Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Factors influencing the performance of rebound hammer used

for non-destructive testing of concrete members: A review
Hemraj R. Kumavata,* , Narayan R. Chandaka , Ishwar T. Patilb
a
Civil Engineering Department, MPSTME, NMIMS, Shirpur, India
b
Civil Engineering Department, D. N. Patel College of Engineering, Shahada, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Non-destructive testing (NDT) has a vital role in finding surface hardness of concrete
Received 20 July 2020 members. B-Proceq curve can calculate the concrete strength by providing statistical
correlations between the destructive and the non-destructive strength. The regression
Keywords: curve based on the laboratory test may be valid within their implementation boundaries. It
Compressive strength is not feasible to extend the validity of these curves to the in-situ test. Factors influencing
Properties of concrete such curves include the w/c ratio, carbonation effect, exposure to fire, compaction, curing
Rebound index
condition, and type of the cement used in concrete, etc. More than 65 years of research data
Regression analysis
with the Schmidt rebound hammer is used for evaluation. The Authors also addressed the
effect of each influencing factor on the performance of the rebound hammer and suggested
amendment in the B-Proceq curve. Various factors affect the rebound index significantly
and hence their consideration while conducting a rebound test is necessary. The large
deviation of curves raised a crucial question of whether the rebound hammer is effective or
not in estimating the concrete strength.
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Concrete structure strength is mainly influenced by the ingredients present in it. However, many other factors like
compaction deficiency, curing conditions, temperature variation, and water to cement ratio plays a vigorous role. The effect is
highlighted by the NDT device in terms of the hardness of the outer surface of concrete specimens. In modern concrete
technology, different types of cement were used according to the content of oxides. In the construction stage, members of the
structure were not compacted fully, some parts of structural members are compacted manually and some parts without
compaction. The degree of compaction is also varying with types of structure and its location. The same phenomena has also
seen in terms of curing conditions of structural members cured with water or only with air. When structural concrete
exposed to heat load, it affects concrete hardness and its micro-structural behavior as well. Engineers and practitioners are
also used different water to cement ratios in concrete according to the types of structures being build.
A review of 65 years of findings of the different researchers had considered for evaluating the exact correlation between
the destructive and nondestructive strength with various influencing factors. Its effect on the rebound hammer output has
been presented and compared with B-Proceq curves. The main driver of this relationship is the independent variable i.e.
rebound index obtained from the Schmidt rebound hammer, used for evaluating hardness properties of the specimens.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kumavathr1981@gmail.com (H.R. Kumavat), narayan.chandak@nmims.edu (N.R. Chandak), patilishwar095@gmail.com (I.T. Patil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00491
2214-5095/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Brinell launched steel hardness testing ball indentation technique. In the 1930s, concrete structure testing began in-situ.
At that moment, the testing techniques included chisel blow, gun shooting, split, Brinell hardness and pullout tests. Based on
its comparatively easy and quick operation, this subsequent method has been the most commonly used technique in Europe
for centuries [1–5].
In 1934, Germany introduced the first NDT equipment for in-place concrete hardness testing, which adopted the ball
indentation hardness testing technique [6,7].
In 1951, Shore used the hardness test method developed by Schmidt, and the measurement of the hardness value is
known to be a rebound index instead of a ball penetration [8,9]. Since then, Proceq has manufactured the Schmidt rebound
hammer with unnoticeable change in the operations of the unit. [10]. The device's recent development was completed as the
Silver Schmidt hammers were accessible from November 2007 [12,11].

2. Review parameters

2.1. Schmidt rebound hammer

The impact load is provided by the rebound hammer springs and sliding mechanical mass. Silver Schmidt hammers could
measure the ratio of hammer mass kinetic energies just before and immediately after impact Kb and Ka, respectively and
termed as Q-value, see Eq. (1).
Q= (Ka/ Kb)*100 (1)
The restitution coefficient (Q-value) relies on the loss of energy due to dissipation. The energy dissipated during impact
depends on i) stress-strain response of the concrete examined, during the impact test, the loading method has an effect on
the total energy dissipated, the energy dissipation and the damage evolution is based on the stress direction, ii) rebound
number often concerning to energy losses, iii) the direction of the hammer impact and, iv) the connection between the
strength of concrete and the peak stress values of the mechanical waves [13–15].
It was discovered that the repeatability of the Schmidt rebound hammer test was properly characterized by the in-test
coefficient of variation instead of the in-test normal deviation [16].

2.2. Parameters influencing rebound index

2.2.1. Influence of carbonation

Recent studies have shown an increase in the rebound value during concrete carbonation. The carbonation depth may
differ with cement hydration products and when concrete is exposed to CO2. The rebound value is affected by the rise in
carbonated concrete surface hardness. Hence, it can be deduced that the significant divergence between the values of current
equations for the strength reduction coefficient and their restricted applicability to specific strength ranges are primarily due
to the carbonation dependent strength level [17–19].
The rebound value usually refers to the properties of a near-surface layer of concrete. Owing to carbonation, the hardness
of concrete beyond that region is typically higher than that of the inner region, and the hardness difference rises as
carbonation continues. Consequently, after 28 days, the strength of concrete is likely to be overestimated than that of normal
concrete without taking into account the effect of carbonation. The relative decrease in the assessed strength for the duration
from 28 to 360 days is 40 percent for the 30 rebound number where as it is just 6 percent for the 45 rebound number. Testing
data collected from 1 to 40 years from in-situ structures has shown that, for the same concrete strength, the rebound value is
4 times higher in the structure than in a laboratory tested specimens of same grade. Kim et al. had proposed correction
procedures and the same had accepted by the Chinese code [20].
The authors Szilágyi, Borosnyói, Zsigovics, suggested SBZ system. This system incorporates, how carbonation grows over
time, how rebounding is influenced by carbonation [21].

