5.
Schmidt Hammer Test
5.1 Introduction
The aim of the Schmidt Hammer test is to determine the elastic properties of strength, of
specific concrete sections through non-destructive pathways. Non-destructive test
methods such as this have been developed to find a cheaper more efficient method other
than destructive methods.
5.2 Methodology
- Lab Instructions:
- Mark out 12 test locations in grid on surface on each block
- Take reading at each location
- Report mean and standard deviation
- Compare specimens
- Identify them in terms of hardness of surface
In this test, a Schmidt Hammer was used on the surface of three separate concrete
blocks.
- The hammer was positioned at 90 degrees downward, with a level ground surface
supporting the concrete block
- A total of 12 rebound readings were obtained from each block tested
- Hitting voids and cracks on the concrete surface was avoided
- Spacing between points hit by the hammer was at least 20mm
5.3 Results
- Location of impacts:
Fig. Mix 1 impact locations.
Fig. Mix 2 impact locations.
Fig. Mix 3 impact locations.
- Mean and standard deviation calculations:
Fi - Rebound number
N - Total number of impacts
Fa - Average rebound number
S - Standard deviation
Using the above equations, mean and standard deviation can be seen below.
Fig. Results table.
- Schmidt rebound graphs:
Mix 1
Schmidt Rebound Number
Fig. Mix 1 rebound graph.
Number of Impacts
Mix 2
Schmidt Rebound Number
Fig. Mix 2 rebound graph.
Number of Impacts
Mix 3
Schmidt Rebound Number
Fig. Mix 3 rebound graph.
Number of Impacts
5.4 Discussion
a)
After the collation of the above results from this non-destructive test, it can be shown
that the highest mean and standard deviation in rebound readings were observed in mix
2 (Fa=41.7, SD=8.9). With mix 1 having the lowest mean and standard deviation
rebound readings (Fa=37.5, SD=5.3). As seen in the graphs provided we can spot
outliers in mix 2 with rebound readings from as little as 21.5 in one location up to 51 in
others. This could be due to a number of reasons, one being operator error. One factor
could be that these locations contained voids or cracks. If this were to be an error, the
results from mix 2 would be greatly negatively skewed.
Using the graph provided below from past literature, we can use our mean rebound value
to find an approximation for our concrete core cube strengths.
Fig. Cube strength vs. Rebound graph.
Mix 1.
Fa=37.5
Cube strength=31 Mpa
Mix 2.
Fa=41.7
Cube strength=37.5 Mpa
Mix 3.
Fa=38
Cube strength=31.2 Mpa
In seeing this, through the use of the Schmidt hammer test our results point to mix 2
having the largest cube strength of 37.5 Mpa. In second, mix 3 and close behind with
almost identical cube strength mix 1.
b)
The Schmidt hammer test result could be affected from the following reasons,
1. Smoothness of the test surface
Hammer has to be used against a smooth surface. If the surface is rough, it should be
rubbed smooth.
2. Carbonation of concrete surface
Surface carbonation of concrete significantly affects the rebound hammer test results. In
old concrete where the carbonation layer can be up to 20 mm thick, the strength may be
overestimated by 50%.
3. Type of cement
Concrete made of high alumina cement can give strengths up to 100% higher, whereas
supersulphated cement concrete can give 50% lower strength compared to a calibration
obtained on Portland cement cubes.
4. Rigidity of the specimen
The specimen must be rigidly held so that movement due to the impact of the hammer
does not occur, which would reduce the rebound number.
5. Age of concrete
In very old and dry concrete the surface will be harder than the interior, giving rebound
values somewhat higher than normal. New concrete with moist surface generally has a
relatively softer surface, resulting in lower than normal rebound.
6. References
Brencich, A., Cassini, G., Pera, D. & Riotto, G., 2013. Calibration and Reliability of the
rebound (Schmidt) Hammer Test, Montallegro: Horizon Research.
Abd Nassir Ibrahim, G. Singh, A.A. Khan, 2002. Guidebook on non-destructive testing of
concrete structures. Vienna: IAEA Publisher.
Monterio, A. & Goncalves, A., 2009. Assessment of characteristic compressive strength in
structures by the rebound hammer test according to EN 13791: 2007. Non-Destructive
Testing in Civil Engineering, p. 6.
Malhotra, V.M. – Testing hardened concrete, Non-destructive methos, Monograph 9,
American, Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1976.
Zolness N.G. – Calibration and use of Impact Test Hammer ACI Journal, Proceeding V. 54,
No. 2, Aug. 1957, pp. 161-165.
Kolek, J., Non-destructive testing of concrete by hardness methods. In Non-destructive
Testing of Concrete Timber, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1970, pp. 19-22.
