2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Compressive strength evaluation by non-destructive techniques: An automated approach in construction industry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
13
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…This proves that the dual linear regression expression used in this study can give a good prediction for the strength evaluation of HSC by combining two significant influencing factors: measured UPV and RH. [10] f c = 3.34exp 0.0598R0 36.4 Exponential Kim [35] f c = 1.267R 0 + 9.7868 60 1st polynomial Kwon [36] f c = 2.59R 0 − 51.5 65 1st polynomial Mohammed [37] f c = 9.5879exp 0.0384R0 40 Exponential Qasrawi [13] f c = 1.353R 0 − 17.393 42 1st polynomial Rashid [38] f c = −0.08R 2 0 + 8.37R 0 − 157.54 52 2nd polynomial Willetts [39] f c = 0.00935R 2 0 + 0.8R 0 − 12.06 -2nd polynomial Table 5. Previous equations for the ultrasonic pulse velocity method.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This proves that the dual linear regression expression used in this study can give a good prediction for the strength evaluation of HSC by combining two significant influencing factors: measured UPV and RH. [10] f c = 3.34exp 0.0598R0 36.4 Exponential Kim [35] f c = 1.267R 0 + 9.7868 60 1st polynomial Kwon [36] f c = 2.59R 0 − 51.5 65 1st polynomial Mohammed [37] f c = 9.5879exp 0.0384R0 40 Exponential Qasrawi [13] f c = 1.353R 0 − 17.393 42 1st polynomial Rashid [38] f c = −0.08R 2 0 + 8.37R 0 − 157.54 52 2nd polynomial Willetts [39] f c = 0.00935R 2 0 + 0.8R 0 − 12.06 -2nd polynomial Table 5. Previous equations for the ultrasonic pulse velocity method.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…f c = 21.5V p − 62 45 1st polynomial Ali-benyahia [34] f c = 0.6401V 2.5654 p 21.9 Power Atici [10] f c = 0.0316exp 1.3Vp 36.4 Exponential Del Rio [40] f c = e [(−5.4±0.8)+(0.00185±0.00018)Vp] 34.0 Exponential Khan [17] f c = 0.5208V 5 p 100 Power Kim [10] f c = 50.163V p − 178.2 60 1st polynomial Najim [11] f c = 0.0136V p − 21.34 50 1st polynomial Qasrawi [13] f c = 32.72V p − 129.077 42 1st polynomial Rashid [38] f c = 38.05V 2 p − 316.76V p + 681.62 52 2nd polynomial Trtnik et al [16] f c = 0.854exp 1.2882Vp 50 Power * calculated by using the results in Table 3. * calculated by using the results in Table 3.…”
Section: Aij [4]mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is recommended that the RH tests can be combined with other nondestructive test methods (such as UPV tests) to improve concrete compressive strength estimations. Research results have shown that the SonReb (UPV + RH test) method (Rilem Report TC43-CND, 1993) might improve concrete strength estimations in NDT tests (Nobile, 2015;Rashid and Waqas, 2017;Pereira and Romão, 2018). For this research, the results are obtained from the 100-sample data collected.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is also a growing demand for educated personnel with a high level of knowledge, and therefore education in this field is becoming very important. Currently, non-destructive testing techniques are the subject of many scientific and technical conferences, and are used to diagnose civil engineering structures [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Among them you can find both traditional methods, e.g., ultrasonic, penetration, or sclerometric methods, as well as laser, radar, or optical techniques allowing for determination of the deformation of an element [ 5 , 6 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%