Correlation Between Concrete Strength and Combined Nondestructive

Tests for Concrete Using High-Early Strength Cement

1 2
Razon Domingo Sohichi Hirose

1
Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, FEA-WEast Asia College
2
Professor, Dept of Mechanical and Environmental Informatics, TIT

Abstract

Correlations among compressive strength, flexural strength and combined nondestructive

testing methods for different design mixes using high-early strength cement were established
to predict on-site strength of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. Concrete mix
designs of varying water-cement ratios were prepared using high-early strength cement and
specimens were prepared and tested for compressive strength and flexural strength at
different ages. Standard beam specimens were also prepared to determine the corresponding
pulse velocity and rebound number. Good correlations were established in predicting the
flexural strength of pavement from compressive strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity and
rebound number but a better correlation is established using a combined ultrasonic pulse
velocity and rebound number.

1. Introduction

There is an ever-increasing demand by the traveling public to open pavements earlier to

traffic and because of shortened construction schedule; the inspection force needs to make
quick decisions about construction quality. The usual method of quality acceptance during
pavement constructions are limited to measuring slump and air content and fabricating beams
to test flexural strength. In recent years, significant developments have occurred in concrete
testing and in establishing test procedures for nondestructive testing (NDT).

Flexural strength (sometimes called the modulus of rupture) is typically used in portland
cement concrete (PCC) mix design for pavements because it best simulates slab flexural
stresses as they are subjected to loading. Flexural strength results are sensitive to many
factors, including fabricating, curing, and loading of the beams [1, 2]. Beams are very heavy
and can be damaged when handled and transported from the jobsite to the lab. Allowing a
beam to dry will yield lower strengths. Beams must be cured in a standard manner, and tested
while wet. Meeting all these requirements on a jobsite is extremely difficult often resulting in
unreliable and generally low modulus of rupture values [2]. Because these factors lead to
high variability, the concrete industry is interested in using compressive strength rather than
flexural strength tests for field quality assurance. With pavements, where flexural strength is
the important design criterion, the relationship between compressive strength and flexural
strength can be determined through trial batching the proposed concrete mixes and
establishing the correlation between the two by testing, thus permitting an accurate estimation
of the flexural strength of the as-delivered concrete by testing cylinders for compressive
strength [1, 3].
The objective of this research is to contribute to the development of a pragmatic method for
the improved nondestructive determination of concrete strength in structures, particularly on
PCC pavements. Specifically, this study would like to determine the correlations of concrete
strengths with some NDT methods using high-early strength cement (Type III) compared to
normal cement.

Although there can be no direct measurement of the strength properties of structural concrete
for the simple reason that strength determination involves destructive stresses, several
nondestructive methods of assessment have been developed [4].

Anderson and Seals [5] performed two different experiments to establish the potential for
using dynamic non-destructive test procedures to predict long-term compressive, tensile and
flexural strength based upon six different concrete mixtures. Rajagopalan et al. [6] reported a
correlation between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength of concrete for some
typical mixes. The study measured simultaneous measurements of pulse velocity and
compressive strength made on 150 mm cubes, at different ages from 1 day to 28 days,
indicates a linear relation between strength and velocity.

The ultrasonic pulse velocity method is a stress wave propagation method that involves
measuring the travel time, over a known path length, of a pulse of ultrasonic waves. The test
method for pulse velocity through concrete is described in ASTM C597 [7]. The pulses are
introduced into the concrete by a piezoelectric transducer and a similar transducer acts as
receiver to monitor the surface vibration caused by the arrival of the pulse. A timing circuit is
used to measure the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the transmitting to the receiving
transducers.

Then, the velocity is calculated using equation 1.

V =LT (1)

Where, V = pulse velocity (m/s), L = length (m), and, T = effective time (s), which is the
measured time minus the zero time correction. The zero time correction is equal to the travel
time between the transmitting and receiving transducers when they are pressed firmly
together.

The rebound hammer test is described in ASTM C805 [8]. The test is classified as a hardness
test and is based on the principle that the rebound of an elastic mass depends on the hardness
of the surface against which the mass impinges. The energy absorbed by the concrete is
related to its strength [9].

When variation in properties of concrete affect the test results, the use of one method alone
would not be sufficient to evaluate the required property. Therefore, the use of more than one
method yields more reliable results. Of a number of purely nondestructive tests, the rebound
(Schmidt) hammer and the ultrasonic pulse velocity combinations are the most commonly
used. Attempts have been done to relate rebound number and ultrasonic pulse velocity to
concrete strength [10, 11, 12].

In the majority of cases, the need for in situ concrete strength evaluation arises as a result of
suspect of quality of concrete. By developing a prior correlation for a range of concrete
grades and types, having only the source of coarse aggregate and a broad age group in
common, it is possible to obtain good indication of the in situ strength of concrete, expressed
as the value of a test result of a standard compressive specimen [13].

2. Experimental Design

Three concrete batches with varying water-cement ratios were mixed in the laboratory. The
different mix designs are shown in Table 1. The materials used in the mix design were from
the same sources and the cement used is a Type III cement or high-early strength cement. The
design slump would be limited from 25 mm to 75 mm and water-cement ratios should be
between the range of 0.40 – 0.50 as used for pavement applications. The coarse aggregate
used has a nominal maximum size of 19 mm while the fine aggregate has a fineness modulus
of 2.70.

Table 1: Concrete Mix Design for Different Batches (1.0 m3)

Mix Design 1 2 3
w/c 0.49 0.45 0.41
*Cement, 388 422 463
kg.
C.A., kg. 1002 1002 1002
F.A., kg. 802 773 737
Water, kg. 190 190 190
* Type III (High-Early Strength Cement)

The properties of fresh concrete (slump, density, air content and temperature) were
determined for each mix design and cylindrical and beam specimens were cast for
determining the properties of hardened concrete. The compressive strength and flexural
strength of hardened concrete were determined using specimens tested at 1, 3, 7, and 14 days.
Two specimens were tested and the results averaged for each strength test at each age. Direct
ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number were also determined using 150 x 150 x 500
mm beam specimens. The actual set-up for ultrasonic pulse velocity determination is shown
in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Actual Set-up for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Determination

The results of these tests were analyzed to determine the relationship among flexural strength,
compressive strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and rebound number (RN).

3. Results and Discussion

The results of tests for fresh concrete are summarized in Table 2. Concrete mixes with water-
cement ratios of 0.49 and 0.45 exceeded the design slump of 25 mm to 75 mm.

Table 2: Properties of Fresh Concrete

Mix W/C Slump Unit Weight Temperature
No. Ratio (mm) (kg/m3) (°C)

1 0.49 150 2,419 16

2 0.45 125 2,325 15

3 0.41 75 2,319 15

The results of tests for hardened concrete are summarized in Table 3. Compressive strength
ranged from 12.82 to 48.70 MPa (1,860 to 7,063 psi) while flexural strength ranged from
2.24 to 9.10 MPa (325 to 1,320 psi). Direct UPV ranged from 3,821.40 to 4,772.70 m/s. The
rebound number ranged from 19 to 45.

Table 3: Test Results for Hardened Concrete

Mix Age Compressive Flexural Direct Pulse Rebound
No. Strength Strength (MPa) Velocity Number
(MPa) (m/s)
1 1 12.82 2.24 3,821.40 19
2 1 14.80 2.80 4,000.00 22
3 1 21.83 4.36 4,200.00 29
1 3 20.30 4.75 3,963.00 25
2 3 23.90 5.78 4,153.80 31
3 3 28.20 6.60 4,375.00 35
1 7 30.60 6.20 4,385.20 32
2 7 33.60 7.20 4,500.00 38
3 7 39.80 7.83 4,666.70 42
1 14 33.20 6.60 4,458.30 37
2 14 38.40 8.10 4,595.70 42
3 14 48.70 9.10 4,772.70 45

The required flexural strength of 4.1 MPa using third-point loading is attained after only 3
days for all concrete batches since high-early strength cement is used.

Multiple regression is used to analyze combined NDT methods to predict flexural strength for
pavements and the results show good correlations between flexural strength as the dependent
variable and combined UPV and rebound number as independent variables (R2 = 0.96). The
flexural strength can be predicted from combined UPV and rebound number using equation
2.
 Log Flexural Strength = 2.509( Log RN) - 3.865( Log Direct UPV) + 11.01 (2)

Although the purpose of this study focuses on flexural strength of concrete pavement, the
compressive strength can also be predicted from the combined ultrasonic pulse velocity and
rebound number using equation 3 with R2 = 0.97.

Log Compressive Strength = 1.056( Log RN) + 1.633( Log Direct UPV) - 6.097 (3)

4. Conclusions

Test results for hardened concrete show good correlations of flexural strength with
compressive strength, rebound number and ultrasonic pulse velocity. A better correlation is
attained in predicting the flexural strength of beam specimens using multiple regression
analysis with combined ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number as independent
variables.

Although the study concerns more on flexural strength, it is interesting to note that good
correlations are also established for compressive strength relating to ultrasonic pulse velocity
and rebound number contrary to other past studies. Similar to predicting flexural strength, a
better correlation is attained in predicting compressive strength using multiple regression
analysis combining ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number.

It is recommended that the third-point loading test for flexure be used both in the design and
in acceptance scheme for concrete pavements in the actual construction. Furtherance of this
study is also recommended by validating results of ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound
number in actual tests during pavement construction.

5. Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Core
University Program on Environmental Engineering.

6. References

[1] Kosmatka, S. Compressive Versus Flexural Strength for Quality Control of Pavements.
Concrete Products, pp. 14-15 (March 1988).

[2] National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association. What, Why and How? Flexural Strength of
Concrete. Concrete in Practice 16. NRMCA, Silver Spring, Md. (1992).

[3] National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association. Compressive Strength and Flexural

Strength Correlation. Technical Information Letter 492. NRMCA, Silver Spring, Md.
(1992).

[4] Malhotra, V. M. Testing Hardened Concrete: Non-destructive Methods. American

Concrete Institute, Monograph No. 9, 1976.

[5] Anderson, D.A., Seals, R.K. Pulse Velocity as a Predictor of 28- and 90-Day Strength.
ACI Journal Proceedings 78 (1981) (9), pp. 116 – 122. [8]
[6] Rajagopalan, P.R., Prakash, J. and Naramimhan, V. Correlation Between Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity and Strength of Concrete. Indian Concrete Journal 47 (1973) (11), pp. 416–418.

[7] American Society for Testing and Materials. Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through
Concrete. ASTM C 597 – 02, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM International, 2004.

[8] American Society for Testing and Materials. Test Method for Rebound Number of
Hardened Concrete. ASTM C 805 – 02, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM International,
2004.

[9] American Concrete Institute. In Place Methods for Determination of Strength of

Concrete; ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2: Construction Practices and
Inspection Pavements, ACI 228.1R-989, Detroit, MI, 1994, p. 25.

[10] Kheder, G. Assessment of In Situ Concrete Strength Using Combined Nondestructive

Testing. Proceedings of the First International Arab Conference on Maintenance and
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, Cairo, 1998, pp. 59±75.

[11] De Almeida, I.R. Non-destructive Testing of High Strength Concretes: Rebound

(Schmidt Hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity), Quality Control of Concrete
Structures. L. Taerwe, H. Lambotte (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium
held by RILEM, Belgium, E&FN SPON, U.K., 1991, pp. 387± 397.

[12] Qasrawi, Hisham Y. Concrete Strength by Combined Nondestructive Methods, Simply

and Reliably Predicted. Cement and Concrete Research 30 (2000) 739 – 746.

[13] Malhotra, V. M., Carino, N. J. Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete (2nd

Edition). ASTM International, CRC Press, 1991.