EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CORE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

GOUTAM BISWAS

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA, BANGLADESH

2019
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CORE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

by
GOUTAM BISWAS
(Student No.: 0413042350F)

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering of Bangladesh University of

Engineering and Technology, Dhaka in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA, BANGLADESH

2019
 `

Page | i
 ABSTRACT

Core test is commonly required in the area of concrete industry to evaluate the concrete
strength and sometimes it becomes the unique tool for safety assessment of structural
adequacy of existing concrete structures. Core test is therefore introduced in most codes.
All studied codes provisions seem to be unreliable for predicting the in-situ concrete
standard cylinder strength from the results of core tests. Therefore an experimental study
has been performed to see the influence of different factors that affect the interpretation of
core test results.

For this purpose a number of concrete cores have been drilled from concrete blocks and
RC beams. Six beams were tested under two point loading to produce the first crack and
hence the microcrack at the interfaces of aggregate and mortar matrix in tension zone.
The blocks were stepped in order to maintain the similar condition for all cores. The
beams and blocks were cast for different mix ratios with different coarse aggregates
(stone chips and brick chips- ¾ inch downgraded). The minimum reinforcement was
provided in beams just to resist the temperature, shrinkage and stresses due to handling.
For each mix ratio, the cores with three different diameters (2 -inch, 3-inch and 4-inch)
were drilled along parallel and perpendicular to the direction of concrete casting from
blocks compression, neutral zone and tension zone of beams. From beam only 4-inch
diameter core were drilled from different locations which experience different stress
condition under bending test. Height to diameter 2.0 was maintained. The w/c ratio was
0.42 in order to maintain slump was 3 to 4 inch. For each ratio, three standard cylinders
were cast. The concrete cores and cylinder were tested in the laboratory following
standard method specified in ASTM C39 and comparison has been made between the
cores strength and standard cylinder strength to study the drilling effect on concrete core
strength.

The concrete core tests indicate that the average strength of 3-inch diameter core is almost
similar to the average strength of 4-inch diameter core. Where, 2-inch diameter cores
experience relatively low strength and the results are more scattered than the
corresponding 3-inch and 4-inch diameter cores. Analysis of results show that with the
increase of the ratio of drilling surface and volume of the core, the core strength becomes
lower and provide more scattered result in comparison with the corresponding larger
diameter cores.

The strengths of cores drilled from RC beams are not appeared to follow normal trends.
Generally, the cores in compression zone experienced higher strength than the core in
tension zone. The cores drilled from tension zone experience relatively lower strength
with scattered results.
Page | ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, the author would like to express my deepest gratitude to Almighty,
our lord, the all-knowing, the most merciful and the most compassionate, the benevolent
and the kind, for His graciousness, unlimited kindness and divine blessing for allowing
him to bring this effort to and end.

The author would feel extremely privileged to work under one of the most revered teacher
Dr. Sk. Sekender Ali, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University
of Engineering and Technology (BUET) and would like to express his heartfelt gratitude
and sincere thanks to him for his adept guidance and enthusiastic support throughout the
progress of this thesis. The author would be very thankful for his constant supervision,
continuous guidance, helpful criticism, continued encouragement and suggestion,
generous help and unfailing enthusiasm at all the stages of his work. His active interest in
this topic and valuable advice was the source of his inspiration.

The author also wishes to convey honest gratefulness to his M.Sc. defense committee: for
their thoughtful questions, valuable comments and suggestions.

The author is thankful to the committee for Advanced Studies and Research (CASR) of
BUET, Dhaka for time extension to pursue his degree and financing the research fund.

The author also take the opportunity to pay his heartfelt thanks to all officers and staff
member of Concrete Laboratory and Strength of Materials Laboratory for their
cooperation, consistent support and painstaking contributions to the research and
experimental work.

The author finally likes to pay his deepest homage to the family members and his wife
Dr. Rinki Mazumder who helped him with necessary advice and moral support,
encouragement and sacrifice during the course of this thesis.

Page | iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Notations xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 General 01
1.2 Objectives with specific aims 01
1.3 Outline of methodology/for experimental study 02
1.4 Determination of compressive strength of concrete 02
1.5 Organization of report 03

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction 04
2.2 Factors Effecting Concrete Compression Strength 04
2.2.1 Effects of Core Preparation on Strength 06
2.2.1.1 Effects of Core Aggregate Type and Size 07
2.2.1.2 Effects of Consolidation 07
2.2.1.3 Effects of Curing Conditions 08
2.2.1.4 Effects of Moisture Condition of Sample 10
2.2.1.5 Effects of Bleeding 12
2.2.1.6 Presence of Microcracks 12
2.2.1.7 Capping Condition 12
2.2.1.8 Rate of Loading 13
2.2.2 Effects of Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d) 13
2.2.2.1 Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d) Correction Factors 15
2.2.2.1 Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d) Correction Factors for 18

Page | iv
 High-Strength Concrete
2.2.2.3 Length to Diameter (l/d) Correction Factors for Short 20
Cores
2.2.3 Effects of Core Diameter on Compressive Strength of Core 20
2.2.3.1 Application of Core Diameter Correction Factors 22
2.2.3.2 Minimum Core Diameter 25
2.2.4 Effects of Damage on Core Compressive Strength of Concrete 26
2.2.5 Effects of Casting Direction on Core Compressive Strength of 26
Concrete
2.2.6 Effects of the Presence of Embedded Steel Reinforcement in Core 27

Chapter 3 Experimental Work

3.1 General 30
3.2 Overview of experimental work 30
3.3 Routine Test for Raw Materials 36
3.4 Preparation of Formwork 38
3.5 Ingredients of Concrete and Mix Ratio for Different Concrete Members 41
3.5.1 Raw Materials 42
3.5.2 Mixing Proportion and Procedure for Concrete Casting 42
3.6 Fresh Concrete Testing and Preparation of Experimental Elements 44
3.6.1 Test of Fresh Concrete 44
3.6.2 Preparation and of Standard Cylinders 44
3.6.3 Placement of Fresh Concrete inside the Formwork 45
3.6.4 Finishing Work 46
3.6.5 Curing of Different Concrete Members 47
3.7 Standard Cylinder Compression Strength Test 47
3.8 Two Point Load Test of RC Beam 48
3.9 Marking the Position of Drilling of Core Samples 51
3.10 Drilling of Cores 52
3.11 Core Marking, End Finishing, Drying and Packaging 55
3.12 Sulfur Capping of Core 60
3.13 Compressive Strength Test on Cores 62

Page | v
Chapter 4 Results And Discussion
4.1 General 63
4.2 Results of Compression Test of Concrete Block and Beam Specimens 63
4.3 Relationship between Compressive Strength of Standard Cylinder and 65
Core Specimens
4.4 Analysis of Core Result in Respect of Core Diameter 67
4.5 Analysis of Core Strength in Respect of Different Stress Condition of RC 71
Beam in Bending
4.6 Analysis the Effect of coring/drilling operation on core sampling 76

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 General 78
5.2 Conclusions 78
5.3 Recommendations 79
References 81
Appendix A: Properties of Raw Materials 86
Appendix B: Procedure of Mixing and Testing of Concrete Specimens 92
Appendix C: Raw Data of Standard Cylinder and Core for Compression Strength 97

Page | vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

Table 2.1 Core Strength correction factors (ACI 214 2010) 05

Table 2.2 Strength correction factors accounting for effects of different 10

moisture conditioning, fmc (ACI 214 2010)

Table 2.3 Correction Factors for Different length to diameter ratio (l/d) for 17
Concrete Strengths between 2000 to 6000 psi (ASTM C42)

Table 2.4 Core strength correction factors accounting for effects due to l/d, fl/d 19
(ACI 214 2010)

Table 2.5 Strength correction factors for effects of core diameter, fdia (ACI 22
214 2010)

Table 2.6 Strength Correction Factors for Steel Reinforcement Present in 29

Core Sample (Bartlett and MacGregor 1995)

Table 3.1 Summary of Experimental Work 32

Table 3.2 Number of Cores (2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch Diameter) 33

Table 3.3 Summarized Schedules for Following a Casting Date 35

Table 3.4 Concrete Mix Proportion for Different Casting Work 42

Page | vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.
No.
Fig. 2.1 Relationships between compressive strengths of column core 08
samples and standard-cured specimens cast with high-strength
concrete (Cook 1989).
Fig. 2.2 Effects of temperature on compressive strength (adapted Carino 09
1981)
Fig. 2.3 Partial regression plot of core strength versus moisture gain (Bartlett 11
and MacGregor 1994a)
Fig. 2.4 Observed and predicted correction factors (adapted from Bartlett and 16
MacGregor 1994b)
Fig. 2.5 Element dimensions and core locations (Bartlett and MacGregor 18
1994b)
Fig. 2.6 Element dimensions and core locations (Bartlett and MacGregor 19
1994b)
Fig. 2.7 Normalized average core strength versus core diameter (adapted 23
from Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c)
Fig. 2.8 Diameter effect for cores with different length to diameter ratio (l/d) 24
(Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c)
Fig. 2.9 Effect of Coring Direction Relative to Casting Direction (Suprenant 27
1985)
Fig. 3.1 Block Dimensions and Core Drilling Plan along the Direction of 31
Casting
Fig. 3.2 Block Dimensions and Core Drilling Plan along Perpendicular to the 31
Direction of Casting
Fig. 3.3 RC Beam and its Core Drilling Plan after Two Point Loading Test 32
Fig. 3.4 Sample of Cores from Concrete Block 36
Fig. 3.5 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates 37
Fig. 3.6 Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregates 37
Fig. 3.7 Determination of Bulk Density and Specific Gravity of Coarse 38
Aggregate
Fig. 3.8 Formwork for Concrete Block (Core Drilling along the Concrete 38

Page | viii
 Casting)
Fig. 3.9 Formwork for Concrete Block (Core Direction along the 39
Perpendicular to Concrete Casting)
Fig. 3.10 Formwork for Reinforced Concrete Beam 39
Fig. 3.11 Hoisting Arrangement and Reinforcement Layout of RC Beam 41
Fig. 3.12 The Mixture Machine with Concrete Ingredients 43
Fig. 3.13 Slump Test for Fresh Concrete 44
Fig. 3.14 Preparation and Marking of standard cylinder 45
Fig. 3.15 Placement of Fresh Concrete inside the Formwork and Compaction 46
with Vibrator
Fig. 3.16 Concrete Block and Beam after Concreting 46
Fig. 3.17 Curing of Beam and Block Covered with wet Hessian Cloth 47
Fig. 3.18 Compression Test of Standard Cylinder 48
Fig. 3.19 Concrete Beam before Lime Paint 48
Fig. 3.20 Concrete Beam after Lime Paint 49
Fig. 3.21 Transportation of RC Beam for Two Point Load Test 50
Fig. 3.22 Positioning of RC Beam for Two Point Load Test 50
Fig. 3.23 Two Point Load Test of RC Beam (Applied Load is up to the 51
Calculated Cracking Load)
Fig. 3.24 Marking the Core Position on Block for Drilling Purpose 51
Fig. 3.25 Marking the Core Position on RC Beam for Drilling Purpose 52
Fig. 3.26 Drilling of Cores from the RC Beam after Two Point Load Test 53
Fig. 3.27 Drilling of Concrete Cores from Concrete Blocks 53
Fig. 3.28 Concrete Blocks after Drilling 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch Diameter 54
Cores
Fig. 3.29 Reinforced Concrete Beam after Drilling of 4 inch Diameter Cores 54
Fig. 3.30 Core Samples in Polythene Bags 55

Fig. 3.31 Nomenclature for Labeling of Each Core Drilled From Concrete 56
Block
Fig. 3.32 Identification of Core Drilled from Concrete Block 56

Page | ix
Fig. 3.33 Nomenclature for Labeling of Each Core Drilled From RC Beam 57
Fig. 3.34 Identification of Core Drilled from RC Beam 57
Fig. 3.35 Drying of Cores after Drilling 58
Fig. 3.36 Sawing of Concrete Core for End Finishing 58
Fig. 3.37 Measuring of Length of Concrete Cores during Sawing 59
Fig. 3.38 Drying Concrete Cores after End Finishing 59
Fig. 3.39 Measuring the diameter of concrete core 60
Fig. 3.40 Concrete Core after Sulfur Capping 61
Fig. 3.41 Different Capping Stand for Different Sizes of Cores 61
Fig. 3.42 Compression Test of Concrete Cores 62
Fig. 4.1 Mean Compressive Strength of Standard Cylinder Tested on 52- 63
Days at Same Curing Conditions
Fig. 4.2 Compressive Strength Test Results of Concrete Core and Standard 64
Cylinder at Same Age and Curing Conditions.
Fig. 4.3 Compressive Strength Test Results of Concrete Core Drilled from 65
RC Beam after Two Point Load Test.
Fig. 4.4 Comparisons of the Strength of Concrete Core against Standard 66
Cylinder at Same Age and Curing Conditions
Fig. 4.5 Effect of Core Diameter on Compressive Strength of Core 68
Fig. 4.6 Co-efficient of Variation of Core Drilled from Concrete Block 69
Fig. 4.7 Calculated Cracking Load of RC beam during Two Point Load Test 71
Fig. 4.8 Deflection of RC Beam for Gradually Applied of Calculated 72
Cracking Load
Fig. 4.9 Concrete Cores Compressive Strength vs. Distance of Drilled Core 74
from the Left Support of RC Beam
Fig. 4.10 Comparisons of the Strength of Concrete Core against Standard 75
Cylinder at Same Age and Curing Conditions
Fig. 4.11 Co-efficient of Variation for Concrete Core Drilled from RC Beam 76
Fig. 4.12 Effects of Drilling Orientation on the Core Compression Strength 77

Page | x
 NOTATIONS

Symbol Description

A Cross sectional area of concrete sample

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACI American Concrete Institute

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BS British Standard

c Cement content

COV Co-efficient of Variance

fc Flexural strength of concrete

fr Modulus of rupture

FM Fineness Modulus

HSC High Strength Concrete

ITZ Interfacial Transition Zone

P Load applied to the sample

RC Reinforced Concrete

UTM Universal Testing Machine

w/c Water/ Cement ratio

w Water content

Page | xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Core test is commonly required in the area of concrete industry to evaluate the in-situ
concrete strength and sometimes it becomes the unique tool for safety assessment of
existing concrete structures. Many engineers have the experience of taking cores from
existing reinforced concrete structural members (foundation, beam, column, etc.). When
cores are taken from columns, usually they are drilled from approximately mid height and
sometimes near the beam column joint (top or bottom). When the cores are taken from the
floor beams, they are taken either vertically or laterally from different locations. In all
these cases, the concrete experiences either segregation or bleeding depending on the
location from where the cores are drilled. Depending on loading, the concrete at different
locations of column and beam experiences different stress condition (uniaxial to multi-
axial stress state, tension or compression). In structural design of reinforced concrete
members, it is usual practice to allow the crack formation, when the concrete is subjected
to tension. Therefore, the location of reinforced concrete members from where the cores
are taken should very important for founding the representative compressive strength.

Therefore, this study aims at the experimental investigation of the influences of such
parameters on concrete core strength.

1.2 Objectives With Specific Aims

The experimental work and research described in this report has been performed to
address the following primary objectives:

a) To study the variation of concrete core strength with standard cylinder compressive
strength, in respect to the direction of drilling and the direction of compaction of
concrete during casting using both stone Chips and brick Chips in concrete.

b) To study the effect of diameter of core samples on core strength of concrete.

c) To study the effect of core samples drilled from areas with different stress condition.

Page | 1
1.3 Outline of Methodology/ Experimental Study

The whole study will have been conducted according to the following steps:

a) The properties of different ingredients of concrete (routine test of sand, stone chips,
brick chips, cement) will have been determined in the laboratory.

b) Six concrete blocks (3-from stone chips and 3-from brick chips) will have been cast
using Portland composite cement for three different mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and
1:2:4) and drilled of cores along the direction of casting. At the same time for every
mix ratio three standard cylinders (4 inch x 8 inch) will have been cast.

c) Six concrete blocks (3-from stone chips and 3-from brick chips) will have been cast
using Portland composite cement for three different mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and
1:2:4) and drilling of cores along perpendicular to the direction of casting. At the
same time for every mix ratio three standard cylinders (4 inch x 8 inch) will have been
cast.

d) Six simply supported beams (3- stone chips and 3- from brick chips) will have been
cast using Portland composite cement using three different mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5,
1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4). The core samples were drilled from the beam after two point load
test. The beams will have been tested up to first cracking load. At the same time for
every mix ratio three standard cylinders (4 inch x 8 inch) will have been cast.

e) The results of those tests will have been discussed in detail and are presented in both
tabular and graphical form.

1.4 Determination of Compressive Strength of Concrete

Compressive strength is one of the most important and useful properties of concrete. It
usually gives an overall picture of the quality of concrete because it is directly related to
the structure of harden cement paste. This method has been confirmed to the ASTM
standard requirements of specification C39 and C42.

Page | 2
1.5 Organization of the Report

Chapter 2 of this thesis discusses published literature that addresses multiple variables
affecting in-place core strength. Chapter 3 documents the experimental plan developed
for this study. Chapter 4 presents the experimental results and discussion. Chapter 5
summarizes the thesis and presents recommendations resulting from the experimental
results. Appendix A contains the properties of raw materials and Appendix B contains the
procedure of mixing and testing of concrete specimens. Appendix C contains the raw data
collected including all average cylinder strengths and core strengths.

Page | 3
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Cores are generally taken from structural members to assess whether the concrete of a
new structure complies with strength-based acceptance criteria or to establish the quality
of in-place concrete (ACI 214 2010). Core testing is the most direct method to determine
the in-place compressive strength of concrete in a structure (ACI 214 2010). Although the
procedure for testing compressive strength is fairly straightforward, the factors affecting
the strength results can be very complex.

To determine in-situ strength, core test is available but most codes give different results
depended on the factors used. It is generally agreed that the compressive strength of
extracted core can be obtained by dividing the ultimate load by the cross-sectional area of
the core, calculated from the average diameter; however, the critical problem is actually
to translate this result to cube/cylinder strength. In fact, the core test results must be
carefully interpreted since core strength is affected by a number of factors such as
diameter, aspect ratio (l/d), moisture condition of the core specimen, direction of drilling,
the presence of reinforcement steel bars in the core, type and size aggregate and even the
strength level of the concrete.

2.2 Factors Effecting Concrete Compressive Strength

Many factors affect the apparent strength of the cores obtained from the in-place
structure. ASTM C42 (2018) mentions about the core diameter, core length, length to the
diameter ratio and moisture condition as the parameters affecting the compressive
strength of core specimens obtained from an existing structure. In that standard, it is also
pointed out that the results are affected not only by the geometrical shape of the core
specimen but also by the distribution of the moisture in the specimen.

ACI 318 (2011) recognizes that core strengths are potentially lesser in strength than
molded cylinders, which are cast to represent the quality of concrete used in a structure.
Thus, it is desirable to convert measured core strength to a value that accurately predicts

Page | 4
the equivalent in-place compressive strength. For a given core strength result, the
equivalent in-place strength can be computed using the following equation from Bartlett
and MacGregor (1995) and ACI 214 (2010).

fc = Fl/d Fdia Fmc Fd fcore Equation 2.1

Where,

fc = Equivalent in-place compressive strength (psi)

Fl/d = Strength correction factor accounting for core l/d effects (Table 2.1)

Fdia = Strength correction factor accounting for core diameter size (Table 2.1)

Fmc = Strength correction factor accounting for core moisture condition (Table 2.1)

Fd = Strength correction factor accounting for effects of damage due to drilling

fcore = Core compressive strength (psi)

Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) also provide a Table, which shows how these values are
calculated. The factors obtained from this Table are then substituted into Equation 2.1 to
calculate the equivalent core strength.

Table 2.1: Core Strength correction factors (ACI 214 2010)

Factor Mean Value Coefficient of Variance

Fl/d: l/d Standard Treatment* 1 – {0.120 – αfcore}(2 – l/d)2 2.5(2 – l/d)2

Ratio
Soaked 48 hours in water 1 – {0.117 – αfcore}(2 – l/d)2 2.5(2 – l/d)2

Dried** 1 – {0.144 – αfcore}(2 – l/d)2 2.5(2 – l/d)2

Fdia: Core 2 inch (50mm) 1.06 11.8

diameter
4 inch (75mm) 1.00 0.0

6 inch (100mm) 0.98 1.8

Fmc: Core Standard treatment* 1.00 2.5

moisture

Page | 5
 content Soaked 48 hours in water 1.09 2.5

Dried** 0.96 2.5

Fd: damage due to drilling 1.06 2.5

*Standard treatment specified in ASTM C42 , **Dried in air at 60 to 70 °F and relative

humidity less than 60% for 7 days and +Constant α equals 3(10-6) 1/psi for fcore in psi.

In addition to the parameters presented below, in the guide document Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA-274) an additional correction factor (Fr) was also suggested
when the core includes a reinforcing bar. If there is no reinforcing bar in the core that
factor is 1.00; if there is one reinforcing bar, it is 1.08; and if there are two reinforcing
bars, it is 1.13. As a result, the following formula is suggested when calculating the
equivalent compressive strength by using the compressive strength of cores drilled from
an existing structure.

fc = Fl/dFdiaFrFmcFdfcore Equation 2.2

2.2.1 Effects of Core Preparation on Compressive strength

The strength of concrete is driven by the water-cement ratio (w/c). Mehta and Monteiro
(2014) conclude that as the w/c decreases, strength increases. The in-place strength of
concrete is commonly estimated by testing standard 6 x 12 in. molded cylinders. When
cylinder strengths are low, as per ACI 318 (2011), and the strength of a structure is in
question, cores are retrieved to further investigate. Variety of variables may affect
concrete strength. Microcracks in a core reduce strength (Szypula and Grossman 1990).
Microcracks may occur when the structure is exposed to thermal and moisture changes
while also being restrained against movement. Additionally, improper or rough handling
of the core specimen can also cause microcracking (ACI 214 2010).

Theoretically, concrete gains strength over time. At early ages, the strength development
is rapid, but at later ages the strength gain is much slower. However, there are many
factors that affect strength development. The following subsections cover effects of
materials and core preparation procedures used for this project on strength.

Page | 6
2.2.1.1 Effects of Core Aggregate Type and Size

The nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate in a concrete mixture is selected
based on a design criteria and availability. Test results have shown that larger sizes of
coarse aggregates can cause a gradual decrease in relative core strength, but this effect is
less significant at later ages (Arioz et al. 2007a). This may be caused by the effects of
cutting operations and the presence of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ). Due to bleed
water, the w/c surrounding the coarse aggregate is marginally increased creating a
weakened membrane around the coarse aggregate (Mehta and Monteiro 2014).

For specimens that have large aggregate particles in relation to the size of the specimen,
the effects of any aggregate loosened by cutting will be increased (Bungey 1979). Larger
aggregates will also create larger ITZ’s, thus, potentially creating pop-outs and weaker
areas within the specimen. In general, the larger the aggregate size and greater the local
w/c in the ITZ, the weaker and more permeable the concrete will be (Mehta and Monteiro
2014).

2.2.1.2 Effects of Consolidation

Concrete is usually consolidated by vibration to expel entrapped air after placement. The
strength is reduced by about 7% for each percent by volume of entrapped air remaining
after insufficient consolidation (Popovics 1969; Concrete Society 1987; ACI 309.1R).
The investigator may need to assess the extent to which poor consolidation exists in the
concrete in question by using the nondestructive techniques reported in ACI 228.2R.

Consolidation of plastic concrete in the lower portion of a column or wall is enhanced by

the static pressure of the plastic concrete in the upper portion. These consolidation
pressures can cause an increase of strength (Ramakrishnan and Li 1970; Toossi and
Houde 1981), so the lower portions of cast vertical members may have relatively greater
strengths.

Page | 7
2.2.1.3 Effects of Curing Conditions

The two main factors that impact strength during curing are the humidity and
temperature. Controlling curing conditions is critical for minimizing shrinkage and
microcracking. When high initial temperatures are generated during the hydration of
cement, a non-uniform thermal gradient may be present throughout the thickness of the
structure. These high initial temperatures can significantly reduce the strength of the
interior regions of elements (ACI 305 2010). In Fig. 2.1, Cook (1989) provides an
example where concrete core strength varies between interior and exterior specimens
recovered from 30 x 30 in. columns.

Fig. 2.1: Relationships between compressive strengths of column core samples and
standard-cured specimens cast with high-strength concrete (Cook 1989).

As shown in Fig. 2.1, the ratio of core strength to standard cylinder strength of the middle
is, in general, noticeably less than the exterior faces of the columns examined. This
suggests that exterior curing methods create variation in temperature conditions
throughout a structure. Based on Fig. 2.1, exterior faces have greater strengths than
interior faces because exterior faces experience more optimal curing conditions.

On the other hand, the length along, and depth within, the specimen may affect the
strength of the concrete in the earlier days as inner sections of the specimen would
generate and retain heat better than outer sections (J. Cook 1991). This increased heat in
the inner sections of the specimen would increase the reaction rate of the hydrating
Page | 8
cement, allowing the inner sections to develop strength faster than the outer sections (A.
M. Neville 2011).

Similarly, the presence of moisture has a more significant effect on the in-place strength
of slabs or beams than the in-place strength of walls or columns because the unformed top
surface is a relatively large fraction of the total surface area (ACI 214 2010). Through a
collection of data from four studies, Bartlett and MacGregor (1996) found that the core
strength from poorly cured, shallow elements averages 77 percent of the core strength
from properly cured elements at concrete ages of 28, 56, 91, and 365 days. Loss of water
slows down the hydration process, thus decreasing strength. Controlling the temperature
is especially important when ambient temperatures are high. Shown in Fig. 2.2 are the
effects that temperature has on compressive strength.

Fig. 2.2: Effects of temperature on compressive strength (adapted Carino 1981)

The compressive strength gain begins at an earlier age for higher temperature concretes.
Higher concrete temperatures also result in lower overall compressive strength gain. The
effects that curing can have on strength are evident when comparing core strength to
standard cured cylinder strength. In accordance with ASTM C42 (2018) cylinders are
kept in a moist curing environment at 73°F (±3°F). However, cores are retrieved from
various locations in a structure. Therefore, only the exposed surface may have directly
benefited from the curing treatment on the structure. In other words, cylinder specimens
receive optimal curing while cores receive variable curing conditions that depend on the
structure’s exposure condition. For this reason, standard cured cylinders generally fail at
greater compressive strengths. However, for concrete mixtures with w/c ratios above 0.5,
Page | 9
the amount of water present is adequate for hydration (B. Persson 1997). Many modern
concrete mixtures utilize w/c ratios less than 0.5 and additional water may be required for
curing. The effects of inadequate curing are more pronounced on concrete mixtures which
have a lower rate of strength development, such as those containing fly ash or BFS
(Popovics 1986).

2.2.1.4 Effects of Moisture Condition of Sample

The conditioning of the concrete cylinder or core refers to how the sample is stored after
the core is extracted and before testing. This does not refer to the curing of a large
concrete element. ASTM C42 (2018) states that moisture conditioning involves wiping
water from drilling of the core and allows the surface moisture to evaporate. After surface
drying, but not later than 1 hour after drilling, the cores are to be sealed in individual
containers or plastic bags until testing. A 2-hour window is permitted for wet sawing or
end grinding, no later than 2 days after coring, after which the core must surface dry
before being placed back in a sealed container. This process must be competed at least 5
days before testing to reduce any moisture gradients present in the sample. This method
of conditioning seals in the moisture with the sample until the testing day. If there is not
enough water sealed inside, hydration cannot be fully completed. However, other
common practices are to soak the core in water for 48 hours or allow the core to air-dry.

To account for the effects due to these different moisture conditions, Table 2.2 from
Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) and ACI 214 (2010) provides the strength correction
factor that is applied to the measured core strength.

Table 2.2: Strength correction factors accounting for effects of different moisture
conditioning, fmc (ACI 214 2010)

Factor Correction Factor, fmc

Standard Treatment* 1.00

Soaked 48 hours in water 1.09
Dried** 0.96
*Standard treatment specified in ASTM C42

Page | 10
 **Dried in air at 60 to 70°F and relative humidity less than 60% for 7 days
The strength correction factors provided in Table 2.2 are part of the ACI 214 (2010)
standard based on findings from Neville (1981) and Bartlett and MacGregor (1994d) that
suggest air-dried cores, which are samples left out in open air at 16-21°C at an relative
humidity less than 60% for 7 days, are 10 to 14% stronger on average than soaked cores
due to the drying shrinkage. For soaked cores, the test specimen shall be completely
submerged for 48 hours and compression tested immediately afterward. Additionally,
“drying the surface causes shrinkage that, when restrained, creates a favorable residual
stress distribution that increases the measured strength” (ACI 214 2010). Conversely,
soaked concrete cores swell at the surface, which creates self-equilibrated stresses on the
interior region that reduce the measured compressive strength (Popovics 1986).

The use of sealed bags is the standard moisture conditioning procedure and is “intended
to preserve the moisture of the drilled core and to provide a reproducible moisture
condition that minimizes the effects of moisture gradients introduced by wetting during
drilling and specimen preparation” (ASTM C42 2018). A study conducted by Bartlett and
MacGregor (1994a) indicated that “moisture gradients across the cross section of the test
specimen appreciably affect its strength.” Bartlett and MacGregor (1994a) provide the
plot of core strength versus moisture gain shown in Fig. 2.3.

Fig. 2.3: Partial regression plot of core strength versus moisture gain (Bartlett and
MacGregor 1994a)

Page | 11
2.2.1.5 Effects of Bleeding

Shallow voids under coarse aggregate caused by bleeding can reduce the compressive
strength transverse to the direction of casting and consolidation (Johnson 1973). The
strength of cores with axes parallel to the direction of casting can therefore be greater
than that of cores with axes perpendicular to the direction of casting. The experimental
findings, however, are contradictory because some investigators observed appreciable
differences between the strengths of horizontally and vertically drilled cores (Sanga and
Dhir 1976; Takahata, Iwashimizu, and Ishibashi 1991) while others did not (Bloem
1965). Although the extent of bleeding varies greatly with mixture proportions and
constituent materials, the available core strength data do not demonstrate a relationship
between bleeding and the top-to-bottom concrete strength differences.

For concrete cast against earth, such as slabs and pavements, the absorptive properties of
the subgrade also affect core strength. Cores from concrete cast on subgrades that absorb
water from the concrete will generally be stronger than cores from concrete cast against
metal, wood, polyethylene, concrete, or wet, saturated clay.

2.2.1.6 Presence of Microcracks

Microcracks in a core reduce the strength (Szypula and Grossman 1990), and their
presence has been used to explain why the average strengths of cores from two ends of a
beam cast from a single batch of concrete with a cylinder strength of 54.1 MPa (7850 psi)
differed by 11% of their average (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994a). Microcracks can be
present if the core is drilled from a region of the structure that has been subjected to stress
resulting from either applied loads or restraint of imposed deformations. Rough handling
of the core specimen can also cause microcracking.

2.2.1.7 Capping Condition

To ensure that concrete specimens meet ASTM C42 (2018) specimen ends must be
perpendicular to the axis by 0.5° and plane within 0.002 in. If specimen ends are not
perpendicular to the axis, then this will lead to load eccentricities. If specimen ends are
Page | 12
not plane, then it can lead to the development of stress concentrations within the
specimen. Common methods for preparing ends are to (a) saw and then grind, (b) cap
using sulfur capping compound, or (c) cap using neoprene pads.

2.2.1.8 Rate of Loading

The rate at which a load is applied during the compressive strength test is controlled by
the machine operator. ASTM C42 (2018) states “the load shall be applied at a rate of
movement corresponding to a stress rate on the specimen of 35 ± 7 psi/s.” The required
rate of movement will depend on the size of the test specimen, the elastic modulus of the
concrete, and the stiffness of the testing machine (ASTM C42 2018). To get the most
precise test results, it is best to use as few machine operators as possible.

2.2.2 Effects of Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d)

Much research has been done on the effect of length-to-diameter ratio on core testing.
The length to diameter ratio (l/d) was identified in the 1927 edition of ASTM C42 (2018)
as a factor that influences the measured compressive strength of a core. The measured
strength of a core taken from a given concrete structure depends on its length to diameter
ratio (l/d) (Munday and Dhir 1984).

Specimens with small length to diameter ratio (l/d) fail at greater loads because the steel
loading platens of the testing machine restrain lateral expansion throughout the length of
the specimen more effectively and so provide confinement (Newman and Lachance 1964;
Ottosen 1984, Bartlett and MacGregor 1994). Therefore, the smaller the length-to-
diameter ratio, the larger the apparent strength of the core will be

In 2008, an experimental research conducted by Tuncan et al evaluated cylindrical

concrete cores with 46 and 69 mm diameters and values changing from 0.75 to 2.0. Using
aggregates with different types and sizes, these cores were obtained from concrete blocks
constructed in the laboratory environment. The most telling conclusion to be drawn is that
the compressive strength of concrete falls as the maximum aggregate size increases. For
example, for two cylindrical concrete specimens with 46 mm diameter and = 2.0, the
Page | 13
relative strengths of 46 mm diameter cores with respect to standard cylinder specimen
were 85 % and 72 % for cores drilled from natural aggregate-bearing concretes produced
by 10 and 30 mm maximum sizes of aggregates, respectively.

In 2010, Seko et al carried out an experiment to test compressive strength. They estimated
the strength correction coefficients and examined the fracture behavior of high-strength
concrete cores of compressive strength in the range of 30-100MPa. In this test, concrete
core specimens were cut into different lengths with respect to the following height-to-
diameter ratios ranging from 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0. At the second step, during
testing, strains along the horizontal and axial directions were calculated. The worth
noticing results to be drawn is that critical volume change stress is approximately 0.85 of
the compressive strength for all l/d and all strength grades. In addition, compressive
strength of concrete core specimens increases with the reduction of height-to diameter.
The reason behind this result is the emergence of critical volume change stress.

In 2012, Ergun et al investigated the effects of diameters, length to core diameter ratio
(l/d), test age, and coring orientation on the compressive strength of cores analyzed with
respect to the molded cylinder and cube concrete specimens.

In an intriguing research in 2013 by Sharma et al, they make an effort to find the effect of
length to diameter ratio (l/d) on the strength characteristics of the core. Cubes of 150mm
x 150mm x 150mm were casted and cured for 28 days, desired core samples having
diameter 50mm and 75mm were prepared from these cubes having different l/d ratios of
1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2, respectively. In this work, for each mix, the average values of
measured core strength were compared for each different value of l/d and expressed in
terms of a core with l/d = 2.0. Based on the results obtained for l/d ratios an over-at least-
squares, regression was performed. For small cores of 50 and 75mm diameters, the
following conclusion may be drawn: (1) The compressive strength of cores increased with
the decrease in length to diameter ratio (l/d) of the core. (2) The effect of l/d ratio was
more pronounced for 50mm diameter cores.

In 2015, the effect of diameter, length to diameter ratio (l/d), maximum aggregate size,
drilling direction and concrete strength level was evaluated by Madandoust et al, The tests
on cores with diameters 50, 75 and 100mm at 28 days are performed with l/d as 1, 1.4,
1.6, 2 and two strength classes as C1, C2. The relationship between core strength and
Page | 14
15cm standard cube samples was estimated. The following results are drawn: (1) With the
increase of length to diameter ratio (l/d) of core, core strength was reduced and these
changes of core strength were more pronounced in low strength class concrete (C1). (2) It
seems that correction coefficients of length to diameter ratio (l/d) of core in low strength
class concrete in core with various diameters are close to BS 1881 curve and for high
strength class concrete are close to ASTM C 42-90 curve.

2.2.2.1 Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d) Correction Factors

Murdock and Kesler in 1957, showed that the variations in the calculated compressive
strength of a cylinder were small for length to diameter ratio (l/d) values in the vicinity of
2, and were more pronounced for values between about 1.0 and 1.6.The reasons for this
situation lie in the mode of failure of the test specimen: in a squat specimen, the
restraining effect of the platens of the testing machine is much more significant than in a
more slender specimen. In other words, the use of correction factors necessary to
normalize the test results to the value of strength of a standard specimen is greater at
smaller values of length to diameter ratio (l/d); it is clearly preferable to minimize the
need for correction factors. The use of cores with the value of l/d = 2 is appropriate only
when standard molded test cylinders have that value.

As per ASTM C42 (2018), the preferred length to diameter ratio (l/d) of the capped or
ground specimen is between 1.9 and 2.1. In thin elements or regions congested with
reinforcement, it can be difficult to obtain a core with l/d between 1.9 and 2.1. ASTM
C42 (2018) states “core specimens with l/d less than 1.75 require corrections to the
measured compressive strength.” In addition, “a core having a maximum length of less
than 95 percent of its diameter before capping or a length less than its diameter after
capping shall not be tested” (ASTM C42 2018). Since core specimens can vary in
geometry and size, strength correction factors have been developed to account for cores
with l/d ranging from 1.0 to 1.75. Length to diameter strength correction factor converts
any measured core strength with l/d between 1.0 and 1.75 to the predicted core strength if
that specimen’s l/d was 2.0.

Page | 15
The current values shown in Table 2.3 are the values used in ASTM C42 in its various
editions. ASTM C42 (2018) states these are only valid for concrete strengths between
2,000 and 6000 psi. Arioz et al. (2007) concluded that the effect of the length to diameter
ratio (l/d) was more significant as the diameter of the specimen decreased. Based on the
values provided in this table, the effect of the l/d on strength is more pronounced for
stockier cores. Thus, the measured strength actually decreases, as the l/d increases, which
is due to the effect of specimen shape on stress distributions (Khoury et al. 2014).
Suggested core length to diameter ratio (l/d) strength correction functions are plotted in
Fig. 2.4.

Fig. 2.4: Observed and predicted correction factors (adapted from Bartlett and
MacGregor 1994b)

Page | 16
In Fig. 2.4, the observed and predicted core length to diameter ratio (l/d) strength
correction factors from various sources are plotted together on two graphs for either dry
or wet cores. The figure presents the strength correction factor data collected by Bartlett
and MacGregor (1994b). These correction factors are also listed in ASTM C42. The
correction factors provided in ASTM C42 are widely used; however, the standard states
that these are only appropriate for concrete strengths between 2,000 and 6,000 psi. Arioz
et al. (2007) concluded that the effect of the length to diameter ratio (l/d) was more
significant as the diameter of the specimen decreased.

Table 2.3: Correction Factors for Different length to diameter ratio (l/d) for Concrete
Strengths between 2000 to 6000 psi (ASTM C42)

Specimen length-diameter ratio, l/d

Edition of ASTM C42
1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75

1927 0.85 0.94 0.95 0.98

1949 0.85 0.94 0.96 0.98

1961 0.89 0.94 0.96 0.98

1968 0.91 0.94 0.97 0.99

1977-present 0.87 0.93 0.96 0.98

Note: Interpolate between values

ASTM C42 does not list recommended values for length to diameter ratio (l/d) strength
correction factors for concretes with strengths higher than 6000 psi. Similarly, ASTM
C42 notes that for strengths above 10,000 psi that correction factors may be higher that
what is listed in Table 2.4 and that these factors should be applied to high-strength
concretes with caution. ASTM C42 makes no recommendation about what should be
done for strength correction factors for concrete with compressive strengths between
6,000 and 10,000 psi. Similarly, Bartlett and MacGregor (1994d) state that there is some
indication that as concrete strength increases, the strength correction factors for length to

Page | 17
diameter ratio (l/d) begin to increase, which implies that as concrete strength increases,
and the length to diameter ratio (l/d) has less of an impact on apparent strength.

2.2.2.2 Length to Diameter Ratio (l/d) Correction Factors for High-Strength Concrete

There are few published documents that explore core l/d strength correction factors for
high- strength concretes. A project was conducted by Bartlett and MacGregor (1994b) to
establish correction factors for concrete strengths between 2,000 and 14,000 psi. In their
study, Bartlett and MacGregor (1994b) tested core diameters of 4 inches. Bartlett and
MacGregor (1994b) collected the raw data used by Meininger et al. (1977), and additional
data from the University of Alberta for their analyses. Fig. 2.5 and Fig. 2.6 provide the
core location for the specimens used in the analysis.

Fig. 2.5: Element dimensions and core locations (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994b)

Each element was laid on its side, relative to original casting position and cores were
drilled perpendicular to the casting direction, vertically through the 12 or 13 in. thickness.
In a later publication, Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) developed a procedure for
evaluating core strength and derived strength correction functions that are shown in Table
2.4.

The functions accounting for the effects due to core l/d in Table 2.4 are valid for concrete
strengths between 2,000 and 14,000 psi and were adopted by ACI 214 (2010). According
to the experiments of Bartlett and MacGregor (1994), Tomosawa et al. (1989) and

Page | 18
Pertersons (1971), when the compressive strength increased to high-strength concrete, the
strength correction factor become larger than normal strength concrete. Murdock and
Kesler expressed that the factors are a function of the level of strength of the concrete.
Specically stronger concretes are less affected by the value of length to diameter ratio
(l/d). According to ASTM C42, concrete with strength above 70 MPa (10000 psi) are less
affected by the value of length to diameter ratio (l/d).

Fig. 2.6: Element dimensions and core locations (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994b)

Table 2.4: Core strength correction factors accounting for effects due to l/d, fl/d (ACI 214
2010)

Factor Correction Factor, fl/d

Standard Treatment* 1 - {0.120 - αfcore}(2 - l/d)2

Soaked 48 hours in water 1 - {0.117 - αfcore}(2 - l/d)2

1 - {0.144 - αfcore}(2 - l/d)2
Dried**

*Standard treatment specified in ASTM C42

**Dried in air at 60 to 70 of and relative humidity less than 60% for 7 days

+Constant α equals 3(10-6) 1/psi for fcore in psi

Page | 19
2.2.2.3 Length to Diameter (l/d) Correction Factors for Short Cores

In practice, there may be advantages or favoritism given to testing short specimens. For
instance, short specimens take less time to drill, are easier to handle, and leave a smaller
void to be patched. ASTM C42 (2018) requires cores have a capped length to diameter
ratio (l/d) greater than or equal to 1.0. However, when analyzing core strength data, it
should be noted that short specimens fail at greater loads due to the end restraint caused
by the steel loading platens of the testing machine (Ottosen 1984). This means almost the
entire specimen is in a state of tri-axial compression (Ottosen 1984). This is possibly the
reason for such pronounced effects on length to diameter ratio (l/d) of short cores.

2.2.3 Effects of Core Diameter on Compressive Strength of Core

The diameter of a sample affects the compressive strength of the concrete by general size
effects. There are two main theories on the size effects on the compressive strength of
concrete samples: weakest link theory and summation of strength theory.

When concrete is subject to stress, it is generally accepted that the larger the volume is,
the more probable it is to contain a component of an extreme low strength (Neville 1995).
This concept is known as the weakest link theory (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c). Thus,
as the specimen size is increased, its measured compressive strength decreases.

The summation of strength theory states that the strength of a specimen is the sum of the
strengths of each individual part of specimen, which implies that the size of the specimen
does not affect the strength (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994, J. Tucker 1945).

Bartlett and MacGregor found that any observable size effects are too small and are
overpowered by the variation in the strengths of the smaller diameter cores, as the smaller
diameter cores were more variable. They found that the strength of a 2-inch diameter core
was approximately 94% of a 4-inch diameter core and 92% of a 6-inch diameter core. Yip
and Tam et al. (1988) suggested that five 2-inch diameter core cores had a similar
variability in strengths as three 4-inch diameter core cores.

Smaller samples appear to be more susceptible to many factors including moisture,

concrete mixture properties, coring damage, and testing procedures (J. Bungey 1979).
Page | 20
The relative strength loss due to soaking 2-inch diameter cores for 2 days before testing is
more severe than soaking 4-inch diameter cores, due to the higher surface area to volume
ratio of smaller diameter cores (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994).

However, concrete cores differ from molded specimens because their surfaces may be
damaged during removal from the hardened concrete; therefore, small cores should be
weaker and more variable than large cores (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c). However, in
core testing, it has been found that as the core diameter decreases, larger aggregate sizes
caused the strength of the core to decreases (Arioz et al. 2007b). Khoury et al. (2014)
state that “as the diameter decreases, the ratio of cut surface area to volume increases, and
hence the possibility of strength reduction due to cutting damage increases.”

Another concept commonly paired with strength effects due to specimen diameter is
systematic bias caused by testing procedures. The notion behind systematic bias from
testing is that small specimens are experiencing more stiffness relative to large
specimens. This may cause a greater ultimate strength for small specimens because a
relatively stiff machine will tend to release energy at a rate that the specimen can tolerate
(Neville 1981). However, the data investigated by Bartlett and MacGregor (1994c)
“indicate that the effect of damage to the cut surface of the core counteracts and
overwhelms any effect that might be inferred by the weakest link theory or attributed to
systematic bias caused by testing procedures.”

In contrast, Meininger (1968) found that the core diameter does not have an effect on the
core’s apparent strength when the cores have a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.0. In any
case, careful alignment of the specimen in the testing machine is necessary when testing
small-diameter cores (ACI 214 2010).

Page | 21
2.2.3.1 Application of Core Diameter Correction Factors

To convert a compressive strength test result to an equivalent strength for standard core
size, ACI 214 (2010) recommends applying a correction factor to account for the effects
of core diameter. The strength correction factors from ACI 214 (2010) are provided in
Table 2.5. Take note that there is a strength correction factor of 1.00 needed for a core
diameter of 4-inches, as this is the assumed standard core diameter for ACI 214 (2010). In
addition, the difference in correction factor as the core diameter is greater than 4 inches is
much more pronounced than when the core diameter is less than 4 inches. Plotted
descriptions of the above statements are provided in Fig. 2.7.

Table 2.5: Strength correction factors for effects of core diameter, fdia (ACI 214 2010)

Factor Correction Factor, Fdia

2 inch 1.06

4 inch 1.00

6 inch 0.98

Note: Interpolate between values

Fig. 2.7 displays regression results comparing the normalized average core strength for
core diameters of 2, 4, and 6 in. cores with standard cylinder strengths between 1,440 and
13,400 psi, all having length to diameter ratio (l/d) of 2. The 2 in. diameter data has more
dispersion than the 6 in. diameter data. The plot suggests that the normalized average
strength increases as the core diameter increases. All values were forced to go through
normalized average core strength of 1.0 for 4 in. diameter cores by dividing the average
strength of cores of each diameter by the average strength of companion cores with 4 in.
diameter (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c). Fig. 2.7 compares very well to Table 2.5,
suggesting “the strength of a 2 in. diameter core with length to diameter ratio (l/d) of 2 is
predicted to be 94 percent of the strength of a 4 in. diameter core or 92 percent of the
strength of a 6 in. diameter core” (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c).

Page | 22
Fig. 2.7: Normalized average core strength versus core diameter (adapted from Bartlett
and MacGregor 1994c)

A study conducted by Arioz et al. (2007b) suggests core l/d strength correction factors
should be different depending on the core diameter. The investigation included correction
factors for l/d = 0.75, however, ASTM C42 (2018) requires no specimen shall have a
capped length to diameter ratio (l/d) less than 1.0. The strength correction factors from
Arioz et al. (2007b) for core diameters of 5.66 in., 3.70 in., 2.71 in., and 1.81 in. for
various mixtures. A total of 1,876 core specimens were tested in this investigation by
Arioz et al. (2007b).

The strength range is approximately 3650 to 4120 psi. They observed that for each
mixture, the correction factor decreases as the core l/d decreases. To minimize error
introduced by the strength correction factors, it is preferable to obtain specimens with
nominal diameters of 4 and 6 in. and l/d between 1.5 and 2.0 (Neville 2001).

In a study by Bartlett and MacGregor (1994c), data reported by Yip and Tam (1988) were
investigated to determine whether the diameter effect is constant for various l/d’s on
cores. Average values for 2 in. and 4 in. diameter cores trimmed to l/d of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0
from 12 different concretes were examined. A histogram of the observed ratios of the
average 2 in. diameter core strength to average 4 in. diameter core strength is shown in
Fig. 2.8 and the linear relationship that fits the average values is provided in Equation 2.3.

Page | 23
 R = 1.091 – 0.102 (l/d) Equation 2.3

Fig. 2.8 presents a wide scatter of data but based on the average values at each l/d
analyzed, a linear relationship has been established. Equation 2.3, R, is a linear fit of the
observed ratios of the average 2 in. diameter core strength to average 4 in. diameter core
strength. The analyzed data suggest that the effect of diameter on strength may be
negligible for short cores and more significant for cores with l/d of 2.0. Equation 2.3
implies that the effect of l/d on core strength is more significant for 2 in. diameter cores
than for 4 in. diameter cores. For 2 in. diameter cores, Equation 2.3 predicts the strength
at l/d of 1 to be about 20 percent larger than the strength at l/d of 2. In comparison, for 4
in. diameter cores, the strength at l/d of 1 is about 12 percent larger than the strength at l/d
of 2 (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994b).

Fig. 2.8: Diameter effect for cores with different length to diameter ratio (l/d) (Bartlett
and MacGregor 1994c)

Page | 24
2.2.3.2 Minimum Core Diameter

The most common criticism of small-diameter cores is that they yield unreliable strength
results (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c). AASHTO T24 (2007) specifies that the nominal
diameter of core specimens for the determination of compressive strength shall be at least
3.75 in. Additionally, “core diameters less than 3.75 in. are permitted when it’s possible
to obtain cores with l/d greater than or equal to 1 for compressive strength evaluations in
cases other than load bearing situations” (AASHTO T24 2007). In comparison, ASTM
C42 (2018) requires the core diameter be “at least 3.70 in. or at least two times the
nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate, whichever is larger.” The minimum core
diameter suggested by ASTM C42 (2018) is most likely recommended because of
damage that may be inflicted during drilling, handling, and storing (Bartlett and
MacGregor 1994c). In contrast, Munday and Dhir (1984) claim that a core diameter of
100 mm (3.93 in.) tends to be overcautious in respect to strength effects on minimum core
diameter, meaning smaller diameter cores may be employed with little effects on strength.

The coefficient of variation (COV) generally increases as the core diameter decreases.
This agrees with Bartlett and MacGregor (1994c) that while the variance in force seems
to be constant, the relative effect on the overall core strength is certainly more
pronounced for cores with small diameters.

Aggregate size may have a larger effect on small cores because any weakened zone due
to core damage is proportionally larger for small-diameter cores than for large-diameter
cores. In the study by Arioz et al. (2007a), cores having crushed limestone coarse
aggregate with a maximum sizes of 0.39, 0.59, 0.87, and 1.18 in. were tested at 7, 28, and
90 days. From his observation, as the maximum aggregate size increases, the core
strength generally decreases. It can also be observed from this figure that as the core
diameter decreases, the strength ratio slightly decreases. Small-diameter cores are also
more sensitive to the spatial variability of the in-situ concrete strength (Bartlett and
MacGregor 1994c).

Page | 25
2.2.4 Effects of Damage on Core Compressive Strength of Concrete

When obtaining concrete cores, there is inherit damage that the cores are subjected to due
to the destructive nature of the drilling process. As can be seen in Table 2.3 from Bartlett
and MacGregor (1995), a strength correction factor of 1.06 is to be applied when a core is
damaged during drilling. Bartlett and MacGregor (1994c) explain that cores can be
damaged due to microcracking, cutting through coarse aggregate, and undulations at the
drilled surface, but no clarification is made on what specifically constitutes enough
damage for this factor of 1.06 to be applied. Arioz et al. (2007) found that strength
correction factors for core damage decreased in concretes with higher strengths and
hypothesized that the reason for this is that high-strength cores are subjected to less
damage during the coring process.

Aggregate type also has an effect on the amount of damage imparted on the core during
drilling. Khoury, Aliabdo, and Ghazy (2014) found that concrete containing river gravel
are more difficult to core than concrete which contains softer aggregates such as
limestone. Khoury, Aliabdo, and Ghazy (2014) also concluded that cores taken from
higher strength concretes, in general, have less damage imparted on them than cores taken
from lower strength concretes.

2.2.5 Effects of Casting Direction on Core Compressive Strength of Concrete

There is some disagreement in literature over whether or not the direction of coring
relative to the casting direction has an impact on the apparent strength of the core. The
primary reason why there is suspicion that coring direction with respect to casting
direction has an effect on the apparent strength of a core is because of the interfacial
transition zone (ITZ). Mehta and Monteiro (2014) write that the interfacial transition zone
(ITZ) is most prominent around the bottom of the coarse aggregate due to bleed water
that creates a plane of weakness in one direction.

Suprenant (1985) concluded that due to the plane of weakness that is formed around the
bottom of the coarse aggregate relative to casting direction, the direction in which the
core is drilled is significant. An illustration of this effect can be seen below in Fig. 2.9.
From Fig. 2.9, Suprenant (1985) illustrates the plane of weakness around the bottom of
Page | 26
the coarse aggregate. When cores that are drilled parallel to the casting direction are
tested, this plane of weakness is perpendicular to the applied test load. However, if a core
is drilled perpendicular to the casting direction, this plane of weakness is now parallel to
the applied force when the core is tested in compression. Munday and Dhir (1984)
conducted research on coring direction versus casting direction and suggest that cores
taken parallel to the casting direction will have strengths approximately 8% greater than
cores drilled perpendicularly to the casting direction.

There are other studies though, such as the one conducted by Bloem (1965), which have
concluded that coring direction relative to casting direction does not produce statistically
significant differences in apparent strengths. Bartlett and MacGregor (1994b) also
conclude that there was not a significant difference in their data between cores that were
drilled parallel versus perpendicular to the casting direction.

