Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PhD THESIS
Katalin Szilgyi
MSc (CE)
Supervisor
Istvn Zsigovics
PhD, MSc (CE)
Budapest, 2013
Contents
Summary V
Notations VI
Glossary VIII
1. Introduction
1.1 Scientific background 1
1.2 Research significance 4
1.3 Objectives 4
2. Literature review
2.1 Historical overview 5
2.2 Contact mechanical interpretation of hardness 9
2.3. Types of rebound hammers 10
2.3.1 Leeb hardness tester 11
2.3.2 Rebound hammers 12
2.4 Operating principle of the rebound hammer 12
2.5 Impact phenomena of the rebound hammer test 14
2.5.1 Theoretical considerations 14
2.5.2 Experimental results for the stress wave propagation 17
2.6 Parameters influencing the rebound index 18
2.6.1 Effects by the device 18
2.6.2 Effects by the concrete structure 19
2.7 Variability parameters of rebound surface hardness 21
2.8 Number of repetition of rebound index readings 23
2.9 Outputs of rebound hardness test establishing the strength relationships 24
2.10 Regression analysis of compressive strength and rebound hardness 25
2.11 Standardization of in-situ strength estimation by the rebound method 28
2.11.1 Improvement of the reliability of the strength estimation 28
2.11.2 U.S. practice 29
2.11.3 European practice 29
2.11.4 Hungarian practice 30
2.11.5 Conclusions on standardization 35
3. Research methodology
3.1 Statistical analysis 37
3.1.1 Normality tests 37
3.1.2 Calculation of repeatability parameters 38
3.1.3 Goodness of fit tests 38
3.1.4 Influences on the repeatability parameters 39
I
3.2 Modelling 39
3.2.1 Development of the phenomenological model 39
3.2.2 Robustness study by parametric simulation 39
3.2.3 Model verification with laboratory tests 40
3.3 Targeted experiments 41
3.3.1 Scope of study 41
3.3.2 Test parameters 41
3.3.3 Test methods 41
List of publications i
Acknowledgements iii
References v
II
Appendices
Appendix A Numerical input for the statistical analysis together with the A1-A170
resulted repeatability parameters
Appendix B Results of the goodness of fit tests of the repeatability B1-B128
parameters
Appendix C Results of the model verification experiments C1-C18
Appendix D Results of the targeted experiments D1-D2
III
IV
Summary
The author of present thesis has devoted her research time to investigate the rebound hardness and its
relationship to compressive strength from several aspects during the last decade. The result of the
extensive literature survey and the statistical analysis of available in-situ and experimental test data, as well
as the theoretical considerations and own laboratory research are all rendering a salutation to Ernst
Schmidt after six decades he had invented the original rebound hammer.
The detailed statistical study was made on a large database of 60 years laboratory and in-situ experience,
covered several thousands of test areas providing more than eighty thousand individual rebound index
readings for analysis. It was demonstrated that several gaps are found in this field both in current technical
literature and standardisation. The PhD study succeeded in providing general statistical characteristics for
rebound surface hardness of concrete. Based on a comprehensive statistical analysis it was demonstrated
that the within-test variation (repeatability) parameters of the rebound hardness method have similar
tendency to that of the within-test variation parameters of concrete strength; i.e. no clear tendency is found
in the standard deviation over the average and a clear decreasing tendency can be observed in the
coefficient of variation by the increasing average. The probability distribution of the within-test standard
deviation and the coefficient of variation of the rebound index, as well as of the rebound index ranges of
individual test areas were not found to follow the normal distribution, but all the three parameters have a
strong positive skewness.
Based on a comprehensive literature review it was realized that despite the numerous proposals neither
general theory nor empirical function has been developed in the last 60 years that could describe the
relationship between the measured surface hardness values and the compressive strength of concrete. Only
one semi-empirical derivation for such a relationship was attempted by the designer of the original rebound
hammer, but the model covered also the Brinell hardness of concrete. As a consequence, that model can not
be generally used since very limited data have been published for the Brinell hardness of cementitious
materials. Present PhD research has revealed the most pronounced influencing parameters for the rebound
surface hardness of concrete and a phenomenological model was developed that can describe the time
dependent behaviour of the rebound index vs. strength relationship and the unambiguous influence of the
water-cement ratio. An extensive experimental verification of the model clearly demonstrated its reasonable
application possibilities for different cements on a wide range of water-cement ratios and ages of concrete at
testing. Based on a parametric simulation it was also realized that the model is robust and gives realistic
formulation for the time dependent behaviour of the rebound surface hardness of concrete.
Results of targeted experiments demonstrated that the rebound index is a material property which is sensitive
to the impact energy of the device and the strength and stiffness of concrete. It was found experimentally that
the lower the impact energy of a dynamic hardness tester is, the more likely the hardness value can be
related to the Youngs modulus, particularly in case of small water-cement ratios; and the higher the impact
energy of the dynamic hardness tester is, the more likely the hardness value can be related to the
compressive strength, particularly in case of high water-cement ratios.
Results of present research were welcome in the technical literature.
V
Notations
VI
Ec Youngs modulus of concrete
Ecm mean Youngs modulus of concrete
Ecm,28d mean Youngs modulus of concrete at the age of 28 days
Ecm,7d mean Youngs modulus of concrete at the age of 7 days
Er kinetic energy of the hammer mass right after the impact
HL Leeb hardness
Mo[x] mode (modus) value of a random variable
N (,) normal probability distribution
P preset probability
Q notation of coefficient of restitution provided by the Silver Schmidt hammer
R28 rebound index at the age of 28 days
RL rebound index provided by L-type rebound hammer
RL,7d rebound index of concrete provided by L-type rebound hammer at the age of 7 days
Rm mean rebound index
Rm,even average of the even rebound index readings
Rm,odd average of the odd rebound index readings
RN rebound index provided by N-type rebound hammer
RN,7d rebound index of concrete provided by N-type rebound hammer at the age of 7 days
V coefficient of variation
VH within-test coefficient of variation of the indirect measure
Vi coefficient of variation corresponding to in-situ test
vr velocity reached by the impact body/hammer mass after impact
VR within-test coefficient of variation of rebound index
Vs coefficient of variation corresponding to strength test
W statistic of the Shapiro-Wilk normality test
diameter of the tip of the Wolpert Leeb hardness tester
t multiplier for taking carbonation into account
s skewness of a probability distribution of the standard deviation of rebound index
t multiplier for taking strength development and type of cement into account
r skewness of a probability distribution of the range of rebound index
logarithm decrement
c elastic deformation of concrete
p local crushing (pseudo-plastic deformation) of concrete
s elastic deformation of the plunger
studentized range
R studentized range of rebound index
transformation parameter
mean value
degree of freedom
real standard deviation
2 real variance
phase shift
2 chi-squared goodness of fit test
standardized range
gamma function
empirical additive parameter
VII
Glossary
Accuracy: closeness of computations or estimates to the exact or true values that the statistics were
intended to measure (OECD, 2008).
Batch-to-batch variation: reproducibility (ACI, 2003).
Bias: an effect which deprives a statistical result of representativeness by systematically distorting it, as
distinct from a random error which may distort on any one occasion but balances out on the average
(OECD, 2008).
Frequency: the number of occurrences of a given type of event or the number of observations falling
into a specified class (ISO 3534-1).
GOF: goodness of fit test = statistical test for assessing whether a given distribution is suited to a data-set
Kurtosis: a term used to describe the extent to which an unimodal frequency curve is peaked; that is to
say, the extent of the relative steepness of ascent in the neighbourhood of the mode. The term was
introduced by Karl Pearson in 1906 (OECD, 2008).
Modus: the Latin name for mode; the value that appears most often in a set of data (OECD, 2008).
Observational error: operator error in the use of original Schmidt rebound hammer due to the inaccurate
reading of the index rider scale.
Performance error: operator error in the use of original Schmidt rebound hammer due to the inaccurate
inclination of the device (i.e. not precisely perpendicular to the tested surface) during impact.
Phenomenological theory: a theory that expresses mathematically the results of observed phenomena
without paying detailed attention to their fundamental significance (Thewlis, 1973).
Precision: the property of the set of measurements of being very reproducible or of an estimate of
having small random error of estimation (OECD, 2008).
Random error: an error, that is to say, a deviation of an observed from a true value, which behaves like
a variate in the sense that any particular value occurs as though chosen at random from a probability
distribution of such errors (OECD, 2008).
Repeatability: precision under conditions where independent test results are obtained with the same
method on identical test items in the same laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment
within short intervals of time (ISO 3534-1).
Reproducibility: precision under conditions where test results are obtained with the same method on
identical test items in different laboratories with operators using different equipment (ISO 3534-1).
Skewness: a term for asymmetry, in relation to a frequency distribution; a measure of that asymmetry
(OECD, 2008).
Standardized range: =r/.
Studentized range: =r/s, the difference between the largest and smallest data in a sample measured in
units of sample standard deviations (Harter, 1960).
Within-test variation: repeatability (ACI, 2003).
VIII
CHAPTER 1 introduction
Concrete is a construction material that has the most widespread use in civil engineering and that is the
manmade material produced in the largest quantity.
Compressive strength of concrete is the most important input data for engineering calculations during
the design of reinforced concrete structures. Compressive strength of concrete can be determined by
testing of moulded specimens or by core specimens drilled from existing structures.
In testing, the specimens are loaded up to failure to find compressive strength, usually under
standardized laboratory testing conditions.
Moulded specimens, however, do not always represent the actual condition of structural concrete and
drilling of core specimens from certain structural members is not always possible (because of risk of the
loss of structural stability or bad accessibility of the structural element to be examined).
With non-destructive testing (NDT) devices the measurements can be performed directly on the
structural concrete and the strength of concrete can be estimated from the measured results with
limited reliability.
Several different non-destructive testing (NDT) methods were developed to estimate the strength of
concrete in structures. The most successful strength estimation methods involve principles, which make
the direct or indirect consequences of the compressive strength determining factors measurable or (in
some cases) provide strength estimation by moderately destructive in-situ measurements.
One of these methods is the subject of present research: a classic NDT method based on the surface
hardness testing of concrete which became popular in the construction industry during the 1950s.
Surface hardness testing is a long established NDT method for the strength estimation of materials.
Hardness testing was the first material testing practice from the 1600s in geology and engineering by
the scratching hardness testing methods (Barba, 1640; Raumur, 1722; Hay, 1801; Mohs, 1812);
appearing much earlier than the systematic material testing that is considered to be started in 1857
when David Kirkaldy, Scottish engineer set up the first material testing laboratory in London, Southwark
(Timoshenko, 1951). The theoretical hardness research was initialized by the pioneering work of
1
Heinrich Hertz in the 1880s (Hertz, 1881). Hertzs proposal formed also the basis of the indentation
hardness testing methods by Brinell, 1900; Rockwell, 1920; Vickers, 1924 and Knoop, 1934 (Fisher-
Cripps, 2000).
Researchers adopted the Brinell method to cement mortar and concrete to find correlations between
surface hardness and strength of concrete during the four decades following that Brinell introduced his
ball indentation method for hardness testing of metals.
As further developments, dynamic surface hardness testing devices also appeared (Durometer by Albert
F. Shore, 1920; Duroskop by Rational GmbH, 1930; spring hammer by Gaede, 1934; pendulum
hammer by Einbeck, 1944).
In Switzerland Ernst Schmidt developed a spring impact hammer of which handling were found to be
superior to its predecessors (Schmidt, 1950) and became very popular in the in-situ material testing due
to the inexpensive testing device and its relatively simple use.
Nowadays, the Schmidt rebound hammer is still the surface hardness testing device of the most
widespread use for concrete rather than devices of plastic indentation hardness testing. Rebound
hammer can be used very easily and the measure of hardness (i.e. the rebound index) can be read
directly on the display of the testing device.
In the rebound hammer (Fig. 1.1) a spring (1) accelerated mass (2) is sliding along a guide bar (3) and
impacts one end (a) of a steel plunger (4) of which far end (b) is compressed against the concrete surface.
The impact energy is constant and independent of the operator, since the tensioning of the spring during
operation is automatically released at a maximum position causing the hammer mass to impinge with
the stored elastic energy of the tensioned spring. The hammer mass rebounds from the plunger and
makes an index rider (5) moving before returning to zero position. Original Schmidt rebound hammers
record the rebound index (R): the ratio of paths driven by the hammer mass during rebound and before
impact.
( 4) (3) (1) ( 2)
( 5)
(b) (a)
The dissipation of the impact energy by the local crushing of concrete under the tip of the plunger
makes the device suitable for strength estimation.
The study of hardness is a research topic frequently appearing in the technical literature of physics and
material science, nevertheless, the theory of contact mechanics still has several gaps. The topic
sometimes induces even a philosophical question: Is hardness a material property at all?
It should be mentioned here that scientific consensus does not exist for the term hardness even for the
definition of the word (Fisher-Cripps, 2000).
Aim of rebound hammer tests is usually to find a relationship between surface hardness and
compressive strength to be able to estimate the strength of concrete with an acceptable error.
The existence of only empirical relationships was already considered in the earliest publications
(Anderson et al, 1955; Kolek, 1958) and also recently (Bungey et al, 2006).
2
The uncertainty of the estimated compressive strength, therefore, depends both on the variability of the
in-situ measurements and the uncertainty of the relationship between hardness and strength.
To find a reliable method for strength estimation one should study all the influencing factors that can
have any effect on the hardness measurement, and also that can have any effect on the variability of the
strength of the concrete structure examined. The estimation should be based on an extensive study with
the number of test results high enough to provide an acceptable reliability level. The estimation should
take care of the rules of mathematical statistics.
Numerous empirical relationships between compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete can be
found in the technical literature, but usually based on very simple laboratory tests, i.e. mainly univariate
regression curves are available. Only a few extensive studies can be found that consider multiple influencing
parameters together with detailed parameter analysis.
The following future trends should be considered affecting surface hardness of concrete.
Rapid development of concrete technology can be realized in recent decades. New types of concretes
became available for concrete construction in terms of High Strength Concrete (HSC), Fibre Reinforced
Concrete (FRC), Reactive Powder Concrete (UHPC), Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) and Lightweight
Concrete (LC). The strength development of concretes in the 20th century is schematically represented
in Fig. 1.2a (after Bentur, 2002). Technical literature considering rebound hammer test on special
concretes is very limited (e.g. Pascale et al., 2003; Nehme, 2004; Gymbr, 2004; KTI, 2005).
Considerable development is expected in this field in the future.
Environmental impact on concrete structures also tends to be changed recently. For example, the rate
of carbonation is expected to be increased due to the increasing CO2 concentration of air in urban areas
as a result of the accelerated increase of CO2 emission worldwide. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
is increasing by 0.5% per year on a global scale (Yoon et al, 2007). Development of CO2 concentration
in the atmospheric layer has been considerably increased in the last 50 years, as shown in Fig. 1.2b.
Carbonation of concrete results an increase in the surface hardness without any change in the
compressive strength. In the future, extensive studies are needed in this field to be able to develop
relationships for the rate of carbonation considering special concretes available recently.
250
250 2000s
340
200
200
320
150
150 1990s
300
100
100 1970s
1950s
280
50
50
00 260
0.1 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5
0,5 0.6
0,6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8
w/c ratio, year
Fig. 1.2 a) Development of concrete strengths in the last 60 years (Bentur, 2002), shaded region indicates the
validity of use for the original rebound hammer; b) Increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the last 250
years (Yoon et al, 2007).
3
1.2 Research significance
Based on a comprehensive literature review it was realized that several publications are available in the
technical literature concerning experimental results and analyses, however:
The assessment of statistical parameters based on a considerable collection of rebound index data
is missing from the technical literature. Even the current standards and recommendations contain
statistical parameters that are obtained by datasets of limited size.
For the rebound method neither a general theory nor a general empirical formula was developed that can
describe the relationship between measured hardness values and compressive strength. Nevertheless, it
is deemed in some technical papers that the behaviour is commonly understood.
As a result of the diversity of the numerous empirical proposals that can be found in the technical
literature some researchers even state that the method is suitable only for assessing the uniformity of
strength of concrete.
Rebound hardness can be related to compressive strength only if a sufficient amount of energy can
dissipate in the concrete during the impact. The inventor of the original rebound hammer fitted the
impact energy of the hammer to concrete compressive strengths available in the 1950s. The concrete
construction technology, however, nowadays uses concretes of higher compressive strengths.
Due to the lack of scientific consensus the rebound hammer is continuously loosing its role to estimate
compressive strength of concrete by itself. E.g. current International and European standards exclude
the use of the rebound method for strength estimation on its own due to the limited reliability reported.
Testing of drilled cores together with the rebound method is suggested for an acceptable reliability.
Above findings highlighted the need of detailed theoretical and laboratory research.
1.3 Objectives
Present PhD research intended to investigate the reasons of the concerns about the strength estimation of
concrete with the rebound method and provide a comprehensive analysis of the rebound method for a
better understanding of the hardness of concrete and its relation to compressive strength.
Three general objectives were aimed to achieve within the framework of present PhD research:
1) Based on an extensive literature survey and statistical analysis of available in-situ and laboratory test
data it was intended to ascertain whether the tendency and the distribution of variability parameters of
rebound hardness are similar to that of the compressive strength. Precision statements of the available
recommendations were intended to be monitored.
2) Based on an extensive literature survey and theoretical considerations the main governing parameters of
the rebound hardness were intended to be identified considering exclusively properly prepared concretes.
After studying general laws related to the rebound index and compressive strength of concrete and
detecting their interrelationships a phenomenological model was intended to be formulated. For the
validation of the developed model parametric simulations, as well as laboratory verification tests were
intended to be carried out.
3) Based on targeted laboratory experimental studies it was intended to demonstrate which mechanical
property can be related to the measured rebound hardness value by comparison of the development of
the tested properties with time and how the water-cement ratio of concrete and the impact energy of the
hardness tester device influence the rebound index.
4
CHAPTER 2 literature review
Hardness can be considered to be one of the oldest technical terms in languages, however, in common
language the meaning of hardness, rigidity, stiffness, strength, toughness and durability are mixed up. In
the earliest human written scripts these meanings were usually covered by the same term and only the
context helped the reader to sense the real meaning. As several thousand years old examples, the
Egyptian word -t (its hieroglyph is: ) with the mixed meaning of stiff and hard or the Sumerian
word nam-kalag-ga (its cuneiform script is: ) with the mixed meaning of hardness and strength
can be mentioned here. The word isikku of Sumerian origin was used for the hardness of potters clay.
Technical literature (Walley, 2012) calls the attention to one of the earliest written references to
hardness of materials with a similar meaning to that of today in the books of Hebrew prophets in the
Bible (e.g. Ezekiel 3:9 Like emery harder than flint have I made your forehead; English Standard
Version translation, 2001).
In-situ surface hardness testing of materials is a long established method for performance control,
mostly with the explicit or hidden aim of strength estimation. First appearance of the concept of
hardness testing in a written report goes back to 1640 when Alvaro Alonso Barba came with the
proposal of file scratch testing of minerals in one of his manuals prepared for the Spanish royal court on
ore mining and metallurgy (Barba, 1640). In 1690 Christian Huyghens published his study on light (Trait
de la lumire) in which the scratching resistance of Iceland Spar by knife cut was described at two
different angles to the sliding direction (Huyghens, 1690). In 1722 Ren Antoine Ferchault de Raumur
published his study on metallurgy (LArt de convertir le fer forg en acier) in which scratching and special
contact hardness testing of metals were introduced (Raumur, 1722). In 1729 Pieter van
Musschenbroek addressed a chapter to hardness testing in his thesis (Physicae Experimentales et
5
Geometricae Dissertations) in which a chisel instrumented pendulum hammer was introduced for the
dynamic hardness testing of woods and metals (Musschenbroek, 1729).
The scratching hardness test was refined by Friedrich Mohs in 1812 in its present form of the 10-
minerals scratching hardness scale used worldwide in mineralogy after several decades of development
by others (Mohs, 1812). First proposal of a scratching hardness scale of different minerals can be
credited to Wallerius (1747) and further ideas came from Kvist (1768), Werner (1774), Bergman (1780)
and Hay (1801) (Todhunter, 1893).
The conception of relative hardness based upon the power of one body to scratch another is evidently
very unscientific. Huyghens had shown a century earlier that the hardness of a material varies with
direction, and its power to scratch varies also with the nature of the edge and face (Todhunter, 1893).
The pioneering theoretical studies of Heinrich Hertz in the 1880s on mathematical modelling of linear
elastic contact has shifted the experimental hardness testing towards the indentation methods
(Hertz, 1881). The first static indentation hardness testing laboratory device was developed by Johan
August Brinell and was introduced to the public at the 1900 Paris Exposition Universelle (Brinell, 1901).
Hertzs proposal formed also the basis of the later indentation hardness testing methods (Rockwell,
(1920), Vickers (1924) and Knoop (1934) (Fischer-Cripps, 2000). These conventional methods involve in
different ways the measurement of the size of a residual plastic deformation impression in the tested
specimen as a function of the indenter load.
In-situ testing of concrete structures was started in the 1930s. The testing methods at that time
covered chisel blow tests, drilling tests, revolver or special design gun shooting tests, splitting tests,
pull-out tests, strain measurements from loading tests (Skramtajew, 1938).
Researchers adopted the Brinell method to cement mortar and concrete to find correlations between
surface hardness and strength of concrete in the four decades following that Brinell introduced his ball
indentation method for hardness testing of steel (Crepps, Mills, 1923; Dutron, 1927; Vandone, 1933;
Sestini, 1934; Steinwede, 1937).
As a further development, dynamic surface hardness testing devices also appeared (Durometer by
Albert F. Shore, 1920; Duroskop by Rational GmbH, 1930).
The first NDT device for in-place testing of the hardness of concrete was introduced in Germany in 1934
which also adopted the ball indentation hardness testing method, however, dynamic load was applied
with a spring impact hammer (Gaede, 1934).
The operating principle of the spring impact hammers (known as Frank hammer and Zorn hammer) was
similar to that of the later Schmidt hammers (Fig. 2.1): the impact was performed by a hammer mass
that is accelerated by a tensioned spring. The impact energy was adjustable to 1250 Nmm and 5000
Nmm. The impact ball was exchangeable to different diameters. It was possible to reach with these
parameters that the residual indentation diameter on the concrete surface became 0.3 to 0.7-times of
the diameter of the impact ball. The strength assessment was based on empirical relationships between
the indentation diameter and the compressive strength of concrete (Gaede, 1952).
Similar device was developed in the UK in by Williams, 1936. The hardness tester had the shape similar
to a handgun with a mass of 0.9 kg and a tensioned spring provided the impact energy for an impact
ball to test the hardness of concrete surfaces. The impact energy was reported to be relatively small:
the indentation depth of the ball in case of concretes of about 7 N/mm2 was found to be about 1.5 mm.
The inventor suggested a strength estimation relationship based on 200 empirical data points.
The indentation testing technique was found to be the most popular in the European testing practice for
decades according to its relatively simple and fast operation (Gaede, 1934; Williams, 1936).
6
Fig. 2.1 Frank hammer and Williams hammer.
Later several other NDT instruments were introduced adopting the same method, e.g. pendulum
hammer by Einbeck (1944) or different methods, e.g. pull-out testing and firearm bullet penetration
testing by Skramtajew (1938); drilling method by Forslind (1944); ultrasound pulse velocity method by
Long et al. (1945).
Fig. 2.2 indicates the sketch of the Einbeck pendulum hammer. Its operating principle is similar to the
later Schmidt pendulum hammers. The device was suitable to test vertical concrete surfaces with a
hammer of 2.26 kg of which head was ended in a ball indenter. The strength assessment was based on
empirical relationships between the indentation diameter and the compressive strength of concrete. The
Einbeck pendulum hammer was operated in full impact energy (run at 180 path) and half impact energy
(run at 90 path) (Gaede, 1952).
Further hardness testing devices can be also found in the technical literature. One of the most
comprehensive surveys is found in the book of Skramtajew and Leshchinsky (1964) that is a good example
for the outstanding innovation capacity of the former Soviet engineers: the book introduces more that 15
different surface hardness testing devices; most of them was Soviet development.
Nowadays the most widespread method for the surface hardness testing of concrete is the rebound
hammer method that is appeared in the 1950s by the Schmidt rebound hammer (also known as Swiss
hammer) (Schmidt, 1950).
In Switzerland Ernst Schmidt developed a spring impact hammer of which handling were found to be
superior to the ball penetration tester devices (Schmidt, 1950). The hardness testing method of Shore
(1911) was adopted in the device developed by Schmidt, and the measure of surface hardness is the
rebound index rather than the ball penetration. With this development the hardness measurement became
much easier, as the rebound index can be read directly on the scale of the device and no measurements
on the concrete surface are needed (Schmidt, 1951).
7
The original idea and design of the device (Fig. 2.3) was further developed in 1952 (using one impact
spring instead of two) resulted in simpler use (Fig. 2.4) (Greene, 1954; Anderson et al, 1955). Several
hundred thousands of Schmidt rebound hammers are in use worldwide (Baumann, 2006). In 1954 Proceq
SA was founded and has been producing the original Schmidt rebound hammers since then, without any
significant change in the operation of the device (Fig. 2.5) (Proceq, 2005).
One of the latest developments of the device was finalized in November 2007, since the Silver Schmidt
hammers (Fig. 2.6) are available (Proceq, 2008a). The digitally recording Silver Schmidt hammers can also
measure coefficient of restitution, CR (or Leeb hardness; see Leeb, 1986) of concrete not only the original
Schmidt rebound index. From 2011, the Silver Schmidt hammers are no more instrumented to record the
original Schmidt rebound index, only the coefficient of restitution is measurable (referred as Q-value).
With this change the direct relationship between the two hardness values can not be studied, moreover the
long-term experience with the original rebound hammer, thus the considerable amount of rebound index
data can not be used anymore, that is a drawback from a scientific point of view.
Fig. 2.3 Original rebound hammer with two impact springs as of 1950.
Fig. 2.4 Original rebound hammer with one impact spring as of 1952.
8
Fig. 2.5 Original rebound hammer with one impact spring as of today.
The interested readers can find detailed information about further NDT methods for concrete in the
technical literature (ACI, 1998; Balzs, Tth, 1997; Borjn, 1981; Bungey, Millard, Grantham, 2006;
Carino, 1994; Diem, 1985; Malhotra, 1976; Malhotra, Carino, 2004; Skramtajew, Leshchinsky, 1964).
The scientific definition of hardness has been of considerable interest from the very beginning of hardness
testing, however, still today more than 100 years after Hertzs original proposal no absolute definition
of hardness is available in material sciences.
According to Hertz, hardness is the least value of pressure beneath a spherical indenter necessary to produce a
permanent set at the centre of the area of contact. As Hertzs criterion has some practical difficulties, the
hardness values defined by the practical methods usually indicate different relationships between the indenter
load and the tested specimens resistance to penetration or permanent deformation.
The intention to understand and explain hardness or determine a material property that can be estimated
from hardness measurements sometimes induces even philosophical questions: Is hardness a material
property at all? Does compressive strength exist?
If one accepts the practical conclusion that a hard material is one that is unyielding to the touch, it can be
evident that steel is harder than rubber (ONeill, 1967). If, however, hardness is considered as the resistance
of a material against permanent deformation then a material such as rubber would appear to be harder than
most of the metals: the range over which rubber can deform elastically is very much larger than that of
metals. If one focuses on hardness testing, it can be realized that properties influencing the elastic behaviour
play a very important part in the assessment of hardness for rubber-like materials, however, for metals the
deformation is predominantly outside the elastic range and involves mostly plastic properties (although the
elastic moduli are large, but the range over which metals deform elastically is relatively small).
9
Plastic deformation is normally associated with ductile materials (e.g. metals). Brittle materials (e.g.
concrete) generally exhibit elastic behaviour, and fracture occurs at high level of loads rather than
plastic yielding. Pseudo-plastic deformation is observed in brittle materials beneath the point of an
indenter, but it is a result of densification, where the material undergoes a phase change as a result of
the high value of compressive stress in a restrained deformation field beneath the indenter.
The softening fashion of the pseudo-plastic material response with increasing volume of the material is
considerably different from that can happen to metals during plastic deformation (where the volume of
the material is unchanged during yielding) (Tabor, 1951). It can be realized during indentation hardness
testing that the residual plastic deformation impression is a result of a three-dimensional, constrained
deformation field that is strongly affected by the testing method itself (e.g. the indenter can be a sphere,
cone, pyramid, diamond etc.). In case of ductile materials plastic deformation exists beneath the surface
constrained by the surrounding elastically strained material. With further loading the plastic deformation
extends to the surface of the specimen. The value of the mean contact pressure, which does not
increase with increasing indenter load, is related to the hardness number. For hardness methods that
employ the projected area, the hardness number is given directly by the mean pressure.
Cone cracks are forming at the contact surface in the case of elastic-brittle materials, however, plastic
deformations can also be realized due to the local densification through phase change of the material as
a result of high compressive stresses (this deformation is considerably different in nature from the
plastic yield of ductile materials) (Fischer-Cripps, 2000).
Nevertheless, the theoretical approaches of contact mechanics and hence that of hardness has several
gaps, the hardness (even in-situ) testing of materials offers the potential of strength estimation by means
of a much simpler test than the direct compressive or tensile strength testing. This is the reason why
several different hardness testers became available for material testing and the research on hardness of
materials has been very dynamic from the beginning up to present day.
In some cases, particularly on dynamic hardness measurements, the elastic properties may be as
important as the inelastic properties of the material.
Amongst several different indenter geometries the spherical indenters can be used for testing both
ductile materials (e.g. metals) and brittle materials (e.g. ceramics). The response of materials to the
indentation test includes elastic (reversible) and plastic (irreversible) deformations as well as forming of
cone cracks in brittle materials; therefore, the definition of the term hardness is not evident.
The concrete rebound hammers use the scleroscope method introduced by Shore in 1911 (Shore, 1911).
Scleroscope devices are impact testers in which spring accelerated or gravity accelerated hammer
masses impinge against the tested surface and the hardness index is defined as a measure of the impact
rebound. Two types of hardness index are defined usually: 1) the ratio of the paths driven by the hammer
mass after and before impact (R-value), and 2) the ratio of the velocities of the hammer mass after and
before impact (Q-value). Both types of hardness index are used for metal as well as for concrete hardness
testing (see Table 2.1).
10
Table 2.1 Scleroscope hardness testing methods.
The measurement mechanism of the Wolpert Leeb hardness tester is different from that of the concrete
rebound hammers (Wolpert, 2006). A mass is accelerated by a spring toward the surface of a test
object and impinges on it at a defined velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The principle of the measurement is
implemented by means of an impact body which has a spherical tungsten-carbide tip. The velocities
before and after the impact are both measured in a non-contact mode by a small permanent magnet
within the impact body which generates an induction voltage during its passage through a coil. The
voltage recorded is proportional to the velocity of the impact body (Fig. 2.7). The Leeb Hardness, HL is
defined as the multiple of the coefficient of restitution, Eq. (2.1):
vr
HL CR 1000 1000 Eq. (2.1)
v0
In Eq. (2.1) v0 indicates the velocity reached by the impact body before impact, while vr indicates the
velocity reached by the impact body after impact, respectively.
The D-type impact device of the Wolpert Leeb hardness tester has much smaller weight (m = 5.5 g)
compared to the hammer mass of the concrete rebound hammers as well as the tip of the device
( = 3 mm) provides much smaller contact area during impact, therefore, the within-test variation of the
measured values may be increased by the effect inhomogeneity of the concrete surface tested. It can
be also highlighted that the coefficient of restitution is a material property of which value strongly
depends on the severity of the impact itself. The impact energy of the device is 11 Nmm.
v0
before impact
time
vr
HL 1000 vr after impact
v0
11
2.3.2 Rebound hammers
Concrete rebound hammers can be spring hammers or pendulum hammers. The original N-type rebound
hammer is used for normal strength concrete. The suggested compressive strength range of the tested
concretes is 10-70 N/mm2. The impact energy of the device is 2207 Nmm (Fig. 2.4, Fig. 2.7).
For completeness, the other types of rebound hammers are also listed here which are used for special
cases, but these are not discussed in details within the scope of present thesis.
The NR-type rebound hammer can be used for the same purposes and in the same manner as the N-type
rebound hammer, which records the rebound indices on paper. The DIGI-Schmidt hammer was also
designed for normal strength concretes but it records the rebound indices digitally. The L-type rebound
hammer was developed for testing of small or thin walled (<100 mm) concrete members or natural stone
structural elements. The impact energy of the L-type device is one-third of the N-type device: 735 Nmm.
The LB-type hammer has the same impact energy as that of the L-type has and can be used for ceramic
structural elements (e.g. brick). The only difference is the shape and size of the tip of the plunger of the
device. The impact energy (29430 Nmm) and the size of the M-type rebound hammer are much higher but
its structure is identical with the structure of the smaller devices. It was mainly designed for high strength
concrete pavements (Fig. 2.8). A pendulum type (P-type) rebound hammer is also manufactured. It is
suggested to be applied on surfaces of low strength construction materials (stones, ceramics, mortars,
lightweight concretes and normal strength concretes at early age). Its impact energy is 883 Nmm, the tip
of the pendulum is enlarged (Fig. 2.8).
Present PhD study focuses exclusively on spring hammers that are indicated as N-type or L-type rebound
hammers by the original design of Ernst Schmidt.
Rebound hammers are devices that are calibrated by the operator therefore operators should have a
calibration anvil (EN 12504-2:2012). Before and after testing, but at least after every 1000 rebound it should
be checked whether the mechanical parts of the device are functioning as intended, i.e the device is suitable
for the test (the accepted rebound index by the N-type rebound hammer on the anvil is 812). If the rebound
hammer is used on a metal surface different from the calibration anvil the curved surface of the plunger can
be damaged, therefore it is not allowed (Proceq, 2004). Rebound hammers are allowed to be used only within
the temperature limits 10C and +60C according to the recommendations of the instruction manuals. The
EN 12504-2:2012 standard is stricter in this respect: the allowed temperature range is +10C to +35C.
12
2.4 Operating principle of the rebound hammer
In the rebound hammer (as can be studied in Fig. 1.1) a spring (1) accelerated mass (2) is sliding along
a guide bar (3) and impacts one end of a steel plunger (4) of which far end is compressed against the
concrete surface.
The impact energy is constant and independent from the operator, since the tensioning of the spring
during operation is automatically released at a maximum position causing the hammer mass to impinge
with the stored elastic energy of the tensioned spring. The hammer mass rebounds from the plunger
and moves an index rider before returning to zero position. Original Schmidt rebound hammers record
the rebound index (R): the ratio of paths driven by the hammer mass during rebound and before impact;
see Eq. (2.2). Silver Schmidt hammers can record also the square of the coefficient of restitution
(referred as Q-value): the ratio of kinetic energies of the hammer mass right after and just before the
impact (E0 and Er, respectively); see Eq. (2.3).
In Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3) x0 and v0 indicate path driven and velocity reached by hammer mass before
impact, while xr and vr indicate path driven and velocity reached by hammer mass after impact,
respectively.
xr
R 100 Eq. (2.2)
x0
Er v2
Q 100 2r 100 C 2R 100 Eq. (2.3)
E0 v0
The phases of the rebound hammer test can be seen in Fig. 2.9. When the hammer mass impinges on
the plunger, a compression stress wave starts to propagate toward the concrete within the plunger. The
plunger deforms elastically during the stress wave propagation.
When the compression stress wave reaches the fixed end of the plunger (i.e. the concrete), part of the
energy is absorbed in the concrete and the rest of the stress wave is reflected back in the plunger. The
reflected compression wave returns to the free end of the plunger and accelerates the hammer mass to
rebound. The absorbed energy at the fixed end results both elastic and pseudo-plastic deformations (local
crushing) of the concrete. When the acceleration of the plunger is brought to rest the elastic deformation
of the concrete recovers, however, a residual set is formed in the concrete under the tip of the plunger.
For detailed theoretical analysis the stress wave attenuation behaviour and structural damping capacity
of cementitious materials should be also studied. The relationship between rebound index and concrete
strength depends on the damping capacity of concrete in the vicinity of the tip of the plunger of the
rebound hammer. Damping capacity can be described by several parameters (damping ratio; damping
coefficient; logarithm decrement; Q factor; decay constant etc.), but measurements are very sensitive to
the heterogeneity of the concrete.
Swamy and Rigby (1971) have found the logarithm decrement of cement mortar and concrete to be
dependent on the water-cement ratio, aggregate content and moisture condition. However, limited data
are available in this field in the technical literature.
13
s s + c p
s +c + p s + p
c c+p p
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
Based on experiments with polymer bodies Calvit (1967) has demonstrated that a simple relationship
can be derived between the rebound height (hr) of an impacting ball (falling from height h0) and the
damping capacity of a homogeneous, isotropic, viscoelastic semi-infinite solid body. Assuming that the
impact is a half cycle of a sinusoidal vibration then the ratio of the energy dissipated (Ed) to the energy
stored and recovered (Er) in the half a cycle is equal to tan, where is the phase shift (Ferry, 1961).
The term tan is equal to the logarithm decrement (), therefore (Kolek, 1970a):
E d h 0 hr h 1
tan , from which: r Eq. (2.4)
Er hr h0 1
Of course, it is not possible to derive such a simplified relationship for concrete due to the inelastic
deformations in the concrete and stress wave attenuation in the plunger and in the concrete. Damping
capacity of concrete is not studied in present PhD research.
The technical literature gives detailed information about the impact of elastic solids and the stress wave
propagation in elastic media (Timoshenko, Goodier, 1951; Kolsky, 1953; Goldsmith, 1960; Johnson,
1972; Graff, 1975; Zukas et al, 1982; Johnson, 1985). Present chapter gives a simplified overview of
the impact analysis of the Schmidt rebound hammer test without the aim of providing a complete study.
Basics of the theory of elasticity as well as of stress wave propagation are considered to be known,
therefore, omitted to be detailed here. Selection of references is given above for further reading.
14
For the analysis of impact phenomena connected to the Schmidt rebound hammer test one can apply a
simple model for the plunger and the hammer mass of the device as a longitudinal impact of a rigid
mass on one end of a long, elastic, uniform bar perfectly fixed at its far end, as the most simple
approximation (Fig. 2.10).
v0
fixed end
m1 m2, , E, A, I, L
(t) 0 x
ct
Fig. 2.10 Simplified model of the hammer mass and the plunger of the rebound hammer as a long elastic uniform
bar perfectly fixed at its one end.
Let us consider that the moving hammer mass collides with the plunger (elastic bar with one fixed end)
at its distal end. Let m1 be the hammer mass (m1 = 0.38 kg for the N-type original Schmidt hammer)
and v0 is the impact velocity of the hammer mass (v0 = 2.4 m/s according to Granzer, 1970). The
equation of motion can be written generally as:
2u 2u 2u 2 u
2
E
A dx AE dx or c where c Eq. (2.5)
t 2 x 2 t 2 x 2
The velocity of wave propagation (c) should be distinguished from the velocity (v0) introduced to the
material particles of the plunger in the compressed zone by the compressive force of the impact as well as
from the velocity (v) of the material particles of the plunger gained by the impact at the distal end. The
velocity of wave propagation (c) can be expressed from the equation of momentum and, therefore, the
velocity (v) of the material particles of the plunger can be given as a function of the uniform compressive
stress () acting on the distal end of the plunger during impact (Timoshenko, Goodier, 1951):
v Eq. (2.6)
E
Considering the hammer mass to be absolutely rigid, the velocity of material particles at the distal end
of the plunger at the instant of impact (t = 0) become v0 and the initial compressive stress is:
0 v 0 E Eq. (2.7)
Due to the inherent resistance of the plunger the velocity of the hammer mass and, therefore, the
pressure on the plunger will gradually decrease and a compression wave is formed with a decreasing
compressive stress travelling along the length of the plunger (Fig. 2.10). The change in stress with time
can be obtained from the equation of motion of the hammer mass:
dv
m1 A(t ) Eq. (2.8)
dt
15
where m1 is the hammer mass, v is the variable velocity of the hammer mass, A is the cross sectional
area of the plunger and (t) is the variable compressive stress at the distal end of the plunger.
Integration and rearrangement results:
tA E tA E
m1 m1
v v0 e and ( t ) 0 e Eq. (2.9)
These equations are valid as long as t < 2L/c. At t = 2L/c the compressive wave with the front stress of
0 returns to the distal end of the plunger which is in contact with the hammer mass still moving. The
velocity of the hammer mass can not change suddenly, therefore, the stress wave is reflected back
similarly to that at the fixed end and the compressive stress at the surface of contact suddenly
increases by 20. This sudden increase of stress occurs at the end of every interval of time T = 2L/c,
therefore, separate expression of (t) for each intervals should be obtained. The general expression for
any interval of nT < t < (n+1)T is given as (Timoshenko, Goodier, 1951):
( t ) s n ( t ) s n 1 ( t T ) Eq. (2.10)
If = m2/m1 accounts for the ratio of the plunger and the hammer mass then the individual stress
functions are formed as (Timoshenko, Goodier, 1951):
2 t
0<t<T s0 0 e T Eq. (2.11)
t
2 1 t
T < t < 2T s1 s0 0 e T
1 41 Eq. (2.12)
T
t
2 2 t t
2
2T < t < 3 T s2 s1 0 e T
1 8 2 82 2 Eq. (2.13)
T T
t
2 3 t t
2
32 3 t
3
3T < t < 4 T s3 s2 0 e T
1 12 3 24 2 3 3 Eq. (2.14)
T T 3 T
The instant when (t) becomes equal to zero indicates the end of the impact and the separation of the
plunger and the hammer mass. The duration of the impact increases when decreases. Taking into
account the hammer mass of m1 = 0.38 kg and the plunger of m2 = 0.099 kg one can obtain t =
106.74 s for the time of impact in the case of the N-type original Schmidt hammer that is 2t/T = 5.79
based on T = 2L/c = 36.85 s with the assumption of c = 5047.5 m/s for the plunger made of steel.
Fig. 2.11 indicates the normalized compressive stresses ((t)/0) at the distal end and at the fixed end
of the plunger based on the above simplifications.
16
( t) /0 a) ( t) /0 b)
44 4
3.188
33 2.922 3
3
end of 2.655
2.594
impact
22 2
2 2
1 1.188
11 0.922
1
1
0.594 0.655
2t/T 2t/T
00 0
0
00 1 22 33 44 5 6 77 00 1
1 2
2 33 44 55 6
6 77
-1
-1 -1
Fig. 2.11 Theoretical compressive stresses with time for the distal end (a) and the fixed end (b) of the plunger of an
N-type Schmidt rebound hammer based on elastic numerical analysis (Remark: T = 36.85 s is the calculated value
of stress wave propagation time through the plunger in one direction).
The initial peak of the compression stress wave is calculated to be 0 = 95.1 N/mm2, therefore the
maximum peak of the compression stress wave at the fixed end of the plunger becomes max =
3.18895.1 = 303.2 N/mm2. If the transmission coefficient at the steel-concrete interface is assumed to
be Ct 0.4 then the compressive stress in the concrete is assumed to be c = 121.3 N/mm2. It can be
also found in Fig. 2.11 that the time of the impact (i.e. the time needed for the hammer mass to be
separated and rebound back) is t = 106.74 s (based on the calculated value of stress wave propagation
time through the plunger in one direction being T = 36.85 s).
It can be also realized that no plastic deformation occurs within the plunger during the impact as the
velocity of the hammer mass at the instant of the impact v0 = 2.4 m/s is much lower than the velocity
would be needed to initiate plastic stress waves being vcrit = fy /c0 = 12.2 m/s (where the yield stress of
the steel plunger is fy = 500 N/mm2; density of steel is = 7850 kg/m3; velocity of wave propagation is c0
= 5200 m/s) (Johnson, 1985).
The linear elastic analysis presented above has several limits of application. Firstly, the support of the
plunger can not be assumed to be perfectly fixed by the concrete surface. If one assumes a more realistic
viscoelastic support then the original boundary conditions of u(L,t) = 0 and u(L,t)/x = 0 are no more
maintained and rather a damped harmonic oscillation takes place at the support of the plunger with the
u(L,t)/x = ku(L,t) + bu(L,t)/t condition, where k is the spring constant and b is the coefficient of
damping. Secondly, the plunger itself is not a uniform cylindrical bar with a constant cross sectional area
over its length, therefore, momentum traps are formed at the changes of the cross sections and further
reflections of the stress waves occur. Thirdly, the hammer mass can not be considered to be absolutely rigid.
If the real boundary conditions and energy dissipations could be properly modelled then the time of impact
would be dependent on the strength and stiffness of concrete; the more energy dissipation would be
formed in the concrete during impact, the longer time of impact would be realized.
A more detailed analysis of the impact phenomena and the wave propagation within the plunger of the
Schmidt rebound hammer is outside the scope of present PhD thesis.
Gaede, Schmidt (1964) and Akashi, Amasaki (1984) have studied the stress waves in the plunger of the
rebound hammer during impact by strain gauge instrumentation. Gaede, Schmidt (1964) used the original
plunger while Akashi, Amasaki (1984) have had a special design of the plunger with the length of 180 mm.
17
Both studies demonstrated that the stress wave propagation is sensitive to the boundary conditions
provided by different strengths of concretes. The oscillograms recorded by Gaede, Schmidt (1964)
followed clearly the theoretical stress wave propagation tendencies indicated in Fig. 2.12 performing
several travels of the peak compressive wave before the separation of the hammer mass and the plunger.
As it was expected, the time of impact was found to be longer than that was calculated above (being in the
range of 250 s to 400 s) and was found to depend on the actual strength of the concrete tested. For
lower strength concretes longer times of impact were recorded. One representative result is indicated in
Fig. 2.12. Due to the extended length of the plunger in the tests of Akashi, Amasaki (1984) the
oscillograms were different from that of Gaede, Schmidt (1964) and of the expected shape outlined by the
theoretical analysis, however, the clear influence of the concrete strength on the stress wave propagation
was demonstrated.
Fig. 2.12 Experimental demonstration of the stress wave propagation within the plunger of the rebound hammer
during impact recorded by oscilloscope.
In the rebound hammer mechanical parts (i.e. springs, sliding hammer mass, etc.) provide the impact
load and mechanical (Original Schmidt hammer) or digital (DIGI-Schmidt hammer, Silver Schmidt
hammer) parts are responsible for readings. The value of the rebound index depends on energy losses
due to friction during acceleration and rebound of the hammer mass and that of the index rider, energy
losses due to dissipation by reflections and attenuation of mechanical waves inside the steel plunger;
and of course, energy losses due to dissipation by concrete crushing under the tip of the plunger. The
value of the coefficient of restitution depends on energy losses due to dissipation by reflections and
attenuation of mechanical waves inside the steel plunger and energy losses due to dissipation by
concrete crushing under the tip of the plunger. This latter loss of energy makes the rebound hammer
suitable for strength estimation of concrete. The energy dissipated in the concrete during local crushing
initiated by the impact depends both on concrete compressive strength and Youngs modulus; therefore,
depends on the stress-strain (-) response of the concrete tested.
The value of the rebound index depends also on the direction of the hit by the hammer related to the
direction of gravity force. The reading should be corrected accordingly (Proceq, 2006). The value of the
coefficient of restitution can be considered to be independent from the direction of the hit by the
hammer related to the direction of gravity force (Proceq, 2008b).
18
2.6.2 Effects by the concrete structure
The rebound hammers give information about the elastic and damping properties of the surface layer of
concrete that can not be necessarily related directly to the strength of concrete.
The energy dissipated in the concrete during local crushing initiated by the impact depends on the
properties of the concrete in the very vicinity of the tip of the plunger. Therefore, the measurement is
sensitive to the scatter of local strength of concrete due to its inner heterogeneity. For example, an air void
or a bigger hard aggregate particle close to the surface is resulted in a much lower or a much higher local
rebound value than is representative for the concrete structure globally (Herzig, 1951).
The amount of energy dissipated in the concrete can be higher for a concrete of lower strength/lower
stiffness compared to lower energy dissipation in a concrete of higher strength/higher stiffness. As it is
possible to prepare concretes of the same strength but having different Youngs moduli, it is also possible
to measure the same rebound index for different concrete strengths or to measure different rebound
indices for the same concrete strengths. Youngs modulus of the aggregate has considerable influence on
the rebound index.
The most significant influence on strength of concrete was found to be the water-cement ratio (w/c) of the
cement paste. Rebound hammer test results available for hardened cement pastes of different water-
cement ratios are represented in Fig. 2.13 (Kolek, 1970b). Results indicate that the change of the rebound
index due to the change of the water-cement ratio is similar in nature to the relationships found between
concrete compressive strength and water-cement ratio, however, less pronounced. Even the compaction
problems for low water-cement ratios can be realized.
It can be found that measuring the surface hardness of concrete by rebound method could provide suitable
result for strength estimation. However, it should be also noted that the water-cement ratio of the cement
paste is only one influencing parameter for the strength of concrete and several further influencing
parameters should be taken into consideration in the strength estimation procedure (Granzer, 1970).
rebound index, R,
50
50
40
40
30
30
28
28 days
days
20
20 11
11 days
days
77 days
days
10
10
0,2
0.20 0,25
0.25 0,3
0.30 0,35
0.35 0,4
0.40 0,45
0.45
w/c ratio,
19
the concrete structure: compaction of structural concrete, method of curing, quality of concrete
surface, age of concrete, carbonation depth in the concrete, moisture content of concrete, mass
of the structural element, temperature and stress state.
Differences in the rebound index due to the application of different types and/or amounts of cement can
reach 50 percent (IAEA, 2002). On the other hand, the influence of variation in fineness of cement is not
considered to be significant, resulting in a scatter of about 10 percent (Bungey et al, 2006).
Type and grading of the aggregate have significant influence on the rebound index. The most considerable
influence is attributed to the Youngs modulus of the aggregate. For example, the rebound index is always
found to be higher for quartz aggregate than for limestone aggregate, both corresponding to the same
concrete compressive strength (Grieb, 1958; IAEA, 2002; Neville, 1981).
Moisture content of the concrete influences the rebound index (Jones, 1962; Samarin, 2004; Victor, 1963;
Zoldners, 1957). Increasing the moisture content of concrete from air dry condition up to water saturated
condition can result a decrease of 20 percent in the rebound index (RILEM, 1977). The situation is similar
for water saturated surface dry condition, too.
Influence of the age of concrete can be realized most significantly in the effect of carbonation of
concrete (i.e. the forming of limestone from the hydrated lime due to carbon-dioxide ingress from
ambient air). The surface hardness of concrete and thus the rebound index increases due to
carbonation. Not taking this influence into account results unsafe strength estimation. The error can be
more than 50 percent (Gaede, Schmidt, 1964; Pohl, 1966; RILEM, 1977; Wesche, 1967). However, the
use of a reduction parameter that is a function only of the age of concrete should be avoided. Age of
concrete can be rather taken into consideration as the developed depth of carbonation thus with a
parameter that takes into account porosity of concrete (the schematic relationship between porosity (i.e.
compressive strength class) and depth of carbonation is represented in Fig. 2.14a, after Bindseil,
2005). Such a parameter is introduced in Chinese Standard JGJ/T23-2001 that is adopted into the
guidelines of Proceq SA (Proceq, 2003). Schematic representation is given in Fig. 2.14b.
12 0.9
C20/25
9 0.8
R = 20
C30/37
6 0.7
3 0.6
C35/45 R = 50
0 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
age of concrete, years depth of carbonation, mm
Fig. 2.14 a) Schematic representation of depth of carbonation in time as a function of strength class (porosity) of
concrete, b) correction factor considering the depth of carbonation according to Chinese Standard JGJ/T23-2001
(Proceq, 2003).
20
2.7 Variability parameters of rebound surface hardness
During the design of reinforced concrete structures the designer specifies the strength class of concrete
that is taken into account in the design. The same is carried out if the performance of the concrete is
determined by in-situ testing, e.g. surface hardness testing for strength estimation. The designers
assumption should recognise the variability of concrete as a structural material and the designer specifies
the design strength of the concrete based on its characteristic compressive strength that covers the
variability of the strength of concrete. The characteristic strength is based on reliability concepts and
usually means a limit value of strength below which no more than 5% of test results from a chosen
concrete mix or structure falls. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 2.15a which sketches a histogram of
concrete strengths that can correspond to a particular series of test and how the test results could be
approximated by e.g a propability density function of normal distribution. Fig. 2.15b shows the idealized
propability density function of normal distribution that is usually assumed in design and in quality control
based on statistical methods. The lower limit indicated on the diagram is the characteristic strength (fck)
below which no more than 5% of the strength tests values shall fall. The characteristic strength is usually
given as a function of the mean strength, the standard deviation of strength and a chosen margin
parameter that covers the type of the probability distribution of strength (that is not necessarily always
normal distribution), the level of the quantile (that is not necessarily always 5%) and the reliability of the
strength approximation (that is depending on the available number of test results) in the following form: fck
= fcm ks; where fcm = mean strength, k = margin parameter and s = standard deviation of strength. The
same can be formulated if one introduces the coefficient of variation for the strength as: fck = fcm/(1 kV);
where V = coefficient of variation for the strength and the further parameters are the same as before.
12
a) b)
10
4 ks
0
-3
fc,min fc,max f-2ck -1 0
fcm 1 2 3
Fig. 2.15 a) Histogram with probability density function of normal distribution and b) idealized normal probability
density function of concrete strength.
Reliability analysis techniques mostly concentrate on the use of the coefficient of variation for taking the
variability of different material characteristics into account, rather than the standard deviation. Whether the
standard deviation or the coefficient of variation is the appropriate measure for the dispersion of concrete
strength depends on which of the two measures is more nearly constant over the range of strength (ACI, 2002).
Present PhD thesis does not intend to analyze mathematical statistical parameters of concrete strength
in general. Only a short reference is given to the coefficient of variation due to the scatter of in-place
21
compressive strength in concrete structures that was found to be V = 7 to 14 percent, depending on the
type of structure and quality control (ACI, 2002; ACI, 2003a). The other source of variation in strength is
the within-test coefficient of variation, as the measure of repeatability of strength tests. It was found
experimentally that the within-test coefficient of variation is about V = 3% for moulded specimens and
V = 5% for drilled cores (ASTM, 2004; ASTM, 2005). It was also demonstrated that the distribution of
the within-test coefficient of variation is asymmetrical; the coefficient of variation of concrete strength is
not constant with varying strength (Leshchinsky et al, 1990).
It should be mentioned that in the European practice usually the standard deviation is the measure for
the variability of concrete strength, rather than the coefficient of variation (Rsch, 1964; CEB-CIB-FIP-
RILEM, 1974). It was found, however, that the coefficient of variation is less affected by the magnitude
of the strength level, and is therefore more useful than the standard deviation in comparing the degree
of control for a wide range of compressive strengths (ACI, 2002).
If the quality control is good during concreting, then the probability density function (PDF) of strength is
expected to be of normal distribution and the test results tend to cluster near to the average strength;
the histogram of Fig. 2.15a is expected to be tall and narrow. For normal distribution the average
strength and the mean strength coincides. If the test results are not symmetrical about the mean
strength (i.e. skewness exists) then a statistical analysis that presumes normal distribution is misleading.
The statistical analysis is the simplest if normal distribution for the strength is acceptable, as normal
distribution can be fully defined mathematically by two statistical parameters: the mean strength (=
average strength) and the standard deviation of the strength.
A sufficient number of tests is needed to accurately find the variation in concrete strength and to be able
to use statistical procedures for interpreting the test results. If only a small number of test results are
available, the estimates of the standard deviation and coefficient of variation become less reliable
(Carino, 1993).
The magnitude of variations in the strength of concrete is a result of the level of quality control over the
concrete production, the transportation, the compacting and curing procedures, the specimen
preparation and the laboratory testing of specimens. However, for a selected set of constituent
materials, the strength of concrete is basically governed by the water-cement (w/c) ratio. Therefore, the
most important criterion for producing concrete of low variability in strength is to keep a strict quality
control over the applied w/c-ratio. In present PhD study, the type of cement, the water-cement (w/c)
ratio and the degree of hydration considered as the most important governing parameters over the
strength of concrete (quartz sand and gravel aggregates are considered).
Surface hardness test of concrete is typically performed in-situ on structural concrete members. The
most important characteristic of the test is that the properties of the concrete in a structure are
measured. It is not common in usual practice that hardness tests are performed on moulded specimens
as well, made from the concrete used in the structure; it can be the case for pilot projects or structural
research only. For material research and testing device development the most common situation is the
exclusive use of moulded specimens tested under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.
During in-situ testing, the most significant characteristic of the non-destructive tests is that they do not
directly measure the compressive strength of the concrete in a structure.
The uncertainty of the average value of the reading (either R or Q) depends on three influences: 1) the
variability of the strength of concrete in the structure; 2) the repeatability of the rebound hammer test;
3) the number of individual readings.
The term repeatability considers the inherent scatter associated with the NDT method and is often called
within-test variation. For the characterization of repeatability either the standard deviation (s) or the
coefficient of variation (V) of repeated tests by the same operator on the same material can be suitable.
22
2.8 Number of repetition of rebound index readings
Important question is that how many test repetitions are needed to be able to estimate concrete
strength with acceptable error. Smaller number of repetitions affects the uncertainty of the average
reading as it was indicated earlier. Generally, the number of repetitions depends on three influences: 1)
the repeatability of the testing method (also called within-test variation); 2) the acceptable error between
the sample average and the true average; 3) the desired confidence level that the acceptable error is
not to be exceeded. The number of repetitions can be established from statistical principles or can be
based upon usual practice.
The former RILEM Task Group suggested a minimum repetition number of 25 rebound indices for an
acceptable representative value (RILEM, 1977). Borjn (1968) proposed a minimum repetition number of
100 rebound indices for accuracy. The sufficiency of the collected data can be studied by an analysis of
mathematical statistical parameters (average value, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis).
Asymptotic behaviour can be realized whenever the number of data is sufficient (Borjn, 1968).
Fig. 2.16 gives results for a concrete wall indicating the asymptotic behaviour for standard deviation and
kurtosis: after reaching a certain number of test repetitions the reliability of the sample size can not be
increased further and the statistical parameters are found to be remaining constant.
5,0
5.0
0,16
0.16
standard deviation
4,5
4.5
kurtosis
kurtosis
0,14
0.14
4,0
4.0
stand. dev. 0,12
0.12
3,5
3.5
3,0
3.0 0,1
0.10
0 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500
number of test repetition
Fig. 2.16 Standard deviation and kurtosis of rebound index by increasing sample size (own test results on a
reinforced concrete wall).
Arni (1972) has demonstrated that the number of tests required to detect a strength difference of 200
psi ( 1.4 N/mm2) with a 90% confidence level is 8 for the number of standard cylinders and is 120 for
rebound test readings. The technical literature demonstrates that if the total number of readings (n)
taken at a test area is not less than 10, then the accuracy of the mean rebound index is likely to be
within 15 n % with a 95% confidence level (Bungey et al, 2006).
ACI suggests using a number of repetitions such that the average values of the NDT results provide
comparable precision to the average compressive strength (Carino, 1993). If the coefficients of variation
of the compressive strength test and that of the NDT method are available, the ratio of the number of
test repetitions can be given as:
2
n i Vi
Eq. (2.15)
n s Vs
23
In Eq. (2.15) ni and Vi refer to the number of test repetitions and coefficient of variation corresponding to
the NDT (i.e. in-situ test), while ns and Vs refer to the number of test repetitions and coefficient of
variation corresponding to the strength test. The user can decide which uncertainty is tolerated during
rebound hammer testing since the increase of the number of test repetitions does not have considerable
economic impact but is resulted in more reliable strength estimation.
Leshchinsky et al (1990) introduced a formula for the suggested number of NDT repetitions at a
measuring location that is based on the use of empirical regression relationship from experiments as
follows:
1 (H)
Vf VH Eq. (2.17)
r H
In Eqs. (2.16) and (2.17) Vf is the within-test coefficient of variation of the estimated concrete strength; p
is the acceptable error for the evaluation of average value of concrete strength (with the preset
probability P); t depends on P and the number of individual NDT repetitions; f=(H) is the equation of the
test measure vs. concrete strength correlation relationship; f is the concrete strength; H is the indirect
measure (e.g. rebound index); r is the correlation coefficient of the correlation relationship; VH is the
within-test coefficient of variation of the indirect measure.
The exact confidence interval can be also given to any number of test repetitions using a suitable
reliability analysis (ACI, 2003b; Leshchinsky et al, 1990).
The surface hardness tests of concrete can provide additional data to core tests if limited number of
cores can be obtained from a structure. In several cases the designer needs strength values that can be
reliably used to specify the strength class of concrete rather than non-destructive measures alone, e.g.
surface hardness test results. So, the aim of rebound hammer tests of concrete is usually to find a
relationship between surface hardness and compressive strength with an acceptable error.
The strength of concrete is usually estimated from a previously established relationship between the
measured hardness and strength. The uncertainty of the estimated compressive strength, therefore,
depends both on the variability of the in-situ measurements and the uncertainty of the relationship
between hardness and strength.
To arrive at an acceptable estimate of the compressive strength of a concrete structure by using surface
hardness tests methods, one must account for three primary sources of uncertainty (ACI, 2003): 1) the
uncertainty of the surface hardness test results; 2) the uncertainty of the relationship between concrete
strength and the measure of surface hardness; 3) the variability of the concrete strength in the structure.
The first source of uncertainty is associated with the inherent variability (repeatability) of the test method.
It should be emphasized that the concrete construction practice needs in-place NDT equipment provided
together with simple, easy-to-use, generalized relationships (in the form of equations, graphs or tables)
which express the measured value (e.g. rebound index) as a value of the concrete compressive strength of
standard specimens. Such generalized relationships, however, usually could not accurately characterize
the concrete in the structure being tested.
24
Generalized relationships are allowed to be used only if their validity has been established by tests
carried out on concrete similar to that being investigated and with the same type of testing device that is
intended to be used in the investigation.
The rebound index vs. strength relationship can be determined if the experimental data are available. The
usual practice is to consider the average values of the replicate compressive strength and NDT results as
one data pair at each strength level. The data pairs are usually presented using the NDT value as the
independent variable (along the X axis) and the compressive strength as the dependent variable (along the
Y axis). Regression analysis is performed as a conventional least-squares analysis on the data pairs to
obtain the best-fit estimate for the strength relationship. The technical literature calls the attention that the
boundary conditions of the conventional least-squares analysis are violated in the case of rebound index vs.
strength relationships (Carino, 1993), therefore it is not recommended because the uncertainty in the
strength relationship would be underestimated.
The two most important limitations of the conventional least-squares analysis are: 1) no error (variability) is
considered to be existing in the X variable (here: the rebound index); 2) the error (i.e. standard deviation) is
constant in the Y variable (here: the compressive strength) over all values of Y. The first assumption can be
violated by the uncertainty of the NDT method characterized by its within-test coefficient of variation
(which may have a larger variability than that of the strength tests); and the second assumption can be
violated because standard deviation may change by the compressive strength both for strength testing
and NDT.
Mathematical statistics considers a data plot scatter to be heteroscedastic, when the error (i.e. standard
deviation) is not constant in the Y variable; the variation in Y differs depending on the value of X (Tth,
2007). Regression analysis of heteroscedastic data needs performing a Y variable transformation to
achieve homoscedasticity (constant standard deviation in the Y variable). Conventional least-squares
analysis regression can be used only if the data are homoscedastic. A suitable Y variable transformation is
the Box-Cox Normality Plot (NIST, 2009) which is defined by a transformation parameter as:
T( Y) ( Y 1) / Eq. (2.18)
For = 0, the natural logarithm of the data is taken; this is the most common estimation in the case of
rebound index (R) vs. strength (f) relationships. If a linear relationship is used, it is formed as follows:
In Eq. (2.19) the exponent B determines the degree of nonlinearity of the power function. If B = 1, the
strength relationship is a straight line passing through the origin with a slope of A. If B 1, the relationship
is nonlinear.
Regarding the problem of error in the X variable the regression procedure proposed by Mandel is
suggested instead of the conventional least-squares analysis regression (Carino, 1993; ACI, 2003b). The
most important difference to the conventional least-squares analysis is that Mandels method minimizes the
sum of squares of the deviations from the regression line in both X and Y directions, on the contrary to the
conventional least-squares analysis which minimizes only the deviations from the regression line in Y
direction.
25
Graphical representation of the surface hardness vs. compressive strength relationships usually indicates
heteroscedastic behaviour; i.e. increasing standard deviation in strength (Y variable) for increasing rebound
index (X variable). Even the manufacturer of the original rebound hammers suggests increasing standard
deviations to be taken into account for increasing rebound indices (Pascale et al, 2003). Examples for the
heteroscedastic behaviour are indicated in Fig. 2.17a, b and c (Greene, 1954; Zoldners, 1957; Schmidt,
1951).
It should be highlighted that researchers usually do not separate the experimental data of the
corresponding rebound index vs. compressive strength results by different influencing parameters in the
graphical representations and the situation has not changed during the last 60 years. Therefore,
exclusively the univariate regression curves are available in the technical literature.
40
40
30
30 f cm 15%
fcm s
f cm
f cm
20
20 20
20
fcm + s f cm + 15%
0 10
10
15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40 45
45 50
50 15 20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40
rebound index, R28, rebound index, R28 ,
f c,28, N/mm2
50
50
40
40
30
30
f cm s
20
20 f cm
10
fcm + s
10
0
10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
rebound index, R28,
Fig. 2.17 Heteroscadastic behaviour of the rebound hardness vs. compressive strength relationship (1 psi =
6.89410-3 N/mm2, a) Greene, 1954; b) Zoldners, 1957; c) Schmidt, 1951).
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete, however, are depending on several parameters
(e.g. type of cement, amount of cement, type of aggregate, amount of aggregate, compaction of
structural concrete, type of formwork, method of curing, quality of concrete surface, age of concrete,
carbonation depth in the concrete, moisture content of concrete, mass of the structural element,
temperature and state of stress) of which influences may be represented when a multivariate regression
analysis is carried out.
26
The most significant influencing parameters for the compressive strength of normal weight concretes are
the water-cement ratio, the type of cement and the age of the concrete. The amount of cement, the
amount of aggregate, the storing method and further concrete technology parameters have only
secondary influences. The type and amount of aggregate can have significant influence in the case of
lightweight aggregate concretes.
It is shown here as an example that non-separation of experimental data can lead to completely misleading
trends of the analysis and the separation of experimental data can clearly uncover the real material
behaviour and, therefore, gives the only way to understand the mechanisms of the rebound surface
hardness testing of concrete. Two from the earliest publications are referred as example, i.e. papers by
Schmidt (1951) and Herzig (1951). Both papers are based on detailed laboratory tests carried out at
EMPA Laboratories, Switzerland.
Schmidt analysed in his paper the experimental results of 550 cube specimens tested both for rebound
surface hardness and compressive strength. The non-separated results are adopted in Fig. 2.17c where
the univariate regression curve power function is represented together with the lower and upper bound
curves based on the reported deviations from the mean values. It can be realized that an apparent
heteroscedastic behaviour appears when the compressive strength of concrete is represented as a
dependent variable of the rebound index. Herzig was the only researcher who presented the experimental
results from the same tests but the data were reasonably separated by the amount of cement, the storing
method and the age of concrete at testing (water content or water-cement ratio is not given in his paper).
As a primary influence, the separation by the age of concrete provides high-contrast differences. Three
typical representative curves are selected from his several separate curves (Fig. 2.18a).
30
30
5d 28d 30
30
30
3d
3
wet, 300 kg/m
28d
20
20 20
20
20
5d 2d
3d air, 200 kg/m3
10
10 28d 10
10
10
5d
3d
2d
2d
00 00
10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40
rebound index, R, rebound index, R,
Fig. 2.18 Influences of data separation on the rebound index vs. compressive strength relationship (after Herzig, 1951).
Herzigs results are adopted in Fig. 2.18b also as one population of data to highlight the possibility to
find a false empirical regression curve corresponding to rebound index vs. compressive strength
responses as non-separated data.
It can be observed that a strong correlation of a power function can be resulted. Here, the heteroscedastic
behaviour is not pronounced as the data covers only 56 data pairs and not the complete test result of the
550 cubes. It can be realized from Herzigs original, separated data analysis that further primary influences
could come into play besides the age of concrete (e.g. water-cement ratio) not mentioned in his analysis.
27
2.11 Standardization of in-situ strength estimation by the rebound method
The test method, the statistical characteristics of test results, the implementation of in-situ testing and
interpretation of test results are described in ACI 228.1R-03, in ASTM C805/C805M-08, in EN 12504-
2:2012 and in ISO 1920-7:2004. Details of standards are not intended to be given here, however, the
introduction and discussion of the particular aspects of the method is covered in the related chapters of
the thesis. Present chapter focuses on the current in-situ strength estimation techniques derived from
the rebound method suggested by ACI 228.1R-03 Standard, EN 13791:2007 and T 2-2.204:1999
(Hungarian Technical Specification for Roads).
In particular cases the actual compressive strength of the structural concrete can be considerably lower or
considerably higher than the estimated value. Therefore, the NDT with the rebound hammer can be applied
only as a rough estimate, if no other characteristics of the tested concrete are known or the rebound
hardness test is not supplemented with additional NDT or destructive tests.
If compressive strength of the structural concrete is intended to be estimated by acceptable reliability of
the estimation together with economic use, the rebound hammer test is reasonable to be completed with:
1) simultaneous strength testing of drilled cores, or
2) the strength testing of specimens that were prepared from the same concrete parallel with the
concreting of the structure, or
3) simultaneous application of additional NDT procedures, or
4) the use of empirical parameters in the evaluation process, which can characterize the composition
and performance of the structural concrete.
The above alternatives are listed in descending order of their reliability, i.e. increasing order of the
uncertainty resulted by their use.
The suggested method to complete the rebound hardness test is the simultaneous strength testing of
drilled cores due to the large number of the parameters that are influencing the test results. The proposal
is consistent with the principles of the EN 13791:2007 standard.
One should be careful in case of the testing of specimens prepared from the same concrete as the
concrete placed in the structure since the way of the preparation and curing of the specimens can be
considerably different from that of the structure. Even the earliest technical papers called the attention to
the significance of this observation (pl. Skramtajew, 1938).
The reliability of the estimation may be improved with the simultaneous application of other NDT methods
as well, however, in these cases a high level of professional expertise and great experience of the person
performing the test and the evaluation are essential requirements. The technical literature of the combined
application of NDT methods is beyond the limits of the literature review of present PhD research.
The use of the empirical parameters involved in the evaluation process can be considered by a user (who
is usually not a professional) as the simplest and most cost-effective method. However, these methods
carry such high level of uncertainty that can result unsafe estimations by the unprofessional use. Therefore,
some details of the topic are given later (in Chapter 2.11.4).
28
2.11.2 U.S. practice
In-situ tests can be used in two ways for the performance evaluation according to ACI 228.1R-03. First,
they can be used qualitatively to distinguish those locations of the structure where the concrete appears
to be different from other locations. In this case, the in-situ tests can be used without a strength
relationship for the concrete in the structure. The main purpose of the in-situ testing is to find where the
drilled cores should be taken for strength testing. The rebound method is widely used for this purpose.
Second, in-situ methods can be used for a quantitative assessment of the strength. In this case, a
strength relationship must be established for the concrete in the structure. The relationship can be
developed by performing in-situ tests at selected test areas and taking corresponding drilled cores for
strength testing. Thus, the use of in-situ testing does not eliminate the need for coring, but it can reduce
the amount of coring.
To develop the strength relationship, it is generally necessary to correlate the in-situ test parameter with
the compressive strength of cores obtained from the structure. Six to nine different test areas should be
selected for coring and measurement of the in-situ test parameter. At each test area, a minimum of two
cores should be obtained to establish the in-situ compressive strength. The number of replicate in-situ
tests at each test area depends on economic considerations. Because at least 12 cores are
recommended to develop an adequate strength relationship, the use of in-situ testing may only be
economical if a large volume of concrete is to be evaluated. After the averages and standard deviations
of the in-situ test parameter and core strength are determined at each test area, the strength
relationship can be developed. The data pairs are plotted using the in-situ test value as the independent
value (or X variable) and the compressive strength as the dependent value (or Y variable). Regression
analysis is performed on the data pairs to obtain the best-fit estimate of the strength relationship.
Regression analysis should be performed using the natural logarithms of the test results to establish the
strength relationship. Using a straight line to represent the relationship between logarithm values is
equivalent to assuming a power function strength relationship. Ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis is
claimed to be acceptable in a general case (ACI, 2003).
The European Standard practice (EN 13791:2007) gives methods and procedures for the assessment
of the in-situ compressive strength of concrete in structures by coring and provides guidance for the
assessment of the in-situ concrete compressive strength in structures by indirect methods.
Principles and guidance for establishing the relationships between test results from indirect test
methods (e.g. rebound method) and the in-situ core strength are provided. The indirect tests are
considered as supplement data obtained from a limited number of cores but they are allowed to be used
after calibration with core tests.
Two alternative methods for assessment of in-situ compressive strength are suggested:
- direct correlation with cores,
- calibration with cores for a limited strength range using an established relationship.
Alternative 1 is applicable to indirect test methods for assessment of in-situ compressive strength when a
specific relationship for the in-situ concrete is established by means of core tests. To establish a specific
relationship between the in-situ compressive strength and the test result by the indirect method, a
29
comprehensive testing programme shall be carried out. The relationship shall be based on at least 18
pairs of results, 18 core test results and 18 indirect test results, covering the range of interest.
Rebound hammer tests may be used for the assessment of in-situ compressive strength after developing a
basic curve and shifting it to the appropriate level determined by core tests.
Alternative 2 the use of a relationship determined from a limited number of cores and a standard basic
curve is a technique applies to normal concrete made with the same set of materials and manufacturing
process. A test region is selected from the population and at least 9 pairs of test results (core test results
and indirect test results from the same test area), are used to obtain the value of the shift by which the
basic curve needs to be shifted to establish the relationship between indirect measurements and in-situ
compressive strength (Fig. 2.19).
It is claimed in the standard that the basic curve has been set at an artificially low position so that the shift
is always positive.
compressive
strength of cores
best fit
final 10th
indirect measurements percentile
calibrated by
drilled cores f R, N/mm2
f, shift 60
50
40
fi basic 30
curve
20
10
rebound index
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
R, -
Fig. 2.19 Principle for obtaining the relationship between in-situ compressive strength and indirect test data and
Fig. 2.20 Basic curve for rebound hammer test.
For the purpose of numerical calculations mathematical functions of the bilinear basic curves are as
follows (Fig. 2.20):
fR = 1.25R 23 20 R 24 Eq. (2.20)
fR = 1.73R 34.5 24 R 50 Eq. (2.21)
Numerous Hungarian studies can be found in the non-destructive testing of concrete by the rebound
method for a long time. Large number of technical and scientific papers, technical specifications, as well
as standard proposals and standards have been published in the past decades. It can be mentioned
here that the non-destructive testing of concrete is still a research field of high interest at the
Department of Construction Materials and Engineering Geology at Budapest University of Technology
and Economics (BME).
30
Two remarkable earlier results are introduced here:
the proposal by Gyrgy Roknich (Roknich, 1966; 1967; 1968), that was published also as a
recommendation of the Hungarian Standards Institution (Szalai, 1982), and it was adapted by the
Hungarian Transportation Industry Standard (MSZ-07-3318-1991), and
the proposal by Jzsef Borjn (Borjn, 1981; Talabr, Borjn, Jzsa, 1979) that is included in the
proposed methods of current Technical Specifications of the Hungarian Society of Roads (T 2-
2.204:1999 and e-UT 09.04.11).
During the 1960s extensive laboratory tests were conducted in the Hungarian Road Research Institute
including the field of non-destructive testing with rebound hammer that were the bases of the draft of
earlier Hungarian standards (Roknich, 1966). The result of the research was a relationship between the
rebound index obtained by the N-type original Schmidt hammer and the compressive strength of concrete.
It was formulated including particular parameters related to concrete technology (type and amount of
cement, composition of the aggregate), and a parameter that takes the age of concrete into account. The
general form of the relationship (the fraction on the right side was deducted by Gaede and Schmidt (1964)
based on theoretical considerations) was:
9099.18 R 2 0.067 R
fcm,200,cube
2 510c 3.178 0.65 i 0.773 R 2 0.067 R (kp/cm2) Eq. (2.22)
In Eq. (2.22) R indicate the rebound index, c is a parameter corresponding to cement content, is the ratio
of the mass of sand and gravel aggregate to crushed aggregate, and i is a parameter taking time into
account. In Fig. 2.21 it can be studied how the rebound index - compressive strength relationship changes in
case of a concrete of constant aggregate composition and age of 28 days, horizontal impact direction, when
the amount of the cement is 250, 350, 450, 550 kg/m3, respectively. For comparison, also the B-Proceq
curve is indicated in the figure (Proceq, 2003; 2004).
It can be observed that the proposed function is very sensitive to changes of cement content as a result of
the structure of the formula. The difference between estimated compressive strengths corresponding to the
lowest and the highest cement content varies between 9 and 73 N/mm2. This difference is unreasonably high
in the range of high rebound indices. It can be also observed that the curve of 350 kg/m3 cement content
follows rather well the B-Proceq curve, so it can be actually accepted as the mean curve of the method. The
intersection of the two curves is close to the rebound index R = 40. At the rebound index R = 40 the
difference between compressive strengths corresponding to the lowest and the highest cement content is
40.2 N/mm2, which would result a difference that is equal to more than six concrete compressive strength
classes during classification. The change in the cement content itself cannot result such a difference. Since
the method is based on cement types used in the 1960s, the adaptation of it to today concretes is not
possible without laboratory tests.
It can be mentioned that Roknich further refined his method in the 1970s and developed recommendations
to improve the reliability of the strength estimation using particular technological data of the tested concrete
(KTI, 1978). The parameters taken into consideration were the followings: the compressive strength of the
cubes cut out from the structure, the ratio of the aggregate content and cement content, the body density
of concrete, the free water content of the concrete, the amount of cement, the water-cement ratio.
31
fcm,200,cube, N/mm2
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
c=550
c = 550
c=450
c = 450
20
20 c=350
c = 350
c=250
c = 250
B-Proceq
00
20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
R, -
Fig. 2.21 Rebound index compressive strength relationships of concretes with different cement content by
Roknich (1968).
Extensive laboratory studies were carried out during the 1970s at the Department of Construction
Materials at Budapest University of Technology (BME) in the field of non-destructive strength estimation
(Talabr, Borjn, Jzsa, 1979).
One of the specialties of the studies was with a pioneer view in the field that the researchers conducted a
so-called complete experiment of nine factors. The tested experimental parameters (factors) were the type
of cement, the maximum size of aggregate, the modulus of fineness of aggregate, the water-cement ratio,
the cement paste content, the degree of compaction of specimens, the method of curing, the age of
concrete at testing and the moisture content of concrete at testing. The experimental study covered the
combination of 48 different concrete mixes and 24 different types of treatment that resulted a series of
experiments consisting of 1152 specimens. The experiment was an attempt without repetition: the 1152
specimens were all designed with different factor combinations, i.e. no two perfectly identical specimens
were prepared. It is remarkable that the researchers took the effort to carry out a series of experiments
even if it was realized without repetitions during the period of time before personal computers became
widely used. The possible factor combinations of the nine-factor experiment are nearly five hundred (when
assessing the combined interaction of several factors) that require the analysis of several thousand cases,
and results several hundreds of different functions. The corresponding rebound index and compressive
strength test results are represented in one diagram (Fig 2.22) (Talabr, Borjn, Jzsa, 1979).
A further speciality of the experiment was that the researchers did not study the real corresponding data
pairs of rebound index and compressive strength results in their analyses but the so-called quantile
points were created for this from the test results. The general idea of the analysis was actually the
adaptation of the Quantile function developed by Prof. J. Reimann, Hungarian mathematician. Quantile
function can provide an estimate of the relationship of two random variables which are in a stochastic
relationship (i.e. they are not independent, but one can not exactly define the other) (Reimann, 1975).
Quantile functions are used in hydrology for flood analyses (Reimann, V. Nagy, 1984).
32
fcm,200,cube, N/mm2
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40
R, -
Fig. 2.22 Experimental rebound index - compressive strength data pairs by Talabr et al. (1979).
Coordinates of a Quantile function can be generated easily: if the cumulative distribution functions (CDF)
of X and Y random variables (being in a stochastic relationship) are known and they are denoted as F(x)
and G(y), respectively, then the values of the variables which have the same probability of occurrences
F(x) = G(y) = can be plotted as data pairs (x , y) forming the Quantile function (Reimann, 1975). Use
of Quantile functions was found to be advantageous in the regression analysis of rebound index vs.
strength relationships because this abstraction minimizes the deviations from the regression line in both
X and Y directions, eliminating the problems of the conventional least-squares analysis (Borjn, 1981).
Scheme of generating a Quantile function is shown in Fig. 2.23.
It should be noted that the abstraction of the Quantile function is resulted in fictitious data pairs and
omits the use of data pairs of corresponding rebound index vs. strength measured in reality. On the
other hand, it should be also noted that if Quantile functions are separated for different influencing
parameters then they can represent the differences in a much noticeable way as compared to
conventional least-squares analysis.
Therefore, the use of Quantile functions in the analysis of influencing parameters may be reasonable.
Unfortunately, the results by the Hungarian researchers were limited to a relatively small series of tests
(1152 cube specimens) and the idea was not further developed.
The researchers have fit a polynomial function of second degree to the quantile points represented in
double logarithmic coordinate system (Talabr, Borjn, Jzsa, 1979). The mean curve of the strength
estimation function was:
33
F(x) G(y)
100% 100%
F(x) = G(y) =
x y
x y
y y = (x)
(x , y)
The researchers introduced empirical parameters to improve reliability of the strength estimation which
take the composition and characteristics of concrete into account. The empirical parameters (due to
their additive nature) can shift the mean curve represented in the double logarithmic coordinate system
upwards parallel to itself, into the direction of higher compressive strengths. Thus, with the improvement
of the reliability of the strength estimation higher compressive strength values are obtained than that
provided by the use of the mean curve.
The researchers found that the interaction of the parameters is sometimes strong and can accumulate".
Therefore, they strongly emphasized that the influence of the parameters is allowed to be taken into
account with this type of correction only to a limited extent.
The current Technical Specifications of the Hungarian Society of Roads (T 2-2.204:1999 and e-UT
09.04.11) adapted the above strength estimation procedure with some additions in the following form:
the form of the function is unchanged; a polynomial function of second degree is introduced in
double logarithmic coordinate system,
instead of the mean curve a 5% quantile function is suggested, so the value of the parameter
determining the location of the curve is -2.159, instead of -1.055,
the domain of the function is R = 1540,
the additive empirical parameter () can be generated as the sum of not more than three individual
parameters (), which range is usually = 00.07, so the additive empirical parameter can be
= 00.19,
to take into account the carbonation of concrete, a multiplier is defined t = 0.61.0 depending on
the age of concrete (not covered in Eq. (2.24)),
to take into account the strength development and type of cement, a t multiplier is defined (not
covered in Eq. (2.24)).
It is shown in Fig. 2.24 how the relationship between the rebound index and compressive strength
changes when the additive parameter is set to 0 0.06 0.12 0.18. For the comparison, the B-
Proceq curve is also indicated in the figure.
34
fcm,200,cube, N/mm2
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
= 0.18
= 0.12
20
20
= 0.06
=0
B-Proceq
B-Proceq
00
20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
R, -
Fig. 2.24 Rebound index compressive strength relationships of concretes with different additive parameters by
Talabr et al. (1979).
It can be observed that the suggested function is sensitive to the change of the additive parameter.
The difference between the lowest and highest estimated compressive strength varies between
3 and 21 N/mm2 (at R=20 and at R=40, respectively) within the domain of the function. With a simple
extrapolation of the function by extending the domain of the function to R = 50 (to the domain of the B-
Proceq curve) the difference is now 41 N/mm2, which is unreasonably high. It can be observed that the
curves differ from the B-Proceq curve at the unsafe side, especially in the range of the higher rebound
indices, so the shape of the function cannot be considered as optimal. The intersection of the curve of
= 0 and B-Proceq curve is close to R = 40. In this section the estimated compressive strength
difference corresponding to the additive parameter = 0.18 is 21.3 N/mm2 that would result a
difference of four concrete compressive strength classes during classification.
These concerning observation can be partly understood by the fact that majority of the specimens had
low strength in the background experimental programme (see Fig. 2.22).
Both U.S and European standards exclude the use of the rebound surface hardness test for strength
estimation on its own due to the limited reliability available. Testing of drilled cores together with the
rebound surface hardness tests is suggested for an acceptable reliability. The EN 12504-2 European
Standard specifies the method for determining the rebound index and the EN 13791 European Standard
summarises guidance for the assessment of the in-situ concrete compressive strength in structures
(CEN 2007; 2012). It is generally stated that the rebound hardness tests of concrete is not intended as an
alternative to the compressive strength testing, but with suitable correlation, it can provide an estimate of
the in-situ strength. Therefore, it can be supposed that the rebound hardness tests may provide alternative
to drilled core tests for assessing the compressive strength of concrete in a structure only if core tests
results can be obtained in limited number.
35
Two alternative strength assessment procedures are described in EN 13791; both by the formulation of
specific relationships between the in-situ compressive strength and the rebound values. One alternative
suggests the establishment of a relationship based on 18 drilled core strength results, while the other
suggests the use of a basic curve, together with a shift of the basic curve, established by means of 9
drilled core strength results detailed in the standard. It is claimed that the basic curve has been set at an
artificially low position so that the shift is always positive. Strength estimation without the direct calibration
to drilled core strength results is not supported by the basic text of EN 13791.
The idea of EN 13791 with the calibration of the rebound hardness method to drilled core strength tests is
a practical and undeniable method to overcome the concerns of strength assessment, however, it
eliminates the advantages of the non-destructive nature of the rebound method and technically turns back
to the destructive testing. The main driver of the calibration is the relationship between the rebound index
and the in-situ compressive strength obtained by drilled cores. It can be demonstrated (Carino, 1993) that
the development of a relationship based on 18 drilled cores and the corresponding rebound indices can
result an acceptable confidence level for the strength assessment of concrete of a given composition.
Based on the above discussion of the Hungarian T 2-2.204:1999 Roads Technical Specifications the
following limitations can be summarized:
The suggested function and the values of the corresponding additive parameters are based on concretes
made out of cements manufactured in the 1970s, without any admixtures, so the unchanged use of them
for todays concretes requires caution.
The person who performs the evaluation has great freedom in the selection of the additive parameters,
resulting considerable uncertainty. It basically contradicts the statement of the researchers who suggested
the method. They stated that the influencing parameters and their interaction are not known in case of a
real structure. Unfortunately, the additive parameter , which would be used to increase the reliability of
the strength estimation and its application between boundaries was found to be scientifically sound can
achieve exactly the opposite result: in a condition when the safety of the structure is severely endangered
one can make it seem as it would be in a safe condition.
For completeness it is mentioned here that the T 2-2.204:1999 Roads Technical Specifications allows
not only the use of the additive parameter for the improvement of the reliability of the strength
estimation but also gives an alternative application of control strength test on cube specimens. As it was
mentioned before, the way of the preparation and curing of the specimen can be considerably different
from that of the structure. Hence, this possibility does not improve the reliability and safety in most cases.
36
CHAPTER 3 research methodology
In mathematical statistics, normality tests are used to determine whether a data set can be modelled by
normal distribution or not. The importance of the normality tests concerning the rebound hardness method
can be understood since normality is an underlying assumption of many statistical procedures. There are
about 40 normality tests available in the technical literature (Dufour et al, 1998), however, the most common
normality test procedures of statistical software are the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the
Anderson-Darling test and the Lilliefors test. It is demonstrated in the technical literature that the Shapiro-Wilk
test is the most powerful normality test from the above four (Razali, Wah, 2011). The analyses provided by
present thesis focused on the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. To see if the probability distribution of the rebound
index reading set of an individual test area can be described by normal distribution or not, the Shapiro-Wilk
normality test was run. From 24 different sources, 4555 test areas were selected (from which 3447 of
laboratory testing and 1108 of in-situ testing) where 10 individual rebound index readings were recorded at
each test area by N-type original Schmidt rebound hammer.
Considering the rebound hardness method, one can assume that the rebound index reading sets of separate
test areas are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables since it can be accepted that
the probability distribution of the rebound index does not change by test area within a concrete structure and
the separate test areas can be considered to be mutually independent. Based on these assumptions, the
central limit theorem applies for the rebound hardness method; i.e. the probability distribution of the sum (or
37
average) of the rebound index reading sets of separate test areas (each with finite mean and finite variance)
approaches a normal distribution if sufficiently large number of i.i.d. random variables are available.
Testing of the central limit theorem for the rebound index reading sets of individual test areas may be a good
indicator of the precision of the rebound hammer devices.
The practical application of the central limit theorem was the running of the Shapiro-Wilk test for multiple
rebound index reading sets combined. The expected behaviour is the value of the W statistic approaching
unity by the increasing number of test areas combined.
An extended repeatability analysis was made on 8955 data-pairs (own measurements: 2699 laboratory
data-pairs, 578 in-situ data-pairs, total 3277 data-pairs) of corresponding average rebound indices and
standard deviations of rebound indices that were collected from 48 different sources (in which the
number of in-situ test areas was 4785 and the number of laboratory test areas was 4170; resulting
more than eighty thousand individual rebound index readings). Range of the studied concrete strengths
was fcm = 3.3 MPa to 105.7 MPa, and the range of the individual rebound indices was R = 10 to 63. The
averages and the standard deviations were calculated by 10 to 20 replicate rebound index readings on
the same surface of a concrete specimen during laboratory tests, or at the same test area in the case
of in-situ testing. The data were analysed to see the general repeatability (within-test variation) behaviour
of the rebound method. Analysis of reproducibility (batch-to-batch variation) was not the aim of the
studies. Standard deviation and coefficient of variation was calculated and analysed. The range of the
analysed data is from Rm,min = 12.2 to Rm,max = 59.0 for the averages and from sR,min = 0.23 to sR,max = 7.80 for the
standard deviations. Coefficient of variation range was found to be as from VR,min = 0.43% to VR,max = 31.12%.
An extended statistical analysis has been made on the previously detailed database (8955 test areas) to
ascertain the probability distribution of the statistical parameters of the rebound index (i.e. standard
deviation, coefficient of variation, range, studentized range).
The goodness of fit (GOF) tests were used to compare test data to the theoretical probability distribution
functions. Three tests were run to get the best goodness of fit out of more than 60 different types of
distribution functions: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Anderson-Darling test and 2 test.
The goodness of fit tests measure the compatibility of a random sample with a theoretical probability
distribution function. In other words, these tests show how well the selected distribution fits to the data.
The general procedure consists of defining a test statistic, which is a function of the data measuring the
distance between the hypothesis and the data, and then calculating the probability of obtaining data
which have a still larger value of this test statistic than the value observed, assuming the hypothesis is
true.
In present analyses 60 different probability distributions were studied by GOF to find the best fit to the
experimental data.
38
3.1.4 Influences on the repeatability parameters
The governing parameters over the changes of the standard deviation, coefficient of variation, range,
and studentized range were analysed based on the available database, with the selection of the following
possible influencing parameters: the w/c-ratios of the concretes, the age of the concretes, the cement
types used for the concretes, the testing conditions of the concretes (dry/wet), the carbonation depths
of the concretes and the impact energy of the rebound hammers (N-type original Schmidt hammer with
impact energy of 2207 Nmm or L-type original Schmidt hammer with impact energy of 735 Nmm).
3.2 Modelling
The development of the model was induced by the extensive literature survey of the rebound method
after the analysis of more than 150 technical publications of the last 60 years.
Deductive principles were followed in the theoretical research. The ideas were based on theoretical
considerations, where it was appropriate, while in other cases empirical relationships were considered.
General experimental observations and limitedly available theoretical models were studied for the
compressive strength and rebound index. Models were preferred where the degree of hydration was
found to be the primary driver of phenomena.
Since the mathematical modelling and experimental determination of the degree of hydration do not
satisfy the principle of intended simplicity for practical use, therefore, a simplification was applied; the
degree of hydration was characterized by three variables: type of cement, water-cement ratio (w/c) and
age of concrete. The randomness of the phenomena were not taken into consideration during the
theoretical research by focusing mostly on general laws, that is, the particular influencing parameters
were not considered as random variables. Revealing of the possible interrelationships has lead to the
hypothesis of a phenomenological model for the compressive strength and rebound index of concrete
which was able to generate data points of compressive strength and rebound index for concretes made
from a given type of cement, with a given water-cement ratio, at a given age, by means of five general
relationships. The generator functions are (all of them can be validated empirically): relationship between
the water-cement ratio and compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days; development of
compressive strength in time; relationship between compressive strength and rebound index of concrete
at the age of 28 days; development of carbonation depth in time; relationship between carbonation
depth and rebound index of concrete.
The applicability of the model was tested by parametric simulation; by the preliminary selection of
arbitrary function parameters. Series of functions were generated to simulate results that are similar to
real experimental observations. Empirical formulations were selected from the technical literature for the
generator functions of the model for the parametric simulation.
39
3.2.3 Model verification with laboratory tests
The intention of the experimental part of the research connected to modelling was to verify the
applicability of the developed phenomenological model. Inductive principles were followed, i.e. laboratory
tests were carried out under strictly controlled experimental conditions, with the introduction of
sufficiently large number of test parameters changed on a wide range, on a large number of specimens.
The general performance of the developed phenomenological model was studied by the appropriate
graphical representation of the particular observations.
The experimental verification study was carried out at the Budapest University of Technology and
Economics (BME), Department of Construction Materials and Engineering Geology. The tested 72
concrete mixes were prepared in accordance with present concrete construction needs during the
experiments, i.e. slightly over-saturated mixes with different admixtures were designed. Consistency of
the tested concrete mixes was constant: 50020 mm flow provided by superplasticizer admixture.
Design air content of the compacted fresh concrete for the tested concrete mixes was 1.0 V%. The
specimens were stored in water tank for 7 days as curing. After 7 days the specimens were stored at
laboratory condition.
Test parameters were:
Water-cement ratio:
0.38 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.51 0.55 0.60
Cement type:
CEM I 42.5 N CEM III/B 32.5 N
Cement content (kg/m3):
300 350 400
Mixing water content (kg/m3):
180 165 150
Cement paste content (litres/m3):
247 263 278 293 294 309
Aggregate-cement ratio:
4.5 4.6 4.7 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.3 6.5 6.6
Admixture type:
accelerator admixtures (3 types)
Age of concrete at testing (days):
7 14 28 56 90 180
The 72 (9 water-
cement ratio 2 cement types (3 admixture types + 1 reference mix)) mixes tested at 6 different ages
with double repetitions (total number of 864 cube specimens of 150 mm) needed more than 3 cubic metres
of concrete prepared and tested in the laboratory exclusively for the verification study. Surface hardness
tests were carried out by the N-type Schmidt rebound hammer. Altogether twenty individual readings were
recorded with the rebound hammers used in horizontal direction on two parallel vertical sides of the 150 mm
cube specimens restrained by 40 kN force into a hydraulic compressive strength tester just before the
compressive strength tests (according to EN 12390-3) were carried out. Carbonation depth of concrete
specimens was measured by phenolphthalein solution.
(Some additional verification experiments were also conducted for further types of cements but not on a wide
range of water-cement ratios, see Appendix C.)
40
3.3 Targeted experiments
In addition to the model verification experimental study detailed previously, another experimental programme
was completed on wide range of compressive strength (water-cement ratio) and age of normal weight
concretes in the laboratory of Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), Department of
Construction Materials and Engineering Geology, to study the effect of the impact energy of the rebound
hardness testing devices on the rebound hardness and related mechanical properties of concrete.
Concrete was mixed from Danube sand and gravel using CEM I 42.5 N cement. Cement paste volume
was kept constant (304 litres/m3) to be able to study the neat effect of the water-cement ratio, within
the same aggregate skeleton, i.e. the stiffness of concrete is influenced only by the different stiffness of
the cement pastes of different water-cement ratio.
Consistency of the tested concrete mixes was 50020 mm flow provided by superplasticizer admixture.
Design air content of the compacted fresh concretes was 1.0 V%.
The specimens were cast into steel moulds and the compaction of concrete was carried out by a vibrating
table. The specimens were stored under water for 7 days as curing. After 7 days the specimens were
stored at laboratory condition. 150 mm cube specimens and 120120360 mm prism specimens were
prepared for the experiments.
Test parameters were:
Water-cement ratio:
0.40 0.50 0.65
Cement content (kg/m3):
315 375 425
Mixing water content (kg/m3):
170 185 205
Aggregate-cement ratio:
4.25 4.85 5.75
Age of concrete at testing (days):
3 7 14 28 56 90 240 1100
For the 3 mixes tested at 8 different ages with double repetitions (total number of 48 cube specimens and
48 prism specimens) 500 litres of concrete was prepared and tested in the laboratory exclusively for
present experimental study.
Surface hardness tests were carried out by the original Schmidt rebound hammers of L-type and N-type as
well as with a D-type Wolpert Leeb hardness tester of low impact energy as an alternative control impact
device. The three devices have the same operating principle, i.e. an impact mass is accelerated by a
41
spring toward the surface of the test object and impinges on it at a defined kinetic energy. The masses of
the used impact bodies were 380 g for the N-type Schmidt rebound hammer, 125 g for the L-type Schmidt
rebound hammer, and 5.5 g for the Wolpert Leeb hardness tester that resulted 2207 Nmm, 735 Nmm and
11 Nmm impact energy, respectively. Altogether twenty individual readings were recorded with the
Schmidt rebound hammers used in horizontal direction on two parallel vertical sides of the 150 mm cube
specimens restrained by 40 kN force into a hydraulic compressive strength tester just before the
compressive strength tests (according to the EN 12390-3 standard) were carried out. Leeb hardness tests
were carried out on the 120120360 mm prism specimens, right after the completion of the Youngs
modulus measurements (according to ISO 6784). Altogether 120 Leeb hardness readings were taken on
the moulded side surfaces of each prism specimen.
42
CHAPTER 4 results and discussion
Non-destructive testing methods for concrete structures require the statistical validation of the model
parameters. In particular cases the formulation of the model is directly related to the statistical
characteristics of the parameters considered. Laboratory and in-situ experiences have demonstrated
that several material characteristics, which are connected to the degree of hydration of hardened
cement paste as well as of hardened concrete (i.e. modulus of elasticity, tensile and compressive
strengths and surface hardness properties), may be modelled as random variables of normal probability
distribution. There are, however, material properties for which the validity of the assumption of normal
distribution can not be demonstrated or even no any indication is found in the technical literature
considering an appropriate probability distribution. Numerical modelling or numerical simulations of
concrete hardness behaviour need acceptable simplifications of the real behaviour.
Chapter 2.11 has summarised the current status of the international standardisation connected to the
strength estimation techniques with rebound method. It can be realized and also present chapter
outlines in details that still several gaps can be found in the recommendations in terms of either the
limitations of the proposed methods or the missing statistical verification of the indicated numerical
values. In the followings, these topics are analysed, however, without the aim of providing a complete
solution for the discussions. As an opening issue influencing the statistical parameters of the rebound
index an error is demonstrated related to the reading of the rebound index on the scale of the device.
43
4.1.1 Observational error
For the bias of the rebound surface hardness method no evaluation is given in the ASTM C 805 standard
(ASTM, 2008). It is indicated that the rebound index can only be determined in terms of this test method,
therefore, the bias can not be evaluated. This statement, however should be restricted to the Digi-Schmidt
and the Silver-Schmidt type rebound hammers as only these models provide the rebound index readings
digitally. The original Schmidt hammers have a sliding marker for the indication of the rebound index that
shows the measured value over a scale on which only even numbers are indicated. The operator decides
the reading based on his own judgement whether the reading is an odd or an even number. This sampling
does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of existence of an observer error or an observer bias.
The within-test standard deviation covers several influences including the inherent variability of the hardness
in the tested area, the inherent variability of the rebound method itself and the random errors attributed to
the operator in terms of observational error and performance error (due to inadequate use). Observational
error applies exclusively for the original Schmidt hammers. The Digi-Schmidt and the Silver-Schmidt type
rebound hammer models provide the rebound index readings digitally, therefore, only performance error
can be interpreted.
The accuracy of statistical information is the degree to which the information correctly describes the
phenomena that was intended to be measured (OECD, 2008). It is usually characterized in terms of error in
statistical estimates and is traditionally composed by bias (systematic error) and variance (random error)
components. A statistical analysis can be considered to be biased if it is performed in such a way that is
systematically different from the population parameter of interest. In statistics, sampling bias/sampling
error is a deviated sampling during which sample is collected in such a way that some members of the
population are less likely to be included than others. Problems with sampling are expected when data
collection is entrusted to subjective judgement on the part of human being (OECD, 2008). A biased sample
causes problems because any statistical analysis based on that sample has the potential to be consistently
erroneous. The bias can lead to an over- or underrepresentation of the corresponding parameter in the
population. In statistics, inherent bias is a bias which is due to the nature of the situation and cannot, for
example, be removed by increasing the sample size (OECD, 2008). An example of inherent bias is the
systematic error of an observer.
Systematic errors can lead to significant difference of the observed mean value from the true mean value
of the measured attribute. Systematic errors can be either constant, or be related (proportional) to the
measured quantity. Systematic errors are very difficult to deal with, because their effects are only
observable if they can be removed. Such errors cannot, however, be removed by repeated measurements
or averaging large numbers of results. A simple method to avoid systematic errors is the correct
calibration: the use of the calibration anvil for the rebound hammers.
Random errors lead to inconsistent data. They have zero expected value (scattered about the true value)
and tend to have zero arithmetic mean when a measurement is repeated. Random errors can be attributed
either to the testing device or to the operator.
The observational error in the case of the rebound hardness test is due to the design of the scale of the
device (Fig. 4.1). Its speciality that no odd values are indicated on the scale. Therefore, the observer
should decide during reading how the rounding of the read value is to be carried out. As the repetition of
the readings is very fast in a practical situation, it is expected that the observer adds an inherent
observational error to the readings of the rebound index, in favour of the even numbers.
44
Fig. 4.1 Scale of the original rebound hammer.
The existence of the phenomena was earlier indicated in particular publications for natural stones (Kolaiti,
1993) and concrete (Talabr et al, 1979) but was not analysed thoroughly.
Fig. 4.2 illustrates the internal parts of the rebound hammer showing the index rider that is driven by the
hammer mass sliding along the hammer guide bar during testing. Before impact (Fig. 4.2a) the index
rider is at zero position, the impact spring is tensioned by pressing the device housing against the
tested surface and the impact mass starts to impinge when the trip screw tilts the pawl of the guide disk
out from the flange of the hammer mass. After impact (Fig. 4.2b) the shoulder of the hammer mass
contacts the index rider during rebound and slides it along the scale to show the rebound index. The
reader can study the scale of the device in a magnified view in Fig. 4.1.
Fig. 4.2 a) Operating principle of the rebound hammer before impact and b) after impact.
To see the magnitude and the influence of such an error on the reading of the rebound index, a
comprehensive data survey was carried out. A total number of 45650 rebound index readings were
collected from 28 different published sources. The data are based on both laboratory research and in-
situ measurements. The rebound hammers were N-type original Schmidt hammers in each case.
Table 4.1 summarizes the statistical characteristics of the rebound index data in terms of counting the
even and odd number readings.
It can be realized that the observational error may be significant. Over the complete field of the 45650
data points one can find 57.3% probability of even number readings and 42.7% probability of odd
number readings.
It should be noted here that the 45650 data points are the result of several different operators,
therefore, no general statement can be taken about operator precision or measurement uncertainty. The
unbiasedness of the data collection is highly dependent on the operator. It is also noted that present
analysis does not have the aim to study in details if there is any bias attributed to the presented inherent
observational error.
Fig. 4.3 gives a general view of the observational error in present statistical analysis considering the
rebound index. Fig. 4.3 represents the frequency histogram of the 45650 readings. The reader can clearly
see how remarkable the difference is between the frequencies of adjacent even and odd number rebound
index readings. As one extreme test area, the vicinity of the rebound index of 40 can be highlighted: the
difference between the relative frequencies of reading 40 and reading 41 exceeds 60% of the relative
frequency corresponding to the reading 41.
45
Table 4.1 Statistical characteristics of the rebound index data in terms of counting the even or odd number readings.
frequency, -
3000
3000
34 40
2500
2500 even
36
38 48
odd 32 4244
46
2000
2000
50
1500
1500
30
52
1000
1000
28 54
500
500 26 56
24
182022 58
16 60
00
10 15 20 25 30
30 35 40
40 45 50
50 55 60
60
R i, -
Fig. 4.3 Observational error of the rebound index.
46
From the practical point of view of material testing and not from that of the requirements of analytical
accuracy of probability theory one may ask that how much is the influence of such an observational
error on the reliability of concrete strength estimation based on the rebound hammer test, as it is the
most important aim in most of the cases when the rebound hammers are used.
Strength estimation usually means the estimation of the mean compressive strength based on the mean
rebound index (mean can indicate here either in practical sample analysis the average or from
theoretical point of view the median value of the rebound index) and random errors are usually expected
to have an influence on kurtosis rather than the mean value.
The influence on the averages can be demonstrated as a simplification by supposing a triangular probability
density function for the rebound index readings over an acceptable range as shown in the followings. Let
us suppose having strictly increasing rebound index values as sets of 7 individual readings all of either
even or odd numbers in the range of 12 units (suggested by ASTM C 805 as acceptable precision range).
Let the lower limit of the tested range be R = 10 and let the upper limit of the tested range be R = 60, for
the rebound index. If one calculates the averages of the consecutive sets of the 7 readings within a range
of 12 units over the total range (from R = 10 to R = 60) and determines the ratio of the adjacent averages
then a decreasing impact of the error (i.e. deviation from unity for the ratios) can be demonstrated
corresponding to the increasing average value of the rebound index sets (Fig. 4.4). If the range is extended
over the values applicable for rebound hammer testing, it can be demonstrated that the error diminishes
when the set average approaches infinity. According to Fig. 4.4, the theoretically worst cases for the
observational error in the rebound index readings are in the range of 2 to 6%. In a real situation, however
much different influences can be realized.
Rm,i / Rm,i+1
0,99
0.99
0,98
0.98
0,97
0.97
0,96
0.96
0,95
0.95
0,94
0.94
0,93
0.93
0 10
10 20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
Rmin,i, -
Fig. 4.4 Decreasing effect of the observational error corresponding to the increasing average value of artificial
rebound index sets.
The mostly erroneous dataset listed in Table 4.1 at the 28th position is selected for this demonstration of
such a real unfavourable performance. The dataset can be found in the technical literature (no reference is
given here for the right of privacy of the original authors as the example is inferior). The test results were
actually collected for a diploma thesis and the operator was the candidate undergraduate student (not at
BME). The 1140 rebound index readings are the result of a test series conducted on 5 different concrete
mixes where 20 replicate readings were recorded at 57 individual test areas. The statistical parameters of
the strength measurements for the 5 mixes can be studied in Table 4.2. Variability parameters indicate a
very low level of quality control during the tests. The overall statistical parameters of the rebound hardness
measurements for the 5 mixes are introduced in Table 4.3. The resulted range of 31 shall not be criticised
in the view of ASTM C 805, as these readings are not of the same concrete.
47
Table 4.2 Statistical parameters of the strength measurements of the most erroneous dataset.
Table 4.3 Statistical parameters of the rebound hardness measurements of the most erroneous dataset.
On the first look, the differences between the statistical parameters related to even and odd readings
can be considered to be negligible. If one takes a look at a more detailed statistical parameter check
then more reliable decisions can be taken.
The reader can refer first to Fig. 4.5 where the 57 individual test areas are illustrated as Rmfcm
(Fig. 4.5a), as RmsR (Fig. 4.5b), and as RmVR (Fig. 4.5c) responses.
It can be realized that the dataset indeed covers values that confirm the above statement about the low
level of quality control (the reader can compare Fig. 4.5b and Fig. 4.5c with Fig. 4.8, Fig. 4.9 and Fig. 4.12).
Further statistical considerations are illustrated in Fig. 4.6.
The rebound index ranges of individual test areas are shown in Fig. 4.6a, indicating with black tone the
test areas where the limit of 12 units suggested by ASTM C 805 is violated.
The observational error is given in Fig. 4.6b, which diagram shows the differences (in percents) between
the only-even-number and only-odd-number averages calculated to each test area. The deviation has a
positive sign if the only-even-number average is higher and has a negative sign if the only-odd-number
average is higher. It can be seen that the error can reach the magnitude of 20% at specific test areas.
The diagram indicates with a striped tone those test areas where zero number of odd reading was
recorded and therefore the specific observational error is 100%. It can be realized by the comparison of
the two diagrams that the observational error and the inherent variance of concrete hardness are
independent parameters, therefore, they can be separated and determined individually in theoretical
analyses.
It can be summarized as a conclusion that the observational error can be considerable in particular
cases, therefore, future statistical analyses are needed to make clear the real influences. At the present
stage of the research, it is not yet demonstrated if the observational error may result bias of the
rebound index data. It is suggested, however, that a simple development of the testing device may
eliminate the operator observational error: a scale of the index rider would be needed that indicates both
even and odd values rather than only even values as it is the case for the original design.
48
f cm, N/mm2 s R, -
55
a) b)
60
60
4
50
50
3
40
40
30
30 2
20
20 1
25
25 30
30 35
35 40 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40
R m, - R m, -
V R, %
18
18
c)
16
16 sR = 4
sR = 3
sR = 2
14
14
12
12
10
10
88
66
44
22
25
25 30
30 35
35 40
R m, -
Fig. 4.5 Relationship between average rebound index and a) average compressive strength, b) within-test standard
deviation, c) within-test coefficient of variation of the mostly erroneous dataset (57 individual test areas).
If the quality control is good during concreting and curing, then the probability density function (PDF) of
strength is expected to be of normal distribution and the test results tend to cluster near to the average
strength. For normal distribution the average strength and the mean strength coincides if n . If the test
results are not symmetrical about the mean strength (i.e. skewness exists) then a statistical analysis that
presumes normal distribution is misleading (Fig. 4.7). The statistical analysis is the simplest if normal
distribution is acceptable, as the normal distribution can be fully defined mathematically by two statistical
parameters: the mean value (= average value) and the standard deviation.
mean mean
x x x
To see if the probability distribution of the rebound index reading set of an individual test area can be
described by normal distribution or not, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test can be run. From 24 different
sources, 4555 test areas were selected (from which 3447 of laboratory testing and 1108 of in-situ
testing) where 10 individual rebound index readings were recorded at each test area by N-type original
Schmidt rebound hammer. The Shapiro-Wilk test was run to all data sets and the values for the W statistic
was found to be in a wide range of Wmin = 0.510 (p 0) to Wmax = 0.988 (p > 0.99) with a mean value of
Wm = 0.885 (p = 0.145). Values of the W statistic follow the Beta probability distribution with strong
negative skewness. It can be basically concluded that the hypothesis of normality can be accepted at very
low levels of probabilities for individual test areas.
50
From the analysis it can be realized that the hypothesis of normality can be accepted at 50% or lower
probability in 87% of the cases. In 10% and 5% of the cases the hypothesis of normality can be accepted
at 64% and 80% probability, respectively. The hypothesis of normality can be accepted at 95% or higher
probability only in less than 2% of the cases. It is not the aim of the thesis to suggest if a triangular or a
rectangular (uniform) probability density function could be a better estimate for the rebound index reading
set of an individual test area. Future work may be needed in this field.
The practical application of the central limit theorem for the rebound index reading sets of individual test
areas, however, may be a good indicator of the precision of the rebound hammer devices. Two comparisons
have been made in this sense. During the first one, literature data was analysed in which 36 individual
concrete cubes of 150 mm and of the same composition were tested by N-type original Schmidt hammer
(with average compressive strength of fcm = 29.6 MPa); recording 10 rebound indices on each cube
(BME, 1981).
Test results are considered to be rather accurate with an average rebound index of Rm = 36.9, with a
standard deviation of the rebound index of sR = 2.2 and a coefficient of variation of the rebound index of
VR = 5.9%.
The practical application of the central limit theorem was the running of the Shapiro-Wilk test for
1, 2, 3,, 36 rebound index reading sets combined. The expected behaviour is the value of the W statistic
approaching unity by the increasing number of test areas combined. Fig. 4.8 summarizes the values of the
W statistic as a function of increasing number of specimens (i.e. test areas) included in the analysis. The value
of the W statistic is realized to approach to unity very fast, as it was expected. For 10 specimens the
hypothesis of normality for the rebound index can be accepted at 90% probability. At the range of 15 to
30 specimens the acceptance level increases to 95%. Over 30 specimens the acceptance level is over 99%.
W, -
1,00
1.00
0,95
0.95
0,90
0.90
0,85
0.85
0 10
10 20 30 40
40
number of specimens, -
During the second comparison, four different rebound indices were compared by the laboratory testing of
11 individual, identical concrete cubes of 150 mm (with average compressive strength of fcm = 64.7 MPa).
The testing devices were an L-type original Schmidt hammer, an N-type original Schmidt hammer and a
first generation Silver-Schmidt hammer capable to record both R-values (conventional rebound index) and
Q-values (square of the coefficient of restitution) (it should be noted here that the recently available second
generation Silver-Schmidt hammers are no more capable to record the R-values). Table 4.4 summarizes
test results. 20 rebound index recordings were taken by each device on each specimen.
51
It can be seen that the highest precision corresponds to the N-type original Schmidt hammer (highest
precision means here the lowest range and the lowest standard deviation for the measured value at
individual test areas). Lower precision of the L-type original Schmidt hammer and of the Silver-Schmidt
hammer is due to the lighter hammer masses impacting within both devices and the inferior sensitivity of
the electro-optical recording (Silver-Schmidt hammer).
The Shapiro-Wilk test was run in a similar way as of the first comparison. Fig. 4.9 summarizes the values
of the W statistic as a function of increasing number of specimens combined. One can realize that values
of W statistic approaches the fastest to unity for the N-type original Schmidt hammer due to its superior
precision. For 10 specimens the hypothesis of normality for the rebound index can be accepted over 99%
probability. In the case of the L-type original Schmidt hammer the hypothesis of normality for the rebound
index corresponding to 10 specimens can be accepted at a much lower probability level, at about 78%
(W = 0.961). In the case of the Silver-Schmidt hammer results are controversial. Tendency of the values
for the W statistic seem to decrease rather than increase, which contradicts probability theory and
apparently indicates that the central limit theorem does not apply.
Table 4.4 Statistical parameters of rebound indices obtained by different types of Schmidt rebound hammers.
specimen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
R-value (L original) mean 45.2 43.4 41.6 45.3 46.4 44.8 44.3 43.1 47.4 47.0 45.2
stand. dev. 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 5.6 5.0 6.2 3.6 4.4 4.3
range 15 19 18 15 15 17 14 26 14 13 17
R-value (N original) mean 47.0 45.6 41.9 46.6 46.3 41.8 45.0 42.1 43.0 46.7 42.2
stand. dev. 3.0 2.9 4.0 3.4 3.1 3.8 2.0 3.7 2.8 3.7 3.1
range 11 10 16 12 10 13 7 12 10 14 12
R-value (Silver) mean 46.8 41.3 41.5 41.9 42.8 42.9 45.1 41.6 42.0 40.4 40.9
stand. dev. 6.4 5.1 3.2 4.8 3.0 5.3 5.1 4.4 4.1 3.8 4.3
range 22 21 12 17 12 20 21 18 18 13 17
Q-value (Silver) mean 50.5 48.1 46.2 47.4 45.3 48.3 47.4 47.5 46.6 52.3 48.5
stand. dev. 3.1 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.6 3.8
range 11 18 13 13 11 11 17 17 15 16 15
W, -
1,00
1.00
0,98
0.98
0,96
0.96
0,94
0.94
0.92
0,92 NR Original N-type
Q
SQ Silver N-type
SR
R Silver N-type
0,90
0.90 LR Original L-type
0.88
0,88
0 22 44 66 8 10
10 12
12
number of specimens, -
Fig. 4.9 W statistic of rebound index provided by different rebound hammers as a function of increasing number of
specimens.
52
The observed behaviour highlights the disadvantages of the electro-optical data collection of the Silver Schmidt
hammer and confirm the long term advantageous experiences with the N-type original Schmidt hammers
(see e.g. Viles et al, 2010) and further appreciate after more than 60 years the original robust design of the
device by Ernst Schmidt that provides superior precision compared to its competitors in use today.
According to the ISO 3534-1 International Standard the repeatability is the precision under conditions
where independent test results are obtained with the same method on identical test items in the same
laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment within short intervals of time (ISO, 2006).
Reproducibility means the precision under conditions where test results are obtained with the same
method on identical test items in different laboratories with operators using different equipment (ISO,
2006). In the nomenclature of ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report repeatability is referred as within-test
variation and reproducibility is referred as batch-to-batch variation (ACI, 2003).
American Concrete Institute Committee 228 reapproved in 2003 the ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report
that covered implications on the statistical characteristics of the rebound surface hardness method; as
an extension of ACI 228.1R-89 (ACI, 1989; 2003). No update has been made since then up today. The
Report illustrated on a basis of three literature references from the 1980s that the within-test
standard deviation of the rebound index shows an increasing tendency with increasing average and the
within-test coefficient of variation has an apparently constant value of about 10% (Fig. 4.10). Particular
literature data contradicted the above findings (e.g. Leshchinsky et al, 1990). The reader can realize
that the information given in Fig. 4.10 is rather limited as well as apparently contradicts to an expected
behaviour that can be postulated as a similar trend that is shown in Fig. 4.11 for concrete strength.
Number of data points indicated in Fig. 4.10 is only 55 and the range of the analysed rebound index is
narrow and restricted to low values; all fall below rebound index of 35.
s R, - V R, %
77
Adatsor3
Keiller (1982)
a) 25
25 Adatsor3
Keiller (1982) b)
66 Adatsor1
Yun et al (1988) Adatsor1
Yun et al (1988)
Adatsor2
Carette, Malhotra (1984) Adatsor2
Carette, Malhotra (1984)
55 20
20
44 15
15
33
10
22
5
11
00 0
0
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 10
10 15
15 20 25 30
30 35
35 40
40
R m, - R m, -
Fig. 4.10 a) Within-test standard deviation and b) coefficient of variation of rebound index (ACI, 2003).
As a conclusion, according to the ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report, the within-test standard deviation of
the rebound index at a test area* shows an increasing tendency with increasing average of the rebound
index and the within-test coefficient of variation has an apparently constant value of about 10% (ACI, 2003).
53
(*test area: a concrete surface area that is not larger than 1010 cm where 10 repeated rebound tests
are performed by the same operator, with the same device in such a way that no reading is recorded on
the same test point more than once).
According to the available technical literature, standard deviation of the compressive strength of
concrete does not depend on the average value of the compressive strength, only depends on the
quality of the concrete production (Fig. 4.11a and b) (fib, 1999).
sf, N /mm 2 V f, %
12
12 45,00
45
a) b)
40,00
40
10
10
35,00
35 s = 8 N /mm 2
s = 4 N /mm 2
8 30,00
30 s = 2 N /mm 2
25,00
25
6
20,00
20
4 15,00
15
10,00
10
2
5,00
5
0 0,00
0
20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 20
20 30 40
40 50
50 60 70
70
fcm , N /mm 2 f cm , N /mm 2
Fig. 4.11 a) Standard deviation and b) coefficient of variation of concrete compressive strength (fib, 1999).
An extended repeatability analysis has been made on 8955 data-pairs (own measurements: 2699 laboratory
data-pairs, 578 in-situ data-pairs, total 3277 data-pairs) of corresponding average rebound indexes and
standard deviations of rebound indexes that were collected from 48 different sources (in which the number of
in-situ test areas was 4785 and the number of laboratory test areas was 4170; resulting more than eighty
thousand individual rebound index readings). Range of the studied concrete strengths was fcm = 3.3 MPa
to 105.7 MPa, and the range of the individual rebound indices was R = 10 to 63. The data are based on
both laboratory research and in-situ measurements on existing buildings. The rebound hammers were N-
type original Schmidt hammers in all cases. The data is provided either by technical literature or from
the data archives of the accredited testing laboratory of the BME Department of Construction Materials
and Engineering Geology. The averages and the standard deviations were calculated by 10 to 20
replicate rebound index readings on the same surface of a concrete specimen during laboratory tests,
or at the same test area in the case of in-situ testing. The data were analysed to see the general
repeatability (within-test variation) behaviour of the rebound hammer testing. Analysis of reproducibility
(batch-to-batch variation) was not the aim of the study. The range of the analysed data is from
Rm,min = 12.2 to Rm,max = 59.0 for the averages and from sR,min = 0.23 to sR,max = 7.80 for the standard
deviations. Coefficient of variation was also calculated and analysed. Range was found to be as from
VR,min = 0.43% to VR,max = 31.12%.
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete are interrelated material properties. It is more
likely during the production of higher strength concretes that rigorous quality control is performed,
therefore, the standard deviation of strength is not expected to increase, but rather to decrease with
increasing strength. Therefore, the within-test standard deviation of rebound index is not expected to
increase with the average value of the rebound index.
54
Fig. 4.12a shows the graphical representation of the statistical analysis considering the within-test variation
of the rebound method as the standard deviation of the rebound index over the average, while Fig. 4.12b
indicates the same but considering the within-test variation of the rebound method as the coefficient of
variation of the rebound index over the average. It can be clearly realized that these parameters have the
same tendency as the within-test variation of concrete strength has, as it was demonstrated by Fig. 4.11;
i.e. no clear tendency is found in the standard deviation over the average and a clear decreasing tendency
can be observed in the coefficient of variation by the increasing average. Hence the implications given by
the ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report are suggested to be reconsidered.
s R, - V R, %
25
25
6 a) b)
20
20 sR = 4
5 sR = 3
sR = 2
4 sR = 1
15
15
3
10
10
2
5
1
0 0
10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60
R m, - R m, -
Fig. 4.12 a) Standard deviation and b) coefficient of variation of rebound index over the average.
It can be concluded by the analysis of 8955 test areas (from which 4170 are laboratory and 4785 are
in-situ test areas, with total number of individual rebound index readings exceeding eighty thousand) that
the within-test standard deviation of the rebound index does not depend on the average value of the
rebound index and the within-test coefficient of variation of the rebound index is inversely proportional to
the average value of the rebound index (Domain: R = 10 63, codomain: 3.3 MPa 105.7 MPa);
implications given in some technical literature (ACI, 2003) do not fit to empirical findings.
The ASTM C 805 International Standard contains precision statements for the rebound index of the
rebound hammers (ASTM, 2008). It is given for the precision that the within-test standard deviation of
the rebound index is 2.5 units, as single-specimen, single-operator, machine, day standard deviation.
Therefore, the range of ten readings should not exceed 12 units (taking into account a k = 4.5 multiplier
given in ASTM C 670). The multiplier is actually the one digit round value of the p=0.95 probability level
critical value (k = 4.474124) for the standardized range statistic of a N(,1) normal distribution
population at n = 10 according to Harter, 1960. Dependence of the within-test standard deviation on the
average rebound index is not indicated. Particular literature data support the ASTM C 805 suggestions
(e.g. Mommens, 1977).
Based on the ASTM C 805 implications it can be summarized that the probability distribution for the range
(rR) of ten rebound index readings is supposed to follow a normal probability distribution, where rR = 12 at a
55
p = 0.95 probability level if n = 10; and the within-test standard deviation of the rebound index can be
supposed to be mean value of an undetermined probability distribution and sR = 2.5 if n = 10.
There are two underlying assumptions in the precision statements of the rebound index given in the
ASTM C 805 International Standard: (1) the within-test standard deviation of the rebound index has a
constant value independently of the properties of the actual concrete and of the actual operator error,
and (2) the percentage points of the standardized ranges of N (,1) normal probability distribution
populations can be applied for the determination of the acceptable range of rebound index readings at
test areas. No indication is given in the ASTM C 805 either about the probability distribution of the within-
test standard deviation of the rebound index or its percentile level for which the value is given in the
standard. In the absence of the above information one may assume as a first estimate that the
within-test standard deviation of the rebound index has a normal probability distribution and the value
sR = 2.5 is its mean value.
An extended statistical analysis has been made on the previously detailed 8955 data-pairs of corresponding
average rebound indices and standard deviations of rebound indices that were collected from 48 different
sources (in which the number of in-situ test areas was 4785 and the number of laboratory test areas was
4170). It can be realized in Fig. 4.13a that the distribution of the within-test standard deviation of the rebound
index has a strong positive skewness ( = 1.7064), therefore, the assumption of the normal probability
distribution should be rejected. Fit of distributions resulted that a three-parameter Dagum distribution
(also referred in the literature as generalized logistic-Burr or inverse Burr distribution) gives the best
goodness of fit out of more than 60 different types of distributions. Goodness of fit analysis was
performed by running the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test and the 2-test.
The parameters of the distribution function are as follows:
b 1
s
ab R
f(sR; a, b, c) c (Df: sR = 0.23 to 7.80) Eq. (4.1)
a 1
s
b
c1 R
c
f (sR), - a) f (s R), - b)
0,18 0,18
b 1
0.16 - s 0.16 -
ab R
0,16 0,16
0,14
( sR;a,b,c) c 0,14
a 1
0.12 - s b
0.12 -
c1 R
0,12 0,12
c
0,1 0,1
f(x)
f(x)
0,06 0,06
0.04 - 0,04
0.04 - 0,04 s R = 2.5 (p=0.885)
0,02 0,02
0-0
0 -
0
-
0,8 1,6 2,4 3,2 4 4,8 5,6 6,4 7,2 0,8 1,6 2,4 3,2 4 4,8 5,6 6,4 7,2
x x
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
s R, - s R, -
Fig. 4.13 a) Relative frequency histogram of the standard deviation of the rebound index together with the best
goodness of fit probability density function (PDF), b) with the indication of sR = 2.5.
56
It can be realized that the sR = 2.5 value does not coincide either with the modus (= mode), or the
median (= 50th percentile), or the mean value, but rather corresponds to a p = 88.5% probability level (Fig.
13b). If one would estimate the probability distribution with a N (1.667, 0.75) normal distribution (for which
the goodness of fit is considerably weaker than that of the Dagum distribution) then the sR = 2.5 value would
correspond to a p = 86.7% probability level. The mean value is E[sR] = 1.667; the median value is m[sR] =
1.5; the mode value is Mo[sR] = 1.45; the 95% percentile value is v95[sR] = 3.1526; for the analysed range of
sR = 0.23 to 7.80. Value of sR = 2.5 exceeds the experimental values in 88.5% of the cases.
Next check is the analysis of the rebound index ranges (rR = Rmax Rmin) at 8342 test areas in the case of real
measurements (in which the number of in-situ test areas was 4785 and the number of laboratory test areas
was 3557). (Note that the analysis of the standard deviation of the rebound index in the previous paragraphs
is based on more test areas (8955) than that of the range of the rebound index (for that only 8342 test areas
were available). In the technical literature several references include only the average rebound index and the
standard deviation of the rebound index, without the publication of the individual rebound index readings. That
is the reason of the difference between the sizes of the examined database.) Fig. 4.14 indicates the empirical
probability histogram together with the best goodness of fit four-parameter Burr distribution corresponding to
the 8342 test areas. The parameters of the distribution function are as follows:
ab 1
r d
ab R
f(rR; a, b, c, d) c (Df: rR = 1 to 24) Eq. (4.2)
a 1
r d b
c1 R
c
One can again realize a strong positive skewness ( = 1.9432), and the median (= 50th percentile) for the
rebound index ranges at the test areas is found to be m[rR] = 4. The mean value is E[rR] = 4.8068 and the
mode value is Mo[rR] = 3.75. Considering the value of rR = 12 as of the ASTM C 805 proposal, a p = 98.7%
probability level can be determined. The rebound index range at a test area corresponding to the p = 95%
probability level as of the ASTM C 805 target is found to be v95[rR] = 9. The mean value is E[rR] = 4.8068; the
mode value is Mo[rR] = 3.75 for the analysed range of rR = 1 to 24.
f (r R), - b)
0,3
ab 1
0.28 - 0,28
r d
0,26 ab R
0.24 - c
(rR;a,b,c,d)
0,24
a 1
r d b
0,22
0.20 - 0,2
c1 R
0,18
c
0.16 - 0,16
f(x)
0,14
0.12 - 0,12
0,1
0.08 - 0,08
0,06
0.04 - 0,04
0,02
0-0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
2 4 6 8 10 12x 14 16 18 20 22 24
r R, -
Fig. 4.14 Relative frequency histogram of the range of rebound index readings together with the best goodness of
fit probability density function (PDF).
57
It can be concluded that the supposition of having normal probability distribution for both rR and sR should
be rejected; implications given in ASTM C 805 do not fit to empirical findings.
After the above statistical analyses that are only partly confirming the assumptions of ASTM C 805, the
next check can be the analysis of the assumption of ASTM C 670 that actually suggests the application of
the theory of standardized ranges ( = r/) for N(,1) normal probability distribution populations for the
determination of the multiplier applied to the maximum acceptable range (ASTM, 2003). One may realize
for the rebound hardness method (if 10 replicate readings are considered at each test area) that the
suggested value of the multiplier is k = 4.5 according to ASTM C 670, which is the one-digit round value of
the percentage point of the standardized range () for a sample of n = 10 from a N(,1) normal
probability distribution population corresponding to a cumulative probability of p = 95% ( = 4.474124;
see e.g Harter, 1960). The standardized ranges usually can not be applied for actual measurements as the
real standard deviation () is not known. Therefore, the studentized ranges ( = r/s) can be introduced for
N(,2) normal probability distribution populations for the selection of the multiplier applied to the
maximum acceptable range. Based on the number of the measured results an appropriate degree of
freedom () for the independent estimate s2 of 2 should be selected. For large samples () the
percentage point of the studentized range () approaches to the percentage point of the standardized
range (). Fig. 4.15 indicates the cumulative distribution function of the calculated studentized ranges
(R = rR/sR) corresponding to the 8342 test areas together with the percentage points of the standardized
ranges for n = 10 of N(,1) for cumulative probabilities of p = 0.01 % to 99.99% (based on Harter, 1960).
It is assumed for the present analysis that the comparison of the empirical studentized ranges (R) with the
standardized ranges () is acceptable due to the unusually large number of measured data. It can be
realized that the median (= 50th percentile) values are almost equal; for the empirical values of the
studentized ranges m[R] = 2.991 and for the standardized ranges by Harter (1960) m[] = 3.024202. It
is demonstrated in the technical literature that the probability distribution of the standardized ranges ()
has a positive skewness ( = 0.3975), therefore the mean value E[] does not equal to the median value,
but E[] = 3.077505 (Harter, 1960). The probability distribution of the empirical studentized ranges (R)
corresponding to the 8342 test areas, however, has a negative skewness ( = 0.26501), and the mean
value is E[R] = 2.9794. Fit of distributions resulted that a four-parameter Pearson VI distribution (also
referred in the literature as beta prime or inverse beta distribution) gives the best goodness of fit out of
more than 60 different types of distributions.
The parameters of the distribution function are as follows:
a 1
R d
c
f(R; a, b, c, d) = (Df: R = 0.555 to 4.786) Eq. (4.3)
a b
d
c B(a, b) 1 R
c
(a)(b)
where B(a,b) is the Euler Beta function,
(a b)
Fig. 4.15 clearly indicates the difference in the probability distributions of the percentage points of the
standardized ranges () by Harter (1960) and that of the empirical studentized ranges (R) corresponding
to the 8342 test areas. One can realize that at the cumulative probability level of p = 95% the difference is
considerable; v95[] = 4.474124 and v95[R] = 3.635.
58
As the selection of the analysed 8342 test areas was free of any filtering, it is assumed that a further
increase in the number of the data points would not result a better fit between the probability distributions
of the percentage points of the standardized ranges () and that of the empirical studentized ranges (R).
Based on the present comprehensive statistical analysis, the application of Table 1 of ASTM C 670 for the
rebound hardness method is suggested to be reconsidered.
F(R), F()
1,0
1.0
R
0,8
0.8
0,6
0.6
0,4
0.4
0,2
0.2
0
0,0
0 11 2 3 44 55 66 77
R, , -
Fig. 4.15 Cumulative probability distribution function (CDF) of the calculated studentized ranges (R = rR/sR)
corresponding to the 8342 test areas together with the standardized ranges for n = 10 of N (,1) for cumulative
probabilities of p = 0.01% to 99.99%.
The relative frequency histograms are constructed for the coefficient of variation of rebound index readings
based on the analysis of 8955 test areas (from which 4170 are laboratory and 4785 are in-situ test areas,
with total number of individual rebound index readings exceeding eighty thousand), as well. A strong
positive skewness is realized over the analyzed range ( = 2.2472 for the coefficient of variation) (Fig. 4.16).
The findings confirm that experimental data are available for the repeatability parameters of concrete
strength (Soroka, 1971; Shimizu et al, 2000). It was demonstrated in the literature based on an
extensive analysis of 10788 drilled core samples taken from 1130 existing reinforced concrete buildings
that the coefficient of variation of concrete strength had a lognormal probability distribution with strong
positive skewness, while normal probability distribution was found for the compressive strength itself
(conventional concretes were studied with compressive strength lower than 50 MPa; Shimizu et al, 2000).
Similar observation can be made considering the distributions of the standard deviation and the coefficient
of variation of concrete strength indicated earlier in Fig. 4.11.
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete are interrelated material properties, therefore, it
is expected that the probability distribution of the coefficient of variation of rebound index readings has a
positive skewness.
Goodness of fit analysis of sixty different probability distributions has demonstrated that the probability
distribution of the coefficient of variation (VR) of rebound index readings follows a three parameter Dagum
distribution (a = 2.2255; b = 3.1919; c = 2.7573), of which mean value is E[VR] = 4.4021%; the median
value is m[VR] = 3.8%; the mode value is Mo[VR] = 3.125%; the 95% percentile value is v95[VR] = 9.2132%;
for the analysed range of VR = 0.43% to 31.12% (Fig. 4.16). The parameters of the distribution function
are as follows:
59
ab 1
V
ab R
f(VR; a, b, c) c (Df: VR = 0.43% to 31.12%) Eq. (4.4)
a 1
V
b
c1 R
c
f (VR), -
0.28 - 0,28
0,26
b 1
0.24 - s
ab R
0,24
c
0,22
0.20 - 0,2
( VR;a,b,c) a 1
0,18
s b
0.16 - 0,16
c1 R
c
f(x)
0,14
0.12 - 0,12
0,1
0.08 - 0,08
0,06
0.04 - 0,04
0,02
0-0
-
-
5 10 15 20 25 30
5 10 15x 20 25 30
V R, -
Fig. 4.16 Relative frequency histogram of the coefficient variation of rebound index readings together with the best
goodness of fit probability density function (PDF).
Reliability analysis techniques mostly concentrate on the use of the coefficient of variation for taking into
account the variability of different material characteristics, rather than the standard deviation.
From a reliability analysis point of view one may practically select the coefficient of variation as the
parameter of repeatability for the rebound hammer test. For this purpose, however, the governing
parameters over the changes of the coefficient of variation are needed to be known.
The available database was analysed in this sense as well, with the selection of the following possible
influencing parameters: the water-cement ratios of the concretes, the age of the concretes, the cement
types used for the concretes, the testing conditions of the concretes (dry/wet), the carbonation depths
of the concretes and the impact energy of the rebound hammers (N-type original Schmidt hammer with
impact energy of 2207 Nmm or L-type original Schmidt hammer with impact energy of 735 Nmm).
For the analysis of the influence of the age of the concretes, 102 different concrete mixes were selected
mostly from own laboratory measurements, for which the development of the coefficient of variation was
possible to be followed in time. The age of the tested concretes was between 1 day and 240 days. The
measuring device was N-type original Schmidt hammer. The behaviour was found to be typically
independent from the concrete compositions, it was reasonable, therefore, to prepare a smeared, unified
response for all the 102 concrete mixes (Fig. 4.17).
60
VR, % V R, %
77 77
Adatsor4
CEM III /B 32.5 N-S
66 Adatsor3
CEM I 42.5 N
66
55
55
44
44
33
33 22
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 0 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
t, days t, days
Fig. 4.17 Influence of the age of concrete on the coefficient of variation of rebound index and
Fig. 4.18 Influence of the type of cement on the coefficient of variation of rebound index in time.
The following observations can be made. In the first 14 days a rapid decrease in the coefficient of variation
is measured (from ~6 %) that is attributed to the fast hydration process and the gradual drying of the
tested surfaces. A minimum is reached in the coefficient of variation (at ~4 %) at the age of 28 to 56
days. The reason is the decrease of the rate of hydration. Over 56 days of age a gradual increase is
observed in the coefficient of variation (to ~5 %) attributed to the more and more pronounced influence
of carbonation. The direct relationship between the depth of carbonation and the within-test coefficient of
variation of the rebound index is discussed later in this chapter.
The 102 concrete mixes selected for the above analysis made possible to analyse the influence of the
cement type on the repeatability parameters, as well. Nine cement types were studied (in accordance
with the designations used in EN 197-1 European Standard and MSZ 4737-1 Hungarian Standard): CEM I
32.5; CEM I 42.5 N; CEM I 42.5 N-S; CEM I 52.5; CEM II/A-S 42.5; CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; CEM II/B-M (V-L)
32.5 N; CEM III/A 32.5 N-MS; CEM III/B 32.5 N-S. The influence of the applied cements was visible and
robust (Fig. 4.18). It was found experimentally that the lowest coefficient of variation can be reached for
the rebound index with the use of CEM I type Portland cements (~ 3.5 %) over the studied period of
time. The coefficient of variation is increasing with decreasing the strength class of CEM I type Portland
cements (not illustrated in Fig. 4.18). The use of blended cements (CEM II) or slag cements (CEM III)
always resulted in higher coefficient of variation (~ 5.0 %) over the studied period of time, when
compared to reference mixes made with Portland cements (CEM I). Differentiation between the influences
of different hydraulic additives (fly ash to slag) for the blended cements (CEM II) or between the amount of
slag applied for the slag cements (CEM III) was not possible due to the limited data available. Future
research is needed in this field.
The influence of the water-cement ratio was possible to be studied for six types of cements by the
analysis of the results of 93 different concrete mixes. The range of the studied water-cement ratios was
w/c = 0.35 to w/c = 0.65. It was realized, that the coefficient of variation of the rebound index
becomes lower if the water-cement ratio is decreased while all other concrete technology parameters
(including compacting) are kept constant (Fig. 4.19). 1-10 % differences can be realized between the
coefficients of variation of rebound index corresponding to different water-cement ratios, depending on
the age of concrete and impact energy of the device.
61
V R, % VR, %
18
18 18
18
a) b)
16
16 16
16
w/c = 0.65
Adatsor1 Adatsor2
w/c = 0.65
14
14 w/c = 0.50 14
14
Adatsor2 Adatsor1
w/c = 0.50
12
12 Adatsor3
w/c = 0.40 12 Adatsor3
w/c = 0.40
12
10
10 10
10
88 88
66 66
44 44
22 22
00 00
0 50
50 100
100 150
150 200 250
250 0
0 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250
t, days t, days
Fig. 4.19 Influence of the water-cement ratio and the impact energy a) 735 Nmm, b) 2207 Nmm on the coefficient of
variation of rebound index in time.
As mentioned above, the carbonation was found to have a more pronounced influence on the repeatability of
the rebound hammer tests on mature concretes, therefore, a targeted analysis was performed on mature
concrete specimens the age of which was 2 to 5 years during testing. 30 different mixes of concretes were
selected for the analysis with the range of compressive strength of 42.6 MPa to 91.7 MPa. It was
demonstrated that the coefficient of variation of the rebound index is higher for higher depths of carbonation
(Fig. 4.20). The measured depths of carbonation were found to be between 2.2 mm to 22.8 mm, and the
corresponding coefficients of variation of rebound index readings were ~3 % and ~8 %, respectively.
VR, %
12
12
10
10
88
66
44
22
00
00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25
x c, mm
Fig. 4.20 Coefficient of variation of rebound index vs. average depth of carbonation.
It was found during earlier in-situ testing experiences on clay masonry structures that the within-test
standard deviation and the within-test coefficient of variation of the rebound index is very sensitive to the
impact energy, therefore, a comparative study was performed on concretes using L-type and N-type
original Schmidt hammers to reveal the existence of this influence for concretes as well. CEM 42.5 N
62
type cement was selected and w/c = 0.40 0.50 0.65 water-cement ratios were applied for the
same aggregate mix. In the concretes both the cement paste content and the consistency was set to be
constant. The age of the test specimens was 3 to 240 days. It was demonstrated also for concretes
that both the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation of the rebound index is very sensitive to
the applied impact energy before the age of 56 days. The scatter of results is greater corresponding to
the lower impact energy (can reach up to 12 %). Experiments showed that the differences become more
balanced and seem to disappear at ages over 56 days (Fig. 4.19a and b).
An extensive statistical analysis of the variability of concrete rebound hardness parameters has been
made based on a large database of 60 years laboratory and in-situ experience. The following
observations can be highlighted.
It was demonstrated that an observational reading error exists in the rebound index readings due to the
design of the scale of the device. The observational error can be considerable in particular cases. It is
not demonstrated yet if the observational error may result bias of the rebound index data. It is
suggested that a simple development of the testing device may eliminate the operator observational
error: a scale of the index rider would be needed that indicates both even and odd values rather than
only even values as it is the case for the original design.
It was demonstrated by normality tests that the precision of the original N-type Schimdt hammer is
superior to original L-type or Silver-Schmidt N-type hammers for concrete. Lower precision of the L-type
original Schmidt hammer and of the Silver-Schmidt hammer is due to the lighter hammer masses
impacting within both devices and the inferior sensitivity of to the electro-optical recording (Silver-
Schmidt hammer).
It was demonstrated that the within-test variation (repeatability) parameters of the rebound hardness
method have similar tendency to that of the within-test variation parameters of concrete strength; i.e. no
clear tendency is found in the standard deviation over the average and a clear decreasing tendency can
be observed in the coefficient of variation by the increasing average. ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report
implications contradict to these results, therefore, the within-test variation statements in ACI 228.1R-03
are suggested to be reconsidered.
It was demonstrated that the probability distribution of the within-test standard deviation of the rebound
index as well as of the rebound index ranges of individual test areas do not follow the normal
distribution, but both has a strong positive skewness. ASTM C 805 implications can not fit to these
findings, therefore the statements in ASTM C 805 about the values of the standard deviation and the
range of rebound indices are suggested to be reconsidered.
It was demonstrated for the rebound indices that the probability distribution of the standardized ranges
and that of the empirical studentized ranges are different and their values are about to be equal only at
their mean value levels. At 95% probability level the difference is unacceptably high, therefore, the
application of Table 1 of ASTM C 670 for the rebound hardness method is suggested to be reconsidered.
It was demonstrated that the within-test coefficient of variation of the rebound index is influenced by the
water-cement ratio of the concrete, the age of the concrete, the cement type used for the concrete, the
carbonation depth of the concrete and the impact energy of the rebound hammer.
63
4.2 Modelling of rebound hardness
The hardness testing devices have been developed for in-situ testing of concrete based on the observation
that the surface hardness of concrete can be related to the compressive strength of concrete.
Aim of rebound hammer tests is usually to find a relationship between surface hardness and compressive
strength of concrete with an acceptable error. The existence of only empirical relationships was
considered in the earliest publications (Anderson et al, 1955; Kolek, 1958) and also recently (Bungey et al,
2006; Kausay, 2013).
In the followings a survey is given regarding the empirical relationships found by several researchers for
concrete strength estimation in the last 60 years.
The available proposals are results of simple, univariate regression analyses of rebound surface hardness
vs. compressive strength relationship of concrete.
Due to space limitations only 40 of the formulae is summarized in Table 4.5, however, more than 60 can
be found in the technical literature. Formulae are usually given in their original form but the notation is
unified. Data is given in a graphical representation in Fig. 4.21 with a correction to provide results for
150 mm standard cubes. For the sake of better visualization results are separated by their relation to
the B-Proceq estimation curve (that is recommended by Proceq SA for the original Schmidt rebound
hammers of N-type; Proceq, 2003) as follows:
Proposal curves running continuously above the curve B-Proceq (Fig. 4.21a),
Proposal curves running continuously below the curve B-Proceq (Fig. 4.21b),
Proposal curves intersecting the curve B-Proceq coming from below (Fig. 4.21c),
Proposal curves intersecting the curve B-Proceq coming from above (Fig. 4.21d).
Composition of the proposed empirical relationships can be summarized as follows (in which fcm is the
estimated mean compressive strength; R is the rebound index; an are empirical values):
linear relationships:
fcm = a + bR,
power function relationships:
fcm = a + bRc,
polynomial relationships:
fcm = a + bR + cR2 + + nRm,
exponential relationships:
fcm = a + becR,
logarithm relationships:
loga(fcm) = b + loga(R),
nonlinear relationships:
fcm = (R).
Results summarized are published for 28 to 365 days of age, conventional, normal-weight concretes
stored under air dry moisture condition.
64
Table 4.5 Rebound surface hardness vs. compressive strength relationships.
65
37) fcm,150,cube 0.788 R1.03 (N/mm2) Nasht et al (2005)
38) fcm,150,cube 2.1683 R 27.747 (N/mm ) 2
Hobbs, Kebir (2006)
39) fcm,cyl 1.623 R 20.547 (N/mm ) 2
Soshiroda et al (2006)
40) fcm,core 1.25 R 23.0 (20 R 24) (N/mm ) 2
EN 13791 (2007)
fcm,core 1.73 R 34.5 (24 R 50) (N/mm ) 2
10
10 10
10
00 00
20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
rebound index rebound index
Fig. 4.21 Rebound surface hardness vs. compressive strength relationships according to Table 4.5.
Based on the published Rm - fcm relationships the following observations can be made:
Numerous empirical relationships between compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete are
available in the technical literature, but usually based on very simple laboratory tests, i.e. mainly univariate
regression curves are available. Only a few extensive studies can be found that consider multiple
influencing parameters together with detailed parameter analysis.
The most accepted function form is the power function.
It is also worth mentioning that several linear estimations can be found among the proposals. This result
contradicts the considerations introduced in Chapter 2.10 and calls the attention to the fact that linear
estimation can provide the best-fit regression if the strength range is chosen to be narrow in the experiments.
Rigorous experiments were always resulted in nonlinear relationships since the very begin-ing of tests by
the rebound hammer (Schmidt, 1951; Gaede, 1952; Greene, 1954; Chefdeville, 1955; Zoldners, 1957;
Kolek, 1958; Brunarski, 1963; Gaede, Schmidt, 1964; Granzer, 1970; Talabr, Jzsa, Borjn, 1979 etc.).
66
Concrete strength estimation for a given rebound index is found to be published in a 40 to 60 N/mm2
wide range, i.e. it is possible to find estimated strengths for different concretes with 40 to 60 N/mm2
strength differences corresponding to the same rebound index (Fig. 4.22).
Results clearly demonstrate that the validity of a particular proposal should be restricted to the testing
conditions and the extension of the validity to different types of concretes or testing circumstances is
impossible.
The Rm - fcm basic curve suggested by the current European Standard testing practice (EN 13791:2007)
does not always give a conservative estimation, in certain cases a negative shift of 6-8 N/mm2 would be
needed (which cannot occur according to the standard).
The diversity of the numerous empirical proposals (Fig. 4.22) that can be found in the technical literature
needs to be explained and implies the need of the two- or more variable regression techniques to reveal
the most important influences on the hardness behaviour.
100
100 100
100
80
80 80
80
60
60 60
60
B-Proceq
40
40 40
40
EN 13791
20
20 20
20
0 0
20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50
R (t), - R (t), -
Fig. 4.22 Overall range of the available rebound surface hardness vs. compressive strength relationships.
It can be concluded based on an extensive literature review after studying the results of more than
150 literature references as well as on own laboratory and in-situ test results that it is not possible to
find and during the last more than 60 years it did not happen a single univariate function between the
compressive strength and rebound index that would provide an Rm - fcm or an fcm - Rm relationship with a
confidence interval suitable for engineering applications.
It can be observed in the technical literature that the assumed direct relationship between compressive
strength and rebound index is tend to be given as the regression curve of a heteroscedastic (i.e.
increasing standard deviation in strength (Y variable) for increasing rebound index (X variable)) data set as it
was introduced in Chapter 2.10. In many cases, these functions are developed by linear regression, while
the linear regression should be strictly applied only for homoscedastic data fields (i.e. constant standard
deviation of the dependent variable). Such way of representation of the relationship between compressive
strength and rebound index is questionable in many aspects, as no causal connection exists between the
independent and the dependent variable. Both properties are results of the same influencing parameters.
67
nyomszilrdsg,
f c (t), N/mm 2 fc (t), N/mm2
90
90
90
70
70
70
50
50
50
30
30
30
It is empirical evidence that the standard deviation of the concrete compressive strength depends on the
quality of the concreting work, and does not depend on the average compressive strength (see Fig. 4.11).
That is, the magnitude of standard deviation of strength for concretes of different compressive strengths
which are manufactured with the same care, is expected to be equal.
If a direct relationship is assumed between compressive strength and rebound index, the observation of
the heteroscedastic data set can not be accounted for the standard deviation of the strength. If it is also
taken into consideration that in practice the quality control during the manufacturing of higher strength
concretes is typically stricter than that of the lower strength concretes, then an observation would be
expected that the standard deviation of the strength is not increasing, but on the contrary, decreasing.
It is also empirical evidence that there is a relationship between the surface hardness and carbonation
depth (the depth up to which the CO2 content of the air diffuses into the capillary pores of concrete and
turns part of the portlandite into limestone causing a decrease of the pH value to 8.3) of concrete: the
development of the carbonation results higher surface hardness. The gas permeability of the lower
strength concretes is higher (greater carbonation depth) while the gas permeability of the higher
strength concretes is lower (smaller carbonation depth), during the same period of time.
Considering the above, the representation of the measured values as data points of the same population
would logically predict the formation of a data field which has an opposite appearance to the
heteroscedastic one (indicated in Fig. 4.23). The apparent heteroscedastic scatter of R(t) fc(t) data
fields frequently found in the technical literature needs more analyses.
Gaede and Schmidt (1964) have studied the performance of the rebound hammer in details and derived
a model that provided estimation with acceptable accuracy and was fit to experimental data in a
practical way. Unfortunately, the model did not provide the general theory since the Brinell hardness of
concrete was covered in the parameters applied to the model. For the Brinell hardness of cementitious
materials very limited data have been published and neither acceptable relationships with strength nor
accurate theory for the indentation hardness of porous solids is available in the technical literature.
Future work is needed in this field.
68
4.2.4 Introduction of the phenomenological model
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete are depending on several parameters (e.g. type
of cement, amount of cement, type of aggregate, amount of aggregate, compaction of structural concrete,
method of curing, quality of concrete surface, age of concrete, carbonation depth in the concrete, moisture
content of concrete, mass of the structural element, temperature and state of stress) therefore, univariate
regression between hardness and strength may lead to completely misleading results and can hide the real
driver of the relationship.
The primary factor that governs the characteristics of cementitious materials is porosity. It was found
experimentally that the evolution of porosity in concrete can be described reasonably well by the gel-space
ratio (Powers, Brownyard, 1947). It is necessary to know the degree of hydration in the hardened cement
paste by working with gel-space ratio, therefore, the water-cement ratio (w/c) is a much more practical
measure for the porosity of concrete (Neville, 1995). For practical purposes it can be accepted that the
water-cement ratio (w/c) determines the capillary porosity of a properly compacted concrete at any degree
of hydration (Mindess, Young, 1981). As a consequence, strength and related properties of concrete can
be accepted to depend primarily on the water-cement ratio as it was realized more than 100 years ago
(Feret, 1892; Abrams, 1918). Surface hardness of concrete is also considerably influenced by the water-
cement ratio in addition to the modulus of elasticity of the aggregate particles (which is usually considered
to be constant in time). Hydration of clinker minerals in the hardened cement paste makes the per se
heterogeneous concrete to be a material with time dependent properties. Based on this general
behavioural scheme, a phenomenological model can be formulated for the surface hardness of concrete
being a time dependent material property.
The following observations can be summarised for hardened concrete in view of the water-cement ratio
and the age of concrete according to own experimental results as well as technical literature data:
average compressive strength of concretes of 28 days of age can be formulated for different
cement types as exponential functions of the water-cement ratio (e.g. Ujhelyi, 2005),
average compressive strength of concretes at any age can be formulated in a simplified way
(i.e. independently of the water-cement ratio) for different cement types as exponential functions
of the average compressive strength of concretes at 28 days of age (e.g. CEB-FIP Model Code
1990); in fact, the strength development of concretes depends on the water-cement ratio (e.g.
Washa et al, 1975),
carbonation depth of concretes at any age can be formulated in a simplified way as functions of
age, water-cement ratio and type of cement (e.g. Papadakis et al, 1992),
rebound hardness development in time for identical composition concretes stored under
identical conditions can be formulated (e.g. Kim et al, 2009),
relationships between the rebound hardness and the depth of carbonation of concretes can be
formulated (e.g. JGJ, 2001),
relationships between the rebound hardness and the compressive strength of concretes can be
formulated for concretes of the same age that are prepared with identical cements and stored
under identical conditions.
The existence of a series of multivariate functions can be hypothesized based on the above findings
which functions can give an explicit relationship between the average rebound index Rm(t) and average
compressive strength fcm(t) of concrete of arbitrary age. The independent variables of the functions are
the degree of hydration for the cement paste (that is determined by the water-cement ratio, the age, the
69
type of cement and the curing/environmental conditions), and variables accounting for the amount of the
cement and the aggregate, the degree of compaction and the testing conditions.
Next chapters demonstrate that a series of multivariate functions can be constructed which give an
explicit relationship between the average rebound index Rm(t) and the average compressive strength of
concrete fcm(t). It is demonstrated that a simplified version can be a series of bivariate functions with two
independent variables: the water-cement ratio and the age of concrete. It is demonstrated by a
parametric simulation that the model is robust and suitable to describe experimental results. The
verification of the model is shown by a laboratory test of 864 concrete cubes made of two cement types
(CEM I 42.5 N and CEM III/B 32.5 N), with a range of water-cement ratio of 0.38 to 0.60 and age of
concrete at testing of t = 7 to 180 days.
The model covers the empirical material laws of the relationship between water-cement ratio and
compressive strength at the age of 28 days; the development of compressive strength in time; the
relationship between compressive strength and the rebound index at the age of 28 days; the development
of carbonation depth of concrete in time; the influence of carbonation depth of concrete on the rebound
index.
The generation scheme of the model as well as the symbolic shapes of the individual functions given by
Eq. (4.5) to Eq. (4.9) can be studied in Fig. 4.24.
R 28 w /c t
starting point 28d ti
E) D)
xc xc
Eq. (4.9) ti
Eq. (4.8)
R (t) /R28 w /c
A) The compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days can be described by an exponential
function of the water-cement ratio (Eq. 4.5).
70
fc,28 a1 exp a 2 ( w / c) a3 Eq. (4.5)
with
a1 > 1
a2 < 0
0 < a3 < 1
B) The development of the compressive strength of concrete with time can be followed by an
exponential function of time (Eq. 4.6).
with
0 < a4 < 1
0 < a5 < 1
and both parameter a4 and a5 is a function of w/c
C) An empirical relationship of a power function can be assumed between the strength of concrete and
the rebound index at the age of 28 days (Eq. 4.7).
D) The development of the carbonation depth in concrete with time can be described by models based
on Ficks law of diffusion (Eq. 4.8).
with
0 < a8 < 1
0 < a9 < 1
0 < a10 < 1
E) Carbonation of concrete results an increase in the surface hardness that can be assumed to be
modelled by a power function of the carbonation depth (Eq. 4.9).
1
Rt R 28 Eq. (4.9)
1 a11 x c a12
with
a11 < 0
a12 > 0
71
The model can provide corresponding compressive strength, fc(t) and rebound index, R(t) values for any
water-cement ratio at any age of concrete (t).
A typical fc(t) vs. R(t) relationship is represented in Fig. 4.25. The output of the model is a set of curves
corresponding to different water-cement ratios at different ages of the concrete. It should be noted that the
shape and curvature of the individual curves are depending on the actual values of the twelve empirical
constants a1 to a12 covered in Eqs. (4.5) to (4.9) and Fig. 4.25 indicates a possible general case.
t1
(w/c ) 2
(w/c ) 1 R (t)
Fig. 4.25 Typical schematic fc(t) vs. R(t) response as an output of the model: a set of curves corresponding to
different water-cement ratios at different ages of the concrete.
It can be realized that the developed phenomenological model provides a reasonable depiction of the
surface hardness of concrete as a time dependent material property, based on known concrete
technological data. It should be also noted that the model gives a clear explanation for the experimental
findings about the apparent heteroscedastic behaviour of the rebound index vs. compressive strength
data pairs. The model calls the attention that the graphical representation of these results should not be
carried out by the simplifying assumption that concretes of different water-cement ratios and different
ages provide data being in the same population. It can be clearly seen that the simplification could result
misleading representation and the influencing parameters should be separated in the graphical
visualization as it is suggested by the model.
The present chapter gives a parametric simulation for the model. Empirical formulations are selected
from the technical literature for the generating functions of the model as follows.
The simplest exponential formulation of the compressive strength of concrete as a function of the water-
cement ratio was suggested by Abrams (1918) in the form of:
It can be demonstrated that the formula given by Eq. (4.10) can not be fitted to the experimental data
available for different cement types, therefore an improvement of the formulation was suggested; see
Eq. (4.10) (Ujhelyi, Popovics, 2006).
72
For present parametric simulation the empirical formula of Ujhelyi (2005) is applied to the exponential
function between the compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days vs. the water-cement ratio
for CEM I 42.5 N and Eq. (4.10) is rewritten as:
Development of the compressive strength in time depends on the type of cement and the water-cement
ratio (Washa, 1975; Wood, 1991). Models available usually neglect the influence of the water-cement
ratio. For the parametric simulation the proposal of the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993) is
selected for the development of compressive strength in time, neglecting the influence of the water-
cement ratio:
Rebound index vs. compressive strength relationships at the age of 28 days are generally non-linear. For
the parametric simulation the proposal of Proceq SA (manufacturer of the original Schmidt rebound
hammers) (Proceq, 2003) is selected for the rebound index vs. compressive strength relationships at
the age of 28 days:
1.952
fc,28 3.07 10 -2 R 28 [N/mm2] Eq. (4.13)
The hardened cement paste in concrete reacts chemically with carbon dioxide (CO2). The amount of CO2
present in the atmosphere is sufficient to cause considerable reaction with the hardened cement paste
over a long period of time. The chemical reaction is referred as carbonation, whenever the hydrated lime
content of the hardened cement paste turns to limestone by the chemical reaction with CO2. Rate of
carbonation depends on the relative humidity and was found to be greatest around 50% RH (Neville, 1995).
Development of the depth of carbonation in concrete with time can be described reasonably well by
models based on Ficks law of diffusion. For the parametric simulation the model of Papadakis et al (1992)
is selected for the carbonation depth of concrete. Its generalized form for the development of the
carbonation depth in time is:
0.50
w c 0.30 23.8 6
x c 0.35 c f (RH) 1 c w c c a c CCO2 10 t [mm] Eq. (4.14)
c 1000 a 44
1 wc
1000
In Eq. (9) the parameter f (RH) can be taken according to the results of Matouek (1977). If one accepts
f (65% RH) = 0.45, CCO2 = 800 mg/m3, c = 3150 kg/m3 and a = 2650 kg/m3 then Eq. (4.14) can be
simplifed and rearranged and can be rewritten as:
Limits of use of application for Eq. (4.15) are 0.35 < w/c < 0.65 and 4.50 < a/c < 6.50. It means that
cement content c = 290 kg/m3 to 420 kg/m3 is to be assumed. For different relative humidity (RH 65%)
and CO2 concentrations Eq. (4.14) applies.
73
Surface hardness of concrete can be considerably changed by carbonation (Kim et al, 2009). Therefore, the
influence of carbonation should be taken into account in the evaluation of rebound surface hardness tests. For
the parametric simulation the proposal of the Chinese Standard JGJ/T23-2001 is selected for the influence of
carbonation depth on rebound index (JGJ, 2001):
1
Rt R 28 Eq. (4.16)
1 0.067 x c
1.0
fc (t), N /mm2
90
90
80
80
70
70
w /c
60 56.0
60 0.35
0.35
0.40
0.40
50
50 0.50
0.50
40 0.60
0.60
40 0.70
0.70
30
30 180d 365d
56d 90d
28d 48.1
20
20
35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50 55
55 60
60
R (t),
It can be realized that the model gives a realistic formulation for the time dependent behaviour of the rebound
surface hardness of concrete. It can be clearly observed that the consideration of the data points as one
group of data would not be acceptable; however, an appropriate selection of the parameters can generate a
transparent and reliable series of curves that follow the actual material response.
Fig. 4.27 demonstrates the practical application of the model for the experimental data introduced in
Chapter 4.3. In the representation only those average data points are covered which correspond to 14 - 28 -
56 - 90 - 240 days of age at testing, because the test specimens (150 mm cubes) were stored under water
for 7 days, therefore, the carbonation was possible only when the specimens contacted the air during storing
at laboratory conditions.
74
The curve fitting resulted in the following empirical responses instead of Eqs. (4.11) to (4.16). Details of the
experimental verification of the model are given in next chapter.
1.739
fc,28 11.04 10 -2 R 28 [N/mm2] Eq. (4.13*)
1
Rt R 28 Eq. (4.16*)
1 n x Nc
where
n 3.68( w c) 5.07 Eq. (4.16a*)
f c(t), N/mm2
90
90
80
80
70
70
w/c
60
60 Adatsor3
0.40
Adatsor2
0.50
Adatsor1
0.65
50
50 56d
90d 240d
Adatsor4
model
28d
40
40 14d
30
30
25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50 55
55
R(t),
The experimental programme (see Chapter 3.3) made possible a detailed verification study to be carried out
on a wide range of compressive strengths and ages of concrete at testing. Typical results are introduced in
Fig. 4.28 corresponding to concrete specimens prepared with CEM I 42.5 N cement. Fig. 4.28 represents
test results for only 104 specimens. The following observations can be emphasized:
1) An apparently coherent population of data is resulted if one does not differentiate water-cement ratios and
ages of concrete in the graphical representation of test data (Fig. 4.28a). A completely misleading trend of
results is realized and an apparent power function or exponential function relationship can be the output of a
regression analysis (usually with considerably good correlation coefficients that may further ratify the
misleading direction of the analysis).
75
In Fig. 4.28a 52 data points are indicated as the pair-averages of the 104 specimens (covering
9 different water-cement ratios and 6 different ages of concrete at testing). Regression curve of an
exponential function is also indicated. The correlation coefficient was found to be r2 = 0.84 for this false
relationship.
2) A heteroscedastic behaviour of the rebound index vs. compressive strength data pairs is realized if one
does not differentiate water-cement ratios and ages of concrete in the graphical representation of test data
(Fig. 4.28a). It can be studied in Fig. 4.28a that the distance between the lower and upper limit curves
corresponding to the increasing rebound index values is increasing with the increase of R(t) that can result
the heteroscedasticity (i.e. increasing standard deviation in strength for increasing rebound index).
3) The real performance appears only if one separates the rebound index vs. compressive strength data
pairs by the water-cement ratio (Fig. 4.28b). For the sake of better visualisation only 4 curves are
represented in Fig. 4.28b from the 9 different water-cement ratios studied. It can be realized that the
apparently coherent population of data comes loose to separate monotonic curves for the different
water-cement ratios.
4) It can be seen in the real performance that rebound index vs. compressive strength relationships are
sensitive (but not uniformly) to the water-cement ratio applied (Fig. 4.28b). The gradients and directions
of the responses clearly indicate the influence of the capillary pores of different water-cement ratios on
the strength development and carbonation depth development differences. It can be postulated that the
water-cement ratio dependent strength development and carbonation depth development behaviour of
concretes gives the complete explanation of the observed results. Results of the verification study
confirmed that the most significant influencing parameters are the water-cement ratio, the type of
cement and the age of the concrete. The cement content, the aggregate content, the cement paste
content and further parameters have much less pronounced influences; as it was presumed.
5) The application of the model is reasonable for the rebound index vs. compressive strength data
(Fig. 4.28c). A suitable fit of the empirical parameters of the model can result an acceptable numerical
reproduction of any experimental data. The detailed verification study demonstrated the applicability of
the model for CEM I 42.5 N and CEM III/B 32.5 N on a wide range of water-cement ratios and ages of
concrete at testing (additional cement types were also studied, but not on a wide range of water-cement
ratio, see Appendix C).
60
60 60
60 60
60
50
50 50
50 50
50
40
40 40
40 40
40
34
34 38
38 42
42 46
46 50
50 54
54 34
34 38
38 42
42 46
46 50
50 54
54 34
34 38
38 42
42 46
46 50
50 54
54
R (t), - R (t), - R (t), -
Fig. 4.28 Experimental verification of the model on concrete cube specimens prepared with CEM I 42.5 N cement
a) data in non-separated representation, b) data separated by the applied water-cement ratios, c) data represented
together with the fitted model.
76
The model also provides a clear understanding of the rebound surface hardness of concrete as a time
dependent material property.
In Fig. 4.29a satisfying correlation can be realized between the experimentally measured compressive
strength values and the calculated compressive strength values, as well as the experimentally measured
rebound index values and the calculated rebound index values provided by the model. The parameters of
the model are fitted to the parameters of the experiments.
80
80 50
50
70
70 45
45
60
60 40
40
50
50 35
35
40
40 30
30
30
30 25
25
30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45 50
50 55
55
f c,measured (t), N/mm2 Rc measured(t), -
Fig. 4.29 Correlation between the measured compressive strength values and rebound indices and the calculated
strength values and rebound indices,
a) and b) with the results of the verification tests, cement type: CEM I 42.5
c) and d) with results of the targeted experiments (see. next chapter), cement type: CEM I 42.5.
The composition of the introduced phenomenological model made visible the hidden governing parameters
of the relationship between hardness and strength. Beyond strength and related properties the surface
hardness of concrete was also found to be primarily governed by the water-cement ratio. It was also
77
confirmed that the excessive carbonation of low strength concretes has a considerable influence on the
measured rebound index.
The graphical representation of the relationship between surface hardness and strength provided by the
model is a series of curves which initial tangents are increasing with decreasing water-cement ratio.
The rebound surface hardness behaviour of concrete can be understood based on the model, if curves
at extreme positions are studied. The curve of a very low strength concrete tends to be an almost
constant function (with very small tangent), in turn, a high strength concrete results a function with an
almost infinite tangent. The relationship with a small tangent would indicate increasing hardness with
limited increase of strength in time. A very steep relationship related to the high strength concrete shows
strength increment while no increase of hardness can be observed (some experimental results on high-
strength concrete demonstrated almost a vertical relationship). This latter relationship implies that the
strength estimation of high strength concrete by the rebound hammer is of concern. This observation
supports the findings of the targeted time dependent experiments related to the high strength concrete
as it is shown in Chapter 4.3.1.
To explain the change in the tangents of the curves according to the water-cement ratio needs further
research and analyses, as well as the twelve empirical constants should be fine-tuned to describe the
realistic rebound surface hardness behaviour. However, it can be postulated at this point that the impact
energy could be fitted to a range of one or two strength classes to ensure a necessary amount of inelastic
energy absorption under the tip of the testing device. A curve of an intermediate tangent would indicate a
proportional increase of strength with rebound surface hardness implying that the strength estimation is
possible. The spring accelerated hammer mass of the original design rebound hammers was adjusted to
provide adequate impact energy to result inelastic deformation in the tested concrete of which strength
was much lower at the time of its development than the strength of concretes nowadays used in concrete
construction.
The technical literature indicates that elastic properties play a very important role in the assessment of
hardness for rubber-like materials, however, for metals the deformation is predominantly outside the elastic
range and involves mostly plastic properties (Fischer-Cripps, 2007).
Plastic deformation is normally associated with ductile materials (e.g. metals). Brittle materials (e.g.
concrete) generally exhibit elastic behaviour, and fracture occurs at higher deformations rather than plastic
yielding. Pseudo-plastic deformation is observed in brittle materials beneath the point of an indenter, but it
is a result of densification, where the material undergoes a phase change as a result of the high value of
compressive stress in a restrained deformation field beneath the indenter (Swain, Hagan, 1976). The
softening fashion of the pseudo-plastic material response with increasing volume of the material is
considerably different from that can happen to metals during plastic deformation (where the volume of the
material is unchanged during yielding) (Tabor, 1951).
During dynamic hardness measurements the inelastic properties of concrete may be as important as the
elastic properties due to the softening fashion of the material response.
The value of the rebound index depends on energy losses due to friction during acceleration and rebound
of the hammer mass and that of the index rider, energy losses due to dissipation by reflections and
attenuation of mechanical waves inside the steel plunger; and of course, energy losses due to dissipation
by concrete crushing under the tip of the plunger.
The experimental programme of the targeted experiments was detailed in Chapter 3.3.
78
4.3.1 Role of strength and stiffness in surface hardness
Comparison of the relative values of the rebound hardness and related mechanical properties
(compressive strength and Youngs modulus) of concrete (represented as values related to a value of a
particular age) may promote to find a relationship between the rebound hardness and a particular
mechanical property. A close correlation can be supposed between two material properties if the
development in time of their relative values is identical or very similar. The measures of the rebound
hardness testing devices are supposed to be sensitive not only to the strength but also to the stiffness of
the concrete and influenced by the impact energy of the device.
In Fig. 4.29 the relative values (referring to the values obtained at the age of 7 days) of all tested parameters
are represented in time. Variation of a hardness parameter in time and time dependency of compressive
strength and Youngs modulus can be compared.
Results demonstrated that all studied properties seem to depend on the water-cement ratio if they are
represented in time.
1,4
1.4
1,2
1.2
1.01 fcf c
EE c
Leeb
HL
0,8
0.8 RNRN
RLRL
0.6
0,6
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250
t, days
Fig 4.29 Relative values of the tested parameters in the function of time.
79
It was demonstrated that the development of the relative value of rebound indices of L- and N-type Schmidt
rebound hammers in time approach the development of the relative value of compressive strength in time
for high water-cement ratio (w/c = 0.65), and approach the development of Youngs modulus in time for
low water-cement ratio (w/c = 0.40), independently of the age of concrete at testing. For medium water-
cement ratio (w/c = 0.50) an intermediate trend is observed.
It was demonstrated that the development of the Leeb hardness in time coincide the development of
Youngs modulus of concrete in time (related to the value of either 7 or 28 days of age), over the complete
range of the tested water-cement ratios (w/c = 0.40 0.65), independently of the age of concrete at
testing.
Fig. 4.29 clearly shows that the different surface hardness methods result different material responses,
therefore, different material properties can be estimated by their surface hardness measures. In the case
of the Leeb Hardness, HL measurements very low impact energy is introduced to the tested surface and
the material response mostly governed by the elastic properties of the tested material. Indeed, it can be
realized in the graphical representation that the Leeb Hardness, HL values in time coincides exactly with
the Youngs modulus of concrete in time, on a wide range of compressive strength, and independently of
the applied water-cement ratio or age at testing.
The Schmidt rebound hammers apply much higher impact energy (both the L-type and the N-type devices)
than the Wolpert Leeb hardness tester, therefore, the material response can be inelastic in a much more
pronounced way; highly depending on both the actual strength and stiffness of the concrete. Present
results clearly demonstrated that the impact energy of the Schmidt rebound hammers can result a pseudo-
plastic response in the case of high water-cement ratio (i.e. low concrete compressive strength). One can
realize in Fig. 4.29a that the represented RL and RN rebound index developments in time both coincide
exactly with the compressive strength development in time, independently of the age at testing. Present
results also revealed that the impact energy of the Schmidt rebound hammers can result a mostly elastic
material response in the case of low water-cement ratio (i.e. high concrete compressive strength). It can
be realized in Fig. 4.29c that the represented RL and RN rebound index developments in time both coincide
rather well with the Youngs modulus development in time, independently of the age at testing. For the
medium strength concretes an intermediate behaviour can be seen in Fig. 4.29b.
In the technical literature the role of cement type in the development of compressive strength (i.e. compressive
strength values at a certain age related to the value obtained at 28 days of age) is highlighted and widely
accepted (e.g. CEB, 1993).
It is not fundamental evidence, however, that the development of compressive strength of concretes depends
on the water-cement ratio. Researchers generally do not focus on the possible influence of the water-cement
ratio and do not evaluate compressive strength results in this sense. In short-term (<3 years) studies the results
corresponding to concrete mixes of different water-cement ratios are usually not clear. The effect of water-
cement ratio is not obvious and can not be declared. Although some influence is visible, but it is not significant
(the differences between the curves corresponding to different water-cement ratios are within the scatter of the
compressive strength results) and even not consequent.
After studying the compressive strength values available in my own database (Fig. 4.30) and in the technical
literature it was realized that they are usually results of short-term experimental programmes. It encouraged me
to investigate what could be observed if long-term results are available.
80
f cm ( t ) / fcm ,28d a) f cm ( t ) / fcm ,28d b)
1,6
1.6
1,4
1.4
1,4
1.4
1.2
1,2 1,2
1.2
w/c
1,0
1.0 w/c
0,66
0.66 1,0
1.0 0,6
0.60
0,8
0.8 0,61
0.60 0,55
0.55
0,54
0.54 0,5
0.50
0,6
0.6 0,49 0,8
0.8
0.49 0,45
0.45
0,4
0.4 0,46
0.46 0,4125
0.41
0,6
0.6 0,375
0.38
0.2
0,2
0
0,0 0,4
0.4
0 30
30 60
60 90
90 120
120 150
150 180
180 0 30
30 60
60 90
90 120
120 150
150 180
180
t, days t, days
Fig 4.30 Compressive strength of concrete in time related to the values obtained at 28 days of age,
type of cement is a) CEM I 42.5 and b) CEM III/B 32.5 (own short-term results).
It was possible to find some references that are based on long-term (20 to 50 years) laboratory tests and the
expected behaviour was able to be studied.
It is demonstrated by the analysis of long-term (20 to 50 years) laboratory tests found in the technical literature
(Washa, Wendt, 1975; Wood, 1991) that the development of the relative compressive strength of concretes
depends both on the applied cement type and the water-cement ratio. The effect of water-cement ratio can be
clearly observed in Fig. 4.31 and Fig. 4.32. The suggestions of CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993) which
neglect the effect of water-cement ratio are also indicated in Fig. 4.32 for two types of cements. The effect of
the water-cement ratio is more remarkable when compressive strength values are related to the value of 7 days
of age (Fig. 4.31) than that is related to the value of 28 days (Fig. 4.32).
It was supposed, therefore, that the development of rebound hardness with time depends on the water-cement
ratio, as well.
33 33
w/c
22 22 0,69
0.69
0,54
0.54
11 11 0,41
0.41
00 00
00 180
180 360
360 540
540 720
720 900
900 1080
1080 0 3650
10 7300
20 10950
30 14600
40 18250
50
t, days t, years
81
f cm ( t ) / fcm ,28d f cm ( t ) / fcm ,28d
3,5
3.5 3,5
3.5
a) b)
0,69
w/c = 0.69
3,0
3.0 0,54
w/c = 0.54 3,0
3.0
0,41
w/c = 0.41
2,5
2.5 MC90
MC90 slow 2,5
2.5
MC90
MC90 rapid
2,0
2.0 2,0
2.0
0,0
0 0,0
0
0 180
180 360
360 540
540 720
720 900
900 1080
1080 0 3650
10 7300
20 10950
30 14600
40 18250
50
t, years
t, days
Fig 4.32 Compressive strength in time according to (Washa, Wendt, 1975) together with the suggestion of (CEB,
1993), related to the values obtained at 28 days of age; a) short-term representation, b) long-term representation.
Fig. 4.33 represents the measured relative rebound index values for both L-type and N-type original Schmidt
hammers separated by water-cement ratios. It is demonstrated that the relative values of the rebound index
(related to the value of 28 days of age) are also dependent on the water-cement ratio, and the influence is more
pronounced with the increase of the maturity of concrete due to the effect of carbonation, particularly in case of
high water-cement ratios.
It was also possible to be demonstrated by present medium-term (~3 years) experimental study that the
compressive strength and the Youngs modulus of concrete seem to be dependent on the water-cement ratio.
R L ( t ) / R L ,28d a) R N ( t ) / R N ,28d b)
1,6
1.6 1,6
1.6
1,4
1.4 1,4
1,2
1.2 1,2
1.4
1.01 1
w/c w/c
0,8
0.8 0,65
0.65 0,8
1.2 0,65
0.65
0,50
0.50 0,50
0,6
0.6 0,40
0.40 0,6 0,40
0.50
0,4
0.4 0,4
1.0
00 180
180 360
360 540
540 720
720 900 1080
900 1080 0 180
180 360 540 720
720 900 1080
900 1080
t, days t, days
Fig 4.33 Water-cement ratio dependency of the rebound index in time, a) results provided by L-type rebound
hammer; a) results provided by N-type rebound hammer.
Based on the above results it can be concluded that the lower the impact energy of a dynamic hardness
tester is, the more likely the hardness value can be related to the Youngs modulus (the deformation of
concrete is rather elastic), particularly in case of low water-cement ratios. I.e. the higher the impact energy
82
of the dynamic hardness tester is, the more likely the hardness value can be related to the compressive
strength (during the test larger portion of the strain energy dissipates), particularly in case of high water-
cement ratios.
Results demonstrated that the rebound hammers provide hardness information connected to both elastic
and inelastic behaviour of the surface layer of concrete that can not always be related directly to the
compressive strength of concrete. For relatively low strength concretes the devices could provide a
hardness value that can be correlated to the compressive strength of concrete, thus the strength
estimation is theoretically possible. This conclusion is also a tribute before the genius of Ernst Schmidt, the
inventor of the concrete rebound hammers, who has fit the impact energy of the hammers to the purpose
of concrete strength estimation through inelastic energy absorption under the tip of the testing device
suitable for concrete compressive strengths available in the 1950s.
On the other hand, the concrete construction technology nowadays uses concretes of higher and higher
compressive strengths (just as one example: a sufficiently performing self compacting concrete provides
automatically higher compressive strength than a conventional concrete of the same water-cement ratio).
For high strength concretes the Schmidt rebound hammers provide a hardness value connected to the
Youngs modulus of concrete rather than the compressive strength of the concrete and, therefore, the
strength estimation is questionable. Let us refer here to the Youngs modulus development in time that is
considerably different from that of the compressive strength (Fig. 4.34). According to the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 an empirical power function between strength and Youngs modulus can be taken into account
with a power of 0.3 that can be put into the exponential formula considering time dependency of the
properties. Fig. 4.34 indicates the functions suggested by the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. One can realize
that compressive strength prediction based on Youngs modulus is unreliable for mature concrete.
Present studies also confirmed this conclusion by the very steep rebound index vs. compressive strength
response available from the developed phenomenological model for high strength concretes.
Users should consider that Schmidt rebound hammers provide rebound index connected to the Youngs
modulus for high strength concretes and compressive strength prediction based on Youngs modulus is
unreliable for mature concrete.
1,3
1.3
28 0.5
k 1
fcm (t ) t
1,2
1.2 e
fcm,28d
E cm A fcm
0.3
1,1
1.1
28 0.5
1,0
1.0 0.3 k 1
E cm (t ) t
e
E cm,28d
0,9
0.9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
0 100 200 300
300 400
400 500
500
time, days
Fig 4.34 Compressive strength and Youngs modulus in time (CEB, 1993).
83
84
CHAPTER 5 conclusions and future work
According to the ACI 228.1R-03 Committee Report, the within-test standard deviation of the rebound
index at a test area* shows an increasing tendency with increasing average of the rebound index and
the within-test coefficient of variation has an apparently constant value of about 10% (ACI, 2003) (*test
area: a concrete surface area that is not larger than 1010 cm where 10 repeated rebound tests are
performed by the same operator, with the same device in such a way that no reading is recorded on the
same test point more than once). According to the available technical literature, standard deviation of
the compressive strength of concrete does not depend on the average value of the compressive
strength, only depends on the quality of the concrete production (fib, 1999).
H1.1
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete are interrelated material properties. It is more
likely during the production of higher strength concretes that rigorous quality control is performed,
therefore, the standard deviation of strength is not expected to increase, but rather to decrease with
increasing strength. Therefore, the within-test standard deviation of rebound index is not expected to
increase with the average value of the rebound index.
T1.1
I have demonstrated by the analysis of 8955 test areas (from which 4170 are laboratory and 4785 are in-
situ test areas, with total number of individual rebound index readings exceeding eighty thousand) that the
within-test standard deviation of the rebound index does not depend on the average value of the rebound
index and the within-test coefficient of variation of the rebound index is inversely proportional to the
average value of the rebound index (Domain: R = 10 63, codomain: 3.3 MPa 105.7 MPa); implications
given in some technical literature (ACI, 2003) do not fit to empirical findings [3, 11].
85
The ASTM C 805 International Standard contains precision statements for the rebound index of the
rebound hammers (ASTM, 2008). There are two underlying assumptions: (1) the within-test standard
deviation of the rebound index has a constant value independently of the properties of the actual
concrete and of the actual operator error, and (2) the percentage points of the standardized ranges of
N(,1) normal probability distribution populations can be applied for the determination of the acceptable
range of rebound index readings at test areas. It is given for the precision that the within-test standard
deviation of the rebound index is 2.5 units, as single-specimen, single-operator, machine, day standard
deviation. Therefore, the range of ten readings should not exceed 12 units (taking into account a
k = 4.5 multiplier given in ASTM C 670 (ASTM, 2003). The multiplier is actually the one digit round value
of the p = 0.95 probability level critical value (k = 4.474124) for the standardized range statistic of a
N(,1) normal distribution population at n = 10 according to Harter, 1960. Dependence of the within-test
standard deviation on the average rebound index is not indicated in the standard and no indication is
given either about the probability distribution of the within-test standard deviation of the rebound index or
its percentile level for which the value is given.
H 1.2
The probability distribution of the range (rR) of ten (n=10) rebound index readings is supposed to follow a
normal probability distribution, where rR = 12 at a p = 0.95 probability level if n = 10.
The within-test standard deviation of the rebound index can be supposed to have a normal probability
distribution with a mean value of sR = 2.5 is for n = 10.
However, it is demonstrated in the technical literature that the probability distribution of the coefficient of
variation of concrete strength follows the log-normal probability distribution and the probability distribution of
the concrete strength follows the normal probability distribution (Shimizu et al, 2000). Surface hardness and
compressive strength of concrete are interrelated material properties. Therefore, it can be supposed that the
probability distribution of the coefficient of variation of the rebound index readings has a positive skewness.
T1.2
I have demonstrated by the analysis of 8955 test areas (from which 4170 are laboratory and 4785 are in-
situ test areas, with total number of individual rebound index readings exceeding eighty thousand) that the
probability distribution of
the range (rR) of rebound index readings (based on 8342 test areas) and
the standard deviation (sR) of rebound index readings (based on 8955 test areas)
the coefficient of variation (VR) of rebound index readings (based on 8955 test areas)
has a positive skewness (r = 1.9432; s = 1.7064; V = 2.2472), therefore, the supposition of having
normal probability distribution should be rejected. Implications given in ASTM C 805 do not fit to empirical
findings, but the assumption of the positive skewness of the coefficient of variation of rebound index is
confirmed [3, 11].
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis of sixty different probability distributions has demonstrated that:
the probability distribution of the range (rR) of rebound index readings follows a four parameter
Burr distribution (a=0.89001; b=4.0809; c=3.755; d=0.41591), of which mean value is
E[rR] = 4.8068; the median value is m[rR] = 4; the mode value is Mo[rR] = 3.75; the 95%
percentile value is v95[rR] = 9; for the analysed range of rR = 1 to 24. Value of rR = 12 exceeds
the experimental values in 98.7% of the cases.
the probability distribution of the standard deviation (sR) of rebound index readings follows a
three parameter Dagum (also referred in the literature as generalized logistic-Burr or inverse
86
Burr) distribution (a=1.7958; b=3.7311; c=1.2171), of which mean value is E[sR] = 1.667; the
median value is m[sR] = 1.5; the mode value is Mo[sR] = 1.45; the 95% percentile value is
v95[sR] = 3.1526; for the analysed range of sR = 0.23 to 7.80. Value of sR = 2.5 exceeds the
experimental values in 88.5% of the cases.
the probability distribution of the coefficient of variation (VR) of rebound index readings follows a
three parameter Dagum distribution (a=2.2255; b=3.1919; c=2.7573), of which mean value is
E[VR] = 4.4021%; the median value is m[VR] = 3.8%; the mode value is Mo[VR] = 3.125%; the
95% percentile value is v95[VR] = 9.2132%; for the analysed range of VR = 0.43% to 31.12%.
Reliability analysis techniques mostly concentrate on the use of the coefficient of variation for taking into
account the variability of different material characteristics, rather than the standard deviation. One may
practically select in this view the coefficient of variation as the repeatability parameter for the rebound
method, as well. For this purpose, however, the governing parameters over the changes of the
coefficient of variation are needed to be known.
T 1.3
I have demonstrated by laboratory and in-situ tests that the magnitude of the within-test coefficient of
variation of rebound index readings (VR) is influenced by the type of cement, the water-cement ratio, the
age of concrete, the depth of carbonation and the impact energy of the rebound hammer [3, 11].
I have demonstrated on 9 different cement types and 102 different concrete mixes that the average
coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) on concretes prepared by CEM I is lower (~ 3.5 %) than
those of prepared by CEM II or CEM III (~ 5.0 %). I have demonstrated for CEM I cements that the
average coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) is decreasing by increasing the strength class of
the cement. Studied cement types: CEM I 32.5; CEM I 42.5 N; CEM I 42.5 N-S; CEM I 52.5; CEM II/A-
S 42.5; CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N; CEM III/A 32.5 N-MS; CEM III/B 32.5 N-S.
I have demonstrated on 6 different cement types and 93 different concrete mixes that the average
coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) is decreasing by decreasing the water-cement ratio. 1-10 %
differences can be realized between the coefficients of variation of rebound index corresponding to
different water-cement ratios, depending on the age of concrete and impact energy of the device.
Analysed range of the water-cement ratio: w/c = 0.35 to 0.65.
I have demonstrated on 9 different cement types and 102 different concrete mixes that the average
coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) considerably decreases in the first 14 days (from ~6 %),
reaches a minimum (at ~4 %) at the age of 28 to 56 days and gradually increases afterwards (to ~5 %).
Analysed range: 1 to 1100 days of age.
I have demonstrated on 30 different concrete mixes that the coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) is
increasing by an increasing carbonation depth of concrete. Analysed range of carbonation depth: xc = 2.2
to 22.8 mm, and the corresponding coefficients of variation of rebound index were found to be ~3 % and
~8 %, respectively. Analysed range of compressive strength of concrete: fcm = 42.6 to 91.7 MPa.
I have demonstrated for CEM I cement type that the coefficient of variation of rebound index (VR) is
higher for the lower impact energy when concretes tested before the age of 56 days (can reach up to
14-17 %). After 56 days of age the differences gradually disappear in time. Analysed range of the water-
cement ratio: w/c = 0.40 to 0.65. Analysed range of age: 3 1100 days. Analysed range of impact
energy: 735 Nmm and 2207 Nmm.
87
5.1.2 On the modelling
Aim of Schmidt rebound hammer tests is usually to find a relationship between surface hardness and
compressive strength of concrete with an acceptable error. The hardness testing devices have been
developed for in-situ testing of concrete based on the observation that the surface hardness of concrete can
be related to the compressive strength of concrete.
The existence of only empirical relationships was considered in the earliest publications (Anderson et al,
1955; Kolek, 1958) and also recently (Bungey at al, 2006; Kausay, 2013).
For the rebound method no general theory was developed that can describe the relationship between
measured hardness values and compressive strength.
It should be also highlighted that researchers usually do not separate the experimental data by different
influencing parameters in the graphical representations of the corresponding rebound index vs. compressive
strength results that was typically experienced over the last 60 years.
Numerous empirical relationships between compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete are
available in the technical literature, but usually based on very simple laboratory tests, i.e. mainly univariate
regression curves are available. Only a few extensive studies can be found that consider multiple influencing
parameters together with detailed parameter analysis (Herzig, 1951; Borjn, 1981; Tanigawa et al, 1984).
H 2.1
Compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete are only partially determined by the same
physical characteristics or chemical processes and these can vary over time in particular cases. It is not
expected that a single univariate function exists between the compressive strength and the rebound
index (either in an Rm-fcm or an fcm-Rm coordinate system) with a confidence interval that is suitable for
engineering applications.
T 2.1
I have demonstrated based on an extensive literature review after studying the results of more than
150 literature references as well as on own laboratory and in-situ test results that it is not possible to
find and during the last more than 60 years it did not happen a single univariate function between the
compressive strength and rebound index that would provide an Rm-fcm or an fcm-Rm relationship with a
confidence interval suitable for engineering applications [2, 11, 12].
Based on the published Rm - fcm relationships the following conclusions can be drawn:
The most accepted function form is the power function.
Concrete strength estimation for a given rebound index is found to be published in a 40 to 60 N/mm2
wide range, i.e. it is possible to find estimated strengths for different concretes with 40 to 60 N/mm2
strength differences corresponding to the same rebound index.
The validity of a literature proposal should be restricted to the testing conditions and the extension of the
validity to different types of concretes or testing circumstances is impossible.
The Rm-fcm basic curve suggested by the current European Standard testing practice (EN 13791:2007)
does not always give a conservative estimation, in certain cases a negative shift of 6-8 N/mm2 would be
needed (which cannot occur according to the standard) (Fig. 10).
88
The remarkable diversity of the proposed curves implies the need of the two- or more variable regression
techniques to reveal the most important influences on the hardness behaviour.
Surface hardness and compressive strength of concrete are depending on several parameters (e.g.
type of cement, amount of cement, type of aggregate, amount of aggregate, compaction of structural
concrete, method of curing, quality of concrete surface, age of concrete, carbonation depth in the
concrete, moisture content of concrete, mass of the structural element, temperature and state of
stress) therefore, univariate regression between hardness and strength may lead to completely
misleading results and can hide the real driver of the relationship.
H 2.2
The following observations can be summarised for hardened concrete in view of the water-cement ratio
and the age of concrete according to own experimental results as well as technical literature data:
average compressive strength of concretes of 28 days of age can be formulated for different
cement types as exponential functions of the water-cement ratio (e.g. Ujhelyi, 2005),
average compressive strength of concretes at any age can be formulated in a simplified way (i.e.
independently of the water-cement ratio) for different cement types as exponential functions of the
average compressive strength of concretes at 28 days of age (e.g. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990); in fact,
the strength development of concretes depends on the water-cement ratio (e.g. Washa et al, 1975),
carbonation depth of concretes at any age can be formulated in a simplified way as functions of
age, water-cement ratio and type of cement (e.g. Papadakis et al, 1992),
rebound hardness development in time for identical composition concretes stored under identical
conditions can be formulated (e.g. Kim et al, 2009),
relationships between the rebound hardness and the depth of carbonation of concretes can be
formulated (e.g. JGJ, 2001),
relationships between the rebound hardness and the compressive strength of concretes can be
formulated for concretes of the same age that are prepared with identical cements and stored
under identical conditions.
The existence of a series of multivariate functions can be hypothesized based on the above findings
which functions can give an explicit relationship between the average rebound index Rm(t) and average
compressive strength fcm(t) of concrete of arbitrary age. The independent variables of the functions are
the degree of hydration for the cement paste (that is determined by the water-cement ratio, the age, the
type of cement and the curing/environmental conditions), and variables accounting for the amount of the
cement and the aggregate, the degree of compaction and the testing conditions.
T 2.2
I have demonstrated that a series of multivariate functions can be constructed which give an explicit
relationship between the average rebound index Rm(t) and the average compressive strength of concrete
fcm(t). It was demonstrated that a simplified version can be a series of bivariate functions with two
independent variables: the water-cement ratio and the age of concrete. It was demonstrated by a
parametric simulation that the simplified model is robust and suitable to describe experimental results.
The model was verified by a laboratory test of 864 concrete cube specimens of 150 mm made of two
cement types (CEM I 42.5 N and CEM III/B 32.5 N), with a range of water-cement ratio of 0.38 to 0.60
and age of concrete at testing of t = 7 to 180 days [2, 6, 9].
89
5.1.2 On the targeted experiments
During static indentation hardness tests plastic deformation is normally associated with ductile materials
(e.g. metals). Brittle materials (e.g. concrete) generally exhibit elastic behaviour, and fracture occurs at
higher deformations rather than plastic yielding. Pseudo-plastic deformation is observed in brittle materials
beneath the point of an indenter, but it is a result of densification, where the material undergoes a phase
change as a result of the high value of compressive stress in a restrained deformation field beneath the
indenter (Swain, Hagan, 1976). The softening fashion of the pseudo-plastic material response with
increasing volume of the material is considerably different from that can happen to metals during plastic
deformation (where the volume of the material is unchanged during yielding) (Tabor, 1951).
During dynamic hardness measurements the inelastic properties of concrete may be as important as the
elastic properties due to the softening fashion of the material response. The value of the rebound index
depends on energy losses due to friction during acceleration and rebound of the hammer mass and that of
the index rider, energy losses due to dissipation by reflections and attenuation of mechanical waves inside
the steel plunger; and energy losses due to dissipation by concrete crushing under the tip of the plunger.
H 3.1
Comparison of the relative values of the rebound hardness and mechanical properties (compressive
strength and Youngs modulus) of concrete (represented as values related to a value of a particular age)
may promote to find a relationship between the rebound hardness and a particular mechanical property.
The measures of the rebound hardness testing devices are supposed to be sensitive not only to the
strength but also to the stiffness of the concrete and influenced by the impact energy of the device.
T3.1
I have demonstrated by laboratory tests that the impact energy of the device determines through the
obtained hardness characteristic the mechanical property which can be associated with the hardness
value. The measures of the rebound hardness testing devices are sensitive not only to the strength but
also to the stiffness of the concrete and influenced by the impact energy of the device. It means that the
lower the impact energy of a dynamic hardness tester is, the more likely the hardness value can be related
to the Youngs modulus (the deformation of concrete is rather elastic), particularly in case of small water-
cement ratios; and the higher the impact energy of the dynamic hardness tester is, the more likely the
hardness value can be related to the compressive strength (during the test larger portion of the strain
energy dissipates), particularly in case of high water-cement ratios [2, 4, 7].
Laboratory test results indicated that the development of the relative value of rebound indices of L- and N-
type Schmidt rebound hammers in time approach the development of the relative value of compressive
strength in time for high water-cement ratio (w/c = 0.65), and approach the development of Youngs
modulus in time for low water-cement ratio (w/c = 0.40), independently of the age of concrete at testing.
For medium water-cement ratio (w/c = 0.50) an intermediate trend is observed. The development of the
Leeb hardness in time coincide the development of Youngs modulus of concrete in time (related to the
value of either 7 or 28 days of age), over the complete range of the tested water-cement ratios
(w/c = 0.40 0.65), independently of the age of concrete at testing.
Very low impact energy is introduced to the tested surface in the case of the Leeb hardness tests and the
material response is mostly governed by the elastic properties of the tested material. The Schmidt
rebound hammers apply much higher impact energy (both the L-type and the N-type devices), therefore,
90
the material response was found to be inelastic in a much more pronounced way; highly depending on both
the actual strength and stiffness of the concrete.
The impact energy of the Schmidt rebound hammers can result considerable plastic deformations in the
case of high water-cement ratio (i.e. low concrete compressive strength) and a predominantly elastic
material response in the case of low water-cement ratio (i.e. high concrete compressive strength). As a
conclusion it can be noted that the Schmidt rebound hammers apparently provide rebound index that could
be correlated to the compressive strength if the water-cement ratio is high, thus the strength estimation is
theoretically possible for relatively low strength concretes. On the other hand, for high strength concretes
the Schmidt rebound hammers apparently provide rebound index that can be correlated to the Youngs
modulus of concrete, thus the strength estimation is of concern.
In the technical literature the role of cement type in the development of the relative compressive strength
(i.e. compressive strength values at a certain age related to the value obtained at 28 days of age) is
highlighted and widely accepted (e.g. CEB, 1993). It is not fundamental evidence, however, that the
development of compressive strength of concretes also depends on the water-cement ratio. The
suggestion of CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993) neglects the effect of water-cement ratio.
H 3.2
After analysing the available technical literature data it is demonstrated by long-term laboratory tests (20
to 50 years) (e.g. Washa et al, 1975; Wood, 1991) that the development of the relative compressive
strength of concrete in time depends on the water-cement ratio, in addition to the applied cement type.
It can be supposed that the development of the relative rebound hardness in time also depends on the
water-cement ratio.
T3.2
I have demonstrated by laboratory tests that the development of the relative values of the rebound
hardness of concrete (related to the value of 28 days of age) are influenced by the water-cement ratio.
The influence is more pronounced with the increase of the maturity of concrete due to the effect of
carbonation in case of high water-cement ratios [2, 4, 7].
Hardness testing of concrete exclusively applies nowadays the Schmidt rebound hammers due to their
advantages, i.e. they can be used very easily and the rebound index can be read directly on the display
of the testing devices.
According to both International and European standards the use of the rebound method for strength
estimation on its own is not suggested. The concept of e.g. EN 13791 considers that mechanical
properties determined indirectly by non-destructive methods are influenced by large number of parameters
therefore the compressive strength of structural concrete can be estimated with the maximum possible
reliability only by the standard approach, at the moment. However, it should be added that testing of
structures are excluded where at least 9 cores are not possible to be drilled. This relatively large number of
cores restrain the practical use of the rebound method.
91
Findings of present PhD study may help to take some steps toward a better fundamental understanding
of the rebound hardness of concrete and its relationship with the compressive strength, as well as to
point out both future application possibilities and practical limits.
- It is needed to be declared that a relationship exists between the rebound hardness and the
compressive strength of concrete as it was expected, but univariate relationship does not exist.
- The introduced phenomenological model consisting of a series of curves governed by the degree of
hydration can reasonably describe the relationship. The transparency of the model offers further
promising development, however, provides also in its present form the long time missing fill to the
gap of knowledge appeared in the last 60 years. The shape and variable tangent of the series of
curves in the graphical representation of the developed model can also explain the large scatter of
the numerous proposals found in the technical literature.
- Variability parameters of the rebound index have similar tendency over the average rebound index as
that of the compressive strength, which observation can be a demonstration of the existence of a
relationship between the two properties.
- The development of the relative values of the rebound index in time is similar to that of the
compressive strength, however, users should consider that rebound hammers provide rebound index
connected to the Youngs modulus for high strength concretes and the Youngs modulus could not
predict compressive strength for mature concrete.
- Both experimental results and model analyses imply that more reliable strength estimation could be
accomplished if the impact energy could be tuned to produce sufficient inelastic deformation of the
concrete that needs further future research.
Results were published in international referred journals in 2011-2013, and were welcome. In 2012 author
of present study received an invitation to join the RILEM Technical Committee ISC (Non destructive in situ
strength assessment of concrete) from its chair, Prof. Denys Breysse. He considered the contribution
beneficial for the TC based on the developed model.
The theoretical considerations covered in the development of the phenomenological model were confirmed
by the extensive experimental verification. The model provides a clear and transparent explanation to the
rebound surface hardness of concrete in its introduced form. The observations predict that the general
scheme of the model allows an extension of the model also for concretes older than 180 days. It was
found that the predictions made by the model are far more accurate than that was available earlier by
simple regression analyses.
However, further studies are needed for the ratification of the model for practical applications. The number
of the empirical constants included in the model may result a challenging parameter fitting work before any
practical application.
Further types of concretes should be studied in the future to be able to find simplification possibilities.
Typical form of generating functions should be clarified and the limits of the practical application should be
determined. It is to be highlighted, however, that the main purpose of the development of the model was to
provide a better understanding of the rebound surface hardness of concrete and to explain the
experimental findings. The direct practical application of the model is not started yet. Author is working on
further developments and hope that the model can be successfully used in practice in the future.
Future aim of the research is to extend the model towards a reliability engineering direction by the
application of random variables in the model to become more useable for the practice.
92
List of publications
[1] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. Gyurk Z. (2013) Static hardness testing of porous building
materials, ptanyag (Journal of Ceramics and Composite Materials), Vol. 65:(1-2), 2013. ISSN
0013-970x (accepted for publication)
[2] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. Zsigovics I. (2013) Understanding the rebound surface hardness of
concrete, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Manuscript ID SCEM-2012-0173.R3,
IF: 2.171 (in press)
[4] Szilgyi K. (2012) Hardness studies on porous solids, Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil
Engineering, Budapest, 2012.06.19-2012.06.20. pp. 240-247.
[5] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. Gyurk Z. (2012) Static hardness testing of porous materials (Kszer
anyagok statikus kemnysgvizsglata), Mrnkgeolgia-Kzetmechanika Konferencia 2011,
Budapest, 2012.01.26. pp. 297-312. (in Hungarian)
[7] Szilgyi, K. Borosnyi A. Zsigovics I. (2011) Surface hardness and related properties of
concrete, Concrete Structures, Vol. 12, 2010, pp. 51-57. ISSN 2062 7904
[8] Szilgyi, K. Borosnyi A. Dob K. (2011) Static indentation hardness testing of concrete: a long
established method revived, ptanyag, Vol. 63:(1-2), 2011, pp. 2-8. ISSN 00 13-970x
[9] Szilgyi, K. Borosnyi A. Zsigovics I. (2010) Introduction of a constitutive model for the rebound
surface hardness of concrete, Concrete Structures, Vol. 11, 2010, pp. 46-52. ISSN 1419 6441
[10] Borosnyi A. Szilgyi K. (2010) About the Hungarian standards of the rebound method (A hazai
Schmidt-kalapcsos betonvizsglati szablyozsrl), Beton, Vol. 18:(1), 2010/1, pp. 14-16.
ISSN 1218 4837 (in Hungarian)
[11] Szilgyi, K. Borosnyi A. (2009) 50 years of experience with the Schmidt rebound hammer,
Concrete Structures, Vol. 10, 2009, pp. 46-56. ISSN 1419 6441
[12] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. (2008) The 50 years of the rebound hammer: Past, present, future.
1. part: Methods and literature review (A Schmidt-kalapcs 50 ve: Mlt, jelen, jv. 1. rsz:
Mdszerek s szakirodalmi sszefoglals), Vasbetonpts, Vol. 10:(1), 2008/1, pp. 10-17. ISSN
1419 6441 (in Hungarian)
i
[13] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. (2008) The 50 years of the rebound hammer: Past, present, future.
2. part: European standards and its Hungarian importance (A Schmidt-kalapcs 50 ve: Mlt,
jelen, jv. 2. rsz: Az eurpai szabvnyosts s annak hazai jelentsge), Vasbetonpts, Vol.
10:(2), 2008/2, pp. 48-54. ISSN 1419 6441 (in Hungarian)
[14] Szilgyi K. Borosnyi A. (2008) The 50 years of the rebound hammer: Past, present, future.
3. part: Scientific considerations and outlook (A Schmidt-kalapcs 50 ve: Mlt, jelen, jv. 3.
rsz: Tudomnyos megfontolsok s kitekints), Vasbetonpts, Vol. 10:(3), 2008/3, pp. 73-
82. ISSN 1419 6441 (in Hungarian)
ii
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Istvn Zsigovics (BME) for his continuous enthusiastic encouragement
and prospective intuitions that helped to mark the directions of my PhD study based on his extensive
earlier experiences. He taught me the importance of the laboratory research work and showed how to
carry out tests with high competence on my own. His professional potential made possible me to get
involved in several in-situ and laboratory projects that became the basis of my PhD research.
I would like to record my deep gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Adorjn Borosnyi (BME) for his valuable
assistance in conducting the literature survey and preparing reference collection including also some
hidden sources that were difficult to access. His insightful comments and constructive criticisms at
different stages of my research were thought-provoking and they helped me focus my ideas. I am
grateful to him for holding me to a high research standard.
My special acknowledgement is to Prof. Gyrgy L. Balzs, Head of the BME Department of Construction
Materials and Engineering Geology who provided me with the research place and its facilities. He has
continuously been keeping his eyes on my research work and following its progress and showing how to
take responsibility for the civil engineer society at an international level by making the new scientific
results available and utilize them in research committees.
I am also grateful to Assoc. Prof. Zsuzsanna Jzsa (BME) for sharing her experiences with me and her
assistance in finding the valuable Hungarian references.
I must express many thanks to Mr. Gbor Fldvri, Mr. Tams Pka, Mr. Kristf Dob, Mr. Gbor Kovcs,
Mr. Zoltn Gyurk and Mr. Tams Mik for their contribution in laboratory tests.
Many thanks to Mr. Krisztin Takcs for his excited research in historical linguistics related to the ancient
and medieval written records for the word hardness.
I am also thankful to the former and current staff at BME Department of Construction Materials and
Engineering Geology who each gave me either unique assistance or motivation.
I also wish to acknowledge the respectful activity by Prof. Jnos Jzsa, DSc, Chairman of the BME Pl
Vsrhelyi Doctoral School in Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences. He set examples by his persistent
commitment to teaching and research of high standard, his caring behaviour to every PhD student, and his
sincere and passionate love toward the ideal of the institute of BME. Special thanks to him for his
contribution in getting involved in the project Talent care and cultivation in the scientific workshops of
BME and for his recommendation letters when I applied for different grants.
iii
My special thanks are directed to Assoc. Prof. Rita Kiss, DSc, Dr. habil (BME) who has been giving me
inspiration by her remarkable scientific progress, by her exceptional responsibility and impetuous attitude
to teaching and by research of very high standard, as well as by showing example by her tireless care for
graduate students and PhD students.
I would like to extend my appreciation to Prof. Gintaris Kaklauskas (VGTU) for his kind interest in my
research progress and trust in my research topic. He has been playing an exemplary role in my
research activity with his remarkable scientific performance, with his simultaneous admirable lifestyle
and respectful human values in every area of life.
I am also grateful to Dr. Lars Eckeldt (TU Braunschweig) for drawing my attention to particular statistical
issues that I could adapted to my results and for his interest in my research findings.
I am especially grateful to Prof. Andor Windisch (BME) for his pioneering and stimulating thoughts that
fuelled my research every time I met him. He made a deep impression on me by his unique way of
scientific thinking, his exceptional attitude to research and his positively provocative phrases. It is a great
honour that I had the opportunity to make conversations with him about my research topic.
Finally, I am thankful for the financial support of the Hungarian Ministry of Education that enabled me to
start my PhD research and provided a scholarship for three years, as well as the research scholarship of
the Dr. Gallus Rehm Foundation.
Parts of present PhD research work has been developed in the framework of the project "Development of
quality-oriented and harmonized R+D+I strategy and functional model at BME", supported by the New
Szchenyi Plan (Project ID: TMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0002) and that of the project "Talent care
and cultivation in the scientific workshops of BME" supported by the grant TMOP-4.2.2.B-10/1-2010-
0009. Last year of my PhD research was completed in the framework of the Jedlik nyos PhD Candidate
Scholarship supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European
Social Fund in the framework of TMOP 4.2.4. A/1-11-1-2012-0001 National Excellence Program.
iv
References
Abrams D. A. (1918) Effect of Time of Mixing on the Strength and Wear of Concrete, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 14,
Issue 6, pp. 22-92.
ACI (1977) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318-77, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan
ACI (1989) Nondestructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures, ACI 228.2R-89, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan
ACI (2002) Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete, ACI 214R-02, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan
ACI (2003) In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength, ACI 228.1R-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan
ACI (2003a) Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results, ACI 214.4R-03, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan
Akashi T. (1979) The non-destructive testing of concrete (I.), Review, The Society of Materials Science, pp. 919-927.
Akashi T. (1979) The non-destructive testing of concrete (II.), Review, The Society of Materials Science, pp. 1079-1090.
Akashi T, Amasaki S. (1984) Study of the Stress Waves in the Plunger of a Rebound Hammer at the Time of Impact, ACI
Publication SP-82 In Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, Malhotra, V. M. (Editor), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 1984, pp. 17-34.
Aliabdo A. A. E, Elmoaty A. E. M. A. (2012) Reliability of using nondestructive tests to estimate compressive strength of
building stones and bricks, Alexandria Engineering Journal, (in press)
Almeida I. R. (1993) Emprego do esclermetro e do ultra-som para efeito da avaliao qualitativa dos concretos de alto
desempenho, Professoral Thesis, Universidade Federal Fluminese, Niteri, Brasil, 124 p.
Al-Owaisy S. R. A, Kheder G. F, Abbas A. A. (2010) Use of combined nondestructive test methods to predict concrete
compressive strength cast with aggregate obtained from southern parts of Iraq, Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering
Sciences, Vol. 3., No. 3,
Amaral P. M, Guerra R. L, Cruz F. J. (1999) Determination of Schmidt rebound hardness consistency in granite, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 833-837.
Anderson, A. R, Bloem, D. L, Howard, E. L, Klieger, P, Schlintz, H. (1955) Discussion of a paper by Greene, G. W.: Test Hammer
Provides New Method of Evaluating Hardened Concrete, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, December 1955, Vol.
27, No. 4, Part 2 (Disc. 51-11), pp. 256-1256-20.
Ariolu E, Ariolu N, Girgin C. (2001) A discussion of the paper Concrete strength by combined non-destructive methods
simply and reliably predicted by H.Y. Qasrawi, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, pp. 1239-1240.
Arni H. T. (1972) Impact and Penetration Tests of Portland Cement Concrete, Highway Research Record 378, Highway
Research Board, Washington D.C, pp. 55-67.
ASTM (2000) Standard Test Method for Determination of Rock Hardness by Rebound Hammer Method, ASTM D 5873
00, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia
ASTM (2003) Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for Construction
Materials, ASTM C 670 08, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia
ASTM (2004) Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete, ASTM
C42/C42M-04, ASTM International, C09.61 Subcommittee, p. 6.
ASTM (2005) Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM C39/C39M-05e1,
ASTM International, C09.61 Subcommittee, p. 7.
ASTM (2008) Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete, ASTM C 805/C 805M 08, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia
Atici U. (2011) Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using multivariable regression analysis and an
artificial neural network, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 96099618.
v
Aydin F, Saribiyik M. (2010), Correlation between Schmidt Hammer and destructive compressions testing for concretes in
existing buildings, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 5, No. 13, pp. 1644-1648.
Baksa A. (2005) Numerical analysis of contact tasks (Numerical analysis of contact problems), Slyi Istvn Gpszeti
Tudomnyok Doktori Iskola, Gpszmrnki Kar, Miskolci Egyetem, Miskolc, 2005
Balzs Gy, Tth E. (1997) Diagnostics of concrete- and reinforced concrete structures, Vol. 1. (Beton- s
vasbetonszerkezetek diagnosztikja I.), M egyetemi Kiad, 396 p. (in Hungarian)
Barba A. A. (1640) The art of metals (Arte de los metales), Reprint, Lima, 1817 (in Spanish)
Baumann K. (2006) personal communication (Scwerzenbach, Switzerland)
Bentur A. (2002) Cementitious Materials Nine Millenia and a New Century: Past, Present and Future, ASCE Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol 14, Issue 1, February 2002, pp. 2-22.
Bernhardt E. C. (1949) A history of hardness tests based on scratch resistance measurements, ASTM Bulletin, March
1949, pp. 49-53.
Bindseil P. (2005) On-site inspection of concrete structures: state-of-the-art and practical applications, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern, www.fh-kl.de/~bindseil
Bobji M. S, Shivakumar K, Alehossein H, Venkateshwarlu V, Biswas S.K. (1999) Influence of surface roughness on the scatter
in hardness measurements - a numerical study, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 36, No.
3, pp. 399-404.
Bollo F. M. (1958) Dynamic auscultation of concrete on site (La auscultacion dinamica del hormigon en obra), Revista De
Obras Publicas, Vol. 106, No. 2918, pp. 331-335.
Borjn J. (1968) Mathematical statistical analysis of nondestructive testing of concrete (Roncsolsmentes betonvizsglatok
rtkelse matematikai statisztikai mdszerrel), Mlyptstudomnyi Szemle, XVIII. vf, 7. sz, pp. 294-297. (in
Hungarian)
Borjn J. (1971) Estimation of the parameters of regression functions by graphical method (Regresszis fggvnyek
paramtereinek becslse grafikus mdszerrel), Mlyptstudomnyi Szemle, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 32-38. (in Hungarian)
Borjn J. (1974) Multiple regression analysis by graphical method (Tbbszrs regresszis elemzs grafikus
mdszerrel), Mlyptstudomnyi Szemle, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 274-280. (in Hungarian)
Borjn J. (1975) Comparison of nondestructive and destructive compressive strength test of concretes (Betonok roncsols-
mentes s trvizsglatnak sszehasonltsa), Mlyptstudomnyi Szemle, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 207-213. (in Hungarian)
Borjn J. (1981) Nondestructive testing of concrete (Roncsolsmentes betonvizsglatok), M szaki Knyvkiad, 204 p. (in Hungarian)
Borosnyi A. (2006) Some diagnostic devices of reinforced concrete structures (Vasbeton szerkezetek egyes
diagnosztikai eszkzei, pletfeljtsi kziknyv, 2006. november, Verlag Dashfer Szakkiad (in Hungarian)
Boundy C. A. P, Hondros G. (1964) Rapid field assessment of strength of concrete by accelerated curing and Schmidt
rebound hammer, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, January 1964, pp. 77-83.
Brandes C, Lay S, Rucker P. (2007) Conversion curves for the new generation of concrete test hammers, Proceq,
Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
Brandestini M. (2006) From the idea to product - the SilverSchmidt Hammer (Von der Idee zum Produkt - der SilverSchmidt
Beton Prfhammer), Vortrag 13, Fachtagung Bauwerksdiagnose, 18. - 19. Februar 2010, Berlin (in German)
Breysse D. (2012) Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: An historical review and a new perspective by
combining NDT methods, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 33, pp. 139-163.
Breysse D, Klysz G, Drobert X, Sirieix C, Lataste J.F. (2008) How to combine several non-destructive techniques for a better
assessment of concrete structures, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 783793.
Brinell J.-A. (1901) Steel ball test report (Mmoire sur les preuves bille en acier), Communications presents devant le
congrs international des mthodes dessai des matriaux de construction, Vol. 2, 1901, pp. 83-94. (in French)
Broovsk J, Prochzka D, Bene D. (2009) Determination of high performance concrete strength by means of impact hammer,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Slovenian Society for Non-Destructive Testing Application of
Contemporary Non-Destructive Testing in Engineering, September 1-3, 2009, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 233-241.
Brozovsky J, Zach J, Brozovsky J. Jr. (2008) Determining the strength of solid burnt bricks in historical structures,
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem Israel, 25-30 May 2008
Brunarski L. (1963) Combined use of non-destructive testing methods in quality control of concrete (Gleichzeitige Anwendung
verschiedener zerstrungsfreier Prfmetoden zur Gtekontrolle des Betons), Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule
fr Bauwesen Leipzig, Sonderdruck, 1963 (in German)
Bungey J. H, Millard J. H, Grantham M. G. (2006) Testing of Concrete in Structures, Taylor and Francis, New York, 352 p.
vi
Buyuksagis I. S, Goktan R. M. (2007) The effect of Schmidt hammer type on uniaxial compressivestrength prediction of rock,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.299-307.
Calvit H. H. (1967) Experiments on rebound of steel balls from blocks of polymers, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids, V.15, No. 3, May 1967, Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford, pp. 140-150.
Carette G. G, Malhotra V. M. (1984) In Situ Tests: Variability and Strength Prediction at Early Ages, ACI Publication SP-82
In Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, Malhotra V. M. (Editor), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan,
1984, pp. 111-141.
Carino (1994) Nondestructive Testing of Concrete: History and Challenges, ACI SP-44, Concrete Technology Past, Present and
Future, Ed. Mehta P. K, American Concrete Institute, 1994, pp. 623-678.
Carino N. J. (1993) Statistical Methods to Evaluate In-Place Test Results, New Concrete Technology: Robert E. Philleo
Symposium, ACI SP-141, T. C. Liu and G. C. Hoff, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, pp. 39-64.
CEB (1993) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Design Code, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Thomas Telford, London,
1993 (CEB Bulletin dInformation No. 213/214.)
CEB-CIB-FIP-RILEM (1974) Recommended principles for the control of quality and the judgement of acceptability of
concrete, Materials and Structures, V. 8, No. 47, RILEM, 1974, pp. 387-403.
Centre National dEtudes et de Recherches Intgres du Btiment (2004) Control of concrete by nondestructive testing
(Controle du beton par des essais non destructifs), Cycle de formation 2004
Chandler H. (1999) Hardness testing, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio
Chefdeville J. (1953) Application of the method toward estimating the quality of concrete, RILEM Bulletin, No. 15, Special
Issue Vibration Testing of Concrete, Part 2, RILEM, Paris, 1953
Chefdeville J. (1955) Nondestructive testing of concrete. Part 2. Compressive strength of concrete and its measurement by the
Schmidt rebound hammer (Les essais non destructifs du bton. II. La rsistance la compression du bton. Sa mesure par le
sclromtre Schmidt), Annales de lInstitut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Huitime anne, No. 95.,
Novembre 1955, pp. 1137-1182. (in French)
Cianfrone F, Facaoaru I. (1979) Study on the introduction into Italy on the combined non-destructive method, for the
determination of in situ concrete strength, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 12, No. 71, pp. 413-424.
Cortes C, Mohri M, Riley M, Rostamizadeh A. (2008), Sample Selection Bias Correction Theory, Proceedings of the 19th interna-
tional conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-540-87986-2, pp. 38-53.
CPWD (2002) Handbook on repair and rehabilitation of RCC buildings, Central Public Works Department, Government of
India, India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, pp. 498.
Crepps R. B., Mills R. E. (1923) Ball Test Applied to Cement Mortar and Concrete, Bulletin No. 12., Engineering
Experiment Station, Purdue University, LaFayette, Indiana, May 1923, 32 p.
Crooks G. E. (2012) Survey of Simple, Continuous, Univariate Probability Distributions, 2010-2012, Gavin E. Crooks
Publication
d'Elia M. P. (1956) Study on testing of cement concrete by rebound hammer (Enqute sur l'essai des btons de ciment au
sclromtre), Bulletin Rechnique de la Suisse Romande, Vol. 82, No. 14, pp. 224-226. (in French)
Demirdag S, Yavuz H, Altindag R. (2009) The effect of sample size on Schmidt rebound hardness value of rocks,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 725-730.
Di Leo A, Pascale G, Viola E. (1984) Core Sampling Size in Nondestructive Testing of Concrete Structures, ACI
Publication SP-82 In Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, Malhotra V. M. (Editor), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 1984, pp. 459-478.
Domingo R, Hirose S. (2009) Correlation Between Concrete Strength and Combined Nondestructive Tests for Concrete
Using High-Early Strength Cement, Proceedings of the 6th Regional Symp. on Infrastructure Development (RSID-6),
CD-ROM RSID6-STR2, Jan. 2009.
Dufour J. M, Farhat A, Gardiol L, Khalaf L. (1998) Simulation-based Finite Sample Normality Tests in Linear Regressions,
Econometrics Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 154-173.
Dutron R. (1927) Ball tests for the determination of compressive strength of neat cement mortars (Essais la bille pour la
determination de la rsistance la compression des pates de ciment pur), Brochure - Le laboratoire Groupement
Professionnel des Fabricants de Ciment Portland artificial de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium, 1927 (in French)
Egerer F, Kertsz P. (1993): Introduction to the rock mechanics (Bevezets a kzetfizikba), Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest,
1993, 424 p. (in Hungarian)
Einbeck C. (1944) Simple method to determine concrete quality in structures (Einfaches Verfahren zur Feststellung der
Betongte im Bauwerk, Bauwelt, Vol. 35, 1944, p. 131 (in German)
vii
MI (1965) Concrete strength evaluation by N-type Schmidt rebound hammer (A beton szilrdsgnak vizsglata N-tpus
Schmidt-fle rugs kalapccsal), pt ipari Min sgvizsgl Intzet private standard, HSz 201-65, Prepared by Jnos
Vadsz, 1 Dec 1965 (in Hungarian)
EN 12504-1 (2000) Testing concrete in structures Part 1: Cored specimens Taking, examining and testing in
compression, European Standard
EN 12504-2 (2012) Testing concrete in structures Part 2: Non-destructive testing Determination of rebound number,
European Standard
EN 13791 (2007) Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete components, European
Standard
Euramet cg-16, Technical Committee for Mass and Related Quantities (2011) Guidelines on the Estimation of Uncertainty
in Hardness Measurements, Euramet e.V., Braunschweig, Germany
Fabbrocino G, Di Fusco A. A, Manfredi G. (2005) In situ evaluation of concrete strength for existing constructions: critical
issues and perspectives of NDT methods,Proceedings of the fib Symposium Keep Concrete Attractive 2005
Budapest, Balzs G. L. and Borosnyi A. (Editors), Megyetemi Kiad, Budapest, 2005. pp. 811-816.
Facaoaru I. (1964) Lexprience de lapplication des normes roumaines provisoires pour la dterminition de la rsistance
du bton laide du sclromtre Schmidt, RILEM Publication Non-destructive testing of concrete, Meeting in
Bucharest, 1964
Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O. (2005) Technical Note A Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Methods to
Estimate the Compressive Strength of Rocks, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 329-343.
Feret R. (1892) The compaction of hydraulic mortars (Sur la compacit des mortiers hydrauliques), Annales des Ponts et
Chaussees, Mem Doc, Serie 7, 4, 1892, pp. 5-164. (in French)
Ferry J. D. (1961) Viscoelastic properties of polymers, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1961, 482 p.
FHWA (1997) Guide to Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, FHWA Publication SA-97-105, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1997, 60 p.
Filho J. O. V. (2007) Evaluation of compressive strength of concrete trough core: contribution to the estimative of the
coefficiente of correction due to damage of drilling (Avaliao da resistncia compresso do concreto atravs de
testemunhos extrados: contribuio estimativa do coeficiente de correo devido aos efeitos do broqueamento,
Thesis for Doctor of Civil Engineering, Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo 2007
Fischer-Cripps A. C, Collins R. E. (1994) The probability of hertzian fracture, Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 29, pp.
2216-2230.
Fischer-Cripps A. C. (1997) Elasticplastic behaviour in materials loaded with a spherical indenter, Journal of Materials
Science, Vol. 32, pp. 727-736.
Fischer-Cripps A. C. (1997) Predicting Hertzian fracture, Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 32, pp. 1277-1285.
Fischer-Cripps A. C. (1999) The Hertzian contact surface, Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 34, pp. 129-137.
Fischer-Cripps A. C. (2000) Introduction to Contact Mechanics, Springer, New York, 2000, 243 p.
Forslind E. (1944) Determination of Concrete Strength by Means of Shock and Drill Tests (Hllfast-hetsbestmnig hos
betong medelst slag- och borrprov), Meddelanden (Bulletins) No. 2, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute,
Stockholm, 1944, 20 p. (in Swedish)
Frank F. C, Lawn B. R. (1967) On the theory of Hertzian fracture, Proc. of the Royal Society of London, Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 299, No. 1458, Jul. 11, 1967, pp. 291-306.
Frank S, Sommer J. (1986) Standardization of the Leeb hardness testing method, Krautkrmer GmbH, Hrth, Germany
Gaede K. (1934) A new method of strength testing of concrete in structures (Ein neues Verfahren zur Festigkeitsprfung
des Betons im Bauwerk), Bauingenieur, 1934/15, Vol. 35-36, pp. 356-357. (in German)
Gaede K. (1952) Impact ball tests for concrete (Die Kugelschlagprfung von Beton), Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton,
1952, Heft 107, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, p. 73. (in German)
Gaede K, Schmidt E. (1964) Rebound testing of hardened concrete (Rckprallprfung von Beton mit dichtem Gefge),
Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 158, p. 37. (in German)
Gallo-Curcio A, Morelli G. (1985) Statistical parametric analysis of the strength-to-rebound index relationship: an attempt to
define the class of concrete (Recherche statistique paramtrique du rapport rsistance-indice sclromtrique: essai de
dfinition de la classe des btons), Materials and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 67-73.
Gillemot L. (1967) Material science and testing (Anyagszerkezettan s anyagvizsglat), Tanknyvkiad, Budapest, 1967,
429 p. (in Hungarian)
viii
Goktan R.M, Gunes N. (2005) A comparative study of Schmidt hammer testing procedures with reference to rock cutting
machine performance prediction, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.
466-472.
Goldsmith W. (1960) Impact The theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids, Edward Arnold Publishers, 379 p.
Gonalves A. (1995) In situ concrete strength estimation. Simultaneous use of cores, rebound hammer and pulse
velocity, Proceedings International Symposium NDT in Civil Engineering, Germany, pp. 977-984.
Graff K. F. (1975) Wave motion in elastic solids, Oxford University Press, 649 p.
Granzer H. (1970) About the dynamic hardness testing of hardened concrete (ber die dynamische Hrteprfung von
Beton mit dichtem Gefge), Dissertationen der Technischen Hochschule Wien, No. 14, Verlag Notring, Wien, 1970, p.
103. (in German)
Greene G. W. (1954) Test Hammer Provides New Method of Evaluating Hardened Concrete, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, November 1954, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Title No. 51-11), pp. 249-256.
Grieb W. E. (1958) Use of the Swiss Hammer for Estimating the Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete, Public
Roads, V. 30, No. 2, June 1958, pp. 45-50.
Gubicza J, Juhsz A, Arat P, Szommer P, Tasndi P, Vrs G. (1996) Elastic modulus determination from depth sensing
indentation test, Journal of Materials Science Letters, 15: 2141-2144.
Gymbr Cs. (2004) Nondestructive testing of lightweight concrete (Knnybeton roncsolsmentes vizsglata), MSc Thesis,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Faculty of Civil Engineering (in Hungarian)
Harter H. L. (1960) Tables of Range and Studentized Range, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.
1122-1147.
Hertz H. (1881) About the contact of elastic solid bodies (ber die Berhrung fester elastischer Krper), Journal fr die
reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1881/5, p. 12-23. (in German)
Herzig E. (1951) Tests with the new concrete rebound hammer at the Dept. of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete,
Material Testing Institute of Zurich (Versuche mit dem neuen Beton-Prfhammer an der Abteilung fr Beton und
Eisenbeton der Eidg. Materialprfungs- und Versuchsanstalt, Zrich), Schweizer Archiv fr angewandte Wissenschaft und
Technik, V. 17, Mai 1951, pp. 144-146. (in German)
Hill R, Storakers B, Zdunek A. B. (1988) A theoretical study of the Brinell hardness test, Proc. of the Royal Society of
London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 423, No. 1865, Jun. 8. 1989, pp. 301-330.
Hobbs B, Kebir M. T. (2006) Non-destructive testing techniques for the forensic engineering investigation of reinforced concrete
buildings, Forensic Science International, V. 167, 2006, Elsevier Ireland Ltd., pp. 167-172.
