×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

testing of concrete

testing of concrete

testing of concrete

(OP)
I have used concrete hand made.it was silly ,but now is done.
After testing cylinders( 28 days) got average strength 12 MPa.not satisfied I used Schmidt Hammer after 28 days, and got average 16 MPa.what a discrepancy.
Is there any correlation between cylinders and rebound numbers results.I was told the hammer gives always 2.5 MPa more than cylinders.
Hard to believe, both generated doubt in my mind, and I will have to accept the concrete without doing anything.
My fate.

RE: testing of concrete

I'm not an expert, but I thought that the Schmidt Hammer had to be calibrated by popping concrete nearby in which you already knew the compressive strength.  Otherwise, the Hammer results are even more inaccurate than they naturally already are.

RE: testing of concrete

(OP)
Maybe need to clearify this.
I have done previously compressive tests, it was a period of turbulence in the company who did the test, and I  actually didn´t see  how they have done.posteriorly I hired another company to run the hammer test, this last result came  showing strenght( based on the Rebound values) far above the cylinders at 28 days.The test was done in the columns( 26 columns) of concrete.
each point taken 12 points and find the average .
Globally their statistics show fc28 of 10 MPa(1430psi) versus fck of 16MPa(2286psi) ,respectively for concrete cylinders, and hammer.
Now I am more in doubt than initially,but suspect the tests were not well done.samples were not appropriately prepared,my guess.
I thank any one who can show me any correlation between these two averages.

RE: testing of concrete

I can't remember exactly the post, but check out one of the concrete forums - the Schmidt hammer was thoroughy discussed in one of the threads.  In my view, it is only a tool for confirming the consistency of the concrete from place to place and mix to mix.  It is not - nor should not - be used to determine strength.  There is oh so much that can affect the results and besides, unless you have a specific correlation developed for your particular mix, you are using some formula that was developed in the 1960s in Germany on some concrete mix or another.  Not what I would suggest to give me a warm fuzzy feeling.  Do search for the previous thread.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources