KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND MINERALS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIROMENTAL ENGINEERING

CE 502 Lab Report

EVALUATION AND TESTING OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES (LABORATORY)

Instructor: Mr. Adamu Lawan

GROUP MEMBERS : KFUPM ID

Amr Abubaker Barahim ( g201102410 )

Shaik Inayath Basha ( g201407800)

Muhammad Nura Isa ( g201403780)

Muhammad Irfan Khan ( g201408840)

Mahmood Iqbal ( c000529011 )

1
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………5

2.0 Scope and Objectives…………………………………………………………………….7

3.0 Experimental Program……………………………………………………………………8

3.1 Casting and Curing……………………………………………………………….9

3.2 Test Procedures…………………………………………………………………..11

3.2.1 Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test…………………………………………11

3.2.2 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test………………………………………..…13

3.2.3 Resistivity Test……………………………………………………..…....16

4.0 Test Results………………………………………………………………………………18

4.1 Mix #1……………………………………………………………………………18

4.1.1 Schmidt Hammer Test (RH)………………………………………….….18

4.1.2 Ultrasound Pulse Velocity Test………………………………………….22

4.1.3 Compressive Strength………………………………………………..…..23

4.1.4 Resistivity…………………………………………………….………….23

4.2 Mix #4…………………………………………………………………….……..24

4.2.1 Schmidt Hammer Test (RH)……………………………………….…....23

4.2.2 Ultrasound Pulse Velocity Test……………………………………...…..28

4.2.3 Compressive Strength……………………………………………………29

4.2.4 Resistivity…………………………………………………………..…...29

5.0 Discussion and Recommendations……………………………………………..……….17

6.0 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..41

7.0 References………………………………………………………………………………41

2
List of Figures

Fig 1: Specimens Preparation…………………………………………………………….…10

Fig 2: Grids been drawn on concrete slab…………………………………………………..12

Fig 3: Rebound Hammer Test for cylinder………………………………………………….12

Fig 4: UPV test measurement using direct method………………………………………….13

Fig 5: UPV test measurement using semi-direct method……………………………………13

Fig 6: Crack Depth Measurement……………………………………………………………15

Fig 7: Resistivity test set-up…………………………………………………………………16

Fig.8 Colored and white&black contour of RN on top face of Mix#1…………………......35

Fig.9: 3D contur of RN on top face of Mix#1……………………………………………...36

Fig.10: Colored and white&black contour of RN on bottom face of Mix#1………………36

Fig.11: 3D contur of RN on bottom face of Mix#1………………………………………..37

Fig.12: Colored and white&black contour of RN on top face of Mix#4…………………..37

Fig.13: 3D contur of RN on top face of Mix#4……………………………………………38

Fig.14: Colored and white&black contour of RN on bottom face of Mix#4……………...39

Fig.15: 3D contur of RN on bottom face of Mix#4……………………………………….39

3
List of Tables

Table 1: Description of the Specimens and Tests………………………………………….…..8

Table 2: Mix design…………………………………………………………………………….9

Table 3: Details of Mixing and Casting Conditions……………………………………………10

Table 4: Rebound Number for Slab (M1)……………………………………………….….….18

Table 5: Rebound Hammer Results of Cylinders (M1)………………………………….…….20

Table 6: Rebound Hammer Results of Cubes (M1)……………………………………….…..21

Table 7: Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M1)……………………….……..22

Table 8: Semi-Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M1)…………………….….22

Table 9: Compressive Strength Test Results for Cubes, Cylinders, and Cores (M1)………….23
Table 10: Resistivity Test Results for Mix (M1)………………………………………………23

Table 11: Rebound Number for Slab (M1)…………………………………………………….24

Table12: Rebound Hammer Results of Cylinders (M4)…………………………………….…26

Table 13: Rebound Hammer Results of Cubes (M4)…………………………………….…….27

Table 14: Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)………………………….….28

Table 15: Semi-Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)…………………...….28

