See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237190073

Strength evaluation of an existing concrete bridge based on core and non-

destructive test data

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l87-026

CITATION READS

1 153

2 authors, including:

Andrew Scanlon
Pennsylvania State University
86 PUBLICATIONS   576 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Scanlon on 21 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Strength evaluation of an existing concrete bridge based on core and nondestructive
test data

ANDREWSCANLON
Department of Civil Engineering, UniversiQ of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T6G 2G7
AND

LEONIDMIKHAILOVSKY
Alberta Tran.sportation, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T6G 2x3
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

Received April 9, 1986

Revised manuscript accepted October 24, 1986

The use of concrete cores and nondestructive testing for strength evaluation of existing structures is illustrated through an
evaluation of an existing concrete bridge. The results confirm that rebound hammer number should not be used alone as an
indicator of in situ compressive strength. Reasonably good correlation is demonstrated between pulse velocity and compressive
strength, with a slight improvement when pulse velocity and rebound number are combined.
A probabilistic approach to structural evaluation of existing structures is proposed in which the variability of in situ concrete
compression strength and uncertainty associated with indirect nondestructive testing are incorporated. An example of shear
strength evaluation is given, which indicates a range of increase in shear strength compared with initial design parameters of
17-37% depending on the amount and type of data available.

L'usage de prClkvements de bCton par carottage et d'essais non destructifs dans I'Cvaluation de structures existantes est
illustri pour le cas d'un pont en beton arme. Les rCsultats confirment que les essais de rebondissement du marteau ne devraient
pas &treutilisCs seuls comme indicateurs de resistance en compression in situ. Une bonne correlation est obtenue entre la vitesse
de propagation d'onde et la resistance en compression, avec une legbre amClioration quand la vitesse de propagation d'onde
et les rCsultats des essais de rebondissement du marteau sont combinks.
Les auteurs proposent une approache probabiliste pour I'Cvaluation des structures existantes qui tient compte de la variabilite
For personal use only.

de la rksistance en compression in situ de bCton et de I'incertitude associCe aux mesures faites par essais non destructifs.
L'approche est illustrie par un exemple d'evaluation de la rCsistance en cisaillement du beton. L'exemple indique une
rCsistance rCelle supCrieure a la valeur utiliste pour la conception initiale de I'ouvrage, I'Ccart variant de 17 a 37% selon la
quantitC et la nature des donnees disponibles.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 14. 145- 154 (1987)

Introduction
In 1980 the Canadian Standards Association Technical Com-
mittee on Highway Bridges introduced, through clause 1 2 of
CAN3-S6, a probabilistic or statistical approach to the evalua-
tion of existing bridge structures. As stated in the 1980 Supple-
ment no. 1 to CAN3-S6 (Canadian Standards Association
1980), the approach "provides a method whereby the strength
of a bridge is determined on a statistical basis and compared to
the effects of any desired load."
The basic concepts underlying the probabilistic approach to
safety evaluation are outlined by MacGregor (1976), with par-
ticular reference to the determination of load and resistance
factors for limit states design of reinforced concrete structures.
Development of load and resistance factors for design of new
structures requires estimates of variability of parameters af-
fecting strength. These estimates are obtained primarily from
surveys of published data. Progressive refinement of the load
and resistance factors can be expected as more statistical data
are gathered and made available.
It has been suggested (Scanlon 1984) that a similar approach
is possible for evaluation of existing structures by considering
the variability of strength parameters in the actual structure
under consideration. In this case, the necessary data for the
evaluation can be obtained by taking appropriate measurements
and by performing various in situ and laboratory tests.
NOTE: Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until July 3 I, 1987 (address inside front cover).
The uncertainty associated with the evaluation of safety of an
existing structure can be significantly less than that for an
unbuilt new structure, since the existing structure has already
given evidence of its level of performance over its lifetime to
date, and because it is possible to obtain information on its
current in situ condition. The uncertainty presumably decreases
with an increase in the quantity and quality of data obtained
from the structure.
This paper describes an investigation carried out to assess the
variability of concrete strength and member dimensions in an
existing bridge structure located near Lethbridge, Alberta. Di-
mensional variability was assessed from a series of measure-
ments of the structural members. The concrete strength vari-
ability was assessed based on a combination of compressive
strength tests on cores, and two series of nondestructive tests.
Application of probability-based concepts to strength evalua-
tion is illustrated through an example using the data obtained.
Data acquisition
The investigation was conducted on a 34 year old two-lane
bridge over a Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District (LNID)
canal. The bridge was scheduled for demolition as part of a
highway upgrading programme.
The superstructure consisted of three continuous concrete
spans 12 200, 18 300, and 12 200 m m (40, 60, and 4 0 ft) long
as shown in Fig. 1. Dimensions of the slab and the five
T-girders are shown in Fig. 2. The girders varied in depth from
 146 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987
FIG. I . Elevation of bridge.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13
A 8 C D E
FIG.2. Cross section of bridge.
For personal use only.
FIG.3. Measurement of girder stem height.
1448 mm (4 ft 9 in.) over the piers to 686 mm (2 ft 3 in.) over
the abutments and at centre span.
The minimum 28-day compressive strength of concrete was
specified as 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) and reinforcement shown on
the design drawings consisted of deformed and nondeformed
square and round steel bars. The deck was covered with 80 mm
(3 118 in.) asphalt pavement.
Testing was restricted to the interior span. In situ data con-
FIG.4. Rigid caliper for stem thickness measurements.
sisting of member dimensions, pulse velocities, and rebound
numbers were obtained. In addition, a series of cores was taken
to provide direct measurements of concrete strength and to
provide a basis for correlation of the pulse velocity and rebound
readings with compressive strength.
Dimensions
Dimensions of the deck slab and girders were measured. The
slab dimensions were measured by coring through the slab at
seven locations. The vertical stem dimensions were obtained
using a device consisting of a steel square edge, clamps, levels,
and rigid scale as shown in Fig. 3. Vertical dimensions h , and
h2were measured by steel rule and the stem depth was obtained
by subtracting h2 from h , . Stem thickness measurements were
taken using a caliper device as shown in Fig. 4. The reference
dimension, 1, was measured using a steel tape and checked
every 20 min to ensure that the dimension remained constant
for measurements in each girder zone. The dimension d was
measured using a sliding caliper. Stem thickness measurements
were made to the nearest 0.1 mm. Accurate measurements of
stem thickness were required for the determination of pulse
velocities for concrete in the girders. The length of each girder
of the centre span was measured to the nearest millimetre using
a steel tape.
 SCANLON AND MIKHAILOVSKY
t t
PlER
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13
I
k0
z Grid Cell Location Numbers
FIG.5. Grid cells on girder stems.
North South
(a) End End
efors tCell
ocafion*
in Test
for Cells in
Locat~on
Zone S Zones N and M
For personal use only.
FIG. 6. Test locations within grid cell for pulse velocity and re-
bound hammer readings: ( a )Test locations for pulse velocity readings;
( b ) test locations for rebound hammer readings.
Pulse velocities
The development of ultrasonic testing, in which pulse veloc-
ity is determined from the time taken for a stress wave to
traverse a known path length, is described by Malhotra (1976).
The test is covered by ASTM Standard (2597. In this investiga-
tion testing was conducted with a C-4902 "V-meter" manu-
factured by James Electronics Inc. The digital display showed
the pulse propagation time in microseconds with an accuracy of
0. I p s . Readings were taken on the girder stems at grid loca-
tions illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6.
To define grid cell locations within the bridge, the girders
were identified by letters A-E as shown in Fig. 2. Each girder
was then divided into three zones, N (north zone), M (middle
zone), and S (south zone) as shown in Fig. 5. Within each
zone, a grid was marked on the girder stem and each cell was
numbered according to the sequence shown in Fig. 5.
Rebound numbers
Rebound testing, also described by Malhotra, was conducted
in accordance with ASTM Standard C805 with an "H-meter"
model C-7311 manufactured by James Electronics Inc. Nine
readings were taken in each cell of the grid layout in the
sequence shown in Fig. 6.
Legend
N = North Zone
M = Middle Zone
S = South Zone
PlER
350
Coring
Twenty-one locations were selected at random in the girder
stems. Cores were identified according to their location on the
stem grid layout. A magnetic inductance meier was used to
avoid, where possible, reinforcement embedded in the con-
crete. One core was discarded b e c a w of a steel bar inclusion.
Cores were drilled with a 100 mm (4 in.) diameter diamond
drill. Cores taken from the stems were placed in two groups.
The first group consisted of 10 single cores, each having a
length of approximately half the girder width. The second
group consisted of 11 pairs of cores, each pair obtained by
drilling through the stem and breaking the core in two pieces,
each approximately half the girder stem width.
Compressive strength tests and pulse velocity tests were
conducted on all of these cores. To assess the effect of surface
roughness, pulse velocity readings were taken with and without
the natural rough ends. Smooth ends were obtained by sawing
with a diamond blade.
Rebound readings were not taken directly on the cores be-
cause of difficulties associated with applying a proper hammer
blow to the curved surface of the core. Instead, rebound
readings were taken around the core hole in situ.
Correlation between compressive strength and nondestruc-
tive test parameters was performed on the cores taken from the
stems. Cores were also taken from 1 1 locations in the slab.
Seven full-depth and 4 half-depth cores were taken. The
7 full-depth cores were used to measure slab thickness.
Test results
Results of the dimensional survey, compressive strength
tests, and nondestructive tests are summarized below. Further
details are presented in a report by Mikhailovsky and Scanlon
(1985).
Dimensions
Measured and specified slab thickness values are compared
in Table 1 for the seven slab core locations. The results indicate
that instead of the specified slab thickness of 178 mm (7 in.),
a thickness of 254 mm (10 in.) was provided. The reason for
the large discrepancy was not identified.
The comparisons between measured and specified girder
height, girder thickness, and centre span length are summar-
ized in Tables 2-4. For these cases the agreement between
 148 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987

TABLEI. Measured and specified slab thicknesses TABLE

3. Measured and specified girdcr thicknesses

Slab thickness (mm) Stem thickness (mm)

Core Measured Specified Mean

NO. no. LM LS LMILS measured Specified
value value
Zone TM Ts T MI T S
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

Mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation

TABLE
2. Measured and specified girder heights

Girder hcight (mm)

Mean* of
Specified measured Mean
Section dimension dimensions Standard deviation
no. hs hM h~lhs Coefficient of variation
- -
For personal use only.

TABLE
4. Girder lengths of the middle span

Girder length (mm)

Specified Measured
Girder span span
NO. no. Ls LM LMILS
Mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
*Mean of 10 measurements: 2 symmetrical locations in
5 girders.

mean measured values and specified values is generally very Mean

good.
Pulse velocities
Pulse velocity readings at 451 cell locations defined as
shown in Fig. 5 were recorded for the five T-girders. Six
additional readings were discarded because of extremely rough
concrete surfaces preventing proper contact between the trans-
ducer and the concrete. The results are summarized in the
histogram shown in Fig. 7. The mean pulse velocity is
3.97 mm/ps with a coefficient of variation of 4.1%. Consid-
ering each of the 15 girder zones separately, the mean pulse
velocity ranges from 3.89 to 4.07 mm/ps while the coeffi-
cients of variation range from 2.2 to 5.4%. These results sug-
gest that the concrete quality is quite uniform over all five
girders.
Rebound readings
Rebound readings were taken at 457 cell locations. At each
location, nine readings were taken and the mean and minimum
values of the nine readings were recorded.
The mean and coefficient of variation of cell mean values are
47.7 and 6.7% respectively. It should be noted that the coeffi-
cient of variation of all rebound readings as opposed to all mean
values would be considerably higher. Taking the minimum
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
values for each cell, the mean was calculated as 40.6 with a
coefficient of variation of 9.8%.
Cores
Results of compressive strength tests, pulse velocity mea-
surements, and rebound readings for the 31 cores taken from
the girder stems are listed in Table 5. The histograms shown in
Fig. 8 provide an indication of the variability of compressive
strength, pulse velocity, and rebound number.
The coefficient of variation of the core compressive strength
values is more than five times that of the pulse velocities,
indicating that the variability of pulse velocity is not a direct
measure of the variability of compressive strength.
Comparing mean and coefficient of variation of pulse veloc-
ity in situ at the core locations with pulse velocity directly on
the cores in the laboratory the following values were obtained:
Mean CV
In situ 4.049 3.7%
Cores 4.199 3.1%
 SCANLON AND MIKHAILOVSKY

FREQUENCY

I3Or
FREQUENCY
I
f - 36.83

n = 31
f = 36.83 MPa
$ = 6.583 MPa
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

*
o r-
n 2 ~ vc ( \ ? f i r ~ ~ ~
o
N N N l O l O l O * $ : ;
COMPRESSION STRENGTH
OF CORES ( M P a l
PULSE VELOCITY (=)
PS
FREQUENCY
FIG.7. Histogram of pulse velocities in girder stems.

Correlation between compressive strength of cores

and nondestructive test parameters
A number of researchers have proposed expressions relating
For personal use only.

compressive strength with pulse velocity and (or) rebound

number (e.g. Facaoaru 1969; Chung and Law 1983; Samarin
and Dhir 1984; S t u m p et al. 1984). In some cases the expres-
sions include parameters related to the concrete mix propor-
tions, such as coarse and fine aggregatelcement ratios. For
existing structures these parameters are generally unknown.
Even when a reasonable estimate can be obtained from either
job records or samples taken from the structure, significant
variations can be expected depending on quality control of
batching and placement of concrete as well as possible effects
of aging. FREQUENCY

To evaluate concrete strength in existing structures, a direct

correlation between measured strengths and nondestructive test n
parameters appears to be a more practical approach. This
means that relationships must be developed for each individual
structure.
In this investigation a number of relationships were devel-
oped between compressive strength, pulse velocity, and re-
bound number.
To provide information on the effect of the number of data
points, regression analyses were carried out using two data
groups: a group of 20 cores and a group of 6 cores. The 20 cores
were selected randomly from the 31 cores taken from girder
stems. The group of 6 cores was selected from the group of NUMBERS Rmi,
20 cores to provide a set of core strengths covering the full
range of values. FIG. 8. Histograms of data for cores: (a) Histogram of compressive
strength of 31 cores; (b) histogram of pulse velocities of 20 cores;
Pulse velocity and compressive strength (c) histogram of minimum rebound numbers around 20 cores.
Regression analyses were performed on the data for 20 cores
using both a power and an exponential curve. An analysis was
aIso performed on the data of 6 cores using a power curve. The [3] f: = 0 . 0 0 1 7 2 ~ ~ . ' ~ (6
~ cores)
relationships obtained are as follows: (r = 0.944, 6, = 4.40MPa)

[l] f: = 0.020V5.227 (20 cores) where f: = estimated concrete strength (MPa), V = measured
(r = 0.832, 6, = 4.26 MPa) pulse velocity (mm/p,s), r = correlation coefficient, and 6, =
standard error of correlation (MPa).
[2] ff = 0.1 88e'.25V (20 cores) Figure 9 shows the scatter diagram and regression function
(r = 0.829, 6, = 4.02 MPa) based on the power curve for 20 cores.
 150 CAN J. CIV. ENG VOL. 14. 1987

TABLE5. Results of tests on girder stem cores CONCRETE STRENGTH

(MPal

Compressive Pulse Rebound no. $

Core strength* velocityt
no. (MPa) (mm/p,s) Mean Min. Max.

I 36.77 4.293 44.9 32 51

2 43.33 4.256 44.9 35 52
3 44.09 4.337 47.1 38 51
4 44.74 4.286 45.9 39 51
5 33.73 3.993 38.1 35 43
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

6 38.04 4.274 37.1 28 47

7 33.49 4.195 42.2 34 50
8 47.95 4.326 49.9 43 54
9 35.62 4.136 43.5 37 49
10 37.28 4.084 46.9 43 51
II 37.25 4.242 41.4 36 47
12 29.79 4.044 43.2 35 52
13 32.56 4.256 43.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
31 49
14 38.93 4.204 41.8 33 47 PULSE VELOCITY v (=)PS
15 21.07 3.917 41.9 31 48
16 20.33 3.920 44.0 40 50 FIG.9. Scatter diagram and the best-fitting curve,f, = 0.20~'."'
17 37.31 4.147 40.9 38 48 for the data on 20 cores.
18 35.28 4.268 39.8 32 47
19 38.44 4.304 40.1 30 45 CONCRETE STRENGTH
20 41.65 4.164 40.6 36 44 (MPa)
21 36.07 4.120 44.6 39 48
22 43.33 4.326 40.2 33 50
23 41.82 4.129 44.8 43 51
For personal use only.

24 37.34 4.299 42.9 37 49

25 29.42 3.972 38.9 33 45
26 32.56 4.148 39.2 34 43
27 45.76 4.381 47.0 42 50
28 38.93 4.204 39.6 33 48
29 35.16 4.134 45.1 32 54
30 44.74 4.388 44.6 36 52
31 27.51 4.035 40.9 31 53
I I . ' ' ' I ' I ~ f ~ ~ s
Mean 36.8 4.19 42.6 35.4 48.8 2 8 29 X) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Standard MINIMUM REBOUND NUMBER Rmi,
deviation 6.6 0.13 3.0 4.0 3.0
Coefficient of FIG. 10. Scatter diagram and the best-fitting curve, f, =
variation 0.18 0.3 1 0.07 0.11 0.06 1 . 4 1 0 for
~ ~the~data
~ on 20 cores.
*Compressive strengths shown are corrected for L I D ratio less than 2.
tPulse velocity readings shown are for both ends smooth.
$Values shown are based on eight in sir~rreadings taken around each core scatter diagram and best-fitting curve based on Rmi,.
hole. The values for correlation coefficient, r , obtained in this
study are low compared with values normally obtained for new
Rebound number and compressive strength concrete. Although the causes were not investigated in detail,
Eight rebound numbers were taken around each core hole. it is possible that carbonation of the surface has masked the
Regression analysis using a power curve was performed to effect of the underlying strength. Since surface carbonation
detemine the correlation between compressive strength and normally produces an increase in rebound number, the mini-
each of mean, minimum, and maximum rebound numbers, mum values may be more representative of the compressive
RnIcan,
R m i n and
, R,,,,. The regression equations and corre- strength in the member.
sponding correlation coefficients obtained for the 20-core
group are as follows: Pulse velocity, rebound number, and compressive strength
Because pulse velocity and rebound number measure differ-
[4] R,,: f: = 1.410~!:;~ ent parameters associated with concrete quality, it has been
(r = 0.504, 6, = 5.76 MPa) suggested (e.g. Facaoaru 1969) that a better estimate of
strength can be obtained using a combination of the two non-
[5] R,,,,: f,' = 9.351~:::~~ destructive test methods. Since the correlation between
( r = 0.127, 6, = 6.66 MPa) strength and Rnli,was found to be better than that using R,,,,,
[6] R,,,: f: = 22.510~!::' or R,,,, only R,, was considered in the combined approach.
( r = 0.040, 6, = 6.86 MPa) Using a power curve, the following relationships were
obtained:
These results indicate a weak correlation between compres-
sive strength and Rmi,, and little or no correlation between [7] f: = 0 . 0 0 4 5 ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ : ? (20 cores)
compressive strength and R,,,, or R,,,. Figure 10 shows the (r = 0.896, 6, = 3.28 MPa)
 SCANLON A N D MlKHAlLOVSKY 151
ACTUAL CONCRETE TABLE
6. Data sets used to estimate mean and standard deviation of
concrete strength
Case Data used
A Compressive strength tests on 31 cores
B Pulse velocities for 3 1 cores, regression curve from 20 cores
C Pulse velocities for 31 cores, regression curve from 6 cores
D Pulse velocities and minimum rebound numbers for 3 1 cores,
regression curve for 6 cores
E Pulse velocities and minimum rebound numbers from 69 ran-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

dom locations in the bridge, regression curve from 6 cores

[lo] f: = -25.6 + 0.655R ,,,, + 0.128V4

( r = 0.892, 6, = 3.08 MPa)
ESTIMATED CONCRETE
STRENGTH fe (MPa) The comparison between actual and estimated concrete
strengths for three of the relationships described above is
ACTUAL CONCRETE shown in Fig. I I. The results indicate significantly better cor-
STRENGTH ;1
(MPa) relation between strength and pulse velocity than between

I ibi
/+IS% strength and minimum rebound number. The best correlation
was obtained when pulse velocity and minimum rebound
readings were combined, although the improvement, compared
with pulse velocity alone, is quite small and the use of com-
bined testing does not appear to be justified in this instance.
The difference between expressions for 6 and 20 cores is also
quite small although it should be noted that the 6 cores were
selected from the group of 20 to cover the full range of com-
For personal use only.

pressive strength.

Evaluation of the mean and standard deviation of

concrete strength
20 30 40 50
ESTIMATED CONCRETE Various combinations of data obtained from the bridge were
STRENGTH f, (MPa) used to estimate the mean and standard deviation of concrete
strength. These quantities are required to evaluate the strength
ACTUAL CONCRETE of concrete in a probabilistic sense as well as the strength
STRENGTH fd
(MPa)
(resistance) of structural members.
I Since the estimates are based on limited samples of data, it
is of interest to know the levels of confidence associated with
these estimates. In each case the 95% confidence limits on the
estimate of the mean were calculated using the relationship
6
[I I] p = X + t,,,,, -
G
where p = population mean, 2 = sample mean, 6 = sample
standard deviation, n = number of data points in the sample,
and t,,,,, = parameter of the t-distribution at confidence level a,
with m = n - 1 degrees of freedom.
For the case where the sample standard deviation is based on
ESTIMATED CONCRETE indirect measurements the correlation error must be included,
STRENGTH 1,
(MPa)
and the sample standard deviation is calculated from (Samarin
FIG. 1 I. Comparison between the actual and the estimated concrete and Dhir 1984)
strength: (a)f, = 1 . 4 1 0 ~ ~ :(rebound);
;~" (b)f, = 0.020V~~~''(pulse
velocity); (c)f, = 0 . 0 0 4 5 ~ ~ (combined).
~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ; ~ ~
where 6, = standard deviation of the values estimated from the
correlation curve and 6, = standard error of correlation.
[8] ff = 0 . 0 0 2 0 3 ~ ~ ' ~ (6~ cores)
~ ~ ; ~ ~ To illustrate the effect of different sets of data on the esti-
(r = 0.948, 6, = 4.16 MPa) mated mean and standard deviation of the concrete strength, the
cases summarized in Table 6 are considered.
Samarin and Dhir (1984) proposed an expression of the form Cases A-D involve various combinations of core data while
case E involves indirect (nondestructive) it1 situ data and a
[9] ff=Ao+AIRm,,,+A2V3
regression curve based on 6 cores. Case E represents a typical
This form, with R ,,,, replaced by R ,,,,, gave the following application of nondestructive test methods with limited core
relationship: data.

TABLE
7. Mean and standard deviation of concrete cornprcssive strcngth and calculated shcar strength based on
- - - -
Sample Standard Standard
mean
-
deviation error
xc 6c 6,
Case (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13
'Relative to strength based on original specified
Results for each case are summarized in Table 7. The greater
uncertainty associated with the nondestructive test results com-
pared with the direct measurement of core strengths is evident
from a comparison of coefficients of variation and lower limit
values of the mean. It is expected that an optimum sampling
strategy would involve a combination of direct and indirect
measurements. Work is currently underway at the University of
Alberta to develop such a strategy using a Bayesian statistics
approach.
For case A, involving direct strength tests only, the interval
for p (at a = 95%) was calculated as (34.42, 39.24 MPa), i.e.
For personal use only.
there is a 95% probability that the true mean lies within the
range 34.42-39.24 MPa. The standard deviation was calcu-
lated as u = 6.58 MPa.
For cases B and C, the mean and standard deviation were
estimated on the basis of the pulse velocities obtained for the
3 1 cores using regression equaiions based on both 20 cores and
6 cores.
Using the power curve obtained for 20 cores, the mean value
of strength was calculated as = 35.94 with a standard devi-
ation 6, = 6.04 MPa. Because the strength is being measured
indirectly, the correlation error must be included. The standard
error associated with the correlation curve was calculated as
6, = 4.26 MPa. The overall standard deviation is calculated
from [12]:
6 = 7.39 MPa
The 95% confidence limits on the mean can now be calcu-
lated using [I I] as (33.23, 38.65 MPa). Using the correlation
relationship obtained from 6 cores, the mean value of concrete
strength based on pulse velocities for the 31 cores was cal-
culated as % = 37.35 MPa with a standard deviation of
7.74 MPa. The standard error for the correlation curve was
calculated as u,= 4.40 MPa, giving a total standard deviation
of 6 = 8.90 MPa and the 95% confidence limits on the mean
are (34.09, 40.6 MPa).
Using the procedure outlined above, the calculations were
repeated for the remaining cases to give the results summarized
in Table 7.
The greater uncertainty associated with indirect (nondestruc-
tive test) data compared with direct (core) data is illustrated
through a comparison of case A with E. The total standard
deviation for case E (indirect data) is 38% greater than for
case A (direct data). The sample means on the other hand are
CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 14, 1987
various sets of data
-
Confidcncc limits
Total on rncan (95%) Factored
standard shear
deviation Coefficient Lowcr Upper strength
6 of limit l~rnit +R % increase'"
(MPa) variation (MPa) (MPa) (kN) in strength
compressive strength of 20.7 MPa (3000 psi)
within 6%. The other cases, B-D, are intermediate between
the two extremes.
The differences are discussed further in the evaluation of
shear strength discussed in the following section.
Probabilistic evaluation of strength
The basic relationship between load and strength (resistance)
using a limit states design approach is given by
[ I 31 R(e-PaV~]3 Cl[ePavu]
or
[ 141 R y, [e-@vH] 3 U y, [esUVu]
or
1151 R b 3 UA
where R , 0 = mean values of strength and load, V,, V, =
coefficients of variation of strength and load, a = separation
function = 0.75, P = safety index, R , U = nominal values of
strength and load, y, = RIR, y, = U / U , and +,A = resis-
tance and load factor respectively.
The derivation and assumptions for these relationships are
given by MacGregor (1976). MacGregor has shown how the
relationship can be used as a basis for determining load fac-
tors (A) and resistance factors (+) for design using available
data on material and dimensional variability. Application of the
procedure to strength evaluation of existing structures will now
be illustrated by considering the shear strength at a critical
section of the bridge-for which field data were obtained.
The variability associated with dimensions and steel proper-
ties could also be included using the procedures outlined by
MacGregor (1976) from data obtained from the structure or
based on published information on variability of these quan-
tities. For simplicity it will be assumed that the only variability
is that associated with concrete strength since this is the domi-
nant factor. For other design parameters, such as dimensions
and steel yield strength, it will be assumed that the nominal and
mean values are identical with zero standard deviation.
First, the shear strength is calculated on the basis of the
specified 28-day strength (20.7 MPa (3000 psi)) and published
data on concrete strength variability. The calculations are then
repeated using data on mean and standard deviation of concrete
strength for various combinations of core strengths, pulse ve-
locity data, and rebound data.
At the design stage the in situ properties are not known and
the factored (design) strength is based on published data on
variability. To illustrate the calculation procedure, the fol-
 SCANLON AND MIKHAILOVSKY 153

