Compressive Strength Variation of Concrete in a Large Inclined RC

Beam by Non-Destructive Testing1

Dr. Dhanada K. Mishra, Ph. D. (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
Principal, Jagannath Institute for Technology & Management (JITM)
Paralakhemundi, Orissa 761211
dkmishra@jitm.org
Abstract
Comprehensive non-destructive testing was carried out on a large reinforced concrete (RC) beam
suspected to have poor quality concrete as indicated by the testing of cubes in the laboratory, and
delayed initial setting of the concrete in-situ. The testing program yielded data on the quality and
uniformity of the concrete along the entire span and depth of the beam. The data indicates that the
uniformity of the concrete in terms of its surface hardness (as measured by impact hammer test)
is quite good. The ultra-sonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests also indicated uniformity of quality in
the cover concrete. The compressive strength tests carried out on the core samples indicated wide
variation in the strength of the concrete, but it met the acceptance criteria. On basis of these test
results it was decided not to demolish or strengthen the beam. Certain interesting features
regarding the variability in compressive strength with respect the slope and location of the beam
are highlighted in the paper.

Key words:

Non-destructive testing, NDT, Impact hammer test, Ultra-sonic pulse velocity

test, UPV, Compressive strength, Concrete, Standard deviation, Coefficient of
variation, Calibration, Acceptance criteria.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Non-destructive testing of concrete using various well-established techniques (such as Impact
hammer test, UPV test, core test etc.) has become an essential tool in post-construction evaluation
of concrete quality as well as investigation of serviceability problems with the structure if any 1.
Concrete compressive strength has been conventionally used as an indicator of over-all concrete
quality and is used as a control or compliance test both at the site of production of concrete and
1

This work was done by the author while serving the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. in mid 1990s.
The case study presented is a real life project investigated by the author. The actual identifying details of
the project have been omitted to maintain confidentiality of the client.

1 of 16

site of construction. In case where the cube strength (or the cylinder strength as the case may be)
indicate a strength below the minimum required at 7 days, 14 days or 28 days, non-destructive
testing is often called for to confirm the actual strength of the concrete in the structure.
The most commonly used NDT methods to evaluate concrete compressive strength in-situ are
as follows:

Impact hammer test

Pull-off test, Pull-out test Penetration Resistance test & Break-off method etc.

Ultra-sonic Pulse Velocity Test

Core testing

In order to utilize these techniques effectively and get results that are useful, it is essential to have
proper knowledge of the testing procedures, the strengths and limitations of the tests and proper
interpretation of the results. This paper discusses a typical case-study that illustrates the
employment of the above procedures and how they can be used to get important information that
can decide whether the structure has adequate strength or if it needs to be strengthened or
demolished. If NDT can help make such a decision in a rational manner, it can be well worth its
high cost (because of the specialized nature of the service) in terms of man-power, equipment and
effort as demonstrated in the paper.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
The reinforced concrete beam taken up for non-destructive testing was part of a threedimensional framed structure, which was the maintenance bay of a hydroelectric power station.
The beam was 16.5 m long in span and 1.2 m x 0.5 m in cross-section (Figure 1). There is a slope
in the beam along the span of 1 in 5.73 from u/s end to the d/s end. The concrete used in the beam
was specified to M-20 grade (i.e., fck = 20 MPa, where fck is the characteristic strength of concrete
meaning that no more than 5% of the test results fall below the characteristic strength as obtained
from cube specimens as per Indian Standard IS:456-19782). It was decided before casting to
increase the concrete grade to M-25 (fck = 25 MPa) by decreasing w/c ratio with the use of
superplasticiser, so that the strength gain at one day will be higher and the shuttering can be
removed earlier. However upon removal of the side shuttering it was noticed that the concrete

2 of 16

was soft at many places to the extent that a few chunks of concrete spalled off from the side face.
Shuttering was put back in place and the beam was left to set for another 48 hours before curing
was started. The cube samples tested at the site laboratory yielded a compressive strength of 1420 MPa at 14 day, which was below expected strength. At this point it was decided to carry out
non-destructive testing to investigate the delay in setting and ascertain the strength of in-situ
concrete in the beam.
3.0 TESTING SCHEME
It was decided after the preliminary site inspection of the structure that impact hammer test,
ultrasonic pulse velocity test and collection of a suitable number of concrete cores (55 mm in dia.
and 110 mm in length) and subsequent compressive strength testing in laboratory to be carried
out. Scaffolding was provided on one side of the beam in such a way that one Side face of the
beam was accessible over the entire span except for a small zone at either end.

Figure 2 shows the grid that was used to carry out the hammer tests and the UPV measurements.
The entire beam was divided into 33 sections at 0.5 m spacing each, referred to as sections 1
through 34 in increasing order, starting from the up-stream side of the beam. Four levels marked
A, B, C and D axe also defined at depths of 0.15 m, 0.45 m, 0.75 m and 1.05 m from the top of
the beam.
3.1 Impact Hammer Tests
Impact hammer test using a standard Schmidt hammer (N34 - type was carried out at all the
accessible grid points (only a few sections towards either end of the beam were not accessible). A
minimum of six readings were recorded. Only average rebound numbers for each section
(average of readings taken at four points A, B, C and D) are presented in Table 1. The mean,
standard deviation, maximum and minimum values of the data are presented. These values are
based on the original data, and not the abbreviated version of the data presented in Table 1

The rebound numbers translated to compressive strength using the standard calibration chart
(Figure 3a) is also provided in Table 1. The compressive strengths as obtained from the
calibration chart prepared from the data collected at the site laboratory are also shown. The

3 of 16

calibration chart and data prepared from tests at the site laboratory shown in Figure 3b. These
consist of tests on about 46 cube samples of different ages, mix designs and compressive
strengths.
3.2 Ultra-sonic Pulse Velocity Tests
The Portable Ultra-sonic Non-destructive Digital Indicating Tester (PUNDIT) was used for UPV
measurements. Since only one face of the beam was accessible, surface-probing method was used
for UPV measurements. In this method only the pulse transmitted through the cover zone of the
concrete is received by the receiver, and therefore the results indicate only the quality of the cover
concrete. It is also known that the indirect method gives a lower value than semi-direct or direct
method (by 5 - 10%)3. The transmitter was placed at one of the grid points and the receiver was
placed at points in the same level (A, B, C or D), but at different sections in succession. Such
measurements indicate the presence or absence of cracks and also easy to detect a fault in the
measurements. The summary of sets of four readings each (in case of horizontal measurements)
and three readings each (in case of vertical measurements) are provided in Table 2A and 2B. This
data is again meant for estimation of concrete quality as per the criteria listed in Table 2C. UPV
data can be used to predict compressive strength only if a reliable calibration chart is available
together with good testing condition4. Even though a chart was developed using the data from site
testing of cube specimen, compressive strength was not predicted from UPV data because of the
large variability in the data and the in-direct method of UPV measurement used.
3.3 Testing of Concrete Cores
The concrete cores were tested as per the procedure described in Indian Standard 516-1959 5
and briefly mentioned below.
3.3.1 Specimen Preparation & Test Procedure
The ends of the concrete cores were cut using a diamond tipped blade to make them even and
parallel. Subsequently the ends were capped with a rapid hardening high strength cement grout to
ensure uniform surface for loading of the specimen. After capping the specimen were placed in
water for 48 hours, and later taken out and tested in saturated surface dry condition. The
compressive strength tests were carried out in a calibrated compressive testing machine using a
loading rate of approximately 14 MPa/min. The maximum load at failure was noted down.

4 of 16

3.3.2 Bulk Density, UPV Test & Compressive Strength

Before the specimen are put in the curing tank, they were first weighed in air and in water to
determine the bulk density of the concrete. The results are tabulated in Table 3. The bulk density
of the concrete in all the six specimen appear to be quite high (average - 2.52 g/cc) for M-25
grade concrete. This could be due to the high specific gravity of the aggregates, which was
confirmed by separate testing of aggregates at site. The velocity of an ultra-sonic pulse through
the core in dry condition was found using the PUNDIT equipment. Knowing the time taken to
travel from one end of the core to the other and the length of the core, which is the same as the
distance covered, the velocity can be calculated. The ultra-sonic pulse velocity tests reveal good
correlation with the compressive strength results. The details of the specimen such as the
identification mark, length, diameter, compressive strength, conversion factor, equivalent cube
strength etc. are listed in the Table 3. It should be noted that the age of all the specimen at the
time of testing was about 100 days. These semi-destructive test results are more authentic proof
of the compressive strength of the concrete. These strengths are also indicated at the location of
the core with respect to the beam span in Figure 2 to give a visual representation of in-member
variability in strength.

4.0 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In this section the results are analyzed and interpreted to develop an understanding of the quality,
strength and variability of the concrete in the beam.

4.1 Impact Hammer Tests

The impact hammer test results show a rebound index that varies between 33 and 38 with a mean
value of 36 with standard deviation of 4.0 and coefficient of variation of 11.1%. The
corresponding compressive strengths vary between 28.4 and 38.0 MPa with a mean value of 34.0
MPa and coefficient of variation of 8.2% when the standard calibration chart is used for
interpretation. When the calibration chart prepared from site data (see Figure 3) is used, a mean
compressive strength of 30.0 MPa is obtained. These results are tabulated in Table 1. Thus the

5 of 16

impact hammer test results show reasonable uniformity of surface hardness of the concrete. The
compressive strength is also reasonable from the point of expected strength. However, it should
be noted that the site calibration curve predicts lower strength for the concrete for a given
rebound index compared to the standard calibration curve. This indicates that the quality of the
concrete cubes used in the site laboratory are comparatively poorer than those used in the
preparation of the standard calibration charts. This does not necessarily reflect on the quality of
concrete in place in structure itself as will be discussed later.
4.2 UPV Measurements
The UPV measurements were taken in horizontal and vertical manner as described earlier and
only surface probing was done. Thus the results indicate the quality of concrete in the cover
region only. The quality of concrete can be judged on basis of the criteria presented in Table 2C.
It can be seen that in most cases the concrete falls in the category 11. This is not quite acceptable
except for the fact that since only surface probing method was used, these readings reflect much
of the local surface cracks and other weaknesses of the cover concrete and form the lower bound
of actual UPV characteristics as measured by direct method.
4.3 Compressive Strength of Cores
The equivalent cube compressive strength of the specimen is calculated as shown in the Table 3.
The conversion factors (as per the IS:516-1959) take into account the fact that the length to
diameter ratios of the specimen are less than 2.0, and that the shape of the specimen is cylindrical
rather than cubical. The compressive strengths indicate a wide variability in the strength of the
concrete. The strengths vary between 21.8 to 51.8 MPa with a standard deviation of 10.7 MPa
and coefficient of variation of 33.7%. For a design mix of M-20 the standard deviation is between
3.6 to 5.6 MPa (coeff. of variation of 18-28%) and for M-25 it is 4.3-6.3 MPa (C. of V. of 17.2 25. 2%). This indicates that the level of variability in the concrete compressive strength in the
structure is high indicating that the degree of control in concrete production is poor. How ever as
per the acceptance criteria of design mix (IS:456- 1978), the strength of each sample should not
be less than the characteristic strength (in case of M-20 grade it is 20 MPa) of the mix or in case
one or more samples do have less strength then each one should not be less than the greater of the
following :

6 of 16

fck - 1.350 = 12.44

(1a)

0.8fck = 16.0

(1b)

1.67

f av f ck + 1.67
= 26.39
n

(2)

and

where,
fav = Average compressive strength (Experimental value = 29.9 MPa),
= standard deviation = 5.6 MPa
n = cumulative number of samples tested = 10.

Clearly the sample of core specimen tested in this study meet the above acceptance criteria
Consequently, it was concluded that the concrete in the beam has developed adequate strength to
function as intended.

It can also be noticed from the Table 3 that, UPV readings correspond well with the compressive
strengths of the core (e.g., core #7 shows highest compressive strength and also highest UPV).
Also the bulk density of the cores are quite high (Mean - 2.47, C. V. -2%) as was expected from
the aggregate unit weight. It is also interesting to note that the coeff. of variation of UPV is only
3.5%.

The core compressive strengths are shown in Figure 2 against their approximate location of the
cores on the beam. This indicates that in general the cores taken from the top layer of the beam
are weak in compressive strength compared to those taken from the bottom parts. It can also be
observed that there is a general trend of concrete being stronger towards the down-stream end
compared to the up-stream end. Figure 2 shows a comparison of compressive strengths as
obtained from the cores and the impact-hammer readings at that section. It can be observed that in
general the compressive strengths of cores are less than that predicted by impact hammer tests for
the locations in the up-stream half of the beam compared to those for the down-stream side. It is

7 of 16

also interesting to note that the calibration of the hammer done by the site laboratory tests predict
the actual concrete strengths better for the up-stream side as opposed to the down-stream side.
This may be because of the fact that the correlation of the compressive strength with the rebound
index is better reflected by the standard calibration chart in case good quality concrete (as in the
downstream side), whereas the site calibration reflects the correlation better in case of concrete of
relatively poor quality (as in up-stream side). This variation can be attributed to the sloping nature
of the beam and difference in compaction as a result.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Before any conclusions and recommendations can be made on basis of the data collected in this
investigation the important limitation of the study must be emphasized. During the investigation
the end zone of about 1.5 - 2 m span of the beam was not accessible from the scaffolding
provided. Hence this area at each end is not covered in this study. This zone is critical from the
point of view of shear strength. However, the two cores taken from this zone from the top can be
used for characterizing the concrete in this area. the conclusions made from the data presented in
the paper are as follows:

The compressive strength of the cover concrete in the beam as determined from extensive
hammer tests appear to be good in general.

The UPV results also reveal general uniformity in cover concrete. However, the average UPV
reading is rather low due to the fact that only surface probing was used. Higher readings were
obtained from UPV on core samples.

A prominent trend of higher compressive strength is observed for concrete from bottom of
the beam as opposed to the cores taken from the top surface. Similarly strength of concrete
seems to be higher towards the down-stream end of the beam.

The compressive strength varies between 21.8 to 51.8 MPa with a standard deviation of 10.7 MPa
and coefficient of variation of 33.7%. Even though the variation in compressive strength is higher
than normal, on basis of minimum strength of the cores tested being higher than the characteristic

8 of 16

strength of M-20 concrete, and average strength being higher than acceptance level as per eqn.
(2), it was recommended that the beam has developed adequate strength and doesn't need further
strengthening or demolition.

REFERENCES

1. Bungey, J. I-L, 'Testing of Concrete in Structures', Text Book Blackie Academic &
Professional, London, 3rd Edition, 1996, 286 pp.
2. Bureau of Indian Standards, 'IS:456 - Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and
3.

Reinforced Concrete', Standard Code, Third Revision, BIS, New Delhi, 1978.
, 'V-meter Instruction Manual', James Instruments Inc., U. S. A., 1995, 63 pp.

4. Bungey, J. H., 'The validity of ultra-sonic pulse velocity testing of in-place concrete for
strength', NDT International, IPC Press, 1980, pp. 296-300.
5. Bureau of Indian Standards, 'IS:516 - Indian Standard Code of Practice for Tests on Concrete',
Standard Code, BIS, New Delhi, 1959, 24 pp.

9 of 16

1:5.73

1.2m

u/s end

0.5m

16.5m

d/s end

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the beam under investigation

Sp # 9

11

13 15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

30

Sp # 3
Sp # 8

Sp # 3

Sp # 10

1.2 m

Sp # 7

Sp # 5
Sp # 4

Sp # 6
Sp # 1

D
16.5 m
Vertical Cores
Horizontal Cores
Figure 2. Lay out of the beam under investigation showing location of testing and comes.

10 of 16

Figure 3a.Calibration curve for the impact hammer based on manufacturer's data and
laboratory data.

Figure 3b.Calibration curve for the impact hammer based on test data collected from site
laboratory.

11 of 16

Comparision of Compressive Strength

Laboratory Calibration
Site Calibration

50
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Core Strengths

40

30

20

10

0
4

17

27

30

Section No.

Figure 4. Comparison of Compressive strength determined by different methods.

12 of 16

TABLE 1. Average impact hammer test reading and compressive strength.

Location ( Vertical
MEAN
Comp. Strength as Comp. Strength as
section NO. as per Rebounded Std. Dev
per standard
per site calibration
Fig.-2)
Number
calibration (MPa)
(MPa)
4
37
3
36.0
32.0
5
38
3
38.0
34.0
6
37
2
36.0
32.0
7
36
3
34.4
30.0
8
35
3
32.0
29.0
9
36
3
34.4
30.0
10
35
3
32.0
29.0
11
37
4
36.0
32.0
12
35
3
32.0
29.0
13
36
3
34.4
30.0
14
37
2
36.0
32.0
15
33
3
28.4
25.0
16
33
4
28.4
25.0
17
35
3
32.0
27.0
18
34
2
30.0
27.0
19
33
6
28.4
25.0
20
36
2
34.8
30.0
21
37
2
36.0
32.0
22
38
3
38.0
34.0
23
37
2
36.0
32.0
24
37
2
36.0
32.0
25
37
3
36.0
32.0
26
36
3
34.8
30.0
27
36
3
34.8
30.0
28
36
4
34.8
30.0
29
35
8
32.0
29.0
30
37
5
36.0
32.0
STATISTTICS *
MEAN =
36
34.0
30.0
SD =
4.0
2.78
2.5
MAX =
38
38.0
34.0
MIN =
33
28.4
25.0

* The statistical parameters such as mean, Std. Dev. Maximum, Minimum are based on the actual data and
not the average data presented in this table

13 of 16

Table - 2A Horizontal UPV Measurements

Location of Horizontal UPV
measurements
Transmitter @ A7
Receiver @ A8, A9, A10, A!1
Transmitter @ B7
Receiver @ B8, B9, B10, B11
Transmitter@ C7
Receiver @ C8, C9, C10, C11
Transmitter@ D7
Receiver @ D8, D9, D10, D11
Transmitter @ A11
Receiver @ A12, A13, A14, A15
Transmitter @B11
Receiver @ B12, B13, B14, B15
Transmitter @ C11
Receiver @ C12, C13, C14, C15
Transmitter @ D11
Receiver @ D12, D13, D14, D15
Transmitter @ A 16
Receiver @ A17, A18, A19, A20
Transmitter @ B16
Receiver @ B17, B18, B19, B20
Transmitter @ C16
Receiver @ C17, C18, C19, C20
Transmitter @ D16
Receiver @ D17, D18, D19,D20
Transmitter @ A21
Receiver @ A22, A23, A24, A25
Transmitter @ B21
Receiver @ B22, B23, B24, B25
Transmitter @ C21
Receiver @ C22, C23, C24, C25
Transmitter @ D21
Receiver @ D22, D23, D24, D25
Transmitter @ A26
Receiver @ A27, A28, A29, A30
Transmitter @ B26
Receiver @ B27, B28, B29, B30
Transmitter C26
Receiver @ C27,C28, C29, C30
Transmitter @ D26
Receiver @ D27, D28, D29, D30

Mean UPV (km/s) Std. Dev. Remarks on quality of Concrete.

2.7

0.4

3.5

0.6

III

0.1

III

3.4

0.1

II

3.1

0.2

II

3.5

0.3

III

3.8

0.2

III

3.2

0.3

II

2.9

0.2

II

3.4

0.3

3.3

0.8

II

2.8

0.2

II

3.5

0.4

III

3.7

0.6

III

3.7

0.2

III

3.8

0.8

III

2.5

0.3

3.3

0.2

II

3.2

0.3

II

3.3

0.3

II

STATISTICS * FOR HORIZONTALUPV MEASUREMENT

MEAN = 3.33
SD =
0.5
MAX =
4.7
MIN =
2.1

II

14 of 16

* The statistical parameters such as Mean, Std, Dev, Maximum and Minimum are based on the actual
data and not the average data presented in this table.

Table - 2B Vertical UPV Measurement

Location of Horizontal UPV
Mean UPV (km/s)
measurements
Transmitter @ A10
Receiver @ B10, C10, D10
3.7
Transmitter @ A12
Receiver @ B12, C12, D12
3.5
Transmitter@ A14
Receiver @ B14, C14, D14
3.7
Transmitter@ A16
Receiver @ B16, C16, D16
3.6
Transmitter @ A18
Receiver @ B18, C18, D18
3.4
Transmitter @ A20
Receiver @ B20,C20. D20
3
Transmitter @ A22
Receiver @ B22, C22, D22
2.9
Transmitter @ A24
Receiver @ B24, C24, D24
4
Transmitter @ A26
Receiver @ B26, C26, D26
2.3
Transmitter @ A28
Receiver @ B28, C28, D28
31
Transmitter @ A30
Receiver @ B30, C30, D30
3.3

Std.
Dev.

Remarks on quality of Concrete.

0.2

III

0.2

III

0.2

III

0.1

III

0.7

II

0.4

II

0.4

0.1

III

0.3
0.7

II

0.5

II

STATISTICS * FOR HORIZONTALUPV MEASUREMENT

MEAN = 3.31
SD =
0.6
MAX = 4.1
MIN = 1.9
OVERALL STATISTICS*
MEAN = 3.3
SD =
0.5
MAX = 4.7
MIN = 1.9

15 of 16

II

II

Range of UPV Measurement

(km/s)

Concrete Quality

Category

V< 3.0
3.0 < V < 3.5
3.5 < V < 4.5
V > 4.5

Poor
Doubtful
Good
Excellent

I
II
III
IV

Table - 2C

Correlation of concrete quality with UPV measurement

Table - 3

Compressive Strength and other test results on the concrete cores.

Core Diameter Length

ID
( mm)
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55

94
87
88
93
101
91
99
97
93
102

Aspect
Bulk
UPV
Ratio
Density
(Km/s)
(L/D) ( gm/ cc)
1.71
2.44
4.16
1.58
2.47
4.12
1.60
2.39
4.04
1.69
2.48
4.33
1.84
2.53
4.37
1.65
2.49
4.25
1.80
2.50
4.48
1.76
2.43
4.16
1.69
2.54
4.04
1.85
2.50
4.60
Average 2.48
4.26
SD 0.05
0.19
Variance 1.89% 4.41%
Max 2.54
4.60
Min 2.39
4.04

16 of 16

Comp.
Strength

Factor

26.3
18.3
18.3
21.5
27.8
34.7
42.1
20.0
13.4
24.4

1.21
1.19
1.19
1.21
1.23
1.20
1.23
1.21
1.21
1.23

Equivalent
Cube
Strength
31.8
21.8
21.8
26.0
34.2
41.7
51.8
24.2
16.2
30.0
29.90
10.60
35.32%
51.80
16.20