Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Concrete compressive strength prediction using non-destructive tests

through response surface methodology
Ali Poorarbabi, Mohammadreza Ghasemi ⇑, Mehdi Azhdary Moghaddam
Civil Engineering Department, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Assessment of existing structures especially compressive strength evaluation of concrete structures is an
Received 20 October 2019 important topic for engineers working in construction in most industrial countries. Non-destructive tests
Revised 8 January 2020 (NDT), especially ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number tests are mostly wide spread techniques
Accepted 17 February 2020
to predict the compressive strength of exiting concrete structures. This study conducted an experimental
Available online 12 March 2020
program on concrete specimens by non-destructive tests including ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound
number then an efficient approach namely; Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is applied to estimate
Keywords:
the compressive strength of concrete with more accuracy rather other available models in the literature.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity
Rebound hammer
The sole NDT and the combination of them are also investigated. The results showed that ultrasonic pulse
Compressive strength velocity is the best NDT tests at the beginning ages when it is used in RSM process.
Concrete structures Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
Response surface methodology This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Generally, Rebound Number (RN) and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

The assessment of concrete strength in existing constructions is
necessary during their service life for reasons of restoration, mod-
ification, and etc. [1,2]. The primarily approach to the assessment
of such buildings is the traditional methods (coring) to estimate
strength of concrete [3]. This Destructive Tests (DT) lead to high
cost process. To overcome on this issue, non-destructive testing
(NDT) in conjunction with destructive testing (DT) has introduced
in order to reduce cost and time consuming approaches [4]. NDT
also reveals a wider new information regarding concrete properties
and the identification of homogeneous areas [5–7] However, com-
bining NDTs with DTs can not be still an appropriate estimating
strength approach due to low number of DT and uncertainties in
both NDT and DT [8]. Hence, it is clear that different NDTs should
be performed to predict the compressive strength of concrete.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering Department, University of Sistan
and Baluchestan, P.O. Box 9816745563-161, Zahedan, Iran.
E-mail addresses: ali_poorarbabi@pgs.usb.ac.ir (A. Poorarbabi), mrghasemi@eng.
usb.ac.ir (M. Ghasemi), Mazhdary@eng.usb.ac.ir (M. Azhdary Moghaddam).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
(UPV) as well-known NDTs are combined to obtain a better esti-
mate of concrete strength [9]. Sole or combined two NDTs have
discussed in different papers which some of them proposed com-
bined two NDTs as accurate prediction models [10,11], while
others, persist on the one NDT to predict the strength of concrete
[12,13]. In addition, some works concluded that the efficiency of
combined method in comparison with separate methods is related
to the number of cores (NC) used for the calibration process [9,12].
In this field, many studies have been conducted. Lawson et al. [14]
investigated the relationship between sole UPV and the compres-
sive strength of concrete. They showed the relationship of UPV
and compressive strength of concrete is increased with age, but
the growth rate depends on mixture proportion [12]. Sbartaï
et al. [15] presented a strategy to handle the first results obtained
from a comprehensive experimental database of NDT techniques.
They also conducted the statistical analyses to assess the available
NDT techniques [15]. Jain et al. [16] combined different NDTs for
estimating of concrete strength. Results calculated using experi-
mental concrete process, RN and UPV [16]. Ali-Benyahia et al.
[17] had been taken account to some models between destructive
and individual or combined nondestructive tests (RN and UPV) in
order to lead more accurate estimation of concrete strength on site.
Their results showed the combined methods in concrete strength
estimation are highly appreciated in comparison with the previous
models in the literature [17]. Ali-Benyahia et al. [8] introduced a
new scheme to improve the non-destructive assessment of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.02.009
2090-4479/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
940 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949
on-site concrete strength prediction [8]. By reviewing the litera-
ture, it is concluded that an efficient approach to predict the com-
pressive strength should be taken into account, while there are
some models. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to propose
an efficient approach to predict the compressive strength of con-
crete using non-destructive tests (UPV and RN).
2. Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
UPV method is a well-known non-destructive testing method
that conducted by the velocity of compression stress waves
(P-waves). The velocity of P-waves are transforming into a solid
material which it is depended on its material specifications [18].
The fundamental concept of UPV test method is based on the
travel velocity of ultrasonic pulses through a material. The pulse
velocity equipment includes an emitter, a receiver, and a device
to show the transformation time where the pulse velocity is
defined as follow:
L are only given the outer concrete layer properties with a thickness
V¼
t of 30–50 mm.
where V = pulse velocity (km=s); L = path length (mm); and
t = transit time (ls).
The pulse velocity technique is an efficient method to assess the
concrete quality because it just depends on the elastic properties of
the material and no geometry. An overall view of pulse velocity
testing is given in Fig. 1.
3. Rebound number (RN)
The rebound hammer test is explained in ASTM C805 [19] and
BS 1881: Part 202 [20]. The concept of rebound states based on
the hardness of the surface. Strength of concrete will be absorbed
the hit energy [21]. While this test is seems easy but it is complex
of due to stress-wave propagation [22].
The main step is to choose the proper surface in the test of con-
crete, at the beginning of test. When the surface is chosen, its sur-
face should be smoothed using an abrasive stone. Then, a defined
amount of energy is performed by pushing the hammer on test
surface. The plunger must strike perpendicularly to the smooth
surface. After that, the rebound number is recorded, carefully. At
least 10 records have to be taken from each tested surface [23].
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of pulse velocity testing circuit (adapted from ASTM
C586).
There is no a well-known relation between hardness and
strength of concrete but it can be found using an experimental pro-
cess. However, it should be taken into account that this relation-
ship is under influence of concrete surface situation such as
saturation degree, carbonation, temperature, surface preparation
and location. Other parameters such as the type of aggregate,
mix proportion, hammer type, and hammer inclination can also
lead to the incorrect results. Concrete specimens must be approx-
imately in the same situation (regarding age, moisture conditions
and carbonation degree). Akashi and Amasaki [22] performed an
assessment the effect of carbonation on the rebound number. Grieb
[24] estimated strength using the effect of type of aggregates on
the rebound number. Willetts [25] showed that moisture content
of concrete has influence on the results of the rebound number
test.
It is obvious that the rebound number obtain only the surface of
concrete specifications. BS 1881: Part 202 [20] suggests that the
measured number is an indication for just the first 30-mm depth
of concrete. According to Ref. [26], the results of rebound hammer
ð1Þ
Due to the difficulty of obtaining a proper correlation between
RN and concrete strength, the rebound number is just appropriate
to conduct on the large areas of similar types of concrete. Neville
[27] presented the reasonable advantages of the rebound hammer
test in concrete and showed that the test cannot lead to strength
test. Hence, it is necessary to combine this test with other well-
known non-destructive tests.
4. Combination of nondestructive techniques for strength
assessment
The idea of combining two or several non-destructive techniques
to more comprehension prediction of material properties is a very
popular idea. Increasing the number of NDTs obviously lead to more
accurate fit for the experimental data [28] but may be not desirable
due to the high experimental cost, and the practical problems related
to the calibration. Hence, many studies have been conducted to
assess the material properties using two common non-destructive
tests namely, UPV and RN. Combination of different NDTs is designed
by using different mathematical approaches to give the best accu-
racy for material properties prediction. Some common models are
bilinear, power-power, double exponential and logarithmic that
are used widely in scientific reports [12]. Hence, these well-known
approaches are conducted for this paper, then an efficient estimating
approach namely; Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is also per-
formed to predict the compressive strength of concrete and the accu-
racy of the recent results are compared with the available models in
the literature. In continue, response surface methodology is
explained, briefly.
5. Polynomial response surface methodology (PRSM)
The use of PRSM, firstly proposed by Box and Wilson [29]. This
approach is applied based on mathematical and statistical concepts
that predict the output parameters (responses) by using a function
relating the input parameters. The response is defined as follow:
y ¼ Xb þ ey ð2Þ
which X is input data vector, b demonstrate unknown coefficient
vector and ey is error vector. In addition, Eq. (2) can be restated
for a typical quadratic polynomial as following:
X
k X
k X
k
y ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bij xi xj ð3Þ
i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949 941

