Bsen13791 2019

BS
EN 13791:2019
BSI Standards Publication
Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in

structures and precast concrete components
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
Copyright British Standards Institution Licensee=Shenzhen Institute of Standards and Technology 9972181
Provided by IHS Markit under license with BSI - Uncontrolled Copy Not for Resale, 2020/4/23 07:13:05
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
BS EN 13791:2019 BRITISH STANDARD
National foreword
This British Standard is the UK implementation of EN 13791:2019. It
supersedes BS EN 13791:2007 and BS 6089:2010, which are withdrawn.
The background to EN 13791:2019, as well as further guidance
and worked examples, is given in CEN/TR 17086 (publication
anticipated in 2020).
All the relevant content of BS 6089:2010 is now covered by
BS EN 13791:2019, including its national annex; PD CEN/TR 17086
(publication anticipated in 2020); and BS EN 12504‑1:2019, including its
national annex.
This British Standard should be used in conjunction with BS EN 12504-
1:2019 and its national annex.
The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted to Technical
Committee B/517/1, Concrete production and testing.
A list of organizations represented on this committee can be obtained on
request to its secretary.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions
of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
© The British Standards Institution 2020
Published by BSI Standards Limited 2020
ISBN 978 0 580 96061 1
ICS 91.080.40
Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity from
legal obligations.
This British Standard was published under the authority of the
Standards Policy and Strategy Committee on 31 January 2020.
Amendments/corrigenda issued since publication

Date Text affected
BS EN 13791:2019
EUROPEAN STANDARD EN 13791

NORME EUROPÉENNE
EUROPÄISCHE NORM August 2019
ICS 91.080.40 Supersedes EN 13791:2007
English Version
Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures

and precast concrete components
Évaluation de la résistance à la compression sur site Bewertung der Druckfestigkeit von Beton in
des structures et des éléments préfabriqués en béton Bauwerken oder in Bauwerksteilen
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 7 July 2019.
CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this
European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references
concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN
member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by
translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management
Centre has the same status as the official versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION

COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2019 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN 13791:2019 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Contents Page
European foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 Scope.................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Normative references.................................................................................................................................... 7
3 Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations .................................................................................. 8
3.1 Terms and definitions ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Symbols and abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 10
4 Investigation objective and test parameters ...................................................................................... 12
5 Test regions, test locations and number of tests ............................................................................... 15
5.1 Test regions..................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Test locations ................................................................................................................................................. 15
6 Core testing and the determination of the in situ compressive strength ................................. 17
7 Initial evaluation of the data set .............................................................................................................. 18
7.1 Evaluation of the test region to determine if it represents a single concrete strength class18
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
7.2 Assessment of individual test results within a test region ............................................................ 19
8 Estimation of compressive strength for structural assessment of an existing structure ... 21
8.1 Based only on core test data ..................................................................................................................... 21
8.2 Based on a combination of indirect test data and core test data ................................................. 22
8.3 Use of indirect testing with at least three core test data ................................................................ 24
9 Assessment of compressive strength class of concrete in case of doubt .................................. 25
9.1 General.............................................................................................................................................................. 25
9.2 Use of core test data ..................................................................................................................................... 26
9.3 Indirect testing plus selected core test data ....................................................................................... 27
9.4 Screening test using a general or specific relationship with an indirect test procedure ... 28
9.5 Procedure where the producer has declared non-conformity of compressive strength ... 29
Annex A (informative) Guidance on undertaking an investigation ......................................................... 30
Annex B (informative) Example of a generic relationship between rebound number and
compressive strength class ....................................................................................................................... 38
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................. 41
2
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
European foreword
This document (EN 13791:2019) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 104 “Concrete
and related products”, the secretariat of which is held by SN.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an
identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by February 2020, and conflicting national standards
shall be withdrawn at the latest by February 2020.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document supersedes EN 13791:2007.
The main changes compared to EN 13791:2007 are:
a) the standard is fully revised but for continuity the methodological approaches and scope is retained
as well as much of the previous layout;
b) the primary focus is on the determination of the characteristic in situ compressive strength for
application with EN 1990 and EN 1992-1-1;
c) more comprehensive guidance is provided on applying the procedures, particularly with respect to
defining a test result, a measurement, volume of concrete, test location, small test region and test
region;
d) requirements to set out the purpose of the investigation, procedures to be adopted, test methods,
test locations and test regions to be defined prior to commencing the testing, are included;
e) Clause 8, "Estimation of compressive strength for structural assessment of an existing structure",

covers the previous requirements for assessment of characteristic in situ compressive strength by
either testing cores or indirect methods;
f) Clause 9, "Assessment of compressive strength class of concrete in case of doubt", covers previous
requirements for the assessment where conformity of concrete based on standard tests is in doubt;
g) approaches A and B in EN 13791:2007 are no longer valid;
h) EN 13791 is aligned with the requirements of EN 206.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organisations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
3
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Introduction
(1) This document covers two applications of in situ strength assessments. These are:
— to estimate in situ characteristic compressive strength of a test region and/or in situ strength at
specific locations;
— assessment of compressive strength class of concrete supplied to a structure under construction

where there is doubt about the compressive strength based on results of standard tests or doubt
about the quality of execution.
(2) Both applications have a number of common steps as shown in Table 1, but the assessment methods
differ. The reason for this difference is that with the estimation of the in situ strength (Clause 8) there is
no presumption as to what this should be and the uncertainty associated with the number of data are
taken into account when estimating the value. The in situ strength determined in accordance with
Clause 8 is a value based on testing a finished structure or element, as referred to by EN 1992-1-1:2004,
A.2.3.
NOTE Information may be available on the original quality of the supplied concrete, but the in situ strength
may have changed over time.
(3) Most of the procedures in Clause 9 apply where there is verification that the concrete supplied is in
accordance with the producer's declaration of performance for compressive strength but test results
from samples taken on site indicate non-conformity, and where this difference cannot be resolved by
other means. As the procedures given in CEN standards for the verification of the declaration of
performance are regarded as being reliable, the assumption is that the concrete conforms to the
specified characteristic strength and the applied statistical tests check the validity of this hypothesis.
Where a Clause 9 assessment indicates non-conformity of compressive strength then the 9.5 procedure
should be adopted by the producer and other involved parties.
(4) The Clause 8 and Clause 9 procedures have different approaches that may lead to significantly
different outcomes.
(5) Unless indicated otherwise, the provisions given in this document apply to concrete structures
made from normal-weight, lightweight or heavyweight concrete.
(6) This document only covers the use of a single relationship between an indirect test method (UPV or
rebound hammer) and compressive strength. The combined use of both UPV and rebound hammer
techniques with core strength is a useful technique, but the procedures are not detailed in this
document.
(7) This document was developed with the expectation that it will be used with EN 1992-1-1. If it is
used in conjunction with other design standards, some of the factors may need modification. In
addition, this document uses the EN 1992-1-1:2004, 3.1.6, recommended value of 1,0 for the factor αcc
and EN 1992-1-1:2004, A.2.3, recommended value of 0,85 for the factor η. Where national provisions
adopt different values for these coefficients then adjustments to the appropriate formula within this
Standard may be required.
(8) Techniques outside the range of those specified in this document may be given in provisions valid in
the place of use. For example, these include:
— combining two indirect test methods with core testing;
— use of cores of diameter less than 50 mm;
— use of pull-out testing;
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
4
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
— a screening test conforming to the principles specified in 9.4;
— in the Clause 8 procedures, provisions for less than 8 cores without indirect testing;
— assessing the strength gradient across a section after a fire;
— in the Clause 9 procedures, comparing an element where the concrete quality is in doubt with a
similar element containing conforming concrete.
In addition, provisions valid in the place of use may give requirements for other aspects not specified in
this document. For example, these include:
— relationship between 2:1 and 1:1 core compressive strengths if a value other than 0,82 is justified
on the basis of test data for the local materials;
— relationship between in situ compressive strength and core length to diameter ratio for values
other than 2:1 or 1:1;
— relationship between in situ compressive strength for lightweight concretes and core length to
diameter ratio;
— adjustment to core strength for cores containing transverse reinforcement;
— relationship between core strength and the strength of a cast cylinder of equal diameter and length;
— factors when the assessment is other than with EN 1992-1-1 or EN 1990;
— factor η given in A.2.3 of EN 1992-1-1:2004 where the national provisions use a value different to
the recommended value of 0,85;
— in 8.3 different criteria for structural assessment;
— in 9.2 and 9.3 different criteria where the criteria for compressive strength in
EN 206:2013+A1:2016, B.3.1, were not used for the assessment of a number of loads delivered to a
construction site;
— guidance on appropriate actions where the producer of the concrete has declared non-conformity
or where the concrete has been proven to be non-conforming.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
(9) Guidance on undertaking an investigation is given in Annex A.

(10) Further guidance and background information on this revision of EN 13791 and worked examples
of the calculations are given in CEN/TR 17086 [1].
5
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Table 1 — Guidance on relevant clauses
Action Clause
Objective of the investigation Clause 4, A.1
Selection of test methods A.3, A.4
Selection of assessment method: A.2
for determination of in situ strength based on:
— core test data; 8.1
— indirect testing calibrated against test specimens; 8.2
— core and indirect testing. 8.3
or, for assessment of compressive strength where production control data
show conformity and identity testing data indicate non-conformity based on:
— core test data; 9.2
— indirect testing and selected core testing; 9.3
— screening test. 9.4
Procedure where the producer has declared non-conformity of compressive
9.5
strength
Selection of test regions and test locations 5.1, 5.2, A.4
Determination of in situ strength from core test data Clause 6
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
Evaluation of data set to see if it comprises a single concrete 7.1
Evaluation of data set to see if it includes outliers 7.2
Assessment and use of the data A.4, A.5, A.6
6
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
1 Scope
(1) This document:
— gives methods and procedures for the estimation of the in situ compressive strength and
characteristic in situ compressive strength of concrete in structures and precast concrete
components using direct methods (core testing) and indirect methods, e.g. ultra-sonic pulse
velocity, rebound number;
NOTE To align with the design standard EN 1992-1-1, where the compressive strength is based on 2:1
cylinders, the in situ compressive strength is based in 2:1 cores of diameter ≥ 75 mm.
— provides principles and guidance for establishing the relationships between test results from
indirect test methods and the in situ compressive strength;
— provides procedures and guidance for assessing the conformity with the compressive strength class
of concrete supplied to structures under construction where standard tests indicate doubt or
where the quality of execution is in doubt.
(2) This document provides requirements for determining the in situ strength at test locations and the
characteristic strength of test regions, but how this information is to be applied needs to be considered
in the light of the specific situation and engineering judgement applied to the specific case.
(3) This document does not include the assessment of the quality of concrete for properties other than
compressive strength, e.g. durability-related properties.
(4) This document is not for the assessment of conformity of concrete compressive strength in
accordance with EN 206 or EN 13369, except as indicated in EN 206:2013+A1:2016, 5.5.1.2 or 8.4.
(5) This document does not cover the procedures or criteria for the routine conformity control of
precast concrete components using either direct or indirect measurements of the in situ strength.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
EN 206:2013+A1:2016, Concrete — Specification, performance, production and conformity
EN 1990:2002, Eurocode — Basis of structural design
EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures — Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings
EN 12350-1, Testing fresh concrete — Part 1: Sampling
EN 12390-2, Testing hardened concrete — Part 2: Making and curing specimens for strength tests
EN 12390-3, Testing hardened concrete — Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens
EN 12504-1, Testing concrete in structures — Part 1: Cored specimens — Taking, examining and testing
in compression
EN 12504-2, Testing concrete in structures — Part 2: Non-destructive testing — Determination of

rebound number
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
7
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
EN 12504-4, Testing concrete — Part 4: Determination of ultrasonic pulse velocity
EN 13369:2018, Common rules for precast concrete products
EN 13670, Execution of concrete structures
3 Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations

3.1 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
• IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
• ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
NOTE Abbreviations related to expressions of compressive strength and their meaning are given in 3.2.
3.1.1
core length factor
factor for converting the core test measurement or a core test result to the equivalent value of the same
diameter core with a length that is twice its diameter
3.1.2
indirect test
non-destructive test in accordance with either EN 12504-2 for rebound number or EN 12504-4 for
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
3.1.3
load
quantity of concrete transported in a vehicle comprising one or more batches
3.1.4
maturity
function of age and temperature such that for a given concrete, any batch with the same maturity has
the same compressive strength
Note 1 to entry: Maturity is often expressed as equivalent age in days at 20 °C. In accordance with EN 13670,
maturity calculations shall be based on an appropriate maturity function, proven for the type of cement or
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
combination of cement and addition in use.
3.1.5
rebound number
median of at least nine valid rebound hammer readings taken at one test location after adjusting where
necessary for the orientation of the rebound hammer
Note 1 to entry: The rebound number is expressed as a whole number.
Note 2 to entry: The procedure for determining the rebound number is specified in EN 12504-2.
3.1.6
screening test
indirect test procedure with a generic or specific relationship to compressive strength
8
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Note 1 to entry: The established relationship may be used to indicate conformity to a specified compressive
strength class.
3.1.7
small test region
for structural assessment a small test region is one that is sufficiently small for the variations in the in-
situ compressive strength to be primarily due to the selected test locations and testing variability and
not due to variations in the quality of the concrete supplied
3.1.8
test location
limited area selected for measurements usually used to estimate one test result that is to be used in the
assessment of in-situ compressive strength
Note 1 to entry: See Clause 6 (9) and 8.1 (2) for the exception.
3.1.9
test region
one or several similar structural elements or precast concrete components known or assumed to be
made from concrete with the same constituents and the same compressive strength class or equivalent
to the defined volume associated with identity testing for compressive strength
Note 1 to entry: A test region contains test locations.
3.1.10
test result
arithmetic mean of the measurements or in the case of a rebound number the median of the
measurements taken at a test location
Note 1 to entry: A test result may comprise a single ≥ 75 mm diameter core or a single UPV measurement.
3.1.11
ultrasonic pulse velocity
UPV
speed at which an ultrasonic pulse passes through concrete
Note 1 to entry: The procedure for determining the UPV is specified in EN 12504-4.
Copyright British Standards Institution

--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
Licensee=Shenzhen Institute of Standards and Technology 9972181

9
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
3.2 Symbols and abbreviations
CLF core length factor

Gp critical value according to Grubbs’ test
kn characteristic fractile factor [SOURCE: EN 1990:2002]
m number of valid indirect test results in test region under investigation
n number of core test results
p number of parameters of the correlation curve
s estimate of the overall standard deviation of in situ compressive strength
NOTE 1 See Formula (6) for the calculation of s.
sc residual standard deviation, which is a measure of the spread of the core strength test data
around the fitted regression curve
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
NOTE 2 See Formula (8) for the calculation of sc.

se standard deviation of all the estimated strength values, which is a measure of the spread of the
estimated core strengths around its mean value
NOTE 3 See Formula (7) for the calculation of se.
xi,cor indirect test value at test location "i" that is used for the correlation
x0 indirect test value at test location "0" (where the in situ strength is required for structural
assessment purposes)
x mean of the m indirect test values used for the correlation
NOTE 4 The abbreviations used for compressive strength are given in Table 2.
10
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Table 2 — Abbreviations used for compressive strength
Abbreviation Description and explanation

Compressive strength determined from samples of concrete taken in accordance
fc or fc,cube with EN 12350-1, made into cylinder or cube specimens and cured in accordance
with EN 12390-2 and tested in accordance with EN 12390-3.
Compressive strength of a core determined in accordance with EN 12504-1.
fc,core
NOTE This is a generic abbreviation used to cover all length to diameter ratios.
Compressive strength of a core determined in accordance with EN 12504-1.
fc,1:1core or fc,2:1core NOTE Where the length to diameter ratio of the core is 1:1 the abbreviation fc,1:1core is
used and where the length to diameter ratio is 2:1, the abbreviation fc:2:1core is used.
Compressive strength of a core taken at a test location within a structural element
or precast concrete component expressed in terms of the strength of a 2:1 core of
diameter ≥ 75 mm.
fc,is NOTE 1 If more than one core is taken at a test location, the test result is the mean of the
individual test measurements.
NOTE 2 This value is based on the in situ moisture condition and it is not adjusted to a
standard moisture condition.
Characteristic in situ compressive strength (expressed as the strength of a 2:1
core of diameter ≥ 75 mm), i.e. the in situ compressive strength below which 5 %
of test results are expected to fall if all the volume of concrete under
consideration had been cored and tested.
fck,is
NOTE 1 These values are not normalized to a standard moisture condition.
NOTE 2 The in situ volume of concrete under consideration is unlikely to be the same
volume used to determine the conformity of the fresh concrete in accordance with
EN 206. It is generally a smaller volume.
fc,is,est Estimated in situ compressive strength at a specific test location.
Highest value of in situ compressive strength in a set of "n" test locations
(expressed as the strength of a 2:1 core of diameter ≥ 75 mm).
fc,is,highest NOTE If more than one core is taken at a test location, the core test values for each test
location are averaged and the "highest value" is the highest of these averaged
measurements.
Lowest value of in situ compressive strength in the set of "n" test locations
(expressed as the strength of a 2:1 core of diameter ≥ 75 mm).
fc,is,lowest NOTE If more than one core is taken at a test location, the core test values for each test
location are averaged and the "lowest value" is the lowest of these averaged
measurements.
Indirect test value converted to its equivalent in situ compressive strength using a
fc,is,reg
regression equation.
Minimum characteristic strength of 2:1 cylindrical test specimens associated with
the specified compressive strength class.
fck,spec
NOTE For example fck,spec is 30 MPa for compressive strength class C30/37. See EN 206
for all strength classes.
Mean in situ compressive strength of a set of "i" test locations (expressed as the
fc,m(i)is
strength of a 2:1 core of diameter ≥ 75 mm).
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
11
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
4 Investigation objective and test parameters

