You are on page 1of 6

Volume 9 No 2.

Desember 2008

UTILISING NDT APARATUS FOR STRENGTH ASSESMENT OF CONCRETE


STRUCTURAL ELEMENT

Penggunaan Peralatan NDT Untuk Menilai Kekuatan Elemen Struktur beton


Akmaluddin
ABSTRACT
Non-destructive test (NDT) method was preferred due to it has advantaged to solve the
problem when the structural elements constructed are questionable by the client. PUNDIT was one
of NDT equipment apptied to measure concrete modulus of elasticity non-destructively whilst
cornpression machine was used to obtain the modutus of elasticity of concrete destructively. For
more convenient with the NDT result, if needs to validate the result with the standard fest using
destructive methad.

Twenty seyen cylinder specimens together with nine beams of 150x250x2500 mm were
used. Prior fo assess the beam specimens, both non-destructive and destructive test apply to the
cylinder specimens for verifying the NDT equipment.
Resu/ts show that density of material affects the value of modulus of elasticity significantly.
A new retationship between static modulus of elasticity, E", and dynamic modulus of elasticity, E6,
was proposed. Applying the modet proposed fo assess the beam specimens produce strength
varies from 0.72 to 0.9A bward strength obtain using cylinder fest for normal weight concrete.
However, for tightvveight concrete the proposed model produced strength prediction varies from
1 .13 to 1 .22 toward cylinder strength.
Keywords: concrete, modulus of elasticity, compression strength, PUNDlTplus, NDT
ABSTRAK
Metode pengujian dengan cara tidak merusak benda uii (NDT) lebih disukai oleh karena
manfaatnya yang besar dalam mengevaluasi atau menilai kekuatan elemen struktur bangunan

yang diragukan kualitasnya karena kesalahan pengerjaan. PUNDIT merupakan salah satu
peralatan NDT yang digunakan untuk mengetahui nilai modulus e/asfls dengan cara tidak merusak
benda uji sedangkan mesin tekan digunakan untuk mengukur modulus e/astts dengan cara
merusak benda uji. Untuk membeikan hasil yang lebih memuaskan dan meyakinkan dari peralatan
NDT diperlukan verifikasi dan validasi has/ NDT terhadap hasil uji metode standar.
Silinder sebanyak 27 buah dan balok berukuran 150x250x2500 digunakan dalam pengujian
ini. Sebelum pengujian dilakukan untuk mengestimatsi kekuatan benda uii balok terlebih dahulu
dilakukan validasi alat tersebut pada benda uji silinder dengan menggunakan kedua metode
pengujian.

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa modulus e/asfls sangat tergantung dari nilai berat jenis atau
kepadatan bahan. Hubungan antara modulus e/asfls stafls, E", dan modulus e/astrs dinamis, E6,
diperkenalkan. Dengan menggunakan model tersebut dalam menilai kekuatan benda uii balok
diperoleh bahwa hasil prediksi kekuatan balok underestimate atau bervariasi dari 0,72 sampai 0.90
terhadap hasil uji silinder untuk balok beton normal. Namun untuk balok beton ringan hasil prediksi
overestimate kekuatan silinder yaitu bervariasi dari 1 .13 sampai 1.22.
Kata kunci : beton, modulus e/astisitas,kuat tekan,Pundit,NDT

'
93

Akmaluddin, ST., MSc (Eng), Ph.D., Pengajar pada Jurusan Teknik Sipil Teknik Universitas Mataram
Sanggahan dan diskusi tentang tulisan ini harus sudah diserahkan ke redaksi sebelum 30 Maret 2009

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

INTRODUCTION

Non{estructive testing (NDT) is an


effective method for quickly testing and
evaluating the properties of materials, which
does not destroy the physical, mechanical,

ln this paper however, the primary


objective of this study is to investigate the
dynamic MOE of normal weight concrete
(NWC) and lightweight concrete (LWC) beam
obtained from Pundit aparatus in laboratory
only.

even chemical properties of materials and has

ln the present study, the difference and

performance. This
method of NDT is preferred because of its
distinct advantage over the physical properties
test. Portable Ultrasonic Nondestructive
Digital lndicating Tester (PUNDIT) is one of
the NDT equipment specially designed for

MOE were analyzed and the accurateness


and reliability of MOE evaluated by the NDT
techniques were discussed. The findings of
this study can provide scientific references for
quickly testing concrete structure.

no influence on future

nondestructive assessment of massive


material. The exploitation and application of

this technology have been quickly developed


in concrete fields for its evident advantages.
ln civil engineering application, this
equipment has advantaged to solve the

problem when

the

structural

elements

cpnstructed are questionable by the client.

Basically the equipment give real time


modulus of elasticity (MOE) reading of
material tested. However, for more convenient

with the result produced by the equipment


when utilising it in specific structural concrete
material, it should be validated. Figure 1
shows example application of the equipment
on beam structural element of Mataram Mall

relationship between dynamic MOE and static

LITERATURE REVIEW
Physical propertles of concrete can be

detected by, for example the speed of an


ultrasonic pulse propagation through the
concrete. The application of ultrasonic pulse
velocity (UPV) to the nondestructive
evaluation of concrete quality has been widely
investigated. However, their effects on the
ultrasound and the relationship between
compressive strength and UPV have received
little attention (Tanyildizi and Coskun, 2007).
The pulse velocity can be determined from the
following equation (BS 1881-203, 1986)

. . .. .... .....(1)
tr/ = Sr/f
where I/ is pulse velocity In km/s, S is path
length and t represent transit time (ps).

Car Park.

The MOE, one of primary indexes

in

evaluating mechanical properties of concrete,

indicates the degree of concrete resisting


distortion. A higher value of MOE indicates
that the material is not easy to be distorted
and has a high rigidity. A prediction model of

MOE using NDT technique has

Figure 1. Application of Pundit on concrete beam

By the

cement paste.

contractor request,

the
equipment was applied for assessment of the
car park building element due to construction
doubted as the material used to perform the
element did not compliance with specification

of the concrete strength determined. Before


utilising the equipment, it has been done

testing on laboratory prior to test existing of


beam specimens.

been

developed (Neville and Brokes, 1987). The


MOE increases more rapidty than strength.
The MOE of lightweight aggregate concrete is
usually between 40 and 80 per cent of the
MOE of normal weight concrete of the same
strength, and, in fact, is similar to that of the

The MOE obtained destructively using


standard test in laboratory namely static MOE,
8", whilst dynamic MOE, Ed, obtained from
PUNDlTplus
non-destructive
equipment is developed with consider to some
parameters such as path length, density and
poisson's ratio and dynamic MOD, Ed, is given
by equation below (BS 1BB1-203, 1986; CNS
Farnel Ltd, 2006).

test. The

g4

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

i,

!','t'L-

where,i =

6)(L
density, v

-2o.tli.l - 6)

velocitY and

(2)

poisson's ratio.
The relationship between static and dynamic
modulus of elasticity is given in the equation
below (Nevile and Brokes, 1987)

i:

1.15E:

1S .

...

'...

plus equipment to predict MOE of cylinder


specimen. The equipment display value of
MOE in GPa.

1. Mix Proportions for 1 m3 concrete

Table

\l alel
tlgt

Sand
(LP)

327

r90

8r0

073

0.45

422

rqo

715

073

0.40

507.5

(3)

where E, and E1 ?ra expressed in GPa. The


relation does not apply to concrete containing
more than 500 kg of cement per cubic metre
of concrete.

it is required to relate the dynamic


modulus to strength, the static modulus may
be estimated using equation (3) and

When

(irarcl
tkgr

PC
{lBt
0.5

Pttntie<

ID

r[1't

NW(

203

467.23

182.3

I-\\',C

substituted into either equation (4a) for normal


for
lightweight concrete where applicable.

weight concrete or equation (4b)

i, =.1i00.?

or

ir

= 0,75

{700..';,

.-

.(4a)

.'

. ..

(4b)

E,andf ,are expressed in MPa.


Modulus of elasticity obtained from cylinder
standard test n be obtained from the

where

following equation.

r _ ,'s,-:
- (.i,i i-.'" - 0.00005i -. . (5)
-! where 52 is stress about 40% of ultimate
stress (O 4 f,), 51 is stress at strain value of
0.00005 and ez is a strain value at the level
stress of

g;nure

Z-ffiamic

Modulus of elasticity, Ei, mzsUlmeflt

52.

METHODOLOGY

Iest specimens
Nine beams of 150x250x2500 mm
reinforced with three different reinforcement
ratio were prepared to be measured their

modulus of elasticity. Three groups of cylinder


specimens of 150 x 300 mm length taken from

the beam concrete mixture were used with


three different mix proportions. Each group

consisted of nine specimens from each batch

of the concrete mixture. The cylinders were

tested at age 28 days after water curing. Table


1 presents detail mix proportion to produce
two normalweight concrete of 17 and 30 MPa
and a lightweight concrete of 17 MPa as refers
to ACI 211.2'98.

Test procedure
Prior to destructive testing using UTM
machine, specimen was scaled and tested
nondestructively using Pundit equipment'
Figure 2 shows the application of the Pundit

95

Modulus of elasticitY, Ec.

ln addition, compression test were done using


Standard Compression machine as shown in

Figure

produced stress

and

strain

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2@8

relationship. From the relationship the MOE


can be generated by applying equation (5).

Finally,

to

asses strength

of

beam,

the

PUNDIT was applied by direct transmission


technique to surface of the beam in three
places as shown in Figure 4 below.

Cylinder specimens of normal weight


and lightweight concrete were tested. Firstly,
non-destructive test method was applied
producing dynamic modulus of elasticity, E6
followed by destructive test producing static
modulus of elasticity E". Both test results are
compared and presented in Figure 5 below.

*,.,,,

#N

=1 038 E{-1 1,45

la.a

o
I

Pundit's
Transducer

Right
End

Figure 4. Strength assessment of beam using PUNDIT

Figure 5. Comparasion between Static and dynamic Ec

aparatus

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Strength test results obtained from


destructive test on cylinder specimen of
normal weight and lightweight concrete are
presented in Figure 4. From the figure it can
be seen that normal weight concrete produce
higher strength than lightweight concrete. This

is

caused by coarse aggregate used to


perform normal weight concrete has specific

gravity higher than pumice as lightweight


marse aggregate. From the stress and strain
relationship as shown in Figure 4 it can be
calculated modulus of elasticity (MOE) using
equation (4).

From the figure it can be seen that


there is a linear relationship between E. and
E6. For more convenient the relationship is
presented as Equation (5). This equation
produced results with trend similar to results
produced by the British Standard as given
previously by Equation (3).
trc = 1.038Eci - 11,'15. ..... .... ..(5)
For more comprehensive discussion the test

results obtained

by both test method

is

presented in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that two

of concrete specimen of lightweight


concrete (LWC) and normal weight concrete
(NWC) were tested using static and dynamic
test method.
types

30
25

45000

{0000

e20
o-

35rOO

30mo

:15
=
o
o
o

L
a

{25ooo

$zoaN

-._

iU

ul15000
1rt00l
5t100

Figure

0000

0Cj10

Strsi n

4. Typical relationship of

0020

0 0030

Stress-Strain cylinder

specimen.
Figure 6. Conqete modulus of elasticity against density

in

96

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

PUNDIT

Table 1. Results of Beams assessment


BEAM

SPECIMEN Left

(1)

NWC17 2
NWC17
NWC17
NWC30
NWC30
NWC30
LWC17
LWC17
LWC17

Ec

Ed (MPa)

3
5
2
3
5
2
3
5

End

Middle

ffi(Mpa)

(4)
(3)
(2)
34000 32000 34000
32s00 34900 35000
33000 34000 32000
34500 38300 35000
33800 35500 37400
34400 43400 33000

26400 27400
26700 28000 26000
26800 25200 27200
25AO0

fc

Plus

(Mpa)1

fc

Ratio

(Mpa)2

(8) (e)=(il(8)
(6)
(7)
($
33300 23100 24,16 28,50 0,85
0,89
34100 23900 25,86 29,02
33000 22800 23,53 29,25 0,80
35900 25800 30,13 40,69 0,74
0,72
35600 25500 29.44 41,05
0,90
36900 26900 32,76 36,23
1,13
26300 15800 20,09 17 ,83
1,22
26900 16500 21,91 17,90
1,14
26400 16000 20,60 18,',|1

Note: 1. PUNDIT assessment


2. Cylinder test

ln all cases dynamic test method

produced
higher value of E than the static one. However,
both methods have similar trend which is
increasing as concrete density increased. This

result suggested that density of the concrete


affect the values of modulus of elasticity.
Therefore it is reasonable to use PUNDIT plus
for assessing concrete beam.
Three places on beam surface as shown in
Figure 4 were scanned by the equipment
producing results (E6) as given in column (2),
(3) and (4) for left end, middle and right end of
the beam respectively. The average value of
the results was taken to represent dynamic
MOE of the beam as given in column (5) of
Table 1. ln addition, Equation (5) was used to
obtain E" values and results presented in
column (6) of Table 1. Furthermore, the
strength of concrete beam was obtained by
applying equation (4) and results shown in

column (7). The strength values were


compared with the strength obtained from
cylinder test (column (8) Table 1) and
represented in ratio between strength obtain

using PUNDIT and the test cylinder as given in


column (9) of Table 1.
From Table 1, it can be seen that the strength

prediction of the beam using PUNDlTplus for


normal weight concrete, gave value lower than

the strength value produce using standard


test. However, for light weight concrete
produce over estimate prediction when
compare to cylinder test results.

The different result showed in Table

between column (7) and (8) is due to different


object tested ie beams and cylinder specimens

97

respectively. Although the beams have similar


mix proportion to cylinder specimens, however
treatment given to the cylinder and the beam

was different especially in compacting the


specimens as a results the density could be
different. Therefore, the value of MOE
obtained from the beam tested give more

realistic value than the value obtained from the


cylinder test, because the value obtained has
considered straightfonrvard the density of the
beam.

CONGLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

The following conclusions are drawn from the


study:

1.

The values of MOE rely on density of the


specimen tested. The more value of the
density the more modulus of elasticity

2.

Strength prediction of the beam studied


varies trom 0.72 to 0.90 toward cylinder
strength for NWC but varies 1.13 to 1.22
for LWC.
Strength prediction using PUNDIT for
normal weight concrete underestimate
the strength given by the standard test.

3.

produced.

4. Strength of lightweight concrete

evaluated by PUNDIT overestimated the


strength obtained using standard test.

For more comprehensive evaluation

it

is

needed to study more specimens to improve


the model proposed.
REFERENCES

ACI Committee 211, Standard Practice for


Selecting Proportions

for

Structural

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 200g

Lightweight Concrete (ACt 21 1.2-gS),

American Concrete

BS

Farmington Hiils, MI, 20 pp.

1881-203, 1986, Testing

lnstitute,
concrete.

Recommendations for measurement


of velocity of ultrasonrb pulses in
concrete, British Standards lnstitution.
Farnel, CNS, 2006, Manual instruction of
PUNDtTplus, CNS electronic ttd.

Neville A.M., Brooks, J.J., 1997, Concrete


Technology, Longman

Tanyildizi, H. and Ahmet Coskun, 2A07, Fuzzy

logic model for prediction

of

compressive strength of lightweight


concrete made with scoia aggregate
and fly ash, lnternational earthquake
symposlum
Kocaeli

98