Fig. 2.9: Effect of Coring Direction Relative to Casting Direction (Suprenant 1985)

2.2.6 Effects of the Presence of Embedded Steel Reinforcement in Core

Sometimes in members with a congested steel reinforcement layout, it is difficult to

recover a core without hitting steel reinforcement. Because of this, guidance is necessary
on what to do if a core contains steel reinforcement within it.

ACI 214 (2010) recommends trimming the core to remove the reinforcement as long as
the required length to diameter ratio (l/d) is maintained, while ASTM C42 (2018)

Page | 27
recommends that core specimens containing embedded reinforcement not be used to
determine compressive, splitting tensile or flexural strength. However, if there is no
possibility to extract a core that does not contain embedded reinforcement perpendicular
to coring direction, then testing a sample is allowed under ASTM C42 (2018), with
discretion from the engineer, as a strength correction factor has not been accepted for
cores with embedded reinforcement.

Rebar existing in the core has always been debatable subject. Some consider that rebar
increase sample strength; others believe that strength will be reduced when rebar exist;
the others believe in very low effect of rebar presentation.

In some codes and standards like ACI, ASTM, EN, there is no consideration for rebar
effect on core, therefore there is not any correction for core test result. In some European
countries there is no correction, but BS 1881:1983 and Concrete Society presented
corrections for rebar existing in concrete cores.

Some studies have been conducted on the effects of embedded reinforcement in concrete
test specimens. Gaynor found that the embedded reinforcement reduced the strength of
cylinders by 4 to 9% for one bar of reinforcement. Loo et al. conducted a study with 174
cylinders and 24 cores including steel reinforcement with diameters ranging from 6-20
mm, and concluded that the effect of steel reinforcement on the strength of the cylinders
varied greatly with the l/d ratio of the cylinder. The cylinder strengths decreased with the
inclusion of steel reinforcement at l/d ratio of 2, and the effect of the embedded
reinforcement decreases as the l/d ratio decreases to 1.0, at which point there are no
significant effects on the cylinder strength. Plowman et al. founds that the strength loss in
the cylinders was maximized when the bar was located at the very center of the cylinder.

If it is possible, the best solution is obtaining cores from plain concrete areas. Perhaps
rebars cutting leads to adverse effects on structural strength, concrete quality and core
strength.

Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) recommended the correction factors shown in Table 2.6 to
correct the compressive strength of a core containing steel reinforcement. It should be
noted that the correction factors presented by Bartlett and Macgregor (1995) are for steel
reinforcement which runs perpendicular to the axis of drilling. The strength correction

Page | 28
factors shown in Table 2.6 would be used in Equation 2.1 to correct a core’s compressive
strength. No guidance is given on how much of the steel reinforcing bar must be
contained within the core for the correction factors to be applied or if bar size has an
impact on core compressive strength.

Table 2.6: Strength Correction Factors for Steel Reinforcement Present in Core Sample
(Bartlett and MacGregor 1995)

Number of Reinforcing Bars Present in Core Strength Correction Factor

1 1.08

2 1.13

Page | 29
 CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

3.1 General
The experimental work for this study was developed by studying previous work
pertaining to the objectives of this thesis, which are listed in section 1.2. Based on the
findings from Chapter 2, the effect that core drilling orientation has on strength is
controversial. From literature, the effects of core diameter and coarse aggregate type may
have an effect on apparent strength. Based on these observations from literature and the
capabilities and resources availability an experimental work was developed to fully assess
the thesis objectives. This Chapter contains a description of the experimental work,
testing equipment used, mixture proportions, and raw material details.

3.2 Overview of Experimental Work

The experimental work performed for this study was took place in BUET concrete
laboratory. In order to evaluate the effects of core diameter, drilling orientation, and
consisted coarse aggregate type on concrete core strength, the experimental work
consisted of six separate concrete. There were two types’ coarse aggregate, stone chips
and brick chips and three mix proportions: 1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4. Before the
concrete casting the properties of different ingredients of concrete (routine test of sand,
stone chips, brick chips, and cement) were determined in the laboratory.

After completing the routine test for each mix ratio and each type aggregate, three
standard cylinders (4 inch x 8 inch), one block in which the drilling direction of cores
were along the direction of casting, one block in which the drilling direction of cores ware
perpendicular to the direction of casting and one reinforced beam were cast using
Portland composite cement.

So total six concrete blocks (3- blocks with stone chips and 3-blocks with brick chips)
were cast using three different mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4) in which the
drilling of cores were along to the direction of casting (Fig. 3.1).

Page | 30
 Direction of
Core Drilling Direction of
Casting
3" 2"
26" 4" 2" 2" 8" 7" 6"
3" 2"
4" Direction of
3" 2" 5" Direction of
2" Core Drilling
3" Casting
2" 2"
2"
1'-2" 8" height
0.5" 2"
9" 9" & 4" Dia.
6" height

2" 5"
& 3" Dia. 4" height

2" 4" 4"

& 2" Dia.

312" 212"
0.5"
8" 7" 6" 21"

Fig. 3.1 Block Dimensions and Core Drilling Plan along the Direction of Casting

Another Six concrete blocks (3-blocks with stone chips and 3-blocks with brick chips)
were cast using the same mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4) in which the drilling of
cores were perpendicular to the direction of casting (Fig. 3.2).

Direction of Core Drilling Direction of Core Drilling

9" Direction of
Casting Direction of
7" Casting
3"

5" 2"
4"
26" 2" 4" 2" 3" 2"
14" 4" 2" 3" 2" 2"
3"
2"
2" 2"
3" 2" 2"
1" 1" 5"
8" 7" 6"

Fig. 3.2 Block Dimensions and Core Drilling Plan along Perpendicular to the Direction of
Casting

And finally six simply supported beams (3- beams with stone chips and 3-beams with
brick chips) were cast using same mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5, 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4). The core

Page | 31
samples were drilled from the reinforced beam after two point loading test. The beams
were tested up to first cracking load (Fig. 3.3).

Core along Perpendicular to Casting

Compression Neutral Zone Tensile Zone Core Along Casting

Zone Core Core Core 4-Ø12mm
1"

1" 1"
16"

1"
10"
2'-5" 2'-5" 2'-5"
2" 1
82"
1'-1012"
2'-5"
3'
3'-712"
4'-212"
5'-412"
6'-612"
412" 7'-3" 412"

Fig. 3.3 RC Beam and its Core Drilling Plan after Two Point Loading Test

In order to assess the effects of drilling direction on core compressive strength in respect
of concrete casting direction, for the same mix proportion and same casting two separate
block specimens is considered because the blocks were too much heavy and difficult to
handling. The blocks were stepped in order to maintain the similar drilling resistance for
all cores. Stepped block also economic and required small amount materials. A general
overview of the summary of experimental work is provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of Experimental Work

Variable Range evaluated

No. of Concrete Batches 6 (six)

Water Cement Ratio 0.42

Concrete mixing ratio 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Type of Coarse Aggregate Stone Chips Brick Chips

Page | 32
 Size of Coarse Aggregate ¾th inch down well graded

L/d Ratio of Core 2.00

Core Diameter: 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch

Direction of Drilling Parallel to casting Perpendicular to casting

From each block three nos. of dia. 4 inch, three nos. of dia. 3 inch and three nos. of dia. 2
inch cores were drilled. 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch diameter cores were selected due to
study the effects of diameter on core strength.

From each beam 12 nos. of 4 inch diameter core were drilled in order to study the effects
of location of drilling operation on core strength. ASTM C42 recommends a minimal core
diameter of 3.75 inch, and ACI 214 (2010) suggests a benchmark core diameter of 4
inches. From these two standards, 4 inch diameter cores were selected to eliminate other
variables for this part of thesis work.

For each category, three cores were drilled. However, ASTM C823 (2007) recommends a
minimum of five core test specimens be obtained for each concrete category with a
unique condition or each test procedure.

Table 3.2 Number of Cores (2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch Diameter)

Variable Number of core specimens

Direction of 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Concrete Drilling in Dia. of
Specimens respect of Core
Stone Brick Stone Brick Stone Brick
Casting

Direction of 2 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Drilling is
Same with 3 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Block Direction of
Casting (D0) 4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Direction of

Page | 33
 Drilling is 3 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Perpendicular
to the Direction
of Casting 4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
(D90)

Compression
4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Zone

Neutral zone 4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3

Beam
Tension zone 4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3

Along the
Direction of 4 inch 3 3 3 3 3 3
Casting

No. of 2 inch core = 36 Nos.

Total Core Sample = 180 nos. No. of 3 inch core = 36 Nos.

No. of 4 inch core = 108 Nos.

Preliminary work was included selection of concrete proportions, designing the elements
to be cast, building the formwork for blocks and beams, and scheduling the work. The
concrete casting date schedule was developed based on a typical timeframe of BUET
concrete laboratory. In standard practice, cured cylinders are tested at an age of 28 days.
If the cylinder strengths are low, as per ACI 318 (2011), then further investigation is
required by drilling and testing core specimens. But we tested standard cylinder at an age
52 days in the morning before the two point load test of beam specimen in order to
maintaining the same age.

The curing method of this thesis work was done by using wetted hessian cloths. The
hessian cloths were routinely checked and rewetted as needed. Curing mats were left on
the block and beam specimens until forms were ready to be removed. Formworks were
removed at a concrete age of 5 days so that preparation for another mixture to be cast on a
weekly cycle of 7 days could be achieved. Testing procedures were scheduled for a 7-day
cast cycle and 60-day core compressive strength test cycle. Standard 4 inch x 8 inch

Page | 34
molded cylinders were tested at 52 days to calculate the first cracking load of each beam
for two point load test.

Due to the length of time required to prepare 30-35 core specimens, the scheduled coring
date was set at a concrete age of the 52 or 53 days. ASTM C42 requires the drilled cores
remain in sealed bags for 5 days and that a cored specimen be tested within 7 days after
being cored. Therefore, by testing compressive strength on the 60th day, the stated
flexible date of core test still satisfied ASTM C42 standard requirements. Having a fixed
schedule makes the concrete age an independent variable in this study. The schedule
developed for this experimental study, which is discussed in greater detail in the
remaining sections of this chapter, is summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Summarized Schedules for Following a Casting Date

Age of Different Activities involved in Core Test Concrete Age

Removal of Formwork 6th day

Compression Test of Concrete Cylinders 52nd days

Two point Load Test on Concrete Beam 52nd days

Drilling of Cores 53th or 54th day

Sealing Cores in Plastic Bags and End Finishing for 54th to 59th day

Capping of Cores 59th day

Core Compressive Strength Test 60th day

The dimensions of each member (from where drilling of cores were taken place), as well
as the location of reinforcement and hoist anchors permanently cast into them, were
selected primarily in consideration of the desired location of cores to be drilled out. It was
preferred that the circumference of any core sample (to be drilled) not be within the
diameter of core from the adjacent cores or the edge of the member (block or reinforced
beam). Thus, each core experienced an adequate amount of restraint from the adjacent
concrete. This was done as a precaution to minimize the amount of damage inflicted
during coring or from coarse aggregate pop-outs. An example for drilled and trimmed
core is shown in Fig. 3.4.
Page | 35
 0.5" Discarded

0.5" Discarded

0.5" Discarded
8" height
Length of 9" & 4" Dia. Trimmed
Drilling Length 6" height Trimmed
4" height
& 3" Dia. Length & 2" Dia. 5" Length of
Drilling

0.5" Discarded 0.5" Discarded 0.5" Discarded

Fig. 3.4 Sample of Cores from Concrete Block

In Fig. 3.4, the hatched area represents the area of the core specimens were tested. The
core specimen on the left represents the largest core and the specimen on the right
represents the smallest core tested for 4 inch, 3 inch and 2 inch diameter cores
respectively.

3.3 Routine Test for Raw Materials

Laboratory testing was performed on coarse aggregates used throughout this thesis to
ensure their properties to met ASTM standards. The following tests were conducted:

a. Sieve analysis (ASTM C136 2006),

b. Bulk density (ASTM C29 2009), and

c. Absorption (ASTM C127 2007).

A fine aggregate was collected from Sylhet. Coarse aggregate was locally collected. Brick
was 1st class Pikate. All the procedures for the routine test of raw materials are shown
through Fig. 3.5 to Fig. 3.7.

Page | 36
 Fig. 3.5 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates

Fig. 3.6 Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregates

Page | 37
 Fig. 3.7 Determination of Bulk Density and Specific Gravity of Coarse Aggregate

3.4 Preparation of Formwork

Formwork was made of wood and constructed to easily stripped and reassembled. For the
areas of formwork that were exposed to concrete, all adjoining pieces of wood were lined
with waterproof silicone. Silicone was placed at least one day prior to casting to allow
proper set. The use of silicone helped eliminate paste leaking from the forms.
Additionally, polyethylene was used onto the formwork wood in the inner side that was
exposed to concrete. This created a quick and easy release when stripping the forms away
from the hardened elements. The release agent was typically set onto the formwork on the
day of casting, just prior to setting the reinforcement in place. The silicone and
polyethylene helped to improve the durability and reusability of the forms.

Fig. 3.8 Formwork for Concrete Block (Core Drilling along the Concrete Casting)

Page | 38
 Fig. 3.9 Formwork for Concrete Block (Direction of Core drilling Perpendicular to the
Concrete Casting)

Fig. 3.10 Formwork for Reinforced Concrete Beam

3.4.1 Steel Reinforcement and Anchor Requirements for Hoisting

Steel reinforcement was provided in the beams primarily to ensure safety during lifting
operations. Beams were transported in civil engineering laboratory using two overhead
crane and trolley. Thus, reinforcement was only designed to meet minimum flexural,
shrinkage, and temperature requirements as per ACI 318 (2011). Fig. 3.11 provides the
reinforcement layout for the beam and the tied reinforcement cages placed into their
forms.
Page | 39
Hoisting anchors were placed in each beam to provide an easy and safe method for
moving the beam for one place to another place in the laboratory. The anchors used were
hoop-shaped pick-up inserts rated to carry 4000 lbs each. Although the beams weighed
approximately 1670 lbs, inserts were placed in pairs to reduce undesired movement such
as swiveling and spinning during transport. However, the beam used two anchors on the
top surface but also two centrally located on the ends. The top anchors were used for
lifting the beam out of the form. Note that there is approximately a 2.0 inch Clearance
distance between the top anchors and the edge of any cored recovered. This allowance is
assumed to be large enough that any damage experienced to the concrete around the hoist
during lifting is negligible within the core specimen. The anchors on the ends were used
so that the beam was more easily capable of being rotated onto its side. Fig. 3.11 also
shows the location of each hoist anchor.

32 in. Hoisting Anchors 32 in. 4-Ø12mm

16"

13 spaces at 7 in. on-center 10"

2.5 in. 2.5 in.
96 in.

Page | 40
 Fig. 3.11 Hoisting Arrangement and Reinforcement Layout of RC Beam

3.5 Ingredients of Concrete and Mix Ratio for Different Concrete Members
This section describes the procedures for developing mix proportions and preparation of
fresh concrete prior to placing concrete into formwork. All mixtures were prepared in
BUET concrete laboratory.

Page | 41
3.5.1 Raw Materials
All materials used for this experimental study were locally available. Cement, sand, and
stone Chips and brick was taken from the BUET engineering section. Cement came from
Bashundhara cement company plant in Narayangonj. The fine aggregate used for this
thesis was well-graded natural sand obtained from Sylhet. Brick Chips were manually
broken of picket. Used water was collected from BUET laboratory.

3.5.2 Mix Proportion and Procedure for Concrete Casting

In this program, no mix design was done. The following mix proportion has been
considered. W/C ratio was considered 0.42 in order to maintain the average slump 3 to 4
inch.

(a) 1:1.25:2.5 (b) 1:1.5:3 (c) 1:2:4

Table 3.4 Concrete Mix Proportion for Different Casting Work

Concrete Mix Proportion

Aggregate Fine Coarse

Mix Ratio Cement
Type Aggregate Aggregate Average
w/c
Slump
cft kg cft kg cft kg

Stone 1.0 40 1.25 46.5 2.5 95.8 0.42 4.5

1:1.25:2.5
Brick 1.0 40 1.25 46.5 2.5 95.8 0.42 4.1

Stone 1.0 40 1.5 55.8 3.0 115 0.42 4.2

1:1.5:3
Brick 1.0 40 1.5 55.8 3.0 115 0.42 3.8

Stone 1.0 40 2.0 74.4 4.0 153 0.42 4.0

1:2:4
Brick 1.0 40 2.0 74.4 4.0 153 0.42 3.7

Page | 42
Preparation and testing of concrete specimens were made according to ASTM C192 and
presented in the following sections:

a. The required amount of coarse aggregate and some of mixing water were dumped
into the mixture drum.

b. The mixture machine was started.

c. Fine aggregate, cement and the remaining amount of water were added while the
mixture machine was running.

d. It had been mixed for 3 minutes followed by 3 minutes rest. The final mix required
an additional 2 minutes.

e. The mixture was tilted while it was running and the concrete was poured into a
clean and wet wheel barrow.

f. Any concrete stuck in the mixture was removed using a scoop or trowel.

g. The concrete was remixed in the wheelbarrow using a shovel.

h. The slump value was measured.

i. The concrete was poured in the 4inch diameter by 8 inch height cylinder mold.

j. For proper compaction we used vibrating machine.

Fig. 3.12 Mixture Machine with Concrete Ingredients

Page | 43
3.6 Fresh Concrete Testing and Preparation of Experimental Elements
Fresh Concrete can be easily molded into any designed shape in construction. It can be
prepared on the spot and may give a wide range of properties from easily available raw
materials. There are different properties of Fresh concrete such as workability, setting,
segregation, plastic shrinkage, thermal shrinkage, thermal expansion and water cement
ratio.

3.6.1 Test of Fresh Concrete

Sampling for assessing the properties of fresh concrete and making cylinders was
conducted by pouring some concrete on the floor. Then slump test was performed to
measure the desirable slump value approximately 3.0 to 4.0 inches for each mixture. The
slump test was performed according to ASTM C143 and primarily used to determine
acceptance.

