RESEARCH ARTICLE | JUNE 18 2025
Non-destructive test methods on deteriorated reinforced
concrete structures
Pinta Astuti ; Rahmita Sari Rafdinal; Daisuke Yamamoto; Hidenori Hamada
AIP Conf. Proc. 3234, 030007 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0258511
View Export
Online Citation
Articles You May Be Interested In
Corrosion prevention of steel bars by using new cathodic protection method in reinforced concrete
AIP Conf. Proc. (September 2024)
Corrosion rate of deteriorated steel bar protected by sacrificial anode cathodic protection
AIP Conf. Proc. (February 2023)
Self-compacting geopolymer concrete (SCGC) using fly ash
AIP Conf. Proc. (October 2023)
22 June 2025 11:43:33
Non-destructive Test Methods on Deteriorated Reinforced
Concrete Structures
Pinta Astuti1, a), Rahmita Sari Rafdinal2, b), Daisuke Yamamoto3, c) and Hidenori
Hamada4, d)
Author Affiliations
1
Civil Engineering Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Jalan Brawijaya, Geblagan, Tamantirto,
Kasihan, Bantul, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 55183
2
Maintenance Engineering Group, PS Mitsubishi Construction Co. Ltd., Harumi Center Building 3F, 2-5-24, Tokyo,
Japan
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National Institute of Technology Oita
College, Maki 1666, Oita-shi, Oita, Japan, 70-0152
4
Professor, Civil and Structural Engineering Department, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka-shi,
Japan, 819-0395
Author Emails
a)
Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
22 June 2025 11:43:33
b)
[email protected] c)
[email protected] d)
[email protected] Abstract. In this study, non-destructive testing methods were employed to evaluate the material quality of deteriorating
reinforced concrete buildings. To demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques, a severely damaged RC beam,
measuring 150 x 300 x 2400 mm and exposed to a tidal maritime environment for 44 years, was used. The concrete strength
of this beam was assessed using both ultrasonic pulse velocity and hammer tests. Identical measurement points were utilized
for both testing methods. The results indicated that the concrete strength predicted by the UPV test ranged from 25 to 40
MPa, while the rebound hammer test estimated the strength to be between 32 and 34 MPa. Previous destructive testing,
including compressive strength tests from earlier research, reported a compressive strength of 30 Mega Pascal for the same
specimen. These findings support the reliability of both UPV and rebound hammer tests as non-destructive methods for
evaluating the strength of damaged concrete
INTRODUCTION
Because of its exceptional compressive strength, affordable cost, and extended lifespan, concrete is a widely
utilized substance in the field of civil engineering and construction [1], [2]. The anticipated lifespan of reinforced
concrete is typically over 50 years. Different types of concrete in harsh conditions necessitate regular evaluation to
track the advancement of decay and the degradation of material quality throughout its lifespan [3], [4].
The two widely used non-destructive techniques for assessing concrete strength are the ultrasonic pulse velocity
(UPV) test and the rebound hammer (RH) test [5], [6], [7]. The UPV technique is one of the most responsive
techniques for assessing the concrete characteristic, especially in quality [8]. The assessment of concrete quality in a
particular portion of a structure is conducted by measuring the velocity of an ultrasonic pulse (UP) as it passes through
it. The velocity of the pulse is directly affected by the density and homogeneity of the concrete, which are crucial
elements in defining its overall strength and integrity. Inspectors may detect any flaws or anomalies in the concrete
by monitoring the pulse velocity, thereby guaranteeing that the construction complies with the required safety and
durability criteria. This non-destructive testing technique offers a dependable means of assessing the internal state of
The 4th International Conference on Engineering and Applied Science
AIP Conf. Proc. 3234, 030007-1–030007-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0258511
Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-5137-7/$30.00
030007-1
concrete without inflicting any harm on the building [8]. Because of the inclusion of reinforcement in the concrete,
the speed of the UP is altered, leading to an imprecise determination of the UPV [8]. To assess in-place concrete
quality in these materials, it is imperative to develop precise methods for estimating compressive strength using a
rebound hammer [7]. For every type of concrete, the disparities in strength under compression and rebound count are
elucidated by the characteristics of the aggregate, the amount of mortar, and the ratio of water to cement. By
juxtaposing the rebound count with the actual compressive strength, the study proposes empirical equations. A
thorough strategy was used to identify the best trustworthy correlation model for each kind of solid. This required a
threefold cross-validation of the experimental data, which was done using a dual-objective technique to account for
the inherent errors and variability in the nature of the solids. Furthermore, the generated correlations were compared
to prior study results to guarantee their validity and correctness. This study found a linear association for solid SC, an
exponential correlation for solid CBC, and a power-law correlation for solid RCA. These studies give important
insights into the diverse behaviors of these solids, improving our knowledge and prediction of their characteristics
under various settings.
On the previous research [1], to thoroughly examine the impact of different fiber types, fiber volume ratios, and
water-to-cement ratios on the compressive strength of fiber-reinforced concrete, an extensive experimental study was
conducted using both a compression test machine (CTM) and an ultrasonic pulse velocity tester. Over 100 cylindrical
specimens, representing various ages, were meticulously tested to gather comprehensive data on their performance.
The results from these experiments were then critically analyzed and compared with existing equations found in the
literature, which predict compressive strength based on ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV). This comparison aimed to
assess the accuracy and effectiveness of current predictive models, especially when variations in fiber type and volume
ratio are considered. In response to the findings, a new empirical equation has been developed. This equation is
specifically designed to improve the evaluation of compressive strength in concrete reinforced with steel, glass, and
nylon fibers, by incorporating the influence of different fiber types and their respective volume ratios. This new model
offers a more precise tool for assessing the performance of fiber-reinforced concrete, taking into account the diverse
characteristics of the fibers used [1]. The measured ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) values in fiber-reinforced concrete
samples were found to be 6% to 14% greater than those in plain concrete. This large rise in UPV values demonstrates
22 June 2025 11:43:33
the beneficial effect of reinforcing on the material's overall density and homogeneity. The outcomes of this study
provide a solid foundation for appropriately analyzing the quality of reinforced cement concrete. Using the improved
UPV values, it is able to more accurately analyze the internal integrity and strength of RCC structures, guaranteeing
that they satisfy the necessary safety and durability requirements. This study provides unique insights into the non-
destructive assessment of reinforced concrete, serving as a helpful reference for future studies and practical
applications in civil engineering [8].
Concrete compressive strength (fc’) has been demonstrated to enhance as the aspect ratio and circularity of the
aggregate increase. Consequently, it has been proven that an increase in the roughness of the aggregate surface
enhances both fc’ and UPV [9]. Another UPV measurement study [10] introduces new approach for calculating
duration of development and setting of fc’, which takes into account changes in the early age state of the concrete. To
achieve the targeted concrete strength range of 18-45 MPa, an extensive experimental study was conducted, focusing
on several critical factors. These factors included the water to cement ratio (W/C), different curing conditions, such
as air-dry curing and curing at constant temperature and humidity and the type of aggregate used. The research aimed
to thoroughly understand how these variables affect concrete strength and performance. The findings revealed that as
the water-to-cement ratio in the concrete decreased, the UPV values in the concrete slightly exceeded those observed
in mortar. This increase in UPV can be attributed to the enhanced hydration process, which occurs more effectively
at lower W/C ratios, leading to a denser and more cohesive material structure. The study highlights the importance of
carefully controlling these factors to optimize concrete quality and ensure it meets the desired strength specifications
[10]. At the end of each stage of the research, tests were conducted on the deteriorated concrete to measure its fc’,
UPV value and Cl- ion permeability [11]. The results of this research suggest that incorporating extra cementitious
substances (SCM) enhances both the UPV and compressive strength of concrete [11]. Different experimental models
for UPV and fc’ have been put forward.
The development of cracks and fractures within concrete can pose significant risks to structural integrity,
potentially leading to catastrophic damage if not properly addressed. These issues, such as fissuring and breaking,
compromise the safety and durability of concrete structures, making them more vulnerable to failure under stress. In
response to these challenges, recent advancements in the field of fibrous concrete have shown great promise in
mitigating such problems. By incorporating various types of fibers into the concrete mix, engineers have been able to
enhance the material's tensile strength and resistance to cracking. These innovations in fibrous concrete technology
have led to the development of more resilient structures, capable of withstanding greater stresses and reducing the
likelihood of structural damage over time. These advancements represent a significant step forward in improving the
030007-2
performance and longevity of concrete structures, offering a more reliable solution to the challenges posed by fissuring
and breaking [12].
The use of ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and rebound hammer tests to identify weakened concrete strength is
somewhat limited, particularly when dealing with older or significantly deteriorated structures. Recognizing these
limitations, the primary goal of this investigation was to verify the strength of concrete material in a 44-year-old,
deteriorated reinforced concrete (RC) structure by employing these non-destructive testing methods. Through the
application of UPV and rebound hammer techniques, the study aimed to accurately assess the current condition of the
concrete, despite its advanced age and signs of degradation. These non-invasive testing methods were chosen to
provide a reliable evaluation of the structure's remaining strength without causing further damage, offering valuable
insights into the concrete's integrity after decades of service. The findings from this investigation are intended to
enhance the understanding of how UPV and rebound hammer tests can be effectively utilized in the assessment of
aging RC structures, despite the inherent challenges posed by material deterioration over time.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In this study, a single reinforced concrete (RC) beam sample, measuring 2400 mm in span length and with a cross-
sectional dimension of 150 mm by 300 mm, is employed. The beam incorporates longitudinal steel bars, which are
characterized by a thickness of 13 mm and a tensile strength of 363 MPa. Additionally, 2 round steel bars, each 6 mm
in diameter, are used for compression and as stirrups, positioned at intervals of 100 mm. The detailed arrangement of
these reinforcement bars and the cross-sectional view of the beam are depicted in Fig. 1.
22 June 2025 11:43:33
FIGURE 1. The layout of the reinforcing bars and the cross-sectional view of the specimen
For these specimens, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) served as the concrete binder. The specific gravity and
fineness modulus of the aggregates used are detailed in Table 1. Additionally, Table 2 provides the proportions of the
concrete mix employed in the study.
TABLE 1. The properties of fine and coarse aggregates used in the experiments
Types Specific gravity Fineness modulus
Fine aggregate from the river 2.25 2.84
Coarse aggregate from crushed stone 2.75 6.63
TABLE 2. The proportion of concrete mix used in the experiments
Maximum Unit weight (kg/m3)
Size Slump Air w/c s/a
Aggregate (mm) (%) % % Water Cement Sand Gravel Admixture
(mm)
20 12±2 4±1 68 47 204 300 793 964 1.2
Prior to being demoulded and air-cured, the reinforced concrete (RC) beams underwent moisture curing for one
day. From 1975 - 1995, these beams were exposed to the natural tidal maritime environment at Sakata Port, located
in the northwest of Japan. Following this period, from 1995 - 2010, the beams were stored at the Port and Airport
Research Institute (PARI) facility in Yokosuka, Japan, where they were shielded from rain. Subsequently, the beams
were transported to the Kyushu University site in Fukuoka, Japan [4], [13]. Figure 2 illustrates the exposure conditions
of the beams.
030007-3
(a) (b) (c)
FIGURE 2. Beams exposure situation at (a) tidal zone in Sakata Port, (b) sheltered in PARI Laboratory, (c) outside room in
Kyushu University
The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test involves several components: an electrical pulse generator, a pair of
transducers (one for transmitting and one for receiving), a standard calibration bar, an amplifier, and an electronic
timing device. Prior to conducting the test, the concrete specimen was placed in a dry environment. The surface was
cleaned by removing any coating or plaster, applying appropriate grease to the measurement area, and ensuring a
smooth contact surface for the transducers. The transducers were positioned on opposite sides of the concrete surface
using the direct transmission method [6], [7].
The rebound hammer (RH) is used to assess the relative compressive strength of concrete based on the hardness
of its surface [7], [12]. During the test, the rebound hammer's plunger is pressed against the concrete surface, delivering
a constant energy force via a spring-controlled mass. As the mass rebounds, the degree of rebound is measured and
recorded on a scale, known as the Rebound Number or Rebound Index, to evaluate surface hardness. Figure 3
22 June 2025 11:43:33
illustrates the conditions under which the UPV and rebound hammer measurements were conducted. In this study, the
quality of the materials used in the reinforced concrete (RC) beam structures was evaluated through two testing
methods: ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and rebound hammer testing. The specific locations where these
measurements were taken are illustrated in Fig. 4.
(a) Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (b) Test of rebound hammer test
FIGURE 3. Measurement at the specimen (a) UPV test and (b) rebound hammer test
FIGURE 4. The point of UPV and rebound hammer test positions
030007-4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this experiment, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) techniques were employed for inspecting, operating, and
monitoring concrete buildings. UPV testing assesses the quality of concrete by measuring and analyzing various key
variables. This method is highly effective for evaluating material homogeneity, making it a valuable tool for concrete
assessments. Figure 5 presents the UPV test results for the specimens. According to ASTM C597 - 2002, concrete
within the velocity range of 4000 - 5000 m/s is considered to have UPVgood quality, corresponding to an estimated
compressive strength of 25 - 40 MPa.
5000
4000
Pulse Velocity (m/s)
3000
2000
1000
0
RC-1 RC-2 RC-3 RC-4 RC-5
FIGURE 5. Test result of UPV test
Specimen
The rebound hammer test has been a well-established method for assessing the strength of concrete for many years.
22 June 2025 11:43:33
It offers a cost-effective and quick means for non-destructive evaluation of concrete hardness. The rebound hammer,
also known as Schmidt's hammer, features a spring-controlled mass that moves along a plunger within a tubular casing.
Figure 6 illustrates the average results of the rebound hammer tests conducted on the specimens. The findings indicate
that the average estimated compressive strength of five reinforced concrete (RC) beams over a 44-year period is 33.4
MPa. According to a revious study [4], the compressive strength of structures affected by corrosion over a 40-year
period is comparable to that observed at 28 days. In this study, 25 cylinder specimens, each with a diameter of 100
mm and a height of 200 mm, demonstrated compressive strengths and elastic moduli of 30 MPa and 22 GPa,
respectively, at 28 days. Furthermore, the yield strength of the tensile steel bars was recorded at 36.3 MPa after 40
Hammer test
years [4].
Estimated Compressive strength (MPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0
RC-1 RC-2 RC-3 RC-4 RC-5
Specimen
FIGURE 6. Estimated compressive strength test based on rebound hammer test results
After 44 years, the UPV and rebound hammer tests predicted that reinforced concrete (RC) would lose strength in
the ranges of 25 to 40 MPa and 32 to 34 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength of the same specimen is 30
MPa, according to the destructive test, which employed a compressive strength test from an earlier investigation.
These findings suggest that concrete that has been damaged and aged for more than 40 years may be tested for non-
030007-5
destructive strength using both the UPV and rebound hammer methods. The results of the UPV and rebound hammer
tests might be utilized to better understand concrete quality and repair strategies. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].
CONCLUSION
The results of this research demonstrated that the concrete strength of 44 years deteriorated reinforced concrete
(RC) anticipated by the UPV and rebound hammer tests was between 25 and 40 MPa and 32 to 34 MPa, respectively.
According to the destructive test that used a compressive strength test from earlier study, the same specimen's
compressive strength is 30 MPa. These results indicate that both the UPV and the rebound hammer tests may be relied
upon to be effective non-destructive strength tests on concrete that has been damaged and aged more than 40 years.
REFERENCES
1 S. Hedjazi and D. Castillo, “Relationships among compressive strength and UPV of concrete reinforced with
different types of fibers,” Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 3, p. e03646, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03646.
2 R. B. Polder, G. Leegwater, D. Worm, and W. Courage, “Service life and life cycle cost modelling of cathodic
protection systems for concrete structures,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 47, pp. 69–74, Mar. 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.05.004.
3 P. Astuti, K. Kamarulzaman, and H. Hamada, “Non-Destructive Investigation of A 44-Year-Old RC Structure
Exposed to Actual Marine Tidal Environments Using Electrochemical Methods,” International Journal of
Integrated Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.30880/ijie.2021.13.03.018.
4 A. Dasar, H. Hamada, Y. Sagawa, and D. Yamamoto, “Deterioration progress and performance reduction of
40-year-old reinforced concrete beams in natural corrosion environments,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 149, pp.
690–704, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2017.05.162.
5 K. Amini, M. Jalalpour, and N. Delatte, “Advancing concrete strength prediction using non-destructive
22 June 2025 11:43:33
testing: Development and verification of a generalizable model,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 102, pp. 762–768,
Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2015.10.131.
6 J. J. Martín-del-Rio, J. Canivell, and R. M. Falcón, “The use of non-destructive testing to evaluate the
compressive strength of a lime-stabilised rammed-earth wall: Rebound index and ultrasonic pulse velocity,”
Constr Build Mater, vol. 242, p. 118060, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2020.118060.
7 A. S. Saha and K. M. Amanat, “Rebound hammer test to predict in-situ strength of concrete using recycled
concrete aggregates, brick chips and stone chips,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 268, p. 121088, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2020.121088.
8 H. S. Parihar, R. Shanker, and V. Singh, “Effect of variation of steel reinforcement on ultrasonic pulse velocity
prediction in concrete beam,” Mater Today Proc, vol. 65, pp. 1486–1490, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.468.
9 K. Güçlüer, “Investigation of the effects of aggregate textural properties on compressive strength (CS) and
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) of concrete,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 27, p. 100949, Jan. 2020,
doi: 10.1016/J.JOBE.2019.100949.
10 T. Lee and J. Lee, “Setting time and compressive strength prediction model of concrete by nondestructive
ultrasonic pulse velocity testing at early age,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 252, p. 119027, Aug. 2020, doi:
10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2020.119027.
11 T. Gehlot, V. Gehlot, Y. Gehlot, A. Raina, and P. Bothra, “Modelling chloride penetration resistance of
Supplementary Cementitious Concrete and compressive strength with pulse velocity,” Mater Today Proc, vol.
59, pp. A1–A8, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.10.306.
12 G. Murali, S. R. Abid, N. I. Vatin, M. Amran, and R. Fediuk, “Influence of height and weight of drop hammer
on impact strength and fracture toughness of two-stage fibrous concrete comprising nano carbon tubes,”
Constr Build Mater, vol. 349, p. 128782, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2022.128782.
13 P. Astuti, R. S. Rafdinal, D. Yamamoto, V. Andriamisaharimanana, and H. Hamada, “Effective Use of
Sacrificial Zinc Anode as a Suitable Repair Method for Severely Damaged RC Members Due to Chloride
Attack,” Civil Engineering Journal, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1535–1548, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-07-
015.
14 P. Astuti, K. Kamarulzaman, R. S. Rafdinal, H. Hamada, Y. Sagawa, and D. Yamamoto, “Influence of Rust
Removal Process on The Effectiveness of Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection in Repair Concrete,” IOP
Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 849, no. 1, p. 012088, May 2020, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/849/1/012088.
030007-6
15 P. Astuti, R. S. Rafdinal, A. Mahasiripan, H. Hamada, Y. Sagawa, and D. Yamamoto, “potential development
of sacrificial anode cathodic protection applied for severely damaged rc beams aged 44 years,” Thailand
Concrete Association, pp. 24–31, 2018.
16 P. Astuti, R. S. Rafdinal, H. Hamada, Y. Sagawa, D. Yamamoto, and K. Kamarulzaman, “Effectiveness of
Rusted and Non-Rusted Reinforcing Bar Protected by Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection in Repaired Patch
Concrete,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/366/1/012013.
17 P. Astuti, R. S. Rafdinal, D. Yamamoto, V. Andriamisaharimanana, and H. Hamada, “Effective Use of
Sacrificial Zinc Anode as a Suitable Repair Method for Severely Damaged RC Members Due to Chloride
Attack,” Civil Engineering Journal, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1535–1548, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-07-
015.
18 P. Astuti, R. S. Rafdinal, H. Hamada, Y. Sagawa, and D. Yamamoto, “Application of sacrificial anode
cathodic protection for partially repaired RC beams damaged by corrosion,” in Proceeding of 4th International
Symposium on Concrete and Structures (CSN2019), Kanazawa, Japan: Kanazawa Institute of Technology,
Jun. 2019, pp. 284–291.
22 June 2025 11:43:33
030007-7
