified rebound hammer. The mortar was removed from the bricks in pieces (at
least 0 50 mm). The bearing surface was levelled with 5 mm plaster (0 50 mm). The
test specimen were then placed between two metal-plungers (025 mm) and loaded until
failure (see Fig. 3). The maximum load capacity was a measure of the strength of the
mortar in the layer ("p/unge pressure method").
4.3 Investigated Shapes of Plates
In order to find the optimum shape, a numer of different plate forms were tested:
rectangular, cylindrical and wedge-shaped, ali 8 mm thick (see Fig. 4).

side view:

lop view :
di lae menl Iran dut!r

masonry

masorry

~IQr

pilar

rebound hammer

101.
dis t cement Ir nsducer

L--

Fig. 2: Testing set up in the laboratory.

view

top

Fig. 3: Testing set up for the plunge pressure method [3.5].

370

plote I

plote V

plote 11

plote VI

plote 111

plote VII

plote IV

plote VIII

plote IX

Fig. 4: Different soopes o/piates

5RESULTS
5.1 Rebound Factor
The rebound factor increases with the number of successive impacts. The way the rebound
factor increases is very different for each of the plates (see Fig. 5). The variation of the
rebound factor within one testing procedure (20 impacts) is high - there is no significant
difference in the rebound factor between the different plates or mortars. Neither is there a
significant correlation between the rebound factor and the number of impacts, nor between
the increase of the rebound factor and the mortar load capacity in the bed-joint (see Fig. 5).
There is also no significant corre!ation between the rebound factor after a certain number
of impacts and the mortar load capacity in the bed-joint (see Fig. 6). A nondestructive
determination of the mortar load capacity in the bed-joint by measuring the rebound factor
is not possible regardless of the shape of the plates used.
5.2 Penetration Depth
For ali the different forms of plates investigated the penetration depth increases in a nonlinear manner with the number of impacts (see Fig. 7). For each of the plates different
functions were fitted to the data. The goodness of fit was in ali cases very high (r2 > 0.98).
By using the fitted functions for further caJculations random, errors due to the
.measurement were minimized.

371

rebound factor
30

~16;1

20
10

number of impacts
0+4~-r~~~~~~

lVl

rebound faclor
30

10

20

nr. of impacls

rebound faClor
30

20r~~~
10

O+-~n~um~OO-rr_ofri~m~paTc_~~-,

20

10

20

Fig. 5: There is no reliable correlation between the number of impacts and the reboundfactor
for different mortars and plates.

.......
..
... ........

~M[N/mm']
2.0

..........
.:.Idat!
... .....
...

1.5
1,0

......

0.5
0,0

.. ..

~St.lS [N/mm']
5.0

4,0

~:

.s

3,0

2,0
1,0
0,0

10

15

20

25

30

R 35

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fig. 6: The mean reboundfactor (R) after the 2(jh impactfor the plate V versus the different
mortar strengths (13M) according to Austrian standard ON B3350 and the mortar load
capacity in the bed-joint, tested with the plunger pressure method ([3St.J5).
penetratian depth [mm]
10,0
9,0

8,0
7,0

6,0
5,0
4,0

.... ,

3,0
2,0

" "qj]

1,0

number af impacts [-]

piai

Fig~

10

15

7: Penetration depth according to the number of impacts for different plates.

372

20

Tests with obvious errors (caused by friction of the plate with a brick, voids in the mortar
etc.) or with a deviation of more than 25% fTOm the mean value of ali tests with this
specific plate on the same pillar were eliminated before further evaluation. The percentage
of the eliminated test results was I % for plate VI, 4% for plate V and 14 % for plate m.
The mean value of the penetration depth for alI tests with one plate on a mortar layer was
calculated after the 15 \ 5 th , 10th , 15 1h and 20th impacts and also the difference betWeen the
151 and 10th , 151 and 20th , 5th and IOlh and the 5th an 20th impacts. These values are
compared with the mortar load capacity obtained according to the Austrian standard
ON B3350 on mortar bars (40x40x160 mm3) for this specific mortar (~M) and also
compared with the load capacity of the mortar in the specific bed-joint determined by the
plunger pressure method (~S~15) [3,5] .
The correlatiori of penetration depths after 10 and 20 impacts with ~SI. 15 was found to be
much better than with ~M (see Fig. 8). Especially the cylindrical and wedge-shaped plates
show the best results.
Out of ali the different possibilities the most reliable is to use the difference between the
penetration depths after the first and tenth impacts (di-lO) for the plate Vasa characteristic
value for the mortar 10ad capacity of the bed joint (r2 > 0.80).
The characteristic mortar load capacity in the bed joint tested by the penetration method
(~E) is calculated with the following formula:
(I)

Here di-lO is in [mm] and ~E in [N/mm2] . The correIation is shown in Fig. 9.

