Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ultrasonics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ultras

Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete

by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method
J. Alexandre Bogas , M. Glria Gomes, Augusto Gomes
DECivil/ICIST, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 July 2012
Received in revised form 13 December 2012
Accepted 17 December 2012
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Lightweight aggregate concrete
Non-destructive tests
Ultrasonic pulse velocity
Compressive strength
Admixtures

a b s t r a c t
In this paper the compressive strength of a wide range of structural lightweight aggregate concrete mixes
is evaluated by the non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method. This study involves about 84 different compositions tested between 3 and 180 days for compressive strengths ranging from about 30 to
80 MPa. The inuence of several factors on the relation between the ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength is examined. These factors include the cement type and content, amount of water, type
of admixture, initial wetting conditions, type and volume of aggregate and the partial replacement of normal weight coarse and ne aggregates by lightweight aggregates. It is found that lightweight and normal
weight concretes are affected differently by mix design parameters. In addition, the prediction of the concretes compressive strength by means of the non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity test is studied.
Based on the dependence of the ultrasonic pulse velocity on the density and elasticity of concrete, a simplied expression is proposed to estimate the compressive strength, regardless the type of concrete and
its composition. More than 200 results for different types of aggregates and concrete compositions were
analyzed and high correlation coefcients were obtained.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method has been
widely applied to the investigation of the mechanical properties
and integrity of concrete structures [17]. It is easy to use and results can be quickly achieved on site. The ultrasonic pulse velocity
(UPV) of a homogeneous solid can be easily related to its physical
and mechanical properties. Based on the theory of elasticity applied to homogeneous and isotropic materials, the pulse velocity
of compressional waves (P-waves) is directly proportional to the
square root of the dynamic modulus of elasticity, Ed, and inversely
proportional to the square root of its density, q, according to Eq. (1)
[7,8]. td is the dynamic Poissons ratio. Concrete is heterogeneous
and so these assumptions are not strictly valid. However, the high
attenuation in concrete limits the UPV method to frequencies up to
about 100 kHz [9], which means that compressional waves do not
interact with most concrete inhomogeneities [9,10]. In this case,
concrete can be reasonably regarded as a homogeneous material
[5].

s
Ed
1  td
UPV

q 1 td  1  2td

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218418226; fax: +351 218418380.

E-mail address: abogas@civil.ist.utl.pt (J.A. Bogas).

According to Eq. (1), the relevant physical properties of materials that inuence pulse velocity are the density, elastic modulus
and td. Thus, correlations between the pulse velocity and the compressive strength of concrete, fc, are based on the indirect relation
between this property and the elastic modulus, Ec. EN 1992-1-1
[11] suggests the expression Eq. (2) to relate Ec and fc, where q is
the oven-dry density.


Ec  22 

0:3 
fc
q 2

GPa
10
2200

However, it is well known that the compressive strength and

elastic modulus may be inuenced differently, depending on the
concrete composition. Therefore, the relation between UPV and fc
is not unique and can be affected by factors such as the type and
size of aggregate, physical properties of the cement paste, curing
conditions, mixture composition, concrete age and moisture content [8,1217]. Ben-Zeitun [15] and Trtnik et al. [16] achieved better correlations when they also took into account other variables
such as the w/c ratio, volume and size of aggregates, concrete
age and curing conditions. Thus, although in situ estimation of fc
from UPV is covered in EN 13791 [18], there is no standard correlation between these properties. So far, the correlation between fc
and UPV must be calibrated for each specic concrete mix
[18,19]. Moreover, the heterogeneous nature of concrete caused
by the introduction of aggregates results in increased scatter, i.e.,

0041-624X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

dispersive properties. This is why Philippids [20] found that the

ultrasound velocity increased 11% in concrete specimens throughout the 15200 kHz band.
Nonetheless, several relationships between UPV and fc have been
proposed, especially for normal density concrete (NWC)
[1,6,13,15,21,22]. Sturrup et al. [21] proposed a logarithmic relationship between UPV and fc, while Price and Haynes [6], Phoon et al.
[13] and Ben-Zeitun [15] suggested linear relationships. However,
exponential relationships are the commonest [1,3,10,13,14,16,23].
The various relations proposed in the literature prove the different
inuence of concrete composition on fc and UPV. For example, different volumes of normal weight aggregate (NA) affect UPV but have
little, if any, inuence on fc. Depending on the mix design, the higher
NA content can even cause a UPV increase and, at the same time, a
loss of compressive strength [14,16].
Most investigations have focused on NWC behavior. Published
studies involving lightweight concrete (LWC) are still limited. Nasser and Al-Manaseer [24] reported expressions of the type fc =
aUPVb for NWC and LWC produced with expanded clay aggregates.
The authors also showed that UPV depends on the concrete density,
which is lower in LWC than in NWC of the same compressive
strength. Chang et al. [10] established exponential relationships
between UPV and fc for LWC with two types of lightweight aggregates. Hamidian et al. [25] found poor correlations when several
LWC mixes were analyzed together. Tanyidizi and Coskun [26]
used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to study the inuence of
curing conditions, maximum size of aggregate, mineral admixtures
and curing time on UPV and the compressive strength of lightweight concrete. The maximum size of the aggregate was the main
parameter governing UPV and fc.
Expanded clay LWC is almost one hundred years old, and a lot of
old LWC structures that have been built since the 1950s, especially
in North America and Europe, now represent a major issue in terms
of maintenance and rehabilitation. Non-destructive ultrasound
pulse velocity tests have proved to be very helpful in the inspection
of old structures. However, the experience acquired in this eld
and the correlations that have been built between the quality of
concrete and its UPV are essentially limited to NWC. Therefore,
due to the specicity of LWC, new correlations must be established
for this type of concrete, regardless the type of LWA. Knowledge of
general correlations between fc and UPV will be a major advance in
the inspection and assessment of existing LWC structures.
This study investigates the use of the non-destructive ultrasonic
pulse velocity method to assess the compressive strength of LWC
produced with different types of expanded clay aggregates. The
experimental work was comprehensive, testing at various ages
several concrete specimens produced from different compositions.
The inuence of mix design parameters such as the water/binder
(w/b) ratio, type, volume and initial water content of aggregates
and type and volume of binder was analyzed. Finally, based on
the dependence of UPV on density and elasticity (Eq. (1)) and taking into account the empirical relationship between fc and Ec (Eq.
(2)), a general simplied expression is proposed and assessed that
relates fc and UPV, irrespective of the type of concrete, mixture
composition and test age.

2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
Three Iberian expanded clay lightweight aggregates were analyzed: Leca and Argex from Portugal and Arlita from Spain. Their
total porosity, PT, particle density, qp, bulk density, qb, and 24 h
water absorption, wabs,24h, are indicated in Table 1. They differ in
terms of porosity, geometry and bulk density, which makes it

possible to produce concrete with strengths ranging from about

25 to 70 MPa [27], thereby covering the most common structural
LWC. A more detailed microstructural characterization of these
aggregates can be found elsewhere [28,29].
Normal weight coarse and ne aggregates (NA) were also used.
For the reference NWC, two crushed limestone aggregates of different sizes were combined so as to have the same grading curve as
Leca (20% ne and 80% coarse gravel). Fine aggregates consisted
of 2/3 coarse and 1/3 ne sand. Their main properties are listed
in Table 1. The two fractions of Argex were also combined to have
the same grading curve as Leca (35% 24 and 65% 38F, Table 1).
The maximum aggregate size was 12.5 mm. Cement type I 52.5
R, I 42.5 R, II-A/L 42.5, II-A/D 42.5 (8% of SF by weight), II-A/V
42.5 (20% of FA by weight) and IV-A 42.5 (8% SF and 20% FA)
according to EN 197-1 [30], were considered. Their main physical
and mechanical properties are listed in Table 2. For low w/b ratios,
a polycarboxylate based superplasticizer (SP) was used. A water
dispersed RHEOMAC VMA 350 nanosilica (NS) with an average density of 1.1 and about 16.1% solids content was also tested.
2.2. Concrete mixing and compositions
Based on an extensive study of the durability and mechanical
characterization of structural lightweight concretes produced with
different types of aggregates that was conducted at the Instituto
Superior Tcnico [27], the ultrasonic pulse velocities of about 84
different compositions were measured. The compositions varied
in terms of type, volume (150450 L/m3), and initial wetting conditions of aggregates (initially dry, pre-wetted and pre-soaked),
different water/binder (w/b) ratios (0.30.65), the types and
amounts of cement (300525 kg/m3), the types and volumes of
mineral admixtures (22% and 40% of y ash (FA), 8% of silica fume
(SF) and 1.3% of nanosilica), the partial replacement of normal
weight coarse aggregates by lightweight aggregate (LWA) and also
the partial replacement of natural sand by lightweight sand (lightweight sand concrete LWSC).
The concretes were produced in a vertical shaft mixer with bottom discharge. Except for initially dry or pre-wetted aggregates,
the LWA was pre-soaked for 24 h to better control the workability
and effective water content of the concrete. The aggregates were
then surface dried with absorbent towels and placed in the mixer
with sand and 50% of the total water. After 2 min of mixing, the
binder and the rest of the water were added. When used, the SP
was added slowly with 10% of water, after 1 more minute. The total
mixing time was 7 min.
All the concrete mixtures studied for this paper are listed in detail elsewhere [27]. The main characteristics of each composition
are summarized in Table A1 in the appendix. The w/b ratio signies
the effective water available for binder hydration. The denominations NA, L, A and Argex correspond to the mixes with normal
weight aggregate, Leca, Arlita and Argex. These denominations are
usually followed by the volume of binder and then by the w/b ratio, when it differs from 0.35. The prex V refers to different volumes of aggregate. The compositions were basically variations of a
reference mixture with 450 kg/m3 of binder, 158 L/m3 of water (w/
b = 0.35), 350 L/m3 of coarse aggregate (Leca, Arlita, Argex, NA) and
0.51.0% of SP. Except for LWSC, natural sand was used in combination with coarse LWA. For LWSC, the 2/3 coarse natural sand
was replaced by the lightweight sand indicated in Table 1 (Leca
03). Modied normal density concretes (MND) were produced
with partial replacement of NA by 35% and 65% of Leca or Arlita.
To study the inuence of pre-wetting aggregate, some concrete
specimens with initially dry LWA (PD) or pre-wetted LWA (PW)
were also produced. The PD aggregate is added during mixing
and the PW aggregate is previously wetted for 3 min with 50% of
the total water before mixing.

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

Table 1
Aggregate properties.
Property

Normal weight aggregates

Lightweight aggregates

Fine sand

Coarse sand

Fine gravel

Coarse gravel

Leca 03

Leca 412

Argex 24

Argex 38F

Arlita AF7

Particle dry density, qp (kg/m3)

Loose bulk density, qp (kg/m3)
24 h water absorption, wabs,24h (%)
Total porosity, PT (%)
Granulometric fraction (di/Di)
Los Angeles coefcient (%)

2620
1416
0.2

0/2

2610
1530
0.5

0/4

2631
1343
1.4

4/6.3
33.3

2612
1377
1.1

6.3/12.5
30.5

1060
562

59
0.5/3

1068
613
12.3
60
4/11.2

865
423
22.9
67
4/8

705
397
23.3
73
6.3/12.5

1290
738
12.1
52
3/10

Table 2
Main characteristics of cement, silica fume and y ash.

a
b
c

Parameter

Standard

Fly ash

Silica fume

Cement I 52.5 R

Cement I 42.5 R

Cement II/A-L 42.5 R

Residue on the 45 lm sieve (%)

Blaine specic surface (cm2/g)
Compressive strength of reference mortar (MPa) 2 days
28 days

EN 451-2
EN 196-6
EN 196-1

10.2

92.0a

1.1
5102
40.4

4.7
3981
32.8

8.3
4477
27.2

Activity index at 28 days (%)

Activity index at 90 daysa (%)
Expansion (mm)
Loss on ignition (LOI) (%)
SiO2 + A12O3 + Fe2O3 (%)
CaO (%)
Free CaO (%)
Density (g/cm3)

EN
EN
EN
EN
EN

EN
EN

83.7b
103.1
0.5a
6.5
83.0
3.38
0.36
2.33

106.7c

3.7
94.0
0.83
Not detected
2.25

62.7

0.5
1.64
29.1
61.6
1.45
3.11

54.9

0.5
3.06
27.6
63.5
1.31
3.11

51.4

0.5
5.34
26.1
61.6
1.8
3.05

196-1
196-1
196-3
196-7
196-2
451-1
196-6

Residue on the 90 lm sieve.

Mortar with CEM I42.5 R + 25% y ash.
Mortar with CEM I42.5 R + 10% silica fume.

2.3. Specimen preparation and test setup

For each mix at each age, three 150 mm cubic specimens were
tested for ultrasonic pulse velocity and then for compressive
strength according to EN 12390-3 [31]. After demolding at 24 h,
specimens were kept in water until testing, according to EN
12390-3 [31]. UPV measurements were performed on unloaded
wet specimens.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity was obtained by direct transmission according to EN 12504-4 [17]. The equipment used was the
portable ultrasonic non-destructive digital indicating tester (PUNDIT),
shown in Fig. 1 [8]. In this method an ultrasonic pulse is generated
by a pulse generator and transmitted to the surface of concrete
through the transmitter transducer. The time taken by the pulse
to travel through the concrete, tus, is measured by the receiver
transducer on the opposite side. The 54 kHz transducers were positioned in the middle of each opposing face, orthogonal to the direction of concreting. The propagation time of the ultrasonic waves
transmitted through the 150 mm cubic specimens was measured
with accuracy up to 0.1 ls. A digital readout is displayed in a

4-digit LCD. Finally, UPV is the ratio between the length traveled
by the pulse (150 mm) and the measured time, tus. A thin couplant
(solid vaseline) was used on the interface between transducers and
concrete to ensure good contact. Before each measurement the
equipment was calibrated with a cylindrical Perspex bar of known tus.
Three measurements were taken for each test specimen by
switching the position of the transducers between the two opposite faces of the concrete cubes. For all mixes ultrasonic pulse
velocity was measured at 28 days. Tests were also performed at
1, 3, 7, 90 and 180 days on certain selected mixtures (Table A1).

3. Test results and discussion

All the average results of compressive strength, fc, and pulse
velocity, UPV, are listed in Table A1, for each composition at each
age. Fig. 2 summarizes the mean values of UPV and fc obtained
for each mixture, between 3 and 90 days. A total of about 208 average results were considered, involving different concrete strengths
ranging from about 3080 MPa and UPV from 3.5 to 5.2 km/s.

90
80
70
60

y = 3.38e0.62x
R = 0.61

50
40
30
20

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4

UPV (Km/s)
Fig. 1. Scheme of the ultrasonic pulse velocity measurement in concrete specimens.

Fig. 2. Relationship between UPV and fc for different concrete compositions and
different types of aggregate at ages between 3 and 90 days.

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

The coefcients of variation of UPV, CVUPV, for the specimens

measured at 28 days are also presented in Table A1. For other ages
the CVUPV is of the same order. As it can be seen, the CVUPV obtained
from 3 specimens of each composition at each age (three specimens measured in three directions) was generally lower than 0.5.
This shows the lower variability of the UPV method and also the
homogeneity of the concrete specimens produced.
As expected, when different compositions, types of aggregate
and test ages are considered simultaneously there is a poor correlation between UPV and fc (Fig. 2). Therefore, the inuence of the
type and volume of aggregate, age of testing, w/b ratio and type
of binder are analyzed separately in the following sections.

When the mixtures with different types of aggregate, lightweight sand (LWSC) and the partial replacement of coarse NA by
LWA (MND) are analyzed separately, there is a natural increase
of the correlation coefcient (Fig. 3). Based on Eqs. (1) and (2)
and as documented in [27], the introduction of lightweight aggregate has a greater impact on elasticity than on density, leading to
the reduction of UPV.
For similar values of UPV, the strength is higher in LWC of higher
density. Conversely, the lower the density of the LWA the higher
the UPV for a given compressive strength. This trend is likely to
be primarily related to the: lower proportional increment of UPV
in relation to fc, for higher strength levels; simultaneous reduction
of density and stiffness in LWC, which means a smaller variation of
UPV (Eq. (1)); slight variation of fc for LWC with rich mortars and
more porous aggregates; higher compacity of richer mortars in
more porous LWC of the same strength; small differences between
the ultrasonic pulse velocities of lightweight aggregates, UPVag;
higher water content in LWC with lower density aggregates.
The importance of the aggregate type is highlighted in Fig. 4,
where the UPV in reference mixes with a w/b ratio of 0.35 is compared with that obtained for a mortar with an equivalent composition (Mortar_0.35 with the same w/c ratio and sand/cement ratio,
Table A1). The absence of coarse aggregates leads to a reduction of
UPV in NWC and the opposite effect in LWC. The difference is higher in NWC, which means the aggregate has greater inuence on
this type of concrete. Assuming that the aggregate stiffness varies
with the square of its density, q2ag [32], then the UPVag decreases
more or less in line with q0:5
ag (Eq. (1)).
Taking concrete as a two-phase composite material, let us assume that the ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete, UPVc, is related
to the ultrasonic velocity of the aggregate, UPVag, and the ultrasonic
velocity of the mortar, UPVm, according to Eq. (3) (series model,
[16]). tag and tm are the respective relative volumes of aggregate
and mortar. The inuence of the transition zone paste/aggregate
is neglected.
100
Leca
Arlita

R = 0.85

Argex
60

NWC

R = 0.91
40

LWSC
MND(Leca)

20

R = 0.84

Leca

70
60

Arlita

50

Argex

40

NWC

30

Mortar

20
4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

UPV (km/s)
Fig. 4. Relationship between UPV and fc in reference concrete and in the respective
mortar of equivalent composition at 7 and 28 days (the same sand/cement ratio and
w/b ratio of 0.35). The volume of coarse aggregate in concrete is 350 L/m3.

3.1. Inuence of type of aggregate

80

80

R = 0.84

MND(Arlita)
Mortar

0
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4

UPV (km/s)
Fig. 3. Different relationships between UPV and fc for each type of aggregate,
considering different compositions at ages between 3 and 90 days (Table A1).

