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 applied to measure concrete modulus of elasticity non-destructively whilst compression machine was used to obtain the modulus of elasticity of concrete destructively. For more convenient with the NDT result, it needs to validate the result with the standard test using destructive method. Twenty seven cylinder specimens together with nine beams of 150x250x2500 mm were used. Prior to assess the beam specimens, both non-destructive and destructive test apply to the cylinder specimens for verifying the NDT equipment. Results show that density of material affects the value of modulus of elasticity significantly. A new relationship between static modulus of elasticity, Ec, and dynamic modulus of elasticity, Ed, was proposed. Applying the model proposed to assess the beam specimens produce strength varies from 0.72 to 0.90 toward strength obtain using cylinder test for normal weight concrete. However, for lightweight concrete the proposed model produced strength prediction varies from 1.13 to 1.22 toward cylinder strength. Keywords: concrete, modulus of elasticity, compression strength, PUNDITplus, NDT ABSTRAK Metode pengujian dengan cara tidak merusak benda uji (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 elastis dengan cara tidak merusak benda uji sedangkan mesin tekan digunakan untuk mengukur modulus elastis dengan cara merusak benda uji. Untuk memberikan hasil yang lebih memuaskan dan meyakinkan dari peralatan NDT diperlukan verifikasi dan validasi hasil 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 uji balok terlebih dahulu dilakukan validasi alat tersebut pada benda uji silinder dengan menggunakan kedua metode pengujian. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa modulus elastis sangat tergantung dari nilai berat jenis atau kepadatan bahan. Hubungan antara modulus elastis statis, Ec, dan modulus elastis dinamis, Ed, diperkenalkan. Dengan menggunakan model tersebut dalam menilai kekuatan benda uji 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 elastisitas,kuat tekan,Pundit,NDT

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

93

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

INTRODUCTION Non-destructive testing (NDT) is an effective method for quickly testing and evaluating the properties of materials, which does not destroy the physical, mechanical, even chemical properties of materials and has no influence on future performance. This method of NDT is preferred because of its distinct advantage over the physical properties test. Portable Ultrasonic Non-destructive Digital Indicating Tester (PUNDIT) is one of the NDT equipment specially designed for non-destructive assessment of massive material. The exploitation and application of this technology have been quickly developed in concrete fields for its evident advantages. In civil engineering application, this equipment has advantaged to solve the problem when the structural elements constructed 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 Car Park.

In 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. In the present study, the difference and relationship between dynamic MOE and static 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. LITERATURE REVIEW Physical properties 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 non-destructive 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) where V is pulse velocity in km/s, S is path length and t represent transit time (s). 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 been developed (Neville and Brokes, 1987). The MOE increases more rapidly 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 cement paste. The MOE obtained destructively using standard test in laboratory namely static MOE, Ec, whilst dynamic MOE, Ed, obtained from non-destructive test. The PUNDITplus equipment is developed with consider to some parameters such as path length, density and poissons ratio and dynamic MOD, Ed, is given by equation below (BS 1881-203, 1986; CNS Farnel Ltd, 2006).

Figure 1. Application of Pundit on concrete beam element

By the 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.

94

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

= 2 1 + 1 2 /(1 ).......(2) where, = density, v = velocity and = poissons ratio. The relationship between static and dynamic modulus of elasticity is given in the equation below (Nevile and Brokes, 1987). = 1.25 19 ....................(3) where Ec and Ed are expressed in GPa. The relation does not apply to concrete containing more than 500 kg of cement per cubic metre of concrete. When it is required to relate the dynamic modulus to strength, the static modulus may be estimated using equation (3) and substituted into either equation (4a) for normal weight concrete or equation (4b) for lightweight concrete where applicable. = 4700 .........................(4a) or = 0.75 4700 .................(4b) where Ec and fc are expressed in MPa. Modulus of elasticity obtained from cylinder standard test can be obtained from the following equation. = 2 1 2 0.00005 ...........(5) where S2 is stress about 40% of ultimate stress (0.4 fc), S1 is stress at strain value of 0.00005 and 2 is a strain value at the level stress of S2. METHODOLOGY Test 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 normal weight 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 non-destructively using Pundit equipment. Figure 2 shows the application of the Pundit

plus equipment to predict MOE of cylinder specimen. The equipment display value of MOE in GPa.
Table 1. w/c 0,58 0,45 0,40 Mix Proportions for 1 m concrete
Water (kg) Sand (kg) Gravel (kg) Pumice (kg) ID
3

PC (kg)

327 422 507,5

190 190 203

810 715 467,23

1073 1073 -

NWC 382,3 LWC

Figure 2. Dynamic Modulus of elasticity, Ed, measurement using Pundit aparatus

Figure 3. Measurement of Static Modulus of elasticity, Ec.

In addition, compression test were done using Standard Compression machine as shown in Figure 3 produced stress and strain

95

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

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, Ed followed by destructive test producing static modulus of elasticity Ec. Both test results are compared and presented in Figure 5 below.
35 30 Ec (GPa) 25 20 15 10 5 10 20 30 Ed (GPa) 40 50
Ec =1.038 Ed -11,45

Left End

Middle

Right End

Pundits Transducer

Figure 4. Strength assessment of beam using PUNDIT aparatus

Figure 5. Comparasion between Static and dynamic Ec

RESULTS 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 coarse aggregate. From the stress and strain relationship as shown in Figure 4 it can be calculated modulus of elasticity (MOE) using equation (4).
30 25 Stress (MPa) 20 15 10 5 0 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 Strain 0.0030 LWC NWC

From the figure it can be seen that there is a linear relationship between Ec and Ed. 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). = 1.038 11,45 ....................(5) For more comprehensive discussion the test results obtained by both test method is presented in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that two types of concrete specimen of lightweight concrete (LWC) and normal weight concrete (NWC) were tested using static and dynamic test method.

45000 40000 35000 30000


LWC NWC

Ed Ec

E (MPa)

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1000

Ec, Eq (3)

1500

2000

2500

3000

Density

(kg/m3)

Figure 4. Typical relationship of Stress-Strain cylinder specimen.

Figure 6. Concrete modulus of elasticity against density

96

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

Table 1. Results of Beams assessment using PUNDITplus BEAM SPECIMEN


(1)

Left End
(2)

Ed (MPa) Middle Right End


(3) (4)

Average
(5)

Ec (MPa)
(6)

f'c (MPa)1
(7)

f'c (MPa)2
(8)

Ratio
(9)=(7)/(8)

NWC17 2 NWC17 3 NWC17 5 NWC30 2 NWC30 3 NWC30 5 LWC17 2 LWC17 3 LWC17 5

34000 32500 33000 34500 33800 34400 25000 26700 26800

32000 34900 34000 38300 35500 43400 26400 28000 25200

34000 35000 32000 35000 37400 33000 27400 26000 27200

33300 34100 33000 35900 35600 36900 26300 26900 26400

23100 23900 22800 25800 25500 26900 15800 16500 16000

24,16 25,86 23,53 30,13 29,44 32,76 20,09 21,91 20,60

28,50 29,02 29,25 40,69 41,05 36,23 17,83 17,90 18,11

0,85 0,89 0,80 0,74 0,72 0,90 1,13 1,22 1,14

Note: 1. PUNDIT assessment 2. Cylinder test

In 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 (Ed) 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. In addition, Equation (5) was used to obtain Ec 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 PUNDITplus 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 1 between column (7) and (8) is due to different object tested ie beams and cylinder

specimens 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 straightforward the density of the beam. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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 produced. 2. Strength prediction of the beam studied varies from 0.72 to 0.90 toward cylinder strength for NWC but varies 1.13 to 1.22 for LWC. 3. Strength prediction using PUNDIT for normal weight concrete underestimate the strength given by the standard test. 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

97

Volume 9 No 2, Desember 2008

Lightweight Concrete (ACI 211.298), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 20 pp. BS 1881-203, 1986, Testing concrete.

Recommendations for measurement of velocity of ultrasonic pulses in concrete, British Standards Institution.
Farnel, CNS, 2006, Manual instruction of PUNDITplus, CNS electronic ltd.

Neville A.M., Brooks, J.J., 1987, Concrete Technology, Longman Tanyildizi, H. And Ahmet Coskun, 2007, Fuzzy logic model for prediction of compressive strength of lightweight concrete made with scoria aggregate and fly ash, International earthquake symposium Kocaeli.

98