lowing data given by MacGregor (1976) are used:

Coefficient of variation of fi,
Calculation of coefficietit of variation of shear strength
The standard deviation for the prediction of V , is
Mean concrete compressive strength in structure,
f, = 0.675fL + 7.6
= 21.56 MPa
Therefore, the coefficient of variation for the shear strength is
Correction factors for errors in design equation for shear,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13

7, = l.lV, + 1.2VS
Contribution of design equation error to coefficient of variation
of shear strength, The contribution of inaccuracy in the design equation to
uncertainty in predicting strength is included through the
V, = 0.15
relationship
Safety index for shear,
[21] v, = = \ / 0 . ~ ~ 8+
' 0 . 1 5 ~= 0.203
Substituting into [13], the factored shear strength is
The design equation for shear strength given in CSA
C A N 3 3 6 is
These calculations are repeated using the sample mean and
coefficient of variation of concrete strength values listed in
Table 7. The computed factored shear strength values range
For the section considered, the appropriate design data are from 295 to 347 kN, i.e. 17-37% increase compared with the
f: = 28-day compressive strength = 20.7 MPa strength based on initial specified concrete strength as indicated
For personal use only.

(3000 psi) in Table 7. The range in values reflects the varying degrees of
uncertainty associated with the types of data used to obtain the
b , = web thickness = 432 mm (17 in.) estimates of the mean and coefficient of variation of the in sit11
d = effective depth = 1067 mm (42 in.) concrete strength.
It should be emphasized that the procedure outlined above is
A, = area of stirrups = 258 mm' (0.40 in.') valid only if the concrete in the bridge girders can be consid-
fy = reinforcement yield strength = 248 MPa (36 ksi) ered as homogeneous, as was the case for the bridge under
consideration. An initial condition survey should be undertaken
s = stirrup spacing = 635 mm (25 in.) to identify any localized areas of distress or deterioration in the
structure. This can be done by visual inspection and non-
Calculation of mean shear strength destructive testing. Such conditions would require special at-
The nominal design strength is calculated from [I61 as tention in the evaluation of strength, perhaps including repairs
of the affected areas.
For the bridge considered in the study, the in situ strength
was found to be considerably higher than implied by the design
drawings. If the original design had been found to be mar-
ginally unsafe in terms of shear strength, an evaluation of this
type could provide a rational basis for finding the structure to
have adequate strength. Of course, other cases involving in situ
concrete strength less than the specified strength would be
Following the procedure outlined by MacGregor (1976) and treated in the same manner and the evaluation procedure would
considering only variability in concrete strength, the mean be effective in identifying an unsafe condition.
shear strength is obtained from Whether or not a detailed investigation of concrete strength
is required for evaluation of an existing bridge depends on the
critical design condition for the structure. For example, if the
strength is governed by flexure at an underreinforced section,
the concrete strength will have little influence on the calculated
strength. On the other hand, if shear strength is critical and the
amount of shear reinforcement is low, the concete strength can
have a significant effect on the calculated shear resistance, as
illustrated in the example.
The shear strength example illustrated how in sit11 data can
+
where f, = 0.675ff 7.6 = 21.56 MPa (MacGregor 1976) = be used to evaluate the strength of an existing structure. Further
mean concrete strength in the structure. work is required to calibrate the calculated strength against the
Including the effects of errors in the design equation, the load and resistance factors incorporated in the governing design
corrected mean shear strength is given by code. For example, MacGregor (1976) has shown that the
 154 CAN. I. CIV. ENG.
relationship given by [13] leads to a +-factor of 0.67 for shear
strength and load factors of 1.25 for dead load and of 1.5 for
live load.
If the governing design code is based on factors significantly
different than these, an appropriate adjustment would have to
be made to ensure that the calculated strength is compatible
with the code-specified factored loads.
Summary and conclusion
An example of an evaluation of an existing bridge structure
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dalian Nationalities University on 06/06/13
has been used to illustrate how strength data from cores and
nondestructive test results can be used to evaluate the safety of
an existing structure. Methods for correlating direct strength
tests and nondestructive tests were presented as well as a meth-
odology for including material variability and sampling error in
strength evaluation using a probabilistic approach. The greater
the uncertainty in the data, for example using indirect non-
destructive testing instead of direct tests on cores, the lower the
estimate of strength of the structure. For the structure consid-
ered, the estimated shear strength based on several types of
field data was in all cases greater than the strength calculated
on the basis of the original design compressive strength.
Acknowledgements
Technical assistance and financial support for this study pro-
vided by the Bridge Engineering Branch of Alberta Transporta-
For personal use only.
tion is gratefully acknowledged. The support of the Natural
View publication stats
VOL. 14, 1987
Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada through Oper-
ating Grant A5 153 is also gratefully acknowledged.
CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION Technical Committee on
Highway Bridges. 1980. Supplement no. 1 to CSA Standard
CAN3-S6-M78: Design of highway bridges.
CHUNG, H. W., and LAW,K . A. 1983. Diagnosing in situ concrete by
ultrasonic pulse technique. Concrete International Design & Con-
struction, S(10): 42-49.
FACAOARU, 1. 1969. Non-destructive testing of concrete in Romania.
Proceedings, Symposium on Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete
and Timber, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 39-49.
MACGREGOR, J. G. 1976. Safety and limit states design for reinforced
concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 3(4): 484-5 13.
MALHOTRA, V. M. 1976. Testing hardened concrete: Nondestructive
methods. American Concrete Institute, Monograph 9.
MIKHAILOVSKY, L., and SCANLON, A. 1985. Evaluation of existing
bridge structure by nondestructive test methods. Structural Engin-
eering Report no. 128, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
SAMARIN, A., and DHIR,R . K. 1984. In Determination of in situ
strength rapidly and confidently by nondestructive testing. Edited
by V. M. Malhotra. Publication SP-American Concrete Institute,
no. 82: 77-94.
SCANLON, A. 1984. Reliability index of existing concrete structures.
Symposium on Evaluation of Existing Concrete Structures: Safety,
American Concrete Institute Convention, Phoenix, Symposium
Volume.
STURRUP, V. R., VECCHIO,F. J., and CARATIN, H. 1984. In Pulse
velocity as a measure of concrete compressive strength. Edited by
V. M. Malhotra. Publication of SP-American Concrete Institute,
no. 82: 201 -227.