Fig. 3.13 Slump Test for Fresh Concrete

3.6.2 Preparation of Standard Cylinders

All cylinder specimens were made in accordance with ASTM C 192 (2007). A total of
fifteen 4 inch x 8 inch standard cylinders were made for each mixture. Standard cylinders
were tested on 52 days. Each standard cylinder comprised of three equal lifts of concrete,
and each lift was tamped 25 times with a 5/8 inch tamping rod. For each lift, the sides of
the molds were also slightly tapped with a rubber mallet. A wooden trowel was then used
to strike off the surface of the concrete cylinder. Lastly, the cylinders were covered with

Page | 44
plastic lids to prevent moisture loss. Once the concrete age reached 24 hours, in
accordance with ASTM C192 (2010), cylinders were stripped, labeled and transferred to
the same condition of beam and block elements.

Fig. 3.14 Preparation and Marking of standard cylinder

3.6.3 Placement of Fresh Concrete inside the Formwork

Concrete was placed into the forms using the 2.0 cft placement bucket. The placement
bucket was initially placed on one end of formwork and uniformly placed from that end
to the other, as shown in Fig. 3.15. The beams and blocks were placed in one lift and
vibrated as soon as the forms were full.

Page | 45
 Fig. 3.15 Placement of Fresh Concrete inside the Formwork and Compaction with Vibrator

3.6.4 Finishing Work

Initial finishing was performed once the forms were completely full and vibrated. Using a
piece of wood float, the excess concrete was struck off. This was conducted by placing
the lumber across the width of the forms and pulling the strike off board from one end to
the other, constantly moving the board in a sawing motion. Wooden trowels were then
used to apply a roughened finish, allowing bleed water to rise to the surface. Once the
concrete approached final set, a final finish was applied using a metal trowel.

Fig. 3.16 Concrete Block and Beam after Concreting

3.6.5 Curing of Different Concrete Members

Page | 46
Once final set of the concrete was reached, the elements were cured by completely
covering the exposed surface with dampened hessian fabrics. The hessian cloth was then
covered to reduce moisture loss, as shown in Fig. 3.17. The hessian cloth was checked
twice on a daily basis and water was added, as needed. In order to prepare for a cast the
following week (7 days later), formwork was stripped on the sixth day. All blocks, beams
and standard cylinder were cured in same condition. Therefore, the elements were cured
for the 52 days after casting.

Fig. 3.17 Curing of Beam and Block Covered with Wet Hessian Cloth

3.7 Standard Cylinder Compressive strength Test

As mentioned, standard cylinders were tested for compressive strength on 52 days. These
measured values were used to calculate the first cracking values of beam.

Page | 47
 Fig. 3.18 Compression Test of Standard Cylinder

3.8 Two Point Load Test of RC Beam

After the compression test of standard cylinders (4 inch x 8 inch), beam’s micro-cracked
load was calculated. All the beams were lime painted in order to convenient for the
inspection of micro crack. Two point loading test was performed in BUET strength of
materials laboratory using universal testing machine. The load was increased gradually
and the deflection was measured with the help of deflection gauge. The propagation of
any micro-crack was inspected carefully. The load was stopped when the load reached the
calculated cracking load. All the processes are shown with the help of figure.

Fig. 3.19 Concrete Beam before Lime Paint

Page | 48
Fig. 3.20 Concrete Beam after Lime Paint

Page | 49
Fig. 3.21 Transportation of RC Beam for Two Point Load Test

Fig. 3.22 Positioning of RC Beam for Two Point Load Test

Page | 50
 Fig. 3.23 Two Point Load Test of RC Beam (Applied Load is up to First
Cracking Load)

3.9 Marking the Position of Drilling of Core Samples

Before the drilling of cores from beams and blocks the core locations were marked with
the help of compass and pencil. This was very helpful to eliminate the errors to locate the
right position.

Fig. 3.24 Marking the Core Position on Blocks for Drilling Purpose

Page | 51
 Fig. 3.25 Marking the Core Position on RC Beams for Drilling Purpose

3.10 Drilling of Cores

Cores were recovered using a HILTI DD200 core rig with an attached vacuum rig. The
three core barrels used for this thesis were Hoffman diamond products, pro 1200 core
bits. From each block 3 nos. 2 inch dia. Core 3 nos., 3 inch dia. Cores and 3 nos. 4 inch
dia. Cores were drilled. From the 12 nos. block the total 2 inch dia. Core 36 nos., 3 inch
dia. Core 36 nos. And 4 inch dia. Core 36 nos.

Only 4 inch dia. core was drilled from beams in order to studying the effect of various
stress condition on core strength both in same and perpendicular direction of casting. 3
nos. were drilled from compression zone, 3 nos. Were drilled from neutral zone, 3 nos.
were drilled from tension zone along the direction of perpendicular to the compaction and
3 nos. were drilled along compaction. Total 72 nos. 4 inch dia. Core were drilled from 6
beams after two point load test.

In Fig. 3.26 and Fig. 3.27, the arrangement where cores were taken from beam and block
are shown. As outlined in table 3.4, coring was conducted at a concrete age of 53rd or 54th
days. The following will present the procedures used for retrieving cores.

Page | 52
Fig. 3.26 Drilling of Cores from the RC Beam after Two Point Load Test

Fig. 3.27 Drilling of Concrete Cores from Concrete Blocks

Page | 53
Fig. 3.28 Concrete Blocks after Drilling 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch Diameter Cores

Fig. 3.29 Reinforced Concrete Beam after Drilling of 4 inch Diameter Cores
Page | 54
3.11 Core Marking, End Finishing, Drying and Packaging
Once the cores were removed, several operations were conducted. In accordance with
ASTM C42 the following information was recorded:

a. Time and date of drilling,

b. Drilled length to the nearest ¼ inch,

c. Average diameter of core to the nearest 0.01 inch,

d. Time of trimming,

e. Height of finished core specimen to the nearest 0.1 inch,

f. Weight of trimmed core (for calculating density),

g. Use of core specimens in plastic bags.

Cores were trimmed using a wet saw. Once all information was recorded, the core was
placed into a plastic bag and wrapped with rubber bands and thread, as demonstrated in
Fig. 3.30. Cores remained in the plastic bags at least 5 days after last being wetted and
before testing. Store all cores vertically on a large table. The cores were labeled using the
nomenclature presented in Fig. 3.31 and Fig. 3.33.

Fig. 3.30 Core Samples in Polythene Bags

Page | 55
 12 For Mix Ratio 1:1.5:3 S: Stone Chips
17 For Mix Ratio 1:2:4 B: Brick Chips
24 For Mix Ratio 1:1.25:2.5
12 D0 S1
D0: Drilling and Casing 1, 2, 3: Core Position
in same direction in Block
D90: Drilling and Casing
in Perpendicular direction

Fig. 3.31 Nomenclature for Labeling of Each Core Drilled From Concrete Block

Fig. 3.32 Identification of Core Drilled from Concrete Block

Page | 56
12 For Mix Ratio 1:1.5:3 C: Compression Zone
17 For Mix Ratio 1:2:4 N: Neutral Zone
24 For Mix Ratio 1:1.25:2.5 T: Tension Zone of Beam
12 D90-8.5T
D0: Drilling and Casing
in same direction 2, 8.5, 22.5, 29, 36,
D90: Drilling and Casing 46.3, 50.5, 64.5, 78.5: S: Stone Chips
in Perpendicular direction Core Location in Beam B: Brick Chips

Fig. 3.33 Nomenclature for Labeling of Each Core Drilled From RC Beam

Fig. 3.34 Identification of Core Drilled from RC Beam

Page | 57
 Fig. 3.35 Drying of Cores after Drilling

Fig. 3.36 Sawing of Concrete Core for End Finishing

Page | 58
Fig. 3.37 Measuring of Length of Concrete Cores during Sawing

Fig. 3.38 Drying Concrete Cores after End Finishing

Page | 59
 Fig. 3.39 Measuring the diameter of concrete core

3.12 Sulfur Capping of Core

Sulfur capping was used because it is the current capping method used by BUET. Sulfur
capping was conducted in accordance with ASTM C617. Since the thesis focused on
concrete strengths of 6000 psi or lower, sulfur capping must be completed at least 16
hours prior to testing as per ASTM C617. Therefore, cores were capped the day prior to
testing compressive strength. Prior to capping, each end of each core was roughened
using a wire brush and dust was then removed using a towel. This helped create a better
bond between surfaces. The sulfur compound was heated to approximately 260 to 290 °F
and placed into a mold, followed by the concrete specimen. To illustrate this operation, a
core that has just been capped in the capping stand is shown in Fig. 3.40. To
accommodate different sizes cores, the capping stand was modified, as shown in Fig.
3.41. For quality assurance, the hardened caps were inspected during compressive
strength testing the core specimens. A minimum of three random sulfur capped cores
were selected for quality assurance measurements. Prior to testing compressive strength,
both ends were visually inspected to make sure there were no hollow areas, and then each
Page | 60
end was inspected for planeness. Planeness was checked by using a straightedge and
feeler gauge, measuring in three locations to check whether the caps departed from a
plane by more than 0.002 inch after compressive strength tests were conducted on the
specimens, six pieces of the capping material were recovered and their thickness was
measured. As per ASTM C617, the maximum average thickness of capping material
allowed is 0.125 inch and the maximum allowance for any part of the cap is 0.1875 inch.

Fig. 3.40 Concrete Core after Sulfur Capping

Fig. 3.41 Different Capping Stand for Different Sizes of Cores

Page | 61
3.13 Compressive Strength Test on Cores

Compressive strength tests were performed using the compression machine rated to have
a 400,000 lb capacity. The rate of loading for compressive strength testing was conducted
in accordance with ASTM C39/ C39M being 35 ± 7 psi/s. To accommodate for various
heights of cores testing within the machine, solid spacing blocks were added to the
bottom platen as needed.

Fig. 3.42 Compression Test of Concrete Core

Page | 62
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General

Compressive strength of concrete would be taken as a measure to determine the rate of

strain gain of concrete. It is one of the most important and useful properties of concrete. It
usually gives the overall picture of the quality of concrete because it is directly related to
the structure of harden cement paste. Compressive strength of concrete core strength is a
relative measure of strength of an existing structure. Usually the specified design concrete
strength is 15%-20% greater than the concrete core strength.

4.2 Results of Compression Test of Concrete Block and Beam Specimens

This chapter presents the results that were obtained during the experimental study. The
details of each individual result have been referred to Appendix A. After finishing curing
as a field condition for 52-days, the compressive strength tests were conducted using a
100 KN UTM. The compressive strength of standard cylinder was measured by averaging
three standard cylinders for each mix ratio. The average results are shown in fig. 4.1.

6000
5310 CA: Stone CA: Brick
4940
Compressive Strength (psi)

5000 4450
4110 4260
4000 3610

3000

2000

1000

0
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Mix Ratio

Fig. 4.1 Mean Compressive Strength of Standard Cylinder Tested on 52-Days

In this experimental study, the cores with different diameters (2inch, 3inch, 4inch,) were
drilled parallel and perpendicular to the direction of concrete casting from beams and
blocks for each mix ratio. The mean results that were obtained during the experimental

Page | 63
investigation are graphically illustrated through the Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3. Total 90
standard cylinders and 180 core specimens were cast, cured, prepared and tested under
same age and curing condition. It must be noted that all the cores fell within the
prescribed length/diameter (l/d) ratio of 2.0 and no l/d correction factors were required.

6000
Compressive Strength(psi)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.
Std. Cylinder
Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Block-1 Block-3 Block-5 Block-2 Block-4 Block-6
Core drilling in same direction of compaction Core drilling in perpendicular direction of
(D0) compaction (D90)

a) Concrete Blocks with Stone Chips

5000
Compressive Strength(psi)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.

2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.
Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder
Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

Std. Cylinder

1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Block-7 Block-9 Block-11 Block-8 Block-10 Block-12
Core drilling in same direction of compaction Core drilling in perpendicular direction of
(D0) compaction (D90)

b) Concrete Blocks with Brick Chips

Fig. 4.2 Results of Compression Test of Concrete Core and Standard Cylinder

Page | 64
 6000

Compression Strength (psi)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting
Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone
Tension Zone
Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone
Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Beam-1 Beam-2 Beam-3 Beam-4 Beam-5 Beam-6
Beam with Stone Aggregate Beam with Brick Aggregate

Fig. 4.3 Results of Compression Test of Concrete Core Drilled from RC Beam

4.3 Relationship between Compressive strength of Standard Cylinder and Core Specimens

The main emphasis of this investigation was to study the relationship between standard
cylinder and core compression strength, with core height to diameter ratio (l/d) of 2.0. As
discussed in the literature review that standard cylinders and cores made from the same
given concrete normally produces different compressive strength due to a number of
factors (Owens, 2012). Consequently, an experimental plan was undertaken to compare
the compressive strengths of standard cylinders and cores, as well as to find factors that
may influence the compression strengths of the different samples.

Page | 65
 0.88
0.90
0.89
0.91

0.86
0.89
0.88

0.86
0.87

0.85
0.93
0.92

0.87
0.88

0.87
0.83

0.82
0.81
1.00

Concrete Core Strength/ Standard Cylinder

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Strength

0.00
2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:2:4
Block-1 Block-3 Block-5 Block-2 Block-4 Block-6
Core drilling in same direction of compactionCore drilling in perpendicular direction of
(D0) compaction (D90)

a) Concrete Blocks with Stone Chips

0.92

0.93
0.91

0.90

0.89

0.87
0.87
0.86
0.86

0.85

0.85

0.85
0.85
0.85
0.82

0.82
0.81
1.00
0.78
Concrete Core Strength/ Standard Cylinder

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Strength

0.00
2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia. 2" Dia.
3" Dia.
4" Dia.
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:2:4
Block-7 Block-9 Block-11 Block-8 Block-10 Block-12
Core drilling in same direction of compactionCore drilling in perpendicular direction of
(D0) compaction (D90)

b) Concrete Blocks with Brick Chips

Fig. 4.4 Comparisons of the Strength of Concrete Core against Standard Cylinder at Same
Age and Curing Conditions

Fig. 4.4 shows the comparisons of the strength of concrete core against standard cylinder
at same age and curing conditions of six concrete blocks with stone chips and six concrete
blocks with brick chips as coarse aggregate for three different mix ratios. From the Fig.
4.4, it is clear that the ratio of concrete core strength to standard cylinder strength i.e.

Page | 66
compressive strength ratio declined as the diameter of cores become smaller. Moreover,
as the mix ratios of concrete decreased, the related strength ratio also decreased. For high
strength concrete the variation is low but low strength concrete the variation is high. It is
observed that the standard cylinder compressive strength is always high than that of
concrete core strength.

4.4 Analysis of Core Result in Respect of Core Diameter

The size of core sample plays an important role in compressive strength. The diameter
was an important consideration during this experimental study as it may influence the
core strength since the length/diameter (l/d) ratio has been restricted to 2.0. According to
Griffith’s hypothesis, as the standard specimen size increases, the compressive strength
decreases, due to the higher possibility that there may be a flaw in the specimen. This
factor is generally accepted for concrete strength testing. Furthermore, a number of
factors including w/c ratio, elastic modulus, maximum aggregate size and aggregate type
may also influence the strength of samples with different size.

This is commonly ascribed to the ratio of cut drilling surface area to volume, which
increases as the diameter decreases. Hence, there is a higher possibility of coring damage
that may affect the concrete matrix in smaller cores compared to larger cores.
Consequently, diameter was an important aspect in this experimental study. Fig. 4.5 and
Fig. 4.6 illustrate the influence of the diameter of core on the compressive strength of the
core specimens.

Page | 67
 6000

Compressive Strength of Core (psi)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000 1:1.25:2.5
0 1:1.5:3
2" Dia. 3" Dia. 4" Dia. 2" Dia. 3" Dia. 4" Dia.
1:2:4
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
D0- Drilling of Core & Concrete Compaction D90- Drilling of Core & Concrete
are in Same Direction Compaction are in
Perpendicular Direction

a) Concrete Blocks with Stone Chips

5000
Compressive Strength of Core (psi)

4000
3000
2000
1000 1:1.25:2.5
0 1:1.5:3
2" Dia. 3" Dia. 4" Dia. 2" Dia. 3" Dia. 4" Dia.
1:2:4
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
D0- Drilling of Core & Concrete D90- Drilling of Core & Concrete
Compaction are in Same Direction Compaction are in
Perpendicular Direction

b) Concrete Blocks with Brick Chips

Fig. 4.5 Effect of Core Diameter on Compressive Strength of Core

Page | 68
 14.85
16.0
Co-efficient of Variation (%) 14.0

9.25
9.22

9.16
8.62
12.0

7.60

6.98
6.73
6.60
10.0

6.32

4.95
4.86
8.0

4.16

3.92

3.90
3.63
3.40
6.0

1.01
4.0
2.0
0.0
2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4"
Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia.Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia.
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:2:4
Block-1-D0 Block-2-D90 Block-3-D0 Block-4-D90 Block-5-D0 Block-6-
D90

a) Concrete Blocks with Stone Chips

10.91

10.86
12.0 9.16
9.11
Co-efficient of Variation (%)

8.53
8.11

10.0
7.51

6.83

8.0
5.52

5.34
5.09
4.98

4.81
3.91
6.0
3.04

2.28

2.02
4.0
1.12

2.0
0.0
2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4" 2" 3" 4"
Dia.Dia.Dia. Dia.Dia.Dia. Dia.Dia.Dia. Dia.Dia.Dia. Dia.Dia.Dia. Dia.Dia.Dia.
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:2:4
Block-7-D0 Block-8-D90 Block-9-D0 Block-10-D90 Block-11-D0 Block-12-
D90

b) Concrete Blocks with Brick Chips

Fig. 4.6 Co-efficient of Variation of Core Drilled from Concrete Block

Fig. 4.5 shows the relationship between core diameter (2" dia., 3" dia. and 4" dia. core)
and compressive strength of core for different mix ratios. From the Fig. 4.5, it is clear that
2 inch diameter core has lower strength than that of 3 inch and 4 inch diameter core. Fig.
4.6 shows the relation between co-efficient of variation and core diameter for different
mix ratios. From Fig. 4.6 it is seen that the co-efficient of variation (COV) for 2 inch
diameter core is higher than the corresponding 3 inch and 4 inch diameter core. This

Page | 69
indicates that the results of core strength for smaller core diameter are more scattered than
the corresponding large diameter cores.

The results obtained during this investigation were similar to the findings commonly
establish in literature. As mentioned in above, in previous research it was commonly
found that as the core size decreases, there is a corresponding decrease in strength
(Tuncan et al., 2008; Omer et al., 2010; Khoury et al., 2014). The general assumption to
these outcomes was; as the core diameter decreases, there was an increase in potential
damage to the core during drilling. This is due to the increase in drilling surface area to
volume ratio in smaller cores.

Another factor that may have contributed to the similar results was the age at which the
cores were drilled. During the drilling procedure, direct frictional stresses are applied to
the concrete ingredients by the core drill. Concrete is a heterogeneous material and
contains elements that have different modulus of elasticity. The coarse aggregate
encompasses a higher stiffness compared to the hardened cement paste, in normal
concrete. Therefore, during drilling frictional forces attempt to shift the coarse aggregate.
Concrete that has a high w/c ratio or is at early age strength may not contain a strong
interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between the coarse aggregate and the concrete matrix.
Thus, during the drilling, disruptions to the concrete matrix and interfacial transition zone
(ITZ) may occur which will lead to a reduced strength of the specimen. An investigation
by Arioz et al. (2007) and Tuncan et al. (2008) concluded that coring at an early age (7
days) will have negative influence on the compressive strength due to the induced
damages to the concrete matrix. It was further concluded that these damages at an early
age were more prominent in smaller cores due to the increased drilling surface area to
volume ratio. However, during the experimental study the coring damages were reduced
to same as the cores were drilled at 53 days. It was believed that at 53 days the concrete
matrix and interfacial transition zone (ITZ) would have gained sufficient strength to resist
damages during coring. Owing to the 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch cores obtaining the similar
strength, it was concluded that the influence of early age coring was eliminated during
this study. However, cores are rarely taken before 28 days. Normally, cores are only taken
if the standard 28-day compressive strength does not conform to specifications or the
strength of an old structure is unknown. Therefore, the influence of early age coring is
generally eliminated in practice as well.

Page | 70
With regard to the comparison of the 3 inch and 4 inch core size, it was deduced that the
mean compressive strengths were comparable. This result was similar to the outcomes
found in literature (Tokyay & Özdemir, 1997; Omer et al., 2010; Khoury et al., 2014). It
is said that as the specimen size increases the factors that may influence the strength of
the specimen decrease.

From the investigation of the influence of core diameter, it was found that the 4 inch
diameter core produced the highest compressive strength compared to the 3 inch and 2
inch diameters cores. Therefore, the concluding remarks of the core compressive strength
with respect to diameter size were similar to what is generally found in literature. Some
variation was high due to disturbance during drilling of core.

4.5 Analysis of Core Strength in Respect of Different Stress Condition of RC Beam

in Bending

Different stress condition may have some effects on core strength of concrete. To study
this effect six beams (size: 96 inch x 16 inch x 10 inch) were cast and tested by two point
loading. The load was applied gradually up to the first cracking load, which may be
different from theoretical first cracking load. The calculated first cracking loads are
shown in Fig. 4.7.
20.0
CA: Stone
15.68 15.30 15.01 14.65
14.00 13.88
Cracking Load (kip)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Mixing Ratio

Fig. 4.7 Calculated Cracking Load of RC beam during Two Point Load Test

Page | 71
 20

Load (kip)
10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Deflection (mm)
1:1.25:2.5 Beam-1 with Stone Aggregate 1:1.5:3 Beam-2 with Stone Aggregate
1:2:4 Beam-3 with Stone Aggregate 1:1.25:2.5 Beam-4 with Brick Aggregate
1:1.5:3 Beam-5 with Brick Aggregate 1:2:4 Beam-6 with Brick Aggregate

Fig. 4.8 Deflection of RC Beam for Gradually Applied Load up to First Cracking Loading

Fig. 4.8 shows the deflection of reinforced concrete beam for gradually applied load up to
first cracking load during the two point load test. As expected, the load vs. deflection
curve is straight line up to first cracking load during the two point loading. It also
indicates that the beam with brick aggregate deflects more than that of beam with stone
aggregate.

Twelve concrete cores were drilled from each beam along direction of concrete
compaction (compression or shear, neutral and tension zone) and the direction
perpendicular to the concrete compaction. The graphical presentation of that core strength
is shown in the Fig. 4.9 Where, N stand for Neutral, C for Compression, T for Tensile
zone and P for core drilled along casting direction.

6000
T C C
Concrete Compressive

5000
N N P
C T N P
Strength(psi)

4000 P
T
3000

2000
Concrete Core Strength
1000
Standard Cylinder strength
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

a) Beam-1 (Beam with Stone Chips, Mixing Ratio1:1.25:2.5)

Page | 72
 6000

5000 C
Concrete Compressive T C
Strength(psi)
4000 N P
C N P T N P
T
3000
Concrete Core Strength
2000
Standard Cylinder strength
1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

b) Beam-2 (Beam with Stone Chips, Mixing Ratio1:1.5:3)

5000
Concrete Compressive

4000 C
C C
Strength(psi)

N P
3000 N N P T P
T
T
2000

1000
Concrete Core Strength
Standard Cylinder strength
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

c) Beam-3 (Beam with Stone Chips, Mixing Ratio1:2:4)

5000
C C
Concrete Compressive

4000 C
N T N P P P
Strength(psi)

T T N
3000
Concrete Core Strength
2000 Standard Cylinder strength

1000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

d) Beam-4 (Beam with Brick Chips, Mixing Ratio1:1.25:2.5)

Page | 73
 5000

Concrete Compressive 4000 T C

C
Strength(psi) N N T P
3000 C P T N P

2000
Concrete Core Strength
1000 Standard Cylinder strength

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

e) Beam-5 (Beam with Brick Chips, Mixing Ratio1:1.5:3)

4000
C C
Concrete Compressive

C
3000 N P
T N N P
Strength(psi)

T P T
2000
Concrete Core Strength
1000 Standard Cylinder strength

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (inch) from the left support of beam

f) Beam-6 (Beam with Brick Chips, Mixing Ratio1:2:4)

Fig. 4.9 Concrete Core Strength at Different Location of RC Beam (N for Neutral, C for
Compression, T for Tensile zone and P for core drilled along casting direction)

Fig. 4.9 shows the concrete cores compressive strength (along with standard cylinder
strength) location vs. distance of core from the left support of reinforced concrete beam.
The figure indicates that the concrete core compressive strength is always lower than the
standard cylinder strength. The core strength of a beam is not uniform. It varies under
different stress condition. The core drilled near support has no significance difference but
the core drilled from the mid section at there is a significance effect of stress condition on
core compressive strength. The core strength of mid section does not follow any trend.

Page | 74
This is due to micro-crack developed under loading condition which affects the cement
matrix.

0.89
0.90

0.89

0.88

0.90
0.88

0.89

0.88

0.87
0.87

0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85

0.85

0.85
0.85
1.00

0.83

0.83
0.83
0.82

0.81

0.79
Core Strength/ Standard Cylinder Strength)

0.76
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone
Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting
Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Beam-1 Beam-2 Beam-3 Beam-4 Beam-5 Beam-6
Beam with Stone Aggregate Beam with Brick Aggregate

Fig. 4.10 Concrete Core Strength at Different Location of Beam after Two Point Loading Test

Fig. 4.10 shows the comparisons of the strength of concrete core at different location of
RC beam after bending test. In this case six RC beams with stone aggregate and six RC
beams with brick aggregate are considered for two point loading test. From Fig. 4.10, it is
clear that the ratio of concrete core strength to standard cylinder strength is always less
than one. Moreover, as the mix ratios of concrete decreased, the related strength ratio also
decreased. For high strength concrete the variation is low but the low strength concrete
the variation is high. It is observed that the standard cylinder compressive strength is
always higher than that of concrete core strength.

Page | 75
 11.17
12.0
Co-efficient of Variation (%)
10.0

7.77
7.75

7.64

7.35
7.12
6.78
6.47

6.45

6.25
6.14
8.0

5.46

5.38
5.20

5.11
5.11

4.82
4.03
6.0

3.39
2.93

2.79
2.02

4.0

1.67
1.58
2.0

0.0
Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone

Neutral Zone
Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone

Tension Zone
Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting

Direction of Casting
Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone

Compression Zone
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Beam-1 Beam-2 Beam-3 Beam-4 Beam-5 Beam-6
Beam with Stone Aggregate Beam with Brick Aggregate

Fig. 4.11 Co-efficient of Variation (COV) of Core Strength for Concrete Core Drilled
from Different Location of RC Beam

Fig. 4.11 shows the co-efficient of variation for core strength concrete core drilled from
different location of RC beam after two point loading test. Among the six beams it is
clear that the co-efficient of variation is high in tensile zone and the core drilled along the
direction of concrete casting.

4.6 Analysis the Effect of Coring/Drilling Operation on Core Sampling

From the literature review, the drilled orientation has a significant effect on the core
strength presents conflicting experimental conclusions. As discussed in previous Section,
there are some research findings opposing anisotropy and many supporting anisotropy.

The specimens collected for the drilled orientation study were same for the core diameter
factor study. From six batches of concrete, twelve blocks as shown in Fig. 4.12 were cast
for the purpose of this analysis. All cores were trimmed to have a core l/d of
approximately 2. Each core was taken from the mid region of the block element to
minimize the difference in spatial variation. For six mixtures, the averages of three

Page | 76
parallel orientation specimens were compared to the average of three perpendicular
orientation cores. The results are presented in Fig. 4.12.

0.93
0.93

0.92

0.92
0.91

0.91
0.90

0.90
0.89
0.89

0.89

0.88
0.88

0.88

0.87
0.87

0.87
0.87

0.87

0.86
0.86
0.86

0.86

0.85
0.85

0.85

0.85
1.00

0.85

0.85
0.83

0.82
0.82

0.82

0.81
0.81
Core Strength/ Standard Cylinder Strength

0.78
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2" D0
2" D90
3" D0
3" D90
4" D0
4" D90

2" D0
2" D90
3" D0
3" D90
4" D0
4" D90

2" D0
2" D90

3" D90

4" D90
3" D0

4" D0

2" D0
2" D90
3" D0
3" D90
4" D0
4" D90

2" D0
2" D90

3" D90

2" D90
3" D0

4" D0
4" D90

2" D0

3" D0
3" D90
4" D0
4" D90
1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4
Block-1 & Block-2 Block-3 & Block-4 Block-5 & Block-6 Block-7 & Block-8 Block-9 & Block-10 Block-11 &
Block-12
Block with Stone Aggregate Block with Stone Aggregate

Fig. 4.12 Effects of Drilling Orientation on the Core Compression Strength

From the Fig. 4.12 it was found that the Standard cylinder had higher compressive
strength compared to the core specimens with the same size. The effect upon 2" diameter
cores specimens are more significant compared to 4" and 3" core specimens.

The average difference between the compressive strengths of cores drilled parallel to the
direction of casting and the ones drilled perpendicular to the direction of casting is not
significant, because in our experiment cores drilled parallel to the direction of casting
show some segregation effects. Because for each block shows that the 4 inch diameter
core has higher strength than 2 inch and 3 inch diameter core. Because 2 inch diameter
core were drilled from the upper part, 3 inch core was drilled from the mid part and the 4
inch core was drilled from the lower part of a block. During compaction of fresh concrete
of this block with a vibrator then there was a bleeding in upper part and there may be
segregation. Previous studies indicated this difference as between 8% to 12%, yet Bartlett
and MacGregor (1994a) reported that there was no significant change related to the
direction of drilling.

CHAPTER 5

Page | 77
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

This experimental study gives a general description of concrete core strength with locally
available concrete ingredients. The findings may be useful for checking the structural
adequacy and retrofitting the existing building to carry sustainable loads. This study will
also provide the idea about the direction or zone for reinforced concrete members of
existing building to obtain the representative compression strength of concrete. The
following section will provide the conclusions and recommendations for further study.

5.2 Conclusions
An experimental study has been performed to study the variation in core strength drilled
from different locations (and hence different stress zones) of different concrete members.
Based on this experimental study on concrete core strength (drilled along different
directions and different locations of concrete blocks and reinforced concrete beams) and
the corresponding standard cylinder for different mix ratios described in the previous
chapters, the following conclusion can be drawn:

i. The compressive strength of concrete cores drilled from both concrete block and
RC beam has been found to be lower (6%-25%) than the corresponding standard
cylinder strength.
ii. The concrete cores drilled from different locations of reinforced concrete beam
experience variations in compressive strength.

iii. The compressive strength of cores drilled from tension zone, compression zone and
neutral zone of reinforced concrete beam has been found to be lower than the
corresponding cylinder strength. The variation has been found to be erratic.

iv. The compressive strength of concrete core drilled from tension zone has been
founded to be lower and erratic than the core drilled from compression zone and
neutral zone of RC beam.

v. Variation in compressive strength of core drilled parallel to the casting direction of

beam has been founded to be lower than the core drilled perpendicular to the
casting direction.
Page | 78
vi. The compressive strength of 2 inch diameter core and 3 inch diameter core has been
found to be approximately 79% and 88% of 4 inch diameter core strength for
cylinders with stone chips.

vii. The Compressive strength of 2 inch diameter core and 3 inch diameter core has
been found to be approximately 82% and 93% of 4 inch diameter core strength for
cylinders with brick chips.

viii. The strength of cores drilled perpendicular to the casting direction has been found
to be almost similar to the core strength drilled parallel to the casting direction of
concrete in concrete blocks. However, the cores from RC beam in similar situation
experience variation in compressive strength.

ix. The variation (and hence the coefficient of variation) in concrete core strength
increases with the decrease of core diameter drilled from concrete members.

x. The variation (and hence the coefficient of variation) in concrete core strength
decreases with the increase of concrete compressive strength level for both concrete
block and RC beam.

5.3 Recommendations

From the analysis and discussion of test results of the present experimental study, the
following further investigation may be recommended

i. In the study, the casting of concrete was done in open air and therefore w/c ratio may
have been reduced due to evaporation. The casting of concrete can be performed by
covering the concrete by polythene.

ii. Further investigation can be made to observe drilling effect on concrete core strength
by considering wide range of mix ratio.

iii. Further investigation can be made to observe the drilling effect by taking core from
different stress levels of RC columns, beams and foundation under sustained load.

Page | 79
iv. Further investigation can be made to observe the drilling effect by taking core from
prestressed concrete.

v. The effect of drilling effect on strength of concrete can be studied by changing the age
of concrete.

vi. The effects of the presence of rebars in core sample may be studied in future.

Page | 80
References

ACI 214. 2010. Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

ACI 305. 2010. Guide to Hot Weather Concreting. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute.

ACI 318. 2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

ASTM C42. 2018. “Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and
Sawed Beams of Concrete,” ASTM International, vol. 23, no. 11, p. 7, 2018.

ASTM C39. 2016, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International.

ASTM C 192. 2010. Standard Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete. American
Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA.

Arioz, O., K. Ramyar, M. Tuncan, A. Tuncan, and I. Cil. 2007a. Some Factors
Influencing Effect of Core Diameter on Measured Concrete Compressive Strength. ACI
Materials Journal. 291-296.

Arioz, O., K. Ramyar, M. Tuncan, and A. Tuncan. 2007b. Effect of Length-to-Diameter

Ratio of Core Sample on Concrete Core Strength – Another Look. Journal of Testing and
Evaluation. Vol. 36, No. 1.

Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1994a. Effect of Moisture Condition on Concrete
Core Strength. ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 91, No. 3. 227-236.

Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1994b. Effect of Core Length-to-Diameter Ratio on
Concrete Core Strengths. ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 91, No. 4. 339-348.

Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1994c. Effect of Core Diameter on Concrete Core
Strengths. ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 91, No. 5. 460-469.

Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1994d. Cores from High-Performance Concrete
Beams. ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 91, No. 6. 567-576.
Page | 81
Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1995. Equivalent Specified Concrete Strength from
Core Test Data. Concrete International. Vol. 17, No. 3. 52-58.

Bartlett, F.M. and J.G. MacGregor. 1996. Statistical Analysis of the Compressive
Strength of Concrete in Structures. ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 93. No. 2. 158-168.

Bloem, D.L. 1958. Study of Horizontal Mould for Concrete Cylinders. National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Series D-58. Washington, D. C.

Bloem, D.L. 1965. Concrete Strength Measurements – Cores versus Cylinders.

Proceedings ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Vol. 65. 668-696.

B. Persson, “Moisture in concrete subjected to different kinds of curing,” Materials

and Structures, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 533–544, 1997.

Bungey, J.H. 1979. Determining concrete strength by using small-diameter cores.

Magazine of Concrete Research. Vol. 31, No. 107. 91-98.

Cook, J.E. 1989. 10,000 psi Concrete. Concrete International. Vol. 11, No. 10. Oct. 67-
75.

Ergun, A., Kurklu, G. (2012), Assessing the Relationship between the Compressive
Strength of Concrete Core and Molded Specimens,2012,pp:737-750.

Fiorato A.E., R.G. Burg, and R.D. Gaynor. 2000. Effects of Conditioning on Measured
Compressive Strength of Concrete Cores. Concrete Technology Today. Vol.21, No 3.1-5.

Johnston, C.D. 1973. Anisotropy of Concrete and its Practical Implications. Highway
Research Record. No. 423. 11-16.

J. Tucker, “Effect of Dimensions of Specimens upon the Precision of Strength Data,”

ASTM Proceeding 1945, vol. 45, pp. 952–959, 1945.