Unknown polynomial coefficients are also governed by mini- Table 2

mizing the error using least-squares method (LSM): Results of sieve analysis on the aggregates.

Pn  Pk Pk Pk 2 Sieve size Sieve size (mm) % Passing

eðbÞ ¼ i¼1 yi  b0 i¼1 bk xi  j¼1 bij xi xj
i¼1
ð4Þ Coarse aggregates Sand

¼ ðy  xbÞT ðy  xbÞ Coarse gravel Fine gravel

1} 25 100 100 –
Unknown coefficients are given by solving Eq. (4) as follow:
3=4} 19 87 100 –
h i1 n o 1=2} 12.5 21 98 –
b ¼ XT X XT y ð5Þ 3=8} 9.5 4.6 81 100
1=4} 6.35 2.5 47 –
In this approach, the initial input data (X and y) should be #4 4.75 0.8 7.8 97
selected properly to lead to a function as accurate as possible. #8 2.36 – 2.8 70
#16 1.18 – – 48
Many efforts are conducted to develop PRSM and increase its
#30 0.6 – – 27
accuracy and efficiency. For instance, experimental design studies #50 0.3 – – 18
in the standard normal space [30,31], the studies related to the #100 0.15 – – 8.7
forms of response surface functions [29,32,33], RSM-based neural #200 0.075 – – 2.4
networks [34] and the studies related to the selection of input data
[29,32,33]. In addition, recently RSM has introduced for estimating
the compressive strength of concrete columns confined with FRP Table 3
sheets [35]. Application of RSM in the paper of Ref. [35] showed Physical specification of aggregates.
the accuracy of RSM for estimating purpose. Hence, this study aims Aggregate Specific weight (kg/m3) Water absorption Passing #200
to estimate the compressive strength of concrete specimens (%) (%)
through RSM and non-destructive tests. Coarse gravel 2710 1.83 2.4
Fine gravel 2720 1.9 1.5
Sand 2680 2.6 1.4
6. Experimental set up

6.1. Materials
Table 4
Mix proportions of concrete.
In this study, concrete specimens are constructed using Port-
land cement type II which its chemical and physical specifications No. W/C Cement Coarse gravel (SSD) Fine gravel (SSD) Sand (SSD)
are given in Table 1. Coarse aggregates are used in the crushed kg/m3
form with two sizes of 4.75–12.5 mm (fine gravel) and 9.5– 1 0.79 273 – 936 863
25 mm (coarse gravel) and the used sand is applied in the natural 2 0.79 244 497 478 936
form that their sieve analysis are given in Table 2. Table 3 shows 3 0.74 291 – 927 980
the physical characteristics of the used aggregates. In terms of 4 0.74 261 493 473 928
5 0.69 313 – 915 968
aggregation, the used aggregates are in good agreement with the 6 0.69 280 487 469 919
standard curves of ASTM C 33. 7 0.65 332 – 920 957
8 0.65 297 529 509 925
6.2. The mix design 9 0.61 354 – 909 949
10 0.61 316 524 504 921
11 0.58 372 – 905 945
In the present study, the number of mix designs are 20. These 12 0.58 332 530 490 908
designs are fitted with ACI 318 which their details are given in 13 0.54 400 – 890 888
Table 4. 14 0.54 357 528 488 860
15 0.5 432 – 935 872
16 0.5 386 550 469 855
6.3. Specimens and experimental process 17 0.45 480 – 908 825
18 0.45 429 533 412 800
Totally, 9 cubic specimen with dimensions of 19 0.42 514 – 884 753
150  150  150 mm were tested at the age of 7, 28 and 90 days, 20 0.42 460 558 419 768

for each mix design. After constructing the mixtures, they were
immediately placed in mold and compressed by a rod in accor-
dance with EN12390-2: 2000 Standard then the specimens were
got out from the molds after 24 h and placed in water reservoirs
that saturated by lime for the needed time. After the curing, the
specimens were got out from the water and prepared for testing.
To do this aim, each specimen, after leaving the water, has
remained in the laboratory for some time to reach a dry surface
with saturated state. The needed time was varied due to humidity
and environment temperature.
According to the purposes of this research, three different tests
conducted on specimens. These experiments were velocity of
ultrasound transmissions measurement, return number measure-
ment and measuring the compressive strength.
A measurement of the velocity of ultrasound waves was per-
formed according to B.S 1881-PART 203. The surface of the gener-
ators was impregnated with a special gel or refractory grease and 5
readings were made for each lateral side. The generator’s position

Table 1
Chemical compositions and physical specifications of cement.

Type Chemical compounds (Weight percent) Physical characteristics

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O SO3 LOI Specific weight kg/m3 Specific surface area m2/kg
Cement 21.42 5.01 3.88 63.18 1.55 0.65 0.45 2.31 1.85 3120 293
942 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949

was in such a way that the entire sample surface and, therefore, the
sample volume were tested. Time and then velocity of ultrasound
transmission were measured in each record. The average results
were recorded as the transfer time and speed of the waves.
In continue, the specimens are tested with a Schmidt hammer
based on B.S 1889-PART 202. The specimens were located on the
machine’s jaws, and then five records were saved for each lateral
side. The average of 20 records saved as the hardness number of
the cube specimens.
Finally, the specimens were tested based on EN12390-3 (2001)
for measuring compressive strength and their value were recorded.
7. Results and discussion
180 specimens made in different ages (7, 28 and 90 days) in
experimental program. These specimens designed in twenty dif-
ferent mix designs which three cubic specimens for different
ages were experimented in each mix design. The used non-
destructive tests were Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV), Rebound
Number (RN). In addition, the compressive strength of concrete
specimens measured and are given in Table 5. By using the
experimental data that are given in Table 5, different models
including bilinear, power-power, double exponential, logarithmic

Table 5
Experimental results from non-destructive tests.

Mix No. Age (days) UPV (km/s) RN fc (kg/cm2) Mix No. Age (days) UPV (km/s) RN fc (kg/cm2)
1 7 3.55 14.00 113.33 11 7 3.90 19.00 184.00
3.39 20.00 124.44 3.96 19.00 187.11
3.49 17.00 126.22 4.00 21.00 188.00
28 4.05 18.00 166.70 28 4.13 20.00 211.55
4.03 19.00 165.44 4.10 20.00 209.33
4.02 18.00 163.55 4.43 24.00 280.89
90 4.23 21.00 198.67 90 4.43 23.00 248.00
4.23 21.00 191.11 4.47 24.00 233.44
4.29 20.00 195.55 4.39 24.00 252.00
2 7 3.55 15.00 140 12 7 4.17 23.00 217.33
3.58 14.00 143.55 4.23 25.00 225.30
3.37 14.00 135.11 4.29 25.00 225.33
28 4.10 18.00 172.00 28 4.39 26.00 270.67
4.11 19.00 169.78 4.41 27.00 252.00
4.16 20.00 170.22 4.42 27.00 260.44
90 4.41 21.00 196.89 90 4.62 25.00 292.44
4.39 21.00 196.44 4.62 25.00 294.67
4.39 20.00 200.44 4.62 25.00 288.00
3 7 3.70 21.00 166.27 13 7 4.09 22.00 234.00
3.87 21.00 166.70 4.13 22.00 233.78
3.71 19.00 170.22 4.12 22.00 237.00
28 4.17 22.00 204.00 28 4.26 25.00 268.70
4.19 22.00 200.00 4.25 27.00 276.44
4.18 22.00 205.33 4.24 28.00 286.67
90 4.35 23.00 232.44 90 4.54 27.00 288.00
4.43 22.00 213.33 4.48 27.00 279.11
4.37 23.00 231.11 4.51 27.00 281.33
4 7 3.76 18.00 132.44 14 7 4.23 23.00 229.33
3.73 18.00 130.22 4.20 22.00 226.67
3.77 18.00 132.40 4.23 23.00 233.78
28 4.12 18.00 163.55 28 4.39 25.00 292.00
4.12 18.00 168.89 4.40 24.00 285.78
4.13 18.00 158.67 4.43 24.00 280.89
90 4.35 18.00 171.18 90 4.53 28.00 304.44
4.39 18.00 175.11 4.51 28.00 310.67
4.35 18.00 173.78 4.55 26.00 312.00
5 7 3.79 19.00 141.33 15 7 4.21 24.00 286.67
3.75 18.00 144.89 4.18 26.00 279.11
3.68 19.00 140.89 4.23 26.00 273.33
28 3.96 15.00 172.89 28 4.28 24.00 321.78
3.93 15.00 170.22 4.32 27.00 328.44
3.95 14.00 163.55 4.28 26.00 320.89
90 4.23 19.00 198.22 90 4.65 32.00 358.22
4.23 21.00 209.33 4.62 32.00 354.67
4.22 20.00 190.67 4.61 32.00 347.55
6 7 3.88 19.00 143.55 16 7 4.17 23.00 216.89
3.86 18.00 140.89 4.18 23.00 220.89
3.87 18.00 148.00 4.12 23.00 217.33
28 4.08 15.00 184.89 28 4.31 24.00 267.11
4.09 16.00 183.55 4.32 23.00 262.67
4.02 16.00 185.33 4.32 24.00 263.11
90 4.45 18.00 188.89 90 4.66 28.00 329.78
4.34 18.00 197.33 4.66 27.00 328.44
4.39 18.00 204.89 4.70 29.00 323.55
 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949 943

Table 5 (continued)

Mix No. Age (days) UPV (km/s) RN fc (kg/cm2) Mix No. Age (days) UPV (km/s) RN fc (kg/cm2)
7 7 3.93 21.00 188.44 17 7 4.02 22.00 221.78
3.95 21.00 188.44 4.08 25.00 217.33
3.94 22.00 193.78 4.07 24.00 224.44
28 4.09 20.00 225.78 28 4.24 25.00 288.89
4.09 21.00 233.78 4.23 25.00 281.78
4.11 21.00 228.89 4.17 24.00 270.22
90 4.45 24.00 249.33 90 4.65 25.00 289.78
4.48 25.00 252.89 4.59 28.00 295.11
4.50 24.00 250.22 4.67 27.00 294.22
8 7 3.84 19.00 163.11 18 7 4.25 25.00 278.22
3.92 19.00 153.30 4.19 26.00 279.55
3.91 19.00 151.55 4.08 25.00 283.11
28 4.16 20.00 210.67 28 4.45 28.00 342.22
4.14 20.00 205.33 4.37 30.00 327.11
4.14 21.00 202.22 4.45 30.00 350.67
90 4.42 23.00 229.78 90 4.78 34.00 348.00
4.34 24.00 231.11 4.73 32.00 333.78
4.41 23.00 235.55 4.66 35.00 350.22
9 7 3.93 18.00 179.60 19 7 4.18 23.00 296.44
3.93 18.00 185.78 4.17 24.00 307.44
3.93 19.00 171.11 4.17 25.00 294.22
28 4.09 21.00 205.78 28 4.38 29.00 368.00
4.18 20.00 214.22 4.31 28.00 374.22
4.09 21.00 202.22 4.31 29.00 369.33
90 4.35 24.00 236.89 90 4.68 34.00 385.33
4.51 23.00 239.55 4.69 35.00 379.11
4.37 23.00 241.33 4.85 34.00 387.11
10 7 4.02 20.00 177.33 20 7 4.36 25.00 307.55
4.01 21.00 173.33 4.32 25.00 312.00
4.03 20.00 175.11 4.32 25.00 306.67
28 4.12 22.00 217.33 28 4.42 32.00 387.55
4.25 22.00 215.55 4.39 32.00 352.89
4.10 21.00 218.67 4.52 31.00 369.78
90 4.44 24.00 217.78 90 4.82 35.00 372.89
4.62 25.00 231.11 4.90 36.00 375.11
4.52 27.00 227.11 4.72 36.00 385.78