1
tag
tm

UPV c UPV ag UPV m

Based on the UPV average values obtained at 28 days for the

mortar (UPVm = 4.5 km/s) and for the reference concretes A/L/Argex/NA450 with tag of 0.35 (Table A1 and Fig. 4), the UPVag values
are 3.6, 4.1, 4.1 and 6.3 km/s, respectively for Argex, Leca, Arlita
and normal aggregate (NA). Thus, the UPVag/UPVm ratio is 1.4 for
NA and only 0.9 for Leca and Arlita. This conrms that NWC is affected more by the volume of aggregate. Moreover, the dispersion
effect caused by concrete heterogeneity should be lower in LWC.
On the other hand, since the NWC strength is essentially controlled by the mortar, the UPV decreases with the volume of aggregate, without a signicant variation of fc, i.e., the relation between
UPV and fc strongly depends on the proportion of aggregate in the
mix. Thus, the correlation between fc and UPV has to be established
for each type of NWC with a given volume of aggregate. The same
is concluded by Lin et al. [14] and Popovics et al. [12].
LWC behaves differently. The strength is also affected by LWA,
and hence both UPV and fc decrease with the greater volume of
aggregate. Therefore, one would expect the relation between UPV
and fc to be less affected. However, although UPV varies in the same
direction as fc, they may progress differently. Since UPVag/UPVm is
close to unity, the fc variation can be higher than that of UPV. Moreover, the compressive strength of LWC is affected by the strength
level, whereas UPV is not. This is especially noticeable in LWC with
more porous aggregate (Leca and Argex) and higher strength levels,
since fc is limited by the capacity of LWA and cannot follow UPV.
However, this phenomenon occurs later in LWC with less porous
aggregates (Arlita). That is why the regression curves of Fig. 3,
for different types of LWA, diverge from each other with the increment of fc. The mortar quality has a greater impact on the strength
evolution of the higher density LWC. As expected, UPV and fc decrease with the partial replacement of natural sand by lightweight
sand. The simultaneous inclusion of normal and lightweight aggregates leads to values between those obtained for NWC and LWC
(Fig. 3).
Data from Fig. 3 can also be approximated by more common
exponential relationships, with similar correlation coefcients
(Eqs. (4)(7)). The estimation of fc by means of Eqs. (4)(7) leads
to an average error of 5.5% for Argex, 4.9% for Leca, 7.3% for Arlita
and 6.3% for normal aggregate. The standard deviations of these errors are respectively 3.4%, 4.6%, 5.3% and 5.8%. There were more
LWC compositions with Arlita, which is why the largest error
was obtained in this type of concrete.

Arlita : fcm 1:07  e0:92UPV ;

Leca : fcm 3:00:63UPV ;

R2 0:82

R2 0:82

4
5

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

Argex : fcm 1:65  e0:70UPV ;

R2 0:82

5.2
5.0

R2 0:88

3.2. Inuence of concrete age

The fc and UPV trend for some illustrative mixes with different
w/b ratios and different types and amounts of aggregate is shown
in Fig. 5. VL250 is a reference mixture with 250 L/m3 of coarse Leca.
As expected, UPV and fc increase with curing time [13,33]. In fact,
since the pulse velocity through voids is lower than that through
solid matter, the greater the paste hydration the lower the volume
of pores and the greater the UPV [33].
High correlations are obtained when each concrete composition
is individually assessed. However, the correlation decreases when
different compositions are analyzed together. For example, there
is a greater dispersion when different w/b ratios are considered
in LWC with Leca (dashed line in Fig. 5). In fact, whereas Vus tends
to increase faster with age than fc, fc increases more with the w/c
ratio than Vus does. Therefore, the simultaneous consideration of
distinct ages and w/c ratios implies different relations between fc
and Vus. However, the relation between fc and UPV seems to be less
affected by the volume of aggregate (VL250 vs L450), contrary to
what is normally reported for NWC [14,16]. As mentioned before,
LWA affects both fc and Vus.
The concrete strength tends to increase faster than UPV, especially in NWC, where fc is not limited by the strength of the aggregate (Fig. 5 and Table A1). The same is documented in [10,14,21].
The fc trend in LWC is less steep and hence less sensitive to small
changes in UPV. As shown in this study, the inuence of each
mix designs parameters must be analyzed at the same age, and
this is done in the next sections.

4.8

UPV (km/s)

Normal aggregate : fcm 0:023  e1:6UPV ;

R = 1.00

NWC

4.6

Arlita

4.4
4.2

R = 0.97

Leca

R = 0.99

4.0

LWSC

3.8
3.6

R = 0.96

3.4
0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

w/c
Fig. 6. UPV versus the w/c ratio for different types of aggregate at 28 days (w/c ratio
obtained by varying the amount of water LWC with Leca or Arlita; w/c ratio
obtained by varying the cement content NWC).

of each aggregate curve should be similar. LWSC mixes are associated with different amounts of cement, sand and water.
When the regression analysis takes different water and cement
contents into account at the same time, there is a reduction of the
correlation coefcient (Figs. 7 and 8). As shown in Fig. 8, fc is less
sensitive than UPV to the type of w/c, i.e., fc tends to be less affected
by different amounts of water, sand and cement than UPV, for a given w/c ratio. For the same w/c ratio and different cement contents, UPV can vary by more than 100 m/s (Fig. 8). Therefore, the
relation between UPV and w/c also depends on how the w/c ratio
is changed. Furthermore, moisture content helps the propagation
velocity in concrete [27,34] but may affect compressive strength
negatively.
3.4. Inuence of the volume of aggregate

3.3. Inuence of the w/c ratio

Fig. 6 shows the UPV at 28 days for each type of aggregate and
different w/c ratios. Since only one parameter of the mixture is
changed for each type of cement, the correlations are high. Mixes
with the same volume of coarse aggregate and the same type
and cement content were considered in LWC with Leca or Arlita.
Different w/c ratios were obtained by varying the amount of water
and the respective volume of sand. Mixes with the same volume of
water and coarse aggregate were considered in NWC. Different w/c
ratios were obtained by varying the amount of cement and the
respective volume of sand. This is why the UPV trend with the
w/c ratio is less pronounced in NWC (the higher w/c ratio is
partially offset by the greater volume of sand). Otherwise, the slope

For LWC, fc and UPV decrease as the volume of LWA increases

(Fig. 9). But UPV increases with the volume of aggregate in NWC.
The NWC compressive strength also increases, albeit only slightly,
with the volume of aggregate. An opposite trend is reported by
other authors [14,16], which may explain the better correlation obtained in this work for NWC (Fig. 3).
As expected, differences are higher when different w/c ratios
and volumes of aggregate are considered at the same time
(Fig. 10). In lower density LWC (Leca), the relation between fc
and UPV seems to be less affected by the w/c ratio and the volume
of aggregate. Since the compressive strength of these concretes is
also affected by the aggregate, the variation of fc with w/c is lower
than in NWC and LWC of higher density.
80

90

R = 0.97

80
70

R = 0.93

60

40

60

R = 0.85

50

R = 0.84

70

Arlita

R = 0.95

Leca

50

R = 0.98

R = 0.96

30

R = 0.83

40

R = 0.90

20
3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

UPV (Km/s)

30
3.6

4.0

4.4

4.8

UPV (km/s)
Fig. 5. Relationship between UPV and fc at different ages (between 1 and 180 days)
for different w/b ratios (0.35, 0.45, 0.55), types and volumes of aggregate (250 and
350 L/m3).

