REPORT ON LABORATORY

MIX DESIGN

Date of Submission: 25th September 2013

Experiment no.1:
To determine the physical properties of fine and coarse aggregate and prepare the mix
design for M20 grade of concrete.
Objective:

To study the physical properties of fine and coarse aggregate

To find the grading of both types of aggregate.

To produce different grade of concrete by trial mixing.

Theory:
The specific gravity of coarse and fine aggregate were to needed for mix design along
with grading of both types of aggregates. For mix design IS method is followed.
General Procedure of Mix Design
1.0 General
A comprehensive trial mixing comprises i) collection of representative samples of
materials from the sources or stockpiles, ii) Various tests on the individual samples in the
laboratory and iii) trial mixing for workability and compressive strengths. The materials in
question are i) Cement ii) Coarse Aggregate iii) Fine Aggregate and iv) Water for use in
concrete, (provisional).
2.0 Cement:
Cement Samples are to be delivered to the laboratory in unbroken bags. Preferably, the
cement samples should come straight from the factory.
The tests to be conducted on cement are the following:
a. Consistency and setting times (initial and final)
b. Fineness of cement, by Blaine Apparatus
c. Specific Gravity
d. Soundness
e. Standard Mortar Cube Strength to determine 3, 7 and 28 days strength.
3.0 Coarse Aggregate:
Coarse aggregate are crushed aggregate which are lots based on the nominal size 20.
In case of crushed aggregate, samples are collected during production at crusher site.
Natural aggregate sample should be collected from the stockpiles or heaps after plant or
manual screening.
The tests to be conducted on the coarse aggregate are:
a. Particle Size Distribution or Sieve Analysis
b. Specific Gravities and Water Absorption
2

c. Flakiness Index
d. Elongation Index
4.0 Fine Aggregate:
Normally, fine aggregate are natural sand from river bed or pits (quarry).Samples are to be
collected from stockpiles or heaps after screening and/or washing as necessary.
The tests to be conducted are:
a. Sieve Analysis ( for particle size distribution and to determine Fineness Modulus)
b. Specific Gravity and Absorption
5.0 Water:
The tests to be conducted are:
1. Chemical Test to determine chloride content etc.
2. Trial Mixers to compare strength with those of the mixes made with distilled water.
(Normally, if potable water is used for concrete, no tests are required).
Other than the above, the project specification may require additional tests.
6.0 Trial Mixing
6.1.1

Given Condition:

The client should provide the following information.

a. Type of specimen whether cylinder or cube
b. Grade of concrete in terms of minimum strength at 28 days.
c. Nominal size of aggregate
d. Type of aggregate natural or crushed
e. Desired Workability Slump
f. Method of Batching at site- whether volumetric or by weight
6.1.2

Design Strength:

Design strength, which should always be more than the minimum strength, is estimated as
follows.
fd= fck + K*
Where, fd = design strength or target strength
fck = Minimum Specified Strength
K = a value representing number of standard deviation units along the abscissa of
a normal distribution curve, that determines the percentage of tests on
concrete specimens to record strength above the minimum ( Normally, K
=1.65 for 95% of the tests to record strengths higher than the minimum
specified strength)

 = Standard Deviation, which is either assumed at the beginning or estimated on

the basis of degree of control at site, which depend mostly on the method of
batching the ingredients, volumetric or by weight and the quality of
supervision.
Standard Deviation () can be obtained from the relationship:
Co-efficient of variation Cv = Standard Deviation/Mean
i.e. Cv = /fd (Here the design strength is considered as mean strength)
Normally the value of Cv is between 0.12 for excellent to 0.18 Fair degree of
control.
Cv

= 0.12 for mixing concrete in a batching plant

= 0.15 for weight batching on a portable mixer
= 0.18 for volumetric batching in a portable mixer

6.2 Tentative Mix Proportions for Trial Mixing

Having tested all the materials as stated above and having been given the clients
requirement of strength and workability, trial mix proportions are computed for different
water cement ratios. From the sieve analysis result of coarse and fine aggregate a best
combined grading is formulated. (A separate trail mixes may be carried out for slump tests
only to determine the actual quantity of mixer water required for the desired workability).
6.3 Trial Mixing
The mix proportion is based on Saturated Surface Dry condition of coarse and fine
aggregate. The aggregate will have to be soaked in water for sufficient time and the
surface water wiped off and air- dried if necessary to bring the aggregate to a SSD
condition.
Mixing will be done in a Pan-type laboratory mixer; workability will be measured and
the specimens, cylinder or cube, will be cast. Nine numbers each of specimens will be
prepared for each w/c ratio.
3 Each specimen is tested for 3 day, 7 day and 28 day strength. This will also give idea
of the strength development characteristics.
The trial mixing has to be repeated for different water-content ratios. At least 3 or 4 w/c
ratio will be selected such that the design strengths of more than 1 grade of concrete are
covered within that range.
This way, one set of trial mix can be used to determine the mix proportions of more than
one type of concrete grade.

After all the 28 days strength has been recorded, a relationship between w/c ratios and
compressive strength is plotted. The required W/c ratio for particular design strength is
interpolated. Based on this w/c ratio the proportions of all the ingredients of concrete are
recalculated. This proportion determines the Mix Design for that particular grade of
concrete using those particular materials under the given circumstances.
Note:
1. As a normal practice, test on ingredients and trial mixing have to be executed again if there
is change in brand or source of materials.
2. As part of the regular quality control at site, periodic test in cement, sand and aggregate will
be required.
After about 25-30 pours of the concrete of particular grade or strength, the data (result of
compressive strength tests) are subjected to statistical analysis, which will give the true standard
deviation values. If this value deviates too much from the previously used value, the mix design
can be modified. Standard deviation value depends on the degree of control exercised at site. Low
value means good control and lesser cement content in the modified mix and vice versa.
Procedure:
1> Mix design had been carried out for given conditions using IS Method: (IS
10262:2009 and IS 456:2000)
Stipulations for Proportioning
Grade Designation: 30Mpa
Type of Cement: OPC 43 Grade
Exposure: Moderate (Reinforced Concrete)
Nominal maximum size of aggregate: 20mm
Minimum cement content: 300 Kg/m3
Maximum Water/Cement ratio: 0.5
Workability: 100 mm (Slump)
Method of Concrete Placement: Hand Placing
Degree of Supervision: Good
Type of Aggregate: Crushed Angular Aggregate
Maximum Cement Content: 450 Kg/m3
Chemical Admixture: None
Test Data for Materials
Cement Used: OPC 43 Grade
Specific Gravity of Cement: 3.15
Specific Gravity of:
a) Coarse Aggregate: 2.67
b) Fine Aggregate: 2.59
Water Absorption
a) Coarse Aggregate: 0.18%
b) Fine Aggregate: 1.58%
Free (Surface) Moisture:

a) Coarse Aggregate: nil

b) Fine Aggregate: nil
Sieve Analysis
a) Coarse Aggregate: Conforming to Table 2 of IS 383 for 20mm nominal maximum size.
b) Fine Aggregate: Conforming to Zone IIIof Table 4 of IS 383
Details of Sieve Analysis:
Coarse Aggregate: Sample of 5Kg
Sieve
Size Weight
% Retained
(IS Standard) Retained(Kg)
40
0
0
20
0.213
4.26
16
1.76
35.24
12.5
1.849
37.02
10
0.510
10.21
4.75
0.612
12.25
Pan
0.050
1.0
Total

4.994 Kg

Fine Aggregate: Sample 2Kg

Sieve
Size Weight
(IS Standard) Retained(gm)
4.75
55
2.36
29
1.18
173
471
600

Cumulative
% Retained
0
4.26
39.50
76.52
86.73
98.98
99.98

% Passing

Remark

100
95.74
60.60
23.48
13.27
1.02
0.02

Conforming
to IS 383,
Table 2 for
20mm
Nominal
Maximum
size.

% Passing

Remark

2.75
1.45
8.65
23.55

Cumulative
% Retained
2.75
4.19
12.84
36.39

97.25
95.81
87.16
63.61

Conforming
to Zone III of
Table 4 IS
383

99.98
% Retained

300

1060

53

89.39

10.61

150

168

8.4

97.79

2.21

Pan

44

2.2

99.99

Total

2000

99.99

Target Strength for Mix Proportioning

f d=f ck +1.65

30+1.655

38.25 N /mm
Where,

f d=

Design Strength of Concrete

f ck =
=

Characteristic Strength of Concrete at 28 days

Standard Deviation of 28 day strength (Adopted 5 N/mm2 based on GOOD

quality control.
Selection of Water/Cement Ratio
From Table 5 of IS 456:2000, maximum water-cement ratio for durability consideration = 0.5
From Practical Guidelines of IS 10262:2009, for M30 grade of concrete, adopted w/c ratio is =
0.45 < w/cmax (OK)
Selection of Water Content
From Table 2 (IS 10262:2009)
Maximum Water Content for 20mm aggregate = 186 liter (for 25- 50mm slump range)
6
186+
186
Estimated water content of 100mm slump =
100
197 liter

( 3% increase in water content to each 25mm slump increase as suggested)

Calculation of Cement Content
Water Cement Ratio 0.45
197

=438
Cement Content
Kg/m3> 300 Kg/m3
0.45
< 450 Kg/m3 (OK)
Proportion of Volume of Aggregate Content
From Table 3 (IS 10262:2009)
Volume of Coarse Aggregate corresponding to 20mm size aggregate for Zone III fine aggregate
of water-cement ratio 0.5 = 0.64
Correction for water-cement ratio of 0.45 i.e. 0.5-0.45 = +0.05
The volume of coarse aggregate is to be increased to decrease the fine aggregate content. As the
water-cement ratio is lower by 0.05 the proportion of volume of coarse aggregate is increased by
0.01.
Corrected Proportion of Volume of Coarse Aggregate for W/C ratio 0.45= 0.64+0.01 = 0.65
Thus, Volume of fine aggregate content = 1-0.65 = 0.35
Mix Calculations
i)

Volume of Concrete = 1 m3

ii)

Volume of Cement =

Mass of Cement
438
1
1
SpecificGravity of Cement
3.15
=
=0.139 m3
1000
1000

Mass of water
1
SpecificGravity of Water
197
=
=0.197 m3
1000
1000

iii)

Volume of Water =

iv)

Volume of all in aggregate = Volume of concrete ( vol. of cement + vol. of water)

= 1-(0.137+0.197) = 0.664 m3
Mass of Coarse Aggregate = Vol. of all in aggregate vol. of coarse aggregate content

v)

specific gravity 1000

0.6640.652.671000=1152.37 Kg
Mass of Fine Aggregate = Vol. of all in aggregate vol. of fine aggregate content

vi)

specific gravity 1000

0.664.352.591000=601.92 Kg
Mix Proportion for Final Mix
Cement (C): Fine Aggregate (S): Coarse Aggregate (A): Water (W)
= 438: 601.92: 1152.37:197
= 1: 1.37: 2.63: 0.45
2> The mix proportion above had been adopted & mixing /Casting of available test
specimens had been carried out with the same. Specimen Casted:
Cubes (100*100*100) - 12 Nos
Prism (300*75*75) 2 Nos
Cylinder (Dia100 * Ht.200) 3 Nos
3> After 24hr of casting, specimens were placed for curing for 28days.
4> With the completion of curing period Wt. of each sample had been taken, tested with
rebound hammer & Placed in uniaxial testing machine for destructive testing.
5> Observations had been made for each of test sample & failure loading recorded for
further interpretation.
Observation & Calculation:
Due to limited numbers of 150mm x 150mm Cubes, 12 Nos. of 100mm x100mm Cubes were cast
and tested, the statistical analysis is carried out. Thus, Probability distribution characteristic are
not calculated but simple arithmetic mean and standard deviation are found out as shown in table
below.
S.

Testing

Weight

Breaking

Com.

Density

Remark
8

N
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

Date
14-day
test
21-day
test
28-day
test
42-day
test

Kg
2.565
2.432
2.522
2.481
2.410
2.475
2.473
2.521
2.515
2.492
2.533
2.553

Load
KN
280
338
232
324
367
285
370
375
285
270
304
352
Avg. =
S.D.=

Strength
N/mm2
28.0
23.8
23.2
32.4
33.1
31.0
37.0
37.5
28.5
27.0
30.4
35.2
34.33
5.05

KN/m3
25.65
24.32
25.22
24.81
24.10
24.75
24.73
25.21
25.15
24.92
25.33
25.53

Cube test (150*150*150):

S.
N

Casting
Date

Testing
Date

1
2
3

Weight
Kg
8.070
8.230
8.080

1
2
3

7.906
7.882
7.951

Breaking
Load
Kg/ KN
1000
820
700
Avg. =
S.D. =
850 KN
900KN
920KN
Avg. =
S.D.=

Com.
Strength
N/mm2
43.6
35.8
30.5
36.63
6.59
37.8
40.0
40.9
39.56
1.59

Density
KN/m3
23.91
24.38
23.94

Cubes for
Beam

23.42
23.35
23.56

Cubes for
Slab

Remark

Most of the Standard test recommended the 150 X150 X 150 mm sized cube as standard for the
compressive strength test of concrete. Since we cannot ignore other sized cubes, we have to
develop correlation for different sizes cubes vs. compressive strength. Here we calculated
multiplying factor for 100 X100 X 100 mm sized cube.
From the test data analysis
For 100mm Cube
For 150mm Cube
Favg= 34.33Mpa
Favg= 39.6Mpa
S.D. = 5.05Mpa
S.D. = 2.98 Mpa
Fck= Favg-1.65 S.D. =25.99Mpa
Fck= Favg-1.65 S.D. =34.683Mpa
Multiplying Shape Factor = 34.683/25.99 =1.33

Cylinder test (100-dia*200-ht.):

S.
N

Castin
g Date

Testin
g Date

Weight

Breaking Load

Com.
Strength

Density

Kg

KN

N/mm2

KN/m3

Part
1
1.57
8

1
2
3

3.774
Part
2
1.97
3
3.822
3.800

Remark

Comp.=10
.89

114
187
195
Avg. =

Tensile=
3.63
23.8
24.83
24.31

24.03
24.33
24.19

Splitting
Test
Comp. Test

The strength of cylinder depends on the height (h) to the diameter (d) ratio of specimen as shown
in graph below:

Prism test (300*75*75):

S.
N

1
2

Casting
Date

Testing
Date

Weigh
t

Breaking Load

Com.
Strength

Density

Kg

KN

N/mm2

KN/m3

160
190
Avg. =

28.44
33.78
31.11

25.37
25.67

4.281
4.332

Remark

Different standard recommend different shape for compressive strength test e.g. I.S. recommends
150 mm cube while B.S. recommend cylinder for 28-days compressive strength. So, we have to
know the relation for 28-days compressive strength from different shape of samples.
10

As per R.L Hermite, a simple equation for the cylinder to cube strength ratio as a
function of the cube strength is given by:

Where fcu is cube strength in psi. Some strength ratio based on LHermites equation is given in
table below:
Cube Strength, psi
Cylinder / Cube Ratio
3000
0.765
4000
0.790
5000
0.809
6000
0.825
7000
0.838
8000
0.850
Table: Cylinder/Cube strength ratios Using LHermites equation
With the obtained data above, Simple analysis has been carried out for cube of size
(100*100*100) & tabulated below.
Statistical Analysis Summary
Mean
34.33
Standard Deviation
5.05
Variance
25.5
Multiplying Factor
1.33
Minimum
28.5
Maximum
37.5
Sum
103
Count
3
Conclusions:
1. The Characteristic strength (fck) from uniaxial compression test (=25.99 MPa) is less than
the targeted one (30Mpa) from mix design. The reason for less strength may be due to:
Non-uniform loading of uniaxial test machine (Small tilt found between end
surface of test specimen & steel platen of test machine)
Presence of weak coarse aggregate(indicating the failure before the failure of
aggregate - gel interface bond)
The cleanliness of coarse aggregate that may have affected bonding.
Dimensional error in cube formwork due to unmanageable distortion.
2. The Standard Deviation was found to be 5.05 which is nearly equal to the adopted SD=5
indicating good quality control.

11

3. Compressive Strength of Cube (100*100*100) is obtained around 13% lower than the
Cube (150*150*150). Therefore Cube (150*150*150) as Standard size, the size factor for
Cube (100*100*100) is found 1.33.

Fig. Concrete Sample under testing

Fig.Failed Cube
Cube
Sample
Sample
after Uniaxial
UniaxialCompressive
Compressive
Strength Test.

12

Fig.Failed Cylinder Sample after Splitting

Test.

Experiment no.2:
To study the mechanical response of RC Beam
Objective:

To study the response of RC beam to the given loading condition.

Theory:
The beam is very commonly used structural element. It may exist independently or
may form a component of structural framework. Normally the beam is treated as line element
with stress resultant bending moment (M), transverse Shear (V), & in some case twisting
moment.

13

Design of beam section for given shear & moment:

Design for Moment (Doubly Reinforced):
i) Mu, lim= K fck*bd2
Where, K= Constant depend upon fy.
fckXu , max
ii) Pt, lim = 41.61 *
fyd
# Ast,lim=

Ptbd
100

iii) Ast= Ast,lim+ Ast

Where, Ast = (Mu-Mu,lim)/.87fyd
0.87 x fy x Ast
iv) Asc = (fc0.447 x fck)
v) Check over-reinforcement:
pt pt lim

Pc*= 0.87 x f y x < Pc (Under reinforced Section)

Deflection:
Deflection of any simply
supported beam at centre of
span for two- point loading is
given by:
=

23 Pu L3
648 EI

Where, Pu = load in N
L =span of beam in mm
E= modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/mm2
I = moment of inertia of beam section in mm4
Design for Shear:
14

i) Find Pt.

ii)
iii)
iv)
v)

Find c from table 19 IS456:2000.

Vus = Vu- c *bd
Where, Vu= Shear at given section
Asv = Sv*Vus/(0.87*fy*d) Where, Asv= Area of Shear reinforcement.
Sv = 0.87*fy*Asv*d/Vus
Where, Sv= Spacing of Shear reinforcement.

Procedure:
For the study of mechanical response of beam under given loading condition following
experimental setup / data had been adopted:
Size of beam = 150mm*150mm*750mm
Span (L) = 600mm
Characteristic strength of concrete (fck) = 30N/mm2
Adopted C: FA: CA: W
= 1: 1.37: 2.63: 0.45
Loading Condition = Two-point loading as shown in fig below:

15

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

The beam had been casted with the above mix proportion & size for shear
(Reinforcement detail given in calculation below).
After the concrete placing, mould had been left for 24 hours & after that placed in
curing for 28days.
After the completion of curing period the beams were placed in proper setup for the
loading.
Gradual Loading applied until the complete failure & data recorded for loading.

