Destructive and non-destructive evaluation of concrete for optimum sand to aggregate volume ratio

doi:10.1007/s11709-021-0779-8

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

2021, Vol. 15

Issue (6): 1400-1414 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0779-8

本期目录

Destructive and non-destructive evaluation of concrete for optimum sand to aggregate volume ratio

Tarek Uddin MOHAMMED¹, Aziz Hasan MAHMOOD²(

), Mohammad Zunaied-Bin-HARUN¹, Jamil Ahmed JOY¹, Md. Asif AHMED³

¹. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Board Bazar, Gazipur 1704, Bangladesh
². Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
³. Department of Civil Engineering, European University of Bangladesh, Mirpur, Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh

全文: PDF(17974 KB) HTML

Abstract：

Aggregates are the biggest contributor to concrete volume and are a crucial parameter in dictating its mechanical properties. As such, a detailed experimental investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of sand-to-aggregate volume ratio (s/a) on the mechanical properties of concrete utilizing both destructive and non-destructive testing (employing UPV (ultrasonic pulse velocity) measurements). For investigation, standard cylindrical concrete samples were made with different s/a (0.36, 0.40, 0.44, 0.48, 0.52, and 0.56), cement content (340 and 450 kg/m³), water-to-cement ratio (0.45 and 0.50), and maximum aggregate size (12 and 19 mm). The effect of these design parameters on the 7, 14, and 28 d compressive strength, tensile strength, elastic modulus, and UPV of concrete were assessed. The careful analysis demonstrates that aggregate proportions and size need to be optimized for formulating mix designs; optimum ratios of s/a were found to be 0.40 and 0.44 for the maximum aggregate size of 12 and 19 mm, respectively, irrespective of the W/C (water-to-cement) and cement content.

Key words： aggregates non-destructive testing sand-to-aggregate volume ratio (s/a) maximum aggregate size (MAS)

收稿日期: 2021-03-08 出版日期: 2022-01-21

Corresponding Author(s): Aziz Hasan MAHMOOD

引用本文:

. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2021, 15(6): 1400-1414.
Tarek Uddin MOHAMMED, Aziz Hasan MAHMOOD, Mohammad Zunaied-Bin-HARUN, Jamil Ahmed JOY, Md. Asif AHMED. Destructive and non-destructive evaluation of concrete for optimum sand to aggregate volume ratio. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 1400-1414.

链接本文:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-021-0779-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2021/V15/I6/1400

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

equation no.	empirical equations	reference	s/a	COV	MAPE	IAE
(5)	$f c ′ = 1.2277 e 0.00066 (U P V)$	Mohammed and Rahman [34]	0.36	25.5%	25.2%	21.0%
(6)	$f c ′ = 1.2003 e 0.00068 (U P V)$		0.40	23.0%	19.1%	17.4%
(7)	$f c ′ = 1.1502 e 0.00070 (U P V)$		0.44	26.8%	26.4%	22.1%