Huang Q. (2010) Adaptive reliability analysis of reinforced concrete bridges using nondestructive testing, PhD
dissertation, Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, May 2010
Huang Q, Gardoni P, Hurlebaus S. (2011) Predicting concrete compressive strength using ultrasonic pulse velocity and
rebound number, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 403-412.
Huei L. J. (2009) Multivariate analysis to determine in-situ concrete strength-beam, MSc Thesis, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, University Teknologi Malaysia
Huygens C. (1690) Treatise on light: in which are explained the causes of that which occurs in reflexion, & in refraction,
and particularly in the strange refraction of Iceland crystal (Trait de la Lumire: O sont expliques les causes de ce
qui luy arrive dans la rflexion, & dans la refraction; et particulirement dans ltrange refraction du cristal dIslande),
1690, Leiden (in French)
IAEA (2002) Guidebook on non-destructive testing of concrete structures, Training Course Series No. 17, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 231 p.
Idrissou M. M. (2006) Finding an Unified Relationship between Crushing Strength of Concrete and Non-destructive Tests,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
ISO 3534-1:2006 Statistics Vocabulary and symbols Part 1: Probability and general statistical terms
Jenkins R. S. (1985) Nondestructive testing An evaluation tool, Concrete International, February 1985, pp. 22-26.
Johnson K. L. (1985) Contact mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1985, 452 p.
Johnson W. (1972) Impact strength of materials, Edward Arnold Publishers, 361 p.
Jones R. (1962) Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete, Cambridge Engineering Series (Ed. Baker, J.), Cambridge
University Press, 1962, p. 104.
Juhsz A, Vrs G, Tasndi P, Kovcs I, Somogyi I, Szllsi J. (1993) Investigation of the mechanical properties of silica
glasses by indentation tests, Journal de Physique IV, The 3rd European Conference on Advanced Materials and
Processes, Vol. 3, No. C7, pp. 1485-1489.
ix
Kahraman S., Fener M., Gunaydin O. (2002) Predicting the Schmidt hammer values of insitu intact rock from core sample
values, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 395-399.
Katz O, Rechesa Z, Roegiers J.-C. (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt Hammer,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 37, pp. 723-728.
Kausay T. (2013) Concrete Explanation of some chapters of the concrete standard (Beton A betonszabvny nhny
fejezetnek rtelmezse), Magyar Mrnki Kamara Nonprofit Kft, Budapest, 2013. (in Hungarian)
Kecsks B. (2010) Hardness Testing (Kemnysgmrs), Kzirat, Kecskemti F iskola, 17 p. (in Hungarian)
Keiller A. P. (1982) Preliminary Investigation of Test Methods for the Assessment of Strength of In Situ Concrete, Technical
Report No. 42.551, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, 1982, p. 37.
Kheder G. F. (1999) A two stage procedure for assessment of in situ concrete strength using combined non-destructive
testing, Materials and Structures, Vol. 32, July 1999, pp. 410-417.
Kholmyansky M, Kogan E, Kovler K. (1994) On the hardness determination of fine grained concrete, Materials and
Structures, Vol. 27, No. 10, December 1994, pp. 584-587.
Kim J-K, Kim C-Y, Yi S-T, Lee Y. (2009) Effect of carbonation on the rebound number and compressive strength of
concrete, Cement & Concrete Composites,Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 139-144.
Knaze P, Beno P. (1984) The use of combined non-destructive testing methods to determine the compressive strength of
concrete, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 17, No. 99, pp. 207-210.
Kolaiti E, Papadopoulo Z. (1993) Evaluation of Schmidt rebound hammer testing: A critical approach, Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 69-76.
Kolek J. (1958) An Appreciation of the Schmidt Rebound Hammer, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 10, No. 28,
March 1958, pp. 27-36.
Kolek J. (1969) Using the Schmidt rebound hammer, Concrete Construction, June 1969
Kolek J. (1970a) Non-destructive testing of concrete by hardness methods, Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-destructive
testing of concrete and timber, 11-12 June 1969, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1970, pp. 19-22.
Kolek J. (1970b) Discussion of the paper 3A: Non-destructive testing of concrete by hardness methods, by Kolek, J.,
Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-destructive testing of concrete and timber, 11-12 June 1969, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, 1970, pp. 27-29.
Kolsky H. (1953) Stress waves in solids, Oxford Clarendon Press, 212 p.
Korshunov D. A, Sidorenko M. V. (1992) Methods for determining the strength of concrete, Materials and Structures, Vol.
25, No.1, 1992, pp. 29-33.
KTI (1978) Application of non-destructive concrete tests (Roncsolsmentes betonvizsglatok alkal-mazsa), Study, Scientific
Research Institute of Road Transport (Kzti Kzlekedsi Tudomnyos Kutat Intzet), Budapest, 40 p. (in Hungarian)
KTI (2005) Nondestructive testing of high strength concretes by the Schmidt rebound hammer (Nagyszi-lrdsg betonok
roncsolsmentes vizsglata Schmidt kalapccsal), Research Report, Prepared by Gspr L., Tth Z., Skokn G, KTI Kht,
2005 (in Hungarian)
Leeb, D. (1986) Definition of the hardness value L in the Equotip dynamic measurement method, VDI Berichte 583,
1986, pp. 109-133.
Leshchinsky A. M. (1990) Determination of Concrete Strength by Nondestructive Methods, Cement, Concrete and
Aggregates, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 107-113.
Leshchinsky A. M. (1991) Improvement of Concrete Strength Statistical Control, Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, Vol.
13, No. 2, pp. 88-92.
Leshchinsky A. M, Yu M, Goncharova A. S. (1990) Within-Test Variability of Some Non-Destructive Methods for Concrete
Strength Determination, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 42, No. 153, pp. 245-248.
Li X, Rupert G, Summers D. A, Santi P, Liu D. (2000), Analysis of Impact Hammer Rebound to Estimate Rock Drillability,
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Lima F. B, Silva M. F. B. (2000) Correlation between the compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete
(Correlao entre a resistncia compresso do concreto e a sua dureza superficial). In: Juiz de Fora, editor.
Proceedings IV. Congresso de Engenharia Civil, p. 429-440. (in Portuguese)
Liu J-C, Sue M-L, Kou C-H. (2009) Estimating the Strength of Concrete Using Surface Rebound Value and Design
Parameters of Concrete Material, Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Long B. G, Kurtz H. J, Sandenaw T. A. (1945) An Instrument and a Technic for Field Determination of Elasticity, and
Flexural Strength of Concrete (Pavements), Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 16., No. 3., Proceedings
Vol. 41., January 1945, pp. 217-231.
x
Mahmoudipour M. (2009) Statistical case study on Schmidt hammer, ultrasonic and core compression strength tests results
performed on cores obtained from Behbahan cement factory in Iran, Geotechnical Department, SANO Consulting
Engineers, No.11, Tavanir St.,Valiasr St., Tehran, Iran
Malhotra V. M. (1976) Testing Hardened Concrete: Nondestructive Methods, ACI Monograph, No. 9, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 188 p.
Malhotra V. M, Carette G. (1980) Comparison of Pullout Strength of Concrete with Compressive Strength of Cylinders and Cores,
Pulse Velocity, and Rebound Number, ACI Journal, May-June 1980, pp. 161-170.
Malhotra V. M, Carino N. J. (2004) Handbook on nondestructive testing of concrete, Second edition, CRC Press
LLC, 384 p.
Mata M, Casals O, Alcal J. (2006) The plastic zone size in indentation experiments: The analogy with the expansion of a
spherical cavity, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 43, No. 20, pp. 5994-6013.
Matouek M. (1977) Effects of some environmental factors on structures (Psoben vybranch atmosfrickch initel na
stavebn konstrukce), PhD Thesis, Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic, 1977 (in Czech)
Mehta P. K., Monteiro P. J. M. (2005) Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, McGraw Hill, 659 p.
Meyer E. (1908) Studies on hardness testing and hardness (Untersuchungen ber Hrteprfung und Hrte), Zeitschrift des
Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, Vol. 52, No. 17, April 1908, pp. 645-654, 740-748, 835-844. (in German)
MI 15011 (1988) Sectional analysis of existing load bearing elements of structures (pletek megplt teherhord
szerkezeteinek ertani vizsglata), Technical Guideline, Hungarian Institute of Standardization (Magyar Szabvnygyi Hivatal),
27 p. (in Hungarian)
Mikulic D, Pause Z, Ukraincik V. (1992) Determination of concrete quality in a structure by combination of destructive and non-
destructive methods, Materials and Structures, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 65-69.
Mindess S, Young J. F. (1981) Concrete, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 671 p.
Mohs F. (1812) Trial of an elementary method to determine natural history and identification of fossils (Versuch einer
Elementar-Methode zur Naturhistorischen Bestimmung und Erkennung von Fossilien), sterreich Lexikon (in German)
Mommens A. (1977) La precision de lestimation de la rsistance du bton au moyen de lindice sclro-mtrique,
Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 10, No. 55, 1977, pp. 49-54.
Monteiro A, Gonalves A. (2009) Assessment of characteristic compressive strength in structures by the rebound
hammer test according to EN 13791: 2007, Proceedings NDTCE09, Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering,
Nantes, France, June 30th - July 3rd, 2009
MSZ 07-3318 (1991) Kzti betonburkolatok s mtrgyak roncsolsmentes vizsglata Schmidt kalapccsal, Magyar
Kztrsasg Kzlekedsi gazati Szabvny, 19 p. Technical Guideline, Hungarian Standards Institution (Magyar
Szabvnygyi Hivatal), 27 p. (in Hungarian)
MSZ 4715/5 (1972) Testing of hardened concrete. Nondestructive testing (Megszilrdult beton vizsglata. Roncsolsmentes
vizsglatok), Hungarian Standard (Magyar Npkztrsasgi Orszgos Szabvny), 13 p. (in Hungarian)
Musschenbroek P. (1729) Physicae Experimentales et Geometricae Dissertations, 1729, Leiden (in French)
Nasht I. H, Abour S. H, Sadoon A. A. (2005) Finding an Unified Relationship between Crushing Strength of Concrete and Non-
destructive Tests, Proceedings 3rd MENDT Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain,
Manama, www.ndt.net
Nasser K. W, Almanaseer A. A. (1987) Comparison of Nondestructive Testers of Hardened Concrete, ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 374-380.
Nehme S. G. (2004) Porosity of concrete (A beton porozitsa), PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and
Economics, Faculty of Civil Engineering (in Hungarian)
Neville A. M. (1981) Properties of Concrete, Pitman Publ., London, 532 p.
Neville A. M. (1986) Properties of Concrete - An Overview, Part 3, Concrete International, Volume 8, Issue 4, April 1,
1986, pp. 53-57.
Neville A. M. (1995) Properties of Concrete, Prentice Hall, Essex, 844 p.
Neville A. M. (2001) Core Tests: Easy to Perform, Not Easy to Interpret, Concrete International, American Concrete
Institute, November 2001, pp. 59-68.
NIST (2009) NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, source: www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, January 2009
Nyim C. K. (2006) Reliability in integrating NDT results of concrete structures, MSc Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
April 2006
ONeill H. V. (1967) Hardness measurement of metals and alloys, Chapman & Hall, London, 1967, 238. p.
xi
OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008, 605 p.,
ISBN 978-92-64-025561
Ohdaira E, Masuzawa N. (2000) Water content and its effect on ultrasound propagation in concrete the possibility of
NDE, Ultrasonics, V. 38, 2000, Elsevier, pp. 546-552.
Oktar O. N, Moral H, Tademir M. A. (1996) Factors determining the correlations between concrete properties, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 1629-1637.
Oktar O. N, Moral H, Tademir M. A. (1996) Sensitivity of concrete properties to the pore structure of hardened cement
paste, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 26, No. 11, November 1996 , pp. 1619-1627.
Oliveira F. G. X, Filgueiras V. J. B. F, Meira G. R, Carneiro A. M. P, Sousa J. P. (2009) Evaluation of the structure`s
durability of parameters of bridge on the river Botafogo on the duplication of the BR 101 (Avaliao dos parmetros de
durabilidade da estrutura da ponte sobre o rio Botafogo na duplicao da BR 101) , Anais do 51 Congresso
Brasileiro do Concreto CBC2008, Ibracon 2009, (in Portuguese)
Oliver W.C., Pharr G. M. (2004) Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by instrumented inden-tation: Advances in
understanding and refinements to methodology, Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 19, pp. 3-20.
Ozbek A, Gul M. (2011) Variation of Schmidt hammer rebound values depending on bed thickness and discontinuity
surfaces, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 2201-2211.
Papadakis V. G, Fardis M. N, Vayenas C. G. (1992) Effect of composition, environmental factors and cement-lime mortar
coating on concrete carbonation, Materials and Structures, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 293-304.
Papadakis V. G., Fardis, M. N., Vayenas, C. G. (1992) Hydration and Carbonation of Pozzolanic Cements, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 89, No. 2, March-April 1992, pp. 119-130.
Pascale G, Di Leo A, Bonora V. (2003) Nondestructive Assessment of the Actual Compressive Strength of High-Strength
Concrete, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 15., No. 5., pp. 452-459.
Pascale G, Di Leo A, Carli R, Bonora V. (2000) Evaluation of Actual Compressive Strength of High Strength Concrete by
NDT, Proceedings 15th WCNDT, Roma, Italy, www.ndt.net
Picu M. (2004) Research regarding the investigation of steel hardness, Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle XIV Mechanical Engineering, ISSN 1224-5615
Pohl E. (1966) Nondestructive testing of concrete (Zerstrungsfreie Prfmethoden fr Beton), VEB Verlag fr Bauwesen
Berlin, 1966, p. 160. (in German)
Postacioglu B. (1985) New significations of rebound index and ultrasonic pulse velocity (Nouvelles significations de l'indice
sclromtrique Schmidt et de la vitesse de propagation des ultra-sons), Materials and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp.
447-451.
Powers T. C, Brownyard T. L. (1947) Studies of the Physical Properties of Hardened Portland Cement Paste, Journal of
the American Concrete Institute, April 1947, Vol. 18 (Proceedings Vol. 43), No. 8, pp. 933-992.
Proceq SA (2003) Concrete Test Hammer N/NR,L/LR and DIGI SCHMIDT ND/LD Rebound Measurement and
Carbonation, Info sheet
Proceq SA (2003) Concrete Test Hammer ORIGINAL SCHMIDT N/NR and L/LR Addition to the Operation Manual, Info
sheet
Proceq SA (2004) Non-Destructive testing of concrete Schmidt concrete test hammer, Training course handout
Proceq SA (2005) Non-Destructive testing of concrete Schmidt concrete test hammer, Training course handout,
October 2005, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
Proceq SA (2006) Operating Instructions Concrete Test Hammer N/NR L/LR, Manual, ver 09 2006, Schwerzenbach,
Switzerland
Proceq SA (2007) Conversion curves for the new generation of concrete test hammers, Ingenieur-gesellschaft GmbH
Proceq SA (2007) The SilverSchmidt Conversion Curves Guide to selecting the correct conversion curve, Info sheet
Proceq SA (2008) Silver Schmidt Operating Instructions, Manual, ver 04 2008, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
Proceq SA (2008) Silver Schmidt product launch, Info sheet, May 2008, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
Pucinotti R. (2007) The use of multiple combined non destructive testing in the concrete by the rebound hammer test
according to EN 13791: 2007, Proceedings 7th International Symposium on Nondestructive Testing in Civil
Engineering, 30 June - 3 July 2009, Nantes, France
Qasrawi H. Y. (2000) Concrete strength by combined nondestructive methods Simply and reliably predicted, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 30., pp. 739-746.
Qasrawi H. Y. (2001) Reply to the discussion by E. Ariolu, N. Ariolu, and C. Girgin of the paper Concrete strength by
combined nondestructive methods simply and reliably predicted, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, p. 1241.
xii
Rackwitz R. (1983) Predictive distribution of strength under control, Materials and Structures, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 259-267.
Rational (1930) Duroskop hardness tester (Duroskop Hrteprfer), Berlin Wilmersdorf: Rational GmbH, 2 p. (in German)
Ravindrajah R. S, Loo Y. H, Tam C. T. (1988) Strength evaluation of recycled-aggregate concrete by in-situ tests,
Materials and Structures, Vol. 21, pp. 289-295.
Razali N. M, Wah Y. B. (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling
tests, Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Raumur R. A. F. (1722) The art of converting iron into steel (Lart de convertir le fer forg en acier), French Academy of
Sciences, Paris, 1722 (in French)
Reimann J. (1975) Mathematical statistical analysis of characteristic flood data (rvizek jellemz adatainak matematikai
statisztikai elemzse), Hidrolgiai Kzlny, 1975/4, pp. 157-163. (in Hungarian)
Reimann J, V. Nagy I. (1984) Statistics in Hydrology (Hidrolgiai statisztika), Tanknyvkiad, Budapest, 1984, 519 p. (in
Hungarian)
RILEM (1977) Recommendations for testing concrete by hardness methods, Tentative Recommendation, 7-NDT Committee
Non Destructive Testing, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 10, No. 59, pp. 313-316.
Roknich Gy. (1966) Draft company-standard for rebound hammer test (Hziszabvny-tervezet Schmidt-kalapcsos
vizsglathoz), Research Institute for Roads
Roknich Gy. (1967) Cement and Concrete tests, Part C. Development of non-destructive test of concrete (Cement- s
betonvizsglatok, C rsz. A roncsolsmentes betonvizsglat tovbbfejlesztse), Research Institute for Roads, Report No.
07066013 (in Hungarian)
Roknich Gy. (1968) Nondestructive testing of concrete (A beton roncsolsmentes vizsglata), Mlyptstudomnyi
Szemle, Vol. XVIII, No. 7, pp. 298-301. (in Hungarian)
Rsch H. (1964) Statistical quality control of concrete (Zur statistischen Qualittskontrolle des Betons), Materialprfung, V. 6,
No. 11, November 1964, pp. 387-394. (in German)
Samarin A. (2004) Combined Methods, Chapter 9 in Malhotra, V. M., Carino, N. J. (Editors) Handbook on nondestructive
testing of concrete, Second edition, CRC Press LLC, pp. 9-1 to 9-12.
Schickert G. (1984) Critical reflections on non-destructive testing of concrete, Materials and Structures, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 217-223.
Schlel P. (2002) Study aid of building materials practice for undergraduate (Unterlagen zum Praktikum im Grundstudium des
Fachs Baustoffkunde), Lehrstuhl fr Baustoffkunde und Werkstoffprfung, Technische Unversitt Mnchen, Mnchen 2002
Schmidt E. (1950) Rebound hammer for concrete testing (Der Beton-Prfhammer), Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 15. Juli
1950, 68. Jahrgang, Nr. 28, pp. 378-379. (in German)
Schmidt E. (1951) Quality control of concrete by rebound hammer testing (Versuche mit dem neuen Beton-Prfhammer zur
Qualittsbestimmung des Betons), Schweizer Archiv fr angewandte Wissenschaft und Technik, V. 17, Mai 1951, pp. 139-
143. (in German)
Sestini Q. (1934) Strength test of cementitious materials by Brinell testing (La prova Brinell applicata al materiali cementizi
come prova di resistenza), Le Strade, 1934/7, Vol. 16. (in Italian)
Shimizu Y, Hirosawa M, Zhou J. (2000) Statistical analysis of concrete strength in existing reinforced concrete buildings in Japan,
Proceedings 12WCEE 2000: 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January 30 February 4, 2000, Auckland,
New Zealand, No. 1499, pp. 1-8.
Shore A. T. (1911) Property of Hardness in Metals and Materials, Proceedings, ASTM, Vol. 11, 1911, pp. 733-739.
Skramtajew B. G. (1938) Determining Concrete Strength in Control for Concrete in Structures, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, January-February 1938, Vol. 9 (Proceedings Vol. 34), No. 3, pp. 285-303.
Skramtajew B. G., Leshchinsky, M. Y. (1964) Strength testing of concrete ( ), Sztroizdat,
Moscow, 1964, 176 p. (in Russian)
Soroka I. (1971) On compressive strength variation in concrete, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 4, No. 21, 1971, pp.
155-161.
Soshiroda T, Voraputhaporn K. (1999) Recommended method for earlier inspection of concrete quality by non-destructive
testing, Proceedings Symp. Concrete Durability and Repair Technology, Dundee, UK, pp. 27-36.
Soshiroda T, Voraputhaporn K, Nozaki Y. (2006) Early-stage inspection of concrete quality in structures by combined
nondestructive method, Materials and Structures, DOI 10.1617/s11527-005-9007-6.
Springenschmid R., Wagner-Grey U. (1980) Der zerstrunsfreie Prfung von Brcken, Forschungs-auftrag des
Bundesministeriums fr Bauten und Technik, Straenforschung, Heft 145, Wien
xiii
Steinwede K. (1937) Application of ball hardness tests for the determination of strength of concrete (ber die Anwendung
des Kugelhrteversuches zur Bestimmung der Festigkeit des Betons), Doctoral Thesis, University of Hannover, Faculty of
Civil Engineering, 20 Feb 1937, Gebrder Jnecke, Hannover, 69 p. (in German)
Swain M.V, Hagan J.T. (1976) Indentation plasticity and the ensuing fracture of glass, Journal of Physics D: Applied
Physics, Vol. 9, No. 15, pp. 2201-2214.
Swamy N, Rigby G. (1971) Dynamic properties of hardened paste, mortar and concrete, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol.
4, No. 19, pp. 13-40.
Szalai K. ed. (1982) Quality control of concrete (A beton minsgellenrzse), Standardization Library 26, Hungarian
Standards Institution, 538 p.
Szilgyi K, Borosnyi A. (2009) 50 years of experience with the Schmidt rebound hammer, Concrete Structures, Vol. 10,
2009, pp. 46-56.
Szilgyi K, Borosnyi A. (2011) Static indentation hardness testing of concrete: A long established method revived, pt
anyag, Vol. 63. No. 1, 2011/1
Szilgyi K, Borosnyi A, Zsigovics I. (2011) Rebound surface hardness of concrete: Introduction of an empirical
constitutive model, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, Issue 5, May 2011, pp. 2480-2487.
Szwedzicki T. (1988) Indentation hardness testing of rock, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 825-829.
Szymanski, A., Szymanski, J. M. (1989) Hardness estimation of minerals, rocks and ceramic materials, Polish Scientific
Publishers, Warszawa, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989, 330. p.
Tabor D. (1947) A simple theory of static and dynamic hardness, Proc. of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 192(1029): 247-274
Tabor D. (1951) The hardness of metals, Oxford University Press, 1951, 175 p.
Talabr J, Borjn J, Jzsa Zs. (1979) Influences of concrete technology parameters to the strength estimation
relationships based on non-destructive testing (Betontechnolgiai paramterek hatsa a roncsolsmentes
szilrdsgbecsl sszefggsekre), Tudomnyos Kzlemnyek 29, Budapest University of Technology, Dept. of
Building Materials, 97 p. (in Hungarian)
Tanigawa Y, Baba K, Mori H. (1984) In Situ Tests: Estimation of concrete strength by combined non-destructive testing
method, ACI Publication SP-82 In Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, Malhotra, V. M. (Editor), American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1984, pp. 57-76.
Tewodros T, Soroushian G, Soroushian P. (2010) Development of structure-property relationships for concrete, Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, Vol. 9., No. 1., pp. 5-14.
Teychenn D. C. (1973) Recommendations for the treatment of the variations of concrete strength in codes of practice,
Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 6, No. 34, 1973, pp. 259-267.
The Peoples Republic of China industry standard JGJ/T23-2001. Technical Specification for Inspection of Concrete
Compressive Strength by Rebound Method. Approved by the Peoples Republic of China Ministry of Construction, 1
October 2001. p. 32. (in Chinese)
Thewlis J. (1973) Concise Dictionary of Physics, Oxford, Pergamon Press, p. 248.
Thomaz E. C. S. (2011) Sclerometer (Esclermetro), Notas de Aula, pp. 1-20. (in Portuguese)
Timoshenko S. P. (1951) History of strength of materials, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, 452 p.
Timoshenko S, Goodier J. N. (1951) Theory of elasticity, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 567 p.
Todhunter I. (1893) A history of the theory of elasticity and of the strength of materials from Galilei to the present time.
Edited and completed by Karl Pearson, Cambridge University Press, 1893.
Tth J. editor (2007) Oxford-Typotex Encyclopaedia of mathematics (Oxford-Typotex Matematikai Kislexikon), Typotex
publishing, 2007, source: www.tankonyvtar.hu (in Hungarian)
Tyrman M. (1936) Devices to determine hardness (Kemnysgmegllapt mszerek), A Magyar Mrnk- s ptsz
Egylet Kzlnye, Vol. LXX, No. 39-40, p. 282. (in Hungarian)
Ujhelyi J, Popovics S. (2006) Improvements in accuracy of the relationship between concrete strength and water-cement
ratio (A betonszilrdsg s a vz-cement tnyez kztti sszefggs megbzha-tsgnak javtsa), Vasbetonpts,
VIII. vf, 1. sz, pp. 2-9. (in Hungarian)
Ujhelyi J. (2005) Concrete knowledge (Betonismeretek), BME University Press, 346 p. (in Hungarian)
T 2-2.204 (1999) Kzti betonburkolatok s mtrgyak roncsolsmentes vizsglata Schmidt-kalapccsal s
ultrahanggal, tgyi Mszaki Elrs, Magyar tgyi Trsasg, 39 p. (in Hungarian)
xiv
Vadsz J. (1970) Nondestructive testing of concrete strength in structures (A beton nyomszilrds-gnak
roncsolsmentes meghatrozsa szerkezetekben), Doctoral Thesis, Budapest University of Technology, Faculty of
Civil Engineering (in Hungarian)
Vandone I. (1933) Indentation testing for the determination of compressive strength of cements (La prova dimpronta per
determinare la resistenza a compressione dei cementi), Le Strade, 1933/9, Vol. 15. (in Italian)
Varga F, Tth L, Pluvinage G. (1999) Anyagok krosodsa s vizsglata klnbz zemi krlmnyek kztt
Kemnysgmrs, Miskolci Egyetem, 1999, p. 35. (in Hungarian)
Victor D. J. (1963) Evaluation of hardened field concrete with rebound hammer, Indian Concrete Journal, November 1963,
pp. 407-411.
Washa G. W, Wendt K. F. (1975) Fifty Year Properties of Concrete, ACI Journal, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 20-28.
Wassermann R, Katz A, Bentur A. (2009)
Minimum cement content requirements: a must or a myth?, Materials and Structures, Vol. 42, pp. 973982.
Wesche K. (1967) Strength testing of concrete in structures (Die Prfung der Betonfestigkeit im Bauwerk), Betonstein-Zeitung,
Heft 6/1967, pp. 267-277. (in German)
Williams J. F. (1936) A Method for the Estimation of Compressive Strength of Concrete in the Field, The Structural
Engineer (London), Vol. 14, No. 7, July 1936, pp. 321-326.
Wolpert Wilson Instruments (2006) WHL-380 MASSTER TESTOR, Info sheet
Wood S. L. (1991) Evaluation of the Long-Term Properties of Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 6, November-
December 1991, pp. 630-643.
WSDOT Materials Manual M 46-01.03 (2009) Rebound Hammer Determination of Compressive Strength of Hardened
Concrete, January 2009
Yoo J. K, Ryu D. W. (2008) A study on the evaluation of strength development property of concrete at early ages,
Proceedings of the 3rd ACF International Conference ACF/VCA, pp. 955-962.
Yoon I.-S, Copuroglu O, Park K.-B. (2007) Effect of global climatic change on carbonation progress of concrete,
Atmospheric Environment, Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.05.028.
Yun C. H, Choi K. R, Kim S. Y, Song Y. C. (1988) Comparative Evaluation of Nondestructive Test Methods for In-Place
Strength Determination, ACI Publication SP-112 Nondestructive Testing, Lew, H. S. (Editor), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1984, pp. 111-136.
Zeng K, Breder K, Rowcliffe D. J, Herrstrm C. (1992) Elastic modulus determined by Hertzian indentation, Journal of Materials
Science, Vol. 27, No. 14, pp. 3789-3792.
Zhu W, Gibbs J. C, Bartos P. J. M. (2001), Uniformity of in situ properties of self-compacting concrete in full-scale
sructural elements, Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 23, pp. 57-64.
Zoldners N. G. (1957) Calibration and Use of Impact Test Hammer, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 29, No.
2, August 1957, Proceedings V. 54, pp. 161-165.
Zukas J. A, Nicholas T, Swift H. F, Greszczuk L. B, Curran D. R. (1982) Impact dynamics, Hohn Wiley & Sons, 452 p.
xv
Appendices
APPENDIX A Numerical input for the statistical analysis together with the resulted
repeatability parameters
A1
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A2
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A3
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A4
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A5
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A6
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A7
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A8
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A9
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A10
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A11
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A12
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A13
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A14
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A15
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A16
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A17
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A18
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A19
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A20
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A21
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A22
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A23
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A24
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A25
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A26
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A27
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A28
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A29
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A30
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A31
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A32
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A33
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A34
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A35
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A36
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A37
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A38
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A39
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A40
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A41
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A42
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A43
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A44
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A45
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A46
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A47
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A48
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A49
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A50
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A51
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A52
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A53
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A54
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A55
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A56
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A57
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A58
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A59
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A60
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A61
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A62
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A63
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A64
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A65
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A66
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A67
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A68
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A69
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A70
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A71
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A72
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A73
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A74
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A75
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A76
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A77
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A78
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A79
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A80
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A81
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A82
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A83
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A84
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A85
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A86
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A87
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A88
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A89
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A90
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A91
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A92
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A93
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A94
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A95
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A96
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A97
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A98
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A99
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A100
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A101
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A102
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A103
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A104
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A105
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A106
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A107
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A108
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A109
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A110
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A111
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A112
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A113
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A114
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A115
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A116
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A117
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A118
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A119
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A120
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A121
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A122
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A123
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A124
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A125
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A126
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A127
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A128
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A129
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A130
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A131
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A132
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A133
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A134
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A135
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A136
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A137
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A138
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A139
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A140
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A141
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A142
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A143
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A144
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A145
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A146
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A147
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A148
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A149
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A150
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A151
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A152
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A153
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A154
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A155
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A156
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A157
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A158
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A159
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A160
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A161
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A162
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A163
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A164
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A165
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A166
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A167
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A168
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A169
Test area R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Rm sR VR, % rR R fcm, MPa
A170
Appendix B
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Beta [1]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.15716
P-Value 0
Rank 26
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 163.23
Rank 21
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 1081.2
P-Value 0
Rank 29
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
Burr [2]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14055
P-Value 0
Rank 2
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 145.49
Rank 9
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 911.13
P-Value 0
Rank 25
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B1
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Cauchy [4]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.17849
P-Value 0
Rank 32
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 333.15
Rank 37
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 3978.5
P-Value 0
Rank 44
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B2
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Chi-Squared [5]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.37456
P-Value 0
Rank 54
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1260.1
Rank 50
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 8
Statistic 3456.9
P-Value 0
Rank 41
Critical Value 11.03 13.362 15.507 18.168 20.09
B3
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Dagum [7]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14192
P-Value 0
Rank 5
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 144.66
Rank 4
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 909.46
P-Value 0
Rank 23
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B4
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Erlang [9]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.27105
P-Value 0
Rank 49
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 671.48
Rank 47
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 1176.4
P-Value 0
Rank 30
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B5
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Error [11]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.25586
P-Value 0
Rank 46
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 361.56
Rank 41
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 4955.5
P-Value 0
Rank 46
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B6
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Exponential [13]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.39666
P-Value 0
Rank 55
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1467.7
Rank 52
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 7884.9
P-Value 0
Rank 48
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
B7
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B8
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Frechet [17]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.19873
P-Value 0
Rank 36
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 253.6
Rank 32
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 466.79
P-Value 0
Rank 2
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B9
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Gamma [19]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14839
P-Value 0
Rank 19
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 203.98
Rank 25
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 689.89
P-Value 0
Rank 18
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B10
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B11
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B12
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B13
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Hypersecant [28]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.2275
P-Value 0
Rank 45
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 325.61
Rank 35
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 3675.6
P-Value 0
Rank 43
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B14
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B15
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Johnson SB [31]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.16971
P-Value 0
Rank 30
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 298.8
Rank 33
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Kumaraswamy [32]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.15234
P-Value 0
Rank 23
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 225.15
Rank 29
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 1367.5
P-Value 0
Rank 32
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B16
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Laplace [33]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.25586
P-Value 0
Rank 47
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 361.56
Rank 42
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 4955.5
P-Value 0
Rank 45
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
Levy [34]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.4633
P-Value 0
Rank 61
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2559.2
Rank 61
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 10
Statistic 18894.0
P-Value 0
Rank 55
Critical Value 13.442 15.987 18.307 21.161 23.209
B17
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Log-Gamma [36]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.16845
P-Value 0
Rank 28
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 214.95
Rank 26
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 457.65
P-Value 0
Rank 1
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B18
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Log-Logistic [37]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.15566
P-Value 0
Rank 25
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 145.44
Rank 8
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 1031.4
P-Value 0
Rank 27
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B19
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Logistic [40]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.214
P-Value 0
Rank 43
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 324.38
Rank 34
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 2273.1
P-Value 0
Rank 34
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B20
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Lognormal [41]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14624
P-Value 0
Rank 15
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 148.63
Rank 12
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 667.32
P-Value 0
Rank 10
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B21
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Nakagami [43]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.27454
P-Value 0
Rank 50
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 608.8
Rank 45
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 8
Statistic 3317.1
P-Value 0
Rank 40
Critical Value 11.03 13.362 15.507 18.168 20.09
Normal [44]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.20006
P-Value 0
Rank 37
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 360.4
Rank 40
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 2277.2
P-Value 0
Rank 35
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B22
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Pareto [45]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.45601
P-Value 0
Rank 60
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2119.7
Rank 56
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 14195.0
P-Value 0
Rank 54
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
Pareto 2 [46]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.42372
P-Value 0
Rank 57
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1662.6
Rank 54
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 10851.0
P-Value 0
Rank 51
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
B23
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Pearson V [47]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.15979
P-Value 0
Rank 27
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 153.02
Rank 18
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 589.74
P-Value 0
Rank 3
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B24
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Pearson VI [49]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14321
P-Value 0
Rank 10
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 145.34
Rank 7
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 667.54
P-Value 0
Rank 13
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B25
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Pert [51]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.21686
P-Value 0
Rank 44
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 661.72
Rank 46
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 10
Statistic 3201.3
P-Value 0
Rank 39
Critical Value 13.442 15.987 18.307 21.161 23.209
B26
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
B27
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Rayleigh [55]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.19595
P-Value 0
Rank 35
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 362.64
Rank 43
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 8
Statistic 2989.7
P-Value 0
Rank 37
Critical Value 11.03 13.362 15.507 18.168 20.09
B28
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Reciprocal [57]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.28617
P-Value 0
Rank 51
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1352.3
Rank 51
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 11989.0
P-Value 0
Rank 52
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
Rice [58]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.20695
P-Value 0
Rank 39
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 358.95
Rank 39
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 8
Statistic 3066.4
P-Value 0
Rank 38
Critical Value 11.03 13.362 15.507 18.168 20.09
B29
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Student's t [59]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.90549
P-Value 0
Rank 64
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 19679.0
Rank 64
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 4
Statistic 95513.0
P-Value 0
Rank 57
Critical Value 5.9886 7.7794 9.4877 11.668 13.277
Triangular [60]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.45549
P-Value 0
Rank 59
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2686.3
Rank 62
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 12185.0
P-Value 0
Rank 53
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B30
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Uniform [61]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.2096
P-Value 0
Rank 42
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2311.2
Rank 58
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Wakeby [62]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14755
P-Value 0
Rank 17
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 243.37
Rank 31
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
B31
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the range of the rebound index (rR)
Weibull [63]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.20798
P-Value 0
Rank 40
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 331.39
Rank 36
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 6
Statistic 2409.3
P-Value 0
Rank 36
Critical Value 8.5581 10.645 12.592 15.033 16.812
B32
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Beta [1]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.0818
P-Value 0
Rank 28
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 65.833
Rank 23
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 887.65
P-Value 0
Rank 20
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Burr [2]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03593
P-Value 1.7311E-10
Rank 3
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 10.785
Rank 6
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 444.2
P-Value 0
Rank 10
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B33
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Cauchy [4]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.12666
P-Value 0
Rank 36
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 258.09
Rank 36
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2255.9
P-Value 0
Rank 35
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B34
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Chi-Squared [5]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.59686
P-Value 0
Rank 60
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 4828.8
Rank 60
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 11
Statistic 20613.0
P-Value 0
Rank 53
Critical Value 14.631 17.275 19.675 22.618 24.725
B35
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Dagum [7]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03336
P-Value 4.2724E-9
Rank 1
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 8.7333
Rank 1
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 420.69
P-Value 0
Rank 5
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B36
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Erlang [9]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.24196
P-Value 0
Rank 50
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 993.21
Rank 46
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2370.2
P-Value 0
Rank 36
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B37
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Error [11]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.17114
P-Value 0
Rank 45
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 313.12
Rank 41
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2726.9
P-Value 0
Rank 39
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B38
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Exponential [13]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.34911
P-Value 0
Rank 53
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1539.7
Rank 50
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 9706.0
P-Value 0
Rank 48
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B39
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B40
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Frechet [17]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.07287
P-Value 0
Rank 24
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 68.836
Rank 24
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 740.74
P-Value 0
Rank 17
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B41
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Gamma [19]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.07882
P-Value 0
Rank 26
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 99.956
Rank 26
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1127.3
P-Value 0
Rank 27
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B42
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B43
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B44
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B45
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Hypersecant [28]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.1475
P-Value 0
Rank 41
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 258.36
Rank 37
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2183.1
P-Value 0
Rank 33
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B46
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B47
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Johnson SB [31]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.0548
P-Value 0
Rank 15
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 154.56
Rank 28
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Kumaraswamy [32]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.10732
P-Value 0
Rank 33
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 187.81
Rank 33
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1974.2
P-Value 0
Rank 31
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B48
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Laplace [33]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.17114
P-Value 0
Rank 46
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 313.12
Rank 42
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2726.9
P-Value 0
Rank 40
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Levy [34]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.44863
P-Value 0
Rank 58
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2734.9
Rank 58
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 19016.0
P-Value 0
Rank 52
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B49
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Log-Logistic [36]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.06184
P-Value 0
Rank 19
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 28.387
Rank 17
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 276.06
P-Value 0
Rank 2
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B50
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B51
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Logistic [39]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.1434
P-Value 0
Rank 40
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 252.24
Rank 35
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2252.9
P-Value 0
Rank 34
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Lognormal [40]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.05929
P-Value 0
Rank 18
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 25.941
Rank 16
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 467.39
P-Value 0
Rank 12
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B52
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Nakagami [42]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.18274
P-Value 0
Rank 47
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 436.13
Rank 43
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3191.2
P-Value 0
Rank 41
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B53
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Normal [43]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.13858
P-Value 0
Rank 39
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 282.41
Rank 39
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2647.2
P-Value 0
Rank 38
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Pareto [44]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.44993
P-Value 0
Rank 59
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2584.1
Rank 57
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 22118.0
P-Value 0
Rank 54
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
B54
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Pareto 2 [45]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.36595
P-Value 0
Rank 54
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1673.9
Rank 52
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 8646.2
P-Value 0
Rank 46
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
Pearson V [46]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04493
P-Value 3.7291E-16
Rank 13
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 10.548
Rank 5
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1007.9
P-Value 0
Rank 25
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B55
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Pearson VI [48]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04171
P-Value 5.5852E-14
Rank 9
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 11.566
Rank 7
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 907.42
P-Value 0
Rank 22
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B56
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Pert [50]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.16933
P-Value 0
Rank 44
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 677.98
Rank 44
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 4854.6
P-Value 0
Rank 42
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B57
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B58
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Rayleigh [54]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.13617
P-Value 0
Rank 38
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 305.44
Rank 40
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2576.4
P-Value 0
Rank 37
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B59
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Reciprocal [56]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.32165
P-Value 0
Rank 52
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1593.1
Rank 51
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 11
Statistic 13185.0
P-Value 0
Rank 49
Critical Value 14.631 17.275 19.675 22.618 24.725
B60
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Rice [57]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.12484
P-Value 0
Rank 35
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 230.99
Rank 34
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2073.0
P-Value 0
Rank 32
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Triangular [58]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.42367
P-Value 0
Rank 57
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 3133.6
Rank 59
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 8971.6
P-Value 0
Rank 47
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B61
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Uniform [59]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14802
P-Value 0
Rank 42
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2505.0
Rank 56
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Wakeby [60]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04078
P-Value 2.1809E-13
Rank 7
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 165.8
Rank 31
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
B62
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
Weibull [61]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.12901
P-Value 0
Rank 37
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 261.96
Rank 38
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1951.5
P-Value 0
Rank 30
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B63
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the standard deviation of the rebound index (sR)
B64
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Beta [1]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.07876
P-Value 0
Rank 27
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 98.126
Rank 24
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 801.28
P-Value 0
Rank 21
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Burr [2]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02214
P-Value 3.0375E-4
Rank 4
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5.6515
Rank 5
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 78.561
P-Value 2.0559E-11
Rank 1
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B65
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Cauchy [4]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.13221
P-Value 0
Rank 37
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 292.83
Rank 36
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1967.9
P-Value 0
Rank 31
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B66
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Chi-Squared [5]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.22789
P-Value 0
Rank 50
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 683.21
Rank 45
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3242.5
P-Value 0
Rank 37
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B67
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Dagum [7]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.01821
P-Value 0.0052
Rank 3
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 3.1127
Rank 1
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 122.01
P-Value 0
Rank 3
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B68
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Erlang [9]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.17858
P-Value 0
Rank 47
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 485.45
Rank 44
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1871.0
P-Value 0
Rank 29
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B69
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Error [11]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.16845
P-Value 0
Rank 45
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 397.85
Rank 41
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3494.7
P-Value 0
Rank 40
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B70
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Exponential [13]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.32012
P-Value 0
Rank 54
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1299.3
Rank 51
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 7730.6
P-Value 0
Rank 44
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B71
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B72
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Frechet [17]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04276
P-Value 1.1355E-14
Rank 16
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 34.559
Rank 15
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 159.24
P-Value 0
Rank 9
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B73
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Gamma [19]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.09288
P-Value 0
Rank 30
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 165.06
Rank 28
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1418.0
P-Value 0
Rank 25
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B74
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B75
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B76
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B77
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Hypersecant [28]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14767
P-Value 0
Rank 40
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 353.56
Rank 39
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2894.4
P-Value 0
Rank 35
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B78
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B79
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Johnson SB [31]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03124
P-Value 4.9845E-8
Rank 14
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 120.63
Rank 25
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Kumaraswamy [32]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.10111
P-Value 0
Rank 32
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 217.16
Rank 30
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1849.5
P-Value 0
Rank 28
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B80
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Laplace [33]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.16845
P-Value 0
Rank 46
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 397.85
Rank 42
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3494.7
P-Value 0
Rank 39
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Levy [34]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.41708
P-Value 0
Rank 57
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2529.9
Rank 56
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 15538.0
P-Value 0
Rank 47
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B81
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Log-Logistic [36]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.05029
P-Value 5.4210E-20
Rank 19
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 36.809
Rank 16
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 413.47
P-Value 0
Rank 17
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B82
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B83
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Logistic [39]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14549
P-Value 0
Rank 39
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 356.83
Rank 40
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3040.1
P-Value 0
Rank 36
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Lognormal [40]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04893
P-Value 4.3368E-19
Rank 17
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 37.052
Rank 17
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 284.3
P-Value 0
Rank 13
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B84
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Normal [42]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.14774
P-Value 0
Rank 41
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 410.93
Rank 43
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 3435.7
P-Value 0
Rank 38
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B85
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Pareto [43]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.45621
P-Value 0
Rank 58
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2641.3
Rank 57
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 24424.0
P-Value 0
Rank 50
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
Pareto 2 [44]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.31995
P-Value 0
Rank 53
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1299.1
Rank 50
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 7756.4
P-Value 0
Rank 45
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B86
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Pearson V [45]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02373
P-Value 8.2070E-5
Rank 7
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 6.2527
Rank 6
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 104.79
P-Value 2.2204E-16
Rank 2
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B87
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Pearson VI [47]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02736
P-Value 2.9337E-6
Rank 10
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 9.1256
Rank 7
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 126.92
P-Value 0
Rank 5
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B88
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Pert [49]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.20744
P-Value 0
Rank 48
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 935.3
Rank 47
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 6640.2
P-Value 0
Rank 43
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B89
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B90
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Rayleigh [53]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.10518
P-Value 0
Rank 33
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 252.97
Rank 33
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2192.0
P-Value 0
Rank 34
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B91
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Reciprocal [55]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.31509
P-Value 0
Rank 52
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1678.3
Rank 52
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 10
Statistic 15662.0
P-Value 0
Rank 48
Critical Value 13.442 15.987 18.307 21.161 23.209
Rice [56]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.10996
P-Value 0
Rank 34
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 260.05
Rank 34
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2148.5
P-Value 0
Rank 32
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B92
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Student's t [57]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.86994
P-Value 0
Rank 61
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 18979.0
Rank 61
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 8
Statistic 1.0012E+5
P-Value 0
Rank 52
Critical Value 11.03 13.362 15.507 18.168 20.09
Triangular [58]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.54059
P-Value 0
Rank 59
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5462.2
Rank 59
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 16688.0
P-Value 0
Rank 49
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B93
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Uniform [59]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.166
P-Value 0
Rank 44
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2758.9
Rank 58
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Wakeby [60]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02232
P-Value 2.6233E-4
Rank 6
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 224.66
Rank 31
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
B94
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
Weibull [61]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.1187
P-Value 0
Rank 35
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01134 0.01292 0.01435 0.01604 0.01721
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 320.98
Rank 37
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 1630.2
P-Value 0
Rank 26
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B95
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the coefficient of variation of the rebound index (VR)
B96
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Beta [1]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02791
P-Value 4.4224E-6
Rank 1
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5.1195
Rank 2
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 196.76
P-Value 0
Rank 16
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Burr [2]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03258
P-Value 3.9569E-8
Rank 11
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5.0417
Rank 1
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 194.15
P-Value 0
Rank 14
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B97
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Cauchy [4]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.07745
P-Value 0
Rank 37
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 109.33
Rank 36
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 2037.4
P-Value 0
Rank 36
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B98
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Chi-Squared [5]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.64238
P-Value 0
Rank 59
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5057.8
Rank 59
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 10
Statistic 43554.0
P-Value 0
Rank 48
Critical Value 13.442 15.987 18.307 21.161 23.209
B99
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Dagum [7]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03912
P-Value 1.5618E-11
Rank 19
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 8.0419
Rank 13
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 156.74
P-Value 0
Rank 7
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B100
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Erlang [9]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.06273
P-Value 0
Rank 32
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 50.202
Rank 29
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 456.73
P-Value 0
Rank 29
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B101
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Error [11]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04582
P-Value 1.1379E-15
Rank 23
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 11.711
Rank 16
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 408.25
P-Value 0
Rank 25
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B102
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Exponential [13]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.49699
P-Value 0
Rank 53
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 2889.1
Rank 53
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 11
Statistic 38337.0
P-Value 0
Rank 46
Critical Value 14.631 17.275 19.675 22.618 24.725
B103
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B104
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Frechet [17]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.12093
P-Value 0
Rank 43
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 298.37
Rank 39
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
B105
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Gamma [19]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03866
P-Value 2.8191E-11
Rank 18
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 16.556
Rank 18
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 124.46
P-Value 0
Rank 2
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B106
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B107
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B108
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B109
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Hypersecant [28]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.05545
P-Value 0
Rank 28
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 25.723
Rank 23
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 359.45
P-Value 0
Rank 23
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B110
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B111
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Johnson SU [31]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03741
P-Value 1.3853E-10
Rank 16
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 6.1643
Rank 5
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 218.47
P-Value 0
Rank 19
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Kumaraswamy [32]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04972
P-Value 2.2768E-18
Rank 26
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 28.374
Rank 24
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 432.33
P-Value 0
Rank 27
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B112
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Laplace [33]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.08249
P-Value 0
Rank 40
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 73.96
Rank 33
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 715.81
P-Value 0
Rank 33
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Levy [34]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.60677
P-Value 0
Rank 57
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 3712.4
Rank 57
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 11
Statistic 63516.0
P-Value 0
Rank 50
Critical Value 14.631 17.275 19.675 22.618 24.725
B113
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Log-Logistic [36]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.0475
P-Value 8.3592E-17
Rank 25
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 29.718
Rank 25
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 264.56
P-Value 0
Rank 20
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B114
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B115
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Logistic [39]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04054
P-Value 2.3332E-12
Rank 20
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 9.4205
Rank 14
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 204.6
P-Value 0
Rank 17
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Lognormal [40]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.05573
P-Value 0
Rank 29
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 39.08
Rank 27
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 324.74
P-Value 0
Rank 22
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B116
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Nakagami [42]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02942
P-Value 1.0409E-6
Rank 3
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 7.7205
Rank 11
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 151.21
P-Value 0
Rank 5
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B117
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Normal [43]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.02794
P-Value 4.3135E-6
Rank 2
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 5.1927
Rank 3
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 188.74
P-Value 0
Rank 13
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
Pareto [44]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.53643
P-Value 0
Rank 55
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 3236.9
Rank 55
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 7
Statistic 66970.0
P-Value 0
Rank 51
Critical Value 9.8032 12.017 14.067 16.622 18.475
B118
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Pareto 2 [45]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.5162
P-Value 0
Rank 54
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 3068.7
Rank 54
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 11
Statistic 39608.0
P-Value 0
Rank 47
Critical Value 14.631 17.275 19.675 22.618 24.725
Pearson V [46]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.069
P-Value 0
Rank 35
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 76.67
Rank 34
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 800.5
P-Value 0
Rank 34
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B119
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Pearson VI [48]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.04289
P-Value 8.8699E-14
Rank 21
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 19.533
Rank 19
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 155.65
P-Value 0
Rank 6
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B120
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Pert [50]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.19658
P-Value 0
Rank 45
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 820.06
Rank 42
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 5410.6
P-Value 0
Rank 37
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B121
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B122
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Rayleigh [54]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.33352
P-Value 0
Rank 48
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1758.1
Rank 48
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 12
Statistic 16182.0
P-Value 0
Rank 42
Critical Value 15.812 18.549 21.026 24.054 26.217
B123
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Reciprocal [56]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.61798
P-Value 0
Rank 58
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 4861.1
Rank 58
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 9
Statistic 27165.0
P-Value 0
Rank 44
Critical Value 12.242 14.684 16.919 19.679 21.666
B124
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Rice [57]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.88715
P-Value 0
Rank 60
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Triangular [58]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.25078
P-Value 0
Rank 47
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 960.57
Rank 44
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 6099.4
P-Value 0
Rank 38
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B125
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Uniform [59]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.08294
P-Value 0
Rank 41
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 1332.0
Rank 46
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Wakeby [60]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.03005
P-Value 5.5624E-7
Rank 5
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 331.9
Rank 40
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
B126
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
Weibull [61]
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic 0.0509
P-Value 3.2526E-19
Rank 27
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Critical Value 0.01175 0.01339 0.01487 0.01662 0.01784
Anderson-Darling
Statistic 32.873
Rank 26
Critical Value 1.3749 1.9286 2.5018 3.2892 3.9074
Chi-Squared
Deg. of freedom 13
Statistic 576.8
P-Value 0
Rank 30
Critical Value 16.985 19.812 22.362 25.472 27.688
B127
Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis for the studentized range of the rebound index (R)
B128
Appendix C
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 42.6 55.98
14 45.3 70.00
0.45 400 CEM I 42.5 N
28 46.8 76.38
56 48.9 76.46
7 46.2 62.77
14 49.0 79.12
0.41 400 CEM I 42.5 N
28 49.6 80.27
56 50.3 89.67
7 46.7 70.68
14 47.9 81.06
0.38 400 CEM I 42.5 N
28 49.6 84.43
56 49.8 89.82
7 40.4 53.63
14 44.4 65.97
0.51 350 CEM I 42.5 N
28 44.8 69.78
56 44.8 76.42
7 41.5 60.62
14 45.4 65.07
0.47 350 CEM I 42.5 N
28 47.5 77.72
56 48.0 83.30
7 44.1 60.99
14 45.1 71.03
28 47.4 79.97
0.43 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 47.9 83.42
90 48.9 84.73
180 52.5 85.58
7 34.2 42.69
14 38.9 52.12
28 43.8 56.60
0.60 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 45.1 58.12
90 46.8 63.00
180 49.2 64.84
7 40.4 47.68
14 44.6 58.48
28 45.8 59.01
0.55 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 46.6 64.21
90 48.7 68.64
180 48.9 72.25
C1
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 40.2 51.37
14 45.6 60.99
28 46.4 67.62 0.50 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 49.6 74.57
90 49.9 78.65
7 43.1 56.36
14 44.3 69.80
0.45 400 CEM I 42.5 N
28 46.5 73.13
56 48.2 78.75
7 45.0 60.80
14 45.2 76.45
28 49.8 85.56
0.41 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 50.4 85.91
90 51.2 87.75
180 55.5 88.29
7 45.9 70.40
14 46.6 83.09
28 48.5 94.65
0.38 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 49.4 95.39
90 51.6 95.71
180 53.5 98.17
7 38.2 49.82
14 44.1 58.88
28 45.8 68.39
0.51 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 46.7 71.58
90 47.9 72.99
180 48.2 74.07
7 41.2 57.77
14 45.7 69.21
28 46.4 75.44
0.47 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 49.6 75.58
90 49.8 76.98
180 52.4 80.36
7 43.5 62.38
14 46.9 76.43
28 48.7 81.30
0.43 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 50.5 83.40
90 51.2 87.08
180 53.3 87.72
C2
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 32.1 36.27
14 37.6 45.35
28 39.7 48.41
0.60 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 40.1 53.62
90 42.5 56.26
180 43.7 57.89
7 39.4 45.62
14 40.4 54.54
28 44.8 64.39
0.55 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 46.9 64.87
90 46.9 65.22
180 49.2 66.75
7 42.3 55.01
14 46.1 65.80
28 46.3 72.30
0.50 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 48.1 76.12
90 52.0 79.64
180 52.4 80.66
7 44.3 60.81
14 44.9 71.86
28 46.6 79.84
0.45 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 48.3 81.12
90 50.4 81.51
180 52.3 82.89
7 46.6 69.04
14 48.7 81.67
28 49.9 89.40
0.41 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 50.7 90.08
90 51.6 92.23
180 52.6 92.95
7 47.9 67.99
14 48.0 82.12
28 52.0 86.40
0.38 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 52.3 86.70
90 53.0 97.02
180 55.4 103.96
7 38.4 43.64
14 42.7 55.02
28 43.0 63.64
0.51 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 47.0 68.50
90 47.0 73.79
180 47.7 74.70
C3
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 45.4 58.77
14 48.3 68.02
28 49.1 73.98
0.47 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 50.3 75.53
90 51.9 81.93
180 52.3 83.45
7 45.4 66.16
14 49.5 77.27
28 51.3 84.46
0.43 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 51.5 87.80
90 52.5 93.67
180 53.0 94.23
7 36.4 35.55
14 38.8 45.01
28 40.6 53.79
0.60 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 42.4 57.17
90 45.9 63.02
180 49.2 64.35
7 36.2 37.98
14 40.0 51.04
28 40.4 53.63
0.55 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 42.3 58.05
90 45.5 61.68
180 46.2 62.25
7 37.7 42.27
14 42.9 49.31
28 43.3 57.92
0.50 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 43.8 59.29
90 45.7 59.56
180 49.7 59.63
7 41.3 52.64
14 44.8 61.19
28 45.3 68.04
0.45 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 46.3 69.79
90 47.5 70.51
180 48.8 72.72
7 42.0 54.26
14 45.6 62.21
28 46.5 70.43
0.41 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 46.6 72.72
90 48.3 74.18
180 50.7 76.80
C4
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 44.0 56.27
14 44.5 66.27
28 46.8 71.66
0.38 400 CEM I 42.5 N
56 48.0 72.73
90 49.4 77.19
180 50.1 84.64
7 36.0 40.94
14 39.0 46.69
28 40.5 51.32
0.51 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 41.4 55.40
90 45.5 57.56
180 46.6 63.03
7 40.6 49.34
14 41.7 53.31
28 43.5 58.28
0.47 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 45.0 65.01
90 47.2 66.39
180 48.5 71.48
7 33.7 35.01
14 38.8 41.05
28 40.2 47.07 0.60 350 CEM I 42.5 N
56 42.4 49.87
90 42.5 54.52
7 40.9 47.24
14 43.7 51.86
28 44.0 57.14 0.50 300 CEM I 42.5 N
56 44.6 62.25
90 45.0 69.69
7 32.5 37.74
14 37.4 49.49
28 39.3 56.16
0.45 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 41.0 63.60
90 43.2 67.31
180 44.9 70.78
7 32.0 33.90
14 37.5 44.76
28 38.9 54.88
0.41 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 40.0 57.03
90 41.4 66.20
180 43.9 69.76
C5
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 34.9 40.16
14 41.1 62.40
28 43.2 64.37
0.38 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.3 67.59
90 46.7 79.79
180 47.6 85.11
7 29.1 30.36
14 36.8 45.57
28 38.4 52.79
0.51 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 39.7 54.60
90 40.3 58.85
180 40.4 61.79
7 26.0 32.12
14 39.0 49.88
28 40.1 57.18
0.47 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 42.7 61.97
90 43.0 65.87
180 43.4 69.61
7 37.8 40.11
14 41.2 55.95
28 43.7 69.81
0.43 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 48.8 78.09
90 49.6 83.43
180 50.1 87.94
7 27.5 26.63
14 33.1 35.36
28 34.8 41.63
0.60 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 37.4 48.16
90 38.6 52.10
180 39.4 53.81
7 27.1 27.97
14 33.8 38.52
28 36.5 46.21
0.55 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 37.6 51.25
90 38.8 54.78
180 42.2 58.85
7 28.1 26.17
14 34.8 39.38
28 35.6 49.19
0.50 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 38.3 53.63
90 42.7 58.77
180 44.2 59.61
C6
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 30.6 32.88
14 34.8 39.94
28 35.5 47.20
0.45 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 39.6 51.21
90 40.3 56.06
180 42.9 59.03
7 31.1 36.79
14 38.6 50.61
28 40.4 56.27
0.41 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 40.6 64.41
90 41.9 67.19
180 45.3 74.40
7 34.3 39.22
14 40.5 50.08
28 41.1 60.15
0.38 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.2 68.25
90 45.2 72.78
180 46.8 76.84
7 24.4 23.21
14 31.1 31.73
28 35.6 38.57
0.51 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 36.0 42.79
90 39.1 43.97
180 40.0 51.24
7 30.5 36.36
14 35.8 40.55
28 38.9 50.70 0.47 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 39.4 54.14
90 44.3 62.02
7 30.9 33.81
14 37.3 44.52
28 40.5 51.98
0.43 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.0 60.32
90 45.0 63.67
180 46.3 65.20
7 21.9 15.46
14 31.2 22.59
28 35.0 27.76
0.60 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 35.9 31.91
90 36.2 35.11
180 37.1 37.25
C7
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 23.9 19.83
14 33.6 28.30
28 36.0 35.31
0.55 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 36.5 40.14
90 38.1 42.59
180 39.7 44.47
7 27.3 23.04
14 35.8 33.30
28 36.9 41.03
0.50 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 40.1 45.54
90 42.7 49.81
180 43.8 56.92
7 37.0 47.59
14 39.3 61.21
28 43.4 71.34 0.45 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.8 79.46
90 44.8 80.68
7 39.9 47.96
14 42.3 66.62
28 42.8 75.22 0.41 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.4 81.00
90 46.9 86.11
7 41.8 55.90
14 44.7 73.87
28 46.4 82.03
0.38 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 48.4 93.85
90 48.4 94.41
180 48.9 102.37
7 31.7 39.11
14 36.6 52.62
28 40.7 61.90
0.51 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 42.4 69.61
90 42.4 75.41
180 43.2 76.71
7 30.2 39.75
14 38.6 54.70
28 41.0 66.16 0.47 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 41.1 71.05
90 43.8 76.39
C8
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 35.1 44.50
14 39.9 64.11
28 43.0 74.09
0.43 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 43.2 81.28
90 44.5 85.01
180 45.1 89.72
7 23.3 21.77
14 29.1 32.84
28 35.5 41.51
0.60 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 35.5 48.25
90 36.3 51.32
180 37.5 51.92
7 25.3 24.65
14 37.4 43.36
28 38.4 52.21
0.55 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 38.4 56.55
90 40.4 60.05
180 43.6 61.32
7 29.1 33.53
14 39.4 56.70
28 41.8 64.45
0.50 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 42.6 68.55
90 42.8 71.42
180 42.9 78.85
7 31.9 36.98
14 37.5 43.30
28 40.6 51.01
0.45 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 40.9 54.38
90 42.0 54.90
180 43.7 58.95
7 31.5 48.40
14 41.3 57.47
28 44.6 63.57
0.41 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 44.7 68.80
90 45.1 71.09
180 47.4 75.69
7 38.1 53.62
14 42.5 63.83
28 44.6 68.67
0.38 400 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 45.2 73.11
90 46.7 80.65
180 47.8 80.84
C9
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 31.6 35.63
14 35.9 44.53
28 36.4 49.49 0.51 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 39.7 53.72
90 41.5 55.36
7 25.0 26.67
14 33.1 35.43
28 34.7 39.10 0.60 350 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 38.9 44.02
90 39.2 47.10
7 32.5 38.24
14 37.3 50.38
28 37.8 54.80
0.50 300 CEM III/B 32.5 N-S
56 39.8 63.14
90 41.2 64.94
180 41.9 67.49
3 45.80 66.45
7 46.10 78.79
14 47.05 88.89
0.36 440 CEM I 52.5
28 49.95 98.96
56 51.20 100.77
90 51.95 103.38
3 48.60 67.30
7 49.15 77.37
14 49.55 88.56
0.36 440 CEM I 52.5
28 50.40 99.86
56 50.80 101.00
90 51.40 101.71
3 48.30 67.89
7 48.40 76.73
14 49.95 86.14
0.36 420 CEM I 52.5
28 51.05 91.86
56 52.00 94.94
90 52.45 96.50
3 48.00 68.99
7 48.80 76.12
14 49.35 86.57
0.36 420 CEM I 52.5
28 49.90 91.11
56 50.75 96.37
90 50.85 96.56
C10
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
3 46.45 63.20
7 47.25 72.03
14 48.25 76.72
0.35 440 CEM I 52.5
28 48.90 81.63
56 49.00 83.25
90 49.65 85.45
3 47.65 65.43
7 48.10 72.80
14 49.50 75.61
0.35 440 CEM I 52.5
28 50.45 81.23
56 50.55 83.74
90 51.00 84.87
3 45.65 64.29
7 46.35 73.76
14 48.90 81.85
0.36 440 CEM I 42.5
28 49.85 87.07
56 50.15 91.00
90 50.65 92.56
3 48.05 64.57
7 48.80 71.90
14 49.30 80.94
0.36 440 CEM I 42.5
28 50.05 87.72
56 50.20 89.95
90 50.25 92.37
3 43.85 60.40
7 44.35 76.23
14 48.10 82.12
0.36 420 CEM I 42.5
28 48.40 83.19
56 50.05 87.41
90 50.50 89.47
3 47.70 61.24
7 48.70 74.76
14 49.30 82.00
0.36 420 CEM I 42.5
28 49.50 84.98
56 50.10 88.02
90 50.20 88.80
3 46.05 63.84
7 48.45 72.22
14 48.50 79.11
0.35 440 CEM I 42.5
28 49.15 83.22
56 49.60 85.25
90 49.85 87.05
C11
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
3 47.50 63.76
7 47.75 72.82
14 48.85 78.72
0.35 440 CEM I 42.5
28 49.10 82.98
56 49.75 86.40
90 50.70 87.59
3 44.60 60.72
7 46.30 66.80
14 47.50 73.15
0.36 440 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 48.25 81.80
56 49.75 87.90
90 49.75 92.54
3 46.95 61.11
7 47.40 66.89
14 47.60 73.34
0.36 440 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 47.75 82.51
56 47.90 88.26
90 50.20 91.70
3 43.85 55.10
7 46.05 65.25
14 47.05 71.24
0.36 420 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 48.35 80.22
56 49.30 84.55
90 49.45 90.08
3 46.90 54.73
7 47.10 62.94
14 47.75 70.46
0.36 420 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 47.85 81.68
56 48.05 84.26
90 49.95 87.96
3 42.15 47.29
7 43.55 56.83
14 45.80 63.52
0.35 440 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 48.05 73.48
56 48.60 84.73
90 49.00 87.07
3 45.10 50.83
7 45.70 56.90
14 46.55 64.42
0.35 440 CEM II/A-S 42.5
28 47.30 74.52
56 47.55 82.33
90 50.15 85.99
C12
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
1 33.08 28.07
3 35.15 38.06
7 42.80 47.57
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N-S; Dmax = 16
14 44.95 57.88
28 48.10 65.06
56 48.68 68.86
1 25.93 16.70
3 34.53 36.06
7 39.65 46.66
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N-S; Dmax = 32
14 44.40 57.90
28 46.98 61.62
56 49.08 69.34
1 31.88 30.97
3 40.08 50.22
7 45.33 60.99
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N-S; Dmax = 16
14 47.75 65.48
28 49.95 72.97
56 50.70 79.71
1 30.98 26.04
3 39.00 43.06
7 44.23 54.72
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N-S; Dmax = 32
14 45.55 58.48
28 47.48 65.84
56 49.40 75.60
1 22.93 12.61
3 28.33 29.25
7 39.03 41.84
0.39 420 CEM III/A 32.5 N-MS; Dmax = 16
14 43.53 56.60
28 46.63 67.14
56 46.95 71.07
1 25.23 18.94
3 29.13 27.83
7 36.53 39.80
0.39 420 CEM III/A 32.5 N-MS; Dmax = 32
14 42.25 53.41
28 44.75 60.51
56 46.03 66.40
1 32.50 30.12
3 44.93 47.10
7 49.55 59.85
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N; Dmax = 16
14 51.65 69.68
28 53.48 78.83
56 53.75 82.25
C13
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
1 34.45 28.53
3 40.60 41.10
7 46.90 56.42
0.39 420 CEM I 42.5 N; Dmax = 32
14 48.58 67.96
28 49.98 72.85
56 50.35 74.72
1 25.75 12.97
3 32.83 34.07
7 37.18 47.46
0.39 420 CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; Dmax = 16
14 41.80 49.45
28 46.68 60.38
56 47.20 67.77
1 22.38 11.51
3 30.10 27.11
7 34.43 39.83
0.39 420 CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; Dmax = 32
14 41.03 49.01
28 45.80 57.89
56 46.23 65.54
1 23.78 12.44
3 30.38 31.22
7 31.65 39.56
0.39 420 CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; Dmax = 16
14 36.48 48.11
28 40.35 55.74
56 45.83 61.70
1 29.98 22.19
3 30.63 32.02
7 33.10 39.09
0.39 420 CEM II/A-V 42.5 N; Dmax = 32
14 37.03 47.35
28 41.40 54.32
56 41.85 62.47
7 26.37 28.88
14 35.88 34.63
28 40.90 35.35
0.59 290 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 47.13 40.30
90 50.12 40.65
180 54.28 42.60
7 34.79 31.65
14 43.24 36.23
28 51.82 39.33
0.52 330 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 55.67 41.75
90 56.93 42.70
180 62.60 43.38
C14
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 27.73 29.80
14 36.35 35.30
28 41.40 37.73
0.59 290 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 45.00 40.30
90 49.17 40.80
180 52.74 40.93
7 34.79 29.48
14 40.88 36.73
28 50.44 36.85 0.52 330 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 56.56 39.55
90 58.44 39.98
7 29.04 26.55
14 36.63 33.43
28 43.42 36.05
0.59 290 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 47.70 38.38
90 50.89 38.40
180 57.69 42.60
7 35.76 29.05
14 39.97 33.65
28 47.39 37.95 0.52 330 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 56.53 40.25
90 58.41 40.50
7 27.68 29.58
14 39.70 36.88
28 48.96 40.28 0.59 290 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 53.80 41.80
90 61.39 41.95
7 31.05 31.85
14 44.47 39.20
28 52.94 41.03 0.52 330 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 59.29 42.15
90 63.04 43.10
7 22.71 27.23
14 34.70 34.23
28 41.29 36.13 0.59 290 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 45.55 38.25
90 47.90 40.43
C15
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 28.40 31.18
14 41.97 38.53
28 48.76 39.68 0.52 330 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 55.27 40.73
90 57.73 43.98
7 23.76 24.30
14 37.23 35.05
28 43.94 37.18 0.59 290 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 46.96 37.25
90 49.92 37.58
7 26.53 26.23
14 42.09 35.23
28 48.55 37.28 0.52 330 CEM III/A 32.5 N
56 53.58 38.20
90 56.05 42.30
7 29.14 31.68
14 35.86 35.83
28 43.91 39.38 0.59 290 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 50.25 40.95
90 51.89 43.15
7 34.89 35.03
14 45.88 38.70
28 48.93 39.50 0.52 330 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 54.93 41.63
90 56.40 43.08
7 25.58 30.40
14 33.76 32.93
28 38.61 36.85 0.59 290 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 43.92 40.90
90 46.77 41.30
7 33.35 34.50
14 38.63 35.13
28 47.65 40.40 0.52 330 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 58.99 42.18
90 59.45 43.83
7 25.67 29.70
14 30.16 32.88
28 37.21 35.70 0.59 290 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 48.54 39.70
90 50.09 40.15
C16
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
7 30.46 32.78
14 34.89 34.93
28 44.39 37.60 0.52 330 CEM II/B-M (V-L) 32.5 N
56 53.47 41.83
90 55.08 42.58
7 21.90 14.38
14 31.20 23.00
28 32.55 29.15 0.66 290 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 33.63 33.01
90 36.48 34.79
7 27.50 31.81
14 32.35 45.88
28 35.68 55.98 0.39 420 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 36.08 59.44
90 37.33 62.42
7 21.15 12.10
14 29.65 21.20
28 30.83 24.70 0.66 290 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 33.25 30.83
90 37.13 32.84
7 32.88 38.99
14 38.25 58.62
28 40.78 66.53 0.39 420 CEM III/B 32.5 N
56 42.80 75.42
90 42.88 77.43
3 28.63 22.83
7 34.75 30.47
14 38.00 33.67
0.44 350 CEM I 32.5
28 42.57 33.30
91 46.22 41.03
179 46.93 49.50
7 33.10 21.10
14 35.20 26.95
21 38.20 30.50
28 38.70 31.50
42 37.43 34.70 0.48 350 CEM I 32.5
60 40.48 37.70
77 41.35 37.65
91 44.93 40.90
205 48.05 44.75
C17
t (days) Rm (-) fcm (MPa) w/c ratio c (kg/m3) cement type
3 19.37 8.60
7 27.40 15.47
14 32.30 20.73
0.48 350 CEM I 32.5 white
28 36.32 26.77
90 38.85 34.33
186 45.10 42.80
3 37.37 29.37
7 38.93 37.30
14 42.30 43.03
0.45 350 CEM I 42.5
28 44.63 46.50
90 48.90 53.23
178 50.90 53.30
3 39.08 27.75
7 40.57 35.17
14 43.57 38.73
0.46 350 CEM I 52.5
28 46.77 37.80
90 50.10 42.67
201 53.10 56.30
3 29.9 46.8
7 42.4 60.11
14 45.0 73.87
28 48.5 80.53 0.40 425 CEM I 42.5
56 49.7 80.56
90 46.2 80.87
240 49.9 81.82
3 21.8 28.0
7 28.7 43.22
14 33.1 53.73
28 36.9 62.71 0.50 375 CEM I 42.5
56 37.0 67.42
90 38.9 69.33
240 45.2 70.02
3 19.3 14.6
7 20.3 23.11
14 30.3 34.33
28 33.0 42.13 0.65 315 CEM I 42.5
56 34.8 46.38
90 37.3 47.44
240 40.5 47.81
C18
Appendix D
RL (t)/ RN (t)/ L(t)/ fcm (t)/ Ecm (t)/ RL (t)/ RN (t)/ L (t)/ fcm (t)/ Ecm (t)/
t (days) RL (-) RN (-) L (-) fcm (MPa) E (MPa)
RL (7) RN (7) L(7) fcm (7) Ecm (7) RL (28) RN (28) L (28) fcm (28) Ecm (28)
w/c = 0.65
3 17 19 240 14.56 21482 0.938 0.949 0.941 0.630 0.815 0.550 0.584 0.732 0.345 0.652
7 18 20 255 23.11 26367 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.586 0.616 0.777 0.549 0.801
14 28 30 280 34.33 30349 1.517 1.493 1.098 1.486 1.151 0.890 0.920 0.854 0.815 0.922
28 31 33 328 42.13 32925 1.705 1.624 1.286 1.823 1.249 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
56 34 35 330 46.38 32980 1.887 1.712 1.294 2.007 1.251 1.107 1.054 1.006 1.101 1.002
90 35 37 333 47.44 33211 1.928 1.836 1.306 2.053 1.260 1.131 1.130 1.015 1.126 1.009
240
D1
39 41 347 47.81 33470 2.124 1.993 1.361 2.069 1.269 1.245 1.227 1.058 1.135 1.017
1100 49 49 360 48.26 33861 2.675 2.387 1.412 2.088 1.284 1.569 1.470 1.098 1.145 1.028
w/c = 0.50
3 20 22 318 28.04 26814 0.672 0.760 0.924 0.649 0.873 0.544 0.591 0.795 0.447 0.745
7 30 29 344 43.22 30726 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.809 0.778 0.860 0.689 0.853
14 34 33 371 53.73 34830 1.136 1.154 1.078 1.243 1.134 0.919 0.897 0.928 0.857 0.967
28 37 37 400 62.71 36006 1.236 1.286 1.163 1.451 1.172 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
56 38 37 404 67.42 36320 1.260 1.288 1.174 1.560 1.182 1.019 1.002 1.010 1.075 1.009
90 38 39 406 69.33 36857 1.272 1.356 1.180 1.604 1.200 1.030 1.054 1.015 1.106 1.024
240 46 45 423 70.02 38500 1.540 1.574 1.230 1.620 1.253 1.246 1.224 1.058 1.117 1.069
1100 51 56 450 70.87 37945 1.721 1.943 1.308 1.640 1.235 1.393 1.511 1.125 1.130 1.054
RL (t)/ RN (t)/ L(t)/ fcm (t)/ Ecm (t)/ RL (t)/ RN (t)/ L (t)/ fcm (t)/ Ecm (t)/
t (days) RL (-) RN (-) L (-) fcm (MPa) E (MPa)
RL (7) RN (7) L(7) fcm (7) Ecm (7) RL (28) RN (28) L (28) fcm (28) Ecm (28)
w/c = 0.40
3 32 30 341 46.84 31360 0.730 0.704 0.840 0.779 0.932 0.713 0.616 0.758 0.582 0.800
7 43 42 406 60.11 33648 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.977 0.874 0.902 0.746 0.858
14 43 45 418 73.87 37664 0.996 1.061 1.030 1.229 1.119 0.973 0.928 0.929 0.917 0.960
28 44 49 450 80.53 39219 1.023 1.144 1.108 1.340 1.166 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
56 45 50 455 80.56 39293 1.043 1.171 1.121 1.340 1.168 1.020 1.024 1.011 1.000 1.002
90 46 46 463 80.87 39337 1.063 1.091 1.140 1.345 1.169 1.039 0.954 1.029 1.004 1.003
240 50 50 521 81.82 39330 1.144 1.177 1.283 1.361 1.169 1.118 1.029 1.158 1.016 1.003
D2
1100 50 51 550 82.34 39470 1.151 1.198 1.355 1.370 1.173 1.125 1.047 1.222 1.022 1.006