CASE STUDY OF STRENGTH

EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL
CONCRETE USING REBOUND
HAMMER TEST
By:
Hassan Zada Amranullah
( G 17 3 8 3 9 5 )
 To assess the in-place uniformity of concrete.
 To delineate regions in a structure of poor quality or
deteriorated concrete.
 To estimate in-place strength if a correlation is developed.
  One of the ways to use the rebound hammer is to locate those areas
that may need additional investigation.

 Another procedure used is to compare rebound numbers of the

concrete that you know is acceptable from a recent placement.

Some of the guidelines has to be taken which are summarized below:

1. Concrete age.
2. Surface condition.
3. Location of test point.
4. Steps.
5. Interpretation results.
 Surface smoothness

 Age of concrete

 Moisture content

 Surface carbonation

 Aggregate, air voids, and steel reinforcement

 Temperature

 Calibration of the rebound hammer

Average Rebound Quality of Concrete

Number
>40 Very good hard layer

30 to 40 Good layer
20 to 30 Fair
<20 Poor concrete
0 Delaminated
1) A small amount of structure damage occurs in testing, usually negligible.

2) It makes possibility of testing concrete strength in structures where cores cannot

be drilled.

3) It has an application of less expensive testing equipment, Low power consumption.

4) Simple operation doesn’t need high consumption of labor, or intensive training.

5) Ideally suited for on-site testing, Handy for difficult to access or confined test
areas (i.e. working overhead).
 Beam-wise and raft-wise cube strength in N/mm2
Beam Point Average Position Graph cube Surface Multiplying Corrected cube
name Reading strength (N/mm2) dry/wet calibration factor strength (N/mm2)
B-12 32 36 37 35 H 32 Dry 1.00 32
B-9 30 38 38 35 H 32 Dry 1.00 32
B-1 34 34 30 33 H 28 Dry 1.00 28
B-7-1 27 35 32 31 H 25 Dry 1.00 25
B-14 32 31 28 30 H 24 Dry 1.00 24
B-2 30 03 26 29 H 22 Dry 1.00 22
B-12-2 26 22 30 26 H 18 Dry 1.00 18
B-13 27 28 24 26 H 18 Dry 1.00 18
B-4 24 28 30 27 H 18 Dry 1.00 18
B-7-2 22 26 30 26 H 18 Dry 1.00 18
B-8 22 25 33 27 H 18 Dry 1.00 18
B-10 25 26 23 25 H 17 Dry 1.00 17
B-3 18 30 28 25 H 17 Dry 1.00 17
B-11 19 28 26 24 H 15 Dry 1.00 15
B-5 22 24 25 24 H 15 Dry 1.00 15
B-6 24 19 22 22 H 12 Dry 1.00 12

Average 21
 Cont.
Raft name Point Reading Average Position Graph cube strength Surface Multiplying Corrected cube strength
(N/mm2) dry/wet calibration factor (N/mm2)
F-B15 24 22 20 22 V 16 Wet 1.20 19
F-B18 20 18 22 20 V 14 Wet 1.20 17
F-2B 18 20 12 17 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B14 20 18 17 18 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B16 14 20 16 17 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B17 16 14 18 16 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B4 19 10 15 15 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B5 20 18 14 17 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
F-B6 16 15 14 15 V 12 Wet 1.20 14
Average 15
Cube 20 23 22 22 H 12 Dry Strength as per 14
tested Compressive
at site Strength test
(N/mm2)
Cube 48 48 48 48 H 54 Dry Strength as per 46
tested Compressive
at lab Strength test
(N/mm2)
Average calibration ratio=0.5*(46/54+14/12)=1 for beam
 Calibration of rebound hammer (for beams)
Specim S. Rebound Average Position Load at Experimental Graph cube Calibration
en no. hammer failure compressive cube strength factor
cube value (kN) strength (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
no.
(i) (ii) (iii)
1 1 46 48 45 H
47.83 1050 46.66 54 0.864
2 46 54 48 H
2 1 42 33 36 H
37.66 647.2 28.76 36 0.798
2 36 38 41 H
3 1 38 30 30 H
33.5 718 31.91 29 1.10
2 34 36 33 H
Calibration of rebound hammer (for raft)

Specim S. Rebound Average Position Load at Experimental Graph cube Calibration

en no. hammer failure compressive cube strength factor
cube value (kN) strength (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
no.
(i) (ii) (iii)
1 1 46 46 45 V
46.80 1200.60 53.36 58 0.920
2 46 52 46 V
2 1 42 36 36 V
38.50 861.07 38.27 43 0.890
2 38 38 41 V
3 1 40 32 32 V
36.00 735.30 32.68 38 0.860
2 38 36 38 V
To evaluate the calibration factor of rebound hammer 3 cube
specimens provided were analyzed on
the compression testing machine in the laboratory. Dimensions of
the cube were - 150x150x150 mm.
Hence calibration factor for horizontal position =
(0.864+0.798+1.10)/3 = 0.92
Hence calibration factor for vertical position =
(0.920+0.890+0.860)/3 = 0.89
Compressive strength corresponding to rebound hammer values for the beams

S. Beam Rebound Average Position Graph Estimated Equivalent estimated

no. name hammer cube calibration cube strength
value strength factor (N/mm2)

(i) (ii) (iii)

1 B-12 b 53 39 43 45 H 44 0.92 40.48
2 B-7 39 46 37 41 H 41 0.92 37.72
3 B-9 41 42 40 41 H 41 0.92 37.72
4 B-91 37 34 38 36 H 32 0.92 29.44
5 B-12 a 30 39 40 36 H 32 0.92 29.44
6 B-13 39 32 37 36 H 32 0.92 29.44
7 B-4 30 34 30 31 H 26 0.92 23.92
32.59
Average

The average compressive strength of the beams after the application of calibration factor was
determined to be approx. 30 N/mm2
Compressive strength corresponding to rebound hammer values for the rafts.

S. Raft Rebound Average Position Graph Estimated Equivalent estimated

no. name hammer cube calibration cube strength
value strength factor (N/mm2)

(i) (ii) (iii)

RB-5
1 37 38 37 37 V 40 0.89 35.60
b
2 RL2 38 29 32 33 V 36 0.89 32.04
3 RB-7 32 31 33 32 V 34 0.89 30.26
RB-5
4 28 32 32 31 V 32 0.89 28.48
a
5 RL1 32 29 29 30 V 31 0.89 27.59
6 RL3 28 26 25 26 V 25 0.89 22.25
29.37
Average

The average compressive strength of the raft after the application of calibration factor was
determined to be approx. 30 N/mm2
 Interpretation of results

The initial testing had certain unfavorable factors affecting it which hindered the final results.
So the test conducted after 28 days provided satisfactory results as weather and site
conditions had improved. The final result can be interpreted as follows:

 Lower winter temperature might have influenced the test results.

 The rain around the testing day might have influenced the test results.
 Low concrete temperature has a major effect on the rate of cement hydration, which
results in slower setting and rate of strength gain.
 The exposed concrete gained strength in 28 days due to continuous curing and increase
in atmospheric temperature.
 The individual estimated sample strength of the concrete varied from 26N/mm2 to 40N/
mm2 indicating that the homogeneity of the concrete might have been affected .