IRJET- In-Situ Testing of Concrete Structures – A Review

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 7185
In-Situ Testing of Concrete Structures – A Review
Rahul Pandey1, Pratiksha Malviya2
1M.Tech Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Millennium Institute of Technology & Science,
Bhopal (M.P.), India
2Assistant Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Millennium Institute of Technology & Science,
Bhopal (M.P.), India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Several in-situ and laboratory methods such as
compression testing machine, rebound hammer, ultrasonic
pulse velocity method and other NDT methods are available
for determining the strength and other properties of concrete.
Methods like rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity,
are comparatively simpletoperformandobservethereadings.
However, the interpretation of test data is not easy because
outcomes are considerably influenced by surrounding
environment to which structure is exposed. This paper
presents review of several in-situ testing methods.
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a range of non destructive or in-situ techniques
available for determining the quality and the strength of
concrete. The ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound
techniques are the commonly used methods. The major or
chief benefit is the simplicity and high speedy results
obtained from these tests. These methods are useful for
determining the homogeneity of the material and
interrelation of all the properties of the structure.
These tests are useful in determining the differences in
concrete quality from one part of a structure to another.
Developed in Germany in 1930, the rebound hammer test
(RHT), based on ASTM C805 and BS 4408 Part 4, can be
utilized for testing concrete surface hardness. In 1948,
Schmidt developed the Schmidt rebound hammer test. This
device is universally used because of a hardened steel
hammer impacted on the concrete by a spring. The RHT is a
convenient NDT. The surface of hardened concrete is struck
with the hammer, and concrete compressive strength is
estimated via the surface hardness rebound value.
Non-destructive tests such asultrasonic pulsevelocity(UPV)
and rebound hammer are widely used to assess the concrete
properties in structures. Although the application of such
techniques is simple and easy, the interpretation of the test
results is very difficult due to a number of factors affecting
the test results.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Requirement has been understood to assess in-situstrength
and material integrity and other performance influencing
parameters. Generally compressive strength has been
measured for assessing the performance. Several national
and international codes of practices are now describing the
use of these equipments.
The UPV equipment determines the travel velocity of waves
through concrete and this velocity has been related to the
condition of material under observations UPV test over
concrete has been conducted by several researchers –
Amini et al. (2016) developed models for predicting the
compressive strength of concrete, without considering the
past maintenance record of building.Several destructiveand
non-destructive tests had been conducted by Pucinotti
(2015) on a significant historic building in Reggio Calabria.
An experimental study has been conducted by Malek and
Kaouther (2014) for assessing the compressive strength of
concrete through destructive and non-destructive testing at
7, 14 and 28 days.
The compressive strength of several concrete mixes
produced using lightweight aggregate has been evaluated
using the non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method
by Bogas et al. (2013). In an experimental studyperformed
by Jain et al. (2013) evaluated the effects of concrete
ingredients, proportion of concrete mix, and variables
related to workmanship on the Rebound Number and
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity of concrete.
Hajjeh (2012) performed several destructive and non-
destructive tests several laboratory casted concrete cubes.
Hannachi & Guetteche (2012) used rebound hammer and
ultrasonic pulse velocity methods to determine theconcrete
quality through regression analysis models between
compressive strength of in situ concrete on existing
structure and the nondestructive tests values.
According to Lawson et al. (2011) ultrasonic pulse velocity
is the most accepted non-destructive techniques conducted
worldwide to assess the concrete properties.
This Ultrasonic pulse velocity technique has been
implemented by several researchers previously;fewstudies
(Tanigawa et al., 1984; Kheder 1999.; Popovics et al.,
1990; Turgut, 2004) concluded a good association among
the values of ultrasonic pulse velocity and the compressive

