Comparison of the compression test and the rebound test for evaluating the brand of concrete in precast reinforced concrete elements
Downloads
This paper will provide information about the concrete brand produced in the factory for the prefabricated elements and the comparison of the results given by the test of resistance to compression and the results of the test of the hammer impact of the sclerometer.
The idea and the need to conduct this study arose for 2 main reasons: first, from the poor results often obtained from sclerometer impact to the elements in the field, despite the compression resistance test with cubic samples taken in the concrete cast and the carrot test directly on the element assembled in the building provides good results.
Secondly, to have a connection between the values of the concrete brand resulting from the pressure resistance test with a press performed in the laboratory and the impact test with the sclerometer hammer which is often performed in the field under different conditions.
The sclerometer impact tests will be performed on each cube sample before it is broken, in the press, and the sclerometer impact tests will be performed on the concrete elements from which the cube sample was taken on the day that this sample will be destroyed.
The predicted results are relatively close values related to the age between 14th day and the 28th day of the concrete maturity, as determined by the manual of the sclerometer that the study is going to use, and other close values for the other days (1, 3,7,14,28). But in fact, just like in the field tests done before, it is noticed that the results obtained from the blows with the sclerometer hammer are weak. The aim of the paper is finding a logical connection between the results of these 2 types of tests.
This study will contain information on the composition of the concrete produced in the IXHEM SHPK factory (ltd) located in Durres - Albania, the brands of concrete on different days for different elements, and the comparison of the results between the 2 methods mentioned above.
2. Bentz, D.P. A review of early-age properties of cement-based materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 196–204. [CrossRef]
3. Maruyama, I.; Lura, P. Properties of early-age concrete relevant to cracking in massive concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 123, 105770.[CrossRef]
4. Kim, J.K.; Moon, Y.H.; Eo, S.H. Compressive strength development of concrete with different curing time and temperature. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 1761–1773. [CrossRef]
5. Gu, H.; Song, G.; Dhonde, H.; Mo, L.; Yan, S. Concrete early-age strength monitoring using eLee et al.
6. Lee, T.; Lee, J. Setting time and compressive strength prediction model of concrete by nondestructive ultrasonic pulse velocity
testing at early age. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 252, 119027. [CrossRef]
7. Tools for receiving, holding and sizing cubic samples EN 12390-1:2012
8. Sampling of concrete, referring to standard EN 12390-2:2009
9. Test of pressure resistance, referring to the standard EN 12390-3:2009
10. Used equipment, press, referring to standard EN12390-4:2000
11. Determination of rebound number, referring to standard EN12504-2:2001
12. Gopal Mishra https://theconstructor.org/concrete/rebound-hammer-test-concrete-ndt/2837/
13. Rebound hammer test by varun and rachana VNIT, Nagpur