and RSM are fitted for ages of 7, 28 and 90 days. Moreover,
these models are also fitted for all data (ages of 7 days, 28 days
and 90 days).
Available models to estimate the compressive strength of con-
crete using UPV and RN tests are presented in Table 6. The relative
coefficients have calculated for common models in the literature
review including power-power model, bilinear model, double
exponential model and logarithmic model based on the experi-
mental data which presented in this study (these models were fit-
ted on the experimental data of this study then their coefficients
calculated to have the best accuracy), besides, RSM model is also
fitted using UPV and RN tests. The accuracy of each model is shown
in Figs. 2–5 for different ages.
As can be seen RSM model predicted the compressive strength
with more accuracy rather other models with R2 = 0.863, 0.871,
0.937 and 0.873 for the age of 7, 28, 90 days and all specimens
in different ages (7, 28 and 90 days). For instance, in Fig. 2 for
the 7 days age, averagely next accuracy is assigned to the double
exponential model that is in good agreement with the experimen-
tal data but its accuracy is less than RSM model. Next one is power-

Table 6
The fitted models based on the experimental data in different ages for estimating the compressive strength using UPV and RN tests.

Type of model Expression Coefficient 7 day 28 day 90 day total

Power-power b
Fc ¼ aðUPVÞ ðRNÞ c a 0.39 2.08 1.69 2.91
b 2.39 0.81 1.44 0.71
c 0.95 1.15 0.88 1.07
Bilinear Fc ¼ a þ bðUPVÞ þ cðRNÞ a 384.72 195 394.81 206.62
b 99.32 37.75 94.28 44.30
c 9.10 12.42 9.30 11.15
Double exponential Fc ¼ a exp ðbðUPVÞÞ expðcðRNÞÞ a 6.88 33.87 24.57 40.52
b 0.59 0.20 0.34 0.19
c 0.046 0.048 0.031 0.040
Linear Logarithmic Fc ¼ aLnðUPVÞ þ bLnðRNÞ þ c a 425.51 333.85 463.01 193.33
b 161 243.15 235.09 254.72
c 873.36 988 1186.14 834.44
944 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949

350 350

300 300
fc (Experimental) 250 250

fc (Experimental)
R2 =0.837 R2 =0.804
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
f c (Power-Power Model) f c (Bilinear Model)
(a) (b)
350 350

300 300

250 250
fc (Experimental)

fc (Experimental)
R2 =0.848 R2 =0.773
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
f c (Double Exponential Model) f c (Logarithmic Model)
(c) (d)
350

300

250
fc (Experimental)

R2 =0.863
200

150

100

50

0
0 100 200 300
f c (RSM Model)
(e)
Fig. 2. Performance of models at the age of 7 days: a) Power-Power, b) Bilinear, c) Double exponential, d) Logarithmic, e) RSM.

power model and then bilinear model. The accuracy of logarithmic the accuracy of the fitted models. For this aim, the following crite-
model is at the end place. Fig. 3 shows the accuracy of the fitted ria are investigated [35]:
models for the age of 28 days. Based on this figure, the order of The total error (etot ):
accuracy is such the age of 7 days. Fig. 4 presents the accuracy of PN
1 jExpei  Theoi j
models for the age of 90 days. Based on this figure, the best accu- etot ¼ 100  PN ð6Þ
racy is for RSM model, then the order of accuracy is related to: 1 jExpei j
bilinear, logarithmic, power-power and finally double exponential.
in which Expei and Theoi are the experimental compressive strength
Fig. 5 indicates the accuracy of models for total data including the
and the compressive strength results from theoretical models,
ages of 7, 28 and 90 days. The order of accuracy is related to: 1.
respectively. N is also the total samples.
RSM, 2. bilinear, 3. power-power, 4. logarithmic and 5. double
Other parameters are mean square error (MSE), average abso-
exponential. Hence, it can be concluded that RSM model has the
lute magnitude error (AAE), standard deviation (SD) that are pre-
best accuracy among available models and its accuracy is not
sented as follow, respectively:
under influence of the age of specimens. PN Theoi Expei 2
In addition, for better comprehension and comparison, other 1ð Expei
Þ
well-known statistical parameters are also performed to check MSE ¼ ð7Þ
N
 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949 945

400 400

300 300
fc (Experimental)

fc (Experimental)
R2 =0.862 R2 =0.855

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
f c (Power-Power Model) f c (Bilinear Model)
(a) (b)
400 400

300 300
fc (Experimental)

fc (Experimental)
R2 =0.867 R2 =0.819

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
f c (Double Exponential Model) f c (Logarithmic Model)
(c) (d)
400

300
fc (Experimental)

R2 =0.871

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400
f c (RSM Model)
(e)
Fig. 3. Performance of models at the age of 28 days: a) Power-Power, b) Bilinear, c) Double exponential, d) Logarithmic, e) RSM.