Observation & Calculation:

Reinforcement Provided:
Ast = 2 -12mm dia bar = 226.19 mm2 (Pt=1.206%)
Asc = 2- 10mm dia bar = 157.08 mm2 (Pc=0.698%)
Width (b) = 150mm
From cube test data fmean = 36.63MPa
fck = fmean- 1.65*S.D. = 36.63-1.65*6.59
(From Cube test for Beam)
= 25.99MPa
Effective depth (d) = 150-25
= 125mm (Assuming 25mm effective cover)
Stirrup provided 2 legged 4.75mm (ASV =35.44mm2)
Sv = 100mm c/c at support
= 200mm c/c at midspan
Number of Stirrups Provided = 5
Moment of Resistance (Mu)
Based on tension
Mu
=0.87 fyAst (d 0.416xu)
=0.87 x 500 x 226.19 (125 0.416 x 32.11)
= 10.78KNm

16

Based on Compression
Mu
= 0.36 fck b* xu (d 0.416 xu) + (fsc fcc) Asc* (d d)
= 0.36 x 25.99 x 150 x 32.11(125 0.416 x 32.11) + (308.6 0.446 x 25.99)
x157.08 x (125 25)
= 10.36 KNm
Critical Load for flexure (Pu) =6*Mu/L =103.6 KN
Shear Capacity of section (Vu)
Vu = Vus + cbd
Where,
Pt=1.206%
cfrom table 19 of IS456:2000, c=0.703Mpa
Vus
= 0.87*fy*Asv*d/Sv= 0.87*415*35.44*125/100
Vu
= 15.99+0.703*150*125/1000
Critical load for shear failure (Pu) = 29.17*2 = 58.34KN

= 15.99KN
= 29.17KN

(The Section is Critical in Shear for which loading value found to be = 58.34KN).
Theoretical Deflection of Beam
E =5000
bd
I = 12

f ck

= 5000

150
= 12

25.99 = 25.49* 103 N/mm2

6
= 42.2 * 10 mm4

Theoretical Deflection Table

Load
KN

SN
1

10

20

30

40

50

60

64

8
9

70
80

Midspan
Load
Deflection
Kgf
(mm)
1019.3
68
0.071
2038.7
36
0.143
3058.1
04
0.214
4077.4
72
0.285
5096.8
4
0.356
6116.2
08
0.428
6523.9
First Flexure
55
0.456 Crack
7135.5
76
0.499
8154.9
0.570
17

10

90

11

100

12

110

13

120

14

130

15

140

16

150

17

160

18

162

19

170

20

180

21

190

22

200

44
9174.3
12
10193.
68
11213.
05
12232.
42
13251.
78
14271.
15
15290.
52
16309.
89
16513.
76
17329.
26
18348.
62
19367.
99
20387.
36

0.641
0.713
First Shear
0.784 Crack
0.855
0.927
0.998
1.069
1.140
1.155 Ultimate Failure
1.212
1.283
1.354
1.425

Load Vs Deflection Curve (Beam)

Deflection (mm)

1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Load (kgf)

Fig: Load Vs Deflection Curve (Theoretical)

18

Observation Table for Beam:

Beam Dimensions
Length
cross section
Simply supported span
Wt of Beam

750 mm
150 x 150 mm
600 mm
42.8 kg

Test of Beam
Force at First Crack
=
Force at Ultimate Failure
=
Multiplying Factor of Machine
=
Ultimate Failure load from test (Pu) =
Theoretical Ultimate load for beam (Pu) =

6500Kgf
16500Kgf
0.9715
16500*9.81*.9715 = 157.25 KN
58.34 KN

Conclusions:
a) The beam fails on shear with Ultimate failure load of 157.25KN which is 2.7 times greater
than calculated one. This difference is due to the provision of safety factor considered for
material in code & also may be due to the greater ultimate strength of bar than the
considered one.
b) Ultimate shear crack makes an angle of near about 40with beam axis which is closer to
the general theoretical shear crack angle of 450 for max.
c) During testing the deflection Vs. Load curve was plotted by testing machine as shown in
above fig. which shows near about linear relationship up to failure point. There is small
deflection which shown the beam was safe in deflection. And theoretically the deflection
was plotted linearly against load assuming elastic behavior of beam which makes it
different from actual after failure point.

19

Fig.Beam
Showing
Initial
Cracking

Beam with
cracking at
ultimate failure

20

Experiment no.3:
To study the mechanical response of RC Slab.
Objective:
To study the response of RC Slab under concentration load.
To study the cracking pattern in slab under concentration load.
In short the objective is Yield Line Analysis and its Verification
Theory:
Slabs are generally considered as a plate element forming floor & roof structure carrying
distributed or concentrated load primarily by flexure. Slabs may be simply supported or
continuous over the support; flat slabs are supported at columns only.
Slabs are designed using same theories of bending & shear as are used for beam. Following
analysis are generally used for slab:
Elastic analysis.
Semi empirical coefficient as given by code.
Yield line theory.
Analysis of simply supported slab with concentrated load:
1> Yieldlineanalysis.

21

For rectangular yield line pattern Mu = Pu/8*L (where Mu= ultimate moment at mid
span, Pu= ultimate loading)
For circular yield line pattern Mu = Pu/2*L
For two side simply Supported Slab, Single yield line pattern, Mu =Pu*b/4L

2> From chart of Reynolds_Steedmans Hand book:

- Here mu = Pu**(+1)
Where,
Pu= Ultimate loading
= Coefficient From graph
= Poissons ratio.

Design for given moment:

M u=0.87f yA std 1

f y A st
f ck bd

Procedure:
For the study of mechanical response of slab under given loading condition following
experimental setup / data had been adopted:
Preliminary Design
Size of slab: 1000mm*1000mm*75mm
Support to support Span (L): 800mm
Characteristic strength of concrete (fck) =30 N/mm2
Mix Adopted C: FA: CA: W =1: 1.37: 2.63: 0.45
Loading Condition = Concentrated loading as shown in fig below:
With 20mm effective cover (d) = 75-20 =55mm
22

fy=500 N/mm2
Provide 8mm dia. Bar @ 150mm C/C
Ast provided = 335.103 mm2 per m width
Mu =7.203 KN-m per m width
For Rectangular YL pattern, Mu=Pu/8*L
Pu=7.203*8*1= 57.626 KN
-

Slab had been casted with the above mix proportion & size & reinforcements.
After the concrete placing, mould had been left for 24 hours & after that placed for curing
for 28days.
After the completion of curing period the slab was placed in proper setup for the loading.
Gradual Loading applied until the complete failure & data recorded for loading

Observation & Calculation:

Compressive Strength Test (150mm Cubes)
S. Weight (Kg)
Breaking
N
load(KN)
1
7.906
850
2
7.882
900
3
7.951
920
Avg.=
S.D.=

Compressive
Strength(MPa)
37.8
40
40.9
39.6
1.59

Density
(Kg/m3)
23.425
23.354
23.559

Remark

Four Edges simply supported and centrally point load applied

Maximum Applicable load from machine = 500 bar
Calibration Chart For Loading Machine
160
140
f(x) = 0.32x + 5.74
R = 1

120
100
Load in KN

80
60
40
20
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Load in Bar

23

Slab moment capacity analysis:

From cube test data fmean = 39.6 MPa
fck= fmean -1.65*SD= 39.6-1.65*1.59 = 36.98 MPa
fy=500 N/mm2
With 20mm effective cover (d) = 75-20 =55mm
Ast provided = 335.103mm2 per m width. (8mm dia @ 150C/C)
Slab did not fail even at maximum applied load.

