Comparative Study On Non Destructive Technique
Harish. G1, Durga Prasad Golla2
1
Student, Civil Engg, VEC-Anna University, Chennai, India
2
Scientist, Civil Engg, CSIR-CRRI, Delhi, India
Abstract— Non Destructive Techniques is used to analyse the
structural Integrity, defects and strength of concrete which is of
great relavancee in evaluating the health of the structure. These
techniques have their own pros as well as limitations, when
compared to conventional strength estimation and distress
detection tests. In this paper concrete specimens (cubes with
higher grades like M50,M60,M70 )were taken and discontinuous
were induced in these cubes using thick paper sheet and wooden
pieces at varying depths and positions within the specimens and
also NDT is also performed for real time structures like Building,
Bridges, Rigid etc. Apart from these the effect of Discontinuities
using NDT were established and how the phenomenon of each
testing does was known. The objective of this project is to detect
and defects and strength of the concrete specimens and structures
with various NDT Equipment’s.
Keywords: NDT, Damage Detection, Strength, Discontinuities.
I INTRODUCTION
Condition assessment of concrete for structural
evaluation purposes has been performed in last two decades
mostly by visual examination, surface sounding and coring to
examine internal concrete conditions. Condition assessments
can be made with NDT methods to provide information for the
structural performance of the concrete, such as: Member
dimensions, Location of cracking, delamination and
debonding, presence of voids and honeycomb, Steel
reinforcement location and size, Corrosion activity of
reinforcement, and Extent of damage from freezing and
thawing, fire, or chemical exposure.
The standard method of evaluating the quality of
concrete in buildings or structures is to test specimens cast
simultaneously for compressive, flexural and tensile strengths.
The main disadvantages are that results are not obtained
immediately. The concrete specimens may differ from actual
structure as a result of different curing and compaction
conditions and the strength properties of a concrete specimen
depend on its size and shape.
Although there can be no direct measurement of the
strength properties of structural concrete for the simple reason
that strength determination involves destructive stresses,
several non - destructive methods of assessment have been
developed. These depend on the fact that certain physical
properties of concrete can be related to strength and can be
measured by non-destructive methods. Such properties include
hardness, resistance to penetration by projectiles, rebound
capacity and ability to transmit ultrasonic pulses and X- and Y-
rays.
In this we are going to determine the effect of
discontinuities that can be determined using NDT or not it is
just a comparative study of how NDT behaves under different
circumstances .
II PREVIOUS STUDIES ABOUT NDT
1. Costel Chingalata and Mhai Budescu (2017) [2] gave us the
methods involved in combining both UPV and rebound
hammer test results with the help of SonReb method.
2. Jedidi Malek and Machta Kaouther (2014) [6] stated about
the NDT used on existing structure and gave the working
principle about each equipment and results was tabulated.
3. The efficiency of both Rebound Hammer and UPV test
results were compared out of which UPV test results were
useful to determine the defects in concrete and also gave a
comparison results of NDT[1].
4. The Indian Standard Code stated the working principle and
operation of both Rebound Hammer and UPV testing which
was useful in handling the equipment’s[5].
III METHODLOGY ADOPTED
The first and foremost thing that was done in this
project was Mix Design. In this project M35 grade concrete was
design and almost 19 cubes was casted and few discontinuities
like Thermocol of (10 x 10 cm with varying thickness ), Glass
piece (8 x 10 cm), Steel Fibres (Crimped) was placed inside the
cube at the centre and the test readings were compared with the
standard reference cube which doesn’t contain any type of
discontinuities was casted and the NDT was performed on both
kind of cubes and a comparison was done with the help of three
NDT like Rebound Hammer, Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Concrete Specimens Vs 7 Days
and Electric Resistivity Test and the comparison chart was Compressive Stength
discussed and future recommendation that have to be adopted

7 Days Compressive Strength (MPa)

in site was concluded 45
40
IV COMPARISION BETWEEN DESTRUCTIVE AND
35
NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
30
From previous studies and also from my test results:- 25
20
1. Destructive testing gives the exact strength of concrete when
15
compared to Non Destructive Testing and also the Efficiency
10
of the NDT are approximately 75%.
5
2. For existing structures the only and only method of testing is 0
NDT but only approximate results can be obtained. Reference Thermocol Glass Steel Fibres
Cube
3. For every NDT equipment’s proper Calibration must be done Concrete Specimens
to get accurate results otherwise NDT efficiency will decrease Equivalent Compressive Strength Obtained
Using Rebound Hammer
simultaneously. Equivalent Compressive Strength Obtained from
CTM
4. If there are no provision of past records of a structure NDT
can be used to create certain record of a existing structure.

V TEST RESULTS
FIGURE (2) Comparison Between The Compressive
Strength Between Value’s Obtained From Rebound Hammer
Days Vs Average Compressive strength
And CTM
Reference Cube Glass Thermocol Steel Fibres TABLE 1
45 Comparison Between Average Pulse Velocity Obtained
40 From UPV Test
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

35 Concrete Mix Age Average Concrete

(Days) Pulse Quality
30 (M35) Velocity
25 (km/sec)

20 Reference Cube 7,21,28 4.52 Excellent

15
Thermocol 7,21,28 3.16 Medium
10
Glass 7,21,28 3.42 Medium
5
Steel Fibres 7, 21,28 3.94 Good
0
7 21 28 Voids 7,21,28 3.47 Medium
Days
Steel Plate 7,21,28 2.79 Doubtful

FIGURE (1) Comparison Between The Compressive Strength

Between Reference Cube And Cube With Discontinuities
 TABLE 2 some defect but strong conclusion can’t be drawn from these
results.
Comparison Between Concrete Resistivity For Different
Cubes Using Electric Resistivity Test As Per ASTM TP 95 2. From my experiments UPV Test can rely to serve our
purpose and also a greater impact to determine the defects
Sl. Concrete Resistance Chloride inside the concrete and also it indicate very clearly about the
No. Specimen Value Ion changes of homogeneity inside the concrete specimens and also
(kΩ.m) Penetration Electric Resistivity meter can also determine that concrete has
1 Reference Cube 210.5 Very Low some defects in it but actual location of the defects can’t be
determined.
2 Thermocol 24.8 Low
3. SonReb method is used to combine both UPV and RH but
proper mathematical equation is not arrived to relate actual
3 Glass 103.6 Very Low
compressive strength with the combined test results.
4 Steel Fibres 182.5 Very Low
VII FUTURE RECOMMENDATION
5 Voids 29.1 Low Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test can be relied on to
determine what is actually inside concrete other methods can’t
6 Steel Plates 35.2 Low be as efficient as UPV test. Then Electric Resistivity meter test
can serve the purpose up to a mark but not required conclusion
can be drawn.

VIII REFERENCE
50
Concrete Specimens Vs
Compressive Stength [1] Adil M and EL Bashin (2015) volume 12, ‘Destructive and
Compressive Strength (MPa)

40 Non Destructive testing for concrete in Sudan’ from IOSR

Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering.
30 [2] Costel Chingalata and Mhai Budescu (2017) volume 63,
‘Accuracy in predicting the compressive strength of concrete
20 1. using SonReb method’.
[3] Enhancing the reliability of evaluating chloride ingress in
10 concrete’ from Journal of ASTM international volume 3
(March 2006).
0
[4] Indian Standard Code for Method of Tests for Strength of
Concrete, IS 516-1939.

[5] Indian Standard Code for Non Destructive Testing of

Concrete Specimens
Concrete-Method of Test, IS 13311-1992 Part 1, Part 2.
Gasparik
Di Leo Pascale 2. [6] Jedidi Malek and Machta Kaouther (2014) volume 8,
Arioglu et al
Cube Equivalent Strength ‘Destructive and Non Destructive Testing of Concrete
Structure’ from Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering.
.
FIGURE (3) Comparison Between The Compressive Strength
Obtained From Standard Testing And Using SonReb Method
Of Combining UPV and Rebound Hammer Test Readings

VI CONCLUSIONS
1. According to my Experiments we can clearly see that for
Non Destructive Evaluation of Defects in Concrete Rebound
Hammer test is not the one that can be relied upon and also we
can clearly see that it gives some indication of the presence of