2.2.2. Influence of moisture content

The concrete moisture content has a direct impact on the compressive strength of concrete. Based on the most recent
studies [23–27], increasing the concrete moisture content from air dry to water-saturated condition resulted in lower
rebound index by 20–25%. Also owing to the growth of inner pore pressure, may reduce the compressive strength of
concrete. For an oven-dried specimen, an increase in strength appears to be reversible, as subsequent resaturation will return
the concrete to its original strength.

2.2.3. Influence of surface condition and specimen size

Szilágyi has found that the measurement uncertainty of the tests performed on-air dry surface is lesser than that of the
tests performed on the wet surface [28]. Although the testing criteria of the rebound hammer do not allow to perform the
test on wet surfaces. It would be sensible to examine wet surfaces of different moisture contents to set an upper limit, which
does not influence the rebound index. Yang et al. presented that a decrease in the specimen size from 200 to 100 mm,
increases the rebound index but the rate of increase was relatively high [17]. However, in the case of a smaller size of

2
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

specimens, the existence of a large aggregate of size 20 mm near the specimen’s surface, affects the rebound value. They
observed that difference of rebound value for cubes of 100 mm is much higher than that of the cube size of 150 mm. Rebound
values of large size members are often higher than smaller size members in case of in-situ structure. The initial micro cracks
are initiated in large size member due to heat of hydration and thermal gradient effect compared to smaller size members in
buildings.

2.2.4. Influence of elevated temperature

Many of the researches [29–32] expressed the influence of exposed heat load on rebound index. They found that the
increase in rebound number at temperatures of 200
C–400
C (heat load) compared with the rebound number of the
concrete testing at a normal temperature (27
C). The crucial factors affecting test results are concrete dehydration, the
synergic effect of concrete dehydration, and defects (micro-cracks) in its internal structure. When concrete is exposed to heat
load, micro crack defects observed on the surface due to the release of free, capillary, and chemically bonded water.

2.2.5. Influence of exposed fire

Change in rebound results from pre-and post-exposed heat load concrete structural members at 800
C as opposed to
core strength. They noticed that the rebound ratio was substantially higher than the compressive strength. It has also been
recorded that the rebound index up to 420
C does not change. Concrete has shown a declining trend in portlandite
composition and raised calcium carbonate, appearing to have smaller pores, according to microstructural studies. [68].
Compared to core test, the strength values are over-estimated by rebound hammer, as it measures the strength based on
surface hardness. Besides that, the concrete exposed to heat causes the structural element to become porous. The rebound
hammer only gives the strength estimate on the structure's outer surface and does not predict integrity within the structural
members [72].

2.2.6. Miscellaneous influencing parameters

Yang et al. showed that, the change in the rebound index due to a change in the water cement ratio at the same age
significantly increased the rebound value and hence the compressive strength of concrete [17].
Some of the parameters that are directly or indirectly correlated with rebound hardness of concrete, such as types of
cement, cement content, type of aggregate, types of surface, degree of compaction and direction of rebound hammer. In the
present study, the authors also illustrated these parameters along with differing intervals in days and grades of concrete.
Owing to a substantial decrease in strength found after application of the hammer to concrete elements, the rebound
hammer technique is referred to as semi-destructive, whereas in the case of Leeb hardness testing, no destruction is
observed [69].
The strength of recycled aggregate concrete was estimated to be approximately 45.5 per cent higher compared to the
average strength of controlled concrete [73]. As per the report of the RILEM TC249-ISC Committee, the conversion model
does not explicitly consider any other variables that could affect the results of the tests. The aging effect involved potential
delamination and cracking of concrete due to the corrosion of reinforcement [74]. Some variations between self-compacting
and regular vibrated concrete are interpreted, due to the various mixtures and the external vibration used to compact
controlled concrete contributed to increase the densification near surface region of concrete [75]. The rebound number is
significantly higher with the addition of 0.5 percent of the amorphous SiO2 nanospheres, and the addition of 1–1.5 percent
produced a major degradation and is significantly lower than the reference mortar [55].

2.3. Rebound number-strength relationships

Schmidt hammer provides the relationship in the form of equations and graphs between measured values of rebound
index and compressive strength of concrete specimens. A comprehensive interpretation should cover all factors of concrete
structure including grade variation, cement type, compaction, carbonation, cured condition, exposed temperature, and
moisture content.
Many researchers investigated about how the rebound index can be correlated with destructive compressive strength.
The purpose is to get an overview and to highlight relationships in models. Inconsistencies are developed in models and the
values of coefficients can change within a large range [33]. SBZ is a conceptual model for rebound concrete surface hardness
as a time-dependent material characteristic [21]. The paradigm encompasses the influence of w/c ratio and carbonation
depth on the compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days and the influence of carbonation depth of concrete on the
rebound index.
Generally, many of the models used to evaluate the actual concrete compressive strength of the structure consist of
mathematical expressions that attempt to incorporate the relationship between nondestructive parameters. Usually, such
mathematical models are presented in regression forms, based on experimental results [22]. Alwash et al. analyzed the
influence of several factors on the reliability of rebound hammer test evaluation, viz-a-viz within-test variability, variability
of true compressive strength, and number of test locations and cores. It is used to determine the relationship between
strength and the rebound number by choosing the test locations randomly with regression or bi-objective model
identification program [34].

