Comparison of Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Using Schmidt Rebound Hammer and Conventional Testing Method

2020 ◽  
pp. 203-211
Author(s):  
Susanta Kumar Sethy ◽  
Mopidevi Vijai Kishore ◽  
Vikas Garg ◽  
Raja ◽  
Vivek Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Hardened Concrete ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Testing Method ◽  
Schmidt Rebound Hammer

scholarly journals A Comparison Between Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test and Point Load Index Test (IS50) for the Effectiveness in Estimating the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock- A Case Study with respect to Limestone of Early Eocene Nammal Formation, Central Salt

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-144
Author(s):  
Aun Zahoor ◽  
Muhammad Usman Azhar ◽  
Saif Ur Rehman ◽  
Farrukh Rahim Shehzad
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Unconfined Compressive Strength ◽  
Point Load ◽  
Load Test ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Point Load Index ◽  
Test Standards ◽  
Schmidt Rebound Hammer ◽  
High Degree

In a bid to find some possible relation of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) with relatively simplelaboratory tests like Point Load Test (PLT) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test (SRHT), some 50 core samples ofMiddle Eocene Nammal formation from Central Salt Range in Pakistan were collected and subjected to these testmethods as per respective test standards of International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). The values of SRHT andPLT were separately compared to the respective values of UCS so as to find the linear relations. On the basis of the R2value of Regression Analysis, it has been found that a strong correlation with a high degree of accuracy exists betweenPLT and UCS while the degree of accuracy between SRHT and UCS was found to be low.

Testing of SFRC by the Schmidt Rebound Hammer

1990 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Šušteršič ◽  
Milenko Rebić ◽  
Stanislav Urbančič
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Abrasion Resistance ◽  
Steel Fibre ◽  
Fibre Content ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Steel Fibres ◽  
Schmidt Rebound Hammer ◽  
Rebound Number

AbstractThe rebound number, its relationship to fundamental frequency and correlations with compressive strength and erosion - abrasion resistance are discussed. Nine mix proportions were used. The w/c ratios were varied from 0.30 to 0.65. The volumetric percentage of hooked steel fibres was varied from 0.25 to 2.0 vol.% at the w/c of 0.30; at the others the quantity of fibres was constant. In addition, mixes without fibres were made at each w/c.The rebound number and the fundamental frequency are decreased by an increase of steel fibre content. The rebound number correlates with erosion - abrasion resistance. It does not correlate with compressive strength of concretes with constant w/c and different contents of fibres.

scholarly journals A Comparison Between Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test and Point Load Index Test (IS50) for the Effectiveness in Estimating the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock- A Case Study with respect to Limestone of Early Eocene Nammal Formation, Central Salt

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-144
Author(s):  
Aun Zahoor ◽  
Muhammad Usman Azhar ◽  
Saif Ur Rehman ◽  
Farrukh Rahim Shehzad
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Unconfined Compressive Strength ◽  
Point Load ◽  
Load Test ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Point Load Index ◽  
Test Standards ◽  
Schmidt Rebound Hammer ◽  
High Degree

In a bid to find some possible relation of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) with relatively simplelaboratory tests like Point Load Test (PLT) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test (SRHT), some 50 core samples ofMiddle Eocene Nammal formation from Central Salt Range in Pakistan were collected and subjected to these testmethods as per respective test standards of International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). The values of SRHT andPLT were separately compared to the respective values of UCS so as to find the linear relations. On the basis of the R2value of Regression Analysis, it has been found that a strong correlation with a high degree of accuracy exists betweenPLT and UCS while the degree of accuracy between SRHT and UCS was found to be low.

scholarly journals Determine the Compressive Strength of Calcium Silicate Bricks by Combined Nondestructive Method

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiri Brozovsky
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
Pulse Method ◽  
Close Correlation ◽  
Ultrasonic Pulse ◽  
Nondestructive Method ◽  
Production Plant ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Schmidt Rebound Hammer

The paper deals with the application of combined nondestructive method for assessment of compressive strength of calcium silicate bricks. In this case, it is a combination of the rebound hammer method and ultrasonic pulse method. Calibration relationships for determining compressive strength of calcium silicate bricks obtained from nondestructive parameter testing for the combined method as well as for the L-type Schmidt rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse method are quoted here. Calibration relationships are known for their close correlation and are applicable in practice. The highest correlation between parameters from nondestructive measurement and predicted compressive strength is obtained using the SonReb combined nondestructive method. Combined nondestructive SonReb method was proved applicable for determination of compressive strength of calcium silicate bricks at checking tests in a production plant and for evaluation of bricks built in existing masonry structures.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 554-558
Author(s):  
Festus Chukwudi Onyeka
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Non Destructive Testing ◽  
Destructive Testing ◽  
Rebound Hammer ◽  
Testing Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level Of Significance ◽  
Non Destructive

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document