J. M. Plowman, W. F. Smith, and T. Sherriff. 1974. “Cores, Cubes and the Specified
Strength of Concrete.,” Structural Engineer, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 421–426.

K. Newman and L. Lachance. 1964. “The Testing of Brittle Materials Under Uniform
Uniaxial Compressive Stress,” ASTM International, vol. 64, pp. 1044–1067.

Page | 82
Khoury, S., Aliabdo, A.A., and Ghazy, A. 2014. Reliability of Core Test – Critical
Assessment and Proposed New Approach. Alexandria Engineering Journal. Vol. 53. 169-
184.

Madandoust R.,Mohammad Alizadeh A.(2015), Assessing the Effective Parameters

on Normal Strength Concrete by Core Testing. Vol.3,Issue 2,Dec 2015,pp:17-21.

Malhotra, V.M. 2000. Proceedings of the International Conference on Superplasticizers

and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI. SP- 195.

Mehta, P.K., and P.J.M. Monteiro. 2014. Concrete: Microstructure Properties, and
Materials. 4th Ed. The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., New York.

Meininger, R.C. 1968. Effect of Core Diameter on Measured Concrete Strength. Journal
of Materials. Vol. 3, No. 2. 320-336.

Meininger, R.C., F.T. Wagner, and K.W. Hall. 1977. Concrete Core Strength – The Effect
of Length to Diameter Ratio. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA. Vol. 5, No 3.
May. 147-153.

Mindess, S., J.F. Young, and D. Darwin. 2003. Concrete. 2nd ed. Pearson Education.
Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Munday, J.G.L. and R.K. Dhir. 1984. Assessment of In Situ Concrete Quality by Core
Testing. ACI Journal. Vol. 82. 393-410.

Neville, A.M. 1981. Properties of Concrete. Pitman Publishing Ltd., London. 3rd Ed. 779.

Neville, A.M. 2011. Properties of Concrete, 5th edition, Addison-Wesley Longman, UK.
844.

Neville, A.M. 2001. Core Tests: Easy to Perform, Not Easy to Interpret. Concrete
International. Vol. 23, No. 11. 59-68. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 1998.
Construction Specification for Concrete Pavement and Concrete Base. Ontario Provincial
Standard Specification OPSS 350. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview,
Ontario. 13.

Page | 83
Ottosen N.S. 1984. Evaluation of Concrete Cylinder Tests Using Finite Elements. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 110, No. 3. 465-481.

Petersons, N. 1964. Strength of Concrete in Finished Structures. Stockholm Royal

Institute of Technology. Transaction No. 232. 189.

Popovics, S. 1969. Effect of Porosity on the Strength of Concrete. Journal of Materials,

JMLSA. Vol. 4, No. 2. 356-371.

Popovics, S. 1986. Effect of Curing Method and Final Mositrue Condition on

Compressive Strength of Concrete. ACI Journal, Proceedings. V. 83. No. 4. July-Aug.
650-657.

R. Gaynor, 1965. “Effect of Horizontal Reinforcing Steel on the strength of Molded

Cylinders,” Journal of American Concrete Institute, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 837–840.

Sagna, C.M., and R.K. Dhir. 1986. Core-Cube Relationships of Plain Concrete. Advanced
in Ready Mixed Concrete Technology. Pergammon Press, Oxford. 193-202.

Sharma, S., Aggarwal, P.K. and Naval, S.(2013) ,Experimental Study Of Core Diameter
Varing H/D On Concrete ,International journal of Engineering Research
@Technology, Volume.2,Issue.3,March 2013.

Seko, sh., Suzuki, s., Ito, y., Kage, t., (2010), Effect of Fracture Behavior and Height-to-
diameter Ratio on High-Strength Concrete Core Specimens , Proceeding of
FraMcos,Vol.7, May 23-28 ,pp:725-729.

Suprenant, B.A. 1985. An Introduction to Concrete Core Testing. Civil Engineering for
Practicing and Design Engineers. Vol. 4. 607-615.

Szypula, A. and J.S. Grossman. 1990. Cylinder versus Core Strength. Concrete
International. Vol. 12, No. 2. 55-61.

Toossi, M. and J. Houde. 1981. Evaluation of Strength Variation Due to Height of

Concrete Members. Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 11. 519-529.

Tuncan, M., O. Arioz, K. Ramyar, and B. 2006, Assessing concrete strength by means of
small diameter cores, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, 2006, pp:981-988

Page | 84
Tuncan, M., O. Arioz, K. Ramyar, and B. Karasu. 2008. Assessing Concrete Strength by
Means of Small Diameter Cores. Construction and Building Materials. Vol. 22. 981-988.

Y. Loo, C. Tan, and C. Tam, 1989. “Effects of embedded reinforcement on the measured
strength of concrete cylinders.,” Magazine of Concrete Research, vol. 41, no. 146, pp.
11–18

Yip, W.K. and C.T. Tam. 1988. Concrete Strength Evaluation through the Use of Small
Diameter Cores. Magazine of Concrete Research. Vol. 40, No. 143. 99-105.

Aaron R. Grubbs, Adam C. Carroll, Anton K. Schindler, and Robert W. Barnes. 2016.
Effect of Core Geometry and Size on Concrete Compressive Strength. Report No. 1 for
ALDOT Project 930-828.

Aaron R. Grubbs, Adam C. Carroll, Anton K. Schindler, and Robert W. Barnes. 2016.
Evaluation of In-Place Concrete Strength by Core Testing. Research Report No. 2 for
ALDOT Project 930-828.

Page | 85
 APPENDIX-A

PROPERTIES OF RAW MATERIALS

A.1 Absorption Capacity and Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate

Results of Absorption capacity and Specific Gravity of fine aggregate (Sylhet Sand) are
follows:

Table A.1 Absorption capacity and specific gravity of fine aggregate

Oven-dry Pycnometer+ Water Pycnometer + Water + Wt. of SSD

sample (gm.) (gm.) Sample (gm.) Sample (gm.)

A B C S

493 1323 1607 500

Specific Gravity
Absorption
capacity (gm) Bulk specific gravity Bulk specific gravity Apparent specific
(OD Basis) (SSD Basis) gravity

(S-A) 100% A S A
A B S C B S C B A C

1.41 2.28 2.31 2.35

A.2 Absorption Capacity and Specific Gravity of Coarse Aggregate

For the purpose of testing ASTM C127 method is used. Specimen for the test is crushed
stone.

Wt. of Bucket in air = 575.50 g

Wt. of Bucket in Water = 505.00 g

Wt. of Bucket and Coarse aggregate in air =3575.00 g

Wt. of Bucket and Coarse aggregate in water =3575.00

Page | 86
Table A.2 Data of coarse aggregate

Serial Wt. of Oven dry Wt. of SSD specimen Wt. of saturated

No. Specimen in air (gm) in air (gm) Specimen in water (gm)

A B C

1. 2967 3000 1878

Table A.3 Bulk specific gravity of coarse aggregate

Specific Gravity
Absorption
capacity (gm) Bulk specific gravity Bulk specific gravity Bulk specific gravity
(OD Basis) (SSD Basis) (OD Basis)

(B A) 100 A B A
A B C B C A C

1.11 2.64 2.67 2.73

A.3 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate

Coarse aggregate are sieved to obtain fineness modulus and gradation chart. Test method
used for this purpose is ASTM C 136.Sample used is Sylhet sand.

Table A.4 Sieve analysis of fine aggregate

Sieve Size Sieve Size Wt. of the % of the Cumulative % finer

(ASTM) (mm) materials materials retained (%)
retained (gm) retained

No.4 5.00 0 0 0 100

No.8 2.36 9.40 1.88 1.88 98.12

No.16 1.18 63.60 12.74 14.62 85.38

No.30 0.0006 162.40 32.54 47.16 52.84

No.50 0.0003 202.10 40.49 87.65 12.35

Page | 87
 No.100 0.00015 54.00 10.82 98.41 1.59

pan 0.00 7.60 1.52 - -

TOTAL 499.10

Fineness Modulus FM = (0+1.88+14.62+47.16+87.65+98.41)/100 = 2.50

A.4 Sieve Analysis of coarse Aggregates

Coarse aggregate are sieved to obtain fineness modulus and gradation chart. Test method
are used for this purpose is ASTM C136.

Table A.5 Sieve analysis of coarse aggregate

Sieve Size Sieve Size Wt. of the materials % of the materials Cumulative
(ASTM) (mm) retained (gm) retained retained (%)
1 inch 25.00 490 4.92 4.92

3/4 inch 19.00 4790 48.14 53.06

1/2 inch 12.50 3370 33.87 86.93

3/8 inch 9.500 890 8.95 95.88

No.4 4.750 410 4.12 100

No.8 2.360 0.00 100 100

No.16 1.180 0.00 100 100

No.30 0.600 0.00 100 100

No.50 0.300 0.00 100 100

No.100 0.150 0.00 100 100

TOTAL 9950 840.79

Fineness Modulus, F.M= 840.79/100=8.41

A.5 Unit Weight of Fine Aggregate

Page | 88
Unit weight of coarse aggregate is tested by the test method ASTM C29. Tested sample is
crushed stone chips. Nominal volume is 1/10 ft3. Weight of the sample is taken 4.5 Kg.
Factor for the measure is 0.00283 for the test.

Unit Weight: (4.5/0.00283) =1587.93 kg/ft3

A.6 Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

Unit weight of coarse aggregate is tested by the test method ASTM C29. Tested sample is
crushed stone chips. Nominal volume is 1/10 cft or 0.00283 m3 Weight of the sample is
taken 4.44 Kg.

Unit Weight: (4.44/0.00283) =1566.77 kg/m3

A.7 Cement Test Result

Table A.6 Properties of Cement

Initial setting time (ASTM C191) 110 min

Final setting time (ASTM C191) 450 min
Days Strength in KN Avg. Strength in KN
34.43
3 days 32.32 33.05 KN
32.41
50.93
Compressive Strength in
KN (ASTM C109) 7 days 49.53 50.64 KN
51.45
84.74
87.73
28 days 84.96 KN
82.42

A.8 Reinforcement test result

Table A.8 Properties of Reinforcement

Page | 89
 Diameter Weight (gm) Length Yield/Proof Ultimate % Elongation
(mm) (cm) Load(Kip) Load(Kip) (ASTM)

525 60.8 14.2 16.7 17%

12 539 61.4 14.4 17.2 16%

544 61.8 14. 17.2 16%

330 53.3 9.9 11.8 15%

10 320 52.0 9.7 11.5 16%

322 52.1 9.9 11.8 15%

Table A.9 Properties of fine aggregate

Sl. No. Property Test Method Value Unit

1. Absorption Capacity ASTM C127 1.41 %

2. Bulk Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 2.28 -

3. Bulk Specific Gravity(SSD basis) ASTM C127 2.31 -

4. Apparent Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 2.35 -

5. Fineness Modulus (FM) ASTM C136 2.50 -

6. Dry Rodded Unit Weight ASTM C29 1587.93 Kg/m

Table A.10 Properties of Coarse aggregate (Stone Chips)

Sl. No. Property Test Method Value Unit

Page | 90
 1. Absorption Capacity ASTM C127 1.11 %

2. Bulk Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 2.64 -

3. Bulk Specific Gravity(SSD basis) ASTM C127 2.67 -

4. Apparent Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 2.73 -

5. Fineness Modulus (FM) ASTM C136 8.41 -

6. Dry Rodded Unit Weight ASTM C29 1566.77 Kg/m

Table A.11 Properties of Coarse aggregate (Brick Chips)

Sl. No. Property Test Method Value Unit

1. Absorption Capacity ASTM C127 19.2 %

2. Bulk Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 2.79 -

3. Bulk Specific Gravity(SSD basis) ASTM C127 2.35 -

4. Apparent Specific Gravity (OD basis) ASTM C127 - -

5. Fineness Modulus (FM) ASTM C136 7.38 -

6. Dry Rodded Unit Weight ASTM C29 1260.33 Kg/m

Page | 91
 APPENDIX-B

PROCEDURE OF MIXING AND TESTING OF CONCRETE SPECIMENS

B.1 Mixing of Concrete and Sample Preparation (ASTM C192)

Apparatus: Concrete Mixer (power driven), Tamping Rods(3/8” diameter for 4 inch
diameter cylinder), Shovel, hand scoop, trowel, Mallet- rubber, weighing approximately
1.25lb, cylindrical Molds(4” diameter by 8”),Vibratory Table.

Materials: Cement, Fine and Coarse aggregate and water are proportioned as per mix
design. Weights of fine aggregate; coarse aggregate and water are adjusted for aggregate
moisture contents.

Procedure:

i. As per mix design, the required amount of coarse aggregate and some of the mixing
water are damped into the mixer drum.

ii. The mixer machine is started.

iii. Fine aggregate, cement, and the balance of the water are added while the mixer is
running.

iv. It has been mixed for 3 minutes followed by a 3 minute rest (the mixer is turned off).
Final mix requires an additional 2 minutes

v. The mixer is tilted while it is running and the concrete is poured into a clean and wet
wheelbarrow.

vi. Any concrete stuck in the mixer is removed using a scoop or trowel.

vii. The concrete is remixed in the wheelbarrow using a shovel.

viii. The slump value is measured.

ix. The concrete is poured in the 4 in. diameter by 8 in. height cylindrical mold.

x. For proper compaction we use vibrating machine.

Page | 92
B.2 Slump Test of concrete (ASTM C143)

Apparatus: Slump mold, base plate, Tamping Rod (3/8”diameter), Scale (tape measure),
Shovel, hand scoop.

Materials: 0.3 ft3 of plastic concrete.

Procedure:

i. The test has been started within 5 min. after obtained the final portion of the mixed
concrete sample.

ii. The mold is dampened (inside) and place on the damped base plate.

iii. The mold is hold firmly in place during the filling and rodding operation (by the
operator standing on the foot pieces).

iv. The mold is filled in three layers, each approximately one –third the volume of the
mold.

v. Each layer is roded with 25 strokes by the tamping rod. During filling and rodding
the top layer, the concrete is heaped above the mold before rodding is started.

vi. The surface is stroked off by a screening and a rolling motion of the tamping rod.

vii. The mold is removed immediately by raising it in a vertical direction (steps 2 through
7 is completed in less than 2.5 minutes).

viii. The empty mold (inverted) is placed adjacent to the concrete sample and the vertical
differences between the top of the mold and the displaced original center of the
sample is measured. This is the slump value.

ix. The slump value is recorded in inches to the nearest ¼ in.

Page | 93
B.3 Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM C617)

Apparatus: Capping Plate (mold), Alignment Device (guide bars), Melting Pot, Fume
Hood (exhaust fan)

Materials: Moist cured concrete cylinders (with no moisture on the surface), Sulfur
mortar (5000 psi at 2 hours)

Procedure:

i. Sulfur mortar for use is prepared by heating to about 265 F (130 C).Fresh sulfur
mortar must is dried at the time of placement in the melting pot (dampness will cause
foaming). Note: The flash point of sulfur mortar is approximately 440 F (225C)

ii. The capping plate is oiled lightly.

iii. The molten sulfur mortar is stirred immediately prior to pouring each cap.

iv. The ends of the moist cured specimens are dried to preclude the formation of steam
and pockets in the caps.

v. The molten sulfur mortar is poured into the capping plate (mold).The specimen is
lowered, using the alignment device guide bars, ensuring that the axis of the
specimen is perpendicular to the plate.

vi. The molded end caps on the specimen are ensured a minimum thickness of
1/8”(3mm) but less than 5/16” (8mm)

vii. After the sulfur mortar has set, the specimen is removed from the mold plate using a
slight twisting motion.

viii. This process is repeated, capping both ends of the specimen.

Page | 94
B.4 Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM C39)

Apparatus: Compressive Test Machine

The testing machine is equipped with two steel bearing blocks with hardened faces, one
of which is a spherical seated block that on the upped surface of the specimen, and the
other a solid block on which the specimen is rest. Bearing faces of the block has a
minimum dimension at least 3% greater than the diameter of the specimen to be tested.

The loaded of the compressive machine used in concrete testing is registered on a dial, the
dial is provided with a graduated scale that is readable to at nearest 0.1% of the full scale
load. The dial is readable within 1% of the indicated load at any given load within the
loading rang level.

Materials: Capped cylindrical concrete specimens

Procedure:

i. The specimen is maintained in a moist condition up to time of compression testing.

Compression tests are made as soon as practicable after removal from moist storage.
The specimens are tested in this cured moist condition.

ii. The bearing surfaces of the upper and lower platens of the compression testing
machine are wiping cleaned. Both end caps of the test specimen are also wiping
cleaned.

iii. The specimen is centered on the lower of the testing machine.

iv. The axis of the specimen is aligned carefully with the center of thrust of the
spherically seated upper platen.

v. The upper platen is brought to bear on the specimen, adjusting the level of the
specimen.

vi. The load is applied at a loading rate of 20 to 50psi/s (250 to 630 lb./s for 4” diameter
cylinders). The time of failure for 3000 psi concrete is 1 to 2.5 minutes.

vii. The load is applied at the prescribed loading rate until the specimen fails. The
maximum load (lb.) is recorded to the nearest 10 lb.
Page | 95
viii. The unconfined compressive strength of the specimen has been calculated by
dividing the maximum load by the cross-sectional area of the specimen to the nearest
10 psi.

Page | 96
 APPENDIX –C

RAW DATA OF COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF STANDARD

CYLINDER AND CORE

Summary of the Mean Compressive Strength Results of Core drilled out from Blocks and
reinforced Beams (After two points loading up to first cracking load)

Block Types Blocks with Stone Chips Blocks with Brick Chips

Mix Ratio & 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Block ID Block-1 Block-3 Block-5 Block-7 Block-9 Block-11

2" 4771 4247 3556 3829 3373 2826

D0
3" 4744 4404 3645 4033 3542 3050
Block
4" 4821 4356 3686 4078 3686 3073

Mix Ratio & 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Block ID Block-2 Block-4 Block-6 Block-8 Block-10 Block-12

2" 4517 4340 3495 3765 3495 2948

D90
3" 4925 4285 3438 3981 3568 2934
Block
4" 4869 4327 3707 4133 3590 3067

Beam Types Beams with Stone Chips Beams with Brick Chips

Mix Ratio & 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4 1:1.25:2.5 1:1.5:3 1:2:4

Beam ID Beam-1 Beam-2 Beam-3 Beam-4 Beam-5 Beam-6

Compression Zone 4743 4332 3608 4019 3608 3120

Neutral Zone 4764 4200 3461 3921 3573 3141

Tension Zone 4534 4046 3228 3698 3491 2842

Along Casting 4750 4236 3552 3970 3545 3009

*D0 Concrete casting direction and core drilling direction are same

Page | 97
*D90 Concrete casting direction and core drilling direction are perpendicular

Casting- 1: Stone Chips Aggregate Mixture

Cement: Portland Composite Cement Casting Date: 24th August 2018

Mixing Ratio: 1:1.25:2.5 Testing Date: 15th October

Standard Dia. in Area in Strength Strength Average

Load KN
Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

24C1S1 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

24C1S2 100 7854 294 37.18 5391

24C1S3 100 7854 254 32.15 4661

24C2S1 100 7854 270 34.16 4953

24C2S2 100 7854 246 31.14 4515

24C2S3 100 7854 274 34.66 5026

24C3S1 100 7854 330 41.71 5806

24C3S2 100 7854 313 39.57 5738 5310

24C3S3 100 7854 337 42.59 5928

24C4S1 100 7854 333 42.09 5858

24C4S2 100 7854 330 41.71 5806

24C4S3 100 7854 345 43.59 6068

24C5S1 100 7854 287 36.30 5263

24C5S2 100 7854 253 32.02 4643

24C5S3 100 7854 248 31.39 4552

Page | 98
Casting- 2: Brick Chips Aggregate Mixture

Cement: Portland Composite Cement Casting Date: 24th August 2018

Mixing Ratio: 1:1.25:2.5 Testing Date: 15th October

Standard Dia. in Area in Load Strength Strength Average

Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

24C6B1 100 7854 260 32.90 4771

24C6B2 100 7854 257 32.52 4716

24C6B3 100 7854 261 33.03 4789

24C7B1 100 7854 297 37.56 5446

24C7B2 100 7854 307 38.81 5628

24C7B3 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

24C8B1 100 7854 228 28.88 4187

24C8B2 100 7854 248 31.39 4552 4450

24C8B3 100 7854 198 25.10 3640

24C9B1 100 7854 230 29.13 4224

24C9B2 100 7854 219 27.74 4023

24C9B3 100 7854 251 31.77 4607

24C10B1 100 7854 170 21.58 3129

24C10B2 100 7854 212 26.86 3895

24C10B3 100 7854 207 26.23 3804

Page | 99
Casting- 3: Stone Chips Aggregate Mixture

Cement: Portland Composite Cement Casting Date: 12th August 2018

Mixing Ratio: 1:1.5:3 Testing Date: 03rd October

Standard Dia. in Area in Load Strength Strength Average

Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

12C1S1 100 7854 279 35.29 5117

12C1S2 100 7854 258 32.65 4734

12C1S3 100 7854 284 35.92 5209

12C2S1 100 7854 264 33.41 4844

12C2S2 100 7854 256 32.40 4698

12C2S3 100 7854 267 33.78 4898

12C3S1 100 7854 302 38.19 5537

12C3S2 100 7854 255 32.27 4680 4940

12C3S3 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

12C4S1 100 7854 296 37.43 5427

12C4S2 100 7854 299 37.81 5482

12C4S3 100 7854 198 25.10 3640

12C5S1 100 7854 223 28.25 4096

12C5S2 100 7854 282 35.67 5172

12C5S3 100 7854 285 36.05 5227

Page | 100
Casting- 4: Brick Chips Aggregate Mixture

Cement: Portland Composite Cement Casting Date: 12th August 2018

Mixing Ratio: 1:1.5:3 Testing Date: 03rd October

Standard Dia. in Area in Load Strength Strength Average

Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

12C6B1 98 7543 168 22.21 3220

12C6B2 100 7854 178 22.59 3275

12C6B3 100 7854 160 20.32 2947

12C7B1 100 7854 210 26.61 3859

12C7B2 100 7854 174 22.08 3202

12C7B3 100 7854 240 30.39 4406

12C8B1 100 7854 254 32.15 4661

12C8B2 100 7854 228 28.88 4187 4110

12C8B3 100 7854 240 30.39 4406

12C9B1 100 7854 268 33.91 4917

12C9B2 100 7854 270 34.16 4953

12C9B3 100 7854 140 17.81 2582

12C10B1 100 7854 278 35.17 5099

12C10B2 100 7854 256 32.40 4698

12C10B3 100 7854 284 35.92 5209

Page | 101
Casting- 5: Stone Chips Aggregate Mixture
Casting Date: 17th August 2018
Cement: Portland Composite Cement
Testing Date: 08th October
Mixing Ratio: 1:2:4

Standard Dia. in Area in Load Strength Strength Average

Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

17C1S1 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

17C1S2 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

17C1S3 100 7854 292 36.93 5354

17C2S1 100 7854 274 34.66 5026

17C2S2 100 7854 260 32.90 4771

17C2S3 100 7854 278 35.17 5099

17C3S1 100 7854 202 25.61 3713

17C3S2 100 7854 222 28.12 4078 4260

17C3S3 100 7854 218 27.62 4005

17C4S1 100 7854 198 25.10 3640

17C4S2 100 7854 174 22.08 3202

17C4S3 100 7854 188 23.84 3457

17C5S1 100 7854 182 23.09 3348

17C5S2 100 7854 198 25.10 3640

17C5S3 100 7854 209 26.49 3841

Page | 102
Casting- 6: Brick Chips Aggregate Mixture

Cement: Portland Composite Cement Casting Date: 17th August 2018

Mixing Ratio: 1:2:4 Testing Date: 08th October

Standard Dia. in Area in Load Strength Strength Average

Cylinder ID mm mm2 KN KN/mm2 psi Strength psi

17C6B1 100 7854 202 25.61 3713

17C6B2 100 7854 194 24.60 3567

17C6B3 100 7854 230 29.13 4224

17C7B1 100 7854 194 24.60 3567

17C7B2 100 7854 210 26.61 3859

17C7B3 100 7854 199 25.23 3658

17C8B1 100 7854 190 24.10 3494

17C8B2 100 7854 176 22.34 3239 3610

17C8B3 100 7854 176 22.34 3239

17C9B1 100 7854 222 28.12 4078

17C9B2 100 7854 186 23.59 3421

17C9B3 100 7854 196 24.85 3603

17C10B1 100 7854 177 22.46 3257

17C10B2 100 7854 189 23.97 3476

17C10B3 100 7854 202 25.61 3713

Page | 103
Casting- 1: Stone chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 5310 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Drilling Date: 15th & 16th October
th
Mixing Ratio: 1:1.25:2.5 Capping Date: 17 October
th
Casting Date: 24 August 2018 Testing Date: 18th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block No-1-D0
24D0-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 57 5197 2.1
24D0-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 52 4741 10.7 10.1 4771 8.62
24D0-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 48 4376 17.6
24D0-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 130 5041 5.1
24D0-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 125 4847 8.7 10.7 4744 7.60
24D0-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 112 4343 18.2
24D0-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 237 4924 7.3
24D0-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 240 4986 6.1 9.2 4821 4.86
24D0-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 219 4553 14.3
Block No-2-D90
24D90-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 48 4064 23.5
24D90-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 52 4200 20.9 14.9 4517 14.8
24D90-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 58 5288 0.4
24D90-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 118 4576 13.8
24D90-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 128 4964 6.5 7.3 4925 6.73
24D90-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 135 5235 1.4
24D90-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 249 5172 2.6
24D90-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 218 4532 14.6 8.3 4869 6.60
24D90-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 236 4904 7.6
Beam No-1
94 188 2 6939.8 1 223 4659 12.3
Compression
69 138 2 3739.3 1 125 4847 8.7 10.7 4743 2.02
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 226 4722 11.1
94 188 2 6939.8 1 238 4973 6.4
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 234 4889 7.9 10.3 4764 6.14
94 188 2 6939.8 1 212 4430 16.6
94 188 2 6939.8 1 239 4994 6.0
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 221 4618 13.0 14.6 4534 11.1
94 188 2 6939.8 1 191 3991 24.8
94 188 2 6939.8 1 247 5161 2.8
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 222 4638 12.6 10.5 4750 7.75
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 213 4450 16.2
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 104
Casting- 2: Stone chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 4940 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Core drilling Date: 3rd & 4th October
Mixing Ratio: 1:1.5:3 Capping Date: 10th October
Casting Date: 12th August 2018 Testing Date: 11th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block No-3-D0
12D0-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 50 4557 7.8
12D0-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 45 4092 17.2 14.0 4247 6.32
12D0-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 45 4092 17.2
12D0-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 109 4232 14.3
12D0-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 115 4469 9.5 10.9 4404 3.40
12D0-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 116 4509 8.7
12D0-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 207 4306 12.8
12D0-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 211 4391 11.1 11.8 4356 1.01
12D0-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 210 4370 11.5
Block No-4-D90
12D90-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 45 4092 17.2
12D90-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 49 4464 9.6 12.2 4340 4.95
12D90-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 49 4464 9.6
12D90-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 106 4114 16.7
12D90-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 110 4272 13.5 13.3 4285 4.16
12D90-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 115 4469 9.5
12D90-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 186 3872 21.6
12D90-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 216 4496 9.0 12.4 4327 9.22
24D90-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 222 4615 6.6
Beam No-2
94 188 2 6939.8 1 196 4095 17.1
Compression
94 188 2 6939.8 1 209 4367 11.6 12.3 4332 5.11
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 217 4534 8.2
94 188 2 6939.8 1 216 4513 8.6
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 193 4033 18.4 15.0 4200 6.47
94 188 2 6939.8 1 194 4053 17.9
94 188 2 6939.8 1 208 4346 12.0
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 178 3719 24.7 18.1 4046 7.77
94 188 2 6939.8 1 195 4074 17.5
94 188 2 6939.8 1 206 4187 15.2
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 214 4426 10.4 14.3 4236 4.03
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 196 4095 17.1
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 105
Casting- 3: Stone chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 4260 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Core drilling Date: 8rd & 9th October
Mixing Ratio: 1:2:4 Capping Date: 16th October
Casting Date: 17th August 2018 Testing Date: 17th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block No-5-D0
17D0-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 36 3282 23.0
17D0-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 43 3920 8.0 16.5 3556 9.25
17D0-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 38 3464 18.7
17D0-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 93 3606 15.3
17D0-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 88 3412 19.9 14.4 3645 6.98
17D0-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 101 3917 8.1
17D0-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 184 3830 10.1
17D0-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 170 3541 16.9 13.5 3686 3.92
17D0-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 177 3686 13.5
Block No-6-D90
17D90-2-S1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 38 3464 18.7
17D90-2-S2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 35 3191 25.1 18.0 3495 9.16
17D90-2-S3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 42 3829 10.1
17D90-3-S1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 85 3296 22.6
17D90-3-S2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 91 3529 17.2 19.3 3438 3.63
17D90-3-S3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 90 3490 18.1
17D90-4-S1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 171 3562 16.4
17D90-4-S2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 185 3851 9.6 13.0 3707 3.90
17D90-4-S3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 178 3707 13.0
Beam No-3
94 188 2 6939.8 1 166 3468 18.6
Compression
94 188 2 6939.8 1 170 3552 16.6 15.3 3608 4.82
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 182 3803 10.7
94 188 2 6939.8 1 160 3343 21.5
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 159 3322 22.0 18.7 3461 6.45
94 188 2 6939.8 1 178 3719 12.7
94 188 2 6939.8 1 155 3239 24.0
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 78 2976 30.2 24.2 3228 7.64
94 188 2 6939.8 1 166 3468 18.6
94 188 2 6939.8 1 171 3573 16.1
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 181 3782 11.2 16.6 3552 6.78
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 158 3301 22.5
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 106
Casting- 4: Brick chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 4450 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Drilling Date: 15th & 16th October
th
Mixing Ratio: 1:1.25:2.5 Capping Date: 17 October
th
Casting Date: 24 August 2018 Testing Date: 18th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block No-7-D0
24D0-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 41 3738 16.0
24D0-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 10.9
38 3464 22.1 14.0 3829
1
24D0-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 47 4285 3.7
24D0-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 108 4188 5.9
24D0-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 95 3684 17.2 9.4 4033 7.51
24D0-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 109 4227 5.0
24D0-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 190 3954 11.1
24D0-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 196 4078 8.4 8.4 4078 3.04
24D0-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 202 4202 5.6
Block No-8-D90
24D90-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 44 4011 9.9
24D90-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 43 3911 12.1 15.4 3765 9.11
24D90-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 37 3373 24.2
24D90-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 105 4074 8.5
24D90-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 95 3675 17.4 10.5 3981 6.83
24D90-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 108 4194 5.8
24D90-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 187 3892 12.5
24D90-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 209 4346 2.3 7.1 4133 5.52
24D90-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 200 4161 6.5
Beam No-4
94 188 2 6939.8 1 192 4012 9.9
Compression
94 188 2 6939.8 1 182 3803 14.5 9.7 4019 5.46
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 203 4241 4.7
94 188 2 6939.8 1 193 4033 9.4
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 188 3928 11.7 11.9 3921 2.93
94 188 2 6939.8 1 182 3803 14.5
94 188 2 6939.8 1 183 3824 14.1
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 171 3573 19.7 16.9 3698 3.39
94 188 2 6939.8 1 177 3698 16.9
94 188 2 6939.8 1 193 4033 9.4
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 190 3970 10.8 10.8 3970 1.58
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 187 3907 12.2
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 107
Casting- 5: Brick chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 4110 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Core drilling Date: 3rd & 4th October
Mixing Ratio: 1:1.5:3 Capping Date: 10th October
Casting Date: 12th August 2018 Testing Date: 11th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block No-9-D0
12D0-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 34 3100 24.6
12D0-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 37 3373 17.9 17.9 3373 8.11
12D0-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 40 3647 11.3
12D0-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 89 3451 16.0
12D0-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 93 3606 12.3 13.8 3542 2.28
12D0-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 92 3568 13.2
12D0-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 177 3686 10.3
12D0-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 179 3727 9.3 10.3 3686 1.12
12D0-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 175 3645 11.3
Block -10-D90
12D90-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 38 3464 15.7
12D90-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 35 3191 22.4 15.0 3495 9.16
12D90-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 42 3829 6.8
12D90-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 93 3606 12.3
12D90-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 96 3723 9.4 13.2 3568 4.98
12D90-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 87 3374 17.9
12D90-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 167 3479 15.3
12D90-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 170 3541 13.8 12.7 3590 3.91
12D90-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 180 3748 8.8
Beam No-5
94 188 2 6939.8 1 165 3448 16.1
Compression
94 188 2 6939.8 1 183 3824 7.0 12.2 3608 5.38
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 170 3552 13.6
94 188 2 6939.8 1 174 3636 11.5
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 178 3719 9.5 13.1 3573 5.20
94 188 2 6939.8 1 161 3364 18.2
94 188 2 6939.8 1 183 3703 9.9
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 170 3552 13.6 15.1 3491 7.12
94 188 2 6939.8 1 154 3218 21.7
94 188 2 6939.8 1 168 3510 14.6
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 166 3468 15.6 13.7 3545 2.79
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 175 3656 11.0
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 108
Casting- 6: Brick chips aggregate mixture Standard Cylinder Strength 3610 psi
Cement: Portland Composite Cement Core drilling Date: 8rd & 9th October
Mixing Ratio: 1:2:4 Capping Date: 16th October
Casting Date: 17th August 2018 Testing Date: 17th October
% Variation Average
D L L/ Area C Load Strength Avg. %
Core ID with Std. Strength COV
mm mm D mm2 F KN psi Variation
psi
Cylinder
Block -11-D0
17D0-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 34 3100 14.1
17D0-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 30 2735 24.2 21.7 2826 8.53
17D0-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 29 2644 26.8
17D0-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 76 2947 18.4
17D0-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 77 2986 17.3 15.5 3050 4.81
17D0-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 83 3219 10.8
17D0-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 144 3005 16.8
17D0-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 142 2963 17.9 14.9 3073 5.09
17D0-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 156 3252 9.9
Block -12-D90
17D90-2-B1 45 90 2 1590.4 1 29 2644 26.8
17D90-2-B2 45 90 2 1590.4 1 10.8
32 2917 19.2 18.3 2948
6
17D90-2-B3 45 90 2 1590.4 1 36 3282 9.1
17D90-3-B1 69 138 2 3739.3 1 75 2908 19.4
17D90-3-B2 69 138 2 3739.3 1 72 2792 22.7 18.7 2934 5.34
17D90-3-B3 69 138 2 3739.3 1 80 3102 14.1
17D90-4-B1 94 188 2 6939.8 1 147 3067 15.1
17D90-4-B2 94 188 2 6939.8 1 150 3129 13.3 15.1 3067 2.02
17D90-4-B3 94 188 2 6939.8 1 144 3005 16.8
Beam No-6
94 188 2 6939.8 1 156 3259 9.7
Compression
94 188 2 6939.8 1 141 2946 18.4 13.6 3120 5.11
Zone
94 188 2 6939.8 1 151 3155 12.6
94 188 2 6939.8 1 153 3197 11.4
Neutral Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 150 3134 13.2 13.0 3141 1.67
94 188 2 6939.8 1 148 3092 14.3
94 188 2 6939.8 1 146 3051 15.5
Tension Zone 94 188 2 6939.8 1 126 2633 27.1 21.3 2842 7.35
94 188 2 6939.8 1 136 2842 21.3
94 188 2 6939.8 1 135 2821 21.9
Direction of
94 188 2 6939.8 1 153 3197 11.4 16.7 3009 6.25
casting
94 188 2 6939.8 1 144 3009 16.7
D= Core diameter, L= Length, CF = Correction Factor, COV = % Coefficient of Variation

Page | 109