4.5 Article

Relationship between Rock Porosity and Infrared Cooling Rate in Non-Standard Specimens of Tuffs Used in the Hungarian Cultural Heritage

期刊

MINERALS
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min13081100

关键词

Cooling Rate Index; intact rock specimen; porosity; weathering; tuff

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on using Infrared Thermography to study the cooling process of non-standard rock specimens and its relationship with porosity. The results show that porosity affects the cooling rate of rocks, with more porous rocks cooling faster.
This paper is focused on the application of Infrared Thermography to non-standard rock specimens, in terms of size and deterioration conditions, of Hungarian tuff to monitor their cooling process and to look for a relationship between the rock Cooling Rate Index and the porosity. Literature data agree on the potential of Infrared Thermography for the indirect estimation of rock porosity in fresh specimens through the IRTest, but this technique has never been tested on non-standard specimens. To this purpose, tests on three varieties of Hungarian tuffs were carried out. These materials were selected for their cultural importance linked to their usage as building stones and in other historical applications in Northern Hungary. Tuff specimens underwent a fixed number of salt crystallization cycles. The Cooling Rate Index (CRI) for each specimen was calculated according to the literature experience and correlated to their porosity estimated by water, helium, and mercury intrusion. The results show that the rock cooling process is related to porosity since more porous rocks are characterized by faster cooling. Positive linear trends were achieved for weathered specimens considering 20 min monitoring (CRI20), which is double the time suitable for untreated rocks. The reason should be searched in salt crystallization's effects on the rock texture, paving the way to further studies on this pioneering branch of technological application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据