An Innovative Device for Non-Destructive

Strength Assessment of Concrete Blocks

Preliminary Results

Faculty:

Students:

Dr. Svetlana Brzev, P.Eng. (Civil Engineering)

Nghia Vu (Electrical Engineering)

Dr. Neil Cox, P.Eng. (Electrical Engineering)

Gurpreet Brar (Electrical Engineering)

Dr. Diane Kennedy, P.Eng. (Electrical Engineering)

Navid Rafati (Civil Engineering)

Glenn Pellegrin, M.Ed.,P.Eng. (Electrical Engineering)

Sunny Yeung (Civil Engineering)

May 2012

British Columbia Institute of Technology

Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada

Table of Contents
1

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3

MECHANICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE BLOCKS................................. 3

TESTING PROCEDURE .................................................................................................... 7

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VERSUS RESONANT FREQUENCY................................ 9

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................. 13

1 Background
After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, a group of BCIT faculty and students from the Civil and
Electrical Engineering Departments, and a faculty member from the Physics Department,
initiated a project to develop a low-cost device for non-destructive strength evaluation of
concrete masonry blocks. The concept is based on the relationship between the compressive
strength and the corresponding resonant frequencies determined when a block is subjected to a
mild impact (tapping with the hammer). The idea originated from Bill McEwen, P.Eng., Executive
Director of the Masonry Institute of British Columbia, who has been using this method for
assessing the quality of bricks at local construction sites for many years.
The preliminary investigations were performed in the period from May 2010 to May 2012. These
investigations involved a detailed study of twelve hollow concrete blocks shipped from Haiti from
three different donors: the KPFF Consulting Engineers, Portland, USA; Matthew Van Der Heide,
Canada, and the Swiss Office for Coopration, Haiti. Another Haitian block was donated in
December 2011, but it could not be used since it did not survive the flight from Haiti to Canada.
In addition, five Canadian concrete blocks were also considered in the study. The investigations
were performed by two civil engineering students enrolled in CIVL 3090/CIVL 4090 Industry
Project course, and five electrical engineering students engaged through ELEX 7790/ELEX
7890 Capstone Project course over the last two years. The students were supervised by a team
of faculty from the BCIT Civil and Electrical Engineering Programs. This document contains the
key findings of preliminary investigations. For comparison purposes, the results of both 2011
and 2012 testing are presented in this report.

2 Mechanical and Physical Properties of the Blocks

Hollow concrete blocks are used both in Haiti and Canada and the overall dimensions are
similar, however Haitian blocks have three hollow cores, while Canadian blocks have two. Block
dimensions vary, but in general the length and depth are around 400 mm and 190 mm
respectively. The thickness is variable, but it seems that 140 mm (6 inch) blocks are most
common in Haiti, while in Canada, 190 mm (8 inch) blocks are most common, although 140 mm
blocks are also available. Both 140 mm and 190 mm blocks were tested in the study. Geometric
properties for typical blocks are presented in Appendix A.
There are significant differences in the mix proportion, texture, size and type of aggregate, and
manufacturing process between Haitian and Canadian blocks. The mix proportion (ratio of
cement and aggregates) significantly influences the compressive strength. Haitian blocks have
a different texture than Canadian blocks, with the surface generally not as smooth, primarily due
to the larger aggregate size used. Limestone aggregate used for block manufacturing in Haiti is
very powdery and weak, and is yellowish in colour (Johnston, 2011; EERI, 2011). Significantly
stronger stone is used for block aggregate in Canada. Typical Haitian and Canadian blocks are
shown in Figure 1.
The block manufacturing process in Canada is highly mechanized and computer-controlled. The
blocks are manufactured in plants using the dry cast process using a mix of sand, fine gravel,
Portland cement and a limited amount of water in predetermined proportions. The concrete mix
is fed into moulds, using pressure and vibration for compaction, after which the block exits the
mould. The blocks are then steam-cured at temperatures ranging from 50 to 80 degrees Celsius
for about 8 hours and then dried. The block manufacturing plants have a well-established quality
assurance process, with block compression testing performed regularly, either in-house or

through independent labs. The block manufacturing process in Haiti is significantly different.
Most blocks are fabricated onsite and sold through local roadside stores. A small fraction of
block production takes place in manufacturing plants. According to Schacher (2012a), only one
compression testing machine is available in Haiti, and it is unlikely that any quality assurance
process is in place as related to the block compressive strength. A detailed description of the
block manufacturing process in Haiti was presented by Rafati (2011) and Schacher and Roux
(2012).

a)

b)

Figure 1. Haitian blocks: a) a view from the top, showing three hollow cells, and b) two Haitian
blocks and a Canadian block (with two cells).
The key mechanical and physical properties of blocks considered in the study include density,
absorption, modulus of elasticity, and compressive strength. Tests were also performed to
evaluate the properties of the aggregate used for the block mix, including sieve analysis,
organic impurities, and the percentage of chloride. Mechanical and physical properties of the
blocks were studied by civil engineering team members. The results of initial testing for two Haiti
blocks in May 2010 were documented by Chambers et al. (2010), and a detailed report
describing the testing of four blocks obtained from the Swiss Office for Coopration in
December 2010 was prepared by Rafati (2011). The use of available non-destructive concrete
testing devices, such as rebound hammer (Schmidt hammer), was studied by Yeung (2012).
The focus of this section is on the compressive strength test results. Compressive strength is
the most important mechanical property of concrete blocks, as it determines their suitability for
building construction. In many countries, building standards specify the minimum block strength.
The compressive strength is determined as a ratio of the maximum compression load at failure
and the net cross-sectional area of the top block surface, which is in direct contact with the
platens during the testing. It should be noted that the block compressive strength in some
countries is determined based on the gross area, which is the overall cross-sectional area of the
block (determined as the product of block length and thickness). The minimum compressive
strength for hollow concrete blocks in Canada is 15 MPa (based on the net area). The building
standard in Mexico requires the minimum strength of 6 MPa based on the gross area
(approximately 10-12 MPa on net area), and the Chilean standard requires a minimum strength
of 12 MPa (based on the net area). Some international guidelines, e.g. EERI (2011) recommend
a minimum compressive strength of 5 MPa (based on the gross area) for hollow concrete blocks
used in confined masonry construction, which is a common practice in Haiti. In this document,
all strength values shown on the charts are based on the net area.

The compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks was determined by placing the individual
blocks between the platens in a universal testing machine according to the procedure outlined in
the ASTM C140-99b standard. The universal testing machines used in the study are shown in
Figure 2. Both machines have a 1780 kN (400 kip) capacity, which is sufficient for testing Haiti
blocks. However some Canadian blocks may exceed the capacity of the machine. BCIT has
recently purchased a new 600 kip universal testing machine which is going to be used for
masonry and concrete testing, and will replace the existing machine shown in Figure 2b). A
typical failure pattern for the blocks is shown in Figure 3. Haitian blocks have shown localized
splitting failure along the face shells (long side of the block) and/or webs, while Canadian blocks
disintegrated in several chunks after an explosive failure.

a)

b)

Figure 2. Universal testing machines used in the study: a) a Forney testing machine at the
Basalite block production plant used in the 2012 study, and b) a Forney testing machine at the
BCIT Materials Lab.

a)

b)

Figure 3. Blocks after the testing: a) Haitian block H8-1 (2011 study), and b) a Canadian block.

The results have shown a significant difference in the compressive strength for Haitian and
Canadian blocks. The two Haitian blocks tested in May 2010 (supplied by the KPFF Consulting
Engineers, Portland, USA) showed a compressive strength of 1.5 and 7.0 MPa respectively.
The results showing compressive strength for Haitian and Canadian blocks tested in 2011 and
2012 are presented in Figure 4. Note that Haitian blocks are labeled with a letter "H", while
Canadian blocks are labeled with a letter "C". It can be seen that the Haitian blocks tested in
2011 had compressive strengths ranging from 1.8 to 6.9 MPa, which is very similar the 2010
testing (although the sources were different). However, Haitian blocks tested in 2012 had a
higher strength (5.0 to 11.2 MPa), likely due to a more careful selection of manufacturers
performed by the Swiss Office for Coopration. It should be noted that only two out of eight
Haitian blocks tested in the study exceeded the strength of 5 MPa (based on a gross crosssectional area), which was recommended as the minimum value by the EERI guidelines (2011).
All Canadian blocks showed higher than normal compressive strengths in the range of 33 to 55
MPa.

a)

b)
Figure 4. Compressive strength of Haitian and Canadian blocks: a) the 2011 study, and b) the
2012 study.
Compressive strength results for all blocks tested in 2011 and 2012 are presented Figure 5, with
the values are summarized in Table 1. The difference in compressive strength between the
Haitian and Canadian blocks is striking (note Haitian blocks shown as solid black columns).
Haitian blocks had a compressive strength ranging from 1.8 to 11.2 MPa, while Canadian blocks

had the compressive strength from 33 to 55 MPa. Canadian blocks are typically in the 20 MPa
range. Note that higher strength values were obtained by another group in the USA, which
tested the Haitian blocks after the 2010 earthquake the strength values were in the range from
7.0 to 14.9 MPa based on 8 block specimens (KACO, 2010). The strength values shown on the
chart are based on net cross-sectional block area. Significantly lower values are obtained for the
strength based on the gross cross-sectional area, as shown in Table 1.

Figure 5. Compressive strength of all tested Haitian and Canadian blocks.

It should be also noted that Haitian blocks used in the 2012 study (blocks H1, H4, H6, and H7)
had companion blocks which were tested by the staff of the Swiss Office for Coopration, Haiti
office in their testing facility (Schacher and Roux, 2012). The results of the Canadian and Haiti
tests show very similar strengths, as seen on the chart below. In three out of four cases, the
difference is less than 5%; the only exception is block H4, where the difference is about 26%.

Figure 6. A comparison of test results for Haitian blocks tested in Haiti and Canada.

3 Testing Procedure
Block frequencies were studied by the electrical engineering team. The initial testing was
performed by tapping the blocks with a light hammer and recording the sound by a microphone.

Sound signals recorded by the microphone were analyzed using computer software to identify
the block resonant frequency. Different locations of hammer application and different types of
sensors were considered in the testing. The initial idea was to use a microphone as the sensor
for sound recording, however this proved to be problematic for the frequency analysis. In the
second phase of testing, an accelerometer was used instead of the microphone to obtain the
vibration record. The test setup used in the 2012 study is shown in Figure 7a). The details of the
test setup, the measurement process, and the test results are presented in a report by Brar and
Vu (2012). An existing relevant standard, ASTM C215-02 Standard Test Method for
Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of Concrete
Specimens was used as a reference in developing the test setup and testing protocol.
The testing apparatus used in the 2012 study has the following three components:
1. Impactor: a ball peen hammer swinging from a simple wooden frame which produces impact
on the block. The impact was generated at a swing angle of approximately 45 degrees
(equivalent to a force of 0.2 N).
2. Sensor: an one-axis accelerometer (IMI ICP 324A01) driven by a constant current source.
3. Frequency analyzer: Matlab software was used to collect and process the accelerometer
signal. The processed data is plotted in the form of frequency spectrum.
The testing protocol used in the 2012 study is outlined below:
1. The block is placed on the concrete floor, atop a Styrofoam sheet and a layer of sturdy
foam.
2. The impact is generated by a construction hammer swinging from a simple wooden frame.
The location of impact is at the centre of the vertical block surface (face shell) along the
block thickness (shorter dimension).
3. The accelerometer is placed atop the block, close to the point of impact.
4. The duration of the test is approximately one second.
The testing was performed with an accelerometer attached at different locations on the top
block surface, however the location at the center closest to the impact gave the best results.

a)

b)

Figure 7. Test setup: a) a block placed on the Styrofoam and the swinging hammer, and
b) accelerometer on the top block surface.

The Fourier analysis of the block vibration records (FFT analysis) was performed to identify the
resonant frequencies. The following three types of frequency can be obtained, depending on the
location of impact and the accelerometers: longitudinal, transverse, and torsional. A typical
spectrum is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. A typical frequency spectrum obtained from the testing of Canadian block C8A (note
the peak at 2.466 kHz).

4 Compressive Strength Versus Resonant Frequency

The results have shown a strong correlation between the recorded frequencies and the
measured compressive strength for the tested blocks. The results of the 2011 and 2012 studies
are shown separately in Figure 9. Note that the 2011 study used a microphone as a sensor for
recording the vibration, while the accelerometer was used as a sensor in the 2012 study. The
frequency results from the 2012 study show a better correlation with the strength values, and
can be approximated by a linear function, as shown in Figure 10.
Numerical values for the concrete strength and the corresponding resonant frequencies for all
tested blocks are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the Key Test Results (2011 and 2012 study)
Origin
(year)

Haiti
(2012)

Block ID

H1/12
H4/12
H6/12
H7/12
Haiti
H6-1/11
(2011)
H8-1/11
H8-2/11
Canada C6-2/11
(2011)
C6-3/11
Canada C8A/12
(2012)
C8B/12
C6B/12

Compressive Compressive
Strength Strength gross area
net area
MPa
MPa (psi)
5.6
9.9 (1,441)
3.0
5.4 (782)
2.6
5.0 (723)
6.1
11.2 (1,625)
1.1
1.8 (261)
3.6
6.90 (1,000)
2.6
4.53 (657)
22.7
54.90 (7,962)
27.6
45.20 (6,555)
23.4
43.6 (6,323)
18.2
33.9 (4,910)
17.0
33.2 (4,814)

Resonant
Frequency
(kHz)
1.813
1.693
1.723
1.820
0.033*
0.108
0.102
2.493
2.720
2.487
2.382
2.421

Notes: * - this frequency value was disregarded in the analysis

a)

b)
Figure 9. Compressive strengths versus resonant frequencies for the tested blocks: a) the 2011
study, and b) the 2012 study.

10

Figure 10. Compressive strength versus resonant frequency for the blocks tested in the 2012
study showing a linear trend line.
The resonant frequencies for all the tested blocks are shown in Figure 11. Note that blocks
tested in 2011 are labeled as /11, while the blocks tested in 2012 are labeled as /12. It can
be seen that the frequencies for Haitian blocks are in the range from 1.0 kHz to 1.8 kHz, while
the values for Canadian blocks are in the range from 2.4 kHz to 2.8 kHz.

Figure 11. Resonant frequencies for all blocks tested in the 2011 and 2012 study (note Haitian
blocks shown with solid black columns).

5 Conclusions
This report shows the results of a study of Haitian concrete blocks in the period May 2010 to
May 2012. The purpose of the testing was to develop an approach for non-destructive
assessment of block strength based on the measured resonant frequency. The results indicate
a good correlation between the measured resonant frequencies for the tested blocks and their
compressive strength. These results justify further effort to develop a non-destructive testing
device. Once developed, the device could be used in Haiti and other countries where there is a
lack of quality assurance in concrete block supply and construction.

Acknowledgments
This study would not be possible without generous assistance provided by several individuals
and organizations. The authors are particularly grateful to architect Tom Schacher, Swiss Office
for Coopration, Centre for Reconstruction, Haiti for donating eight Haitian blocks. Special
thanks are due to Mr. Guillaume Roux from the same office for providing detailed information
related to the Haitian blocks and performing the strength testing. The study was initiated by
Craig Totten, P.E. from the KPFF Consulting Engineers, Portland, USA, who donated the first
two Haitian blocks in 2010, and his contribution is greatly appreciated. The authors appreciate
donation of two Haitian blocks by Matthew Van Der Heide, EIT, Krahn Engineering, Abbotsford,
BC and a former BCIT student, who transported the blocks in his luggage in 2011. The authors
acknowledge Ms. Julia Kovacs of Vancouver, BC, who donated one more block, however it
unfortunately crumbled during the trip and it was not used it in the study. The authors are
grateful to Mr. Jason Barbosa of the Basalite block production plant in Surrey, BC for testing the
blocks in May 2012.
11

The authors are grateful for the lab support and advice provided by Ken Zeleschuk, Assistant
Instructor, and Kevin Hergott, Technician in the BCIT Department of Civil Engineering. Special
thanks are due for valuable input provided by Dr. James Booth, faculty, BCIT Physics
Department, and Dr. Rishi Gupta, faculty, Department of Civil Engineering. Last, but not least,
the authors are grateful to Bill McEwen, P.Eng., Executive Director of the Masonry Institute of
British Columbia, whose "brick clink" field test inspired this research.

References
Brar,G., and Vu,N. (2012). Concrete Block Tester, Electrical Engineering Capstone Design
Project, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology, British Columbia
Institute of Technology.
Chambers,M., Zeleschuk, K., and Brzev, S. (2010). Haiti Blocks Testing - Density and
Compressive Strength, Department of Civil Engineering, British Columbia Institute of
Technology, Canada. <http://www.confinedmasonry.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/HaitiBlocks-Compressive-Strength-and-Density.pdf>
EERI (2011). Seismic Design Guide for Low-Rise Confined Masonry Buildings, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California (www.confinedmasonry.org).
Johnston, D. (2011). Personal Communication (Don Johnston is a Canadian structural engineer
who participated in post-earthquake assessment of buildings in Haiti after the 2010
earthquake).
KACO (2010). Compressive Strength Tests for CMUs from Haiti, Kaderabek Company, Miami,
Florida < http://www.confinedmasonry.org/research-papers/testing-results-from-haiti>
Rafati, N. (2011). Mechanical Properties of Haitian and Canadian Concrete Masonry Blocks: A
Comparison, Civil Engineering Research Project, Department of Civil Engineering, British
Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada, Report CERP-2011/01, 63 pp.
Schacher,T. and Roux,G. (2012). Concrete Block Description Sheets, the Swiss Office for
Coopration, Centre for Reconstruction, Haiti.
Schacher,T. (2012a). Personal Communication.
Yeung,S. (2012). Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete Blocks and Cylinders Using Sound
Frequency and Schmidt Hammer, CIVL 4090 Industry Project, Department of Civil
Engineering, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 29 pp.

12

Appendix A
Haitian Block Dimensions (Rafati, 2011)

Table A-1. Measured Physical Dimensions of Concrete Blocks

Block
Location

Source

Length
External
Dimension Thickness
FS1-1
FS1-2
FS1-3
Face Shell
FS2-1
FS2-2
FS2-3
EW1
External
Web
EW2
IW1
Internal
Web
IW2
CV1
Core
CV2
(Vertical)
CV3
CH1
Core
CH2
(Horizontal)
CH3

C6-1

H6-1
H6-2
H8-1
Haitian
Haitian
Haitian
Canadian
(3)
(4)
(1)
Dimension Measurements (mm)
391.5
401.0
398.0
394.0
141.0
145.4
145.2
195.0
26.7
29.2
28.8
30.7
26.7
29.1
29.5
31.9
N/A
28.9
29.6
32.5
27.1
27.3
30.1
34.8
27.1
28.4
29.0
34.5
N/A
28.0
29.1
34.5
27
29.4
35.1
27.1
27.5
30.2
28.5
26.2
27.6
30.5
31.9
28.3
N/A
30.0
30.9
28.8
86.5
88.9
86.3
129.5
86.5
87.9
86.7
128.6
N/A
88.5
86.5
128.0
154.5
79.9
76.6
71.1
154.9
81.0
77.6
71.5
N/A
78.6
77.7
71.7

H8-2
Haitian
(2)
402.0
200.0
34.3
34.0
33.3
33.5
34.0
34.7
35.0
33.6
35.8
35.4
132.2
132.0
132.0
80.1
79.4
79.6

Figure A-1. Concrete block dimensions-notation

13