Analysis for Punching Shear Failure.

Research related to punching shear indicate that the critical section governing the ultimate shear
strength in two way action of slab is along the perimeter of the loaded area. Further, for the
square loaded area it is found that the ultimate shear stress at this section is a function of two
parameters ,via, fck , and the ratio of the side of the square loaded area to the effective depth
of the slab. The shear strength can be made relatively independent of the second parameter by
considering a critical section for punching shear at a distanced/2 beyond the edge of the loaded

area. As per IS 456-2000 design shear Strength c (in two way shear), is given by,
c

=Ks(0.25

fck )

Where, KS =0.5 bC 1.0

And bC is the ratio of the short side to the long side of the capital.
Therefore, KS =0.5 1> 1.0, Adopt KS=1.0

Hence, c =1.0(0.25 36.98 ) =1.52 N/mm2

VC =1.52*292.48*80 =35.56 KN
Hence, the Ultimate Shear Capacity of Slab =53.34 KN
From Test, Maximum load reading=500 bars (=0.321R+5.737) KN
Ultimate Failure load (Pu) =166.237 KN

24

Fig.Slab Loading and Corner Support

Result:
Due to overstrength of slab and insufficient capacity of testing machine, the ultimate failure load
for RCC Slab could not be determined. However, yield pattern in the slab along its center
extending to free edges were observed.
Conclusion & Remark:
a) Ultimate Failure of Slab could not be observed due to limited loading capacity of the
testing machine.
b) Yield line cracking initiated in the slab that was concurrent with flat slabs i.e. straight
yield lines extending from center of slab towards the free edges dividing the slab into 4
identical rigid blocks.
c) Leakage of hydraulic fluid from the loading plunger affected the process of gradual
loading and the full capacity of machine wasnt utilized.
d) To prevent punching failure, area of loading was increased by using weights to transfer
the load.
e) Support condition was highly erratic with corner supports provided by hollow steel box
columns; precise theoretical treatment of slab couldnt be done.

25

Fig: Hairline
Crack
Pattern
in Slab in
Underside
traced
Fig:
Rebar
Arrangement
Slab
by Chalk

Experiment no. 4:
Schmidt Hammer Test (Non Destructive Test)
Objective:
To obtain correlation curve for Schmidt Hammer and to obtain the compressive strength of
existing structure using Schmidt (rebound) hammer.
Introduction:
Engineers worldwide use Original SCHMIDT Concrete Hammer to assess concrete quality and
strength characteristics. It is a non-destructive test in which concrete can be tested in-situ
condition. This instrument enables engineers to control concrete quality and to detect weak spot.
26

As the test can be done in the site condition, strength of concrete can be evaluated in different
time interval. The main advantage of this test is that it is easy to handle and it saves time.
Apparatus:
1. Schmidt Hammer
2. Compression testing machine
Working Principle:
The Schmidt rebound hammer is principally a surface hardness tester. It works on the principle
that the rebound of an elastic mass depends on the hardness of the surface against which the mass
impinges. There is little apparent theoretical relationship between the strength of concrete and the
rebound number of the hammer. However, within limits, empirical correlations have been
established between strength properties and the rebound number. Further, Kolek has attempted to
establish a correlation between the hammer rebound number and the hardness as measured by the
Brinell method.
Procedure:
Selection of testing site
First of all the site for test has to be selected. The ceiling and inverted T-beam of heavy lab was
selected.
Selection of the testing points:
For slab, grid of 1m x 1m was marked where the tests have to be performed. Similarly, on beam
points at a distance of 1m were selected. In order to get reliable results following factors are to be
considered.
The plaster or coating must be removed.
Cement slurry present in top layer must be removed.
Procedure for Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test:
The method of using the hammer is explained using figure With the hammer pushed hard against
the concrete, the body is allowed to move away from the concrete until the latch connects the
hammer mass to the plunger.
The plunger is then held perpendicular to the concrete surface and the body pushed towards the
concrete. This movement extends the spring holding the mass to the body. When the maximum
extension of the spring is reached, the latch releases and the mass is pulled towards the surface by
the spring.The method of using the hammer is explained using figure With the hammer pushed
hard against the concrete, the body is allowed to move away from the concrete until the latch
connects the hammer mass to the plunger.
The plunger is then held perpendicular to the concrete surface and the body pushed towards the
concrete. This movement extends the spring holding the mass to the body. When the maximum
extension of the spring is reached, the latch releases and the mass is pulled towards the plunger
by the elastic energy released by spring. The mass hits the shoulder of the plunger rod and
rebounds because the rod is pushed hard against the concrete. During rebound the slide indicator
27

travels with the hammer mass and stops at the maximum distance the mass reaches after
rebounding. A button on the side of the body is pushed to lock the plunger into the retracted
position and the rebound number is read from a scale on the body.
Application of Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test:
The hammer can be used in the horizontal, vertically overhead or vertically downward positions
as well as at any intermediate angle, provided the hammer is perpendicular to the surface under
test. The position of the mass relative to the vertical, however, affects the rebound number due to
the action of gravity on the mass in the hammer. Thus the rebound number of a floor would be
expected to be smaller than that of a soffit and inclined and vertical surfaces would yield
intermediate results. Although a high rebound number represents concrete with a higher
compressive strength than concrete with a low rebound number.
A typical correlation procedure is, as follows:
1. Prepare a number of cylinders or cube specimens
2. Take hammer rebound readings of each cube, take at least 5 readings, and ensure that the
cubes are in surface dry condition.
3. Avg. the readings and call this the rebound number for the cube.
4. Test the cylinders to failure in compression and plot the rebound numbers against the
compressive strength.
5. Fit a curve or a line by the method of least squares
Limitations of Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test:
1. Smoothness of the test surface
28

Hammer has to be used against a smooth surface, preferably a formed one. Open textured
concrete cannot therefore be tested.
2. Size, shape and rigidity of the specimen
If the concrete does not form part of a large mass any movement caused by the impact of the
hammer will result in a reduction in the rebound number. In such cases the member has to be
rigidly held or backed up by a heavy mass.
3. Age of test specimen
For equal strengths, higher rebound numbers are obtained with a 7 day old concrete than with a
28 day old. Therefore, when old concrete is to be tested in a structure a direct correlation is
necessary between the rebound numbers and compressive strengths of cores taken from the
structure.
4. Surface and internal moisture conditions of concrete
The rebound numbers are lower for well-cured air dried specimens than for the same specimens
tested after being soaked in water and tested in the saturated surface dried conditions. Therefore,
whenever the actual moisture condition of the field concrete or specimen is unknown, the surface
should be pre-saturated for several hours before testing.
5.Type of coarse aggregate
Different researchers have obtained varying results in relationship between aggregate type,
rebound number and strength correlation. Variations in compressive strength in order of 7MPa
(difference of 7 in rebound number) were observed in cylinders with limestone coarse aggregate
(lower) and crushed stone aggregate (higher) [Kliegar et. al.]. For similar aggregate from different
sources, variation in strength of 1.7 to 3.9 MPa was observed for same rebound number (Grieb et.
al). Variation for lightweight aggregate was studied by Greene.
However, in all above cases, compressive strength of aggregate was proportional to rebound
number.
6. Type of Cement
According to Kolek the type of concrete significantly affects the rebound number readings. High
concrete can have actual strengths 100% higher than those obtained using a correlationcurve
based on concrete made with ordinary portland cement. Also, supersulfated cementconcrete
canhave 50% lower strength than obtained from the ordinary portland cement concrete
correlation curves.
7. Type of Mold
Mitchell and Hoagland have carried out studies to determine the effect of the type of concrete
moldon the rebound number. When cylinders cast in steel, tin can, and paper carton molds were
tested, therewas no significant difference in the rebound readings between those cased in steel
molds and tin canmolds, but the paper carton-molded specimens gave higher rebound numbers.
This is probably due tothe fact that paper molds withdraw moisture from the fresh concrete, thus
lowering the water-cementratio at the surface and resulting in a higher strength. As the hammer is
a surface hardness tester, it ispossible in such cases for the hammer to indicate an unrealistically
high strength. It is therefore suggestedthat if paper carton molds are being used in the field, the

29

hammer should be correlated against thestrength results obtained from test cylinders cast in
similar molds.
Observation and Calculation:

S.
N

1
2
3

Specimen
type

Cube
(100 x 100
mm)
42days

Weight
(Kg)

Rebound No.
( From 10 Rebound Values)

Avg.
Rebound
No.

Failure
load
(KN)

Comp.
Strength
(MPa)

2.492

22

26

18

22

17

22

18

25

21.25

270

27.0

2.533

29

33

29

25

32

29

32

30

29.88

304

30.4

2.553

32

29

34

32

28

26

26

36

30.38

352

35.2

Correlation between Rebound Number and Uniaxial Compressive Strength:

Rebound Number Vs Compressive Strength (10 cm Cube)
y = 0.6744x + 12.544
37
35
33
Compressive Strength MPa

31
29
27
25
15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

Rebound Number

30

Observed Values from Sample Tests

SN
o

Eleme
nt

Observed Rebound Number

2
3
4

3
3
5

4
3
0

5
3
4

6
2
6

7
5
0

8
3
4

9
2
5

1
0
3
1

Avg.
Rebou
nd No.
31.75

Comp.
Stren
gth
From
chart
33.95

Correction
for(900downw
ards) +3.3
Rebound No.
36.181

Ceilin
g Slab

1
3
0

Ceilin
g Slab

2
6

2
4

2
7

2
8

3
0

3
0

2
8

2
7

2
8

2
9

27.87
5

31.34

33.568

Ceilin
g Slab

2
1

2
1

2
0

2
2

2
3

2
2

1
7

2
0

2
0

1
6

20.37
5

26.28

28.510

Ceilin
g Slab

2
2

2
5

2
3

2
7

2
0

1
9

2
1

2
0

2
4

1
7

21.75

27.21

29.437

Ceilin
g Slab

2
6

2
7

2
9

3
3

2
0

2
2

2
4

2
5

2
8

2
7

26

30.07
84

32.303

Beam

1
8

1
8

2
4

2
2

1
6

2
7

2
5

2
4

2
4

2
0

21.87
5

27.29
65

29.52202

Beam

1
9

2
8

3
2

3
0

2
7

2
8

2
0

2
2

2
3

2
4

25.25

29.57
26

31.79812

Conclusion and Recommendation:

The test determines in reality the hardness of the concrete surface, and although there is no
unique relation between hardness and strength, empirical relationship can be determine for
similar concrete cured in such a manner that both the surface tested by hammer and central,
region in whose strength we are interested, have the same strength.
The correlation of compressive strength and rebound numbers shown in this report are very
approximate because very few data are used here for correlation .And also various factors affect
to find the compressive strength accurately such as surface condition of tested specimen, presence
of large aggregate at test point, other manual unseen errors, etc. However the objective of
Schmidt Hammer test and detailed procedure are well known from this experiment
This test is a comparative nature only. In particular, the hardness of concrete depends on elastic
properties of the aggregate used and may also affected by large differences in proportions and by
carbonation.
Though the actual strength of slab tested is not known to compare with the experiment result, the
strength of the Slab, Beam, and column a 95% confidence level is computed. The result of the
Beam is lesser obtained because of various error during observation.

31

Fig. Schmidt Hammer

Comment:
Due to faulty instrument, the correlation chart generated above is of no importance in determining
the strength of structural elements tested for practice by rebound hammer. The practice tests were
carried out in the existing college building and as such, the plaster covers were not scraped to
reveal the concrete surface. Thus the collected data for ceiling and beams are only representative
for vertically downward orientation and horizontal direction of Schmidt Hammer. Correlation
with above chart for horizontal loading is done

32

Experiment no. 5
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (Non Destructive Test)
Objective:
To determine the strength of concrete by measuring the Ultrasonic Pulse velocity through the
concrete specimen and hence to determine the modulus of elasticity of the concrete.
Introduction:
It is the non-destructive test, which is used to determine the longitudinal ultrasonic pulse velocity
in concrete structure through which the wave is propagated. There is no unique relationship
between these velocity and strength of concrete but under specified conditions these two
quantities are related. The common factor is a density of concrete, a change in the density results
in a change in the pulse velocity. If the velocity of a pulse of longitudinal waves through a
medium can be determined, and if the density and Poissons ratio of the medium is known, then
the dynamic modulus of elasticity can be computed.
Apparatus:
1. Ultrasonic sensor

Fig: ultrasonic pulse velocity test equipment

Working Principle:
A pulse of longitudinal vibrations is produced by an electro-acoustical transducer, which is held
in contact with one surface of the concrete under test. When the pulse generated is transmitted
into the concrete from the transducer using a liquid coupling material such as grease or cellulose
paste, it undergoes multiple reflections at the boundaries of the different material phases within
the concrete. A complex system of stress waves develops, which include both longitudinal and
shear waves, and propagates through the concrete. The first waves to reach the receiving
33

transducer are the longitudinal waves, which are converted into an electrical signal by a second
transducer. Electronic timing circuits enable the transit time T of the pulse to be measured.
Longitudinal pulse velocity (in km/s or m/s) is given by:
V=L/T
Where,V is the longitudinal pulse velocity,
L is the path length,
T is the time taken by the pulse to traverse that length.
If the density () and Poissons ratio () are known, then the modulus of elasticity of concrete (E)
can be calculated using the following relations:
E
Vp =
For 1-D body

Vp =

Vp =

E
(1 2)

For 2-D body

E (1)
( 1 ) (12)

For 3-DBody

Where, Vp = P wave velocity

After getting the value of E from above equations, the characteristic strength (f ck) and modulus of
rupture (fcr) can be calculated by using the IS 456-2000.
E = 5000x f ck
c

fcr = 0.7 x

f ck

Where, Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete

fck = characteristic strength of concrete
fcr = modulus of rupture of concrete
Equipment for pulse velocity
The equipment consists essentially of an electrical pulse generator, a pair of transducers, an
amplifier and an electronic timing device for measuring the time interval between the initiation of
a pulse generated at the transmitting transducer and its arrival at the receiving transducer. Two
forms of electronic timing apparatus and display are available, one of which uses a cathode ray
tube on which the received pulse is displayed in relation to a suitable time scale, the other uses an
interval timer with a direct reading digital display
Procedure for the determination of pulse velocity Transducer arrangement:
It is possible to make measurements of pulse velocity by placing the two transducers on either:
opposite faces (direct transmission)
adjacent faces (semi-direct transmission) or
The same face (indirect or surface transmission).

34

Fig : indirect or surface transmission

Fig: direct transmission and semi-direct transmission

Note: It is better to use the direct transmission arrangement since the transfer of energy between
transducers is at its maximum and the accuracy of velocity determination is therefore governed
principally by the accuracy of the path length measurement. The couplant used should be spread
as thinly as possible to avoid any end effects resulting from the different velocities in couplant
and concrete.
Coupling the transducer onto the concrete:
To ensure that the ultrasonic pulses generated at the transmitting transducers pass into the
concrete and are then detected by the receiving transducer, it is essential that there is adequate
acoustical coupling between the concrete and the face of each transducer. For many concrete
surfaces, the finish is sufficiently smooth to ensure good acoustical contact by the use of a
coupling medium and by pressing the transducer against the concrete surface. Typical couplants
are petroleum jelly, grease, soft soap and kaolin/glycerol paste. It is important that only a very
thin layer of coupling medium separates the surface of the concrete from its contacting
transducer. For this reason, repeated readings of the transit time should be made until a minimum
value is obtained so as to allow the layer of the couplant to become thinly spread.
Factors influencing pulse velocity measurements
Moisture content:
The moisture content has two effects on the pulse velocity, one chemical the other physical.
Between a properly cured standard cube and a structural element made from the same concrete,
there may be a significant pulse velocity difference. Much of the difference is accounted for by
the effect of different curing conditions on the hydration of the cement while some of the
difference is due to the presence of free water in the voids.
Temperature of the concrete:
35

Variations of the concrete temperature between 10 0C and 30 0C have been found to cause no
significant change without the occurrence of corresponding changes in the strength or elastic
properties.
Path length:
The path length over which the pulse velocity is measured should be long enough not to be
significantly influenced by the heterogeneous nature of the concrete. The pulse velocity is not
generally influenced by changes in path length, although the electronic timing apparatus may
indicate a tendency for velocity to reduce slightly with increasing path length.
Effect of reinforcing bars:
The pulse velocity measured in reinforced concrete in the vicinity of reinforcing bars is usually
higher than in plain concrete of the same composition. This is because the pulse velocity in steel
may be up to twice the velocity in plain concrete and, under certain conditions, the first pulse to
arrive at the receiving transducer travels partly in concrete and partly in steel.
Concrete uniformity:
Heterogeneities in the concrete within or between members cause variations in pulse velocity,
which in turn are related to variations in quality. Measurements of pulse velocity provide a means
of studying the homogeneity.
Reliability and Discrepancy:
Ultrasonic pulse velocity technique is more reliable than rebound hammer teat because
it gives information about the state of concrete throughout width or depth of structure member.
The technique used as a means of quality control of products, which are supposed to be made of
similar concrete. Both lack of compaction and change in w/c ratio would be easily detected. As
per Whitehurst, for concrete of density of approximate 24 KN/m3, the relation between
longitudinal velocities in Km/s and quality of concrete are as follows
V (Km/s)
>4.5
3.5-4.5
3.0-3.5
2.0-3.0
<2.0

Quality of Concrete
Excellent
Good
Doubtful
Poor
Very poor

Procedure:
Cubes of 100 mm were prepared as usual procedure.
Time taken by the pulse in microsecond to travel from one face of the cube to other face
was found out for each cube.
After then compressive strength test was conducted (destructive).
The correlation between pulse velocity and cube compressive strength was prepared.
Finally Youngs modulus of elasticity of concrete was computed.
Observation and Calculation

36

Since, due to the improper functioning of ultrasonic sensor we were not able to make observation
in our specimen.
Discussion:
Pulse velocity isless for low strength concrete then high strength concrete. It is because of
the high strength concrete is more compact than low strength concrete.
To develop exact correlation, more specimens (at least 15 nos.) are required. The
computed characteristic strength of the concrete is less than the observed value.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity test, although approximate, can be used as a means of
computing compressive strength quickly and easily in field using the correlation charts
developed.
In order to access the field strength near to the exact value, the calibration chart used shall
of being prepared very carefully, and in a condition approximately near to the field
condition.

37

Experiment No: 6
Cover meter (Profometer) Test (Non Destructive Test)
Objective:
To study the working principle of cover meter and its applications
Introduction:
Cover meter is a sophisticated device for the non destructive location of rebars and for the
measurement of concrete cover and bar diameters, using the eddy current principle with pulse
induction as the measuring method as well as detecting the rebar diameter accurately to the
millimeter by only one measuring procedure.
Cover meter is an instrument to locate rebar and measure the exact concrete cover. Rebar
detectors are sophisticated devices that can locate metallic objects below the surface. Due to the
cost-effective design, the pulse-induction method is one of the most commonly used solutions.
Concrete cover is the distance from the surface of the concrete to the surface of the reinforcing
bars embedded in the concrete. Ensuring sufficient concrete cover is critical for the durability of
some concrete structures subject to poor environment during their service life, such as seawater
desalination plants, jetties, bridges and reservoirs etc. Concrete cover can be measured using
commercially available cover meter such as Profometer. The assessment of concrete cover for
such important concrete structures should be only based on accurate measurement results by
professionals.
Application:

Locate rebars with the cover meter to avoid them when drilling holes
Acceptance inspection of cover after formwork is removed
Measuring concrete cover depth with the cover meter
Quality assurance in mass production of prefabricated concrete elements

38

Method:
The pulse-induction method is based on electromagnetic pulse induction technology to detect
rebars. Coils in the probe are periodically charged by current pulses and thus generate a magnetic
field. On the surface of any electrically conductive material which is in the magnetic field eddy
currents are produced. They induce a magnetic field in opposite directions. The resulting change
in voltage can be utilized for the measurement. Rebars that are closer to the probe or of larger size
produce a stronger magnetic field.
Modern rebar detectors use different coil arrangements to generate several magnetic fields.
Advanced signal processing supports not only the localization of rebars but also the determination
of the cover and the estimation of the bar diameter. This method is unaffected by all non
conductive materials such as concrete, wood, plastics, bricks etc. However any kind of
conductive materials within the magnetic field will have an influence on the measurement.
Advantages of the pulse induction method:
high accuracy
not influenced by moisture and non-homogeneities of the concrete
unaffected by environmental influences
Low costs.
Disadvantage of the pulse induction method:
Limited detection range
Minimum bar spacing depends on cover depths
Cover Meter Accuracy and Factors Affecting Cover Measurement :
Each measurement comes with certain variation and every measuring equipment has its own
accuracy. Cover meter is one of such measuring equipments. Many factors can affect cover
measurement. These include neighboring bars parallel to the bar being measured, setting of bar
diameter during cover measurement, scan location relative to secondary bars under the bar being
measured, different measurement probes (deep or shallow) or different probe settings (low or
high range for cover meters using universal probe) etc. Other factors such as magnetic effects
from the aggregate or matrix of the concrete, variations in the properties of the steel, crosssectional shape of bars and rib height, roughness of the surface can also influence cover
measurement. However, these factors are insignificant compared to former factors. Only limited
research on cover meter accuracy is available.

39

Fig: Cover meter

Comments:
Profometer available in the laboratory was damaged and couldnt be used for locating
reinforcement in slabs to map out rebar arrangement during core cutting. Only the theoretical
aspect of pulse-induction method was studied in textbook. Practical application wasnt carried
out.

40

Experiment No: 7
To measure the compressive strength of concrete by Core Testing
Objective:
To study the process of core sampling and testing
Theory:
Core testing is a destructive test, and is beneficial when the results obtained from the cube
or cylindrical specimens are below the specific value. Thus, two possibilities appear, either the
concrete is very weak, or the specimens are not correctly prepared and so not representative to the
concrete in the structure. So core cylinders are obtained from the structure with a height to
diameter ratio of 2:1. The obtained core specimen then shall be cured, capped and then tested
compression in moist condition.
The empty place of the core shall then be filled with materials that give the same strength,
and in cases of steel existence the steel is welded with other thicker steel in the hole. The core
specimen is obtained by means of using a core drilling machine.
Principal:
This is the method based on destructive test in which the core cutting is done in the
existing structure to test the strength of the concrete. The core cutting machine will cut the core in
specified place. Once the concrete has been cut, it is tested on the compression testing machine.
Apparatus Required:
i)
Core drill
ii)
Specimen for test
iii)
Water pump
Procedure:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)

The specimen is checked for the reinforcement embedment by pachometer.

The specimen is marked to the point where core cutting is done.
Core drilling machine is place over the mark for the core specimen.
Once the machine get started to the specified point, the machine get start to cut the
core.
Water is continuously applied to the machine so that the heat generation is reduced.
After some time, the machine completely cut the specimen into a cylindrical shape,
known as core specimen.
Once we get the specimen, it is tested in the compression machine.

41

Observation and Result:

S.N.

Weight
(Kg)
2.119

Breaking
Load (KN)
180

Strength
(Mpa)
22.92

Correction
Factor
1.726

Actual
Strength(Mpa)
39.56

The strength of cylinder depends on the height (h) to the diameter (d) ratio of specimen as
shown in graph below:

Conclusion and Discussion:

From the above experiment we found that, the compressive strength of the slab that we have
casted is 39.56 MPa in average with standard deviation of 1.59 MPa.
The design strength of the slab is M30, and we are testing for the same slab. The variation that we
observed from our real strength of the slab is due to various reasons such as: a vibration that the
core cutting machine produce itself forms a microcracks, non- continuity for the cutting sample
while cutting, surface is not perfectly smooth and horizontal to gain the strength etc. One of the
bars was cut in the core as we couldnt identify the rebar location exactly in absence of
profometer. This resulted in anomalous value of compressive strength.
Due to lack of time, capping of core wasnt done and hence, due to irregularity of top surface,
breaking strength obtained was quite low than expected.
These core cutting is excessively used in bridges to assurence for the quality of concrete, for
reparing works.The use of this method gives reliable results for compressive strength as the
specimen is taken directly from the structure, so it will be representative for the whole structure.
42

Since these tests are destructive tests, the hole that the core cutting machine made should be
sealed with the same or more quality with fast hardening cement in the real field. If the rod gets
cut during core cutting the rods should be welded and filled with concrete.

Thus we have successfully complete our core cutting experiment.

The images of core cutting operation and sample core is presented below.

Fig: Core
Cutting
Operation in
progress

Fig: Slab after

core cutting

Fig: Handling of Core for

testing

43

Bibliography
C.E Reynolds, R. S. (n.d.). Reinforced
Concrete Designer's Handbook. EF
& N SPON .
Concrete. (2000). Concrete:
Microstructure Properties and
Materials. Tata MCGraw Hill.
Inc., D.-C. (2009). Duro-Crete Concrete
Mix Manual.
R. Park, W. G. (2000). Reinforced
Concrete Slabs.
S UnniKrishna Pillai, D. M. (n.d.). Reinforced Concrete Design.
Tata McGraw Hill.
V M Malhotra, N. J. (n.d.). Nondestructive Testing of Concrete.

44