Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In-Situ Strength Assessment of Concrete: Detailed Guidelines

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Non-Destructive In Situ Strength Assessment of Concrete

Part of the book series: RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports ((RILEM State Art Reports,volume 32))

Abstract

Guidelines describe the general process of in-situ compressive strength assessment. This process is divided into three main steps, data collection (using nondestructive testing and destructive testing), model identification and strength assessment. Three estimation quality levels (EQL) are defined depending on the targeted accuracy of strength assessment, based on three parameters, mean value of strength and standard deviation of strength on a test region and local value of strength. All the necessary definitions (test location, test reading, test region, test result, …) are given and the different stages of data collection, i.e. planning, NDT methods, cores (dimensions, conservation, location, testing, etc) are described. The identification of the conversion model is detailed and a specific attention is paid to the assessment of test result precision (TRP). For the identification of the model parameters, two options are considered either the development of a specific model or the calibration of a prior model. A specific option is also proposed, namely the bi-objective approach. Finally, the quantification of the errors of model fitting and strength prediction is described. The global methodology is synthetized in a flowchart.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recommendations of RILEM TC 249-ISC on non-destructive in situ strength assessment of concrete, D. Breysse (chair) and co-authors, Materials and Structures 52(4), 71 (2019). All references to this publication are given with the same format, i.e. “RILEM TC 249-ISC Recommendations” with the number of the figure or section.

  2. 2.

    Specified in BS 6089:2010.

  3. 3.

    Another case of «derived» values is when one is interested in structural response, which depends on the local concrete properties.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 10 for the definition of uncertainty and variability in relation with these guidelines.

  5. 5.

    EN 1998-3:2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2005 (see also: S. Biondi, The knowledge level in existing building assessment. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008).

  6. 6.

    Conversion factors between cubes and cylinders are available in the literature, as in BS 1881–120. The Concrete Society has compared core and cube strength for a range of different mixes and types of elements. It illustrated very well the difficulties of comparing core and cube (and of course cylinder strength), see:

    https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/Documents/Details?Pub=CS&DocId=267334.

  7. 7.

    See for instance:

    • ASTM C823:2017, Standard practice for examination and sampling of hardened concrete in constructions, 2017.

    • RILEM, STAR 207-INR, Non-destructive assessment of concrete structures: reliability and limits of single and combined techniques, D. Breysse (chair), Springer, 2012.

    • IAEA, Guidebook on non-destructive testing of concrete structures, 2002.

  8. 8.

    This is commonly done when, in seismic retrofitting, one defines “knowledge levels” by rough indicators about the number/density of tests for a given building surface or a given number of structural components (see note 5 and S. Biondi, The knowledge level in existing building assessment. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008).

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 for the definitions.

  10. 10.

    See for instance:

    • RILEM, STAR 207-INR, Non-destructive assessment of concrete structures: reliability and limits of single and combined techniques, D. Breysse (chair), Springer, 2012.

    • J.H. Bungey, S.G. Millard, M.G. Grantham, Testing of Concrete in Structures (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2018).

    • C. Maierhofer, H.-W. Reinhardt, G. Dobmann, Non-Destructive Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures (Woodhead Publishing, 2010).

    • V.M. Malhotra, N.J. Carino (eds.), Handbook of Nondestructive Testing of Concrete (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2003).

  11. 11.

    Based on the same type of device, the rebound energy can be measured and a Q value derived.

  12. 12.

    The principle of the Lok test is similar but uses a cast-in test piece when the fresh concrete is placed. It is thus not commonly used in existing structures. See for instance: A.T. Moczko, N.J. Carino, C.G. Petersen, CAPO-TEST to estimate concrete strength in bridges. ACI Mater J 113(6), 827–836 (2016).

  13. 13.

    The test is standardized (ASTM C803:2010, Standard test method for penetration resistance of hardened concrete, 2010), and the concrete strength can be derived after the processing of test results.

  14. 14.

    R. Felicetti, The drilling resistance test for the assessment of fire damaged concrete. Cem Concr Compos 28(4), 321–329 (2006).

  15. 15.