strength of concrete material. Qasrawi (2000) used UPV
method to detect the internal defects and change in
properties of system when compared to each other.
B.S. 1881: Part 202 along with Indian code Is 13311(Part 2):
1992 conform the use and application of rebound hammer.
These methods are known for more than five decades in
different formats (Bungeyand Millard,1996).Caretteand
Malhotra in 1984 concluded that rebound hammer test is
not an acceptable technique for determining the
development of all the strengths. There was a large number
of disagreements among scholars regarding the accuracy of
the results provided by rebound hammer test (Malhotra
and Carino, 2004).
Concrete is having very assorted internal core distribution.
This may be due to the nature of its constituents and their
dimensions and geometry.
Non Destructive Testing and evaluationofthismaterial have
motivated a lot of research work and several relations have
been proposed (Corneloup and Garnier, 1995). According
to Turgut (2004) in-situtestingtechniquesareshowingand
getting popularity among the researchers in last few
decades.
Malhotra (1976) presented a inclusive literature study of
these nondestructive methods useful for concrete testing
and valuation. Leshchinsky (1991) summarized the
benefits of in-situ test as –
(a) Reduction in the labor consumption
(b) Smaller amount of structural damage
(c) Testing of concrete strength in structures
(d) Comparatively less expensive testing
As per Neville (1995), Bungey and Soutsos (2001)
conventional method of concrete testing is acceptable but it
does not provide actual structural strength.
The interpretation of the test results of UPV is very difficult
and the results are altered by several factors such as
surrounding conditions (Ohdaira and Masuzawa 2000,
Davis 1977).
Popovics (1990) discussed that the ultrasonic method is
one of maximum used and reliablemethodamongthe in-situ
testing methods for determining the characteristics of
concrete.
Proverbio and Venturi (2005) studied about the accuracy
of in-situ techniques such as rebound hammer and UPV test
for determining the strength of concrete.
Pascale et al. (2003) approved out an investigational plan
considering both laboratory and in-situ testing.
NDT methods have been used by Almir and Protasio
(2000) to establish the compressive strength of concrete,
and relation among the measured properties and the
strength.
Several NDT methods such as visual inspection, hammer
sounding, Schmidt hammer, UPV testing including
tomography imaging have been used by Rens and Kim
(2007).
Dias and Jayanandana applied several in-situ testing such
as visual inspection, scrutiny of drawings, measuring the
ultrasonic pulse velocity and other important parameters.
Davis et al. (1997) proposed the use of various in-situ
testing such as UPV, and determining the impulse response
to evaluate the condition and strength of concrete.
Rens and Greimann (1997) presented the concept and
application of using ultrasonic continuous spread-spectrum
signal for monitoring and identification of deteriorating
infrastructure.
3. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
From the above review it has been revealed that most of the
researchers selected rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse
velocity tests for determining the strength and condition of
the concrete structures. Several researchers determinedthe
relation among the destructive and non destructive
compressive strengths of concrete for calibrating the in-situ
results of rebound hammer.
The reason of making standard procedures for
nondestructive testing (NDT) of concrete structures is to
meet the criteria and enumerate the material properties of
in-situ concrete without interfering examining the material
properties. There are several methods that are presently
being research for the NDT of materials today.
REFERENCES
[1] Amini, K., Jalalpour, M., & Delatte, N. (2016). Advancing
concrete strength prediction using non-destructive
testing: Development and verification of a generalizable
model. Construction and Building Materials, 102, 762-
768.
[2] Abo-Quadais, S.A.(2005). “Effect of concrete mixing
parameters on propogation of ultrasonic waves”. Cons.
and Bulid. Mat., 19, 257-263
[3] Almir, P.F., and Protasio, F.C. (2000). “Application of
NDT to concrete strength estimation”.NDT.net,5(2),1-6.
[4] Bhadauria, S.S., and Gupta, M.C. (2007). “In situ
performance testing of deteriorating water tanks for
durability assessment”. J. Per. Constr. Fac., 21(3), 234-
239
[5] Bogas, J. A., Gomes, M. G., & Gomes, A. (2013).
Compressive strength evaluation of structural

lightweightconcretebynon-destructiveultrasonicpulse
velocity method. Ultrasonics, 53(5), 962-972.
[6] Bungey, J. H., & Millard, S. G. Testing of concrete in
structures, 1996. Blackie Academic & Professional, an
imprint of Chapman & Hall.
[7] Bungey, J. H., & Soutsos, M. N. (2001). Reliability of
partially-destructive tests to assess the strength of
concrete on site. Construction and Building
Materials,15(2), 81-92.
[8] Carette, G. G., & Malhotra, V. M. (1984). In situ tests:
Variability and strength prediction of concrete at early
ages. ACI Special Publication, 82.
[9] Davis, A.G., Evans, J.G., and Hertlein, B.H. (1997),
“Nondestructive evaluation of concrete radioactive
waste tanks”. J. Per. Constr. Fac., 11(4), 161-167
[10] Dias, W.P.S., and Jayanandana, A.D.C.(2003). “Condition
assessment of a deteriorated cement works”. J. Per.
Constr. Fac., 17(4), 188-195
[11] Dilek, U., (2006). “Nondestructive and laboratory
evaluation of damage gradients in concrete structure
exposed to cryogenic temperatures”. J. Per. Constr. Fac.,
20(1), 37-44
[12] Ervin, B.L., Kuchama, D.A., Bernhard, J.T., and Reis, H.
(2009). “Monitoring corrosion of rebar embedded in
mortar using high frequencyguidedultrasonic waves”.J.
Engg. Mech., 135(1), 9-18
[13] Garnier, V., Corneloup, G., Sprauel, J. M., & Perfumo, J. C.
(1995). Setting time study of roller compacted concrete
by spectral analysis of transmitted ultrasonic
signals. NDT & E International, 28(1), 15-22.
[14] Hajjeh, H.R. (2012). Correlation between Destructive
and Non-Destructive Strengths of Concrete CubesUsing
Regression Analysis. Contemporary Engineering
Sciences, Vol. 5, no. 10, 493 – 509
[15] Hannachi, S., & Guetteche, M. N. (2012). Application of
the combined method for evaluating the compressive
strength of concrete on site. Open Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2(01), 16.
[16] http://www.engineersdaily.com/2011/04/rebound-
hammer-test.html
[17] Jain, A., Kathuria, A., Kumar, A., Verma, Y., & Murari, K.
(2013). Combined use of non-destructive tests for
assessment of strengthofconcreteinstructure. Procedia
Engineering, 54, 241-251.
[18] Kheder, G. F. (1999). A two stage procedure for
assessment of in situ concrete strength using combined
non-destructive testing. MaterialsandStructures,32(6),
410-417.
[19] Lawson, I. et al. (2011). Non-destructive evaluation of
concrete using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Research
Journal ofAppliedSciences, EngineeringandTechnology
3(6): 499-504.
[20] Lee,H.K., Lee,K.M., Kim Y.H., and Bae,D.B. (2004).
“Ultrasonic in-situ monitoring of setting process of high
performance concrete”. Cem. Conc. Res., 34, 631-640
[21] Leshchinsky, A. (1991). Non-destructive methods
instead of specimens and cores, quality control of
concrete structures. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium held by RILEM, Belgium, E&FN Spon,
UK (pp. 377-386).
[22] Malek, J., & Kaouther, M. (2014). Destructive and Non-
destructive Testing of Concrete Structures.
[23] Malhotra, V. M. (1976). Testing hardened concrete:
nondestructive methods (No. 9). Iowa State Press.
[24] Malhotra, V. M., & Carino, N. (2004). Penetration
resistancemethods.Handbook onnondestructivetesting
of concrete, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2-1.
[25] Ohdaira, E., & Masuzawa, N. (2000). Water content and
its effect on ultrasound propagation in concrete—the
possibility of NDE. Ultrasonics, 38(1), 546-552.
[26] Pascale, G.,Leo, A.D., and Bonora,V.(2003).
“Nondestructive assessment of the actual compressive
strength of high strength concrete”. J. Mat. Civil.
Eng.,15(5), 452-459.
[27] Popovics, S., Rose, J. L., & Popovics, J. S. (1990). The
behaviour of ultrasonic pulses in concrete. Cement and
Concrete Research, 20(2), 259-270.
[28] Proverbio,E., and Venturi,V.(2005), “Reliability of
nondestructive tests for onsite concrete strength
assessment”. 10DBMC, 17-20 April,Lyon, France.
[29] Pucinotti, R. (2015). Reinforced concrete structure:Non
destructive in situ strength assessment of concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 75, 331-341.
[30] Qasrawi, H. Y. (2000). Concrete strength by combined
nondestructive methods simply and reliably
predicted. Cement and Concrete Research, 30(5), 739-
746.
[31] Rens, K.L., and Greimann, L.F.(1997). “Ultrasonic
approach for nondestructive testing of civil
infrastructure”. J. Per. Constr. Fac., 11(3), 97-104
[32] Rens., K.L., and Kim., T.(2007). “Inspection of Quebec
street bridge in Denver, Colardo: destructive and
nondestru testing”.J. Per. Constr. Fac., 21(3), 215-224
[33] Shah, A.A., and Hirose, S. (2010). “Non linear ultrasonic
investigation of concrete damaged under uniaxial
compression step loading”. J. Mat. Civil Engg., 22(5),
476-483
[34] Shah, S.P., Popovic, J.S., Subramaniam, K.V., and Aldea,C.
(2000). “New directions in concrete health monitoring
technology”. J. Eng. Mech., 126(7), 754-760
[35] Sharma, S.,and Mukherje A.(2011). “Monitoring
corrosion in oxide and chloride envroments using
ultrasonic guided waves”. J. Mat. Civil Engg. 23(2),207-
211
[36] Stergiopoulou,C., Aggour, M.S., andMcCuen,R.H.(2008).
“Non destructive testing and evaluation of concrete
parking garages”. J. Infrastructure. Sys., 14(4), 319-326
[37] Tanigawa, Y., Baba, K., & Mori, H. (1984). Estimation of
concrete strength by combined nondestructive testing
method. ACI special publication, 82.
[38] Terzic,A.M., and Pavlovic,L.M.(2010). “Application of
Results of Non Destructive Testing Methods in the
InvestigationofMicrostructureofRefractoryConcretes”.
J. Mat. Civil Eng. 22(9), 853-857

[39] Turgut, P. (2004). Researchintothecorrelation between
concrete strength and UPV values. NDT. net, 12(12).
[40] Yoshida,Y., and Irie, H., (2006). “NDT for concrete using
the ultrasonic method”. 12th A-PCNDT, 5-10 Nov.,
Auckland, New Zealand.
BIOGRAPHIES
Rahul Pandey
M.Tech. (Structural Engg.) Scholar,
Department of Civil Engg.,
MillenniumInstituteofTechnology
& Science, Bhopal (M.P.), India.
Pratiksha Malviya
Assistant Professor & Head,
Department of Civil Engg.,
MillenniumInstituteofTechnology
& Science, Bhopal (M.P.), India.

IRJET- In-Situ Testing of Concrete Structures – A Review

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to IRJET- In-Situ Testing of Concrete Structures – A Review (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- In-Situ Testing of Concrete Structures – A Review