In-Place Strength Without

Testing Cores:
The Pullout Test

Prepared By

Nicholas J. Carino, PhD

Consultant, Chagrin Falls, OH, USA

1 www.sigmatest.org
Current Practice for Acceptance Testing
of Concrete

• Standardized testing of specimens made from concrete

delivered to the project
 Standard consolidation
 Standard curing
• Provides assurance that correct concrete was delivered
• Indicates potential strength
 Does not account for actual consolidation and curing

www.sigmatest.org
2
Future Performance-Based Specifications

• Measure in-place properties of concrete to

ensure structure will perform as
intended
• Methods for estimating in-place strength
 Testing drilled cores High cost
 Rebound number method
Requires correlation
 Probe penetration test testing for each
 Ultrasonic pulse concrete mixture
 velocity
Pullout test Reliable estimates

www.sigmatest.org
3
 Outline

• Explain pullout test

• Strength correlation and failure mechanism
• Describe CAPO-Test
• Case study
• Summary

4 www.sigmatest.org
 Pullout Test
ASTM C 900

Measure force to pullout an insert anchored in concrete.

 Cast-in-place (CIP): LOK-Test
 Post-installed (PI): CAPO-Test

5 www.sigmatest.org
 CIP-Pullout Test

25 mm
Insert
Insert

25 mm

Formwork

6 www.sigmatest.org
 CIP-Pullout Test

ternsI
Insert

55 mm

Pullout
Reaction Force
Ring
7 www.sigmatest.org
 CIP-Pullout Test

Insert
Insert

Pullout
Reaction Force
Ring
8 www.sigmatest.org
 Pullout Test
COMA-meter

Apply Pullout Load

Conical Fragment
9 www.sigmatest.org
 Estimate Concrete Strength
100

80
Compressive Strength, MPa

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pullout Load, kN

10 www.sigmatest.org
 Correlation Testing
ACI 228.1R
• Prepare cylinders (or cubes) for standard
compressive strength testing
• Prepare 200-mm cubes with inserts
• Cure all specimens under same conditions

11 www.sigmatest.org
 Correlation Testing

• At ages of 1, 2, 3,
7, 14 and 28
days:
 Test 2 cylinders 200 mm
(or cubes) for
compressive
strength 200 mm
 Perform 8 pullout
tests (2 cubes)

www.sigmatest.org
12
 Example of Correlation
35

30
Cylinder Strength, MPa

25

20

15

10

5
10 15 20 25 30
Pullout Force, kN

13 www.sigmatest.org
 Why is there a correlation?

• Analytical studies of pullout test have

been done
 Plasticity theory
 Compression-strut theory
 Aggregate-interlock theory
• Pullout strength is related fundamentally
to concrete strength

14 www.sigmatest.org
 Pullout Failure
Mechanism
Compression strut theory

15 www.sigmatest.org
 Pullout Failure
Mechanism
Compression strut theory

16 www.sigmatest.org
 Compression Strut

17 www.sigmatest.org
 Robust Correlation

Not affected by:

• Type of cementitious materials
• Water-cement ratio
• Age
• Air entrainment
• Types of admixtures
• Shape or size of normal density aggregate
up to 40 mm
 Lightweight aggregate, however, produces
significantly different correlation

18 www.sigmatest.org
 Cube Strength Correlations
120
Johansen - LOK core
1.16
Gerhard - LOK f = 0.76 F
Winden - LOK cube
100 Winden - LOK
Cube or Core Strength, MPa

Bellander - CAPO core

Bellander - LOK core
Bellander - CAPO
80 Bellander - LOK
Worthers - CAPO
Moczko - CAPO core

60 Price
Price--LOK
LOK General
Correlation

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pullout Force, kN
19 www.sigmatest.org
 Cylinder Strength Correlations
120

100
fcyl = 0.69 F1.12
Cylinder Strength, MPa

Gay - LOK
80 Bick ley - LOK
Krenchel - LOK
Krenchel - CAPO
Krenchel - LOK
Jensen - LOK
60 Drake - LOK
Drake - LOK
Poulsen - LOK
Kierkegaard - LOK
Lekso - LOK
40 Lekso - LOK
Krenchel - LOK
Krenchel - CAPO
McGee - LOK

20 Bickley - LOK
AEC - LOK &
CAPO
Obla - LOK
General Correlation
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pullout Force, kN
20 www.sigmatest.org
 Manufacturer’s General Correlations

100

80 f = 0.76 F1.16
Compressive Strength, MPa

cube

60

f = 0.69 F1.12
cyl
40

20 General Correlations for

Cylinder and Cube Strength

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pullout Load, kN
21 www.sigmatest.org
 Post-Installed Pullout Test CAPO-Test

• Does not require pre-planning test

locations
• Can perform test at any accessible
location
• Permits testing of existing
structures
• Immediate test results compared with
cores

www.sigmatest.org
22
 Prepare Concrete
Plane surface
Drill hole

18 mm
25 mm

Cut slot

25 mm
23 www.sigmatest.org
 Surface
Planing

www.sigmatest.org
24
 www.sigmatest.org
25
 Cut
Slot
3.5 mm

25 mm

www.sigmatest.org
26
 Cut
Slot

www.sigmatest.org
27
 Cut
Slot

www.sigmatest.org
28
 Insert Expansion Cone and Coiled
Split-Ring

Coiled ring

Cone

29 www.sigmatest.org
 Ring Expansion Hardware

Bevel

30 www.sigmatest.org
 Expand
Ring

Nut

www.sigmatest.org
31
 Pullout the Expanded Ring

32 www.sigmatest.org
 www.sigmatest.org
33
 CAPO-Test vs LOK-Test
70
CAPO = b*LOK
60 Value Error
b 1.0038 0.0051703
Chisq 112.19 1.3 kN
50
CAPO-Test Load, kN

R 0.99593

40

30
Krenchel
Bellander
20 Best-fit line

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

LOK-Test Load, kN
www.sigmatest.org
34
 Case
Study
November/December 2016

35 www.sigmatest.org
 Polish Bridge Study

• Tested 15 bridges: ages 25 to 52 years

• Measured depth of carbonation (2 to 35 mm)
• Tested drilled cores with L/D = 1 to represent cube
strength
• Conducted companion CAPO tests
• Used manufacturer’s correlation to estimate
cube strength from CAPO-Test
• Investigated effect of carbonation depth

www.sigmatest.org
36
 Correlation
60
Core Strength
Best fit curve: f = 0.77F1.15
50 core

Upper Confidence Limit

Lower Confidence Limit
Core Strength, MPa

40 General Correlation: f

= 0.76F1.16
c
u
30 b
e

20

10

0 15 20 25
0 5 10 30 35 40
CAPO-TEST, kN
37 www.sigmatest.or
 Relative Error

CT  Estimated Cube Strength  Core Strength 100 %

Core Strength

www.sigmatest.org
38
 Summary for 15 Bridges
Bridge Carbonation Average core Average Estimated Relative error,
No. depth, mm strength, MPa CAPO-TEST, compressive αCT, %
kN strength, MPa

1 2 34.2 28.1 36.4 6.4

2 4 24.7 21.4 26.6 7.7
3 5 46.4 37.3 50.6 9.1
4 5 34.2 28.7 37.3 9.1
5 7 37.1 27.5 35.5 -4.3
6 7 42.0 30.1 39.4 -6.2
7 7 37.5 29.2 38.1 1.6
8 8 35.4 28.3 36.7 3.7
9 10 42.4 30.6 40.2 -5.2
10 19 33.3 24.9 31.7 -4.8
11 20 29.7 24.6 31.2 5.1
12 20 28.5 24.3 30.8 8.1
13 22 31.7 26.1 33.4 5.4
14 26 31.7 26.5 34.0 7.3
15 35 19.6 16.4 19.5 -0.5
39
www.sigmatest.org
 Error vs. Carbonation Depth
20

15

10
Relative Error, %

-5
Linear Fit
-10 Value Error
Intercept 3.2683 2.5763
Slope -0.033116 0.15923
-15 Sq. Error 441.56 NA
R 0.057588 NA

-20
15 20 25
0 5 10 30 35 40
Carbonation Depth, mm
40 www.sigmatest.org
 Summary
• Pullout test offers the possibility of estimating in-
place concrete with acceptable reliability
• Stress state created by reaction ring leads to a
compression strut that explains the good correlation
with compressive strength
• CAPO-Test allows testing without pre-placing
inserts
• Polish bridge study
 On average, CAPO-Test estimate was 3 % greater
than core strength
 Carbonation did not appear to affect CAPO-Test
results
www.sigmatest.org
41
 Thank You !

Sigma Test and Research Centre

Regd. Office: 99, Badli Industrial

Area, Phase 2, Delhi 110042

Call +91 - 9560222333

www.sigmatest.org

mail@sigmatest.org
42