Journal of the Institute of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.

130–139
© TUTA/IOE/PCU
TUTA/IOE/PCU All rights reserved. Printed in Nepal
Fax: 977-1-5525830

Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and

Non-Destructive Tests
Siddharth Shankar 1, 2, Hikmat Raj Joshi 2
1
Central Material Testing Laboratory, Institute of Engineering, TU, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Central Campus, Pulchowk, IOE, TU, Lalitpur, Nepal
Corresponding Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: Concrete is most widely used construction material worldwide .Strength of a

concrete structure may have to be assessed without causing physical damage to it due to
various reasons like its monumental importance or the legal dispute on whether the
strength of the concrete in the structure is satisfactory enough or not. Non destructive
test (NDT) is one of the various ways to estimate strength of the concrete without
inflicting any significant damage to it. In this paper comparison between the actual
strength of a concrete by destructive test (DT) method and that by NDT method has
been done. The methods used are Schmidt Hammer (SH) (or rebound hammer) and
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) as NDTs and test by compression testing machine
(CTM) as DT. In this study separate comparisons have been done for two NDTs and a
procedure to follow while estimating strength of concrete by NDT has been
recommended.
Keywords: Concrete, Non destructive test (NDT), Destructive test (DT), Schmidt
Hammer (SH), Rebound Hammer (RH), Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV), Compressive
test, Compressive Testing Machine (CTM), Compressive Strength, Concrete Cubes,
Concrete Cylinders, Structural Safety, Structural Health, Core Samples.

1. Introduction
Recent development in concrete is high strength concrete, which is mixture of cement, sand,
aggregate, water and admixtures. The compressive strength of concrete is its one of the most
valuable property. To determine compressive strength of concrete is a major task of
engineers/researchers for existing concrete structures. There are two aspects of determination of
compressive strength of concrete which are destructive tests (DT) and non destructive tests
(NDT). The DT of concrete is not always appropriate method to find compressive strength of
concrete and concrete structures because it affects the durability and lifespan of concrete.
Hence, the NDT method is only one predominant method to find the strength of existing
concrete and concrete structures, and to judge the quality of concrete. The NDT method is direct
and easy tool to find in situ compressive strength of concrete. The NDT test methods include
rebound hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity test, penetration test, radiography test, sonic integrity
tests etc. There are two distinct areas in civil engineering works where it has to be relied on NDT
for practical and theoretical purposes. The first ones are the old monumental structural systems
like ancient temples and edifices. The second ones are the buildings which are coming up so fast
in the urban areas as the result of burgeoning housing industry, which badly needs quality
control for mass safety and security of the people.
The properties, characteristics and qualities of these two groups of structural systems can be
quickly and systematically recorded, if the tests performed are NDT ones. However, for the
reliability of these results and records can be proven only if the relationship between these tests
Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and Non-Destructive Tests 131

and the DT which are more realistic and reliable but not always possible has been established.
The relationship between the two types of tests which the research work is to establish will
provide a series of vital data and solve a series of problems in assessment of the properties,
characteristics and vulnerability of the standing structural systems [12]. However, none of these
tests can be used independently to yield reliable quantitative results. Out of these NDT test
methods, combination of two or more NDT yields results of acceptable levels. For instance, in
case of a historical monument, which is already standing for hundreds of years or in case of a
structural system which has already been constructed but requires verification of the properties
and characteristics of its material, elements or the system as a whole, the DT is not the best
method to apply.
One of the challenging and virgin areas in testing civil engineering materials and structures is to
establish relationship between the results from DT and NDT [13]. The usefulness and reliability
of the results of NDT when DT is not practically possible can only be verified only if/when the
relationship between the two tests has been properly established.

2. Literature Review
A series of related M Sc theses of the Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering, other
national and international journals as well as books have been studied. Out of these, some of the
significant works are mentioned below:
Aydin and Saribiyik [3] have attempted to establish the relationship between rebound numbers
(N) and crushing strengths of cubes and core samples from elements of structures. The data
plotted were compared by doing linear regression. It has been found that the variations in
correlation were higher for older (than ninety days) concrete. A table and chart of
transformation factors for old concrete based upon strengths have been suggested.
Pattanaika [21] suggested at least two independent methods of different equipment of NDT
should be used to determine the compressive strength of concrete. By using correlation curves,
he obtained a correction factor that can be used for quick assessment of quality of the concrete
by rebound hammer. He also established correlation between each pair of NDT instruments for
assessment of compressive strength of concrete at necessary location which would be necessary
for structural health monitoring.
Hannachi and Gueteche [7] have studied both single and multiple variable equations involving
SH and pulse velocity meter. They have compiled works done by various researchers till now
and have compiled them in a tabular form (Table 1).
132 Journal of the Institute of Engineering

Table 1: Equations of existing relationship used for compressive strength estimation of concrete

Single-variable equations
Eq.
Equation Dimensions Reference RMSE
No.
fc [MPa], NDT Windsor
1 fc = 21.575 × L – 72.276 3.7813
L[cm] Sys. Inc. (1994)
fc [MPa], Kheder 1
2 fc = 1.2 × 10–5 × V 1.7447 6.0974
V[km/s] (1998)
Kheder 2
3 fc = 0.4030 × R 1.2083 fc [MPa] 2.1651
(1998)
fc [MPa], Quasrawi 1
4 fc = 36.72 × V – 129.077 3.6981
V[km/s] (2000)
Quasrawi 1
5 fc = 1.353 × R – 17.393 fc[MPa] 2.8152
(2000)
fc [MPa],
6 fc = –5333 + 5385 × L Malhotra et al. 2.2128
L[in]
Multi-variable equations
Eq.
Equation Dimensions Reference RMSE
No.
fc = –25.568 + 0.000635 × R3 + fc [MPa], Bellander
7 2.2128
8.397V V[km/s] (1979)
fc [MPa], Meynink et al.
8 fc = –24.668 + 1.427×R + 0.0294V4 7.0654
V[km/s] (1979)
fc[MPa],
9 fc = 0.745 × R + 0.951 × V – 0.544 Tanigawa et al. 2. 1000
V[m/s]
fc[kg/cm2], Postacioglu
10 fc = [R/(18.6 + 0.019 × R + 0.515 × V)] 3.7617
V[km/s] (1985)
fc [kg/cm2], Arioglu et al.
11 11 fc = 18.6 × e (0.019×R+ 0515V) 2.9205
V[km/s] (1991)
fc [kg/cm2], Arioglu et al.
12 4.2305
V[km/s] (1994)
fc [kg/cm2], Raymar et al.
13 fc = –39.570 + 1.532 × R + 5.0.614 × V 7.5910
V[km/s] (1996)
fc [kg/cm2], Arioglu et al.
14 fc = 0.00153 × (R3 × V4) 11.1623
V[km/s] (1996)
fc [kg/cm2], Kheder 3
15 fc = 0.0158 × V 0.4254 × R 1.1171 2.1375
V[km/s] (1998)
Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and Non-Destructive Tests 133

3. Experimental Investigation
For NDT two equipment were used for SH and UPV testing. For SH and UPV testing W-M-250
[4] and Pundit Lab Proceq, [20] respectively were used. For DT the testing machine used was
Compression Testing Machine Mark XII (Compression Testing Machine Mark XII, N D). The
objects used for testing were standard sized samples (150 mm cubes, 100 mm cubes, and 200
mm×100 mm cylinders) and cores taken from existing structures. For testing, first the samples
were weighed on a digital weighing machine with an accuracy of 0.001 kg, and then were tested
with UPV machine. Next, the objects were clamped concentrically in CTM with vertical force
with pressure of the order 5 – 7 kN mm-2 and the testing by SH was conducted. Both of the NDT
were conducted as per standard procedural instructions stated in IS 13311 [17]. After finishing
the SH test the vertical force was gradually increased until ultimate crushing strength was
reached.

Figure 1: UPV Testing of Samples Figure 2: Reading of RN Value

Figure 3: Determining Ultimate Crushing Load

134 Journal of the Institute of Engineering

4. Research Methodology
One of the basic problems in NDT is to improve its reliability. It can be done by correlating it
with the DT.
The focus is confined to the main property of concrete - compressive strength, as it is the most
valuable property of concrete. The variables have been defined as the results from NDT and DT
on sample objects and only NDT on the target object.
The methodology used in this research work is laboratory works and experiments based. after
doing a detailed literature review, a theoretical concept regarding how to perform experiment has
been developed. The main aim of this research work is to derive the relationship between
Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by NDT and DT.
The tests are done as per specified rules and the results are processed statistically to determine
the compressive strength of target object.
The collection of samples were done from the cubes and cylinders prepared recently by various
bachelor and master level students of Institute of Engineering at Pulchowk Campus. The
samples were grouped appropriately and then the tests conducted as per requirements.

5. Result Analysis and Discussion

The testing machines used for UPV, SH and crushing strength were same for all the testing
objects. Some of the initial data obtained from tests are presented here in tabular form (Table 2)
Example: As an example testing of a 10 cm cube both by NDT and DT has been given and the
determination of ultimate strength by different methods has been shown and compared.
Sample used as target object T10 with the following data: (Table 1)
Cube size 10×10 cm, mass = 2.353 kg, SH, N values = 36, 42, 38, 38, 36, 36, 36, 36, 30, 40,
UPV velocities, v = 4081, 4081, 4098 m sec-1.
Average N value, Navg = 36.8, Average UPV vavg = 4086.7 m sec-1,
Regression equation for N value from correlation data of 15 cm cube:

y  0.405x  14.98 , (see Figure 5) where x = SH strength according to Navg from the SH (see
Table 2). Here, x = 29.5, from Table 2.
The required strength y = 0.405 × 29.50 + 14.98 = 26.93 MPa
Regression equation for v value from correlation data of 15 cm cube:

y  0.013x  30.63 , (see Figure 6) where x = average UPV, vavg from Table 2. Here, x =
4086.7, from Table 2.
The required strength y = 0.013 × 4086.70 - 30.63 = 22.49 MPa
Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and Non-Destructive Tests 135

Table 3: Conversion of sample strengths into 15 × 15 cm cube strength (Leschinkii, 1980)

Cubes (cm×cm) Cylinders (cm×cm)

Sample
7 10 15 20 30 7×14 10×20 15×30 20×40

α 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.16 1.20 1.24

For Core samples
h/Φ 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0
η 1.2 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.1 1.09 1.08 1.07

Regression equation for N value from correlation data of 10 cm cube:

y  0.522 x  11.56 , (see Figure 9) where x = SH strength according to Navg from the SH (see
Table 2). Here, x = 29.5, from Table 2.
The required strength y = 0.522 × 29.50 + 11.56 = 26.96 MPa
After converting it into 15×15 cm cube strength, (see Table 3) the required strength = 26.96 ×
0.91 = 24.53 MPa
Regression equation for v value from correlation data of 10 cm cube:

y  0.019 x  58.47 , (see Figure 10) where x = average UPV, vavg from Table 2. Here, x =
4086.7, from Table 2.
The required strength y = 0.019 × 4086.70 - 30.63 = 19.18 MPa
After converting it into 15×15 cm cube strength, (see Table 3) the required strength = 19.18 ×
0.91 = 17.45 MPa
Regression equation for N value from correlation data of 10 × 20 cm cylinder:

y  0.07 x  14.21 , (see Figure 13) where x = SH strength according to Navg from the SH
(see Table 2). Here, x = 29.5, from Table 2.
The required strength y = -0.07 × 29.50 + 14.21 = 12.15 MPa
After converting it into 15×15 cm cube strength, (see Table 3) the required strength = 12.15 ×
1.16 = 14.09 MPa
Regression equation for v value from correlation data of 10 × 20 cm cylinder:

y  0.008x  21.79 , (see Figure 14) where x = average UPV, vavg from Table 2. Here, x =
4086.7, from Table 2.
The required strength y = 0.008 × 4086.70 – 21.79 = 10.90 MPa
After converting it into 15×15 cm cube strength, (see Table 3) the required strength = 10.90 ×
1.16 = 12.64 MPa
136 Journal of the Institute of Engineering

Table 4: Comparison of NDT with DT for T10, 10 × 10 cm cube

Comparison with CTM

Strength in MPa by
S. N. Correlation with crushing strength in %
SH Test UPV Test SH Test UPV Test
1 15 × 15 cm cube 26.93 22.49 -1.36 -17.62
2 10 × 10 cm cube 24.53 17.45 -10.15 -36.08
3 10 × 20 cm cylinder 14.09 12.64 -48.39 -53.70

The best result is given by correlation with 15 × 15 cm cube.

50
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH(MPA)

y = 1.5443x - 26.579
40 R² = 0.9566

30

y = 0.6263x + 4.1885
20
R² = 0.3498

10
20 30 40 50
REBOUND NUMBER
RN VS CTM RN VS SH

Figure 4: Rebound number versus CTM and SH strength for 150 mm cube samples

40
CTM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MPA

30

y = 0.4051x + 14.984
20 R² = 0.3647

10
10 20 30 40 50
SCHMIDTH HAMMER STRENGTH (MPA
SH VS CTM STRENGTH Linear (SH VS CTM STRENGTH)

Figure 5: SH strength versus CTM strength for 15 cm cube samples

Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and Non-Destructive Tests 137

40

30
CTM(MPA)

20
y = 0.0139x - 30.63
R² = 0.5065

10
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
UPV
UPV VS CTM Linear (UPV VS CTM) Linear (UPV VS CTM)

Figure 6: Ultrasonic Pulse velocity (m/s) vs compression testing machine (CTM) strength (MPA) for
150 mm cubes

5000
y = -0.7512x + 4217.7
ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY

R² = 0.0002
4500

4000

3500

3000
25 30 35 40 45 50
REBOUND NUMBER
RN VS UPV Linear (RN VS UPV ) Linear (RN VS UPV )

Figure 7: Rebound Number Vs ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/s) for 150 mm cubes

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

At present stage the NDTs are suitable only for controlling and estimating the compressive
strength within the specified range of the target object.
i) Prior to the application of NDT, the equipment SH and UPV must have fresh referential
data from DT on sample objects for comparison.
ii) The sample objects for comparison should be as close as possible to the target object in
terms of expected strength and other parameters like grade, mix, type of aggregates,
shape, size, age, etc.
138 Journal of the Institute of Engineering

iii) The relationship between results of compressive strength values from NDT of the target
object must be compared with those from DT and the most probable result should be
taken as the final estimate.
iv) The NDTs should always be performed at least with two equipment and the results
should be close enough so that the most probable one from them can be adopted.

References
[1] Ambuja Technical Literature Series -66, 2000, Commentary and Guidelines for application of IS 456:
2000, Section-2.
[2] Austin CK, 1981, Formwork Planning, 3rd edition.
[3] Aydin F and Saribiyik M, 2010; Correlation between Schmidt Hammer and destructive compressive
testing for concrete in existing buildings, Scientific Research and Essays Vol 5(13), pp. 1644-1648, July
04, 2010.
[4] Concrete Rebound Hammers operators Manual, 2010, W-M-250 & W-M-255, NDT, James Instruments
Inc., Nondestructive Testing Systems.
[5] Dhir R K & Jones M R, 2002, Innovation in concrete structure, 4th edition.
[6] Gambhir M L, 2001, Concrete Technology, 2nd edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.
New Delhi, 8th Reprint.
[7] Hannachi S and Guetteche M N, 2012, Application of the Combined Method for Evaluating the
Compressive Strength of Concrete on Site, Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2012, 2, 16-21
[8] IS 13311 (Part 2), 1992, Non-destructive testing of concrete-methods of test, part 2, Rebound Hammer.
[9] IS 456, 2000, Explanatory Hand-book for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, fourth revision; Bureau of
Indian Standards,Manak Bhawan,New Delhi.
[10] IS 456, 2000, IS Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, fourth revision; Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi.
[11] Jain A.K, Reinforced Concrete Design, 6th edition, Nem Chand &bros,Roorkee
[12] Joshi H R, 2005, 'Rebars and the stakeholders', Proceedings of 'National Seminar on Rebars in Civil
Construction', jointly organized by Structural Engineers' Association, Nepal (SEANep) and Hama Iron
and Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Katmandu
[13] Joshi H R, 2011, 'Earthquake and People', The Limelight, An ESGB Publication, IOE, Pulchowk
Campus, Katmandu, pp 1-2.
[14] Leschinkii M Yu, 1980, Ispytanie betona: Spravochnoe posobie, (in Russian Concrrete Testing:
Reference handbook), pp. (132 – 187).
[15] Malhotra V M & Carino, N J, 1991, C R C Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, Second
edition ,ch-5.p.n-101-146.
[16] Malhotra V M, 2000, Advances in concrete Technology, International Conference-2000.
[17] Mehta P. Kumar and Monteiro Paulo J.M.; CONCRETE: Microstructure, properties and Material, Indian
Edition(pp-17-39)
[18] Neville A M & Brooks J J, 1999, Concrete Technology; International Student edition; Addisonwesly.
[19] Neville A M,2006, Properties of Concrete, 4th and Final edition; Pearson Edition Asia.
[20] Operating Instructions, 2010, Ultrasonic Instrument, Pundit Lab, Proceq.
Comparison of Concrete Properties determined by Destructive and Non-Destructive Tests 139

[21] Pattanaika S C, 2010, Ultra sonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer as non destructive test tools for
structural health monitoring, Proceedings of International Conference NUiCONE 2010, at Institute of
Technology, Nirma University, Ahemedabad from December 09-11, 2010.
[22] SHETTY M.S, 1998, CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY: Theory and Practice,S.Chand and Company Ltd.
[23] Shrestha K M, 2005, Production of very high Strength Concrete in Nepal; M.Sc. Thesis, IOE Pulchowk
Campus, Dec.
[24] Taylor W H, Concrete Technology and Practice; 4th edition. (Sec-8.4(p.n.-197-198)
[25] Technical Literature, Operating Instructions Mark XII 2000 kN, 2500 kN and 3000 kN Triple Gauge
Compression Machines, incorporating 50 kN flexural and transverse frame, Engineering Laboratory
Equipment Limited.