PN Theoi Expei  methods which are well-known in the literature (such as Double
1 Expei 
AAE ¼ ð8Þ Exponential).
N Table 7 shows that the total error of RSM model is less rather
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi other models (8% better rather double exponential, 13%
uP better rather power-power, 23% better rather bilinear and 29%
u N Theoi Theoav g 2
t 1 ðExpei  Expeav g Þ better rather than logarithmic models). This table is also shown
SD ¼ ð9Þ
N1 RSM has the best performance in other statistical parameters.
Table 8 indicates the mentioned statistical parameters for the age
The statistical parameters to evaluate the accuracy of the avail-
of 28 days. This table also proves that RSM is the best fitted model.
able models and RSM are given in Tables 7–10. Then, the value of
For example, in MSE parameter, RSM is better about 1%, 15%, 24%
these parameters for each model is compared to RSM as follows:
and 42% rather double exponential, power-power, bilinear and
  logarithmic, respectively.
XOthermethods  XRSM 
   100 ð10Þ Table 9 is also given the statistical parameters for the age of
 XOthermethods 
90 days of specimens. This table is also shows the efficiency of
In which, XRSM is the value of the RSM for the specified statisti- RSM model. For instance, in AAE parameter, RSM is better
cal parameter and Xother methods is the value of the other mentioned approximately 32%, 63%, 8% and 10% rather double exponential,
946 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949

400 400

fc (Experimental) 300 300

fc (Experimental)
R2 =0.926 R2 =0.930

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
fc (Power-Power Model) fc (Bilinear Model)
(a) ( b)
400 400

300 300

fc (Experimental)
fc (Experimental)

R2 =0.911 R2 =0.928

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
fc (Double Exponential Model) fc (Logarithmic Model)
(c) 400 (d)

300
fc (Experimental)

R2 =0.937

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400
fc (RSM Model)
(e)
Fig. 4. Performance of models at the age of 90 days: a) Power-Power, b) Bilinear, c) Double exponential, d) Logarithmic, e) RSM.

power-power, bilinear and logarithmic, respectively. In addition,
Table 10 reports the accuracy of RSM model among the available
models for all specimens. Of course, standard deviation is roughly
constant for all models (even in this parameter, RSM has the lowest
value that shows its efficiency) but other statistical parameters
proves the highly accuracy of RSM rather other models. It is
noticed that RSM is not sensitive to the age of concrete specimens
while the accuracy of other models are under influence of age.
As mentioned RSM has the best performance among models,
hence this model is selected to investigate more details about
the influence of the measured non-destructive tests (sole test or
combined tests) on the accuracy of prediction.
Table 11 shows the accuracy of prediction using different non-
destructive tests in different ages. Based on this table, among sole
tests, function including RN has the highest accuracy especially in
the age of 90 days. In addition, the age of 90 days leads to higher
accuracy, among two-parameter functions. It is obvious that by
aging, the accuracy is also raised.
8. Conclusion
In this paper, a model proposed to estimate the compressive
strength of concrete using non-destructive tests. To this aim,
RSM used as an accurate model to estimate the compressive
strength and it compared with other available models in the liter-
ature. The results showed the accuracy of RSM is more and can pre-
dict the compressive strength with reasonable accuracy in
different ages of concrete in comparison with other models. The
 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949 947

400 400

300 300
fc (Experimental) R2 =0.855 R2 =0.861

fc (Experimental)
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
fc (Power-Power Model) fc (Bilinear Model)
(a) (b)
400 400

300 300
R2 =0.831 R2 =0.844

fc (Experimental)
fc (Experimental)

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400
fc (Double Exponential Model) fc (Logarithmic Model)
(c) (d)
400

300
R2 =0.873
fc (Experimental)

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
fc (RSM Model)
(e)
Fig. 5. Performance of models for all of experimental data (7 days + 28 days + 90 days): a) Power-Power, b) Bilinear, c) Double exponential, d) Logarithmic, e) RSM.

Table 7 Table 8
Statistical parameters for the fitted models using UPV and RN tests for the age of Statistical parameters for the fitted models using UPV and RN tests for the age of
7 days. 28 days.

Theoretical models etot MSE AAE SD Theoretical models etot MSE AAE SD
Power-Power 9.136 0.791 5.458 1.023 Power-Power 8.218 0.665 5.204 1.022
Bilinear 10.405 1.044 6.558 1.028 Bilinear 8.408 0.738 5.398 1.023
Double exponential 8.688 0.681 5.152 1.023 Double exponential 8.293 0.569 5.066 1.023
Linear Logarithmic 11.203 1.263 7.099 1.032 Linear Logarithmic 9.231 0.978 6.027 1.027
RSM 7.989 0.547 4.747 1.022 RSM 7.911 0.563 4.904 1.022

influence of concrete age is not highly effect on RSM while concrete compressive strength of concretes using the sole RN is more effi-
aging effects on other available models in the literature. In addi- cient, while the combination of RN and UPV could not improve
tion, the effect of sole and combined non-destructive tests were the accuracy in comparison with sole tests. Hereby, the results
examined. Results showed that the improvement to estimate the are summarized as follow:
948 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949

Table 9 [7] Masi A, Chiauzzi L. An experimental study on the within-member variability of

Statistical parameters for the fitted models using UPV and RN tests for the age of in situ concrete strength in RC building structures. Constr Build Mater
90 days. 2013;47:951–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.102.
[8] Ali-Benyahia K, Sbartaï ZM, Breysse D, Ghrici M, Kenai K. Improvement of
Theoretical models etot MSE AAE SD nondestructive assessment of on-site concrete strength: influence of the
selection process of cores location on the assessment quality for single and
Power-Power 11.564 1.209 7.315 1.016
combined NDT techniques. Constr Build Mater 2019;195:613–22. doi: https://
Bilinear 4.775 0.261 2.938 1.015 doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.032.
Double exponential 6.833 0.367 3.982 1.020 [9] Alwash M, Breysse D, Sbartaï ZM. Non-destructive strength evaluation of
Linear Logarithmic 4.825 0.289 2.994 1.015 concrete: analysis of some key factors using synthetic simulations. Constr
RSM 4.332 0.247 2.691 1.014 Build Mater 2015;99:235–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.09.023.
[10] Soshiroda T, Voraputhaporn K, Nozaki Y. Early-stage inspection of concrete
quality in structures by combined nondestructive method. Mater Struct
Table 10 2006;39(2):149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9007-6.
Statistical parameters for the fitted models using UPV and RN tests for all specimens. [11] Hobbs B, Tchoketch Kebir M. Non-destructive testing techniques for the
forensic engineering investigation of reinforced concrete buildings. Forensic
Theoretical models etot MSE AAE SD Sci Int 2007;167(2–3):167–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
Power-Power 8.605 2.275 16.174 1.024 j.forsciint.2006.06.065.
[12] Breysse D. Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical
Bilinear 8.618 2.323 16.544 1.021
review and a new perspective by combining NDT methods. Constr Build Mater
Double exponential 9.165 2.536 16.865 1.030
2012;33:139–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.103.
Linear Logarithmic 9.103 3.016 17.992 1.022
[13] Rao Naraganti S, Rao Pannem RM, Putta J. Impact resistance of hybrid fibre
RSM 8.289 2.080 15.837 1.018 reinforced concrete containing sisal fibres. Ain Shams Eng J 2019;10
(2):297–305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.12.004.
[14] Lawson I, Danso KA, Odoi HC, Adjei CA, Quashie FK, Mumuni II, Ibrahim IS.
Non-destructive evaluation of concrete using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Res J
Table 11 Appl Sci Eng Technol 2011;3(6):499–504.
The accuracy of prediction of concrete strength by different non-destructive tests in [15] Sbartaï ZM, Breysse D, Larget M, Balayssac JP. Combining NDT techniques for
different ages. improved evaluation of concrete properties. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34
(6):725–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.03.005.
RSM R2 [16] Jain A, Kathuria A, Kumar A, Verma V, Murari K. Combined use of non-
RN UPV UPV, RN destructive tests for assessment of strength of concrete in structure. Procedia
Eng 2013;54:241–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.022.
7 days 0.801 0.812 0.863 [17] Ali-Benyahia K, Ghrici M, Kenai S, Breysse D, Sbartaï ZM. Analysis of the
28 days 0.868 0.708 0.871 relationship between nondestructive and destructive testing of low concrete
90 days 0.916 0.786 0.934 strength in new structures. Asian J Civil Eng 2017;18(2):191–205.
7 + 28 + 90 days 0.847 0.629 0.868 [18] Trtnik G, Kavčič F, Turk G. Prediction of concrete strength using ultrasonic
pulse velocity and artificial neural networks. Ultrasonics 2009;49(1):53–60.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2008.05.001.
1. RSM model proposed to predict the compressive strength using [19] ASTM C 805-85. Test for rebound number of hardened concrete. USA: ASTM;
non-destructive tests. The results showed that its accuracy is 1993.
more rather other available models. This efficiency performance [20] BS 1881: Part 202. Recommendations for surface hardness tests by the
rebound hammer. UK: BSI; 1986.
validated using different statistical parameters in different ages [21] Committee A. In-place methods for determination of strength of concrete. ACI
of concrete specimens. Mater J 1988;85(5).
2. RN test as a non-destructive test can predict the compressive [22] Akashi T, Amasaki S. Study of the stress waves in the plunger of a rebound
hammer at the time of impact. Special Publ 1984;82:17–34.
strength of concrete specimens with more accuracy. The results [23] Neville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete technology. England: Longman Scientific &
showed that the accuracy prediction of the sole RN is increased Technical; 1987.
by aging (R2 = 0.801, R2 = 0.868 and R2 = 0.916 for the age of [24] Grieb WE. Use of Swiss hammer for estimating compressive strength of
hardened concrete. Highway Res Board Bull 1958;201.
7 days, 28 days and 90 days, respectively).
[25] Willetts C. Investigation of Schmidt concrete test hammer, miscellaneous
3. The combination of two non-destructive tests to estimate the paper No. 6–267. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
compressive strength of concrete specimens (by using RSM Station; 1958.
model) investigated. The combination of UPV and RN could [26] Teodoru G. Use of simultaneous nondestructive tests to predict the
compressive strength of concrete. Special Publ 1989;112:137–52.
not improve the accuracy in comparison with sole RN. [27] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Longman London; 1995.
[28] Liu JC, Sue ML, Kou CH. Estimating the strength of concrete using surface
rebound value and design parameters of concrete material. Tamkang J Sci Eng
2009;12(1):1–7.
References [29] Bucher CG, Bourgund U. A fast and efficient response surface approach for
structural reliability problems. Struct Saf 1990;7(1):57–66. doi: https://doi.
[1] Pucinotti R. Assessment of in situ characteristic concrete strength. Constr Build org/10.1016/0167-4730(90)90012-E.
Mater 2013;44:63–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ [30] Rajashekhar MR, Ellingwood BR. A new look at the response surface approach
j.conbuildmat.2013.02.041. for reliability analysis. Struct Saf 1993;12(3):205–20. doi: https://doi.org/
[2] Amini K, Jalalpour M, Delatte N. Advancing concrete strength prediction using 10.1016/0167-4730(93)90003-J.
non-destructive testing: development and verification of a generalizable [31] Roussouly N, Petitjean F, Salaun M. A new adaptive response surface method
model. Constr Build Mater 2016;102:762–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ for reliability analysis. Probab Eng Mech 2013;32:103–15. doi: https://doi.org/
j.conbuildmat.2015.10.131. 10.1016/j.probengmech.2012.10.001.
[3] Kaboosi K, Kaboosi F, Fadavi M. Investigation of greywater and zeolite usage in [32] Kim SH, Na SW. Response surface method using vector projected sampling
different cement contents on concrete compressive strength and their points. Struct Saf 1997;19(1):3–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730
interactions. Ain Shams Eng J 2020;11:201–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (96)00037-9.
asej.2019.08.008. [33] Liu YW, Moses F. A sequential response surface method and its application in
[4] Pucinotti R. Reinforced concrete structure: non destructive in situ strength the reliability analysis of aircraft structural systems. Struct Saf 1994;16(1–
assessment of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2015;75:331–41. doi: https://doi. 2):39–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(94)00023-J.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.023. [34] Lemaire M, Mohamed A. Finite element and reliability; a happy marriage?
[5] Vona M, Nigro D. Evaluation of the predictive ability of the in situ concrete Reliability and optimization of structural systems. USA: Ann Arbor; 2000.
strength through core drilling and its effects on the capacity of the RC columns. [35] Moodi Y, Mousavi SR, Ghavidel A, Sohrabi MR, Rashki M. Using Response
Mater Struct 2015;48(4):1043–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013- Surface Methodology and providing a modified model using whale algorithm
0214-2. for estimating the compressive strength of columns confined with FRP sheets.
[6] Fiore A, Porco F, Uva G, Mezzina M. On the dispersion of data collected by Constr Build Mater 2018;183:163–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
in situ diagnostic of the existing concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:208–17. j.conbuildmat.2018.06.081.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.001.
 A. Poorarbabi et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 939–949 949

Ali Poorarbabi is a Ph.D. candidate in Civil Engineering
Department, University of Sistan and Baluchestan. He
received a MS.c degree from Islamic Azad University
(Kerman branch), Iran in the field of Civil Engineering –
Hydraulic Structures. His main research interest
includes: non-destructive tests and concrete structures.
Mehdi Azhdary Moghaddam is an associate Professor in
Civil Engineering Department, University of Sistan and
Baluchestan. He received a Ph.D. degree from University
of Ottawa, Canada at 1997 in the field of Civil
Engineering- Hydraulic Structures. His main research
interest includes: dams and concrete structures.

Mohammadreza Ghasemi is a professor in Civil Engi-

neering Department, University of Sistan and
Baluchestan. He received a Ph.D. degree from University
of Newcastle, United Kingdom at 1998 in the field of
Civil Engineering - Structure. His main research interest
includes: optimization of structures and concrete
structures.