Fig. 7. Relationship between fc and UPV at 28 days for different w/c ratios (0.3, 0.35,
0.4, 0.45, 0.55) by varying the amount of cement and water (Arlita and Leca).

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

5.4

UVP (km/s)

70
5.0

60

4.6

50

LWC, above which the fc is governed by the paste, is much higher

than that of LWC with less porous aggregates. As shown in
[27,35], up to about 60 MPa the compressive behavior of LWC with
Arlita is similar to that of NWC.

40

3.5. Inuence of the type of binder

30

There is a high correlation between UPV and fc regardless the

type of mineral admixture (Fig. 11). The regression takes into
account LWC produced with different types of admixture (8% of silica fume SF; 1.3% of nanosilica NS; 22% and 40% of y ash FA)
tested at ages ranging from 7 to 180 days.
The densication of the porous structure was not detected in
LWC with silica fume or nanosilica, which was less efcient than
expected. It is likely that there was no effective dispersion of such
admixtures. Moreover, the strength limitation imposed by LWA
and the better quality of the aggregatepaste transition zone in
LWC also play a part in the lower efciency of SF and NS. It is also
shown that the replacement of cement by y ash leads to less
dense microstructures at early ages. However, this recovers over
time and after some months the microstruture of y ash concrete
tends to be as dense as the reference LWC without admixtures.
This is more clearly shown in Fig. 12, where both UPV and fc continuously increased between 28 days and 180 days, due to the progressive development of the pozolanic reactions. These results
conrm the ndings of Ulucan et al. [36] and Demirboga et al.
[23] for y ash NWC.
The correlation is also high for LWC produced with different types
of cement (Fig. 13). The data in Fig. 13 relates to LWC with Arlita and
different w/b ratios, tested at 28 days. It is thus shown that when a
given type of binder is used without interfering with the other constituents of concrete, there appears to be little effect on the relationship between fc and UPV. Note, however, that SF was ineffective.

4.2
3.8

UPV= -2.27.(w/c) + 5.23

20
10

3.4
0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

w/c
350 kg/m3

450 kg/m3

525 kg/m3

400 kg/m3

Fig. 8. fc and UPV versus the w/c ratio for LWC with Arlita and different water and
cement contents at 28 days (CEM I52.5).

8.5

75

7.5

60

6.5

45

5.5

30

4.5

15

Leca-UPV
Arlita-UPV
Argex-UPV
NWC-UPV
Leca-fc
Arlita-fc
Argex-fc

3.5

0
200

250

300

350

NWC-fc

400

3.6. Inuence of the initial wetting conditions of LWA

Fig. 9. UPV and fc for different volumes of aggregate at 28 days.

Fig. 14 summarizes the data from LWC produced with LWA presoaked for 24 h and with initially dry (PD) or pre-wetted LWA
(PW).
For ages between 3 and 180 days, the correlation is high in LWC
with Leca but less reasonable in LWC with Arlita, for which differences from the regression line are up to 5%. Therefore, one can only
conclude that there is no clear distinction between the different
wetting conditions. Contrary to what might be expected, lightweight
concretes with higher initial water content do not show higher
ultrasonic pulse velocities (A450 with pre-soaked LWA, Fig. 14). This
is probably because all the data are very close to each other and
small differences can be masked by the variability of the tests

Fig. 10. Relationship between UPV and fc for different w/c ratios (0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45,
0.55) and volumes of aggregate (150, 250, 300, 350 and 400 L/m3) at 28 days.

70

A450

65

AFA22
AFA40

R = 0.87

60

ASF8

55

Moreover, the strength of LWC is more affected by the volume

of aggregate than that of NWC. In other words, UPV and fc are both
affected by the propagation velocity and the strength of aggregate
and mortar. Therefore, there is a greater interdependence between
UPV and fc in LWC than in NWC. However, when LWC reaches its
ceiling strength the behavior may change. After a given strength
level a further increase of fc is not meaningful, contrary to what
happens with UPV.
The LWC with less porous aggregates exhibits similar behavior
to that of NWC. This is because the limit strength of higher density

ANS
50

L450

45

LFA22

R = 0.93

40

LFA40
LNS

35
3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

UPV (km/s)
Fig. 11. Relationship between UPV and fc for LWC produced with different types of
admixtures and tested at different ages (7180 days).

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

5.0

70

70

Leca 28d fc
Leca 180d fc

60

A450

65

4.8
Arlita 28d fc

50
4.6

30

4.4

20
10
0
0

22

UPV (km/s)

40

A450 PW

R = 0.64

60

Arlita 180d fc

A450 PD

Leca 28d UPV

55
L450

Leca 180d UPV

4.2

Arlita 28d UPV

50

4.0

Arlita 180d UPV

45

L450 PW

R = 0.83

L450 PD

40

% FA

40
4.2

4.3

Fig. 12. UPV and fc for 0%, 22% and 40% cement replacement by y ash (by weight)
at 28 and 180 days.

4.4

4.5

4.6

UVP (km/s)
Fig. 14. Relationship between UPV and fc for LWC with Leca or Arlita with different
initial wetting conditions (3180 days).

60
55

CEM I 42.5

100

CEM II AL

50

y = 18.43x
R = 0.86

90

R = 0.86
45

CEM II AV

40

CEM II AD

70

35

CEM IV A

60

80

50
30
3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

40

4.5

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4

UPV (km/s)

UPV (km/s)

Fig. 13. Relation between UPV and fc for LWC with Arlita and different types of
cement and w/b ratio (28 days).

themselves. The probably better quality of the interface aggregate

paste offered by non-pre-soaked LWA [27,37] may also play a part.

4. Proposed expression to estimate LWC compressive strength

from UPV
Taking into account Eq. (1), which relates UPV to Ed and q, and
the expression suggested by EN1992-1-1 [11] that relates Ec with fc
and q (Eq. (2)), the equation Eq. (8) can be obtained. The parameters A, B and KUPV are constants. This is an approximate expression,
since Eq. (8) is given by combining a theoretical formula (Eq. (1))
with an empirical relation obtained from curve tting analyses
(Eq. (2)). The reasonable accuracy of Eq. (2) applied to LWC is demonstrated in [27,38].

UPV  A 

s
Ec

 A:

s
0:3  q 2
B  fcm
2200

0:15
 q0:5
 K UPV fcm

Leca
Arlita
Argex
NWC
LWSC
MND (Leca)
MND (Arlita)

Fig. 15. UPV as a function of fc and for different concrete compositions and types of
aggregate at ages between 3 and 90 days (Table A1).

If we compare with Fig. 2, the application of Eq. (8) leads to a

signicant improvement of the correlation coefcient, even taking
different compositions, types of aggregate and test ages into account (Fig. 15). The approximation for LWC with more porous
aggregates (Argex) is poorer. This is probably because these concretes work near their ceiling strength. For that reason, the correlation coefcient indicated in Fig. 15 (0.86) only takes into
account the LWA with density above 1000 kg/m3. Also note that
better correlations should be obtained for concrete dry densities.
In fact, contrary to UPV, the modulus of elasticity is hardly affected
by the water content. However, even for Argex the correlation
coefcient would be 0.81. Therefore, expressions similar to Eq.
(9) allow a better estimation of fc from UPV and are practically
independent of the type of concrete and its composition. In Eq.
(9), UPV is in m/s and q in kg/m3.

The constant KUPV can be easily determined from the linear

regression analysis in Fig. 15. Wet density at 28 days was assumed
in Eq. (8). The difference is not signicant for other ages because all
the specimens were water-cured until the age of testing. The correlation in Fig. 15 is determined by forcing the regression line to
cross the origin. Although better correlations can be obtained without this condition, the physical meaning is distorted.

Fc 

UPV
K UPVq0:5

!2=3
MPa

According to the regression analysis of Fig. 15, the KUPV is equal

to 54.6 or 54.3 m2.5 MPa0.15 kg0.5 s1, depending on whether Argex is included or not. Note that Eq. (9) is assessed for more than
200 results considering different types, volumes and wetting
conditions of aggregates, types and amounts of cement, types

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

See Table A1.

4.2/4.3a
4.4/4.4b
4.4/4.5b
4.3
4.1
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.5

4.7
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.4/4.4b
4.4
4.3/4.3b
4.2/4.3b
4.4/4.4b
4.4/4.5b

44.4/45. la
46.4/46.3b
49.8/50.4b
51.0
37.0
48.5
38.6
44.1
51.8

53.7
49.7
46.7
46.3
46.9/48.3b
47.3
43.6/47.4b
40.7/44.4b
49.3/51b
47.5/47.6b

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
3.9
4.5
3.7
4.0
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
43.1
44.9
48.6
50.0
35.5
49.1
36.1
41.9
51.8
59.3
52.4
50.3
45.7
45.3
46.5
46.5
42.4
37.1
47.6
46.7
29.2
32.4
31.8

4.4

3.8
4.4
3.7
4.0
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.0

4.3
4.3

4.2
4.3

46.7

31.4
44.8
31.7
38.2
49.3
53.9
48.8
47.4
43.8

45.1
45.3

45.8
45.1

4.2a/4.3

3.8
4.4
3.6
3.9
4.3

4.3
4.2

4.3

41.3a/44.2

29.5
44.7
28.0
35.1
48.7

47.2
45.4

44.0

UPV28 (km/s)
fc,28days (MPa)
UPV7d (km/s)
fc,7days (MPa)
UPV3d (km/s)
fc,3days (MPa)
Binder (kg/m3)
Cement type

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.55
0.35
0.55
0.45
0.3
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.65
0.6
0.6
Leca
L350
L394
L450
L525
L350_0.55
L350_0.35
L450_0.55
L450_0.45
L450_0.30
VL150
VL250
VL300
VL400
L42.5IIAL
L450 PW
L450 PD
LFA22
LFA40
LSF8
LNS
L295_I42.5
L345_I42.5
L345_sat7dc

Appendix A. Appendix

c.a.d (L/m3)

The authors wish to thank ICIST-IST for funding the research

and the companies Argex, Saint-Gobain Weber Portugal, Soarvamil
and SECIL for supplying the materials used in the experiments.
The rst author also would like to acknowledge the nancial support given by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), under Grant SFRH/BD/27366/2006.

w/b

Acknowledgements

Table A1
Mix proportions, ultrasonic pulse velocity, compressive strength and wet density.

Finally, a new general simplied expression that allows a more

accurate estimate of fc from UPV was dened that was not affected by the type of concrete and its composition. A high correlation coefcient of over 0.85 was obtained for common normal
and lightweight concrete ranging from 30 to 80 MPa and produced with aggregates of density above 1000 kg/m3, even taking
into account more than 200 results for different types of aggregate, concrete compositions and test ages.
This study contributes to a better understanding of the nondestructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method in LWAC, and enables this technique to be used with greater condence. A more
accurate relation between fc and UPV is provided, regardless the
concrete composition, which improves the rational use of the
UPS method for LWC structures.

CVUPV (%)

 Calibrating curves for each type of concrete with a given type of

aggregate must be previously established when the compressive
strength, fc, is to be directly estimated from UPV. More specically, independent curves have to be established for the same
proportion of aggregate or the same mortar characteristics.
 LWCs with less porous aggregates are associated with lower
ultrasonic pulse velocity for a given fc and higher fc for a given
UPV.
 The relationship between UPV and fc tends to be less affected
by the aggregate volume in LWC than in NWC. In LWC, the
propagation velocity of aggregate is closer to that of the surrounding mortar, since it is less inuenced by a variation in
the proportion of each phase. Moreover, both fc and UPV are
affected by the volume of aggregate, which is not true of
NWC. However, in LWC with more porous aggregates and rich
mortars there is a greater relative variation of UPV than fc.
 As expected, in lightweight concrete UPV and fc increase with
age and decrease with the w/c ratio and volume of aggregate.
However, fc is little affected by the type of w/c ratio, unlike
UPV, which also depends on the proportion of mortar constituents. UPV variations of over 100 m/s were obtained for a
given compressive strength.
 The relation between UPV and fc was little affected by different
types of cement and additions or by different initial wetting
conditions of the aggregates.

350
394
450
525
350
350
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450(22%FA)
450(40%FA)
450(8%SF)
450(1.3%NS)
295
345
345

fc,90days (MPa)

The non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method was

used to assess the mechanical compressive strength of LWC.
Based on a comprehensive experimental investigation involving
more than 80 different compositions the main conclusions are:

I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
II42.5 AL
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5

UPV90d (km/s)

5. Conclusions

350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
150
250
300
400
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350

q28days (kg/m3)

and volumes of admixtures, w/b ratios, the partial replacement of

coarse and ne NA by LWA and also a range of test ages between
3 and 90 days (Table A1).

1899
1893
1915
1917
1870
1913
1791
1868
1927
2106
2000
1944
1839
1913
1827
1854
1862
1820
1888
1908
1801
1780
1785

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

Mixtures

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

0.6
0.35
0.35

350
350
350

I42.5
I52.5
I52.5

345
450
450

32.6
59.8
53.3

3.9
4.9
4.7

0.5
0.2
0.5

64.2
54.7

5.0
4.7

1696
2209
2077

0.35 350
0.65 350
0.6
350
0.45 350
0.4
350
aggregates (NA)
0.45 350
0.4
350
0.35 350
0.3
350
0.35 350
0.35 250
0.35 300
0.35 400
0.65 350
0.6
350
0.45 350
0.4
350
0.55 350
0.45 350

I52.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5

450
295
345
440
460

37.5
25.2
27.5
30.9
34.8

3.8
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7

0.5
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1

37.2

3.8

1618
1458
1487
1501
1529

I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
II42.5 AL
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5
IVA42.5
IVA42.5

350
394
450
525
450
450
450
450
295
345
440
460
394
420

71.6

71.7
69.9
69.5
72.6

5.0

4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0

65.8
71.6
76.2
81.6
75.8
74.2
73.5
75.6
38.0
41.1
52.6
59.2
37.8
50.3

5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.2
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.8

0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.2

71.4
74.7
81.1/85.lb
89.7
78.7

5.0
5.1
5.1/5.2b
5.2
5.1

2396
2387
2411
2430
2409
2333
2382
2405
2351
2353
2368
2378
2323
2340

0.35
0.35
0.35

250
350
400

I52.5
I52.5
I52.5

450
450
450

36.4
26.8a/28.4
25.1

4.3
4.1a/4.1
4.0

37.1
30.4
26.2

4.4
4.2
4.0

38.7
31.2
28.1

4.4
4.2
4.0

0.2
0.2
0.4

39.2
32.8
28.2

4.7
4.2
4.2

1924
1776
1631

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.35
0.55
0.45
0.3
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.65
0.6
0.45
0.4
0.6
0.45
0.4
0.6
0.55
0.45
0.6
0.55
0.45

350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
250
400
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350

I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I42.5
I42.5
II42.5 AL
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5
I42.5 AL
I42.5 AL
I42.5 AL
II42.5AV
II42.5AV
II42.5AV
II42.5 AD
II42.5 AD
II42.5 AD

350
394
450
525
350
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450(22%FA)
450(40%FA)
450(8%SF)
450(1.3%NS)
295
345
440
460
345
440
460
345
394
420
345
394
420

47.5
53.1
55.9a/58.4
62.5

29.9
40.1
63.9

56.9

41.2

56.8

4.1
4.2
4.2a/4.3
4.3

3.7
4.0
4.5

4.2

4.0

4.3

51.1
57.1
61.4
65.7

37.0
46.2
70.6

53.4
58.8
62.2
54.3
46.1
55.7
60.9

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

3.8
4.1
4.5

4.3
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.2

57.6
62.6
64.6
68.5
65.0
43.9
54.9
72.1
66.2
63.8
60.0
63.5
65.1
60.0
54.3
60.8
65.5
36.7
40.3
50.8
54.6
39.2
51.3
54.1
35
39.1
48.1
39.9
41.5
50.1

4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

58.2
62.9
64.9/66.2b
70.3

48.6
55.1
74.7

64.4
67.0
65.0
64.9/67.5b
61.5/63.9b
64.6
65.9/68b

4.3
4.4
4.4/4.5b
4.6

3.9
4.2
4.6

4.4
4.6
4.6
4.3/4.4b
4.3/4.3b
4.4
4.5/4.5b

1942
1964
1982
1995
1995
1862
1892
2014
2022
1884
1974
1943
1956
1959
1941
1931
1976
1872
1872
1901
1913
1890
1896
1904
1882
1876
1891
1854
1833
1868

(continued on next page)

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

L345_satldc
L35 (MND)
L65 (MND)
LWSC
LS450
LS295_I42.5
LS345_I42.5
LS440_I42.5
LS460_I42.5
Normal weight
NA350
NA394
NA450
NA525
NA42.5AL
VNA250
VNA300
VNA400
NA295_I42.5
NA345_I42.5
NA440_I42.5
NA460_I42.5
NA394 JVA
NA420 IVA
Argex
VArgex250
Argex450
VArgex400
Arilita
A350
A394
A450
A525
A350_0.35
A450_0.55
A450_0.45
A450_0.30
VA250_I42.5
VA400_I42.5
A42.5IIAL
A450 PW
A450 PD
AFA22
AFA40
ASF8
ANS
A295_I42.5
A345_I42.5
A440_I42.5
A460_I42.5
A345_JIAL
A440_JIAL
A460_JIAL
A345_JIAV
A394_JIAV
A420_JIAV
A345_JIAD
A394_JIAD
A420_JIAD

10

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

1852
1886
2243
2115
2216

4.9
4.7
4.7

Results obtained at l day.

Results obtained at 180 days.
Oneorseven days water-cured.
c.a. coarse aggregate.
c

UPV90d (km/s)
fc,90days (MPa)

75.9
70.6
71.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2

CVUPV (%)
UPV28 (km/s)

3.9
4.2
5.0
4.7
4.5
37.1
52.8
72.3
66.5
64.8

fc,28days (MPa)
UPV7d (km/s)

4.5

61.1

fc,7days (MPa)
UPV3d (km/s)

fc,3days (MPa)
Binder (kg/m3)

394
420
450
450
702
IIVA42.5
IIVA42.5
I52.5
I52.5
I52.5

Cement type

0.55
0.45
0.35
0.35
0.35
A394_JVA
A420_JVA
A35 (MND)
A65 (MND)
Mortar 0.35

c.a.d (L/m3)
w/b
Mixtures

Table A1 (continued)

350
350
350
350
0

q28days (kg/m3)

References
[1] R.S. Ravindrarajah, Strength evaluation of high-strength concrete by
ultrasonic pulse velocity method, NDT E Int. 30 (4) (1997) 262.
[2] A. Galan, Estimate of concrete strength by ultrasonic pulse velocity and
damping constant, ACI J. 64 (10) (1967) 678684.
[3] R. Sols-Carcao, E. Moreno, Evaluation of concrete made with crushed
limestone aggregate based on ultrasonic pulse velocity, Construct. Build.
Mater. 22 (6) (2008) 12251231.
[4] ACI 228.2R-98, Nondestructive test methods of evaluation of concrete in
structures, ACI Committee 228.
[5] M. Sansalone, W.B. Streett, Impact-echo Nondestructive Evaluation of
Concrete and Masonry, Bullbrier Press, Ithaca, NY, 1997.
[6] W.F. Price, J.P. Haynes, In situ strength testing of high strength concrete, Mag.
Concr. Res. 48 (176) (1996) 189197.
[7] S. Nazarian, M. Baker, K. Crain, Assessing quality of concrete with wave
propagation techniques, ACI Mater. J. 94-M35 (1997) 296305.
[8] Pundit, Pundit Manual for use with the Portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive
Digital Indicating Tester, C.N.S. Electronics LTD, 1991.
[9] P. Anugonda, J.S. Wiehn, J.A. Turner, Diffusion of ultrasound in concrete,
Ultrasonics 39 (6) (2001) 429435.
[10] T.-P. Chang, H.-C. Lin, W.-T. Chang, J.-F. Hsiao, Engineering properties of
lightweight aggregate concrete assessed by stress wave propagation
methods, Cem. Concr. Compos. 28 (1) (2006) 5768.
[11] EN 1992, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 11: General rules
and rules for buildings, European Committee for standardization CEN, 2004.
[12] S. Popovics, J.L. Rose, J.S. Popovics, The behavior of ultrasonic pulses in
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. (20) (1990) 259270.
[13] K.K. Phoon, T.H. Wee, C.S. Loi, Development of statistical quality assurance
criterion for concrete using ultrasonic pulse velocity method, ACI Mater. J.
96-M70 (1999) 568573.
[14] Y. Lin, S.-F. Kuo, C. Hsiao, C.-P. Lai, Investigation of pulse velocitystrength
relationship of hardened concrete, ACI Mat. J. 104-M38 (2007) 344350.
[15] A.E. Ben-Zeitun, Use of pulse velocity to predict compressive strength of
concrete, Int. J. Cem. Compos. Lightweight Concr. 8 (1) (1986) 5159.
[16] G. Trtnik, F. Kavcic, G. Turk, Prediction of concrete strength using ultrasonic
pulse velocity and articial neural networks, Ultrasonics 49 (2009) 5360.
[17] EN12504-4, Testing concrete-Part 4: Determination of pulse velocity,
European Committee for Standardization CEN, 2004.
[18] EN 13791, assessment of in situ compressive strength in structures and
precast concrete components. European Committee for Standardization CEN,
2007.
[19] S. Popovics, J. Popovics, A critique of the ultrasonic pulse velocity method for
testing concrete, NDT E Int. 30 (4) (1997) 260.
[20] T.P. Philippidis, D.G. Aggelis, Experimental study of wave dispersion and
attenuation in concrete, Ultrasonics 43 (7) (2005) 584595.
[21] V. Sturrup, F. Vecchio, H. Caratin, Pulse velocity as a measure of concrete
compressive strength, Situ/Nondestruct. Testing Concr. ACI SP-82 (1984)
201227.
[22] D.A. Anderson, R.K. Seals, Pulse velocity as a predictor of 28 and 90 day
strength, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 80 (2) (1981) 116122.
[23] R. Demirboga, I. Trkmen, M.B. Karako, Relationship between ultrasonic
velocity and compressive strength for high-volume mineral-admixtured
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004) 23292336.
[24] K.W. Nasser, A.A. Al-Manaseer, Comparison of Nondestructive testers of
hardened concrete, ACI Mater. J. 84-M38 (1987) 374380.
[25] M. Hamidian, M. Shariati, M.M.K. Arabnejad, H. Sinaei, Assessment of high
strength and light weight aggregate concrete properties using ultrasonic
pulse velocity technique, Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6 (22) (2011) 52615266.
[26] H. Tanyidizi, A. Coskun, Determination of the principal parameter of
ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength of lightweight
concrete by using variance method, Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 44 (9) (2008)
639646.
[27] J.A. Bogas. Characterization of structural lightweight expanded clay
aggregate concrete. PhD thesis in civil engineering, Technical University of
Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Portugal (in Portuguese), 2011.
[28] J.A. Bogas, A. Mauricio, M.F.C. Pereira, Microstructural analysis of Iberian
expanded clay aggregates, Microsc. Microanal. 18 (2012) 11901208.
[29] J.A. Bogas, A. Gomes, M.G. Gloria, Estimation of water absorbed by expanding
clay aggregates during structural lightweight concrete production, Mater.
Struct. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9857-7.
[30] EN 197-1, Cement Part 1: Composition, specications and conformity
criteria for common cements. European Committee for Standardization CEN,
2011.
[31] EN 12390-3, Testing hardened concrete Part 3: Compressive strength of
test specimens, European Committee for Standardization CEN, 2009.
[32] J. Mller-Rochholz, Determination of the elastic properties of lightweight
aggregate by ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements, Int. J. Lightweight
Concr. 1 (2) (1979) (Lancaster, UK).
[33] A.A. Ikpong, The relationship between the strength and nondestructive parameters of rice husk ash concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 23
(1993) 387398.
[34] E. Ohdaira, N. Masuzawa, Water content and its effect on ultrasound
propagation in concrete the possibility of NDE, Ultrasonics 38 (2000) 546
552.

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012

J.A. Bogas et al. / Ultrasonics xxx (2013) xxxxxx

[35] J.A. Bogas, A. Gomes, Compressive behavior and failure modes of structural
lightweight aggregate concrete Characterization and strength prediction,
Mater. Des. 46 (2013) 832841.
[36] Z.. Ulucan, K. Trk, M. Karata, Effect of mineral admixtures on the correlation
between ultrasonic velocity and compressive strength for self-compacting
concrete, Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 44 (5) (2008) 367374.
[37] J. Punkki, O. Gjorv. Effect of aggregate absorption on properties of highstrength lightweight concrete, in: I. Holand et al. (Eds.), International

11

Symposium on Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, 2024 June.

Sandefjord, Norway, 1995, pp. 604616.
[38] T. Faust, The behaviour of structural LWC in compression, in: S. Helland et al.
(Eds.), Second International Symposium on Structural Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete, 1822 June. Kristiansand, Norway, 2000, pp. 512521.

Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Bogas et al., Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse
velocity method, Ultrasonics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012