COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FLEXURAL STRENGTH PREDICTION MODELS

BETWEEN CENTER POINT AND THIRD POINT FLEXURAL TESTS IN

CONCRETE BEAMS USING ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY

by

Belen, Jurell Rommel S.

Dizon, Anthonette Jean B.
Roa, Loraiza Nicole Ann Y.
Salinas Jr., Robert P.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

at

FEU Institute of Technology

June 2017

Thesis Adviser
Engr. Nolan C. Concha

©2017FEU Institute of Technology.

All Rights Reserved
The author/s grant FEU Institute of Technology permission to reproduce and distribute
the contents of this document in whole or in part
 APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE SHEET

The thesis entitled “Comparative Analysis of Flexural Strength Prediction Models Between
Center Point and Third Point Flexural Tests in Concrete Beams Using Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity” prepared and submitted by:

Bellen, Jurell Rommel S.

Dizon, Anthonette Jean B.
Roa, Loraiza Nicole Ann Y.
Salinas Jr., Robert P.

In partial fulfillment of the course of requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering has been examined and is hereby recommended for approval.

___________________________ _____________________________
Engr. John Ray H. Benawe Engr. Orlando P. Lopez
Panelist 1 Panelist 2

________________________
Engr. Gerardo D. Abestilla
Head Panelist

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Civil Engineering.

___________________________ __________________________
Engr. Nolan C. Concha Engr. Armi M. Cunanan - Yabut
Thesis Adviser Course Adviser

________________________
Engr. Orlando Lopez
Department Head

May 29, 2017

Date

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, we would like to thank our Heavenly Father for the knowledge and

guidance He gave us to finish this research paper in the right manner, and also for the unlimited

love, guidance, hope and grace we receive in every single day.

We would like to extend our gratitude to our department director, Engr. Orlando Lopez in

referring us to DPWH- BRS to be able to conduct our third-point flexural test in their testing

center, assisting us in using the equipment and in approving the use of materials laboratory. To

our adviser, Engr. Nolan Concha and our thesis coordinator, Engr. Armi Cunanan-Yabut for their

advices, and sharing their knowledge and support in all time of research and writing. Both of

them gave us the motivation and courage we need to fulfill this research. Without them, this

research will not be possible.

To Department of Public Works and Highways – Bureau of Research and Standards, we

would like to acknowledge their willingness to help in the gathering of data in our study. We are

sincerely thankful for granting us the privilege of using their Universal Testing Machine for our

Third- Point Flexural Test.

Our sincere thanks to our family and close friends for their unconditional love, support,

advices, and for uplifting our fighting spirits every time we are down and out of ideas. We also

acknowledge Ian Kendall Santiago for his eagerness in helping us from the making of the

samples up to its transportation to the testing center of DPWH –BRS. To Bianca Nepomuceno

for helping us during testing when we need additional people in the recording of our data.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THESIS TITLE……………………………………………………………………………….……i

APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE SHEET .............................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.............................................................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. v

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1Background of the Study ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 2

1.3Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 5

1.6 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Testing of Concrete ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Destructive Test ............................................................................................................ 7

2.1.1.1 Universal Testing Machine .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.1.2 Center Point Loading Test............................................................................................ 8
2.1.1.3 Third Point Loading Test ............................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Non Destructive Test ..................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity............................................................................................. 9

v
2.2 Regression Analysis ...............................................................................................................12

2.2.1 Linear Regression Analysis ...........................................................................................13

2.2.2 Linear Regression Models .............................................................................................15
2.3 Studies about Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ....................................................................................16

2.3.1 Assessment of Concrete Strength at High Temperatures using UPV....................................16

2.3.2 Relationship between Flexural Strength and Compressive Strength of Palm Kernel Shell
Concrete ..............................................................................................................................19
2.3.3 Structural Health Monitoring Using Non Destructive Testing of Concrete ...........................20
2.3.4 Combination of destructive and non-destructive methods for structures ...............................21
2.3.5 Correlation between Concrete Strength and Nondestructive Test for Concrete Using High-
Early Strength Cement ..........................................................................................................22
2.3.6 Estimation of Flexural Strength of Plain Concrete from Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity................23
2.3.7 Evaluation of Cement Mortars by Ultrasound...................................................................24
2.3.8 Comparison of Destructive and Nondestructive methods of material properties testing with
focus to historical building materials – masonry (ceramics and stone), mortars and plasters ...........25
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 26

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 26

3.1 Material Testing .....................................................................................................................26

3.1.1 Cement........................................................................................................................26
3.1.1.2 Specific Gravity of Portland Cement ............................................................................27
3.1.2 Sand and Gravel ...........................................................................................................28
3.2Sample Preparation and Testing ................................................................................................32

3.2.1 Design Mix ..................................................................................................................32

3.2.2 Slump Test ..................................................................................................................32
3.2.3 Curing .........................................................................................................................33
3.2.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ..............................................................................................33
3.2.5 Universal Testing Machine ............................................................................................35
4.6Regression Analysis ................................................................................................................36

3.3.1 Plot of Flexural Strength and UPV at Center Point............................................................36

3.3.2 Plot of Flexural Strength and UPV at Third Point .............................................................36
3.3.3 Regression Models .......................................................................................................36
3.3.4 Testing of Accuracy of the Models .................................................................................36
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 37

vi
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 37

4.1Material Tests Results..............................................................................................................37

4.1.1Cement ........................................................................................................................37
4.1.2Sand ............................................................................................................................38
4.1.3Gravel ..........................................................................................................................39
4.2 Physical Test Results ..............................................................................................................40

4.1.1 Dimension of Each Concrete Beam Sample .....................................................................42

4.2Mechanical Test Results ..........................................................................................................43

4.3.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Results ............................................................................43

4.3.2 Flexural Strength Test ...................................................................................................45
4.4 Prediction Models ..................................................................................................................48

4.4.1 Prediction Model of UPV and Center Point Flexural Strength ............................................48
4.4.2 Prediction Model of UPV and Third Point Flexural Strength ..............................................49
4.5 Testing of Accuracy of Models ................................................................................................50

4.5.1 Accuracy for UPV and Flexural Strength at Center Point...................................................50

4.5.2 Accuracy for UPV and Flexural Strength at Third Point ....................................................50
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 52

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 52

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 54

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 54

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 55

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 57

vii
 ABSTRACT

Performing destructive test on built structure is costly and sometimes impossible. There

are other ways in assessing the strength of concrete. Examples of these are non-destructive tests

like the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test. This is done by measuring the time of travel of

sonic waves in the through the sample. This study aims to compare and analyze prediction

models of flexural strength tests between center point and third point loading in concrete beams

using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Subsequent to this, the study aims to assess the quality of

concrete using UPV and determine the more suitable model based on reliability test. Seventy

samples were made to be tested both in center point and third point flexural strength test. The

samples were also tested in their strength using ultrasonic pulse velocity test. Based on the result,

the samples are good in quality after meeting the standard requirements. However, the prediction

models obtained determined no correlation between the variables as it showed a very low

correlation coefficient. Although both obtained low correlation, the center point showed to be

more suitable than that of the third point.

Keywords: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, Flexural Strength, Center Point Flexural Strength, Third
Point Flexural Strength, Correlation

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1 Concrete Quality Grading [5] ...................................................................................... 34

Table 2. 1Concrete Quality Grading [5] ....................................................................................... 10

Table 4. 1 Results of Sieve Analysis for Fine Aggregates ........................................................... 38

Table 4. 2 Results of Sieve Analysis for Coarse Aggregates ....................................................... 39

Table 4. 3 Data Gathered for Physical Testing ............................................................................. 40

Table 4. 4 Results of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ........................................................................... 43

Table 4. 5 Results of Flexural Test at Center Point ...................................................................... 46

Table 4. 6 Results of Flexural Test at Third Point ........................................................................ 47

Table 4. 7 Validation for Center Point Loading ........................................................................... 50

Table 4. 8 Validation for Third Point Loading ............................................................................. 50

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 Different Positions of Transducer Placement ............................................................. 11

Figure 2. 2 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 40 MPa [10] ................ 18

Figure 2. 3 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 70 MPa [10] ................ 18

Figure 2. 4 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 90 MPa [10] ................ 18

Figure 3. 1 Cement Testing ........................................................................................................... 27

Figure 3. 2 Sieve Analysis of Sand and Gravel ............................................................................ 28

Figure 3. 3 Testing for specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregates .................................. 30

Figure 3. 4 Testing for specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregates .............................. 31

Figure 3. 5 Slump Test .................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 3. 6 Curing ......................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 3. 7 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ........................................................................................... 34

Figure 3. 8 Universal Testing Machine......................................................................................... 35

x
 LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

DT- Destructive Test

NDT – Non Destructive Test

UPV- Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

UTM – Universal Testing Machine

xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Concrete is a widely used material in building structures nowadays. It is known for

its high durability and can withstand high temperatures making it a very important

material in Civil Engineering. Thus, having a good quality of concrete is a major

necessity in building structures to ensure the safety of the people [1].

The Flexural strength of concrete is an important property of concrete. It is a basic

parameter in computing for deflection in reinforced concrete structures. There are many

methods to assess the strength of concrete such as non-destructive test methods.

Examples of these are Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (UPV), Rebound Hammer Test

(RH). These methods are considered indirect and predicted tests to determine concrete

strength. These tests were affected by many parameters that depend on the material used

in production of concrete. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity is used to assess the concrete

flexural strength. It is also used to measure the velocity of the wave in concrete by

placing a transmitter and a receiver at each side of the concrete element.

In performing the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, the transmitter and the receiver is

pressed into the concrete sample. The length of the sample and the travel time of the

ultrasonic pulse from the transmitter to the receiver is measured. From these data, the

pulse velocity may be computed and from the result of the test, a high velocity indicates a

good quality concrete while a low velocity would mean a damaged or low quality

concrete sample.
 2

In order to establish the connection between Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and the

flexural strength of concrete, simple regression analysis was performed. From the

regression analysis, predicted value of the flexural strength was obtained with the use of

the calculated pulse velocity of concrete.

In performing a destructive test on built structures are costly and sometimes

impossible. This type of testing sometimes requires equipment that is not available in the

site. Thus, results from the tests may not be obtained immediately. Another disadvantage

in performing a destructive test is the distinction of the sample concrete from the actual

structure. These differences are due some factors such as the curing and compaction of

the concrete.

In coming up with a model that can predict the flexural strengths of concrete with the

use of a nondestructive test, testing of a built structure may be made possible. With these

models, flexural strength of concrete was determined without performing a destructive

test. Thus, testing of structures may not be very costly. This study also performed a

comparative assessment of the models derived from the center point and third point

flexural strength tests in identifying which model provided a better prediction

performance.

1.2 Significance of the Study

This study is beneficial to civil engineers in providing a predicting model in

determining the quality of concrete with the use of a nondestructive method. With this

model, engineers will be able to test large-scale structures and can assess the deterioration

condition of the structure.

 3

This study will also help future researchers in conducting their study regarding the

quality of concrete using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. This may serve as their guide and

reference in achieving better results than previous studies conducted.

1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to perform comparative analysis of the flexural

strength prediction models between center point and third point flexural tests in concrete

beams using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.

The specific objectives include the following:

1. measure the flexural strength of hardened concrete using center point and third

point flexural tests.

2. assess the quality of concrete using UPV.

3. develop a simple regression models for flexural strength and Ultrasonic Pulse

Velocity of concrete.

4. determine the more suitable model prediction between center point and third point

flexural strength models based on reliability test.

 4

1.4 Scope and Limitations

This study covered the flexural strength of concrete with the use of Ultrasonic

Pulse Velocity. The researchers tested thirty (30) samples 6 inches in width, 6 inches in

height and 21 inches in length beam-shaped concrete for flexural strength using center

point and thirty (30) sample of 6 inches in width, 6 inches in height and 21 inches in

length beam-shaped concrete for flexural strength using third point and ten (10) samples

6 inches in width, 6 inches in height and 21 inches in length beam-shaped concrete for

reliability test. Simple regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship of

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity to the concrete’s strength. The design mix class A (1:2:4), 1

part cement, 2 parts fine aggregates and 4 parts coarse aggregates in accordance to

Building Code of the Philippines was adopted and factors affecting concrete strength

such as cement type, water-cement ratio, admixtures and age of concrete was not

considered as input variable in the prediction models. A 28 days period was required to

cure the concrete at a room temperature. Submerged in water and placed in a curing tank.

The method of nondestructive testing was only limited to Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.
 5

1.5 Conceptual Framework

Figure 1.1 shows the schematic flow of this study. The researchers was conducted

destructive and nondestructive test on various concrete sample and develop a prediction

models using simple regression analysis. Sixty (60) beam-shaped concrete samples with

the same ratio of concrete mixtures was used to generate the models and ten (10)

additional samples was used for reliability test. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity tester was also

used in obtaining flexural strength of concrete. The concrete samples was tested using the

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV). The results that gathered from the testing was used in

making a graph about flexural strength relating to Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity through of

regression analysis. The graph obtained was used in creating a prediction model for

flexural strength of concrete using center point and third point tests.

PROCESS
INPUT OUTPUT
• Testing of Concrete
Samples using Utrasonic
Pulse Velocity
• Material Properties
• Seventy Beam Shaped
• Test for Flexural Strength Prediction models for
using Center Point flexural strength of
Concrete Samples
• Test for Flexural Strength
using Third Point
concrete for center
• Regression Analysis point and third point
• Reliability Test of test
Prediction Models

Figure 1.1Conceptual Framework

 6

1.6 Definition of Terms

 Center Point Test- the load is applied at the center of the span. The maximum

stress occurs at the center of the beam under the load location.

 Concrete- mix of cement, water, sand, and gravel that hardens into a super-strong

building material.

 Destructive Test- includes methods where your material is broken down in order

to determine mechanical properties, such as strength, toughness and hardness.

 Flexural Strength – the ability to resist deformation under load.

 Non-Destructive Test - is the process of inspecting, testing, or evaluating

materials, components or assemblies for discontinuities, or differences in

characteristics without destroying the serviceability of the part or system.

 Regression Analysis- is used when you want to predict a continuous dependent

variable from a number of independent variables.

 Third Point Test- the load is applied at two points at one-third of the span length.

Maximum stress occurs over the center 1/3 portion of the beam.

 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity- the method consists of measuring the time of travel of

an ultrasonic pulse passing through the concrete being tested. Comparatively

higher velocity is obtained when concrete quality is good in terms of density,

uniformity, homogeneity etc.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviewed the concepts of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, flexural strength, the

equipment used and the methods that were followed in obtaining the ultrasonic pulse velocity.

Reviewing the remedial works for curing methods and review the published equations for

finding the relation between flexural strength and UPV.

2.1 Testing of Concrete

2.1.1 Destructive Test

Destructive test is basically breaking down the concrete in a controlled manner to

test the hardness and durability of concrete. It is performed under the most severe

operating conditions and continues until the application breaks. Its main purpose is to

show the under working conditions and the duration service life of concrete and identify

the critical weakness of material. The test gives more information than non-destructive

test. It is economic for project that will be mass-produced; destroying small samples will

be insignificant in the total cost.

Destructive test can be used to attain the strength and toughness that the concrete

samples can do. Destructive tests in turn indicate how and when the objects are in danger

of breaking down or failing. It is a physical analysis to find the mechanical properties of

concrete in order to understand the performance and material behavior of the concrete.

2.1.1.1 Universal Testing Machine

A universal testing machine, also known as a universal tester, material

testing machine or material test frame, is used to test the tensile stress and
 8

compressive strength of materials. It is composed of two load components; a load

cell and a cross head. Load cell is required a force transducer or other means of

measuring. It is calibrated to provide specific voltage that serves as an output

signal when a particular force is detected.

It can either be escalated so that the concrete sample will be in direct

contact [2]. A cross head or also known as constant rate extension machine (CRE)

is required to be moved up and down at a constant speed [3]. Calibration and

Verification are two different methods. Calibration is the process of identification

of error in the magnitude of the certain loads while verification is a calibration

that ascertains that errors obtained are within predetermined range. It is also the

certification that the machine meets the accuracy requirements [2].

2.1.1.2 Center Point Loading Test

In this test method, the entire load is applied at the center of the beam’s

span length. Here the flexural strength or modulus of rupture is higher than the

modulus of rupture of the third point loading test. The maximum stress is present

only at the center of the beam. The area of eventual failure contains not only

moment-induced stresses but also shear stress and unknown areas of stress

concentration [4].

2.1.1.3 Third Point Loading Test

Half the load is applied at each third of the beam’s span length. Here the

flexural strength or modulus of rupture is lower than that of the modulus of

rupture found in the center point loading test. In this test, the maximum stress is

present over the center one-third portion of the beam. The modulus of rupture is
 9

then calculated and reported as the flexural strength. The third-point loading test

is preferred because, ideally, in the middle third of the span the sample is

subjected to pure moment with zero shear [4].

2.1.2 Non Destructive Test

It is a method which evaluates the quality of concrete structures with regards to

their strength and durability apart from assessment and control of quality of hardened

concrete without or partial damage to the concrete.

2.1.2.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) is the most frequently used means of

Non Destructive Test (NDT). The results of this testing can be calculated. High

velocities indicate good quality of concrete, while low velocities reveal weak

concrete. The system for this testing is portable and can penetrate about 35 linear

feet of concrete.

The ultrasonic pulse velocity method is a stress wave propagation method

that involves measuring the time of travel of an ultrasonic pulse passing through

the concrete. The pulse velocity can be calculated by:

V=L/T (Equation 1)

Where:

L= path length of sample

T= travel time

The pulses are introduced into the concrete by a piezoelectric transducer

and arrival of the pulse. A timing circuit is used to measure the time it takes for

the pulse to travel from the transmitting to the receiving transducers. The presence
 10

of low density, or cracked, concrete increases the travel time which results in a

lower pulse velocity. By conducting tests at various points on a structure,

locations with lower quality concrete can be identified by their lower pulse

velocity.

Table 2.1 shows the guidelines for qualitative assessment of concrete

based on UPV test results. To make a more realistic assessment of the condition

of surface of a structural member, the pulse velocity can be combined with

rebound number.

