Rebound, penetration resistance and pulse velocity tests for testing in place

BY V. M. MALHOTRA HEAD, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SECTION MINERAL SCIENCES LABORATORIES CANADA CENTRE FOR MINERAL AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

t is sometimes necessary to estimate the strength of concrete in place for early form removal or to investigate the strength of concrete in place because of low cylinder test results. Se ve ral nondestructive testing methods are available for these purposes. The following sections describe the rebound, penetration and pulse velocity techniques. These tests are relatively simple to perform but the analysis and interpretation of the data are not so easy because concrete is a complex material. Engineers are therefore cautioned that interpretation of the data must always be carried out by specialists in this field rather than by technicians performing the tests.

portions of a structure that are questionable and other portions that are known to be acceptable, comparisons of the results from each can help indicate how uniform the structure is and also aid in determining whether core tests will be necessary. A large number of tests over a large area can be conducted in a fairly short time. Although the rebound hammer provides a quick, inexpensive means of checking uniformity, it has many serious limitations and these must be recognized. For example, the results of the rebound hammer are affected by: smoothness of the surface tested size, shape and rigidity of the specimen age of concrete surface and internal moisture conditions of the concrete type of coarse aggregate type of cement absorptivity of forming material used carbonation of the concrete surface There is wide disagreement among various research workers concerning how accurate an estimate of strength can be obtained from rebound readings. By consensus, when test specimens are cast, cured and tested under laboratory conditions by a properly calibrated hammer, the accuracy of estimation lies between 15 and 20 percent. Howe ve r, in a structure the probable accuracy of predicting the concrete strength is 25 percent. It cannot be overemphasized that the rebound hammer must not be regarded as a substitute for standard compression tests. It is a method for determining the uniformity of concrete in a structure or for comparing one concrete with another. A rebound hammer costs about $250 and is the least expensive testing device available.

Rebound method
In 1948, a Swiss engineer, Ernst Schmidt, developed a test hammer for measuring the hardness of concrete by the rebound principle. His idea was that when a metal plunger is impelled against a concrete surface, the measured rebound could be related to the strength of the concrete. There appears to be little apparent theoretical relationship between the strength of concrete and the rebound number shown on a scale on the test hammer, but within limits, empirical correlations have been established between strength properties and this rebound number. The rebound hammer consists of a spring-controlled hammer mass that slides on a plunger within a tubular housing. Detailed procedures for calibrating the hammer have been published and in 1978, the American Society for Testing and Materials issued a standard (ASTM C 805-79, Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete). Grinding may be necessary to provide a smooth surface for running the test and p re wetting is suggested as a means for minimizing the effects of drying and carbonation. Ten readings are required for each test area and abnormally high or low values are discarded in accordance with a fixed rule. The a ve rage rebound number for each area is calculated from the remaining data. If the test areas include some

The method of testing is relatively simple. The powder-actuated driver fires a probe into the concrete using a single probe template. The exposed length of the probe is measured by a calibrated depth gage and is taken as a measure of the compressive strength. The test probe is basically a hardness tester and provides an excellent means of determining the relative strength of different portions of concrete in the same s t ru c t u re or relative strengths in different stru c t u re s, without extensive calibration with specific concretes. Because of the very nature of the test equipment, it cannot and should not be expected to yield absolute values of strength. The depth of penetration of the probe into the concrete is affected by the hardness of the aggregates as measured on Mohs scale of hardness. In this scale, talc, the softest of all minerals, is given Number 1 and diamond, the hardest of all known substances, Number 10. It is therefore desirable for each user of the probe to prepare his own calibration charts for the type of concrete under investigation; with any change in source of aggregates, new calibration charts become mandatory. The equipment costs about $1000 and a set of three probes costs about $5. This method is being used for estimating the strength of concrete for early form removal.

A probe is fired into a concrete surface at each of three locations whose relative positions are determined by this equipment.

Penetration techniques
The evaluation of hardness by probing techniques was first reported by Voellmy in 1954. Two techniques were reported. One, known as the Simbi hammer, was used to perforate concrete, and the depth of borehole was correlated with the compressive strength of cubes. In the other, the probing of concrete was achieved by blasting with pins, and the depth of penetration by pins was correlated with the compressive strength of concrete. In 1966, a new probe technique was introduced in the United States for in-place testing. Since its introduction, a number of organizations in both the United States and Canada have carried out studies with it. ASTM has issued a standard (ASTM C 803-79T, Tentative Test Method for Penetration Resistance of Hardened Concrete). The test probe consists of a powder-actuated gun or d ri ve r, hardened alloy probes, loaded cartridges, a depth gage for measuring penetration of probes and other related equipment. The probes have a diameter of 14 inch, a length of 318 inches, and a frustoconical point on the front. The rear of each probe is threaded and screws into a probe driving head which is 12 inch in diameter and fits snugly into the bore of the drive.

A portable pulse velocity test unit with digital readout shown with the two transducers being held against the surface of a small object. This unit also has a built-in oscilloscope which, combined with the digital display, permits analysis of the signal received.

Pulse velocity techniques

The sonic pulse velocity method was developed in Canada in 1945 by Leslie and Cheesman, and at about the same time in England by Jones; since then a considerable amount of work has been reported in both Canada and the United States on the use of this instrument. To overcome some of the problems associated with the size of the instruments, portable digital types of pulse velocity instruments were developed in the early 1970s in both Holland and England. These have given an added impetus to the use of pulse velocity techniques. These portable units cost about $6000 together with some accessories. The ultrasonic pulse velocity method consists of measuring the time it takes an ultrasonic pulse to pass through the concrete. The time of travel between the initial onset and the reception of the pulse is measured electronically. The length of the path between the sending and receiving transducers, divided by the time of t ra vel, gives the average velocity of wave propagation. The pulse velocity technique can be used for more than one purpose. It is excellent for establishing the uniformity of concrete, for measuring and detecting cracks and for measuring deterioration of concrete due to fire. Howe ve r, less than satisfactory results have been reported when pulse velocity has been used to estimate the strength in place. The relationship between pulse velocity and strength is affected by a number of variables such as: age of concrete surface moisture condition aggregate-to-cement ratio type of aggregate location of steel reinforcement In spite of this, a number of researchers have used pulse velocity to estimate strength of concrete. In recent years, the combined use of pulse velocity and rebound number has been advocated to increase the accuracy of prediction of strength in place. Correlations between strength and pulse velocity enable the strength of structural concrete to be predicted with 20 percent. To obtain this accuracy, allowance

must be made for the type of cement, mix proportions and curing conditions. The following statement best sums up the relationship between the pulse velocity and the strength of concrete: Inasmuch as a large number of variables affect the relations between the strength parameters of concrete and its pulse velocity, the use of the latter to predict the compressive and/or flexural strengths of concrete is not recommended. Indeed, serious consideration should be given to the use of pulse velocity as a control test in its own right, and perennial attempts to correlate pulse velocity with strength parameters should be discouraged.*

Summary
Slow but steady advances are being made in developing procedures for testing strength of concrete in place and a large measure of standardization has been achieved in these tests. Most in-place tests discussed in this article cannot and do not yield absolute values of compressive strength in a structure and they must not be considered as substitutes for standard compression tests. Howe ve r, the techniques discussed are satisfactory for determining relative strengths in different stru c t u re s. The rebound and penetration methods are satisfactory for estimating the strength of concrete for early form removal. Unless laboratory correlations have been established between the strength parameters to be estimated and the results of in-place tests, the use of the latter to predict compressive or flexural strength of concrete is not recommended.
* Malhotra, V. M., Testing Hardened Concrete: Nondestructive Methods, Monograph 9, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 203 pages.

Editors note: This article is based on the authors 8-page article, Rebound, Penetration Resistance and Pulse Velocity Tests for In-situ Testing.

PUBLICATION #C810571
Copyright 1981, The Aberdeen Group All rights reserved