Table 16: Indirect Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)………………………...…28

Table 17: Compressive Strength Test Results for Cubes, Cylinders, and Cores (M4)………..29

Table 18: Resistivity Test Results for Mix (M4)………………………………………………29

4
1.0 INTRODUCTION:

Concrete is considered as durable material but it is still, potentially vulnerable to deterioration

unless certain precautions are taken. Strength and durability of concrete structures depend on a
number of factors such as design, detailing, materials and workmanship, quality control,
environment as well as periodic inspection and regular maintenance. The last few decades
witnessed an exponential growth in building construction industry but with the volume of work
increasing on the field a decline in the quality of workmanship is observed. This is why
engineers believe that the quality of concrete cast under the controlled lab environment cannot be
a true representative of concrete cast on field; hence we need to test the in-situ concrete and here
comes the scope of non-destructive testing (NDT).

Non-destructive testing (NDT) is a means of testing a specimen without damaging or destroying

it. If a part is found to be defective, it can be discarded. However, NDT does not impair the
intended performance of the element, or the member being tested. Non-destructive testing can be
used equally well to test the quality of a newly manufactured part, or to test the service
conditions of a part already in use, and also to decide the remedial measures to be undertaken to
improve the condition. Therefore, it is a tool not only in quality control, but in failure prediction
and analysis also. NDT can be of immense help by reducing the risk involved and consequently
can build confidence in the structural engineer.

There are many methods in non-destructive test such as Rebound Hammer, Ultra Sonic Pulse
Velocity. Every method of non-destructive test have its own boundary and which mean the
method cannot afford an accurate and consistence result for difference cases and to detect
different defect. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity can be used to assess the quality and uniformity
of the material. The velocity of an ultrasonic pulse through a material is a function of the elastic
modulus and concreteness/density of the material. The method is also useful for estimating crack
depth and direction, and determining the thickness of surface layers damaged by chemical attack,
fire, etc. The most easiest and simple method for nondestructive test is Schmidt Hammer. A
Schmidt Hammer, also known as a Swiss hammer, is a device to measure the elastic properties or
strength of concrete or rock. The hammer measures the rebound of a spring loaded mass
impacting against the surface of the sample.

5
Concrete resistivity is a geometry-independent material property that describes the electrical
resistance, which is the ratio between applied voltage and resulting current in a unit cell. The
dimension of resistivity is resistance multiplied by length; its unit usually is in Ω-m. Resistivity
of concrete may vary over a wide range, from 101to 105Ω-m, depending on the moisture content
of the concrete (environment) and its composition (material).

In concrete, the current is carried by ions dissolved in the pore liquid. More pore water (wet
concrete) as well as more and wider pores (high water to cement ratio) cause a lower resistivity.

6
2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES:

The work to be carried out will consists of both non-destructive and destructive tests. The non-
destructive tests are Rebound Hammer test, Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test and Resistivity test.
While for the destructive tests, compressive strength of sets of cubes, cylinders and cores will be
determined using the compression testing machine. Two mixed designs will be prepared and
tested namely M1 and M4, with water-to-cement ratio of 0.25 and 0.37 respectively.

Rebound hammer (RH) test will be used to assess the uniformity of strength over the concrete
surface; the results of this will be used map out the difference in quality of concrete within the
specimens in terms of contour plots. Similarly ultra sound pulse velocity (UPV) was used to
assess the uniformity of concrete. This test will also use to detect and determine the depth a
deliberately created crack within the specimen. Combining these two methods in estimating the
compressive strength became more interesting in considering the fact that each test has taken
care of the deficiency of the other test. Resistivity test will be conducted to determine the
resistivity of the concrete mixes to reinforcement corrosion. Both RH and UPV test will be
conducted on 3-cubes, 3-cylinders, and a slab from each mix, while the resistivity test will be
conducted on cores taken from the slabs.

Compressive strength test will be carried out on all the sets of cubes, cylinders and cores to
ascertain the true strength of the concrete mixes and also calibrate the models for the above non-
destructive test.

The objective of this work is to;

1) Assess the sensitivity of these tests towards changes in the quality of concrete (water to
cement ration).
2) To compare the strength results of nondestructive tests with the true compressive strength
of the concrete.
3) To check the variation of the resistivity with variation of the moisture content in the cores.

7
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM:

As described in objectives our task is to conduct the Non-destructive testing and destructive
testing (coring) and verify their different applications, the whole experimental program consists
of six different mixtures of concrete. Two mixtures of concrete are assigned to each group for
casting and each group consists of almost 5 to 6 students. In order to conduct the testing different
concrete specimen are casted. In order to maintain the uniformity in the concrete of all specimen,
for each mix design all specimen are casted from the same batch because the variation in the
quality of concrete may occur due to difference in the batching. The batching and the casting is
done under the lab conditions in order to avoid the severe environmental condition. After casting
the cubes, cylinders and slab specimen they are left in the molds for 24 hours. An intended crack
or groove of 2in depth is also created in the slab to check one of the applications of the UPV test.
After 24 hours the samples are demolded and they are submerged in the water curing tank for 14
days for moist curing under the lab conditions. After 14 days, the specimens are removed from
tank and air cured for 14 days under the lab conditions

Table 1: Description of the Specimens and Tests

Specimen Number of Size of Specimen Test Performed

Type Specimen per (mm)
mixture
Cube 3 150 x 150 150 1. Rebound Hammer test

2. Compressive strength test

Cylinder 3 150 mm diameter 1. Rebound Hammer test
300 mm Height
2. Compressive strength test
Slab with a 1 500 x 500 x 150 1. Rebound Hammer test.
fine groove of 2. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test.
50 mm depth
3. Compressive strength test

4. Coring
Cores 3 75 mm diameter 1. Resistivity Test
150 mm Height 2. Compressive strength test

8
Further the cores acquired from the slabs will also be used for measuring the resistivity of
concrete at different moisture contents. These cores will then be used to test compressive
strength of concrete. This coring and tests conducted on these cores aim to simulate in-situ
condition.

3.1 CASTING AND CURING:

As defined in the experimental program, we casted all the specimens corresponding to same type
of concrete from same batch of concrete. Two mixes were casted namely, M 1 and M 4 with w/c
ratio of 0.25 and 0.37. Following are the mix designs for two mixes casted;

Mix Design Details:

Table 2: Mix design

MIX # M 1 MIX # M 4
3
Total Volume Of Mix (M ) 0.0734 0.0734

Water Cement Ratio 0.25 0.37

Water Content (Kg) 10.33 14.64

Cement(Kg) 36.68 36.68

SUPERPLASTICIZER(G) 1210 642

Fine Aggregate(Kg) 51.65 47.63

1/2 Inch 34.86 32.15

COARSE AGGREGATE(Kg) 3/8 Inch 11.62 10.72

3/16 Inch 23.24 21.44
3/32 Inch 7.75 7.15

9
Fig 1: Specimens Preparation

Table 3: Details of Mixing and Casting Conditions

Mix No. W/C Date Of Ambient Slump

Ratio Casting Temperature (Mm)
M1 0.25 18-9-2015 23 110
M4 0.37 14-9-2015 22 145

10
3.2 TEST PROCEDURES

3.2.1 REBOUND HAMMER METHOD

The plunger is extended from the body of the instrument and brought into contact with the
concrete surface.
i. The body of the instrument is then pushed towards the concrete surface. This action
causes an extension of the spring to the body
ii. When the body is pushed to its limit, the latch releases the hammer which is pulled by the
spring towards the concrete surface
iii. The hammer impacts the shoulder area of the plunger and rebounds back
iv. After the impact, the scale index is read while the hammer is still in the test position.
Alternatively, the locking button may be pressed to enable the reading to be retained
v. The scale reading (which is rebound distance measured on a scale numbered from 10 to
100) is known as “rebound number”
The above procedure was conducted on each of the cubes, cylinders and slabs for both M1 and M2. As
follows

Slabs:
For the two flat surfaces (top and bottom) of the slab, the hammer orientation was maintained
vertical (i.e. perpendicular to the test surface). Placing the tip of the hammer at each of the
already marked grid points on the top of the slab the above procedure from (i) to (v) was carried
out. The slab was turned (i.e. bring the bottom face to the top) and similar readings were taken
and recorded for the bottom surface.

For each of the faces, average of the rebound readings was taken and recorded. It was ensured
that any point giving a reading that differs from the average by seven (7) units was discarded.

11
Fig 2: Grids been drawn on concrete slab

Concrete Cylinders:
Clamping each of the six cylinders on a compressive testing machine, in turn, five rebound
readings were taken on each of the vertical lines on the cylinder curved surface separated at
angles of 120 degrees from each other. This makes a total of fifteen readings and the average was
taken. It was ensured that any point giving a reading that differs from the average by seven (7)
units was discarded.

Fig 3: Rebound Hammer Test for cylinder

12
Concrete Cubes:
Clamping each of the six concrete cubes on a compressive testing machine, in turn, five rebound
readings were taken at each of the four vertical sides, and the average value taken and recorded.
As was done in the case of the concrete slabs and cylinders cast, it was ensured that any point
giving a reading that differs from the average by seven (7) units was discarded.

3.2.2 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST

In order to provide good coupling between the transducers and the concrete surface grease is
applied at their interface at each measurement point. As the concrete surface is smooth only a
thin layer of the grease need to be provides.

Concrete Slabs:
Three different approaches were used in testing each of the concrete slabs, and they are:

 Direct Method
In this method, the transmitter and the receiver are placed on the two opposite faces of the slab
(while keeping the slab in the vertical direction. The waves transmitted by the transmitter are
received by the receiver and the transit time is displayed on the device’s screen.

Fig 4: UPV test measurement using direct method

13
 Semi-Direct Method
In the semi-direct method of measurement the transducer and receiver were placed on
the two adjacent faces (i.e. the top surface and one of the four vertical edges) of the slab
element and the transit time reading was measured, displayed and recorded.

Fig 5: UPV test measurement using semi-direct method

 Indirect Method
In this approach, both the transmitter and the receiver are kept on the same face (top
horizontal surface) of the concrete slab. However, the transmitter’s position is maintained
fixed while the receiver’s position is changed, thereby allowing taking the transit time
readings corresponding to various positions of the receiver along a straight line on the top
surface of the slab. The various distances from the transmitter to the receiver and the
corresponding transit times were recorded to be used, later, in the determination of the pulse
velocity.

The slab was turned to bring the bottom face to the top and the above procedure was
repeated.

14
An estimate of crack depths is to be obtained by the use of indirect surface readings, as shown
below:

Fig 6: Crack Depth Measurement

𝑇𝑠 = 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒
𝑇𝑐 = 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒

Concrete Cylinders:

Only the direct method of UPV measurement was taken in the case of the cylinder samples. The
two flat ends of the cylinders were used for the respective positions of the transmitter and the
receiver. Hence, the transit time measurement was conducted only once for each of the cylinder
sample.

Concrete Cubes:
Similar to the case of the cylindrical samples, the UPV measurements conducted on the cube
samples were based on the direct methods alone. Two opposite faces of each of the cubes were
used as the respective positions for the transmitter and receiver.

15
 3.2.3 RESISTIVITY TEST

Resistivity Test on the Core Samples:

1. The cores obtained from slabs were submerged in water for 48 hours to make it saturated
with water.
2. After 48 hours the cores were removed from the tank and surfaced wiped with a clean,
dry cloth the resistivity was measured. This resistivity is associated with saturated
condition of concrete.
3. Then the cores were left in air for 72 hours to be dried after 72 hour again the resistivity
was measured.
4. For the third reading the cores were placed in oven for 48 hours at 105 ͦc in order to have
an oven-dry condition.

To take the readings the cores are clamped in between two metallic plates and current is passed
from the cores. The instrument reads the potential difference across the two end we get the
resistance with ohm’s law relationship. Then the resistance is converted into the resistivity of
concrete using the following relation.

Fig 7: Resistivity test set-up

16
 𝐴
𝜌𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 = 𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 ∗
𝑙

Where

𝜌𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 = 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 (Ω − 𝑚)

𝑅 (𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑) = 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 (Ω)

𝐴 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 (𝑚^2)

17
4.0 TEST RESULTS

4.1 Mix #1
4.1.1 Schmidt Hammer Test (RH):
1) Slab

Top Face:
Table 4: Rebound
Number for Slab (M1)

X-GRID (mm)
46 49 51 50
100
48 50 50 47
200
46 50 49 46
300
47 46 48 47
Total Average
400

46.75 48.75 49.5 47.5 48.125

500 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

Bottom face:

X-GRID (mm)
43 46 44 46
100
48 46 49 47
200
46 50 49 46
300
47 46 48 47
Total Average
400

46.75 48.75 49.5 47.5 48.125

500 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

18
Sides:

X-GRID (mm)
48 49 48 45
50
48 46 49 45 Total Average
100
48 47.5 48.5 45
47.25
150 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

Sides:
50 49 49 48
50
50 49 48 50 Total Average
100
50 49 48.5 49
150 (Average) 49.125
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

19
2) Cylinders

Table 5: Rebound Hammer Results of Cylinders (M1)

Specimen A Deviation B Deviation C Deviation

Vertical line 48 -1.2 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
1 49 -0.2 Ok 48 1.33 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
49 -0.2 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
48 -1.2 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
50 0.8 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
Vertical line 50 0.8 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
2 48 -1.2 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
49 -0.2 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
48 -1.2 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
50 0.8 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
Vertical line 51 1.8 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
3 49 -0.2 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
50 0.8 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
49 -0.2 Ok 46 -0.67 Ok 48 0.6 Ok
50 0.8 Ok 47 0.33 Ok 47 -0.4 Ok
Average 49.2 46.67 47.4

Crushing 1091 992.5 1020

Load (kN)
Comp. 61.73 56.16 57.72
strength
(Mpa)

20
3) Cubes
Table 6: Rebound Hammer Results of Cubes (M1)

Specimen A Deviation B Deviation C Deviation

Face1 50 -0.45 Ok 47 -1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok

50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 49 1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
Face 2 51 0.55 Ok 47 -1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 49 1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 48 0 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
Face 3 50 -0.45 Ok 49 1 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 47 -1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
Face 4 50 -0.45 Ok 49 1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
50 -0.45 Ok 48 0 Ok 49 -0.6 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 47 -1 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 48 0 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
51 0.55 Ok 48 0 Ok 50 0.4 Ok
Average 50.45 48 49.6
Crushing 1924 1811 1845
Load (kN)
Comp. 85.5 80.48 82
strength Mpa

21
4.1.2 Ultrasound Pulse Velocity Test

Table 7: Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M1)

Direct Transmission
Transit
Distance Velocity
time
(mm) (µs) (km/s)
500 107.1 4.67
500 106.5 4.69
500 106.3 4.70
500 105.7 4.73
500 106.4 4.70
500 106.2 4.71
500 105.8 4.73
500 106.9 4.68
150 31.8 4.72
150 31.7 4.73
150 31.6 4.75
150 31.9 4.70
Average 4.71

Table 8: Semi-Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M1)

Semi-direct Transmission
Distance Transit time Velocity
(mm) (µs) (km/s)
223.6 46.8 4.78
223.6 45.9 4.87
304.13 64.7 4.70
304.13 65.2 4.66
Average 4.75

200
mm

100
mm

22
 Table 10: Indirect Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs

Indirect Transmission
Top Face
Distance
Transit time
(mm) (µs)
100 22.9
200 44.1
68.2
300

Velocity = inverse of slope of line of best fit line = 1/ 0.2265 = 4.78 km/s

23
4.1.3 Compressive Strength

Table 9: Compressive Strength Test Results for Cubes, Cylinders, and Cores (M1)
Compressive Strength; fc' (MPa)
SR No. Cube Cylinder Core
1 85.5 61.73 56.32

2 80.48 56.16 52.74

3 82 57.72 53.4

Estimated in-situ cube strength & Estimated potential cube strength:

Table 9A: Estimated in-situ cube strength & Estimated potential cube strength:

Core Compressive Estimated in-situ Estimated

strength L/d ratio cube strength potential cube
strength
Mpa ---- Mpa Mpa

56.32 0.526 63.84 83.4

52.74 0.526 59.88 78.1

53.4 0.526 60.63 79.1

Avg: 61.45 Avg: 80.2

24
 4.1.4 Resistivity
Table 10: Resistivity Test Results for Mix (M1)

Cross-
Mix Diameter of Core sectiona Length of Core
No. l area A/L
D1 D2 D3 Averag A L1 L2 L3 Average ratio
e Dia LENGT
M1 H
cm cm cm cm cm2 cm cm cm cm cm
7.425 7.429 7.426 7.427 43.297 14.06 14.17 14.13 14.124 3.06
2 6 5 5

Oven Dry Weight Moisture Resistance A/L ratio Electrical Electrical

Weight of core Content resistivity resistivity
Mix No.

gm gm % K-ohm cm K-Ohm- Ohm-m

cm
M1
1405.8 1471.1 4.645 8.32 3.065 25.504 255.043

1405.8 1466.1 4.289 9.19 3.065 28.171 281.712

25
 4.1 MIX #4
4.2.1 Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test
1) Slab:

Top Face:
Table 11: RN for Slab (M4)
X-GRID (mm)
38 40 39 39
100
38 39 36 39
200
40 41 38 39
300
39 36 39 37
Total Average
400
38.75 38.5 38 38.5
45.25
500 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

Bottom face:

X-GRID (mm)
36 34 36 35
100
36 35 35 37
200
34 34 33 34
300
35 34 36 34
Total Average
400
35.25 34.25 35 35
45.25
500 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

26
 Sides:

X-GRID (mm)
38 39 36 39
50
38 39 38 39 Total Average
100
38 39 37 39
38.25
150 (Average)
100 200 300 400 500(Average) Y-GRID (mm)

X-GRID (mm)
37 39 40 39
50
38 39 37 39 Total Average
100
37.5 39 38.5 39
45.25
150 (Average)

27
 2) Cylinders:

Table12: Rebound Hammer Results of Cylinders (M4)

Specimen A Deviation B Deviation C Deviation

Vertical line 40 1.4 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok

1 37 -1.6 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
36 -2.6 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
38 -0.6 Ok 36 -2.3 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
37 -1.6 Ok 40 1.7 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok
Vertical line 39 0.4 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
2 39 0.4 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
40 1.4 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
40 1.4 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
41 2.4 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
Vertical line 37 -1.6 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok
3 36 -2.6 Ok 40 1.7 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
40 1.4 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok 36 -2.3 Ok
39 0.4 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok 40 1.7 Ok
40 1.4 Ok 39 0.7 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
Average 38.6 38.33 38.27

Crushing 870 820 930

Load (kN)
Comp. 49.23 46.4 52.63
strength (
Mpa)

28
 3) Cubes:
Table 13: Rebound Hammer Results of Cubes (M4)

Specimen A Deviation B Deviation C Deviation

Vertical line 38 -0.2 Ok 36 -2.0 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok

1 37 -1.2 Ok 40 2.0 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
39 0.8 Ok 38 0.0 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
36 -2.2 Ok 37 -1.0 Ok 40 1.7 Ok
40 1.8 Ok 39 1.0 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
Vertical line 38 -0.2 Ok 36 -2.0 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
2 39 0.8 Ok 38 0.0 Ok 36 -2.3 Ok
36 -2.2 Ok 37 -1.0 Ok 40 1.7 Ok
40 1.8 Ok 39 1.0 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
38 -0.2 Ok 39 1.0 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok
Vertical line 37 -1.2 Ok 38 0.0 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
3 36 -2.2 Ok 39 1.0 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
40 1.8 Ok 36 -2.0 Ok 39 0.7 Ok
39 0.8 Ok 40 2.0 Ok 38 -0.3 Ok
40 1.8 Ok 38 0.0 Ok 37 -1.3 Ok
Average 38.2 38 38.267

Crushing 1705 1663.5 1764.5

Load (kN)
Comp. 75.78 73.93 78.42
strength (
Mpa)

29
 4.2.2 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
1) Slab:

Table 14: Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)

Direct Transmission
Transit
Distance Velocity
time
(mm) (µs) (km/s)
500 111.2 4.496
500 110.1 4.541
500 109.8 4.554
500 110.3 4.533
500 109.7 4.558
500 110.5 4.525
500 109.8 4.554
500 110.9 4.509
150 33.6 4.464
150 33.8 4.438
150 32.9 4.559
150 33.1 4.532
Average 4.534

Table 15: Semi-Direct Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)

Semi-direct Transmission
Distance Transit time Velocity
(mm) (µs) (km/s)
223.6 49.2 4.54
223.6 47.6 4.70
304.13 67.8 4.49
304.13 68.1 4.47
Average 4.55
200
mm

100
mm

30
 Table 16: Indirect Transmission UPV Test Results for Slabs (M4)

Indirect Transmission
Top Face
Distance
Transit time
(mm) (µs)
100 27
200 59.1
300 83.8

Mix 4
90
80 y = 0.284x - 0.1667
70
Transit Time (µs)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance (mm)

Velocity = inverse of slope of line of best fit line = 1/ 0.284 = 3.52 km/s

31
 Determination of Depth of intended 50 mm Crack using UPV:

UPV
Distance Transit time Crack Depth

Mix # Ts Tc x h

µs µs mm mm

M1 22.9 32.9 50 51.58

M4 27 37.6 50 48.46

32
 4.2.3 Compressive Strength

Table 17: Compressive Strength Test Results for Cubes, Cylinders, and Cores (M4)

Compressive Strength; fc' (MPa)

SR No. Cube Cylinder Core
1 75.78 49.23 41.37

2 73.93 46.4 39.23

3 78.42 52.63 40.56

Estimated in-situ cube strength & Estimated potential cube strength:

Table 17A: Estimated in-situ cube strength & Estimated potential cube strength:

Core Compressive Estimated in-situ Estimated

strength L/d ratio cube strength potential cube
strength
Mpa ---- Mpa Mpa

41.37 0.526 46.97 61.263

39.23 0.526 44.54 58.094

40.56 0.526 46.05 60.063

Avg: 45.85 Avg: 59.81

33
 4.2.4 Resistivity

Table 18: Resistivity Test Results for Mix (M4)

Cross-
sectional
Mix # Diameter of Core area Length of Core

A/L
D1 D2 D3 Average A L1 L2 L3 Average
ratio
Dia LENGTH

cm cm cm cm cm2 cm cm cm cm cm
M4
7.473 7.474 7.472 7.473 43.839 13.717 13.75 13.85 13.772 3.183

Mix # Oven Dry Weight Moisture Resistance A/L ratio Electrical Electrical
Weight of core Content resistivity resistivity

gm gm % K-ohm cm K-Ohm- Ohm-m

cm

1377.7 1444.1 4.820 7.27 3.183 23.141 231.412

M4
1377.7 1437.2 4.319 8.71 3.183 27.725 277.2491

34
5.0 Discussion and Results:
After displaying the results, we have to discuss in terms of concrete strength. In fact, the resulted variation
from the different tests conducted during this study has been highlighted as follows:

1. Variation of rebound number (RN)in slabs

Mix # 1

Top Face of Slab

Fig.8 Colored and white&black contour of RN on top face of Mix#1

35
 Fig.9: 3D contur of RN on top face of Mix#1

Bottom Face Contours:

Fig.10: Colored and white&black contour of RN on bottom face of Mix#1

36
 Fig.11: 3D contur of RN on bottom face of Mix#1

Mix # M4

Top Face Contour Mapping

Fig.12: Colored and white&black contour of RN on top face of Mix#4

37
Fig.13: 3D contur of RN on top face of Mix#4

38
Bottom Face Contour mapping:

Fig.14: Colored and white&black contour of RN on bottom face of Mix#4

Fig.15: 3D contur of RN on bottom face of Mix#4

39
According to the above figures (8-15), Variation of R.H value is illustrating the Non-uniformity in
properties of Concrete on the surface of slab.

In addition, it can be observed that the variation in the bottom face beaves in a consistent way and
experiences higher RN in contrast to the top face.

In fact, The concrete having rebound hammer value greater than 35 represents the concrete of good
strength, in our case the value of rebound hammer is more than 35.

2. Variation of UPV with variation of w/c Ratio:

According to tables 7,8,14 and 15, it can be perceived that the UPV for mix # 1 is higher than mix # 4,
due to the fact that there will be less voids and the concrete will be denser with lower w/c ratio.

3. Variation due to transit length and type of member:

It has been observed that there was no effect of transit length over the UPV. Also with direct transmission
the shape of member has no effect on UPV as seen the UPV for slab, cube and cylinders coming to be
almost same.

4. Variation due to UPV:

A direct pulse velocity reading of over 3.8 km/s for a concrete made with good quality aggregates are
generally indicates concrete of good compressive strength, in our case the value is more than 3.8 km / sec.

5. Variation due to coring process:

After finishing the coring process from the slab, cores are examined and there are no excessive damage or
pores on the sides of the cores which indicate a good coring process.

6. Variation due to Resistivity –Moisture content relation:

Resistivity tests of the cores shows that with the variation of moisture content of concrete the resistivity is
changing. With the increase of the moisture content resistivity of concrete decreases, so resistivity test can
also be used to detect the wetted area of the concrete for homogenous concrete. In fact, this is attributed to
the moisture which acts as an electrolyte and help the current to pass through concrete specimen.

7. Potential cube strength:

According to tables 9A and 17A, it can be perceived that the estimated potential cube strength measured
from core compressive strength is very closed to actual measured cube compressive strength for mix # 1
but not so close in case of mix # 4.

40
6.Conclusion:

The quality of concrete has been investigating by conducting rebound hammer test, Ultra pulse velocity,
resistivity test with compressive strength tests. Some points have been drawn from this study as follows:

 According to the results gained from RH and UPV tests, it is observed that the uniformity of
concrete can be reasonably determined using these methods. However, correlation the results
with resulted compressive strength so it needs to develop further by including more mixes of
different strengths.
 It has been proved that the specimen should be constrained with the compressive machine
otherwise reading underestimate can be taken place.
 Regarding the UPV method, the direct method is concluded to be the best method to measure the
transit time while the other two methods are only recommended if transducers cannot be placed
on opposite sides due lack of access.
 Finally, it has been shown that the w/c ratio of the concrete is proportionally invers in relation
with the resistivity.

References
ASTM C 805.

Szilágyi, K. (2013). Rebound surface hardness and related properties of concrete. BUDAPEST
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS.

Shamshad Ahmad. EVALUATION AND TESTING OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES.CE 502Handouts.

King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM).

J.H. Bungey, S.G. Millard “Testing of concrete in structures” 3rd edition. Blackie Academic and
Professional.

National Research Council. "Appendix C: Conventional Concrete Test Procedures." Nonconventional

Concrete Technologies: Renewal of the Highway Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 1997.

41