Table 2. 1Concrete Quality Grading[5]

Velocity (km/s) Concrete Quality (Grading)

V> 4.5 Excellent

4.5 ≤ V≤ 3.5 Good

3.5≤ V≤ 3.0 Medium

V < 3.0 Doubtful

 11

Transmission Measuring Methods

The direction of the transducers with contact to the surface of the concrete

should be perpendicular and as much as possible, there is no air will enter

between the face of the instrument and the concrete. For best results, it is

advisable to test the concrete members for every quarter in a meter. It is possible

in measuring the pulse velocity by placing the two transducers in the following

manners.

1. Direct Transmission 2. Semi-Direct Transmission

3. Indirect Transmission

Figure 2. 1 Different Positions of Transducer Placement

 12

1. Direct Transmission

In this position, the two transducers are place directly opposite to each other

on the opposite faces of the concrete. The maximum transfers of energy will

easily detect by the receiving transducer. Additionally, the results will become

accurate.

2. Semi-Direct Transmission

This arrangement is otherwise similar to direct transmission. How, it is less

sensitive as compared to the arrangement of direct transmission. Also, there is a

reduction in accuracy when it comes to the result of the test. In most cases, it is

used when the surface of the concrete is not accessible.

3. Indirect Transmission

This arrangement should be used only when the two transmissions is not

possible (direct transducer and semi-direct transducer). This is called the surface

transmission because the placement of the transducers is adjacent to the surface of

the concrete. It is recommended to apply adequate coupling agent to ensure that

the ultrasonic pulses generated at the transmitting transducer should be able to

pass into the concrete and detected by the receiving transducers with minimum

losses [6].

2.2 Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis is a statistical tool for the investigation of relationships between

variables. The relationship model is hypothesized and the parameter’s estimated values are used

to develop an estimated regression equation. Various tests are then employed to determine if the

model is satisfactory. If deemed satisfactory, the estimated regression equation can be used to

predict values of the dependent variables with given values of the independent variables.
 13

Regression analysis is used for prediction and forecasting. It is also used to understand

which among the independent variables are related to the dependent variable which will then

explore the forms of these relationships. Under restricted circumstances, regression analysis can

be used to infer casual relationships between the independent and dependent variables. However,

this can lead to illusions or false relationships thus it is important to note that correlation does not

imply causation.

The performance of the methods of regression analysis depends on the form of the data

collecting process and how it relates to the regression technique being used. Since the original

form of the data collecting process is generally not known, regression analysis often depends to

some extent on making assumptions about the process. These assumptions are sometimes

testable if sufficient quantity of data is available. Regression models for prediction and

forecasting are often useful even then assumptions are moderately violated even though they will

not optimally perform. However, in many applications, regression methods can give misleading

results.

2.2.1 Linear Regression Analysis

Linear regression is the most basic and most used predictive analysis. Regression

estimates are used to describe data and to explain the relationship between one dependent

variable and one or more independent variables. The main task of regression analysis is

the fitting of a single line through a scatter plot. The simplest form with one dependent

and one independent variable is defined by the formula:

 14

y = c + bx (Equation 2)
where:

y = estimated dependent,

c = constant,

b=regression coefficients,

x = independent variable.

Sometimes the dependent variable is called a criterion variable, endogenous

variable, prognostic or regressand. The independent variables can be called exogenous

variables, predictor or regressors. However, linear regression analysis consists of more

than just a fitting line through a scatter plot. It consists of three stages. First is to analyze

the correlation and directionality of the data. Second is the estimation of the model and

third is the evaluation of the validity and usefulness of the model.

There are three major uses of linear regression analysis. First is casual analysis.

Second is forecasting of an effect and third is the trend forecasting. Other than correlation

analysis, which focuses on the strength of the relationship between two or more variables,

regression analysis assumes dependence or causal relationship between or more

independent variable and one dependent variable.

Firstly, it is used to identify the strength of the effect of the independent variable

on the dependent variable. Secondly, it can be used to forecast effects or impacts of

changes. It can show how much the dependent variable will change when one or more

independent variable is changed. Thirdly, regression analysis predicts trends and future

values. The regression analysis can be used to get the point estimates [7].
 15

2.2.2 Linear Regression Models

When selecting the model for the analysis another important consideration is the

model fitting. Adding independent variables to a linear regression model will always

increase the explained variance of the model (typically expressed as R2). However,

adding more and more variables to the model makes it inefficient and over fitting occurs.

According to Occam’s razor, a model should be as simple as possible but not simpler.

Statistically, if the model includes a large number of variables, the probability increases

that the variables test statistically significant out of random effects.

The second concern of regression analysis is under fitting. This means that the

regression analysis estimates are biased. Under fitting occurs when including an

additional independent variable in the model will reduce the effect strength of the

independent variable. Mostly under fitting happens when linear regression is used to

prove a cause and effect relationship that is not there. This might be due to researcher’s

empirical pragmatism or the lack of a sound theoretical basis for the model [8].

2.2.2.1 Simple Linear Regression

Simple linear regression is the most basic type of regression. It uses only

one independent variable and describes the relationship between the independent

variable and dependent variable as a straight line. It is also used to determine the

relationships between a continuous process output and one factor. The

relationship is expressed in terms of a mathematical equation such as y = b + mX.

Supposed that it is believed that the value of y tends to increase or

decrease in a linear manner as x increases. Then a model relating y to x by

drawing a line which is well fitted to a given data set can be selected.
 16

Such a deterministic model – one that does not allow for errors of

prediction – might be adequate if all of the data points fell on the fitted line. Then

relationship between the mean value of the independent variable and the

dependent variable can be inferred [9].

2.3 Studies about Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

2.3.1 Assessment of Concrete Strength at High Temperatures using UPV

A study about the assessment of concrete strength at high temperature using UPV

was conducted by Kirchhof, Lorenzi and Silva Filho (Brazil, 2015). The study analyzed

the effect of high temperature to the residual strength of concrete. An experimental

investigation was conducted to study the relationship between UPV residual data and

compressive strength of concrete with different mix proportions. Cylindrical specimens

with water-cement ratio of 0.25, 0.30 and 0.50 were heated in an electric furnace at

temperatures ranging from 200°C to 600°C. After heating, the specimens were cooled

down to room temperature in the furnace and then taken out for testing. For each

specimen, the UPV and compressive strength were measured. From the relationship

between UPV and residual strength ratios, a general equation was proposed for predicting

the compressive strength of concrete at high temperatures. The results obtained indicate

that the application of UPV has demonstrated to be a trustworthy analysis, being able to

prove the effectiveness of its use of fire-damaged concrete structures.

The variation of properties in concrete exposed to elevated temperatures depend

on many factors such as constituent materials, initial strength, age, water content, etc. The

interdependency of these factors difficulties the development of an accurate model.

However, there is no doubt that when concrete (NSC and HSC) is exposed to rapid
 17

temperature rise, such as fire, there is a significant reduction of compressive strength. A

comparison of NSC and HSC specimens has been carry out. The results have shown that

the compressive strength losses of NSC occur in a gradual manner, while in HSC

specimens, there is a general tendency of increase of strength that varies from 3 to 12% in

200ºC. This increase can be attribute to a slow process of hydration that is stimulated by

the temperature. A similar behavior was observed by Castillo e Durrani in samples heated

up to 300ºC. According to the authors, the increase in strength is attribute to the general

stiffening of the cement gel or the increase in surface forces between gel particles due to

the removal of absorbed moisture. Between 400ºC and 600ºC, the reduction of

compressive strength is more pronounce in HSC specimen. This effect is attribute to

spalling damage during the heating.

The figures 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 show a comparison between compressive strength of

concrete and ultrasonic pulse velocity, both dependent on the temperature, for three

different mixture proportions. Clearly, it was observed that there is a reduction in

compressive strength of concrete as well in the UPV results for both NSC and HSC

cylindrical specimens. This behavior has been expected since a rapid temperature

increase causes significant changes in porosity and permeability of concrete due to

release of absorbed water, dehydration of C-S-H and, probably, formation of micro and

macro-cracks. All these processes lead to an increase in the connectivity of pores

network. The increase in porosity/permeability can be represent by UPV results since any

material imperfections, cracks or voids will cause an increase in the time of wave

propagation through the length of the cylinder, resulting in lower ultrasonic pulse

velocities.
 18

Figure 2. 2 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 40

MPa [10]

Figure 2. 3 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 70

MPa [10]

Figure 2. 4 Compressive Strength of Concrete for UPV results for fc = 90

MPa [10]
In this study, a series of tests were performed to evaluate the changes in

compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete subject to high

temperatures as well as to establish a relationship between residual compressive strength

and UPV ratios. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions are drawn.

The mixture proportion has a significant role on the residual compressive strength of
 19

concrete subjected to elevated temperatures. In normal strength concrete (NSC) the

reduction of strength happens gradually with the increase of temperature, while in high

strength concrete, there is a general increase of strength in 200°C, however, from 400°C

the specimens experimented a considerable loss of strength, mainly due to the

development of cracks and the occurrence of explosive spalling.

There is a reduction in compressive strength as well in the UPV results for both

NSC and HSC samples due to the increase of porosity/permeability in fire-damaged

concrete; - A relationship between the residual compressive strength and UPV ratios can

be establish to estimate the residual strength ratio of fire-damaged concrete with the

measured residual UPV ratio; - The UPV method has demonstrated to be an important

tool used for evaluating the changes in homogeneity and density of concrete submitted to

high temperatures as well as estimating quantitatively the residual compressive strength

of fire-damaged concrete. Further studies are necessary to increase the feasibility and

precision of the method.

2.3.2 Relationship between Flexural Strength and Compressive Strength of Palm

Kernel Shell Concrete

A study about the relationship between flexural and compressive strength of palm

kernel shell concrete was conducted by Yusuf, Jimoh and Salami (2016). The study

represents the determination of an appropriate compressive-flexural strength model of

palm kernel shell concrete (PKSC). The direct and indirect Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

(UPV) measurements, with respective to mechanical properties of compression (cube)

and flexural (slab) elements, of concrete at various mixes and water/cement ratios were

made. A total of 225 cubes and 15 slabs of the PKSC were casted for nominal mixes of

1:1:1, 1:1:2 and 1:11/2:3, and varying ratios of 0.3-0.7 at interval of 0.1. The test
 20

elements were cured for 3,7,14, 28, 56 and 91 days in water at laboratory temperature.

The elements were then subjected to nondestructive test using the PUNDIT apparatus for

determination of direct ultrasonic wave velocity and the elastic modulus at the various

ages. The cubes were subsequently subjected to destructive compressive test. The 28-day

compressive strength – UPV and strength-age statistical relationships at water-cement

ratio of 0.5 determined from the velocity-strength data set in linear, power, logarithm,

exponential and polynomial trend form. The polynomial trend line in the form y=aln(x) at

R2 value of 0.989, found appropriate, among others, was proposed for the formulation of

the compressive strength-flexural strength model of PKSC at water-cement ratio of 0.5.

2.3.3 Structural Health Monitoring Using Non Destructive Testing of Concrete

Ayaz Mahmood (Department of Civil Engineering National Institute of

Technology Rourkela, 2008) conducted study about structural health monitoring using

non-destructive testing of concrete.

In this study, they test the columns, beams and slabs of two double storied

buildings viz., Hall No.2 and Hall no.7 (a newly constructed hostel) in N I T Rourkela by

using non-destructive instruments.

The researchers used to obtain the Calibration Graphs for Non Destructive

Testing Equipments viz., the Rebound Hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Tester and

to study the effect of reinforcement on the obtained results.

The results of the investigation showed that the pulse velocity method is an ideal

tool for establishing whether concrete is uniform. It can be used on both existing

structures and those under construction. Fairly good correlation can be obtained between

cube compressive strength and pulse velocity. These relations enable the strength of

structural concrete to be predicted within ±20 per cent, provided the types of aggregate
 21

and mix proportions are constant. In summary, ultrasonic pulse velocity tests have a great

potential for concrete control, particularly for establishing uniformity and detecting

cracks or defects. Its use for predicting strength is much more limited, owing to the large

number of variables affecting the relation between strength and pulse velocity.

2.3.4 Combination of destructive and non-destructive methods for structures

CengizKurtulus and Ali Bozkurt (Kocaeli University, 2011) conducted a study

about the determination of concrete compressive strength in structures in Istanbul and

Izmit Cities (Turkey) by combination of destructive and non-destructive methods.

In this study, cylindrical concrete cores of 10 cm diameter and height were taken

from the columns and shear walls of randomly chosen 5-40 years old reinforced concrete

buildings located in different towns of Istanbul and Izmit (Kocaeli) in Turkey from 2000

to 2011. The ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) measurements and uniaxial compressive

strength tests were conducted on 200 concrete core specimens in a laboratory. The core

uniaxial compressive strength of the specimens was regressed against UPV and linear

regression equations were obtained.

The UPV measurements of compressional waves were conducted using DT Qust-

120t ultrasonic pulse generator instrument with the transducers with 50 mm in diameter

and had maximum resonant frequency of 54 kHz. The end surfaces of the core samples

were polished and greased to provide a good coupling between the transducer faces. The

pulse velocity was measured pressing the transducer to the core samples firmly.

The compressive strength of the concrete core specimens was measured by

breaking the cylindrical concrete specimens by the help of a (UTEST) compression-

 22

testing machine with the capacity of 200t. For determining of the compressive strength of

the cores BS-1881-120 (1983) and ASTM C 42-90 procedures were used.

2.3.5 Correlation between Concrete Strength and Nondestructive Test for Concrete

Using High-Early Strength Cement

Engr. Razon Domingo and Professor Sohichi Hirose conducted a study about the

correlation of concrete strength and combined nondestructive tests for concrete using

high-early strength cement (University of the Philippines-Diliman, 2009). In this study,

the researchers performed nondestructive test (NDT) on Portland cement concrete (PCC)

pavement. The NDT used was ultrasonic pulse velocity method.

The study aimed to contribute to the development of a pragmatic method for the

improved nondestructive determination of concrete strength in structures, particularly on

PCC pavements. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the correlations of concrete

strengths with some NDT methods using high-early strength cement compared to normal

cement.

Concrete specimens with different type of mixtures was used (w/c = 0.49, 0.45,

0.41) Then at different ages of the specimens, compressive strength, flexural strength and

pulse velocity was determined. Using regression analysis, the correlations among

concrete properties and NDT results was established.

After conducting the study, the researchers concluded the following: A combined

ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number can be used to predict the flexural strength

and compressive strength of concrete from a standard concrete beam specimen. The use

of a standard concrete beam specimen (6” x 6” x 21”) be used for determining UPV

instead of the standard cube specimen (6” x 6” x 6”). The third-point loading test for
 23

flexure is recommended to be used both in the design and in acceptance of concrete for

pavements. Further study is recommended by validating results in actual construction.

2.3.6 Estimation of Flexural Strength of Plain Concrete from Ultrasonic Pulse

Velocity

Dr. Ala’a Hussein and Alwan AI-Zuhairi (Engineer College- Civil Department of

Baghdad University, February 2013) conducted a study about the Estimation of Flexural

Strength of Plain Concrete from Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.

The aim of this study is to propose mathematical expressions for estimation of the

flexural strength of plain concrete members from ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)

measurements. For each precast unit, direct and indirect (surface) ultrasonic pulses were

subjected to the concrete media to measure their travel velocities.

In this study, 203 pieces of precast concrete kerb units were tested. Each unit is

submitted to measuring of dimensions and locating the points at which the ultrasonic

transducers will be attached for both direct and indirect test. And UPV tests were taken

using 55 kHz transducers. Each precast unit was subjected to flexural stress at center

point to the failure.

After conducting the study, the researchers conclude the following: the proposed

equations can be used in estimating the flexural strength of plain concrete members such

as precast kerb units. The method of test may be applied in situ where the units are

constructed. The relationship between direct and indirect (surface) pulse velocities may

be used in other ultrasonic applications. The two equations cannot be used in estimating

the flexural strength of reinforced concrete members because the existence of

reinforcement steel has an important role in UPV measurements.

 24

2.3.7 Evaluation of Cement Mortars by Ultrasound

NesibeGözdeÖzerkan and İ. ÖzgurYaman (Department of Civil Engineering of

Middle East Technical University, January 2006) conducted a study about Evaluation of

Cement Mortars by Ultrasound.

The study aimed is to determine the ultrasonic pulse velocity of mortars, to

investigate the relationship between the UPV of mortars and their strength characteristics

and to make an attempt to evaluate the effects of different specimen size and shape on

ultrasonic pulse velocity, to determine the compressive and the flexural strengths as well

as capillary porosity.

Mortars were prepared using an electrically driven mechanical mixer with a 200

kg capacity. From each mortar mixture, cylindrical, cubical and prismatic specimens with

the geometrical dimensions. The mean UPV of all the specimens for 54 kHz, 82 kHz, and

150 kHz at 2, 7, and 28 days and coefficient of variations of UPV.

The results of the investigation showed that the w/c ratio adversely affected the

mechanical properties of mortars. An increase in w/c ratio caused a decrease in the

compressive and flexural strength. The UPV of cement mortars was also adversely

affected by the w/c. The pulse velocity in the longitudinal direction of the mortar

prismatic specimens is smaller when compared with the velocity in the lateral direction.

And an increase in the moisture content results in an increase in UPV and a decrease in

compressive strength of cylindrical and cubical specimens.

 25

2.3.8 Comparison of Destructive and Nondestructive methods of material properties

testing with focus to historical building materials – masonry (ceramics and stone),

mortars and plasters

Ivan Acosta Collell (Construction Engineering Department, 2014) conducted a

study about the comparison of destructive and nondestructive methods of material

properties testing with focus to historical building materials such as masonry (ceramics

and stone), mortars and plasters.

This study aimed to compare the NDT with the DT in order to obtain a correlation

between the parameters that can be obtained with both techniques. The idea is that

knowing some correlation, it would be possible to evaluate in a proper way properties

like resistance, durability or strength of a historical building without the needed of doing

destructive tests. And, moreover, it would be helpful to rely more in the results obtained

with NDT when there is the needed of evaluating the condition of a building and to do

the required corrective actions only with the NDT data.

In this study, the rebound method and the pulse velocity method were used in

NDT. And the parameters obtained with DT were the flexural strength, the compressive

strength and de Young Modulus. He used two point and center point loading in obtaining

the flexural strength of the concrete samples. The relations considered were linear or

polynomial of second-degree approximations.

After conducting the study, the researcher concluded that knowing some

parameters due to NDT it is possible to evaluate the strength and the resistance of a

material like if a DT was done.

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter states the experimental work and the devices that was developed in this

study. It includes a brief description of the materials that were used and the experimental tests

that was carried out in accordance to the research plan in observing the development of concrete

strength and its relationship with Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.

3.1 Material Testing

3.1.1 Cement

The cement was tested through visual examination of its color. The material

should be in uniform color of grey with a light greenish shade.

3.1.1.1 Fineness of Portland Cement

One thousand (1000) grams of sample cement was sieved using a number

200 sieve with pan. Sieving operations by a gentle wrist motion was performed

for 20 minutes until most of the fine materials have passed through the sieve. The

weight of residue (R) on the number 200 sieve in grams was then measured and

the fineness of cement (F) will be then computed.

𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎−𝑹
F= × 𝟏𝟎𝟎% (Equation 3)
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎

Based on ASTM C115, if the percent fineness is greater than 90% and the

weight of the residue is greater than 10% of the total weight of sample, the cement

is considered fresh. (See Appendix A).

 27

3.1.1.2 Specific Gravity of Portland Cement

A sample of fifty grams (50) of Portland cement was used and introduced

into the Le Chatelier Flask. Care was taken to avoid splashing and to see that the

cement does not adhere to the inside of the flask above the liquid (W 1). Filled the

cement on the bottle up to half of the flask (about 50 gm) and weight with is

stopper (W2). Add kerosene to the cement up to the top of the bottle. Mix well to

remove the air bubbles in it. Weigh the flask with cement and kerosene (W3).

Empty the flask. Fill the bottle with kerosene up to the top and weigh the flask

(W4).

𝐖𝟐 −𝐖𝟏
SG= (𝐖 (Equation 4)
𝟐 −𝐖𝟏 )−(𝐖𝟑 − 𝐖𝟒 )×𝟎.𝟕𝟗

The acceptable value for specific gravity of Portland cement as per ASTM

C188- 95 should not exceed 3.15 g/cc (See Appendix B).

Figure 3.1 Cement Testing

 28

3.1.2 Sand and Gravel

In testing the quality of sand and gravel, sieve analysis were performed based on

ASTM C33 -03 (See Appendix C). Sieves are piled up ranging from sieve number 4 with

an opening of 4.750 millimeters to sieve number 200 with an opening of 0.075

millimeters. The sand was placed into the top sieve and all the piled sieves were placed

into the sieve shaker for about 5 – 10 minutes. It is considered as sand if it will retain

from sieve number 10 with an opening size of 2 millimeters to sieve number 200. Beyond

the sieve 200, it is already considered as silt and clay. Same process was done for testing

gravel. It was placed in the sieve and the gravel should retain in sieve number 4 to sieve

number 8. Otherwise, it is already considered as sand.

Figure 3.2 Sieve Analysis of Sand and Gravel

 29

3.1.2.1 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregates

The obtained fine aggregate sample was dried up to constant weight at a

temperature of 100+_5°C. It was covered with water by immersion and was

permitted to stand for 24+_4 hour. The sample was spread on a flat non-absorbent

surface exposed to moving current of warm air and was stirred frequently to

secure homogenous drying. A surface dry condition was obtained using the cone

test for surface moisture. The mold was firmly held on a smooth non-absorbent

surface with the large diameter down. A portion of partially dried fine aggregate

was placed loosely in the mold. The sample was tightly tampered into the mold

with 25 light drops of the tamper. Each drop started about 5mm above the top

surface of the fine aggregate. The pycnometer was partially filled with water and

was introduced into the pycnometer 200g of saturated surface dry fine aggregate.

Approximately 90% of capacity of water was being filled into it. The pycnometer

was manually rolled, inverted, and agitated for all air bubbles' elimination. The

fine aggregate was removed from the pycnometer and was dried to a constant

weight at a temperature of 100+_5°C. The weight of the pycnometer filled to its

calibration capacity with water was determined. The bulk specific gravity and

apparent specific gravity can be calculated as follows:

𝑾𝟏
Bulk SG= 𝑾 (Equation 5)
𝟐 +𝑾𝟑 −𝑾𝟒

𝑾𝟑 −𝑾𝟏
Absorption = × 𝟏𝟎𝟎% (Equation 6)
𝑾𝟏
 30

Where:

W1 = weight of oven-dry test sample in air, g.

W2 = weight of pycnometer filled with water, g.

W3 = weight of saturated dry-surface dry specimen, g.

W4 = weight of pycnometer with specimen and water to calibration mark, g.

The acceptable value for bulk specific gravity (dry) is 2.40 – 3.00. An

absorption of 0 – 5 percent is acceptable as per ASTM C128-97(See Appendix D).

Figure 3.3 Testing for specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregates

3.1.2.2 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse aggregates

Coarse aggregate sample was dried up at room temperature for about 1-3

hours until the aggregate has cooled to a temperature of 50°C and will be

subsequently immersed in water. The sample was removed in water and rolled in

a large absorbent cloth until all visible films of water were removed. The test

sample was weighed in the saturated- surface dry condition and was placed in the
 31

sample container for the determination of its weight in water. Coarse aggregate

was dried up in the oven at a temperature of 100+_ 5°C and was cooled in air at

room temperature for 1-3hours. The bulk specific gravity and apparent specific

gravity can be calculated as follows:

𝐖𝟏
𝐁𝐮𝐥𝐤 𝐒𝐆 = 𝐖 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎% (Equation 7)
𝟐 −𝐖𝟑

𝐖𝟏
𝐀𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 = 𝐖 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎% (Equation 8)
𝟏 −𝐖𝟐

Where:

W1 = weight of oven-dry test sample in air, g.

W2 = weight of saturated-surface-dry test sample in air, g.

W3 = weight of saturated test sample in water, g.

The acceptable value for bulk specific gravity (dry) is 2.40 – 3.00. An

absorption of 0 – 5 percent is acceptable as per ASTM C128-88 (See Appendix E)

Figure 3. 4 Testing for specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregates

 32

3.2 Sample Preparation and Testing

3.2.1 Design Mix

The design mix of seventy (70) beam-shaped concrete samples was design class

A. It is composed of one-part cement, two parts of fine aggregates, and four parts of

coarse aggregates.

3.2.2 Slump Test

Based on California Test 556 (See Appendix F), slump test mold, non-porous base

plate, and tamping rod was used to determine the consistency of the concrete. The mold

was placed in a non-porous surface and was filled with the concrete mixture in three

layers. Each layer was tampered twenty-five (25) times using the tamping rod in a

uniform manner throughout the cross section of the mold. The excess concrete mixture at

the surface of the mold were removed using a trowel and it is also used to level the top

layer of the concrete mixture. Then, the mold was raised slowly from the concrete

mixture and it will be placed beside the concrete mixture. Obtaining a result that takes

more or less the shape of the mold would mean a true slump. To determine the slump, it

is the difference between the height of the concrete mixture and that of the mold. A

slump of 4-7 inches will be accepted in creating samples.

Figure 3.5 Slump Test

 33

3.2.3 Curing

After the samples hardened, the researchers was used curing. Curing allows

concrete to achieve optimal strength and hardness. Curing is the hydration process that

occurs after the concrete has been placed. The samples was placed in a drum of water.

Twenty eight (28) days of curing were conducted based on ASTM C192 (See Appendix G).

Figure 3.6 Curing

3.2.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

Based on the ASTM C 597-09 (See Appendix H), the transmitter and the receiver

probes was pressed against the concrete. The length of the concrete sample was recorded

and so as the time the ultrasonic pulse will pass from the transmitter to the receiver.

Direct transmission was applied in recording the time and was placed in 5 different points

of the specimen and the average was determined. If the concrete is of a good quality, the

pulse was passed through in a direct path and if the concrete sample contains flaws, the

time for the pulse will be higher than that of a good quality concrete. With these recorded

data, the velocity was computed using equation 4.

𝐋𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞
𝐏𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 = (Equation6)
𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡
 34

The beam concrete samples were tested for pulse velocity respectively. A result

having a high velocity was indicated as a good quality concrete and a low velocity was

mean a damaged concrete. With the use of the computed pulse velocity, the quality grade

of the concrete samples was determined as shown in table 3.1:

Table 3.1 Concrete Quality Grading [5]

Velocity (km/s) Concrete Quality (Grading)

V> 4.5 Excellent

4.5 ≤ V≤ 3.5 Good

3.5≤ V≤ 3.0 Medium

V < 3.0 Doubtful

Figure 3. 7 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

 35

3.2.5 Universal Testing Machine

After measuring the pulse velocity, the samples were tested via universal testing

machine. It a type of destructive test that was used to test the flexural and compressive

strength of materials. The beam shaped concrete samples were tested for flexural strength

at the center point and third point. The samples were placed between the grips and

extensometer. Once the set-up was done, the machine begins to apply an increasing load

on the concrete sample. For the center point flexural test, the load was applied on the

center of the specimen while in third point flexural test; it was on the third points of the

specimen based on ASTM C293 and ASTM C78 respectively (See Appendix I and J).

Throughout the test, the control system and its associated software, will record the load

and flexural or compression of the specimen. The stress will be recorded up to the

maximum after the samples breaks. The result should not exceed the expected value of

5.5 MPa otherwise it would not be considered standard.

Figure 3.8 Universal Testing Machine

 36

4.6 Regression Analysis

3.3.1 Plot of Flexural Strength and UPV at Center Point

After determining the pulse velocity of the samples through ultrasonic pulse

velocity test, the resulting value was plotted against the flexural strength tested at center

point. A regression line was drawn to assess the relationship between two.

3.3.2 Plot of Flexural Strength and UPV at Third Point

After determining the pulse velocity of the samples through ultrasonic pulse

velocity test, the resulting value was plotted against the flexural strength tested at third

point. A regression line was drawn to assess the relationship between the two.

3.3.3 Regression Models

A simple linear regression model was used to assess the relationship between

pulse velocity and flexural strength. Simple linear regression was used to determine the

relationship between two independent variables. The relationship of UPV on the flexural

strength at center point and third point was determined. Using spreadsheet, a regression

model was made. The trend line was used to determine the relationship of each sample

regarding flexural strength at center point and third point as well as its pulse velocity.

3.3.4 Testing of Accuracy of the Models

Ten (10) beam concrete samples were prepared to validate the accuracy of each

prediction model. In turn, the results were used to identify which model will provide

better prediction results.

 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter illustrates and defines all the results attained from the material

testing, ultrasonic pulse velocity, center point and third point loading flexural test. The

data consist of comparative analysis of the flexural strength prediction models between

center point and third point flexural tests in concrete beams using Ultrasonic Pulse

Velocity.

4.1 Material Tests Results

4.1.1 Cement

4.1.1.1 Fineness of Portland Cement

The fineness of Portland cement was determined using sieve analysis. The

result showed that the weight residue value was 91.8 g. Using equation 3, the

fineness was then computed which produced a value of 90.82 % which is greater

than 90%. This means that the cement quality is fresh and in good condition to

use in a concrete mix.

4.1.1.2 Specific Gravity of Portland Cement

Using equation 4, the Specific Gravity of the cement was determined

having value of 2.67 which does not exceed the acceptable range value of 3.15
 38

which indicates that the cement is in good quality and may contribute to the

workability and strength of the samples.

4.1.2 Sand

4.1.2.1 Sieve Analysis

Table 4. 1 Results of Sieve Analysis for Fine Aggregates

Fine Aggregates
Sieve Mesh Size Wt. Retained,k g % Retained Cumulative % RetainedPercent Passing
No. 4 0.090 9.36 9.36 90.64
No. 8 0.124 12.89 22.25 77.75
No. 16 0.606 62.99 85.24 14.76
No. 30 0.140 14.55 99.79 0.21
No. 50 0.000 0.00 99.79 0.21
No. 100 0.000 0.00 99.79 0.21
No. 200 0.002 0.21 100.00 0.00
Pan 0.000 0.00 100.00 0.00
Total 0.962 100.00

As shown in table 4.1, 77.75% of the sample passed sieve number

8 which indicates that majority of the sample are classified as sand or fine

aggregates.

4.1.2.2 Specific Gravity and Absorption

Using equations 5 and 6, the specific gravity produced a value of 2.762712

and the absorption produced value of 4.925054which are both within the

acceptable range. Although the specific gravity and absorption are not directly

proportional with the strength of concrete, it is done to meet the minimum density

requirements.
 39

4.1.3 Gravel

4.1.3.1 Sieve Analysis

Table 4. 2 Results of Sieve Analysis for Coarse Aggregates

Coarse Aggregates
Sieve Mesh Size Wt. Retained, kg % RetainedCumulative % RetainedPercent Passing
No. 4 0.962 100.00 100.00 0.00
No. 8 0 0.00 100.00 0.00
No. 16 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
No. 30 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
No. 50 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
No. 100 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
No. 200 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
Pan 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
Total 0.962

Table 4.2 shows that the sample of one kilogram had a percentage

passing of 0% at sieve number 8 which indicates that 100% of the sample are

classified as gravel.

4.1.3.2 Specific Gravity and Absorption

Using equations 7 and 8, the specific gravity produced a value of 2.762712

and the absorption produced a value of 0.806452 which are both within the

acceptable range. Although the specific gravity and absorption are not directly

proportional with the strength of concrete, it is done to meet the minimum density

requirements.

4.1.4 Slump Test

After concrete mixing, slump test was performed to ensure the consistency of

concrete. The highest recorded slump is 6 inches while the lowest is 4 inches which is
 40

within the limits of 4-7 inches. This indicates a high workability of the concrete

mixture.

4.2 Physical Test Results

Table 4. 3 Data Gathered for Physical Testing

Beam Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Volume (mm^3)

1 155 150 530 12322500

2 150 145 530 11527500
3 150 145 530 11527500
4 150 145 530 11527500
5 150 150 530 11925000
6 150 150 530 11925000
7 150 150 530 11925000
8 150 145 530 11527500
9 150 145 530 11527500
10 150 150 530 11925000
11 150 150 530 11925000
12 150 155 530 12322500
13 155 155 530 12733250
14 150 150 530 11925000
15 150 150 530 11925000
16 150 150 530 11925000
17 150 150 530 11925000
18 150 150 530 11925000
19 150 150 530 11925000
20 150 150 530 11925000
 41

Table 4. 3 Data Gathered for Physical Testing (… continued)

Beam Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Volume (mm^3)

21 150 150 530 11925000

22 150 145 530 11527500
23 150 150 530 11925000
24 150 150 530 11925000
25 150 150 530 11925000
26 150 150 530 11925000
27 150 155 530 12322500
28 150 150 530 11925000
29 150 150 530 11925000
30 150 155 530 12322500
31 150 150 530 11925000
32 150 150 530 11925000
33 150 150 530 11925000
34 155 145 530 11911750
35 155 145 530 11911750
36 150 150 530 11925000
37 150 150 530 11925000
38 150 150 530 11925000
39 150 150 530 11925000
40 150 150 530 11925000
41 150 150 530 11925000
42 150 150 530 11925000
43 150 150 530 11925000
44 150 150 530 11925000
45 150 150 530 11925000
46 150 150 530 11925000
47 150 150 530 11925000
48 150 150 530 11925000
49 150 150 530 11925000
50 150 150 530 11925000
 42

Table 4. 3 Data Gathered for Physical Testing (… continued)

Beam Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Volume (mm^3)

51 150 150 530 11925000

52 150 150 530 11925000
53 150 150 530 11925000
54 150 150 530 11925000
55 150 150 530 11925000
56 150 150 530 11925000
57 150 150 530 11925000
58 150 150 530 11925000
59 150 150 530 11925000
60 150 150 530 11925000
61 150 150 530 11925000
62 150 150 530 11925000
63 150 150 530 11925000
64 150 150 530 11925000
65 150 150 530 11925000
66 150 150 530 11925000
67 150 150 530 11925000
68 150 150 530 11925000
69 150 150 530 11925000
70 150 150 530 11925000

4.1.1 Dimension of Each Concrete Beam Sample

As shown in the table 4.3 the width of the concrete beam samples have

common value of 150mm. The thickness on the other hand varies with 145mm

being the lowest and 155mm being the highest and 150mm the most common.

The lengths do not vary for each sample and remains at 530mm. Due to varying

dimensions, the volume varies with 12322500mm3 being the highest and

11527500mm3 being the lowest and a common value of 11925000mm3 .

 43

4.2 Mechanical Test Results

4.3.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Results

4.3.1.1 Time of Travel of the Pulse in Each Concrete Beam Sample

Table 4. 4 Results of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

Beam Sample Length (km) Time (sec) Velocity (km/sec) Quality of Concrete

1 0.000155 0.0000368 4.212 Good

2 0.000150 0.0000406 3.692 Good
3 0.000150 0.0000384 3.911 Good
4 0.000150 0.0000381 3.937 Good
5 0.000150 0.0000401 3.741 Good
6 0.000150 0.0000411 3.652 Good
7 0.000150 0.0000418 3.589 Good
8 0.000150 0.0000399 3.759 Good
9 0.000150 0.0000421 3.565 Good
10 0.000150 0.0000380 3.947 Good
11 0.000150 0.0000385 3.901 Good
12 0.000150 0.0000384 3.906 Good
13 0.000155 0.0000380 4.076 Good
14 0.000150 0.0000391 3.839 Good
15 0.000150 0.0000378 3.974 Good
16 0.000150 0.0000378 3.971 Good
17 0.000150 0.0000367 4.093 Good
18 0.000150 0.0000364 4.124 Good
19 0.000150 0.0000373 4.021 Good
20 0.000150 0.0000378 3.974 Good
21 0.000150 0.0000380 3.945 Good
22 0.000150 0.0000389 3.861 Good
23 0.000150 0.0000372 4.030 Good
24 0.000150 0.0000385 3.899 Good
25 0.000150 0.0000373 4.027 Good
26 0.000150 0.0000379 3.963 Good
27 0.000150 0.0000370 4.057 Good
28 0.000150 0.0000387 3.876 Good
29 0.000150 0.0000396 3.788 Good
30 0.000150 0.0000386 3.891 Good
31 0.000150 0.0000387 3.881 Good
32 0.000150 0.0000375 4.005 Good
33 0.000150 0.0000380 3.945 Good
34 0.000155 0.0000387 4.010 Good
35 0.000155 0.0000367 4.223 Good
 44

Table 4. 4 Results of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (…continued)

Beam Sample Length (km) Time (sec) Velocity (km/sec) Quality of Concrete

36 0.000150 0.0000372 4.032 Good

37 0.000150 0.0000386 3.886 Good
38 0.000150 0.0000361 4.158 Good
39 0.000150 0.0000390 3.849 Good
40 0.000150 0.0000378 3.971 Good
41 0.000150 0.0000356 4.216 Good
42 0.000150 0.0000370 4.057 Good
43 0.000150 0.0000383 3.919 Good
44 0.000150 0.0000358 4.190 Good
45 0.000150 0.0000359 4.175 Good
46 0.000150 0.0000401 3.745 Good
47 0.000150 0.0000389 3.859 Good
48 0.000150 0.0000375 4.005 Good
49 0.000150 0.0000375 4.005 Good
50 0.000150 0.0000397 3.778 Good
51 0.000150 0.0000369 4.065 Good
52 0.000150 0.0000386 3.883 Good
53 0.000150 0.0000368 4.073 Good
54 0.000150 0.0000375 4.000 Good
55 0.000150 0.0000399 3.759 Good
56 0.000150 0.0000395 3.802 Good
57 0.000150 0.0000389 3.859 Good
58 0.000150 0.0000365 4.115 Good
59 0.000150 0.0000382 3.932 Good
60 0.000150 0.0000382 3.929 Good
61 0.000150 0.0000391 3.836 Good
62 0.000150 0.0000363 4.129 Good
63 0.000150 0.0000382 3.932 Good
64 0.000150 0.0000390 3.851 Good
65 0.000150 0.0000391 3.841 Good
66 0.000150 0.0000388 3.863 Good
67 0.000150 0.0000383 3.919 Good
68 0.000150 0.0000372 4.035 Good
69 0.000150 0.0000382 3.924 Good
70 0.000150 0.0000366 4.104 Good

The time of travel of the pulse that passed in each concrete beam

sample through direct transmission were all recorded. As shown in table

4.4, the time of travel in all samples ranges from 35.0s to 45.4 s. 35.0

s to be the shortest time recorded which is gathered from concrete beam

 45

sample no. 42 and 45.4 s for the longest time recorded which is from the

concrete beam sample number 7.

4.3.1.2 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

After the pulse time was recorded, the ultrasonic pulse velocity can

be determined using the thickness of each concrete beam sample that will

serve as the distance traveled by the pulse. The pulse velocities ranges

from 3.565 km/sec to 4.223 km/sec as shown in table 4.2. Beam number 9

has the lowest velocity with a value of 3.565 km/sec while beam number

35 has the highest velocity of 4.223 km/sec.

4.3.2 Flexural Strength Test

4.3.2.1 Center Point Loading Test

After performing the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing, 35 of the

samples were tested in Center Point Loading flexural test. The samples

were placed in the universal testing machine and the loading is applied on

the center of the concrete beam span. The machine then recorded the

maximum load the sample was able to carry.

 46

Table 4.5 Results of Flexural Test at Center Point

Beam Sections(mm^2) Maximum Load (N ) Strength (N/mm2)

1 4386.792 16022 3.65233
2 4386.792 9614 2.19158
3 3966.981 12072 3.04312
4 3966.981 20194 5.09052
5 3966.981 15453 3.89541
6 4245.283 15277 3.59858
7 4245.283 10975 2.58522
8 3966.981 15628 3.93952
9 3966.981 14530 3.66273
10 4245.283 19973 4.70475
11 4245.283 15409 3.62968
12 4533.019 17340 3.82527
13 4684.119 18481 3.94546
14 4245.283 17428 4.10526
15 4245.283 19535 4.60158
16 4245.283 19228 4.52926
17 4245.283 17823 4.19831
18 4245.283 20193 4.75657
19 4245.283 17603 4.14648
20 4245.283 20764 4.89108
21 4245.283 19974 4.70499
22 3966.981 17779 4.48175
23 4245.283 18306 4.31208
24 4245.283 22257 5.24276
25 4245.283 18964 4.46708
26 4245.283 20676 4.87035
27 4533.019 15672 3.45730
28 4245.283 19359 4.56012
29 4245.283 20369 4.79803
30 4533.019 21379 4.71628
31 4245.283 17954 4.22916
32 4245.283 18657 4.39476
33 4245.283 17339 4.08430
34 4099.214 15101 3.68388
35 3966.981 23002 5.79836

As shown in table 4.5, beam number 2 has the lowest applied load

and strength with the value of 9614 N and 2.19158 MPa, respectively.

Beam sample number 35 has the highest applied load of 23002 N and a

strength of 5.79836 MPa.

 47

4.3.2.1 Third Point Loading Test

Table 4. 6 Results of Flexural Test at Third Point

Beam Sections(mm^2) Maximum Load (N x 10^3) Strength (N/mm2)

36 7500 20277 2.70360
37 7500 25554 3.40720
38 7500 26869 3.58253
39 7500 29210 3.89467
40 7500 29947 3.99293
41 7500 24643 3.28573
42 7500 31804 4.24053
43 7500 25905 3.45400
44 7500 32435 4.32467
45 7500 21534 2.87120
46 7500 27789 3.70520
47 7500 25981 3.46413
48 7500 24076 3.21013
49 7500 22859 3.04787
50 7500 27480 3.66400
51 7500 25049 3.33987
52 7500 23997 3.19960
53 7500 24803 3.30707
54 7500 22735 3.03133
55 7500 26160 3.48800
56 7500 22850 3.04667
57 7500 26347 3.51293
58 7500 26076 3.47680
59 7500 26500 3.53333
60 7500 26232 3.49760
61 7500 26872 3.58293
62 7500 21336 2.84480
63 7500 22683 3.02440
64 7500 23019 3.06920
65 7500 22602 3.01360
66 7500 18508 2.46773
67 7500 21802 2.90693
68 7500 23434 3.12453
69 7500 20419 2.72253
70 7500 20322 2.70960

As shown in the table 4.6, the maximum value obtained for the

flexural strength at third point is 4.32467 MPa with an applied load of

32435 N. The lowest value of flexural strength was 2.46773 MPa with an

applied load of 18508 N.

 48

4.4 Prediction Models

4.4.1 Prediction Model of UPV and Center Point Flexural Strength

Figure 4. 1 Correlation between UPV and Flexural Strength at Center Point

Through simple linear regression, the correlation between the ultrasonic

pulse velocity and the center point flexural strength of the concrete beam samples

was determined. As shown in figure 4.1, the correlation coefficient is 0.2202

which indicates a low correlation between the two variables. There is a weak

linear association between the dependent and independent variables and establish

no relationship in the tested samples.

 49

4.4.2 Prediction Model of UPV and Third Point Flexural Strength

Figure 4. 2 Correlation between UPV and Flexural Strength at Third Point

With the use of simple linear regression analysis, the correlation between

the ultrasonic pulse velocity and the center point flexural strength of the concrete

beam samples was obtained. As reflected in Figure 4.2, the correlation coefficient

is 0.0021 which implies a low correlation between the two variables. There is no

strong evidence that there is a linear association between the variables and thus

are mutually independent in the strength prediction of concrete.

 50

4.5 Testing of Accuracy of Models

4.5.1 Accuracy for UPV and Flexural Strength at Center Point

Table 4. 7 Validation for Center Point Loading

Beam Velocity Predicted Strength (Mpa) Actual Strength (Mpa) Percentage Error (%)
31 3.8891 3.4045 4.2292 24.22
32 4.0077 3.3888 4.3948 29.69
33 3.9499 3.3964 4.0843 20.25
34 4.0144 3.3879 3.6839 8.74
35 4.2260 3.3599 5.7984 72.57

With the use of the equation obtained from the prediction model of UPV

and Third point loading, predicted values for flexural strength were gathered.

These values compared to the actual flexural strength and as reflected in table 4.7,

the highest percentage error between the predicted and actual strength is 72.57 %

which indicates that the prediction model does not show a strong correlation

between two variables.

4.5.2 Accuracy for UPV and Flexural Strength at Third Point

Table 4. 8 Validation for Third Point Loading

Beam Velocity Predicted Strength (Mpa) Actual Strength (Mpa) Percentage Error (%)
66 3.8664 4.0594 2.46773 39.21
67 3.9261 4.2002 2.90693 30.79
68 4.0364 4.4606 3.12453 29.95
69 3.9356 4.2226 2.72253 35.52
70 4.1063 4.6255 2.70960 41.42

Using the obtained equation from the prediction model, the value of the

velocity was substituted and then the predicted flexural strength of the beams

were determined. As shown in table 4.8, the percentage error between the

predicated value of the strength and its actual value have a high percentage. This
 51

validates that the prediction model obtained does not have a strong correlation

between center point flexural test and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.

 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

Following the ASTM C 293/C 293 M-10 andASTM C 078-02 standard

procedure, the flexural strength at center point and third point were obtained.Based from

the result, there is a variation in the measured flexural strengths of the samples attributed

by the different design matrix of concrete considered in the study. Further, there is an

observed variation in the measured flexural strengths of the samples with an average

value of 4.194 MPa for center point flexural test and 3.307 MPa for third point flexural

test.

From the data acquired, the quality of the concrete using the Ultrasonic Pulse

Velocity, ranged from 3.5 to 4.6 showing a good quality of the concrete samples.

Prediction models were obtained using simple regression analysis between

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and flexural strength test of concrete.Based on the results in

regression analysis that was conducted, both the center point and third point flexural tests

in concrete beams using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity have a low correlation coefficient with

the values 0.2202 and 0.0021, respectively. The obtained values provided evidence that

there is no relationship that can be observed between the variables. This is due to the

small difference in their values which makes the scatter plot narrow and have low

correlation coeffiecient.
 53

Although the prediction models obtained have a low correlation values, the center

point model obtained a better correlation resultand therefore expected to provide good

predicted values against third point.

 CHAPTER 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter represents the recommendation proposed by the researchers to

improve the study. This research will compare prediction model of center point and third

point flexural strength test using ultrasonic pulse velocity.

The researchers recommend the use of other type of Non-Destructive Test (NDT)

like the rebound hammer. It is also recommended to use a statistical inference like the

Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) to further validate the findings of this study. Lastly, the

researchers recommend the use of different design mix proportions and admixtures like

fly ash, self-retarders and accelarator to analyze its effect on the strength and Ultrasonic

Pulse Velocity of the samples.

 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] "Civil Today," 15 October 2014. [Online]. Available: http://civiltoday.com/civil-engineering-

materials/concrete/15-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-concrete. [Accessed 28 September 2016].

[2] J. R. Davis, "Load Measurement System," in Tensile Testing, Second Edition, Materials Park, Ohio,
ASM International, 2004, p. 283.

[3] "Universal Motion Inc.," 2015. [Online]. Available: http://universal-motion.com/universal-testing-

machine.html. [Accessed 5 October 2016].

[4] "Pavement Interactive," 2012. [Online]. Available:

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/portland-cement-flexural-strength/. [Accessed October
2016].

[5] "Civil Engineering Portal," 2007-2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.engineeringcivil.com/ultrasonic-pulse-velocity-method.html. [Accessed October 2016].

[6] A. Mahmood, "Structural Health Monitoring Using Non Destructive Test of Concrete," Rourkela,
2008.

[7] "Statistic Solutions," 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.statisticssolutions.com/what-is-linear-

regression/. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[8] A. Schneider, G. Hommel and M. Blettner, "Linear Regression Analysis: Part 14 of a Series on
Evaluation of Scientific Publications," November 2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992018/. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[9] "PreMBA Analytical Methods," [Online]. Available:

http://ci.columbia.edu/ci/premba_test/c0331/s7/s7_6.html. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[10] L. D. Kirchhof, A. Lorenzi and L. C. P. Silva Filho, "Assessment of Concrete Residual Strength at
High Temperatures using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity," Brasil, 2015.

[11] "Azo Materials," 2000-2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3426. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[12] "MatWeb," 1996-2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.matweb.com/reference/flexuralstrength.aspx. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[13] "Vocabulary.com," [Online]. Available: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/concrete. [Accessed

 56

2 October 2016].

[14] "Inspecta," 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.inspecta.com/en/Our-

Services/Testing/Destructive-Testing/. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[15] "ASNT," 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.asnt.org/MinorSiteSections/AboutASNT/Intro-to-

NDT. [Accessed 2 oCTOBER 2016].

[16] D. R. Abrams, "Princeton University Library," 2007. [Online]. Available:

http://dss.princeton.edu/online_help/analysis/regression_intro.htm. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[17] "Civil Engineering Portal," 2007-2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.engineeringcivil.com/ultrasonic-pulse-velocity-method.html. [Accessed 2 October 2016].

[18] "The Constructor - Civil Engineering Home," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://theconstructor.org/practical-guide/non-destructive-testing-of-concrete/5553/. [Accessed 4
October 2016].

[19] "Sustainable Concrete," [Online]. Available:

http://www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/top_nav/what_is_concrete.aspx. [Accessed 4 October 2016].

[20] "The Constructor - Civil Engineering Home," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://theconstructor.org/concrete/concrete-mix-design-advantages/10679/. [Accessed 4 October
2016].

[21] "The Constructor- Civil Engineering Home," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://theconstructor.org/concrete/concrete-slump-test/1558/. [Accessed 4 October 2016].

[22] in Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Skokie, Illinois, Portland Cement Association, 2016.

[23] BAQER ABDUL HUSSEIN ALI, "Assessment of Concrete Compressive Strength by Ultrasonic
Non-Destructive Test," Baghdad, 2008.

[24] I. A. Collell, "Comparison of destructive and nondestructive methods of material properties testing
with focus to historical building materials - masonry (ceramics and stone), mortars and plasters,"
Barcelona, 2014.
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR

FINENESS OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND RAW MATERIALS BY THE

300-µM (NO. 50), 150-µM (NO. 100), AND 75-µM (NO. 200)

SIEVES BY WET METHODS

(ASTM C786/C786M – 10 )
 58

APPENDIX B

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR DENSITY OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

(ASTM C 188-95)
 59

APPENDIX C

STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CONCRETE AGGREGATES

(ASTM C 33-03)
 60

APPENDIX D

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF FINE AGGREGATE

(ASTM C 128-97)
 61

APPENDIX E

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE

(ASTM C 127-88)
 62

APPENDIX F

METHOD OF TEST FOR SLUMP OF FRESH PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

(CALIFORNIA TEST 556)

 63

APPENDIX G

STANDARD PRACTICE FOR MAKING AND CURING CONCRETE TEST

SPECIMENS IN THE LABORATORY

(ASTM C 192/C 192M-02)

 64

APPENDIX H

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR PULSE VELOCITY THROUGH CONCRETE

(ASTM C 597- 09)

 65

APPENDIX I

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE ( USING

SIMPLE BEAM WITH CENTER- POINT LOADING)

(ASTM C 293/C 293 M-10)

 66

APPENDIX J

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE ( USING

SIMPLE BEAM WITH THIRD-POINT LOADING)

(ASTM C 078-02)
 67

APPENDIX K

COMMUNICATION LETTERS
 68

APPENDIX L

DOCUMENTATION
 69

Delivery of Materials

Testing for the Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregates

 70

Preparation of Materials before concrete mixing

Concrete Mixing
 71

Slump Test of Concrete Mixture

Finished Beam Samples

 72

Curing of Seventy Concrete Beam Samples

Air drying of the concrete beam samples

 73

Testing for Utrasonic Pulse Velocity for all beam samples

Testing for Flexural Strength at Center Point Loading at MatCons Lab

 74

Testing for Third Point Flexural Strength at DPWH – Bureau of Research and Standards

Tested Beam Concrete Samples

 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

BELEN, JURELL ROMMEL S.

Jurell Rommel S. Belen is currently taking up Bachelor of

Science in Civil Engineering at FEU-Institute of Technology. He

believes in the saying that what best solidifies a group is a

common enemy. He believes in the power of teamwork and

works best with a group. His main goal is to graduate and

become a successful engineer. He promises himself that he will repay his parents for their

sacrifices in helping him. His main hobby includes reading books and surfing the web. He also

considers eating as a hobby.

DIZON, ANTHONETTE JEAN B.

Anthonette Jean B. Dizonwas born on October 11, 1995 in

Quezon City. She spend her childhood in Rodriguez, Rizal up

until now. She’s now a fifth year student and currently taking

BS in Civil Engineering at FEU Institute of Technology. She

was provided with her studies with the help of her parents.

She’s a member of an organization named Association of Civil Engineering Students, also

known as ACES, since 2013.

 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ROA, LORAIZA NICOLE ANN Y.

LoraizaNicole Ann Y. Roa was born on August 21, 1995. She was

on in Cebu City but decided to take her bachelor degree in Manila

to be with her parents. She is currently taking up BS in Civil

Engineering at FEU- Institute of Technology. She does not see

herself quitting what she already started. She may struggle but she does not stop until she reaches

her goal. Her hobbies includes hanging out with friends at coffee shops or restaurants, travelling,

and just chilling at home.

SALINAS JR., ROBERT P.

Robert P. Salinas Jr. was born on July 08, 1996. Taking up

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at FEU – Institute of

Technology. Having self-confidence comes naturally with success

but, success comes only to those who are confident. He may not be

perfect but parts of me are pretty handsome and my perfections make me beautiful. Heis

dedicated to fulfill his goals in life and his ultimate goal is to end up being with HER. His life is

like juan, juan to be with HER. He is a happy and jolly person and the happiest he ever felt was

that moment he discovered you loved him too.