Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Rebound Hammer Testing for Nondestructive Evaluation of Existing Concrete Structure

Muhammad Azhar Saleem, Zahid Ahmad Siddiqi, Safeer Abbas, Mubashir Aziz

Abstract


Nondestructive evaluation of existing structures is a vital part and an active area of research in civil engineering industry. Whenever modifications in a structure or its use are proposed the process begins with the evaluation of existing condition. Rebound hammer (RH) and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests are the two readily available and easy-to-perform methods that are widely used in the industry. Current research work is focused on evaluation of an eight years old, half-built reinforced concrete building. The objective was to gather information to decide about the future construction and use. The study concludes that concrete is of reasonable quality and building is appropriate for future construction and use. However, one column in the basement has very poor quality concrete and needs strengthening. Paper also provides a comparison of existing regression models for the prediction of concrete strength based on RH and UPV test data.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Shariati, M., Ramli-Sulong, N. H., Arabnejad, M. M., Shafigh, P. and Sinaei, H., 2011, “Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures through Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Schmidt Rebound Hammer tests,” Scientific Research and Essay, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 213-220

Mirmiran, A., 2001, “Integration of NonDestructive Testing In Concrete Education”, Journal of Engineering Education, V. 90, No. 2, pp. 219-222.

Hertlein, B.H., 1992, “Role of Nondestructive Testing in Assessing the Infrastructure Crisis,” Proceedings, Materials Engineering Congress on Performance and Prevention of Deficiencies and Failures, ASCE, pp. 80–91.

Bray, D.E., 1993, “The Role of NDE in Engineering Education,” Materials Evaluation, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 651–652.

Huang, Q., Gardoni, P. and Hurlebaus, S., 2011, “Predicting Concrete Compressive Strength Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Rebound Number”, ACI Material Journal, V. 108, No. 4, pp. 403-412

Samarin, A., and Meynink, P., 1981, “Use of Combined Ultrasonic and Rebound Hammer Method for Determining Strength of Concrete Structural Members,” Concrete International, V. 3, No. 3, pp. 25-29.

Miretti, R., Carrasco, M. F., Grether, R. O. and Passerino, C. R., 2004, “Combined NonDestructive Methods Applied to Normal-Weight and Lightweight Concrete,” Insight, V. 46, No. 12, pp. 748-753.

Hola, J., and Schabowicz, K., 2005, “New Technique of Nondestructive Assessment of Concrete Strength Using Artificial Intelligence,” NDT&E International, V. 38, pp. 251-259.

Wiebenga, J. G., 1968, “A Comparison between Various Combined Non-Destructive Testing Methods to Derive the Compressive Strength of Concrete,” Report kB1-68-61/1418, Inst. TNO Veor Bouwmaterialen en Bouwconstructies, Delft, the Netherlands

Kheder, G. F., 1999, “A Two Stage Procedure for Assessment of In-Situ Concrete Strength Using Combined Non-Destructive Testing,” Materials and Structures, V. 32, No. 6, pp. 410- 417.

Arioglu, E., Odbay, O., Alper, H. and Arioglu, B., 1994, “A New Formula and Application Results for Prediction of Concrete Compressive Strength by Combined Non-Destructive Method,” Concrete Prefabrication, Association of Prefabrication Manufacturers, V. 28, pp. 5- 11. (in Turkish)

Basu, A. and Aydin, A., 2004, “A method for normalization of Schmidt hammer rebound values,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci., Vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1211-1214

ASTM C805-02, “Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA., USA

Mirmiran, A. and Wei, Y., 2001, “Damage Assessment of FRP-Encased Concrete using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 126–135

Popovics, S., Rose, J. L., and Popovics, J. S., 1990, ‘‘Behavior of ultrasonic pulses in concrete.’’ Cement and Concrete Res., V. 20, no. 2, pp. 259–270.

Popovics, J. S., and Rose, J. L., 1994, ‘‘Survey of developments in ultrasonic NDE of concrete.’’ IEEE Trans. on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, V. 41, no. 1, pp. 140–143.

Selleck, S., Landis, E. N., Peterson, M. L., and Shah, S. P., 1996, ‘‘NDE of distributed cracking in concrete.’’ Proc., 11th Conf. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, New York, pp. 604–607.

Turgut, P., 2004, “Research into the correlation between concrete strength and UPV values,” NDT. net, V. 12, no. 12.

Sturrup, V., Vecchio, F. and Caratin, H., 1984, “Pulse velocity as a measure of concrete compressive strength,” Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, ACI SP-82, pp. 201-227

Yaman, I. O., Inei, G., Yesiller, N. and Aktan, H. M., 2001, “Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity in Concrete Using Direct and Indirect Transmission,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 98, No. 6, pp. 450-457

BS EN 12504-4: 2004, “Testing Concrete. Determination of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity,” British Standard Institute, London, U.K.

ASTM "C 597, 2002, “Standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA., USA

ILEM/NDT 1 1971, “Testing of Concrete by the Ultrasonic Pulse Method,” RILEM, Bagneux, France.

ACI Committee 214, 2011, “Guide to Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete (ACI 214R-11),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

IS 13311 (Part 1) 1992, Non-Destructive Testing Of Concrete, Part 1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi

Trtnik, G.; Kavcic, F.; and Turk, G., 2009, “Prediction of Concrete Strength Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Artificial Neural Networks,” Ultrasonics, V. 49, pp. 53-60.






Copyright (c) 2016 Muhammad Azhar Saleem

Powered By KICS