A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers
Abstract Hardness is considered as an important property of concrete; it can be used to estimate compressive strength of concrete in situ. The classic Schmidt rebound hammer is the most popular nondestructive method to measure concrete surface hardness, while the Leeb rebound hammer has been extensively studied in geological and metallographic fields over decades, and its use for testing concrete is almost not known. The national and international standards for the measurement of hardness are reviewed. Concrete made different w/c ratios (0.33, 0.4 and 0.5) were tested by both methods. The simple linear correlation between rebound numbers (both Schmidt and Leeb) and concrete compressive strength are proposed. Schmidt rebound number was differently correlated with compressive strength for concretes with different w/c ratios, while the Leeb rebound numbers were more consistent and could be applied in predicting concrete compressive strength within 10% error for all w/c ratios. It was also concluded that Schmidt test can be considered as a semi-destructive method, because of significant strength reduction (in average by 10.5 MPa) that was observed after application of Schmidt hammer impact on specimens, while the Leeb rebound test procedure did not result in any damage of concrete. This difference can be explained by the dramatic difference in impact energy of the two hammers (2207 and 11 N·mm - for Schmidt rebound hammers of N-type and Leeb hammers of D-type, respectively). Moreover, the classic Schmidt rebound hammer is not recommended to be used on the concrete specimens, which are aimed for compressive tests at early age (less than 3 days) or when expected compressive strength is less than 7 MPa. These constraints do not apply to lower impact Leeb rebound devices, which can be considered as perfectly invasive (non-destructive). At the same time, as expected, Leeb rebound test is sensitive to the surface conditions, such as carbonation and surface moisture.
Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers
Abstract Hardness is considered as an important property of concrete; it can be used to estimate compressive strength of concrete in situ. The classic Schmidt rebound hammer is the most popular nondestructive method to measure concrete surface hardness, while the Leeb rebound hammer has been extensively studied in geological and metallographic fields over decades, and its use for testing concrete is almost not known. The national and international standards for the measurement of hardness are reviewed. Concrete made different w/c ratios (0.33, 0.4 and 0.5) were tested by both methods. The simple linear correlation between rebound numbers (both Schmidt and Leeb) and concrete compressive strength are proposed. Schmidt rebound number was differently correlated with compressive strength for concretes with different w/c ratios, while the Leeb rebound numbers were more consistent and could be applied in predicting concrete compressive strength within 10% error for all w/c ratios. It was also concluded that Schmidt test can be considered as a semi-destructive method, because of significant strength reduction (in average by 10.5 MPa) that was observed after application of Schmidt hammer impact on specimens, while the Leeb rebound test procedure did not result in any damage of concrete. This difference can be explained by the dramatic difference in impact energy of the two hammers (2207 and 11 N·mm - for Schmidt rebound hammers of N-type and Leeb hammers of D-type, respectively). Moreover, the classic Schmidt rebound hammer is not recommended to be used on the concrete specimens, which are aimed for compressive tests at early age (less than 3 days) or when expected compressive strength is less than 7 MPa. These constraints do not apply to lower impact Leeb rebound devices, which can be considered as perfectly invasive (non-destructive). At the same time, as expected, Leeb rebound test is sensitive to the surface conditions, such as carbonation and surface moisture.
Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers
Kovler, Konstantin (author) / Wang, Fengzhe (author) / Muravin, Boris (author)
Materials and Structures ; 51 ; 1-14
2018-10-01
14 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers
| Online Contents | 2018
| British Library Online Contents | 2002
| Online Contents | 2021