A Comparative Analysis of the Rebound Hammer and Pullout as Non-Destructive Method in Testing Concrete

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Festus Chukwudi Onyeka

Abstract

A comparative analysis between Rebound Hammer and Pullout method in testing concrete was conducted in this study. Experimental analysis were carried out to compare the correctness between the two testing method in estimating the strength of concrete. Different cube (cubes of 175 x 175 x 175) samples were prepared using two mix designs of 1:2:4 and 1:3:6 with a constant w/c ratio of 0.45 and were tested at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The rebound hammer readings had a correlation coefficient of 0.695 while the pullout had a correlation coefficient of 0.725 for the 1:2:4 mix and the rebound hammer readings for 1:3:6 was 0.724 and that for the pullout was 0.675. From the results obtained, it is observed that the non-destructive testing methods were correlated with the compressive strength results which showed that a higher correlation existed between the Rebound Hammer and the compressive strength than the Pullout. Statistical analysis of the results obtained showed that there was no significant difference between the means of the two methods for both mix at a 0.05 level of significance. However, Rebound hammer method can be recommended as it provides a quicker, less-expensive means of checking the uniformity of concrete even though it shows less sensitivity as concrete matures, unlike the Pullout test in which measuring strength is affected by the arrangement of the embedded insert, the dimensions of bearing ring, the depth of embedment, the concrete age and the type of aggregates uses in concrete.


Keywords: Concrete, Non-Destructive Testing, Compressive Strength, Rebound Hammer, Pullout Test

References

ACI Committee (1998). Non-destructive test methods for evaluation of concrete in structures. ACI 228.2R. American concrete institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

Agunwamba, J. C and Adagba, T, (2012). “A Comparative Analysis of the Rebound Hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity in Testing Concrete.” Nigerian Journal of Industrial and Systems Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp 31–39.

Bickley, J.A. (1984). The Evaluation and Acceptance of Concrete Quality by in-place Testing. Spec. Publ. SP 82–6, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 95–109.

British Standard BS 1881: Part 201 (1986) Testing Concrete: Guide to the Use of Nondestructive Methods of Test for Hardened Concrete, London, British Standards Institution.

British Standard BS 1881: Part 202 (1986) Testing Concrete: Recommendations for Surface Hardness Testing by Rebound Hammer, London, British Standards Institution.

British Standard BS 1881: Part 203 (1986) Testing Concrete: Recommendations for Measurement of Velocity of Ultrasonic Pulses in Concrete, London, British Standard Institution.

British Standard BS 1881: Part 207 (1992) Testing Concrete. Recommendations for the Assessment of Concrete Strength by Near to surface Tests, London, British Standards Institution.

Bungey, J. H. and Millard S. G., (1996). “Testing of Concrete in Structures” 3rd Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY 10003 USA.

Carino, J. Nicholas (1991) Pullout Test, in Handbook on Non-destructive Testing of Concrete, Florida (EUA), CRC Press Inc., p. 39 – 82.

Carino N.J., (1994). “Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete: History and Challenges”. ACI SP-144, Concrete Technology – Past, Present and Future, P.K. Mehta, Ed., American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, Pp 623 – 678.

Kierkegaard-Hansen (1975). Lok-strength, Nordisk Betong, 3,19-28.

Kolek, J., (1958). “An Appreciation of the Schmidt Rebound Hammer”. Magazine of Concrete Research Vol. 10, No. 28, pp. 27-36.

Malhotra, V.M., (1976). “Testing Hardened Concrete: Nondestructive Methods”. ACI Monograph 9, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.

Malhotra. V. M., and Carino N. J., (1991). "Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete", CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 343p.

Malhotra, V.M. and Carette G., (1975). “Comparison of Pull-out Strength of Concrete with Compressive Strength of Cylinders and Cores, Pulse Velocity and Rebound Hammer Number”. ACI journal, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 17-31

Nicholas J. Carino (2008). Concrete construction engineering. Pp 21-1 to 21-63.

Onyeka, F. C and Mama, B. O (2019). "Comparative Analysis of Destructive and Non-Destructive Testing Method of Concrete Strength using Compressive and Rebound Harmmer Testing Method" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 Issue-1, pp.1-7.

Richards O. (1977). Pullout strength of concrete in reproducibility and accuracy of mechanical test, ASTM SP626, pp32-40. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA.

Stanley J. (1995). Nondestructive testing handbook 9: special nondestructive testing methods. Columbus: American Society of Nondestructive Testing.

Workman G. and O-Moore P. (2012). Nondestructive testing handbook 10: over-view Columbus: American Society of Nondestructive Testing.2, 161.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
[1]
Onyeka, F. 2020. A Comparative Analysis of the Rebound Hammer and Pullout as Non-Destructive Method in Testing Concrete. European Journal of Engineering Research and Science. 5, 5 (May 2020), 554-558. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2020.5.5.1903.