The investigations show that there is a significant influence of the moisture content of the
mortar in the bed-joint on the test results. Further investigations have to be done.
5.3 Characteristic Strength of Masonry Walls
The value of the characteristic mortar load capacity in the bed-joint tested by the
penetration method (~E) is not the same as the mortar load capacity fTOm standard tests on
4Ox40x 160 mm3 mortar bars. It is pos~ible to convert the value ~E [3,5], but this method is
not very accurate.
A better altemative is to modify the formula in EC6 [2]

I k = A-f:-f~

(2)

(the caIculation of the characteristic strength of masonry walls (fi) from the mean strength
of the brick ifb) and the mean strength of the mortar ifM)) to use ~E instead of IM. To check
this some of the masonry pillars used for the previous research were not dismantled, but

373

~"" [N/mm']

QJ

2
O
O

........
5

2
d20 [mm]

...-

O
LO

15

QJ

[IJ

~M [N/mm']

~S'.I' [N/mm']

10

10

15

10

~M [N/mm']

15

..: ..

. - d,o[rnrn]

d'[rnrn]

15

[IJ

'--

~~mm]

d 20 [mm]

O
O

2
O

%J_~II

d 20 [mm]

~M [N/mm']

~S'. I' [N/mm']

O
O

10

15

10

15

Fig. 8: top: relationship between the penetration depth after 20 impacts (d20) and the mortar
load capacity in the bedjoint (f3SI,/5) for three different plates; bottom: relationship
between d20 and the mortar load capacity tested by standard (13M) for three different
plates.

O+----,-----r----~---,----_r----r_--~----,_----r_--_,

10

penelralion deplh d t .1O

Fig. 9: Relationship between the penetration depth (d l . lO) and the mortar load capacity in the
'bed joint (f3E) by the penetration method.

374

their masonry load capacity was measured. Despite of the fact that only three different
sorts of brick were used, the results show that the value of C in the formula
Ik =

AI:' f3~

(3)

decreases and B increases compared to the original values of EC6. Therefore it is possible
to use ~E instead of1M for the formula of EC6, but there is not enough data availabIe at the
present time to give reliable new values A, B and C.

6SUMMARY
The Schmidt rebound hammer was modified by fixing a wedge-shaped plate to the bolt of
the original hammer. Test results show that the number of millimeters the plate is driven
into the mortar layer between the first and the tenth impact characterises the strength of the
mortar in the masonry wall. The strength of the mortar in the bed-joint can be determined
using the formula ~E =8/d l_lo with di-lO in [mm] and ~E in [N/mm2]. No reliable result can
be obtained from the use of the rebound factor. ~E can be used to calculate the
f3~ . Values for A,
characteristic strength of masonry walls lfk) by the formula 1 k =A
B and C have to be obtained by further investigations.

I! .

7 LITERATURE:

I. Berger, F.: "Zur nachtriiglichen Bestimmung der Tragfhigkeit von zentrisch

gedrcktem Ziegelmauerwerk"; in Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer Bauten: Baugefge,
Konstruktion, Werkstoffe; Jahrbuch 1986/ Sonderforschungsbereich 315; University
Karlsruhe; Germany; 1987; pp. 23 - 248
2. Maydl, P.: "Ein zerstorungsarmes Verfahren zur Prfung der mechanischen
Eigenschaften von Mauerwerk in situ"; in IAZ, 1991, volume 7/8; pp. 371 - 378
3. Schmiedmayer, R.: "Mauerwerksfestigkeit unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der
Komponente Mortel - Entwicklung eines In-Situ Pifverfahrens rur Mortel"; doctorat
thesis at the faculty for civil engineering of the Technical University of Vienna, Vienna,
1995
4. Schubert, P.; Schmidt, S.: "Bestimmung der Druckfestigkeit des Mortels im
Mauerwerk"; research note number 28; Institut for Building Research, Technical
University of Aachen; Aachen 1990
5. Kompiller, B. : "Versuche zur Ermittlung der Druckfestigkeit von Mauermortel Stempeldruckfestigkeit"; masters thesis; Institut for Building Constructions and
Industrial Buildings, Section Building Constructions and Technical Laboratory,
Technical University of Vienna; 1993
6. Gucci, N., Barsotti, R.: "Determination in situ of Mortar Load Capacity by a Drilling
Technique" Proceedings of the 10th Intemational BrickIBlock Masonry Conference,
Calgary, Canada, 1994, pp. 1315-1324
7. Instructions for use of the Schmidt rebound hammer L and LR; POROCEQ SA;
Zrich; 1977
8. ENV 1996-1-1 : Eurocode 6: "Design of Masonry Structures; Part 1.1: General Rules"

375