    The combination of rebound hammer and velocity measurements had been initially promoted by RILEM (RILEM TC 43-CND, I. Facaoaru (chair), Draft recommendation for in situ concrete strength determination by combined non-destructive methods. Mater Struct 26, 43–49 (1993). An extensive review has been published which explains what are the main factors governing the efficiency of combination (D. Breysse, Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical review and a new perspective by combining NDT methods. Constr Build Mater 33, 139–163, 2012).

  16. 16.

    This table is based very closely on that provided by the British Standard 6089:2010, a complementary guidance document to BS EN 13791 [BS 6089:2010, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete components - Complementary guidance to that given in BS EN 13791, British Standard, 2010] and to that published by Soutsos et al. [in RILEM, STAR 207-INR, Non-Destructive Aassessment of Concrete Structures: Reliability and Limits of Single and Combined Techniques, D. Breysse (chair), Springer, 2012]. Some differences may however appear depending on the context of measurements (see f.i. G. Pascale, A. Di Leo, R. Carli, V. Bonora, Evaluation of actual compressive strength of high strength concrete by NDT. 15th World Conference on NDT, Rome, Italy, 15–21 October 2000, and M.D. Machado, L.C.D. Shehata, I.A.E.M. Shehata, Correlation curves to characterize concretes used in Rio de Janeiro by means of non-destructive tests. Rev IBRACON Estrut Mater 2(2), 100–123, 2009).

  17. 17.

    ASTM C805 recommends: “do not conduct Rebound Hammer tests directly over reinforcing bars with cover less than 20 mm”.

  18. 18.

    EN 12504–2 recommends avoiding measurements close to rebar.

  19. 19.

    A. Masi, L. Chiauzzi, An experimental study on the within-member variability of in situ concrete strength in RC building structures. Constr Build Mater 47, 951–961 (2013).

  20. 20.

    This issue has been discussed into detail by J. Brozovsky, J. Zach, Influence of surface preparation method on the concrete rebound number obtained from impact hammer. 5th Pan American Conference for NDT, Cancun, Mexico, 2–6 October 2011.

  21. 21.

    The variability of concrete strength in vertical members has been documented (see for instance, H.Y. Qasrawi, Effect of the position of core on the strength of concrete of columns in existing structures. J Build Eng 25, 2019. In such a case, the investigator must choose between addressing the concrete variability or estimating the concrete strength at test locations that he considers to provide a reference for the component.

  22. 22.

    Or “observed value” according to ISO 5725.

  23. 23.

    As in EN-12504-3.

  24. 24.

    A good example of what can be done in practice is given by A. Masi, L. Chiauzzi, V. Manfredi, Criteria for identifying concrete homogeneous areas for the estimation of in-situ strength in RC buildings. Constr Build Mater 121, 576–587 (2016).

  25. 25.

    EN 13791.

  26. 26.

    BS EN 12504–1.

  27. 27.

    EN 12504–1.

  28. 28.

    EN 13791.

  29. 29.

    BS and ASTM C42 propose an equation for correcting the variation of height to diameter ratio. EN13791 uses a correction factor of 0.80 to convert a 1:1 core to a 2:1 core.

  30. 30.

    In the case of partial coring, the core can be removed by a shear effort (inserting a screwdriver or small chisel and tapping smartly with a hammer will usually be sufficient to snap the core at its base).

  31. 31.

    F.M. Bartlett, J.G. MacGregor, Effect of moisture condition on concrete core strengths. ACI Mater J 91(3), 227–236 (1994).

  32. 32.

    EN 12504–1 recommends to measure core diameter within 1%, from pairs of measurements taken at right angles, at the half and quarter points of the length of the core. It is also underlined that the length must also be assessed within 1%.

  33. 33.

    The extensive procedure is described in European standards (EN 12504–1:2012, Testing concrete in structures—Part 1: Cored specimens—Taking, examining and testing in compression, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2012—EN 12390–3:2019, Testing hardened concrete - Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2019).

  34. 34.

    For rebound hammer for instance, it is the case in European standards (EN 12504–2:2012, Testing concrete in structures—Part 2: Non-destructive testing—Determination of rebound number, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2012) and in North-American standards (ASTM C805:2013, Standard test method for rebound number of hardened concrete, 2013where it is said to discard readings differing from the average of ten readings by more than six units and determine the average of the remaining readings. If more than two readings differ from the average by six units, the entire set of readings must be discarded.