Tab.3

equation no.	empirical equations	reference	s/a	COV	MAPE	IAE
(8)	$f c ′ = 1.19 e 0.715 (U P V)$	Nash’t et al. [50]	0.36	45.9%	48.4%	40.9%
			0.40	34.6%	32.5%	28.8%
			0.44	35.3%	36.7%	30.5%
			0.48	40.1%	41.5%	35.6%
			0.52	39.3%	40.5%	34.8%
			0.56	44.7%	45.2%	39.8%
(9)	$f c ′ = 0.0854 e 1.2882 (U P V)$	Trtnik et al. [26]	0.36	34.7%	32.5%	27.8%
			0.40	32.3%	27.4%	24.3%
			0.44	29.4%	25.8%	23.1%
			0.48	27.0%	23.3%	21.4%
			0.52	25.8%	22.4%	20.1%
			0.56	33.7%	28.0%	26.4%
(10)	$f c ′ = 2.8 e 0.53 (U P V)$	Jones [25]	0.36	51.5%	55.3%	46.8%
			0.40	37.2%	36.7%	32.4%
			0.44	39.9%	43.6%	35.6%
			0.48	47.4%	50.8%	43.1%
			0.52	47.1%	49.9%	42.8%
			0.56	51.4%	54.0%	47.4%
(11)	$f c ′ = 2.016 e 0.61 (U P V)$	Nash’t et al. [53]	0.36	54.6%	58.6%	50.1%
			0.40	40.6%	40.1%	35.6%
			0.44	42.4%	46.0%	38.1%
			0.48	49.4%	52.7%	45.4%
			0.52	48.8%	51.4%	44.4%
			0.56	53.9%	56.2%	49.7%
(12)	$f c ′ = 0.316 e 1.03 (U P V)$	Turgut [22]	0.36	54.6%	56.5%	49.6%
			0.40	45.8%	42.5%	38.3%
			0.44	44.1%	42.7%	37.6%
			0.48	45.5%	44.6%	40.4%
			0.52	42.8%	42.3%	37.3%
			0.56	51.4%	49.5%	44.9%
(13)	$f c ′ = 0.0028 e 2.1 (U P V)$	Popovics et al. [21]	0.36	62.6%	55.0%	51.6%
			0.40	67.0%	58.2%	54.2%
			0.44	65.4%	50.0%	50.2%
			0.48	49.9%	38.3%	38.4%
			0.52	39.1%	32.5%	30.6%
			0.56	58.6%	42.2%	41.9%
(14)	$f c ′ = 1.146 e 0.77 (U P V)$	Turgut [51]	0.36	76.0%	81.6%	72.5%
			0.40	61.3%	61.6%	56.2%
			0.44	61.6%	65.5%	57.1%
			0.48	68.0%	71.7%	64.4%
			0.52	66.0%	69.2%	61.6%
			0.56	73.6%	76.1%	69.1%

Tab.4

s/a	proposed relationship between compressive strength and UPV	level of agreement (R²)	equation no.
0.36	$f c ′ = 0.035 e 1.44 (U P V)$	0.61	(15)
0.40	$f c ′ = 1.373 e 0.64 (U P V)$	0.60	(16)
0.44	$f c ′ = 0.241 e 1.02 (U P V)$	0.67	(17)
0.48	$f c ′ = 0.240 e 1.02 (U P V)$	0.70	(18)
0.52	$f c ′ = 0.443 e 0.88 (U P V)$	0.61	(19)
0.56	$f c ′ = 0.267 e 0.97 (U P V)$	0.62	(20)

Tab.5

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

1	K K Sagoe-Crentsil, T Brown, A H Taylor. Performance of concrete made with commercially produced coarse recycled concrete aggregate. Cement and concrete research, 2001, 31( 5): 707– 712
2	V Okonkwo, E Emmanuel. A study of the effect of aggregate proportioning on concrete properties. American Journal of Engineering Research, 2018, 7 : 61– 67
3	C Deepa, K Sathiya Kumari, V P Sudha. Prediction of the compressive strength of high performance concrete mix using tree based modeling. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 2010, 6( 5): 18– 24 https://doi.org/10.5120/1076-1406
4	JSCE Concrete Committee of. No. 16: Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures–2007. Materials and Construction. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2007
5	D L Bloem, R D Gaynor. Effects of aggregate properties on strength of concrete. Journal Proceedings, 1963, 60( 10): 1429– 1456
6	M T Uddin, A H Mahmood, M R I Kamal, S M Yashin, Z U A Zihan. Effects of maximum size of brick aggregate on properties of concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 134 : 713– 726 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.164
7	S Yan, J Z Li, H Q Yang, Y Q Lin. Effect of the maximum aggregate size on mechanical properties of four-grade RCC. In: 2011 International Conference on Electric Technology and Civil Engineering (ICETCE). Lushan: IEEE, 2011
8	A Mardani-Aghabaglou, A E Son, B Felekoglu, K Ramyar. Effect of cement fineness on properties of cementitious materials containing high range water reducing admixture. Journal of Green Building, 2017, 12( 1): 142– 167
9	W Shen, Z G Yang, L H Cao, L Cao, Y Liu, H Yang, Z L Lu, J Bai. Characterization of manufactured sand: Particle shape, surface texture and behavior in concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 114 : 595– 601
10	S Jamkar, C J C Rao, C Research. Index of aggregate particle shape and texture of coarse aggregate as a parameter for concrete mix proportioning. Cement and Concrete Research, 2004, 34( 11): 2021– 2027
11	A A Bashandy, N M Soliman. Influence of fine to coarse aggregate ratio and curing temperatures on the behavior of concrete. Engineering Research Journal, 2013, 138 : 30– 41
12	W T Lin. Effects of sand/aggregate ratio on strength, durability, and microstructure of self-compacting concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 242 : 118046– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118046
13	W M Ruiz. Effect of Volume of Aggregate on the Elastic and Inelastic Properties of Concrete. Cornell University, 1966
14	J Carrillo, J Ramirez, J Lizarazo-Marriaga. Modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of fiber-reinforced concrete in Colombia from ultrasonic pulse velocities. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 23 : 18– 26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.01.016
15	S E S Mendes, R L N Oliveira, C Cremonez, E Pereira, E Pereira, R A Medeiros-Junior. Electrical resistivity as a durability parameter for concrete design: Experimental data versus estimation by mathematical model. Construction & Building Materials, 2018, 192 : 610– 620
16	R A Medeiros-Junior, P S Gans, E Pereira, E Pereira. Electrical resistivity of concrete exposed to chlorides and sulfates. ACI Materials Journal, 2019, 116(3)
17	W Mazer, M G Lima, R A Medeiros-Junior. Fuzzy logic for estimating chloride diffusion in concrete. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 2018, 171( 7): 542– 551
18	D H de Bem, D P B Lima, R A Medeiros-Junior. Effect of chemical admixtures on concrete’s electrical resistivity. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 2018, 36( 2): 174– 187 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-11-2017-0058
19	D A Anderson, R K Seals. Pulse velocity as a predictor of 28- and 90-day strength. Journal Proceedings. 1981, 78(2): 116– 122
20	M Kaplan. The effects of age and water/cement ratio upon the relation between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength of concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, 1959, 11( 32): 85– 92 https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1959.11.32.85
21	S Popovics, J L Rose, J S Popovics. The behaviour of ultrasonic pulses in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 1990, 20( 2): 259– 270
22	P Turgut. Evaluation of the ultrasonic pulse velocity data coming on the field. In: 4th International Conference on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components. London, 2004
23	G Kheder. A two stage procedure for assessment of in situ concrete strength using combined non-destructive testing. Materials and Structures, 1999, 32( 6): 410– 417 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482712
24	R H Elvery, L A M Ibrahim. Ultrasonic assessment of concrete strength at early ages. Magazine of Concrete Research, 1976, 28( 97): 181– 190
25	R Jones. The ultrasonic testing of concrete. Ultrasonics, 1963, 1( 2): 78– 82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-624X(63)90058-1
26	G Trtnik, F Kavčič, G Turk. Prediction of concrete strength using ultrasonic pulse velocity and artificial neural networks. Ultrasonics, 2009, 49( 1): 53– 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2008.05.001
27	T U Mohammed, A H Mahmood. Effects of maximum aggregate size on UPV of brick aggregate concrete. Ultrasonics, 2016, 69 : 129– 136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2016.04.006
28	S A Abo-Qudais. Effect of concrete mixing parameters on propagation of ultrasonic waves. Construction & Building Materials, 2005, 19( 4): 257– 263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.022
29	Y Tanigawa, K Baba, H Mori. Estimation of concrete strength by combined nondestructive testing method. Special Publication, 1984, 82 : 57– 76
30	H Yıldırım, O Sengul. Modulus of elasticity of substandard and normal concretes. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25( 4): 1645– 1652 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.10.009
31	A E Ben-Zeitun. Use of pulse velocity to predict compressive strength of concrete. International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, 1986, 8( 1): 51– 59 https://doi.org/10.1016/0262-5075(86)90024-2
32	Rıo L M Del, A Jimenez, F Lopez, F J Rosa, M M Rufo, J M Paniagua. Characterization and hardening of concrete with ultrasonic testing. Ultrasonics, 2004, 42( 1– 9): 1– 9
33	E Ohdaira, N Masuzawa. Water content and its effect on ultrasound propagation in concrete—The possibility of NDE. Ultrasonics, 2000, 38( 1−8): 546– 552 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-624X(99)00158-4
34	T U Mohammed, M N Rahman. Effect of types of aggregate and sand-to-aggregate volume ratio on UPV in concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 125 : 832– 841 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.102
35	ASTM. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM C33 / C33M–16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016
36	EN 197–1: 2000 Cement BDS. Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements. London: British Standards Institution, 2000
37	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127-15. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2015
38	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, ASTM C128-15. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2015
39	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate. ASTM C29/C29M-17a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2017
40	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion Resistance and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, ASTM C131. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2006
41	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, ASTM C136/C136M-19. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2019
42	ASTM. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, ASTM C192. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2018
43	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM C39/C39M-16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016
44	ASTM. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimen, ASTM C496/C496M-11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2011
45	ASTM. Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete, ASTM C597-16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016
46	T H Panzera, A L Christoforo, F P Cota, P R Borges, C R Bowen. Ultrasonic pulse velocity evaluation of cementitious materials. Advances in Composite Materials − Analysis of Natural and Man-Made Materials, 2011, 17 : 411– 436
47	H O Shin, D Y Yoo, J H Lee, S H Lee, Y S Yoon. Optimized mix design for 180 MPa ultra-high-strength concrete. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2019, 8( 5): 4182– 4197 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.07.027
48	ACI 318–14 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2014
49	S E S Mendes, R L N Oliveira, C Cremonez, E Pereira, E Pereira, R A Medeiros-Junior. Mixture Design of Concrete Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2020, 18( 1): 113– 122
50	I H Nash’t, S H A’bour, A A Sadoon. Finding an unified relationship between crushing strength of concrete and non-destructive tests. In: Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference & Exhibition. Manama: Citeseer, 2005
51	P Turgut. Research into the correlation between concrete strength and UPV values. e-Journal of NDT, 2004, 12( 12): 1– 9
52	S Hedjazi, D Castillo. Relationships among compressive strength and UPV of concrete reinforced with different types of fibers. Heliyon, 2020, 6( 3): e03646–
53	Nash’t I H, A’bour S H, Sadoon A A. Finding an unified relationship between crushing strength of concrete and non-destructive tests. In: Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference & Exhibition. 2005, 27– 30
54	R Solís-Carcaño, E I Moreno. Evaluation of concrete made with crushed limestone aggregate based on ultrasonic pulse velocity. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22( 6): 1225– 1231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.01.014
55	Y Lin, K Shih-Fang, C Hsiao, L Chao-Peng. Investigation of pulse velocity-strength relationship of hardened concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2007, 104( 4): 344–
56	J A Bogas, M G Gomes, A Gomes. Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method. Ultrasonics, 2013, 53( 5): 962– 972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012
57	R Ghosh, S P Sagar, A Kumar, S K Gupta, S Kumar. Estimation of geopolymer concrete strength from ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) using high power pulser. Journal of building engineering, 2018, 16 : 39– 44
58	N Mahure, G K Vijh, P Sharma, N Sivakumar, M Ratnam. Correlation between pulse velocity and compressive strength of concrete. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 2011, 4( 6): 871– 874
59	T H Panzera, J C Rubio, C R Bowen, W L Vasconcelos, K Strecker. Correlation between structure and pulse velocity of cementitious composites. Advances in cement research, 2008, 20( 3): 101– 108
60	F Gameiro, J De Brito, D Correia da Silva. Durability performance of structural concrete containing fine aggregates from waste generated by marble quarrying industry. Engineering Structures, 2014, 59 : 654– 662 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.026

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed