INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY (IJRT)
2394-9007
Vol. V, No. III, June 2018
Evaluating the Durability & Condition Status of
Existing Structures
Subhash Chaturvedi, Hitesh Kodwani
Abstract— Structures are the combination of several members
resisting the imposed load which can convey the load safely to the
earth by means of foundations. The major property which
defines the quality of concrete is the strength of composing
material.
Experiments using ultrasonic pulse velocity tester and rebound
hammer have been carried out on several existing structures, to
monitor the strength and health of the structures. . The aim of
the thesis was to obtain calibration graphs for the Rebound
Hammer and Ultrasonic pulse Velocity Tester through
laboratory testing. These Non Destructive Instruments were then
used to test the columns, beams and slabs of several structures
situated in Bhopal city. To evaluate present condition of existing
RC structures on the basis of parameters such as age of
structure, compressive strength, concrete cover and visual
inspection, a condition rating system related to maintenance,
inspection and replacement priorities has been proposed.
Keywords: NDT techniques, ultrasonic pulse velocity method,
rebound hammer, correlation curves.
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete is a blend of aggregate and cement paste, this paste
combines with aggregates. Superiority of concrete depends
upon the quality of constituents.
Civil engineering specifications suggest use of destructive
testing for the estimation of concrete’s compressive strength,
in which concrete specimens are put inside the CTM and
gradually increasing compressive stress in a laboratory until
the sample is fractured or collapsed. Therefore, determining a
quick and efficient non-destructive method to forecast the
ultimate strength of concrete as an option to laborious
destructive testing using various materials with varying
properties and mix proportions would constitute a marginal
progress in this field.
For new structures, the main uses of NDT were for
quality control or the resolution of indecision about the quality
of materials or construction. The testing of old existing
structures is generally related to consideration of structural
integrity or capability.
Manuscript received on May, 2018.
Subhash Chaturvedi, Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,
SAM College of Engineering & Technology, Bhopal, M.P., India.
Prof. Hitesh Kodwani, Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
SAM College of Engineering & Technology, Bhopal, M.P., India.
Impact Factor: 4.012
Published under
Asian Research & Training Publication
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
ISSN No.
www.ijrtonline.org
In any case by extracting sample cores for compression
testing, the cost of making sample and assessment may only
permit a relatively small number of tests to be carried out on a
large structure which may be confusing. The practice of SHM
consist of observing a structure for particular period using
appropriate sensors, determining damage sensitive
characteristics from the measurements provided by the
sensors, and examining these uniqueness to investigating the
existing condition of the structure.
II. REBOUND HAMMER & ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST
A. Rebound Hammer Test:
This test is usually conducted to determine the surface
compressive strength of concrete as per IS: 13311 (Part 2)-
1992. It could be used for assessing the –
a) Compressive strength.
b) Concrete Uniformity.
c) Quality of concrete.
d) Quality of one element with respect to other element of
structure.
B. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method:
The ultrasonic pulse velocity can be used for in-situ
assessment of plain or other concrete structures. The key aims
are to find the
 Uniformity of the material.
 Detect the presence of Imperfections.
 Changes in the concrete structure.
 The Quality of the Concrete in Relation to the Specified
Standard Requirements.
 The relative quality of components of a structure.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
Several researchers used different NDT equipments in order to
assess the condition of RC structures.
Palimeno et al. (2018) worked on non-destructive testing
methodology for damage evaluation of RC structures after
seismic events. In this research, ultrasonic and sonic wave
propagation in the solid matter was used in order to identify
and investigate the modifications stimulated by the seismic
load on RC structures. The adopted methodology was
experimented through table shaking tests reproducing
numerous earthquakes. Table shaking tests were executed at
ENEA Casaccia Research Centre on a full-scale 2-storey RC
38
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY (IJRT) ISSN No. 2394-9007
Vol. V, No. III, June 2018 www.ijrtonline.org
frame building designed under the current Italian code Structure
(NTC2008). Among the applied NDT techniques, direct and 5 5 16.9 18.78 3800 18
indirect sonic methods, as well as partial and complete Structure
methods for ultrasonic tomography application was explored. 6 6 16.9 18.78 3740 24
Stergiopoulou et al. (2008) showed a procedure for NDT Structure
7 7 16.5 18.38 3624 28
of urban concrete infrastructures by means of UPV
Structure
measurements, and applied to concrete garages. UPV has been 8 8 14.8 16.68 3560 31
used as an indicator of concrete quality. Structure
A steel bridge using several NDT methods has been 9 9 15 16.88 3508 32
inspected by Rens and Kim (2007), the methods used are Structure
such as visual inspection, hammer sounding, UPV testing 10 10 24 25.88 3400 35
including topographic imaging ,Schmidt hammer; Outcomes Structure
of NDT had been used to determine areas, to be checked with 11 11 14.5 16.38 3310 36
local destructive tests such as: compressive strength, chloride Structure
testing and Petro-graphic testing. Magnetic concrete cover- 12 12 22.8 24.68 3260 36
meters are widely used to estimate the cover to steel bars. Structure
A case study of deteriorated water tanks located in the 13 13 13.1 14.98 3200 38
semitropical region of India has been done by Bhadauria and Structure
14 14 13.3 15.18 3255 40
Gupta (2007). Factors measured are concrete cover,
Structure
compressive strength, carbonation depth, chloride 15 15 13 14.88 3145 40
concentration etc. NDT methods used are, Cover-meter, Structure
Phenolphthalein indicator test, Quantab test, Potentiometric 16 16 22.3 24.18 3180 41
titration, Schist’s hammer test and UPV test. Structure
Dias and Jayanandana (2003) used non destructive 17 17 14.2 16.08 3020 43
techniques such as visual inspection, perusal of drawings, Structure
ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements, Cover-meter surveys 18 18 15 16.88 3120 44
and core testing for the condition evaluation. Structure
Rufino & Relunia (1999) observed that nondestructive 19 19 23 24.88 3000 44
testing of concrete is extremely complex and it is difficult to Structure
setup experimental procedures and to study the obtained data. 20 20 24.3 26.18 2980 44
However, latest study and research activities have revealed the Structure
different methods of NDT, like the electromagnetic method, 21 21 16.8 18.68 3085 47
Structure
ultrasonic pulse velocity test, pulse echo/impact echo test,
22 22 17.5 19.38 2940 51
infrared thermo-graphy, radar or short pulse radar techniques,
Structure
neutron and gamma radiometry, radiography, carbonation test 23 23 14.2 16.08 2860 54
and half-cell potential method available for NDT of concrete
Structure
structures. 24 24 18.5 20.38 2820 55
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Structure
25 25 20.1 21.98 2746 59
It has been observed that actual compressive strength obtained
from crushing strength test are higher than the values obtained In this paper, twenty five concrete structures have been
from rebound hammer test, so average calibration factor is selected for in-situ testing and factors such as age,
+1.88. Hence, a correction factor of +1.88 is required to be compressive strength and UPV have been determined. The
added to the values of compressive strength. calculated values are summarized in table 1. Here the values
of UPV and compressive strength are the average of the
TABLE I: IN-SITU DATA
respective values obtained for various elements of that
Corrected structure.
Strength strength UPV AGE On the basis of compressive strength, structures are
S.No Structure (MPa) (Mpa) (m/sec) (years)
categorized under 3 heads i.e. Poor, Medium and Good.
Structure
1 1 20.9 22.78 4200 4
Structure
2 2 21.2 23.08 4025 6
Structure
3 3 20.1 21.98 3904 9
Structure
4 4 18.1 19.98 3986 15

Impact Factor: 4.012 39

Published under
Asian Research & Training Publication
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY (IJRT) ISSN No. 2394-9007
Vol. V, No. III, June 2018 www.ijrtonline.org
TABLE II: CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES BASED ON TABLE III: CONDITION OF STRUCTURES BASED ON IN-SITU
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SURVEY
Compressive Strength
S. No. Category
(MPa) S. No. Strength UPV Condition of structure
1 < 15 Poor “3”
Very good, concrete is made
2 >=15 and <=20 Medium “2”
1 >=20 >=3500 of high strength and good
3 >20 Good “1”
quality concrete.

Good, medium strength but

<20 & good quality concrete, no
2 >=3500
>=15 need of immediate
maintenance.

Good, high strength but low

3 >=20 <3500 quality concrete, no need of
immediate maintenance.

Poor, medium strength and

<20 & low quality concrete, needs
Fig. 1: Compressive Strength of Structures 4 <3500
>=15 regular inspection and
maintenance

Poor, low strength but high

quality of concrete, needs
5. < 15 >=3500
regular inspection and
maintenance

Very poor and dangerous

6 < 15 <3500 condition, fails at very low
age.

Fig. 2: UPV of Structures

Structures are categorized in different categories like very
good, good (not required immediate maintenance, poor (need
immediate maintenance) and very poor (almost failed). This
categorization considered both strength and UPV of the
structure. By correlating NDT results to visual inspection
results a new condition rating system is proposed as presented
in table III.
V. CONCLUSION
1. Almost 25 structures were surveyed in this research and
nondestructive testing methods were applied for assessing
the condition of concrete structures.
2. Parameters like compressive strength through rebound
hammer, UPV are determined and structures were also
evaluated through visual inspection.
3. Structures from new to 60 years of age group were
selected at different locations of Bhopal city.
4. Calibration of Rebound hammer has been done in
laboratory before testing the structures and a correction
factor of +1.88 is found.
5. Structures selected for testing are residential buildings in
which most of the surveyed structures are having low
compressive strength.

Impact Factor: 4.012 40

Published under
Asian Research & Training Publication
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY (IJRT) ISSN No. 2394-9007
Vol. V, No. III, June 2018 www.ijrtonline.org
6. It has been concluded from the UPV results that after 32 compressive strength, quality of concrete or other
years of age, condition of structures found to be POOR in influencing parameters.
Bhopal city.
7. Four categories of structures were identified through REFERENCES
visual inspection of structures. 1. M. R. Polimen, I. Roselli V. Lupranoa M. Mongelli, A. Tatì, G.
TABLE IV: FOUR CATEGORIES OF STRUCTURES Caniob, “A non-destructive testing methodology for damage
assessment of reinforced concrete buildings after seismic
CONDITION DESCRIPTION events”. Engineering Structures., Volume 163, 15 May 2018,
Pages 122-136.
New structures without 2. Stergiopoulou,C., Aggour, M.S., and McCuen, R.H. (2008).
Very good “Non destructive testing and evaluation of concrete parking
any cracks
garages”. J. Infrastructure. Sys., 14(4), 319-326.

Good
Structures with minor 3. Rens., K.L., and Kim., T.(2007). “Inspection of Quebec street
cracks bridge in Denver, Colardo: destructive and nondestructive
testing”.J. Per. Constr. Fac., 21(3), 215-224
Structures with wide 4. Bhadauria, S.S., and Gupta, M.C. (2007). “In situ performance
Poor cracks (needs immediate testing of deteriorating water tanks for durability assessment”. J.
maintenance) Per. Constr. Fac., 21(3), 234-239.
5. Dias, W.P.S., and Jayanandana, A.D.C.(2003). “Condition
Structures with high assessment of a deteriorated cement works”. J. Per. Constr. Fac.,
Very poor cracks and failure of 17(4), 188-195.
concrete cover
6. Rufino, R. R., & Relunia, E. (1999). Nondestructive testing of
8. Degradation of concrete structures with increase in age is concrete structures. INIS ISSN 0118-3699 p. 11-17
a normal phenomenon. However, rate of deterioration
depends upon several parameters such as age,

Impact Factor: 4.012 41

Published under
Asian Research & Training Publication
ISO 9001:2015 Certified