National Ready Mixed Concrete Association guidelines
What to do when cylinder
reaks are low
Investigation and settlement of problems arising when
concrete strength tests fail to meet specifications
rocedures to be followed when low strength
P measurements occur can be programmed to
minimize delays in construction without en-
dangering either the safety of the structure or
the interests of those involved in the construction.
Three aspects of concrete strength evaluation are con-
sidered in this article:
1. What degree of apparent strength deficiency justifies
further investigation?
2. When investigation is indicated, how should it be per-
formed?
3. How should results of the investigation be translated
into action with respect to the structure and to the al-
location of costs?
DECISION TO INVESTIGATE
Nationally accepted specifications recognize the nor-
mal variability of concrete strength tests and allow for
some of them to measure below the specified level, usu-
ally designated f c. The designers of concrete structures
allow for this inevitable variability as well as for the fact
that test specimens are generally cured under better
conditions than the concrete in the structure. They
do this by specifying strength levels greatly in excess
of stresses to which the concrete will actually be
subjected.
The ACI Building Code (ACI 318-77)1 has two require-
ments for standard cylinder results:
No individual strength test (average of two cylinders)
can be more than 500 psi below the required fc and
the averages of all sets of three consecutive tests must
equal or exceed fc.
If either one of these requirements is not met the Code
requires that steps be taken to increase the ave ra g e
strength. Individual test results more than 500 psi below
fc should be investigated. The extent and nature of the
investigation will depend on circumstances of the par-
ticular job.
INVESTIGATION FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY
It must be assumed that a measured strength 500 psi
below that specified represents a deficiency of some sort
either in the concrete or in its testing (although it should
not be overlooked that such measurements will occur
on an average of once or twice in every 100 tests simply
due to normal variability). The significance of the low
strength measurement should be investigated in the
following sequence, taking as many of the six steps as
necessary.
Step 1: Verify testing accuracy
Sampling and testing of freshly mixed concrete in the
field are often not in strict accord with the standard pro-
cedures prescribed for acceptance testing. In many or
perhaps most cases, deviations from the standard
methods can occur in one or more important aspects
taking of samples, molding procedures and equipment
protection during the first 24 hours, compliance with
the one-day limitation on field storage, inadequate cur-
ing after the first day, deficient capping material or pro-
cedure, or inaccuracy of testing machine. Such viola-
tions almost always cause the measured strength to be
reduced.
Stern measures should be taken whenever deviations
from standard procedures are discovered. Inaccuracies
may lead to expensive delays and supplementary inves-
tigation. The testing laboratory should be held responsi-
ble for deficiencies in the testing procedures and ser-
vices it is asked to provide.
If the testing of the concrete is found to have deviated
from the standard methods, it may be possible to termi-
nate the investigation at this point. If the testing has
been satisfactory, or if this phase of the findings is in-
conclusive, it may be necessary to continue with Step 2
or Step 3, or possibly both simultaneously.
Step 2: Compare structural requirements with
measured strength
Often the part of the structure represented by low tests
does not actually require the full specified strength. This
may be because a single class of concrete has been ap-
plied to a wide range of uses or because the specified
level was established for a few critical locations. The
structural engineer must decide whether or not the low
measurement actually represents a possible impairment
of load-carrying capacity.
Step 3: Non-destructive tests
Se ve ral devices are available for obtaining estimates of
concrete strength in place. Generally they do not provide
values that can be translated directly into cylinder or
core strengths. Howe ve r, in the hands of a skilled opera-
tor, they can yield useful information on the concrete in
place by comparing readings on portions of the struc-
ture represented by the low strength tests with those on
other portions considered acceptable. Such readings can
indicate quite convincingly whether or not the ques-
tioned concrete differs appreciably from concrete
judged acceptable. Three standard methods of deter-
mining the strength of the concrete in place are de-
scribed in more detail in another article beginning on
page 571.
The rebound hammer, ASTM Method C 805, measures
rebound of a steel missile, spring driven onto a plunger
held firmly against the face of the concrete being mea-
sured. It can be used to indicate the difference between
questionable and acceptable portions of a given struc-
ture, but has only limited value as an indicator of nu-
merical values of compressive strength.
The penetration probe, ASTM Method C 308, depends
upon measurement of the distance that a precision-
tooled steel pin can be driven into concrete from a spe-
cial gun by a precisely measured powder charge. Careful
measurement of the protrusion of the pin by microme-
ter is converted into an estimate of compressive
strength. Here again, reliance should be placed on com-
parisons between accepted and questioned portions of
the work rather than upon numerical strength levels.
Pulse velocity measurement in accordance with ASTM
Method C 597 is applicable strictly for checking the con-
stancy of concrete properties in different portions of the
work.
If evaluations by one or more of these methods fail to
alleviate concern over structural adequacy, the direct
measurement of concrete strength may be considered
necessary.
Step 4: Core tests
Compressive strength tests of cores drilled from the
s t ru c t u re provide a measure of concrete strength in
place, but not one that can be equated to or translated
into an equivalent strength for molded cylinders. The
testing of cores requires great care in the operation itself
and in the interpretation of the results. Details of the
procedure are given in Standard Method of Obtaining
and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Con-
crete, ASTM C 42, but the following precautions should
be observed.
1. Preferably, the test of the questioned area should be
the average of at least three cores.
2. Cores should be drilled with a diamond bit to avoid
irregular cross section and damage from drilling.
3. The smallest core used should have a diameter of 212
inches or twice the maximum aggregate size, whichev-
er is greater. For usual structural concretes, 312- to 4-
inch core diameters are adequate, but 6-inch cores are
preferred by some agencies.
4. The inclusion of reinforcing steel in the cores should
be avoided since correction for the resulting reduction
in measured strength is uncertain.
5. If possible, drill completely through the member to
avoid having to break out the core. If the core must be
broken out, use wooden wedges to minimize the like-
lihood of damage and allow 2 inches extra length at
the broken end to permit sawing off potentially dam-
aged concrete.
6. Saw broken ends to plane surfaces before capping.
Use a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 1.5, but in
no case less than 1.0.
7. Correct strength for length-to-diameter ratios other
than 2.0 by using the standard values in ASTM C 42.
8. Provide properly plane caps of acceptable material.
Caps should be 1/8 inch thick or less, and made of a
material having a strength of at least 5000 psi and nev-
er less than the strength of concrete being tested.
9. Test the cores either after soaking 40 hours or after
drying 7 days, depending upon the moisture condi-
tions in the structure (see ACI 3181).
10. Be absolutely sure that specimens are accurately
centered in the testing machine to avoid eccentricity
of applied load.
In evaluating core tests results, the fact that core
strengths may not equal the strength specified for mold-
ed cylinders should not be cause for concern. As men-
tioned earlier, specified cylinder strengths allow a large
margin for the unknowns of placement and curing con-
ditions in the field as well as for normal variability. For
cores actually taken from the structure, the unknowns
have already exerted their effect, and the margin of mea-
sured strength above expected working stresses can log-
ically be reduced.
The ACI Code states that the concrete will be consid-
ered structurally adequate if the average strength of
three cores is at least 85 percent of that specified, with no
core less than 75 percent. Conserva t i ve l y, the concrete
can be considered unconditionally acceptable from the
standpoint of strength if the core test results for a given
location meet these requirements.
The structural engineer should examine cases where
core strength values are less than 85 percent to deter-
mine if there is cause for concern over structural ade-
quacy. If the results of properly made core tests are so
low as to leave structural integrity in doubt, further ac-
tion may be required as described in Steps 5 and 6.
Step 5: Load tests
As a last resort, load tests may be required to check the
capacity of structural members whose strength is seri-
ously in doubt. Generally such tests are suited only to
flexural membersfloors, beams and the likebut they
may sometimes be applied to other types. In any event,
load testing is a highly specialized science which should
be performed and interpreted only by an engineer fully
qualified in the techniques.
Load testing procedures and criteria for their inter-
pretation are given in ACI 318.
Step 6: Corrective measures
In those rare cases where a structural element fails
the load test or where structural analysis of untestable
members indicates an inadequacy, appropriate correc-
tive measure must be taken. The alternatives, depending
on individual circumstances, are:
Reduce the load rating to a level consistent with the
concrete strength actually obtained.
Augment the construction to bring its load-carrying ca-
pacity up to original expectations. This might involve
adding new structural members or increasing the size
of existing members.
Replace the unacceptable elements.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
Usually, violation of strength specifications is not of
such a nature that repair or replacement of the concrete
is required. Howe ve r, with or without actual condemna-
tion of the structural element, considerable expense
may accrue. Assignment of financial responsibility for
such expense can become very complicated because of
overlapping responsibilities among the specifier, con-
t ra c t o r, producer, and testing laboratory. A sensible
method of adjudicating controversies over the conse-
quences of low strength tests is described in Specifica-
tion for Ready Mixed Concrete, ASTM C 94.
The following suggestions are offered as guidelines in
the allocation of responsibility:
1. If the molding, curing, or testing of strength cylinders
was demonstrably faulty and the concrete was later
found to be acceptable, whoever was responsible for
the faulty procedures should absorb the costs of any
supplemental testing required.
2. If the testing of the concrete as delivered is found to
have been properly performed, the costs of additional
testing required to verify the acceptability of the struc-
ture should be borne by the producer.
Where direct negotiation does not provide a solution,
a panel or arbitration referee may be needed to assign
responsibility for these and other related costs.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations provide guidelines for action
to be taken when tests indicate a possible deficiency in
concrete strength. Circumstances will vary and the steps
must, therefore, be applied with judgment. Clear-cut es-
tablishment of responsibility is not always possible, and
compromise may be the appropriate solution. The en-
gineer has a responsibility to prepare lucid, non-contra-
dictory specifications and to apply sound judgment in
their application and interpretation. This factor should
be taken into account in the assignment of responsibili-
ty for costs resulting from questioned strength. In doubt-
ful situations, the guidelines of ASTM C 94 for adjudica-
tion of controversies can be applied, with necessary
adjustments of the personnel on the panel to include
representation of all parties to the dispute.
References
(1) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-
77), American Concrete Institute, Box 19150, Detroit, Michigan
48219.
(2) ASTM Standards: American Society for Testing and Materials,
1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E 329 Recommended Practice for Inspection and Testing
Agencies for Concrete, Steel, and Bituminous Materials
as Used in Construction
C 597 Method of Test for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete
C 42 Method of Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and
Sawed Beams of Concrete
C 94 Specification for Ready Mixed Concrete
C 617 Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
C 803 Test for Penetration Resistance of Hardened Concrete
C 805 Test for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete
Acknowledgment
The foregoing article is a condensation of the National Ready Mixed
Concrete Associations Publication Number 133-79, In-Place Con-
crete Strength EvaluationA Recommended Practice, developed
by the NRMCA Committee on Research, Engineering and Stan-
dards. Complete copies of the Recommended Practice may be or-
dered from the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 900
Spring Street, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
PUBLICATION #C810563
Copyright 1981, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved