Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Strength for Concrete via Compression and Non-destructive Method

Abstract

Rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity are preferred as non-destructive testing methods whereas compression test is a type of destructive test. A general series of rebound hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity and compression tests were carried out at a heavy concrete laboratory to obtain the necessary parameters and to develop correlation and calibration between the tests. A set of 36 concrete cubes measuring 100 × 100 × 100 mm were cast and subjected to water curing for periods lasting 7, 14, 21 and 28 days to obtain cube strength, rebound number, pulse velocity and pulse wave transmission period. Ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer tests were initially done before the compression test. The results showed that the differences between predicted strength and experimental strength (compression test) were 1.6 and 6.38% for the rebound hammer test and the ultrasonic pulse velocity test, respectively. This indicated that rebound hammer testing managed to predict strength more accurately compared to ultrasonic pulse velocity testing. Both non-destructive tests showed a margin of less than 10% error compared to destructive tests.