“…The review offactors affecting the reliability of assessing the concrete strength by rebound hammer and cores [94] outlined the following sources of uncertainty: measurement uncertainties [95], strength variability [96], model uncertainties [96], statistical uncertainties of sampling [97], and influence of uncontrolled factors such as concrete degree of saturation and carbonation [91,98,99], The standard EN 12504-2:2021 [100] specifies the method for determining the rebound index, whereas EN 12504-4:2021 [101] specifies the method for determining the ultrasonic pulse velocity, and EN 13791:2019 [99] summarizes guidance for the assessment of the in situ concrete compressive strength in structures. RILEM TC249-ISC also provides recommendations on non destructive in situ strength assessment of concrete [102,103], It is generally stated that the rebound hardness tests of concrete are not intended as an alternative to the compressive strength testing, but with suitable correlation, they can provide an estimate of the in situ strength, which may be sufficient for the purpose of selective demolition. Nevertheless, in the case of selective demolition, non destructive strength measurements can be verified, i.e., calibrated with results obtained on a discrete number of samples (cores) taken from the structure and tested in the laboratory, which is a common practice.…”