3
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

The impact energy of the Schmidt N-type hammer is 2.207 Nm greater than the L type of hammer with an impact energy
of 0.735 Nm. A Silver Schmidt model which uses optical sensors to measure the impact and rebound velocity immediately
before and after impact is represented by a Q-value. The different construction of the Silver Schmidt used to measure
concretes of lower as well as higher strength. A Silver Schmidt L-type hammer can be fitted with a mushroom plunger
accessory that enables measuring compressive strength as low as of 5 MPa.
Table 1 assimilated empirical relationships found by several researchers in the last 65 years for concrete strength
estimation with influencing factors. Several standards [35–41] are also used for strength estimation and verification of the
model. If these influencing factors are not taken into account, the use of rebound hammer may lead to inaccurate mechanical
properties of hardened concrete. The comparative analysis of experimental and predicted compression strength values at a
significant level of 5% using the ANOVA technique is therefore important. [62].
Pereira and Romão discussed many issues about the choice of proper models of conversion between destructive and non-
destructive test results by using particular regression approaches. They suggested power models for the rebound index and
compressive strength relationship, particularly in existing structures where the strength variation coefficient is expected to
be above 10 % [70]. Rashid and Waqas proposed a second order polynomial model instead of a power model with a wide
range of outcomes [71].
Three popular forms of equations i.e. power, linear, and polynomial equation had been used by different authors.
Statistical equations are given in their original forms and similar notations are used.
Linear- f cm ¼ b  R  a
Power- f cm ¼ a þ b  Rc
Polynomial  f cm ¼ a þ b  R þ c  R2 Exponential- f cm ¼ a þ b  ecR
Where, a, b and c are constant of equation, fcm is mean compressive strength and R is rebound number.
Twenty-seven models of a power function, eight models of a polynomial function, twenty-four models of linear function,
and one model of exponential function are considered in the analysis. The research work was published between the years
1954 and 2020 is studied and few of them has considered for comparison with B-Proceq results. The coefficients (a, b) differ
in a very big spectrum as a general trend, 'a' decrease when 'b' rises. An exciting function emerges when 'b' is plotted against
'a' since, as was the case with exponential and power-law equations for rebound numbers. All trend line equations indicating
a direct relationship between (a, b) pairs and all trend lines cross common points. Certainly, B-Proceq trend line does not
cross. For the sake of better visualization, results of various researchers were compared with the B-Proceq curve as shown in
Fig. 1(a)–(d).
The line of trend in Fig. 1(a) of Kim et al. indicates the same dispersed plot, but the strength rate for the same rebound
number is often less than the B-Proceq curve. For a rebound number of 30, the relative decrease in the evaluated strength for
the period from 28 to 360 days is 40 %, but the relative decrease is only 6% for a 45 rebound number.
Due to carbonation, the interior region hardness of the concrete is greater than the surface region. As a consequence,
overestimation of the strength of concrete is anticipated due to undetectable hardening of the interior region when
compared with non-carbonated standard specimens. In Fig. 1(b), the trend line of Monteiro and Goncalves is largely
scattered and indicating lower compressive strength than others. Comparing alternatives of Di Leo et al., Gonclaves and
Antonio et al. with Monteiro and Goncalves significant differences between the relationships are obtained. It seems that
alternative Monteiro and Goncalves curve is more severe for low values of compressive strength, considering that a high 95 %
confidence level was assumed for a linear relationship.
In Fig. 1(c), the trend line of Antonio et al. shows the same strength for all rebound numbers, but it is insignificant with the
B-Proceq curve. The trend line of Zabihi had accorded with B- Proceq curve. In Fig. 1(d), Brozovsky et al. trend line shows
greater strength than B-Proceq and Abdulkadir et al. curve for the same rebound number. Despite their resemblance, the
crossing curves of the Zabihi equation correspond to very different values between 17 and 26, which was quickly identified as
overestimating strength by Di Leo et al. and Brozovsky equations. Shariati et al. equation was recognized from structure
measurements where the strength range was very small (5–26 MPa) and the equation's statistical validity is dubious.
The trend line of Duna et al. demonstrated that for all grades of concrete, a greater rebound number resulted in high
compressive strength and vice versa. There was also a rise in the compressive strength and amount of the rebound with
curing age. These developments are comparable to what is presented by Aguwamba & Adagba and Mikulic et al. The trend
lines cross the B-Proceq line for the rebound number between 30–50 as shown in Fig. 2(a). In Fig. 2(b), the specimen made in
the form of cube and cylinders is perfectly matched with the B-Proceq curve except for the specimens made of prism.
Specimen size has no significant effect and shows no difference in experimental and predicted compressive strength. The
results obtained by using N and L type hammer showing greater compressive strength than that of Schmidt rebound hammer
as shown in Fig. 2(c). It also shows that, compressive strength is slowly increased up to rebound number 30, after that sharply
increases with increase rebound number. Brozovsky et al. have shown that, in the case of high strength concrete, the same
rebound number with varying compressive strength is found due to the use of different types of coarse aggregates. The
compressive strength of concrete calculated from cube specimens containing the basalt aggregate is significantly greater for
type N than for type L hammers.
In Fig. 2(d), the trend line had given by Hobbs and Kebir, Balakrishna et al. shows largely scattered curves and greater
compressive strength than B-Proceq curve, and oppose that the trend line of Szilágyi, Qasrawi, and Kheder shows less
scattered curves and lower compressive strength than B-Proceq curve. The 10 L/m3 increase in air content of concrete

4
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Table 1
Statistical relationships between compressive strength of concrete (f cm Þ and rebound number (R).

Authors Influencing factors (Boundary Equations Regression

conditions) Approach
Proceq (2003) [42] Original Schmidt hammer fcm = 0. 0117.R2 + 0.8973.R- 13.213 Poly.
Kheder (1999) [43] W/C ratio, Curing age and concrete mix fcm = 0.403.R1. 2083 Power
Balkrishna et al. (2017) [44] fcm = 2.6723e0.0479R Power
Szilágyi et al. (2015) [45] fcm = 11.04  102.R1.739 Power
Qasrawi (2000) [46] W/C Ratio, Compaction, Mould material fcm = 1.353.R-17.393 Linear
effect (0.50, vibration, cube 150 mm)
Hobbs and Kebir (2006) [47] W/C Ratio, Compaction fcm = 2.1683. R- 27.747 Linear
Pascale et al. (2003) [48] Types of hammer used fcm = 0.0002392.R3.299 Power
Brozovsky and Bodnarova (2016) [32] (N type hammer) fcm = 0.0107R2 + 0.9073R -12.935 Poly.
(CSN EN 13791) fcm = 1.73R- 34.5 Linear
Brozovsky (2014) [49] Types of hammer and aggregate
(N type, Granodiorite aggregate) fcm = 5.1523 e0.0521 R Power
(L type, Granodiorite aggregate) fcm = 8.5006 e0.0456 R Power
(N type, Basalt aggregate) fcm = 0.0015 R2.7916 Power
(L type, Basalt aggregate) fcm = 0.0076 R2.4229 Power
Kim et al. (2009) [18] Carbonation effect in days –
(28 days) fcm = 1.24R–13 Linear
(90 days) fcm = 1.37R–20.8 Linear
(180 days) fcm = 1.76R–37 Linear
(360 days) fcm = 1.72R–37 Linear
Yang et al. (2018) [17] Carbonation depth (dm) is 6 mm for fcm = 0.05853.R1.814985. 100.0475dm Power
28 days and w/c ratio- 0.58)
Monteiro and Goncalves (2009) [25] Influence of Core specimen fcm = 1.14R–21.8 Linear
Di Leo et al. (1984) [50] fcm = 0.00883. R2.27 Power
Antonio et al. (2013) [51] fcm = 0.0103.R2 + 0.3586.R + 8.2986 Poly.
Goncalves (1995) [52] fcm = 1.73.R-34.3 Linear
EN 13791 (2007) [40] fcm = 1.73.R-34.5 Linear
Aydin and Saribiyik (2010) [53] Influence of Curing age
28 days fcm = 11.612R–52.033 Linear
90 days fcm = 11.674R–238.31 Linear
Antonio et al. (2013) [51] Curing age (28–100 days) fcm= e0.1264R Power
Influence of curing condition (All grade mix)
(Cooled in air- 28 days) fcm = 0. 0096. R2.273 Power
(Cooled in water - 28 days) fcm = 0. 0152. R2.119 Power
Zabihi (2012) [54] (Cooled in air - 28 days) fcm = 0.0953.R + 31.887 Linear
(Cooled in water - 28 days) fcm = 0.3187.R + 21.055 Linear
Antonio et al. (2013) [51] Influence of moisture condition
(Dry concrete) fcm = 1.2183. e0.1071R Power
(Wet concrete) fcm = 0.038. R1.8889 Power
Influence of stress state
(0 MPa) fcm= e0.0955R Power
(5 MPa) fcm= e0.0871R Power
(10 MPa) fcm= e0.0875R Power
Influence of specimen shape (Prism Size, curing days))
(320  800  1200 mm - 28 days) fcm= e0.0865R Power
(250  250  500 mm - 28 days) fcm= e0.0955R Power
Zabihi (2012) [54] (100 mm cube - 28 days) fcm = 0.4658.R + 17.326 Linear
(150 mm cube - 28 days) fcm = 0.2461.R + 24.337 Linear
(200 mm cube - 28 days) fcm = 0.1951.R + 26.149 Linear
Nehme (2004) [55] Cylinder (150  300 mm-28 days) fcm = 0.0005.R3 Power
Greene (1954) [08] fcm = 0.1134. R1.4927 Power
Malhotra and Carino (2004) [24] fcm = 54.1. lnR-148.4 Expo.
Lima and Silva (2000) [56] fcm = 0.0501. R1.8428 Power
Soshiroda et al. (2006) [57] fcm = 1.623. R -20.547 Linear
Duna et al. (2014) [58] Influence of grade of concrete
(M 20) fcm= -0.011R2 + 1.282R - 2.844 Poly.
(M 30) fcm= -0.002R2 + 0.829R + 2.422 Poly.
(M 35) fcm = 0.001R2 + 0.519R + 7.343 Poly.
Aguwamba and Adagba (2012) [59] Influence of grade of concrete
(1:2:4) fcm = 1.012.R + 1.218 Linear
(1:3:6) fcm = 1.339.R  4.878 Linear
Mikulic et al. (1992) [60] Grade of concrete (M20 to M35) fcm = 2.50.R-18.4 Power
Nash’t et al. (2005) [61] Cement type, Grade fcm = 0.788.R1.03 Power
Brozovsky and Bodnarova (2016) [32] Effect of elevated temperature
(Before heat load 0
c) fcm = 0.0425. R2 + 1.4965. R + 25.294 Poly.
(After heat load 200
c to 800
c) fcm = 1.55.e0.0648R Power
Abdulkadir et al. (2017) [63] Effect of exposed to fire
(All mixes cooled in air) fcm = 1.773R–27.58 Linear
(All mixes cooled in water) fcm = 1.75R–26.357 Linear

5
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Table 1 (Continued)
Authors Influencing factors (Boundary Equations Regression
conditions) Approach
Miscellaneous influencing factors
Kolek (1958) [64] Cube specimen from sites fcm = 0.056. R2- 0.022.R + 1.57 Poly.
Shariati et al. (2011) [65] Existing building fcm = 1.7206R-26.595 Linear
Hajjeh (2012) [66] (Hammer horizontal position) fcm = 1.0501. R- 11.8402 Linear
(Hammer vertical position) fcm = 0.9888. R- 14.2361 Linear
Pascale et al. (2000) [67] (Effect of high strength concrete) fcm = 0.000135.R3.4424 Power

Fig. 1. Rebound index vs. compressive strength relationship curves proposed by different authors considering influencing factors.

resulted in a 5% decrease in compressive strength [27]. Air is entrapped within the fresh concrete during mixing, which
cannot be completely removed during the casting and compaction process. When fresh concrete is placed into the form, the
air content can be about 520 V% depending on the actual composition and consistency. In the case of normal concrete 0.5–
2.5 V% air content can be used, therefore, design air content is prescribed in this range during mix design. Yang et al.
demonstrated that with the increase of cement amount ultimately leading to the high-performance concrete surface
hardness and compressive strength of concrete [17]. Insights on rebound number and compressive strength links from a
comprehensive review of 62 established empirical equations. The later research verified the significant variation in
established equations and each expression is acceptable only in the realm where it has introduced.

3. Experimental findings

Since there are different influencing factors, the rebound index's statistical characteristics are essential to understand the
Schmidt hammer's response to the surface being measured. Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows the coefficient of variation (COV) of all

6
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Fig. 2. Rebound index vs. compressive strength relationship curves proposed by different authors considering influencing factors.

experimental mixtures in terms of their mean rebound indices and compressive strength. The decreasing trend of coefficient
of variation can be observed with the increase in the mean compressive strength. No clear trend is observed in the coefficient
of variation over the mean rebound index values when compared with Fig. 3(b). Experimental data of 228 specimens were
evaluated for their rebound indices and compressive strength as shown in Table 2.
Locally available materials, two types of cement, and fine and coarse aggregates with fineness modulus of 2.6 and 2.13
respectively are used to prepare concrete samples. The w/c ratio of 0.5 is used for parameter 1–3 and varied for parameters 4
and 5 as shown in Table 2. Eighteen cubes of 150  150  150 mm are casted for each influencing parameter expect for
temperature variation and w/c ratio parameter. Tests are performed at different curing ages, i.e. 7–60 days, as per IS-13311:
Part II: 1992. Uniform stress of 9 MPa is applied on the cube in the direction of casting while conducting the rebound hammer
test. Average results of twelve hammer impacts (horizontal) which were equally distributed on two opposite face of each
cubes are taken as reported in table. Finally, specimens are tested with calibrated compression testing machine for the
destructive compressive strength. The readings of average compressive strength along with rebound value and standard
deviation of rebound numbers (SR) are shown in Table 2.
The proposed linear relationship with regression coefficient considering different influencing factors (laboratory results)
are shown in Table 3. Fig. 4(a–f) illustrates the relationship between rebound index and mean compressive strength with
influencing factors. Mean rebound indices ranged between R = 26–34 and mean compressive strength of fcm =19.22 MPa to
37.26 MPa is observed.
Fig. 4 (a) and (b) shows the effect of type of cement i.e. Type-I and Type-II cement on the rebound index. The rebound
index increases with the specimen age for different concrete grades. This also indicates that the cement which hydrates
slowly gives higher strength in the later stage. The regression coefficient of 65 % is achieved for Type-I and Type-II cement
concrete for a curing period of 14–45 days, it is not statically significant. Fig. 4(a) and (b) represents the strength deficiency
based on cement composition. It can be easily predicated that, there is a scattering of results concerning types of cement used
for making of specimens with same w/c ratio. But, changing of cement type in making of specimens not reflecting on the
rebound number. Nash’t et al. expressed the power function for the relationship between the rebound index and the
compressive strength of concrete.
In Fig. 4(c), the effect of compaction on compressive strength is shown; the results obtained are of more scattering nature.
While mixing, air is entrapped in the fresh concrete which during the casting and compaction process cannot be removed
completely. The Schmidt hammer cannot detect the effect of the compaction deficiency. The compressive strength of

7
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Fig. 3. (a). Mean rebound index vs. COV (b). Mean compressive strength vs. COV.

Table 2
Influencing parameters with mix composition.

Influencing parameters (Coding) Grade/ W/C Mix Com-position Testing age Nos. (set of Mean Rebound Mean Compressive SR
ratio (C:FA:CA) (Days) cubes) (Nos.) Strength (MPa)
Cement Type- I (P1.1) M15/0.5 1:2:4 14, 28, 45 18 (6) 28.71 30.43 2.15
M20/0.5 1:1.5:3 18 (6) 29.62 29.10 2.51
M25/0.5 1:1:2 18 (6) 31.72 31.91 3.02
Cement Type- II (P1.2) M15/0.5 1:2:4 14, 28, 45 18 (6) 24.92 20.56 1.79
M20/0.5 1:1.5:3 18 (6) 29.08 21.94 2.66
M25/0.5 1:1:2 18 (6) 29.11 29.59 2.44
Air curing (P2.1) M20/0.5 1:1.5:3 28, 45, 60 12(4) 28.74 26.73 4.07
Water curing (P2.2) 1:1.5:3 12(4) 31.70 34.65 4.37
Vibratory compaction (P3.1) 1:1.5:3 18 (6) 32.0 37.0 4.37
Manual compaction (P3.2) 1:1.5:3 18 (6) 30.87 25.16 3.7
No compaction (P3.3) 1:1.5:3 18 (6) 29.19 29.51 3.81
Air-cooled condition (P4.1) Hot M20/0.48 1:1.48:2.9 28 6 (3) 26.50 22.04 2.37
condition (P4.2) M30/0.40 1:0.78:1.5 6 (3) 28.28 28.10 2.94
M40/0.38 1:0.24:0.55 6 (3) 30.22 32.93 3.06
w/c ratio (P5.1) M30/0.30 1:1.24:2.48 7, 28 6 (3) 36.68 39.51 3.67
w/c ratio (P5.2) M30/0.36 1:1.6:3.08 6 (3) 33.94 36.92 2.97
w/c ratio (P5.3) M30/0.40 1:1.82:3.44 6 (3) 32.96 38.27 3.78
w/c ratio (P5.4) M30/0.50 1:2.25:3.88 6 (3) 31.29 34.55 3.86

Table 3
Proposed linear relationship with regression coefficient considering different influencing factors (laboratory results).

Influencing parameters Linear equation R2

(P1.1) fcm = 1.8167R - 25.036 0.6514
(P1.2) fcm = 0.9303R - 5.2199 0.6587
(P3.1) fcm = 1.4379 R - 8.125 0.2371
(P2.1) fcm = 0.3787 R + 17.376 0.2676
(P2.2) fcm = 1.7192 R - 15.106 0.3309
(P3.2) fcm = 0.1896 R + 24.345 0.7877
(P3.3) fcm = 0.2393 R + 20.777 0.32
(P4.1) fcm = 0.5166R + 13.963 0.8354
(P5.1) fcm = 1.5979R - 16.228 0.8715

concrete is usually determined by the characteristics of the interfacial transition zone between aggregate particles and
hardened cement paste. As it is the weakest element of concrete as a fragmented material form. Variability of compaction
results is shown in terms of the low regression coefficient. [46,47] also represented the linear model for the effect of
compaction deficiency.
As the duration of curing increases, the degree of hydration of the cement paste increases, increasing compressive
strength. Fig. 4(d) shows the compressive strength and rebound index of the specimens cured in air and water for three
different durations of 28, 45, and 60 days. The decrease in compressive strength, in the case of samples cured under air and

8
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Fig. 4. Rebound index vs. Compressive strength with influencing factors.

water methods. The average rebound indices reported by Schmidt hammer are almost equivalent, regardless of the age of
concrete being examined. Therefore, it is inferred that the surface hardness test cannot predict the decrease in compressive
strength due to inadequate curing. The rebound indices do not reflect the increase in concrete hardness caused by both types
of curing. [53,54] presented a linear model and [51] presented a power model for curing conditions. Compared with other
influencing factors, the regression coefficient for compaction deficiency and curing methods are found very small.
Fig. 4(e) represents the effect of different water-cement ratios on the rebound quality and the compressive strength of
concrete. The rebound value and the compressive strength of concrete enhanced with the reduction of the water-cement
ratio at the same age. The trend line shows a good correlation between rebound index and compressive strength. [46,47]
presented the linear model, and [43–45] presented a power model for the effect of water-cement ratio on compressive
strength of concrete.

9
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

Fig. 5. (a) Effect of Cement type, Curing condition, Degree of compaction on the coefficient of variation of rebound test results over time in days. (b) Effect of
Elevated temperature on the coefficient of variation of rebound test results over time in days.

The effect of temperature variation on various grades of concrete and compressive strength is shown in Fig. 4(f). The mean
reduction in strength is in the range of 10 %-55 % for a mix of grades 20, 30, and 40 MPa at an interval temperature of 600
C–
800
C respectively. Reduction in the compressive strength of concrete can result from the presence of micro-cracks on the
concrete surface reflects the degree of thermal incompatibility. The percentage difference in compressive strength after
600
C is significant, and can also cause structural failure. The rebound index is higher in case of air-cooled condition than
that of hot condition for temperature 200
C–400
C. In case of three mixes M20,M30,M40 the rate of increasing of rebound
number up to temperature of 400
C only, then it start to decrease up to temperature 800
C. This indicates that, reduction of
strength of the concrete due to temperature range from 600
C–800
C, resulting in a lower rebound index. That is why there
is a significant difference in strength obtained from laboratory tests and non-destructive tests.
In Fig. 5(a), it is observed that the very less coefficient of variation can be attributed to the rebound hammer results with
the use of cement Type I than cement Type II over the period in days for all concrete mix grades. Coefficient of variation
almost equivalent in the case of three types of compactions. In case of curing condition, the trend line of the coefficient of
variation crosses to each other over the age. It is also observed that the coefficient of variation is decreased up to 200
C
temperature, then it increases again up to 600
C, and starts to decrease in the case of M20 and M30 grade concrete as shown
in Fig. 5(b).

4. Conclusion

Based on the review conducted and results obtained from laboratory test, it can be concluded that:

1 The average rebound index and compressive strength of concrete are time-dependent material properties. It cannot be
directly correlated by a single function. Hence, the relationship needs multiple functions, where independent variables
are types of cement, curing conditions, compaction methods, temperature variation, and water to cement ratio.
2 Regression equations derived by researchers from the results of laboratory tests can only be used within its
implementation limits. Hence estimating strength by Schmidt rebound hammer may be higher than expected.
3 The coefficient of variation is decreasing with an increase in mean compressive strength but no such variation is observed
in case of mean rebound index. This indicates the effect of influencing factors on the coefficient of variation.
4 The present study provided efficient mathematical, linear and non-linear relationships that would enable engineers to
estimate the strength of the concrete with minimum error.
5 The regression coefficient of only 65 % achieved when different types of cement used in making specimens. This indicates
that the change in cement types not reflecting on the rebound index. The regression coefficient of curves is also very low
in case of factors like curing and compaction methods.
6 Variable compactions significantly affecting the rebound index and the same scenario is seen in case of curing methods.
For the same values of rebound numbers, the compressive strength of concrete with different curing methods is reduced
by 25–50 % than concrete cured under normal conditions.
7 The change in the rebound index due to a change in the water-cement ratio at the same age significantly increased the
rebound value.
8 Temperature variations has considerably affected the rebound index and the compressive strength of concretes as well.
The rise in temperature resulting in increased surface hardness of specimens resulting in an ambiguous rebound index.

10
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

9 Considerable deviation in rebound index vs. compressive strength curves indicates the influence of various factors. This
raises a crucial question on whether the use of rebound hammer is effective or not in estimating the concrete strength
without considering these factors.
10 There is an urgent need to develop/modify the NDT test standards, considering the different factors affecting the rebound
index.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

References

[1] H. Hertz, About the contact of elastic solid bodies, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik. 5 (1881) 12–23 (In Portugal).
[2] A. Szyman  ski, J.M. Szyman  ski, Hardness Estimation of Minerals, Rocks and Ceramic Materials, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 330.
[3] J.A. Brinell, Steel ball test report, matériaux de construction 2 (1901) 83–94 (In French).
[4] R.B. Crepps, R.E. Mills, Ball Test Applied to Cement Mortar and Concrete, Bulletin No. 12, Engineering Experiment Station, Purdue University, Indiana,
1923, pp. 32.
[5] B.G. Skramtajew, Determining concrete strength in control for concrete in structures, J. Am. Concrete Inst. 9 (3) (1938) 285–303.
[6] K.A. Gaede, A New Method of Strength Testing of Concrete in Structures, 35(1934) , pp. 356–357.
[7] E. Schmidt, Rebound hammer for concrete testing, Schweizerische Bauzeitung 15 (28) (1950) 378–379 (In German).
[8] G.W. Greene, Test hammer provides new method of evaluating hardened concrete, J. Am. Concrete Inst. 26 (3) (1954) 249–256, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.14359/11676.
[9] A.R. Anderson, D.L. Bloem, E.L. Howard, P. Klieger, H. Schlintz, Test hammer provides new method of evaluating hardened concrete, J. Am. Concrete Inst.
27 (4) (1955) 256-1–256-20.
[10] K. Szilágyi, A. Borosnyói, 50 years of experience with the Schmidt rebound hammer, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 10 (2009) 46–56.
[11] S.A. Proceq, Silver Schmidt Product Launch, Info sheet, Switzerland, 2008.
[12] D. Leeb, Definition of the hardness value L in the Equotip dynamic measurement method, VDI Berichte 583 (1986) 109–133.
[13] S.A. Proceq, Operating Instructions Silver Schmidt and Hammer link, Switzerland, (2017) .
[14] S.A. Proceq, Silver Schmidt Operating Instructions, Manual, Ver. 04, Switzerland, (2008) .
[15] T. Akashi, S. Amasaki, Study of the stress waves in the plunger of a rebound hammer at the time of impact, American Concrete Institute SP-82
Proceedings, Michigan, 1984, pp. 17–34.
[16] ACI, In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength, ACI 228.1R-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2003.
[17] Y. Yang, Y. Zhang, W. She, Characterization of surface hardness and microstructure of high performance concrete, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 33 (1)
(2018) 124–132, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11595-018-1796-x.
[18] J.K. Kim, C.Y. Kim, S.T. Yi, Y. Lee, Effect of carbonation on the rebound number and compressive strength of concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (2009)
139–144, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.10.001.
[19] IAEA, Guidebook on Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete Structures, Training Course Series No. 17, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2002.
[20] JGJ, JGJ/T 23-2001: Technical Specification for Inspection of Concrete Compressive Strength by Rebound Method, Industrial Standard of the PR of China,
2001.
[21] K. Szilágyi, A. Borosnyói, I. Zsigovics, Rebound surface hardness of concrete: introduction of an empirical constitutive model, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5)
(2011) 2480–2487, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.070.
[22] L. Nobile, Prediction of concrete compressive strength by combined non-destructive methods, Meccanica 50 (2015) 411–417, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11012-014-9881-5.
[23] P.K. Mehta, P.J. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, McGraw Hill, 2005.
[24] V.M. Malhotra, N.J. Carino, Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, second edition, CRC Press, 2004, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/
9781420040050.
[25] A. Monteiro, A. Goncalves, Assessment of characteristic compressive strength in structures by the rebound hammer test according to EN 13791,
Proceedings NDTCE’09, Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering, Nantes, France, 2007, pp. 2009.
[26] S. Mindess, J.F. Young, Concrete, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1981.
[27] A.M. Neville, Core Tests: Easy to Perform, Not Easy to Interpret, Concrete International, American Concrete Institute, 2001, pp. 59–68.
[28] K. Szilágyi, A. Borosnyói, I. Zsigovics, Extensive statistical analysis of the variability of concrete rebound hardness based on a large database of 60 years’
experience, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 333–347, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.113.
[29] O. Olomo, O. Aderinlewo, M. Tanimola, S. Croope, Assessment of the material properties of a fire-damaged building, Construction 13 (2012) 16–23.
[30] L. Bodnarova, J. Valek, L. Sitek, J. Foldyna, Effect of high temperatures on cement composite materials in concrete structures, Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 10
(2013) 173–180, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13168/AGG.2013.0017.
[31] V. Kodur, Properties of Concrete at Elevated Temperatures, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, ISRN Civil Engineering, 2014, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1155/2014/468510.
[32] J. Brozovsky, L. Bodnarova, Contribution to the issue of evaluating the compressive strength of concrete exposed to high temperatures using the
Schmidt rebound hammer, Russ. J. Nondestruct. Test. 52 (2016) 44–52, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1061830916010046.
[33] D. Breysse, Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical review and a new perspective by combining NDT methods, Constr. Build.
Mater. 33 (21) (2012) 139–163, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.103.
[34] M. Alwash, D. Breysse, Z.M. Sbartaï, K. Szilágyi, A. Borosnyói, Factors affecting the reliability of assessing the concrete strength by rebound hammer and
cores, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 354–363, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.129.
[35] AIJ, Architectural Institute of Japan, Nondestructive Test Manual of Methods for the Assessment of Concrete Strength, Japan, (1983) .
[36] ASTM C805–97, Standard Test Methods for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete, ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, 1997.
[37] BIS 13311-13312, Method of Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete Methods of Test, Part 2: Rebound Hammer, (2008) .
[38] BS 1881 - Part 202, Recommendations for Surface Hardness Tests by the Rebound Hammer, BSI, UK, 1986.
[39] EN 12504-2, Testing Concrete in Structures -Part 2. Non-Destructive Testing Determination of Rebound Number, (2001) .
[40] EN 13791, Assessment of In-Situ Compressive Strength in Structures and Precast Concrete, CEN, Brussels, 2007.
[41] FHWA, Guide to Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete, FHWA-SA-97-105, Washington DC, 1997.
[42] S.A. Proceq, Concrete Test Hammer N/NR, L/LR and Digital Schmidt ND/LD – Rebound Measurement and Carbonation, Information sheet, ver. 10,
Switzerland, 2003.
[43] G.F. Kheder, A two stage procedure for assessment of in situ concrete strength using combined non-destructive testing, Mater. Struct. 32 (1999) 410–
417, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02482712.

11
H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak and I.T. Patil Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00491

[44] M.N. Balkrishna, F. Mohammad, E. Robert, M.M. Rahman, Interpretation of concrete mix designs by surface hardness method, Malaysian J. Civil Eng. 29
(2017) 227–238, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.11113/mjce.v29.50.
[45] K. Szilágyi, A. Borosnyói, I. Zsigovics, Understanding the rebound surface hardness of concrete, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (2) (2015) 185–192, doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802722.
[46] H.Y. Qasrawi, Concrete strength by combined nondestructive methods simply and reliably predicted, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (5) (2000) 739–746, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0008-8846(00)00226-x.
[47] B. Hobbs, T.M. Kebir, Non-destructive testing techniques for the forensic engineering investigation of reinforced concrete buildings, Forensic Sci. Int.
167 (2007) 167–172, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.065.
[48] G. Pascale, A. Di Leo, V. Bonora, Nondestructive assessment of the actual compressive strength of high-strength concrete, ASCE J. Mater. Civil Eng. 15
(2003) 452–459, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:5(452).
[49] J. Brozovsky, High-strength concrete-NDT with rebound hammer: influence of aggregate on test results, Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 29 (3) (2014) 255–268,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10589759.2014.926897.
[50] A. Di Leo, G. Pascale, E. Viola, Core sampling size in nondestructive testing of concrete structures, Am. Concr. Inst. 82 (1984) 459–478.
[51] B. Antonio, C. Giancarlo, P. Davide, R. Giuseppe, Calibration and reliability of the rebound (Schmidt) hammer test, Civ. Eng. Archit. 1 (2013) 66–78, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/cea.2013.010303.
[52] A. Goncalves, In Situ Concrete Strength Estimation. Simultaneous Use of Cores, Rebound Hammer and Pulse Velocity, Proc. International Symposium
NDT in Civil Engineering, Germany, 1995, pp. 977–984.
[53] F. Aydin, M. Saribiyik, Correlation between Schmidt hammer and destructive compressions testing for concretes in existing buildings, Sci. Res. Essays 5
(2010) 1644–1648, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/SRE.9000310.
[54] N. Zabihi, Effect of Specimen Size and Shape on Strength of Concrete MS Thesis, Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Eastern Mediterranean
University, North Cyprus, 2012.
[55] J. Szymanowski, L. Sadowski, Functional and adhesive properties of cement-based overlays modified with amorphous silica nanospheres, J. Adhes. 96
(2020) 1–4, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2019.1663412 207-228.
[56] F.B. Lima, M.F.B. Silva, Correlation between the compressive strength and surface hardness of concrete, Proc. IV. Congresso de Engenharia Civil, Ed.
Interciência, Juiz de Fora, 2000, pp. 429–440 (In Portuguese).
[57] T. Soshiroda, K. Voraputhaporn, Y. Nozaki, Early-stage inspection of concrete quality in structures by combined nondestructive method, Mater. Struct.
39 (2006) 149–160, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9007-6.
[58] S. Duna, T.M. Omoniyi, Correlation between non-destructive testing (NDT) and destructive testing (DT) of compressive strength of concrete, Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Invent. 3 (2014) 12–17 DOI: 26.6718/0391012017.
[59] J.C. Aguwamba, T. Adagba, A comparative analysis of the rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity in testing concrete, Niger. J. Technol. 31 (2012)
31–39.
[60] D. Mikulic, Z. Pause, V. Ukraincik, Determination of concrete quality in a structure by combination of destructive and non-destructive methods, Mater.
Struct. 25 (1992) 65–69, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02472458.
[61] I.H. Nash’t, S.H. A’bour, A.A. Sadoon, Finding a unified relationship between crushing strength of concrete and non-destructive tests, Proc. 3rd MENDT-
Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, Manama, 2005.
[62] H.R. Kumavat, N.R. Chandak, D. Jadhav, Experimental Investigation on Relationships between Rebound index and Compressive Strength of Cement
Concrete Specimen Influenced by Physical Factors, Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, 2020, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ASET48392.2020.9118246.
[63] M.R. Abdulkadir, A.A. Karim, A.H. Abdullah, Destructive and nondestructive strength evaluation of concrete exposed to fire, J. Zankoy Sulaimani, Part-A-
(Pure Appl. Sci.) 19 (2017) 43–55, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17656/jzs.10631.
[64] J. Kolek, An Appreciation of the Schmidt rebound hammer, Mag. Concr. Res. 10 (1958) 27–36.
[65] M. Shariati, N.H. RamliSulong, K.H. Arabnejad, P. Shafigh, H. Sinaei, Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures through ultrasonic pulse
velocity and Schmidt rebound hammer tests, Sci. Res. Essays 6 (2011) 213–220, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.065.
[66] H. Hajjeh, Correlation between destructive and non-destructive strengths of concrete cubes using regression analysis, Contemp. Eng. Sci. 5 (2012) 493–
509.
[67] G. Pascale, A. Di Leo, R. Carli, V. Bonora, Evaluation of actual compressive strength of high strength concrete by NDT, Proc. 15th WCNDT, Rome, Italy,
2000.
[68] P. Pattamad, T. Danupon, Rebound hammer test to estimate compressive strength of heat exposed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 172 (30) (2018) 387–
395, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.179.
[69] K. Kovler, F. Wang, B. Muravin, Testing of concrete by rebound method: leeb versus Schmidt hammers, Mater. Struct. 51 (2018) 138, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1617/s11527-018-1265-1.
[70] N. Pereira, X. Romão, Assessing concrete strength variability in existing structures based on the results of NDTs, Constr. Build. Mater. 173 (2018) 786–
800, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.055.
[71] K. Rashid, R. Waqas, Compressive strength evaluation by non-destructive techniques: an automated approach in construction industry, J. Build. Eng. 12
(2017) 147–154, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.010.
[72] A. Aseem, W.L. Baloch, R.A. Khushnood, A. Mushtaq, Structural health assessment of fire damaged building using non-destructive testing and micro-
graphical forensic analysis: a case study, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 11 (2019) e00258, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00258.
[73] M. Kazemi, R. Madandoust, J.D. Brito, Compressive strength assessment of recycled aggregate concrete using Schmidt rebound hammer and core
testing, Constr. Build. Mater. 224 (2019) 630–638, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.110.
[74] D. Breysse, J.P. Balayssac, S. Biondi, et al., Recommendation of RILEM TC249-ISC on Nondestructive in situ strength assessment of concrete, Mater.
Struct. 52 (71) (2019), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-019-1369-2.
[75] M.C.S. Nepomuceno, L.F.A. Bernardo, Evaluation of self-compacting concrete strength with non-destructive tests for concrete structures, Appl. Sci. 9
(23) (2019) 5109, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9235109.

12