  35. 35.

    One must point out that the whole measurement process is repeated, which requires a total number of test readings equal to Nread x Nrep where Nread is the number of individual readings that are repeated for obtaining a test result.

  36. 36.

    Robust statistics corresponds to a set of statistical methods whose efficiency is not strongly affected by outliers or any deviation from common assumptions, like those regarding the normal distribution of the variables.

  37. 37.

    RILEM TC 43-CND, I. Facaoaru (chair), Draft recommendation for in situ concrete strength determination by combined non-destructive methods. Mater Struct 26, 43–49 (1993).

  38. 38.

    The identification process with the three model shapes respectively leads to: (a) fc = 0.632 R + 17.78 (r2 = 0.543) for the linear model, (b) fc = 7.672 R0.460 (r2 = 0.480) for the power model, (c) fc = 22.09 exp (0.0167 R) (r2 = 0.532) for the exponential model. While the three models are very close in the interval corresponding to the identification set, they disagree when they are used for extrapolation.

  39. 39.

    M. Alwash, Z.M. Sbartaï, D. Breysse, Non-destructive assessment of both mean strength and variability of concrete: a new bi-objective approach. Constr Build Mater 113, 880–889 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Relevant information is available in:

    • F. Mosteller, J.W. Tukey, Data analysis, including statistics, in G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Res. Methods (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968), pp. 80–203;

    • M. Stone, Asymptotics for and against cross-validation. Biometrika 64, 29–35 (1977). doi:10.1093/biomet/64.1.29;

    • S. Geisser, A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61, 101–107 (1974). doi:10.1093/biomet/61.1.101;

    • S. Arlot, A. Celisse, A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Stat Surv 4, 40–79 (2010). doi:10.1214/09-SS054.

Abbreviations

a, b, c:

Conversion model parameters (Sect. 1.5.4.3) (Section where it is used for the first time in the document.)

C:

Calibration factor (Sect. 1.5.5.3)

CM:

Calibration factor (multiplying calibration) (Sect.1.5.5.3)

COV:

Coefficient of variation (= standard deviation/average value)

COVrep:

Coefficient of variation of test results (for test result precision) (Sect. 1.5.5.2)

Cs:

Calibration factor (shift calibration) (Sect. 1.5.5.3)

EQL:

Estimation quality level (Sect. 1.1)

F:

Pull-out force (Sect. 1.3.1.2)

fc:

Concrete compressive strength (Sect. 1.1)

fc,i:

Individual core strength (Sect. 1.5.5.1)

fc, est:

Estimated concrete compressive strength (Sect. 1.2.4)

fc, est,cal:

Calibrated estimated concrete compressive strength (Sect. 1.5.5.3)

fc, est, o:

Prior estimated concrete compressive strength (Sect. 1.5.5.3)

fc, est, o, mean:

Mean value of prior estimated concrete compressive strength (Sect. 1.5.5.3)

i:

Index for test results (both core strength and NDT) (Sect. 1.5.1)

ID:

Investigation domain (Sect. 1.3.3.2.1)

J:

Index for model parameters (Sect. 1.5.1)

k:

Index for NDT method (when several methods are used) (Sect. 1.5.4)

KL:

Knowledge level (see Eurocodes) (Sect. 1.1)

M:

Conversion model (fc, est = M (Tr)) (Sect. 1.5.1)

Nc:

Number of cores (Sect. 1.2.4)

NDT:

Non destructive test (Sect. 1.2.4)

Npar:

Number of parameters of the conversion model (Sect. 1.4.2)

Nread:

Number of readings (repetitions of individual measurement) in order to derive a test result (Sect. 1.5.2.2)

Nrep:

Number of repetitions of a test in order to derive the test repeatability (Sect. 1.5.2.2)

NTL:

Number of test locations (= number of NDT results) (Sect. 1.2.4)

parj:

Value of the j-th model parameter (Sect. 1.5.1)

r2:

Determination coefficient (Sect. 1.5.6.2)

R:

Rebound number (test result) (Sect. 1.3.1.1)

RH:

Rebound hammer (test or device) (Sect. 1.3.1.1)

RMSE:

Root mean square error (Sect. 1.5.6.2)

RMSEfit:

Model fitting error (Sect. 1.5.6.2)

RMSEpred:

Model prediction error (Sect. 1.5.6.2)

sd:

Standard deviation

sdrep:

Standard deviation of test results (for test result precision) (Sect. 1.5.2.2)

TL:

Test location (Sect. 1.3.3.2.3)

TR:

Test region (Sect. 1.3.3.2.5)

Tr:

Test result (Sect.1.3.3.2.4)

Tri:

Value of the i-th NDT test result (when a single NDT is used) (Sect. 1.5.1)

Trk,i:

Value of the i-th test result of the k-th NDT method (when several NDT are combined) (Sect. 1.5.4)

TRP:

Test result precision (Sect. 1.5.2.2)

true:

Index for a true (or reference) value (Sect. 1.6.1.2)

U:

Target precision on strength assessment (depends on EQL) (Sect. 1.1)

UPV:

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (test result) (Sect. 1.3.1.1)

α:

Risk level corresponding to the target precision on strength assessment (Sect. 1.1)

References

Standards

  1. ACI228.1R-19, Report on methods for estimating in-place concrete strength, Reported by ACI Committee 228, A.J. Boyd (chair) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. ASTM C42:2016, Standard test method for obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. ASTM C803:2010, Standard test method for penetration resistance of hardened concrete (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. ASTM C805:2013, Standard test method for rebound number of hardened concrete (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. ASTM C823:2017, Standard practice for examination and sampling of hardened concrete in constructions (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. BS 6089:2010, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete components—Complementary guidance to that given in BS EN 13791, British Standard (2010). ISBN: 978 0 580 67274 3

    Google Scholar 

  7. EN 12504–1:2012, Testing concrete in structures - Part 1: Cored specimens—Taking, examining and testing in compression, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. EN 12504–2:2012, Testing concrete in structures—Part 2: Non-destructive testing - Determination of rebound number, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  9. EN 12504–3:2005, Testing concrete in structures—Part 3: Determination of pull-out force, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. EN 12504–4:2004, Testing concrete—Part 4: Determination of ultrasonic pulse velocity, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. EN 13791:2007, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures or in precast concrete products, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. EN 1998–3:2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Scientific Publications

  1. Ali-Benyahia, K., Sbartaï, Z.M., Breysse, D., Kenai, S., Ghrici, M.: Analysis of the single and combined non-destructive test approaches for on-site concrete strength assessment: general statements based on a real case-study. Case Study Constr. Mater. 6, 109–119 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alwash, M., Breysse, D., Sbartaï, Z.M.: Non destructive strength evaluation of concrete: analysis of some key factors using synthetic simulations. Constr. Build. Mater. 99, 235–245 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alwash, M., Sbartaï, Z.M., Breysse, D.: Non-destructive assessment of both mean strength and variability of concrete: a new bi-objective approach. Constr. Build. Mater. 113, 880–889 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arlot, S., Celisse, A.: A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Stat. Surv. 4, 40–79 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS054

  5. Bartlett, F.M., MacGregor, J.G.: Effect of moisture condition on concrete core strengths. ACI Mater. J. 91(3), 227–236 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biondi, S.: The knowledge level in existing building assessment. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breysse, D.: Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical review and a new perspective by combining NDT methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 33, 139–163 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brozovsky, J., Zach, J.: Influence of surface preparation method on the concrete rebound number obtained from impact hammer. In: 5th Pan American Conference for NDT, Cancun, Mexico, 2–6 Oct. 2011

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bungey, J.H., Millard, S.G., Grantham, M.G.: Testing of Concrete in Structures. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Celik, A.O., Kilinc, K., Tuncan, M., Tuncan, A.: Distributions of compressive strength obtained from various diameter cores. ACI Mater. J. 109(6), 597–606 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Felicetti, R.: The drilling resistance test for the assessment of fire damaged concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 28(4), 321–329 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Geisser, S.: A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61, 101–107 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Machado, M.D., Shehata, L.C.D., Shehata, I.A.E.M.: Correlation curves to characterize concretes used in Rio de Janeiro by means of non-destructive tests. Rev IBRACON Estrut. Mater. 2(2), 100–123 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Maierhofer, C., Reinhardt, H.-W., Dobmann, G.: Non-Destructive Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Woodhead Publishing (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Malhotra, V.M., Carino, N.J. (eds.): Handbook of Nondestructive Testing of Concrete. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Masi, A., Chiauzzi, L.: An experimental study on the within-member variability of in situ concrete strength in RC building structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 47, 951–961 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Masi, A., Chiauzzi, L., Manfredi, V.: Criteria for identifying concrete homogeneous areas for the estimation of in-situ strength in RC buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 121, 576–587 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moczko, A.T., Carino, N.J., Petersen, C.G.: CAPO-TEST to estimate concrete strength in bridges. ACI Mater. J. 113(6), 827–836 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mosteller, F., Tukey, J.W.: Data analysis, including statistics. In: Lindzey, G., Aronson E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Res. Methods, pp. 80–203. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nguyen, N.T., Sbartaï, Z.M., Lataste, J.F., Breysse, D., Bos, F.: Assessing the spatial variability of concrete structures using NDT techniques—laboratory tests and case study. Constr. Build. Mater.s 49, 240–250 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pascale, G., Di Leo, A., Carli, R., Bonora, V.: Evaluation of actual compressive strength of high strength concrete by NDT. In: 15th World Conference on NDT, Rome, Italy, 15–21 Oct. 2000, idn527

    Google Scholar 

  22. RILEMTC 207-INR, Non-destructive assessment of concrete structures: reliability and limits of single and combined techniques. In: Breysse, D. (ed.), State-of-the-Art Report of the RILEM Technical Committee 207-INR (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2736-6

  23. RILEMTC 43-CND, I. Facaoaru (chair), Draft recommendation for in situ concrete strength determination by combined non-destructive methods. Mater. Struct. 26, 43–49 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stone, M.: Asymptotics for and against cross-validation. Biometrika 64, 29–35 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The 16th author would like to acknowledge the financial support by Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020 of CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções, funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Bordeaux, I2M-UMR CNRS 5295, Talence, France

    Denys Breysse & Zoubir Mehdi Sbartaï

  2. LMDC, Université de Toulouse, INSA/UPS Génie Civil, Toulouse, France

    Jean-Paul Balayssac

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Babylon, Babylon, Iraq

    Maitham Alwash

  4. Engineering and Geology Department, inGeo, Gabriele d’Annunzio, University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy

    Samuele Biondi

  5. School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Leonardo Chiauzzi & Angelo Masi

  6. Proceq SA, Zurich, Switzerland

    David Corbett

  7. Laboratory of Mechanic and Acoustic, L.M.A - AMU/CNRS/ECM - UMR7031, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Vincent Garnier

  8. Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Lisboa, Portugal

    Arlindo Gonçalves & André Valente Monteiro

  9. Consultant - Sandberg LLP, London, UK

    Michael Grantham

  10. Instanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Oguz Gunes

  11. Civil Engineering Department, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria

    Said Kenaï

  12. ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Department for Sustainability - Non Destructive Evaluation Laboratory, Brindisi, Italy

    Vincenza Anna Maria Luprano

  13. Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Andrzej Moczko

  14. Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

    Hicham Yousef Qasrawi

  15. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Xavier Romão

  16. Institute of Heritage Science - National Research Council (ISPC-CNR), Lecce, Italy

    Emilia Vasanelli

Authors
  1. Denys Breysse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Paul Balayssac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maitham Alwash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samuele Biondi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leonardo Chiauzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Corbett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vincent Garnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arlindo Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michael Grantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Oguz Gunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Said Kenaï
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vincenza Anna Maria Luprano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Angelo Masi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andrzej Moczko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Hicham Yousef Qasrawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Xavier Romão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Zoubir Mehdi Sbartaï
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. André Valente Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Emilia Vasanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Paul Balayssac .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Bordeaux, I2M-UMR CNRS 5295, Talence, France

    Denys Breysse

  2. LMDC, Université de Toulouse, INSA/UPS Génie Civil, Toulouse, France

    Jean-Paul Balayssac

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 RILEM

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Breysse, D. et al. (2021). In-Situ Strength Assessment of Concrete: Detailed Guidelines. In: Breysse, D., Balayssac, JP. (eds) Non-Destructive In Situ Strength Assessment of Concrete. RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64900-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64900-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-64899-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-64900-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation