A Comparative Analysis of Compressive Strength Using Non-Destructive Concrete

Testing

Czarina Elaine B. Mendoza 1

[email protected]

Mika Nadine S. Molina 2

[email protected]

Jieson N. Nierre 3

[email protected]

Abstract

Concrete testing is critical in the construction industry as it ensures structural integrity,

durability, and overall quality of buildings. The properties of concrete, such as

compressive strength, directly influence the performance of structures over time. With

several factors affecting the structural integrity of buildings, like earthquakes, proactive

measures must taken before such significant issues arise. Non-destructive testing (NDT)

is advantageous over destructive testing because it allows concrete inspection without

permanently damaging it. As such, this paper discusses three (3) building case studies

that conducted NDT, specifically the rebound hammer and UPV, in assessing the

compressive strength of the buildings. This study reveals that the rebound hammer test is

quick and efficient, and UPV tests provide insights beyond surface conditions. Despite the

advantages of these NDT methods, they also have limitations. The reliance of the

rebound hammer on surface hardness may result in less accurate data, particularly when

the surface conditions do not adequately represent the overall structural characteristics.

UPV, on the other hand, poses challenges in execution as it requires access to both
material surfaces.

Keywords: Concrete, Concrete testing, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), NDT methods,

Compressive Strength

I. Introduction

Concrete is one of the most common materials used in architecture and construction.

From residential houses to high-rise commercial buildings, concrete has become an

essential construction material that provides a rigid foundation and support to the

structure. Its versatility also allows architects to create innovative designs that contribute

to the aesthetic appeal of the built environment. Beyond its practical aspects, concrete

enhances the quality of life by enabling the creation of resilient, long-lasting structures

that withstand the test of time. The impact of concrete is profound, providing the

framework for the communities in which people live and the interconnectedness of the

modern world.

Doud (2020) argued that there are three main requirements concerning concrete

construction: efficiency, functionality, and safety. Generally, the standard life of a

reinforced concrete frame structure lasts 60 - 80 years (Sundararaman, 2015). However,

due to exposure to environmental conditions, the life span of buildings decreases, which

poses a threat to safety. Inevitable events like building deterioration highlight the need for

concrete testing.

Moreover, since safety is one of the top priorities in construction projects, it is vital to test

concrete structures to ensure that they are safe when it comes to load-bearing, stability,

and any other factors that could come into play. For assessing the integrity of concrete,

non-destructive testing (NDT) has become one of the most practical and reliable tools

(Kumavat et al., 2014). The essence of conducting nondestructive testing for condition

assessment of concrete structures has grown alongside the increase of construction

projects. NDT methods aim to assess compressive strength and corrosion, measure the

crack size and cover, evaluate grout quality, detect defects, and identify vulnerable areas

in concrete structures. This paper focuses on reviewing case studies that used NDT to

assess compressive strength and a comparative analysis of the compressive strength of

three buildings.

II. Statement of the Problem

The structural integrity of buildings is paramount to ensuring the safety of buildings, which

is why conducting concrete testing is essential to assess early issues and mitigate

deterioration. With this, the assessment of concrete compressive strength is a vital aspect

of quality control during the construction and maintenance phases. Current NDT methods,

such as ultrasonic pulse velocity, rebound hammer, and electromagnetic methods, offer

the advantage of assessing concrete strength without causing structural damage. This

paper aims to investigate and analyze the compressive strengths by comparing test

results conducted on three building case studies using non-destructive concrete testing

methods. The following are the subproblems in this research:

What are the advantages of NDT methods over traditional methods in assessing the

compressive strength of concrete buildings?

What are the NDT methods used in assessing compressive strength?

What factors could affect the result of NDT?

III. Significance of the Study

The possibility of building damage and the decrease in the life span of concrete in

reinforced concrete frames have called for more practical and reliable concrete testing

methods. By understanding the reliability and limitations of various non-destructive testing

methods and providing a comparative analysis of such methods, this paper contributes to
advancing construction practices locally and globally. Additionally, this paper endeavors

to encourage the exploration of innovative techniques and methodologies, promoting

continuous improvement in the understanding and application of NDT methods.

IV. Objectives

The study aims to analyze three building case studies that used various NDT methods,

with the following objectives:

To compare the compressive strengths of three building case studies that used NDT

methods;

To identify factors that affected the results of NDT methods;

To discern the strengths and weaknesses of the NDT methods used in the case studies;

To determine the advantages of NDT methods over traditional methods in assessing the

compressive strength of concrete buildings;

To give recommendations based on the findings for potential related studies

V. Scope and Limitations

The study will only focus on the use of rebound hammer and UPV as NDT methods used

in three building case studies. While traditional methods will be discussed, the main

emphasis of the paper will be on NDT methods. Compressive strength results from the

three building case studies will be compared and analyzed to discern the strengths and

weaknesses of the NDT methods to aid in the conclusion. Other mechanical and chemical

concrete tests will not be considered in this paper.

VI. Review of Related Literature

A. Concrete Testing to Assess Compressive Strength

The primary approach to assessing the compressive strength of buildings dates back to

traditional methods like concrete coring. Concrete coring is an example of destructive

testing (DT) that is normally used for determining the compressive strength of hardened

concrete elements to evaluate the concrete placing quality of existing structures (Lessly et

al., 2021). There are cases where extracting cores may be desirable. However, DT

methods, like concrete coring, lead to invasive and high-cost procedures that could do

more damage to the buildings (Pucinotti, 2015). Thus, non-destructive testing (NDT) has

been introduced to reduce costs and time-consuming approaches. NDT also reveals

information regarding concrete properties like compressive strength and the identification

of homogeneous areas (Poorarbabi et al., 2020).

Various NDTs should be performed to predict the compressive strength of concrete.

Generally, a combination of two or more NDT methods is used to enhance the reliability of

the assessed concrete compressive strength. This principle depends on correlations

between the desired property and the observed measurements (Hannachi & Guetteche,

2012). The combination technique is practical because, for instance, the results obtained

from the UPV test indicate the properties of the interior concrete, while the rebound

number (RN) obtained due to the rebound hammer test gives information about the

concrete strength near the surface.

B. Non-destructive Testing

According to Helal et al. (2015), non-destructive concrete testing can be classified into ten

methods: surface hardness methods, penetration resistance methods, pull-out resistance

methods, pull-off resistance methods, resonant frequency test methods, maturity test

methods, penetration test methods, ultrasonic pulse velocity method, impact-echo

method, and corrosion of reinforcement method. This study will only focus on surface
hardness methods and the ultrasonic pulse velocity method, as these are the two

methods that are commonly used in non-destructive concrete testing.

Surface Hardness Methods

Non-destructive surface hardness methods investigate the strength of concrete without

interfering with the tested material. This method can also be classified into two, which are:

indentation method and the rebound method, with the former being less common today

(Helal et. al., 2015). Rebound methods are typically done with a rebound hammer, also

called a Schmidt hammer (Malhotra & Carino, 2004). It is one of the most convenient and

rapid compressive strength tests of concrete. The rebound hammer measures surface

hardness through a spring controlled mass and plunger system where the mass is made

to hit the concrete to cause a rebound, which is then measured and designated as a

rebound hammer, as seen in Figure 1. The lower the strength and stiffness the concrete

has, the more energy it will absorb, resulting in a lower rebound value (Rebound Hammer

Test on Concrete - Principle, Procedure, Advantages & Disadvantages, 2014). Several

factors affect the reliability of a rebound hammer test, such as surface smoothness,

geometric properties, age, moisture content, type of coarse aggregate, type of cement,

type of mould, and carbonation (Carino, 2014).

Figure 1. Operation of rebound hammer

 Source: Rebound Hammer Test on Concrete—Principle, Procedure, Advantages &

Disadvantages. (2014, October 17). The Constructor.

https://theconstructor.org/concrete/rebound-hammer-test-concrete-ndt/2837/

Ultrasonic pulse velocity method

Similar to surface hardness methods, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) methods are also

non-invasive and make use of wave propagation to determine the strength of concrete

(Helal et. al., 2015). According to Faraj et al. (2022), UPV consists of an electroacoustical

transducer that generates 50-58 kHz of ultrasonic pulses transmitted and passing from

one surface to another. The time it takes for the ultrasonic waves to transmit through is

measured, which can be affected by a specimen’s density and elastic properties.A higher

obtained velocity indicates a great quality in terms of density, uniformity, homogeneity,

etc. (Singh, 2008). UPV can also identify voiding, honeycombing, cracking, and other

defects, identify areas of low-quality concrete, perform defect sizing and shaping, and

take surface-opening crack depth measurements (Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing | UPV

| Concrete Condition, n.d.). The variability of UPV results is due to aggregate properties,

type of cement, water-cement ratio, admixtures, and age of concrete. Reinforcements

inside concrete can also affect the waves; thus, pulse velocity is regarded as simple and

cheap while being an excellent method of NDT concrete testing (Helal et. al., 2015).
 Figure 2. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test apparatus

Source: ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST ON CONCRETE. (n.d.). Retrieved

January 17, 2024, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ultrasonic-pulse-velocity-test-

concrete-venkatanarayanan-p-s

C. Compressive Strength Calculations from NDT

Based on Al-Helfi and Allami (2021), the compressive strength of a concrete can be

determined from values resulting from Schmidt hammer rebound numbers and UPV

through a method called the SonReb method. The combination of both NDT methods

mentioned above compensates for the possible inaccuracies of both and reduces the

uncertainties of each method, thus increasing the accuracy of the estimated compressive

strength from both methods (Cristofaro et. al., 2012). The study by Al-Helfi and Allami

(2021) determined that out of 40 equations, only five were accurate enough to match the

results gathered from the compressive strength of the members tested through destructive

testing. It was concluded that Cristofaro et al. (PW),

fc= 10-4.251 x RN0.686 x UPV1.281

 was the most accurate in terms of proximity to the actual designed compressive

strength.

VII. Methodology, Evaluation, Assessment, Analyses

A. Case Study 1: Condition Assessment of Existing Concrete Building Using Non-

Destructive Testing Methods for Effective Repair and Restoration-A Case Study

(Venkatesh & Alapati, 2017)

The paper presents the results of the condition assessment of a 50-year-old hospital

building in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. Non-destructive testing methods were

employed to evaluate the uniformity, strength, and durability of the concrete. The figure

below shows the structural plan of the building used in the study.

Figure 3. Structural Plan of the Building

Source: Venkatesh & Alapati (2017). “Conditional Assessment of Existing Concrete

Building Using Non-Destructive Testing Methods for Effective Repair and Restoration - A

Case Study. Civil Engineering Journal, 3(10), 841. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-030919

Schmidt Rebound Hammer test was used to analyze the average surface compressive

strength of the concrete. To obtain better results, the surface was first prepared by
removing the plaster and dust. The test was then conducted on accessible locations of

R.C. slab panels, beams, and columns, specifically on slab panels Q4Q5 & R4R5, slab

panels Q9Q10 and R9R10, slab panels Q10Q11 and R10R11, beams along grids R10-

R11, Q7-Q8, and R12-R12, and columns along grids Q6, Q11, and R11, as shown in

Figure 3. Results from this test are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Average Rebound Numbers of Assessed Members

Members Rebound Number

Slab panel b/w grids (Q4Q5 and R4R5) 22.0

Slab panel b/w grids Q9Q10 and R9R10 20.5

Slab panel b/w grids Q10Q11 22.0

Slab panel b/w grids R10R11 17.2

Beam along grid (Q7-Q8) 18.0

Beam along grid ( R12-R12) 14.0

Column along grid Q6 17.8

Column along grid Q11 19.3

Column along grid R11 18.0

UPV test was also conducted to assess the quality of concrete and evaluate concrete

deterioration. The test covered various accessible locations of reinforced concrete (R.C.)

beams and columns, specifically the beam along grid Q5-R5, beam along grid Q11-R11,

column along grid R1, column along grid Q1, beam along grid Q12-R13, and column along

grid Q19, as illustrated in Figure 3. To enhance electrical conductivity during the test, the
transducers were coated with grease and strategically positioned on the opposite side of the

beams and columns.

Both direct and indirect scanning methods were implemented on-site to ensure

comprehensive evaluation.

The testing procedures were conducted using the 'PUNDIT LAB+' (Portable Ultrasonic Non-

Destructive Digital Indicating Tester) equipment manufactured by M/s. Proceq, Switzerland.

Results from the test are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Average UPV Measurements of Assessed Members

Members UPV (m/s)

Beam along grid (Q5-R5) 3452

Beam along grid (Q11-R11) 2622

Column along grid R1 3760

Column along grid Q1 3251

Beam along grid (Q12-R13) 2977

Column along grid Q19 3025

B. Case Study 2: Critical evaluation of NDT for rapid condition assessment of existing RC

buildings: A case study (Karatosun et al., 2022)

An 18-story residential building located in Istanbul, Turkey, was evaluated for rapid condition

assessment, where both destructive and non-destructive concrete testing were

implemented. It was constructed in 1994-1997, a few years before the 7.4 magnitude

Kocaeli earthquake, and both the 2007 and 2018 seismic code provisions. The building used
an RC frame with shear walls as its structural system, as shown in Figure 4. The case study

made use of three NDT methods: Schmidt Hammer, UPV, and drilling resistance.

Figure 4. Structural Plan of the Building

Source: Karatosun, S., Yazar, M., Gunes, O., & Taskin, B. (2022). Critical evaluation of

NDT for rapid condition assessment of existing RC buildings: A case study. MATEC

Web of Conferences, 361, 07001. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202236107001

NDT was performed in specific locations on all upper floors and in the core locations on

the ground and basement floors. Due to the inaccessibility of spaces, indirect (same

surface) UPV was done, as was direct UPV

on coring samples taken for destructive concrete testing. Other than NDT for compressive

strength, the study also made use of NDT for detection and sizing of reinforcements using

high-end radar scanners to verify if column construction corresponds to details given in the

available structural drawings. Table 3 summarizes data from NDT through rebound

hammers and UPV per story of the building.

Table 3. NDT results per story

 Story Rebound Number UPV (m/s)

15 39.5 1854

14 40.8 1977

13 40.4 2229

12 38.6 1809

11 41.2 1769

10 40.5 1880

9 41.8 2554

8 38.0 2783

7 40.3 2172

6 41.5 2418

5 33.4 1776

4 37.7 2044

3 43.5 2318

2 41.2 2290

1 41.5 2812

Z 38.4 3100

C. Case Study 3: Assessment of Compressive Strength for RC Building Using the

NonDestructive Test and the SonReb Method: A Case Study (Al Helfi & Allami, 2021)

The study evaluates the condition of a 41-year old building located in the Technical Institute

of Amara, which is a part of the Southern Technical University in Iraq. The three-storey
structure accommodates the Department of Electrical Techniques, Department of

Mechanical Techniques, and the Department of Computer Systems Techniques.

In assessing the strength of its structural elements, the building was thoroughly inspected,

and non-destructive testing methods were used. A total of 45 members - with 10 columns

and 5 beams on each floor - were tested using Schmidt Rebound Hammer and UPV.

Results from the two tests are summarized in the tables below.

Table 4. Average Rebound Numbers and Average UPV Measurements of Assessed

Members in Ground Floor

Rebound
Members UPV (m/s)
Number

C1 44.7 3807

C2 39.5 2985

C3 42.3 3727

C4 52.8 4259

C5 54.5 4190

C6 53.0 4094

C7 54.8 4092

C8 55.3 4244

C9 61.3 4235

C10 51.8 4158

B1 55.3 4267

B2 58.3 4225

B3 61.8 4307

B4 67.3 4338

B5 55.3 4469
Table 5. Average Rebound Numbers and Average UPV Measurements of Assessed

Members in Second Floor

Rebound
Members UPV (m/s)
Number

C11 52.5 4232

C12 50.8 4141

C13 53.3 4257

C14 51.8 4170

C15 50.5 4382

C16 52.3 4402

C17 52.8 4414

C18 52.3 4422

C19 56.5 4388

C20 61.5 4287

B6 55.5 4390

B7 58.75 4365

B8 63.25 4371

B9 64.25 4350

B10 57.33 4360

 Table 6. Average Rebound Numbers and Average UPV Measurements of Assessed

Members in Third Floor

Rebound
Members UPV (m/s)
Number

C21 41.5 3841

C22 58.5 4296

C23 54.8 4260

C24 55.5 4232

C25 52.0 4190

C26 50.8 3941

C27 52.8 4187

C28 51.3 4301

C29 52.3 4167

C30 51.5 4285

B11 55.8 4507

B12 57.3 4425

B13 53.5 4462

B14 55.8 4397

B15 55.8 4494

D. Computation of Concrete Compressive Strength

Before determining the compressive strength of the buildings, the mean rebound numbers

and mean UPV values were first calculated. Summarized below are the computed values

for each case study.

Table 7. Mean Values of Rebound Hammer Tests and UPV Tests

Case Study Average Rebound Number Average UPV (m/s)

1 18.76 3181

2 39.9 2237

3 54.2 4229

Using the proposed equation by Cristofaro et al.,

fc= 10-4.251 x RN0.686 x UPV1.281

the compressive strength values for the three case studies were calculated. Results from the

computation are tabulated below.

Case
Compressive Strength (MPa) Table 8. Computed Compressive
Study
Strength Values in MPa
1 12.76

2 13.74

3 38.35
E. Analysis and Discussion of Data

Figure 5. Comparison of Computed Compressive Strength

Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of the overall compressive strength among the buildings in

the three case studies. Case 1 demonstrates the lowest compressive strength, recording a

value of 12.76 MPa, followed by Case 2 with 13.74 MPa, and Case 3 with the highest

compressive strength at 38.35 MPa. The computed compressive strengths are likely

influenced by various factors, including building typology and usage pattern, age of the

structure, experimental methodology, as well as geographic location. For this study, the

analysis will focus on the correlation of these factors on the compressive strength values.

The analysis of three cases reveals distinct relationships between building usage patterns

and compressive strength. In Case 1 where the hospital is consistently in use with an

estimated User Density Level (UDL) of 5 (Live Loads, 2021), the result is a lower

compressive strength. The continuous and intensive usage of the hospital facility, in addition
to its high UDL, appears to contribute to a comparatively lower compressive strength.

Contrastingly, Case 2 represents a residential building that is always in use, but with a lower

UDL ranging from 2-3 (Live Loads, 2021). Despite having a relatively lower UDL than Case

1, Case 2 exhibits a higher compressive strength at 13.74 MPa. In Case 3, a school that is

always in use, with a UDL between 3-5 (Live Loads, 2021), stands out by displaying the

highest compressive strength at 38.35 MPa.

Examining the compressive strength values in relation to the age of the buildings also

provide interesting insights about their structural performance. In the studied cases, the ages

of the buildings in years are 50, 25, and 41, respectively. Figure 6 shows the relationship

between the age of the building and their compressive strength.

Figure 6. Ages of the Buildings and their Compressive Strength

In comparing the three cases, the observed compressive strength values do not strictly

follow a linear correlation with the building age. The results reveal that other factors may

have contributed to the structural performance of each building.

The current quality of the buildings and susceptibility to hazards may also have affected the

compressive strengths, or rather, the execution of the NDTs. In case 1, the study mentioned

that failures in RC structures can be prevented by early detection of reinforcement corrosion

and crack formation. It also provided visual images of said damages to the structure shown

in Figure 7. These damages caused a deterioration in the structural capabilities of some

members, thus inducing more loads on other members, leading to a faster deterioration and

overall compressive strength weakness.

Figure 7. Visual Damages of the Case Study 1 Building

Source: Venkatesh & Alapati (2017). “Conditional Assessment of Existing Concrete

Building Using Non-Destructive Testing Methods for Effective Repair and Restoration - A

Case Study. Civil Engineering Journal, 3(10), 841. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-030919

In case 2, the structure experienced the Kocaeli earthquake of 1999 with a magnitude of 7.4.

However, the study concluded that the building satisfied modern seismic standards. This is

due to the paper’s extensive use of other data from other tests, both destructive and

nondestructive. From our gathered data, the compressive strength acquired was

questionably not consistent relative to the other data. This is heavily due to the methodology

of this paper relying on rebound hammers and UPVs, in which the case study was unable to

execute proper testing, specifically with its UPVs. The case study conducted indirect UPV

testing where both detectors were positioned on the same surface due to the inaccessibility

of the opposite surface. In proper UPV tests, detectors should be positioned on opposite

surfaces. This led to a lower UPV result compared to the direct UPV result used in coring
specimens in the case study. This innovative use of UPV resulted in a less accurate

measurement of compressive strength for the structure.

Case 3 also presents itself with several damages, as shown in Figure N. This includes

cracking and spalling of cover concrete and a clear deterioration of exposed reinforcements

in one column and one beam, while all other members were considered safe. All tests were

done in accessible areas, leading to more reliable data collection. The case study also

examined forty-five members, creating a substantial amount of data to work with and

increasing its accuracy to the supposed compressive strength.

Figure 8. Visual Damages of the Case Study 3 Building

Source: [insert case 3 source]

VIII. Conclusion

In conclusion, the computed values for compressive strength in this study show the

interplay of multiple factors rather than being predominantly influenced by a singular

factor. The observed relationships between the compressive strengths and various

factors highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding

structural performance, specifically the compressive strength of concrete.

The NDT methods employed, namely the rebound hammer and UPV, exhibited a lot of

advantages, primarily being non-invasive. This preserves the integrity of structures,

offering a better alternative to traditional methods. Additionally, the rebound hammer test

is a quick and efficient way to assess compressive strength. On the other hand, UPV
tests allow for the analysis of internal cracking and defects, providing insights beyond

surface conditions. Despite these advantages, they also have limitations. For instance,

the reliance of the rebound hammer on surface hardness may result in less accurate

data, particularly when the surface conditions do not adequately represent the overall

structural characteristics. Additionally, UPV, while offering valuable internal insights,

poses challenges in execution as it requires access to both material surfaces. This

makes the UPV test more difficult to implement compared to the rebound hammer test,

especially in situations where accessibility is limited.

IX. Recommendations

Based on the results gathered from this study, further development can be achieved by

increasing the number of case studies to provide more data for comparison. It is also

recommended that several other compression strength

conversion equations be used to generate a more accurate result. Including other

methods of NDT is also recommended to widen the scope of this study.

Moreover, calculated compressive strength can be compared to either destructive testing

data or theoretical compressive strength to create a general standard and assess more

factors.

Overall, a more in-depth analysis with the gathered data using other methods of

statistical analysis and a coherent set of case studies with considerable similarities and

differences develops a more consistent analysis. With this, factors affecting compressive

strength can be extracted more accurately and with more basis.