(1) Prior to commencing testing on site, the following shall be determined and documented:
a) objective of the investigation;
b) standards, test methods and assessment techniques to be applied;
NOTE 1 See A.3 and test method standards for limitations on test methods.
c) test region(s) and test locations;
d) number of measurements per test location;
e) if cores are being taken, the diameter and length of the cores to be taken from the surface;
NOTE 2 The specified diameter of the core refers to the finished core diameter and not the hole size.
f) where the cores are to be cut to obtain the trimmed length(s) for testing;
g) technique to be used to prepare the ends of the cores;
h) whether sampling and testing shall be undertaken by a laboratory that has accredited procedures
according to ISO/IEC 17025 [3];
i) method of reinstatement after cores have been taken;
j) any deviations from the procedures specified in this document.
(2) Figure 1 and Figure 2 are flowcharts to help select the appropriate techniques and clauses.
(3) Guidance on undertaking an investigation is provided in Annex A.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
12
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Figure 1 — Flowchart for the estimation of characteristic in situ compressive strength for the
test region and the in situ compressive strength at specific locations
13
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,`
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
Figure 2 — Flowchart for assessment of compressive strength class of supplied concrete in cases
of doubt
14
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
5 Test regions, test locations and number of tests

5.1 Test regions
(1) The test regions shall be defined. They may comprise a series of similar elements, one large element
or the defined volume associated with identity testing (on-site control) for compressive strength.
Different concretes with regard to mix design shall have separate test regions. Where the concrete
strengths are not known, engineering judgement shall be applied to group elements into test regions
and the test results checked to see whether they comprise more than one concrete.
NOTE 1 With existing structures it may not be known whether the concrete:
—was produced on or off-site;
—was supplied as a designed or prescribed concrete;
—came from different sources, at different times;
—has undergone variations in curing due to variable exposure.
For these reasons the in situ concrete may fall across a range of compressive strength classes.
(2) Concretes from different batching plants may be placed in the same test region provided the same
mix design and constituents are used, e.g. on a large site or ready-mixed concrete plant where there are
two or more batching plants.
(3) Where the elements under investigation comprise precast concrete components and in situ
concrete, the precast concrete components and the in situ concrete shall form different test regions.
(4) The concept of a small test region is used in this document. Such a small test region shall not include
loads that are known or suspected as being significantly different to the other loads comprising this test
region.
NOTE 2 See definition in 3.1.7.
(5) For Clause 9 procedures, if the volume of concrete is not more than about 30 m3, supplied in a single
day and there is no indication that one of the loads may be different to the others, it may be assumed
that the supplied concrete does not vary significantly and the variation in test results is primarily due to
location within the test region and test variability.
5.2 Test locations
(1) The number of test locations per test region is dependent on the volume of concrete involved, the
purpose of the testing and the required confidence of the estimation. The number of test locations per
test region shall be determined and specified.
(2) The selection of the test locations shall enable the objective of the investigation (see Clause 4) to be
achieved. Each test location shall be determined and specified. The minimum number of test locations
are specified in 8.1 and Clause 9.
NOTE 1 Guidance on the assessment of existing structures is provided in EN 1998-3 [4].
(3) The number of individual test measurements to achieve a test result varies with the method of test,
see Table 3.
(4) Where the objective of the investigation is to estimate the characteristic in situ compressive strength
(fck,is), the test locations within the test region shall be selected to take account of the typical variations
in strength within the elements, see A.4 for guidance on selecting test locations.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
15
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
(5) The site conditions to be considered shall include:

— general site location, and ease of transporting test equipment;
— accessibility to suspect region onsite;
— safety of personnel onsite and of the general public.
(6) When selecting test locations avoid prestressing steel and ducts and try to avoid:
— cracked areas;
— highly stressed or critical sections;
— reinforcement.
(7) The use of a covermeter or radar to help ensure the proposed locations are free of reinforcement or
prestressing steel is recommended.
(8) Where indirect test methods are to be applied, see the relevant test method standard for performing
the test and the relevant section of this document for guidance on the minimum number of test
locations per test region.
Table 3 — Types of test and their relationship between test locations and regions
Test Location Region

The minimum number of valid test results for
estimating the characteristic in situ
compressive strength of a test region is eight
A test result may be the strength of a
provided the core diameter ≥ 75 mm, see
single core, the mean core strength if
8.1 (2), where it is recommended to core at
more than one core is taken at the test
Compressive least ten test locations, to allow for possible
location, e.g. when a long core is
strength from cores outliers. For a small test region a lower
divided into two or more shorter
(EN 12504-1) number of valid test results may be permitted,
cores. See also Clause 6 for
see 8.1 (6). The minimum number of valid test
requirements for cores with diameters
results from ≥ 75 mm diameter cores for use in
less than 75 mm.
combination with indirect testing is three, see
8.3, where at least four test locations should be
cored to allow for a possible outlier.
The test result in accordance with A regularly spaced rebound hammer survey
EN 12504-2 is the rebound number will show variations in concrete surface
Rebound numbera and it comprises the median of a hardness over the structure and identify parts
(EN 12504-2) minimum of 9 valid readings at a test of the test region where cores should be taken
location. or further investigations undertaken.
A test result may be a single
measurement of the ultrasonic pulse
A regularly spaced UPV survey will show
velocity measured directly or
variations in concrete density over the
UPVa indirectly, through a section of
structure and identify parts of the test region
(EN 12504-4) concrete, or the mean ultrasonic pulse
where cores should be taken or further
velocity if more than one
investigations undertaken.
measurement is taken at the test
location.
a Neither the rebound number nor ultrasonic pulse velocity are direct measurements of compressive
strength, but when specifically calibrated against the concrete used in the structure they may be used to
estimate the in situ compressive strength, see Clause 8.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
16
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
NOTE 2 If the plot of frequency against test value is a symmetrical bell shape around the mean value, the
distribution of test results may be taken as being Gaussian. If there are low peaks in the distribution, these
indicate test locations that might need further investigation.
6 Core testing and the determination of the in situ compressive strength

(1) For the Clause 9 procedures, core testing shall not be undertaken on cores with a maturity less than
that used as the basis for conformity testing, e.g. 28 days at 20 °C.
(2) Core testing shall be carried out in accordance with EN 12504-1 where specimens are stored in
sealed containers, apart from when they are either trimmed to length or the ends are capped ready for
testing.
(3) The densities of the cores should be determined in accordance with EN 12390-7 and reported.
NOTE 1 The density of the core is helpful when interpreting core measurements.
(4) Cores with a trimmed length : diameter ratio of 2:1 or 1:1 and a diameter ≥ 75 mm shall be specified
except where it is not practical. If due to reinforcement detailing it is not practical to use ≥ 75 mm
diameter cores, core diameters not less than 50 mm shall be specified.
NOTE 2 No requirements are specified for converting cores other than 2:1 and 1:1 into an in situ compressive
strength (fc,is).
NOTE 3 Further guidance on selecting core sizes is given in A.4.
(5) Cores should be free from reinforcement. Where a core contains reinforcement that is arranged
perpendicular to the direction of loading, this shall be recorded and evaluated separately.
(6) Any core that contains reinforcement in the direction of coring or close to the direction of coring
shall be rejected immediately and a further core taken from the same test location.
(7) For determining the in situ strength, the core test result is converted to the equivalent value of a 2:1
core using the core length factor (CLF). For normal-weight and heavyweight concrete the factor for
converting a 1:1 core to a 2:1 core is 0,82 unless a different value is given in the provisions valid in the
place of use or a different value has been justified by testing. For other length to diameter ratios, the CLF
shall be given in provisions valid in the place of use. For lightweight concretes the CLF shall be given in
the provisions valid in the place of use or justified by testing.
(8) The requirements to determine the in situ compressive strength at a test location are given in
Table 4.
NOTE 4 The aggregate size has a significant influence on the measured strength when the core diameter
divided by the upper aggregate size is less than about 3.
NOTE 5 The direction of coring is normally expressed as either vertical or horizontal to the element as cast.
This standard, or its predecessor EN 13791:2007, does not differentiate between either direction of coring.
(9) Where cores equal to or greater than 50 mm diameter and less than 75 mm diameter are being
taken for the purposes of determining the mean strength and there is no interest in obtaining an
estimate of the compressive strength at each test location, a single core may be taken at each test
location (see 8.1 for the minimum number of test locations).
NOTE 6 The strength of smaller cores have a higher variability and therefore the minimum number of cores
has been increased to give the same confidence in the test result. There is evidence that with 20 mm upper
aggregate size, 100 mm diameter 2:1 cores are approximately 7 % stronger than 50 mm diameter cores (see
EN 12504-1), but there was insufficient evidence to quantify the difference for 1:1 cores and so it is not taken into
account.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
17
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
NOTE 7 To have the same confidence in the test result at a specific test location as that given by an ≥ 75 mm
core, the mean of a number of small diameter cores (see Table 4) is needed; however, the same confidence in the
mean strength to a test region may be achieved by increasing the number of test locations and taking a single
small diameter core at each test location (see 8.1)
Table 4 — Requirements to achieve a test result for a test location
Requirement Core diameter Core diameter

50 mma ≥ 75 mm
Nominal: 1:1b Nominal: 2:1 Nominal: 1:1
Length : diameter
ratio Permitted range: 0,90:1 to Permitted range: Permitted range:
1,10:1 1,95:1 to 2,05:1 0,90:1 to 1,10:1
Minimum number of
core compressive
strength values to 3 1 1
achieve a test result at a
test location
In situ compressive
CLFc (mean of fc,1:1core mean of fc,2:1core CLFc (mean of
strength at test location
values) valuesd fc,1:1core values)d
(fc,is)
a For diameter above 50 mm and less than 75 mm, the minimum number of core compressive strength values
should be interpolated and specified.
b No provisions are given for 2:1 cores with a diameter of 50 mm.
c See Clause 6 (7) for the value of the CLF.
d If a single core has been taken, fc,is = fc,2:1core or CLF x fc,1:1core.
7 Initial evaluation of the data set

7.1 Evaluation of the test region to determine if it represents a single concrete strength
class
(1) Where it is not known that the proposed test region contains a single compressive strength (more
likely in the case when Clause 8 procedures are to be applied), all available information on the
production control and site records should be used to determine the test regions and locations that
need specific investigation. Although it is reasonable to assume that the concrete within a single
element comprises one compressive strength class, there are rare exceptions where the assumption is
not valid, e.g. when a load destined for another element was discharged into the element under
investigation; however, such a load might also be identified as a high or low outlier, see 7.2. Visually
inspect the location and strength data to check if there are any anomalous test results that may indicate
the test region contains two or more compressive strengths. While careful selection of the test regions
will minimize the risk of including two compressive strengths in a test region, it does not exclude the
possibility.
NOTE 1 For example, the test region may have been based on all the columns within a building. If the data
appears to be from two populations, "similarly located elements" would be all columns of a similar size on one or
more floors (the strength of the concrete in the columns may have been lower in the upper floors or some
columns may have been cast with higher strength concrete in order to take care of temporary cold weather).
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,`
18
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
NOTE 2 The location of the core (top, middle or bottom of an element) will have an impact on strength, but if
the recommendations in A.4 are followed, these variations will be reduced. Generally it is safe to assume that the
concrete in any single element comprises concrete from a single strength class.
(2) If there is evidence from the test results that the test region may contain two compressive strengths,
either:
— split the data set into two test regions, but note the minimum requirements for a test region or
— split the data into two sets and determine if the mean strengths are different using, for example,
a t-test.
NOTE 3 As Clause 8 covers the determination of a characteristic in situ compressive strength and this is based
on the mean strength and standard deviation, a test that determines if the mean strengths are significantly
different is the appropriate approach.
NOTE 4 There is a natural strength variation dependent on casting height due to compacting procedure and
efficiency.
(3) If a t-test is being used to determine if the mean strengths are different or one group has a higher
value than the other group, the variances shall be pooled.
(4) If the mean strengths are shown to be significantly different the data shall be split into two test
regions; if the mean strengths are not significantly different, the data set shall be regarded as being a
single test region.
(5) This check is not required for investigations under the Clause 9 procedures.
7.2 Assessment of individual test results within a test region
(1) If a data set appears to contain one or more test results that are unusually low or high, these test
results should be checked to determine if they are statistical outliers.
NOTE 1 See A.6 for guidance on handling outliers.
(2) A set of indirect test results may also contain outliers, which may indicate a need for further
investigation at this test location, e.g. a core test.
(3) By assessing, for example, the difference between the lowest or highest test result and the mean of
all the test results, it is possible to determine if the lowest or highest result is a statistical outlier. The
action to take if one or more results are statistical outliers is a matter of engineering judgement.
(4) Any established method for assessing statistical outliers is permitted.
NOTE 2 See, for example, ISO 5725 [5] and ASTM E178 [6].
(5) The Grubb test may be used to determine statistical outliers provided the data are distributed
normally. The highest test value of n consecutive test values should be considered an outlier when
f c, is, highest − f c, m
( n ) is
> Gp (1)
s
(6) Critical values (Gp) for testing for outliers are given in Table 5, which are based on a significance
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
level of 1 %.
NOTE 3 Other significance levels may be adopted for establishing the Gp values.
19
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Table 5 — Critical values (Gp) for testing for outliers
Number of test values Gp

4 1,496
5 1,764
6 1,973
7 2,139
8 2,274
9 2,387
10 2,482
11 2,564
12 2,636
13 2,699
14 2,755
15 2,806
16 2,852
17 2,894
18 2,932
19 2,968
20 3,001
25 3,135
30 3,236
35 3,316
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
40 3,381
50 3,482
60 3,560
70 3,621
80 3,673
90 3,716
100 3,754
120 3,817
140 3,867
160 3,910
180 3,946
200 3,978
250 4,042
20
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(7) The lowest test value of n consecutive test values should be considered an outlier when
f c, m − f c, is, lowest
( n ) is
> Gp (2)
s
(8) In the case of possible outliers at both extremes, this technique should be first applied to the value
that deviates most from the mean. This technique may be applied twice to a set of data for a test region.
Before the test is repeated, the first outlier shall be excluded from the calculation of the mean and
standard deviation. Each outlier shall be documented and evaluated individually. If more than two test
results are outliers, this may be an indication that the test region comprises at least two concretes and
this possibility should be examined.
Some of the other techniques may permit more than two outliers, but the possibility that the test region
comprises more than one compressive strength class should also be considered.
8 Estimation of compressive strength for structural assessment of an existing

structure
8.1 Based only on core test data
(1) The in situ compressive strength values (fc,is) are checked to ensure that all values are valid. All valid
test results are used to estimate the mean in situ compressive strength (fc,m(n)is) and the sample standard
deviation s of the test region in the structure under investigation.
(2) Except for small test regions, the estimation of the characteristic in situ strength shall be based upon
a minimum of:
— eight valid test results of in situ compressive strength based on ≥ 75 mm diameter cores in
accordance with Table 4 or
— twelve valid values of in situ compressive strength each based on a single 50 mm diameter cores
from concrete with a upper aggregate size ≤ 16 mm.
(3) When applying Formula (3), the sample standard deviation shall be the calculated sample standard
deviation s, or the value that provides a coefficient of variation of 8 %, whichever is the greater.
NOTE 1 A minimum value of the coefficient of variation is a safeguard against the use of an unrealistic low
value where core test results are abnormally close.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
(4) The characteristic in situ compressive strength (fck,is) is estimated from the lower of:
f ck , is
= f c, m n is − k n s (3)
( )
where
kn is taken from Table 6, or,
f ck , is f c, is, lowest + M
= (4)
where
the value of M is based on the value of fc,is,lowest and taken from Table 7.
21
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Table 6 — kn values for use in Formula (3)
n 8 10 12 16 20 30 ∞
kn 2,00 1,92 1,87 1,81 1,76 1,73 1,64
NOTE 2 Formula (3) and Table 6 align with EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Annex D.
Table 7 — Value of margin M to be applied in Formula (4)
Value of fc,is,lowest Margin

MPa MPa
≥ 20 4
≥ 16 < 20 3
≥ 12 < 16 2
< 12 1
(5) It is permitted to use the log normal form of Formula (3). In this case, the formulae given in
EN 1990:2002, D.7.2 shall be applied using the unknown coefficient of variation option. The sample
standard deviation of the natural logarithms of the strength values shall be the respective calculated
value or the value that provides a coefficient of variation of 8 %, whichever is the greater.
(6) The minimum number of cores and the assessment criteria for a small test region may be specified
in provisions valid in the place of use or the procedure given in (7) may be adopted.
(7) For a small test region comprising one to three elements and a total volume not exceeding
approximately 10 m3, at least three cores ≥ 75 mm in diameter shall be taken including at least one core
from every element in the test region and calculate the in situ compressive strength (fc,is). If the core
locations represent concrete that will remain in the structure, take the lowest value of three or more
cores (provided the spread of test results is not more than 15 % of the mean value) as being the in situ
compressive strength (fck,is) for structural assessment purposes.
If the spread of results is more than 15 % of the mean, this is an indication that more information about
the test region should be sought.
8.2 Based on a combination of indirect test data and core test data
8.2.1 Use of indirect testing that has been specifically calibrated against core data taken from
the structure under consideration
(1) Ideally, the indirect testing survey should be undertaken prior to coring. The data from this survey
should be used to select the positions for coring. Cores shall be taken at locations where indirect test
values are available. At least 10 pairs of test results should be obtained and the core test locations
should cover all the extent of the indirect test values, including the extremes, if structurally safe to core
at these extremes locations. The core test results shall be converted to values of in situ compressive
strength (fc,is) and the indirect test results shall be plotted as the x-axis against the in situ compressive
strength values (y-axis). The best-fit linear regression through these points shall be determined and
judged if it is reasonable for the evaluated concrete (type, age, concrete).
NOTE 1 It is often possible to develop a good correlation with 8 pairs of test results. The recommendation to
take 10 pairs of test results is to allow for possible outliers and to ensure that the correlation is based on at least
8 pairs of test results.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
22
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(2) Whenever practical, sufficient core data should be obtained to establish a specific correlation
between the indirect test and the in situ compressive strength. If there are less than 8 pairs of test
results, the procedure given in 8.3 should be followed.
NOTE 2 As the range of strength values is likely to be limited, fitting a linear regression is usually adequate. The
equations in this clause are directly applicable to linear equations.
NOTE 3 No guidance is provided on what is an adequate correlation.
The data set shall be assessed for atypical values.

NOTE 4 The analysis of standardized residuals is a good procedure for detecting atypical values. A
standardized or studentized residual is the quotient resulting from the division of a residual by an estimate of its
standard deviation.
(3) Using the established linear regression equation, all valid indirect test values are converted to their
equivalent regression equation values (fc,is,reg) even at test locations where there are actual core test
results. While determining the regression equation values, the regression equation shall not be
extrapolated by more than 4 MPa at both ends of the proven relationship.
NOTE 5 If the actual core test results are included in the calculations in 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, an error is introduced
due to double-counting the variability.
(4) These regression equation values shall be used to estimate the characteristic in situ compressive
strength (see 8.2.2) and may be used to the estimation of the in situ compressive strength at specific
locations (see 8.2.3).
8.2.2 Estimation of the characteristic in situ compressive strength for a test region
(1) The mean in situ compressive strength is estimated as:
f c, m = ∑ ( f c, is, reg ) /
m (5)
( m ) is
(2) The overall standard deviation of the in situ compressive strength of the test region is determined
from:
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
=s s c2 + s e2 (6)
The value of se is given by:
m 2
 
∑ 
i =1 
f c, is, reg
− f c, m m is 
( ) 
se = (7)
m−1
The value of sc is given by:
∑ i =1 ( f c,is − f c,is,reg )
n 2
sc = (8)
n−2
NOTE Formulae (8) and (9) are only valid where the correlation has two parameters. For example is of the
form of (y = a + b · x), or (ln y = a + b · ln x). If this is not the case, the term (n − 2) is replaced with (n − p), where p
is the number of parameters in the formula.
(3) The value of sc shall be the calculated value or 2,0 MPa, whichever is the greater.
23
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
(4) The effective number of degree of freedom associated with the overall standard deviation s is
calculated from:
2
s 2 + s 2 
 c e 
neff = (9)
s c4 s e4
+
n−2 m−1
where
n is the number of pairs of test results used for establishing the correlation curve and
m is the number of estimated strength values.
(5) Formulae (3) and (4) are then used to estimate the characteristic in situ compressive strength
except that in Table 6 n is replaced with (neff + 1) rounded to the nearest integer. In the application of
Formula (4), fc,is,lowest is the lower of the lowest estimated or lowest measured core strengths
8.2.3 Estimation of the in situ compressive strength at a specific location
(1) It is not safe to use the mean relationship to estimate the in situ compressive strength at a specific
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
location as there is a 50 % probability that the actual strength is less than the estimated strength.
Consequently the in situ compressive strength at a specific location shall be determined as the value of
the indirect test result converted to the value on the lower limit curve of the prediction interval for a
significance level α of 5 % (one tailed test).
(2) For structural assessment purposes, the estimated in situ compressive strength at a specific test
location ( f c, is,est ) is calculated using the following formula:
( x0 − x )
2
1
f c, is= f c, is, reg − t 0,05, n − 2 (10)
, est ( ) sc 1 + n +
∑ i =1 ( x i,cor − x )
n 2
where 0,05 in t(0,05,n-2) is the alpha value for a one-tailed test with (n − 2) degrees of freedom.
NOTE 1 Formula (10): This strength is not the characteristic compressive strength of the test region.
(3) Formula (10) is only valid for linear correlations. Where linearity is achieved after transformation of
variables, the transformed variables shall be used in the calculations.
(4) If there is a ≥ 75 mm diameter core test result at the specific test location, this value shall be used
and not the estimated value.
NOTE 2 A single 50 mm diameter core is insufficient to give confidence in the in situ compressive strength at a
test location.
8.3 Use of indirect testing with at least three core test data
(1) This technique may be applied to a test region comprising not more than 30 m3 of concrete to
estimate the in situ compressive strength using indirect methods without calibration where there is no
issues over the compressive strength of the supplied concrete.
NOTE 1 See Clause 9 for the situation where there are issues related to the compressive strength of concrete
supplied.
24
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(2) Using ultrasonic pulse velocity testing or rebound hammer testing, survey the test region to
determine variability and identify those locations of lower compressive strength. Take at least
three ≥ 75 mm diameter or an equivalent number of smaller diameter cores (see Table 4) from the area
around the location(s) with the lowest indirect test result and calculate the in situ compressive strength
(fc,is). If the core locations represent concrete that will remain in the structure, take the mean value of
three or more cores (provided the spread of test results is not more than 15 % of the mean value) as
being the in situ compressive strength (fck,is) for structural assessment purposes (see NOTE 3).
NOTE 2 See A.3 for limitations on the use of the rebound hammer.
NOTE 3 National provisions may specify, or the engineer involved may select, different criteria for structural
assessment purposes, see A.2 (5).
(3) Where the spread of the test results is higher than 15 % of the mean value, if an investigation
provides a justified reason for rejecting one of the core test results, the in situ compressive strength
(fck,is) shall be taken as being the mean of the remaining valid values.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
9 Assessment of compressive strength class of concrete in case of doubt

9.1 General
(1) Doubt on the achievement of the specified compressive strength class of concrete in structures
under construction might arise from various sources. Doubt about the in situ quality may arise from
doubts about the quality of the concrete supplied to the site, problems during the execution of the
works or after some exceptional event on site. The term "doubt" includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
— insufficient compressive strength of samples taken for production control leading to a declaration
of non-conformity;
— insufficient compressive strength of samples taken for identity testing;
— problems during execution of the works.
(2) The criteria in 9.2 and 9.3 are based on and applicable where the criteria for compressive strength
in EN 206:2013+A1:2016, Annex B, B.3.1 were used for the assessment of a number of loads delivered
to a construction site.
(3) The concrete under investigation shall be split into test regions, for example these test regions
might align with the lots used for identity testing. The test region should not exceed more than about
180 m3.
(4) If the procedures in this clause are satisfied, the defined test region shall be accepted as having
conformed to the specified compressive strength class. From this it may be concluded that the concrete
delivered to site, any adjustments to the concrete on site and any deviation on the execution with
respect to placing, compacting and curing as required by EN 13670 or EN 13369, as appropriate, were
not significant with respect to compressive strength.
All parties involved should be involved in the decision on the required procedures to assess the
compressive strength class of concrete as placed and to minimize cost it may be preferable to consider
options in order of least resource, i.e.:
— screening test (see 9.4);
— indirect testing plus selected core test data (see 9.3);
— use of core data (see 9.2).
25
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
The screening tests in 9.4 provide a fast and non-damaging to the structure method of assessment that
may confirm the concrete in the structure came from a conforming population. Failure to satisfy these
conservative requirements is not proof of non-conformity but it means that direct testing by coring is
needed to resolve the issue.
When drilled cores show densities that are clearly lower than standard test specimens, the reason(s)
should be clarified, see A.5.
NOTE 1 Failure to satisfy the criteria indicates that the concrete may not have achieved its specified
compressive strength class, problems occurred during transport of concrete to the site, any adjustments to the
concrete made by the user might have been significant, the execution in placing, compacting and curing the
concrete did not conform to EN 13670 or EN 13369, as appropriate, due allowance was not made for the impact of
the early-age temperature cycle, or any combination of these factors. The producer and user may need to identify
which factors are significant, but this involves taking into account any changes to the concrete supplied by the
producer, the voidage and reinforcement in the cores and the maturity of the core at testing. Guidance on
quantifying these factors is not provided in this European Standard.
(5) Where the in situ compressive strength test results do not verify the criteria of this clause, the
structural adequacy of the works and, if relevant, the implications for durability should be checked.
(6) If cores are to be tested, the user and producer shall agree on the core diameter and length to
diameter ratio and the laboratory to undertake the testing.
(7) If conformity to the specified compressive strength class had been based on cube testing, the
assessment of the compressive strength class as placed may be based on the minimum characteristic
cube strength associated with the specified compressive strength class.
(8) The null- hypothesis in the procedures in 9.2 to 9.4 is that the concrete conformed to the specified
compressive strength class and the procedures assess whether this is, or is not, a valid hypothesis.
(9) Where the producer has declared non-conformity, the procedures in 9.5 apply.
NOTE 2 In this situation it is not technically correct to assume that the concrete conformed to its strength
specification and using a statistical test to check if this assumption is correct.
9.2 Use of core test data
(1) Each test region shall be split into volumes of approximately 30 m3. Where there is less than 30 m3 it
may be treated as a single volume provided the concrete was supplied on a single day and there was no
information that one of the loads may be different to the others. The minimum number of test locations
for each volume is specified in Table 8. Using the procedures specified in Clause 6, cores are taken at
each test location to obtain a test result for each test location. If both of the criteria given in Table 8 are
satisfied, the conformity of compressive strength may be accepted for the test region under
investigation.
NOTE 1 Thirty cubic metres aligns with three 10 m3 truckloads or four 7,5 m3 truckloads.
NOTE 2 Table 8 and Table 10: The value of 0,85 is the recommended value of conversion factor ƞ given in
EN 1992-1-1:2004, A.2.3.
26 --`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Table 8 — Criteria for assessment based on core test data
Number of Minimum number Mean of core test

approximate 30 m3 of test locations for results for the test Lowest test resultb,c
volumes in test region each volumea regionb
1d 3 — ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
2 to 4 2 ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec + 1) ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
5 to 6 2 ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec + 2) ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
a See Clause 6 for the minimum number of cores to obtain a test result for each test location.
b The core strength may be expressed as fc,1:1core or fc,2:1core depending upon the selected value of fck,spec.
c Where M = 4 MPa for compressive strength class C20/25 or higher. For C16/20, C12/15 and C8/10 the
margin M shall be reduced to 3, 2, and 1 respectively.
d Provided it is treated as a single volume, see 9.2 (1).
9.3 Indirect testing plus selected core test data
(1) The concrete under investigation shall be divided into test regions not exceeding approximately
180 m3.
(2) At least the number of test locations as given in Table 9 shall be tested by the selected indirect test
method. Whenever practical to do so, take at least one indirect test measurement at locations within
test regions for every delivery
NOTE For the Clause 9 procedures, it is reasonable to assume that the carbonation depth has not exceeded
5 mm and therefore the use of a rebound hammer is an acceptable method.
(3) At each test location a rebound test in accordance with EN 12504-2 or a UPV measurement in
accordance with EN 12504-4 shall be undertaken. The apparatus, the test procedure and the expression
of test results shall be in accordance with EN 12504-2 or EN 12504-4 as appropriate.
(4) At the test locations specified in Table 10 a core test result in accordance with Clause 6 shall be
obtained.
Table 9 — Minimum number of test locations for indirect test measurements for the test region
Number of approximate 30 m3
Minimum number of indirect test locations
volumes in test regiona
1b 9
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
2 to 4 12
5 to 6 20
a If the volume comprises a large area, the indirect testing should be increased so that it is representative of
the variations within the test region.
b Provided it is treated as a single volume, see 9.2 (1).
(5) If both of the criteria given in Table 10 are satisfied, the conformity of compressive strength may be
accepted for the test region under investigation.
27
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Table 10 — Locations for selected coring and assessment criteria
Mean of core test

results at the
Number of
locations closest to
approximate Minimum number of test
30 m3 volumes in locations for coringa
the median rebound Lowest test resultb,c
number or the mean
test region
UPV for the test
regionb
One core at each of the two
1d lowest indirect test values — ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
for the test region
2 to 4 One core at lowest indirect ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec + 1) ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
test value for the test region
and one core at each of the
2 test locations closest to
5 to 6 the median rebound ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec + 2) ≥ 0,85 (fck,spec − M)
number or the mean UPV
for the test region
a See Clause 6 for the minimum number of cores to obtain a test result for each test location.
b The core strength may be expressed as fc,1:1core or fc,2:1core depending upon the selected value of fck,spec.
c Where M = 4 MPa for compressive strength class C20/25 or higher. For C16/20, C12/15 and C8/10 the
margin M shall be reduced to 3, 2, and 1 respectively.
d Provided it is treated as a single volume, see 9.2 (1).
9.4 Screening test using a general or specific relationship with an indirect test
procedure
(1) The screening-test may be used to estimate the uniformity of the concrete composition in the test
region to e.g. determine variability, identify those locations of lower compressive strength, and to
estimate whether the specified compressive strength class has been achieved.
(2) A generic or a specific relationship between concrete strength and a rebound number or pulse
velocity shall be established by procedures given in provisions valid in the place of use or a generic
relationship may be provided in the national provisions.
NOTE 1 An example of an established generic relationship is given in Annex B.
(3) This procedure shall be limited to where the indirect test method is appropriate.
NOTE 2 See A.3 and test standards for guidance on limitations of indirect test methods.
(4) The same type and model of rebound hammer/UPV equipment that was used to establish the
relationship shall be used to test the structure.
(5) While the results of this procedure may be accepted as an indication that the concrete conformed to
its specified compressive strength class, failure to meet the criteria is not proof that the concrete did not
meet the specified compressive strength class. If the concrete fails to meet these criteria, one of the
procedures given in 9.2 or 9.3 shall be applied.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
28
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(6) The rebound test is primarily used to estimate the uniformity of the concrete composition. As proof
of load bearing capacity, a compressive strength class according to EN 206 may be assigned to in situ
concrete using relationships given in the provisions valid in the place of use or indicating in the national
provisions that the relationship given in Annex B may be applied.
9.5 Procedure where the producer has declared non-conformity of compressive strength
(1) In the case of precast concrete components, the manufacturer shall follow the procedure specified in
EN 13369:2018, B.5. In addition the manufacturer shall identify the cause(s) of the non-conformity and
take action to reduce the risk of further non-conformities.
(2) In the case of ready-mixed or site-mixed concrete, where the producer has declared non-conformity,
the producer shall provide the following information to the involved parties, or where the information
is not available/unknown identify that this is the situation:
— identification of the concrete that was non-conforming;
— estimated characteristic compressive strength of the supplied concrete immediately prior to

placing in the structure;
— data on which this estimated characteristic compressive strength was based;
— reasoning leading to this estimated strength;
— the causes of this non-conformity;
— proposed actions to reduce the risk of further non-conformity.
NOTE Provisions valid in the place of use may provide further guidance on the appropriate actions to take in
this situation.
(3) Where relevant, the implications for durability should also be considered, but this topic is not within
the scope of EN 13791.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
29
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Annex A
(informative)
Guidance on undertaking an investigation
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
A.1 Information required from the tests
(1) Knowledge of the in situ compressive strength of concrete in a structural member as part of an
assessment of a structure might be required for one or more of the following reasons:
a) structural assessment:
— prior to refurbishment or new use;
— prolonged service life;
— after deterioration of concrete due to:
— overloading;
— fatigue;
— chemical action;
— fire;
— explosion;
— weathering including freeze–thaw action;
— to ascertain whether the in situ strength of concrete is acceptable for:
— the designed loading system;
— the actual loading system;
— a projected loading system for a new use;
b) assessment of a test region where there is verification that the concrete supplied is in accordance
with the declared compressive strength but test results from samples taken on site indicate non-
conformity resulting from, for example:
— nonconformity or suspected questionable compressive strength of concrete supplied;
— air content in excess of the maximum permitted;
— water added on site under the instructions of the user without control testing being
undertaken;
c) assessment where the producer has declared non-conformity;
d) problems during execution involved in placing, compacting or curing of concrete.
30
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(2) In planning an investigation, it is important to discriminate between a structural assessment of an

existing structure using the Clause 8 procedures and an assessment of compressive strength class of
concrete in case of doubt using the Clause 9 procedures.
(3) For structural assessment, it may be that the strength of the concrete is known or at least known in
some areas, and the purpose of the survey is to determine the strength in areas not known or of interest
due to damage, refurbishment or change of use.
(4) Where the concrete strength supplied to the structure is unknown, e.g. there are no as-built records;
the estimation of characteristic in situ compressive strength shall be conservative. The less data
available the more conservative the estimated characteristic strength should be to compensate for the
uncertainty. There are no definitive rules for the application of the test results. For example, the
engineer may decide to replace concrete in the structure identified as giving low test results and hence
be justified in excluding these test results from the estimation of characteristic in situ compressive
strength.
(5) If information is available about an existing structure, it should be used to help define the test
regions and indicate what strength classes should be expected after taking account of strength
development over time. With existing structures and no reliable construction data, it may be
appropriate to check any estimate of the compressive strength with an estimate of the compressive
strength from past use.
(6) Even where the strength of the supplied concrete is known, it may be helpful to assess the actual
strength developed over time.
(7) Where there is verification that the concrete supplied is in accordance with the declared
compressive strength but test results from samples taken on site indicate non-conformity, the validity
of whether the concrete in the structure came from a population meeting the specified compressive
strength class is being tested. As with identity testing to EN 206, the presumption is that the concrete
came from a conforming population and the assessment based on in situ testing is performed to
determine if this is true or false.
(8) Any structural investigation should be carefully planned and executed to ensure that the
information obtained is sufficient to provide an adequately reliable assessment of concrete strength in a
structure. The detailed test programme will depend upon the reason for the investigation and whether:
a) an estimate of the characteristic in situ compressive strength of concrete in a structural member is
required;
b) an estimate of the in situ compressive strength at specific locations within an element is required;
c) the investigation is required to determine the strength of concrete on the immediate surface, near
to the surface, or at a greater depth (see A.3);
d) additional information is required, e.g. uniformity and density of concrete.
A.2 Method of assessment of in situ strength

(1) For statistical reasons a minimum number of test results may be required to achieve the required
level of confidence, but the number of tests shall take account of practical issues such as access, impact
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
on the structure, cost, and the effectiveness of re-instatement at the test locations.
31
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
(2) When the purpose of the investigation is to determine the characteristic in situ compressive
strength and not the compressive strength class of the concrete in case of doubt, the options are:
— core testing (see 8.1);
— indirect methods with calibration against core data (see 8.2);
— indirect methods with selected coring (see 8.3).
(3) If indirect testing is planned, check limitations of the indirect test method to ensure that there
would be a reliable relationship between the indirect test method and coring, see A.3 for guidance.
(4) With all these options it is necessary to:
— select and specify the test region(s) (see 5.1);
— select and specify the test locations (see 5.2) and the number of tests per test location (see 5.2);
— select and specify the core diameter and length : diameter ratio (either 2 : 1 or 1 : 1);
— specify the method of end preparation of the cores (see EN 12504-1);
— specify the method of re-instatement at the locations where cores are to be taken.
(5) The guidance supplied in this document needs to be considered in the light of the specific situation
and engineering judgement applied to the specific case. Whether the value of characteristic in situ
strength so estimated should be used in a structural assessment will depend upon the particular
circumstances. If the calculated value is based on a large number of core or indirect test data, it is an
appropriate value for structural calculations. However as the number of test data decreases, the
probability that, with an unknown structure, the structure contains (unknown) weaker areas increases.
(6) While coring gives the most reliable measure of in situ compressive strength at a test location,
coring is expensive and the holes where the cores were extracted need re-instatement. Coring on its
own gives limited information about a structure. Consequently, the trend in practice for older
structures is to use indirect testing to obtain a detailed assessment of the uniformity of the concrete in
the structure and then use coring to establish a specific relationship between the indirect test
measurements and in situ compressive strength.
A.3 Selection of test method

(1) The confidence with which it is possible to assess in situ strength of concrete will increase with the
number of assessments made. In the case of some tests (e.g. ultrasonic pulse velocity, rebound number)
little extra cost is incurred by obtaining a large number of test data. In other cases (e.g. core data) the
cost of each test is appreciable. The decision on the number and type of tests to be made will, therefore,
be based upon an assessment of the cost of obtaining an estimated in situ strength of adequate
reliability. Core testing provides the most direct measure of in situ strength.
(2) Ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer tests do not measure the strength of concrete but
some other property (pulse-transit time in the case of UPV and surface hardness in the case of rebound
hammer) that has a concrete-specific relationship to compressive strength. If the relationship between
ultrasonic pulse velocity or rebound hammer and compressive strength is established for a particular
concrete as described in this document, a safe and reliable relationship may be determined. The
relationship between rebound number and strength is different if the concrete is carbonated. It is best
to avoid using the rebound number to assess strength on carbonated concrete, but it is still useful in
determining the locations to core.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
32
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(3) The relative merits and limitations of tests for various depths from the surface are summarized in
Table A.1. There are other tests, e.g. gamma radiography and radar, not listed in Table A.1, but the main
purpose of using those tests is something other than the determination of compressive strength.
(4) Due to the uncertainty associated with using a limited number of test data, it is recommended that
any investigation (other than a small test region) where the number of cores is less than 10 be
supported by additional indirect test data, e.g. rebound number.
(5) The effect of damage to the structure caused by the testing needs to be taken into account and
where damage will occur the method of reinstatement needs to be specified.
(6) The choice of test methods should include consideration of:
— general site location and ease of transporting test equipment;
— likelihood of obtaining relevant test results due to geometry, structure, reinforcement, and relative
humidity;
— accessibility to test region;
— access to electric power, water, compressed air;
— safety of personnel onsite and general public;
— climatic conditions;
— availability of suitably trained and qualified personnel;
— delays in construction or operation whilst testing is conducted and decisions are made;
— damage to the structure caused by the testing;
— delays in completion and handover;
— cost.
Table A.1 — Relative merits and limitations of various tests for measuring in situ compressive
strength
Accuracy of Ease Lack of

Region Speed Economy
Test Standard strength of damage to
tested of test of test
estimate test structure
Core EN 12504-1 **** ** ** * *
In depth Ultrasonic
pulse EN 12504-4 ** a *** *** *** ****
velocity
Near to
Pull-out EN 12504-3 ** b ** ** ** *
surface
Immediate Rebound
EN 12504-2 ** a **** **** **** ***
surface number
NOTE More asterisks indicate a better performance.
a Only if calibrated for the particular concrete under investigation.
b Pull-out testing is more commonly used to determine the strength of young concrete and for this use the
accuracy of the strength estimation is higher than given in this table. A lower accuracy is given for the
applications covered in Clause 8 as carbonation and incipient delamination may affect the accuracy.
33
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
(7) The rebound hammer gives a measure of surface strength and not an assessment of the concrete
quality throughout the section. The use of the rebound hammer is not appropriate in certain conditions
including:
— carbonation depths greater than 5 mm;
— where controlled permeability formwork or surface hardeners have been used;
— fire damaged concrete;
— concrete surfaces the surface has been lost due to chemical or freeze‐thaw action.
(8) Pulse velocity measurements give an assessment throughout the section depth, but the test result is
influenced by the moisture content of the concrete and other factors, see EN 12504-4:2004, Annex B.
The direct transmission method is more accurate than the indirect transmission method.
(9) The accuracy of estimates of in situ strength obtained from indirect non-destructive tests depends
upon the reliability of the correlation between test method and core strength. This document provides
methods for obtaining reliable safe relationships. Two procedures for using combined techniques are
described below.
— Use of a comprehensive survey with indirect testing, e.g. rebound hammer, with sufficient core
testing to establish the relationship between the indirect method and in situ compressive strength
for the concrete under investigation. Then all the test data are converted into their in situ
compressive strengths. These data are then used to determine the characteristic in situ
compressive strength and areas that need more detailed consideration.
— Use of an indirect method to locate the lower compressive strength in a test region not exceeding
30 m3 from which to obtain a few cores (see 8.3). In this procedure, there are insufficient core data
to establish the relationship between the indirect method and core strength.
(10) The reference method is core testing or direct testing of certain precast products.
A.4 Additional guidance for assessment based on core test data

(1) Core testing is undertaken in accordance with EN 12504-1.
(2) If the engineer plans to assess the adequacy of the structure using European standards such as
EN 1992-1-1, the core tests should ideally be carried out on cores with a length : diameter ratio of 2:1. It
is not always practical to take 2:1 cores and therefore the option of using 1:1 cores is also provided but
these test results are converted to an equivalent 300 mm by 150 mm diameter core using the
relationship given in Clause 6. Clause 6 notes that the aggregate size has a significant influence on the
measured strength when the core diameter divided by the upper aggregate size is less than about 3.
Ideally the diameter of the cores should be in the range 75 mm to 100 mm. It is strongly advised that
the core locations should be such that the cores contain no reinforcement. This had led to using cores
with smaller diameters (in the range of 50 mm to 70 mm), but such measurements are more
variable [7]. To overcome this variability, this document requires more smaller-diameter cores at each
test location with the "test result" being the mean of these cores or more test locations with a single
core (see Clause 6 and 8.1).
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
34
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(3) The confidence given to the calculated in situ compressive strength when testing identical concrete
is estimated from the repeatability/√n. For 100 mm diameter cores with ends prepared by grinding,
there is a 95 % probability that the true mean value is within ±14 %/√n of the calculated value [8].
Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum group of four cores should be taken to represent a small
test region. If more than four cores are taken from a small test region, the confidence in the mean in situ
compressive strength will increase. More cores are needed from larger test regions as there may be
variability in the placed concrete as well as variability in testing and location.
(4) End preparation by grinding is the most precise but other methods have similar precision for
normal strength concretes if they are undertaken by laboratories experience in the capping method [8].
End preparation by grinding is recommended for estimated compressive strengths higher than 50 MPa.
(5) The diameter, length to diameter ratio (2:1 or 1:1) of the cores, where the core taken from the
structure is to be sawn to get the test specimen(s) and end preparation method should be specified to
the coring/testing company. The diameter is the diameter of the core, not the hole. A small tolerance on
the finished length is permitted (see Clause 6), e.g. a 2:1 100 mm diameter core would have a finished
length in the range 190 mm to 210 mm. A core with a length : diameter ratio within the tolerances given
in Clause 6 is accepted without adjustment for length. If these recommendations are not followed, the
individual core test results may need correcting for:
— length : diameter ratio to convert the core compressive strength (fc,core) to in situ compressive
strengths (fc,is);
— reinforcement transverse to the direction of loading.
(6) Clause 6 requires a core containing longitudinal or near longitudinal reinforcement to be rejected on
visual examination and a replacement core taken.
(7) Both the core compressive strength (fc,core) and the in situ compressive strength (fc,is) should be
reported. To be able to assess the structure correctly, the engineer should specify, where appropriate,
the reporting of the following additional (additional to the core test results) information from core
testing:
— density of the core;
— excess voidage;
— any other observations that may be relevant, e.g. cracks or cold joint in core.
(8) The test locations for cores should be such that after cutting the core to length, the core does not
contain:
— concrete from within 30 mm to any surface;
— concrete within 50 mm or 20 % of the top of the lift, whichever is the higher amount, in sections
where the depth of lift is not more than 1,5 m;
— concrete from the top 300 mm of the lift, where the depth of lift is 1,5 m or more.
(9) These recommendations are to help ensure that the test results are representative of the bulk of the
concrete in the structure.
A.5 Assessment of compressive strength class of concrete in cases of doubt

(1) The procedure to follow will depend upon the cause of the doubt. Where the producer has declared
non-conformity, a statistical test based on the assumption that the concrete conformed to its specified
compressive strength class is not valid and the procedures in 9.5 should be followed.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
35
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
(2) Where there was a problem with the execution with respect to placing (including delayed placing),
compaction or curing or an exceptional event on site and the concrete has been accepted as conforming
to its specification, it may still be appropriate to use the 9.2, 9.3 or 9.4 procedures to determine if the
concrete strength is adequate.
(3) Where there is a potential nonconformity of concrete, guidance valid in the place of use, e.g.
CIRIA C519: Action in the case of nonconformity of concrete structures [9], should be followed. The initial
investigation should include examination of production records and testing procedures. An initial step
will be check that the concrete test procedures used to establish conformity and those casting doubt on
the conformity were undertaken in accordance with the relevant standards. If the initial investigation
identifies the need for in situ testing to resolve a dispute over the compressive strength of the concrete
supplied to the site, the options are:
— screening test (see 9.4);
— indirect testing followed by selected coring of the weakest concrete (see 9.3);
— core testing (see 9.2).
(4) For these assessments, the null hypothesis is that the concrete came from a conforming population
and the fewer the data that are available the less evidence there is to reject the hypothesis and the
concrete.
(5) The procedures in Clause 9 assess the compressive strength of the in situ concrete and if the result is
positive, the concrete supplied to the structure is accepted as having conformed to the specified
strength class, any adjustments to the concrete delivered to site were not significant and that the level
of care in placing, compacting and curing the concrete conformed to EN 13670 or EN 13369, as
appropriate.
(6) Where the additional testing options 9.4, 9.3, and 9.2, or combinations thereof, indicate that the
conformity of concrete to the specified strength class is not proven a verification of the structural
adequacy taking into account the estimated strength may need to be undertaken in accordance with
provisions valid in the place of use.
(7) Where the concrete failed to meet the Clause 9 criteria, it may be necessary to establish the cause of
the low strength using, for example, a procedure to determine the strength this concrete would have
achieved if it had been made into test specimens. Nevertheless, with a marginal failure and the
uncertainties associated with estimating this strength, it will be difficult to prove that the concrete did,
or did not, conform to its specification.
(8) Estimating the strength the concrete would have achieved if it had been made into test specimens
rather than placed and then cored is a complex process with a high level of uncertainty. The reasons for
this are that the core strengths shall be adjusted for at least the volume of entrapped air above that
found in test specimens, curing and maturity to estimate the strength that this concrete would have
given if it had been made into test specimens. The maturity of concrete depends upon its temperature
and curing history, which is not normally known, and maturity is a function of cement type and content,
addition type and content, admixture type, section thickness, formwork type, placing temperature and
ambient temperature. The strength–maturity relationship depends upon the type and source of cement.
The source of cement is more significant when taking cores at early ages (before a maturity equivalent
to 28 days at 20 °C has been achieved). However, from a structural viewpoint, it is preventing
inadequate strength in the structure that matters, regardless of whether this was due to erroneous
constituent selection, poor concrete, poor execution on site or a combination of these factors.
(9) A further complication arises where the section is large and the concrete has undergone the typical
temperature rise and fall, as the strength of such concrete may be up to 20 % less than standard cured
specimens [10].
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
36
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
(10) While a complete analysis of potential strength is difficult and the outcome uncertain, there are
aspects of this analysis that are reliable and could be taken into account when assessing the cause(s) of
the low strength.
(11) If water has been added to the concrete under the instructions of the client, according to EN 206,
the volume of added water should have been recorded on the delivery ticket and the producer should
be able to provide evidence of the impact of this added water on the compressive strength.
NOTE Added water may also have an impact on durability but this aspect of performance is not covered in
this document.
(12) Using the same sources of constituents and the same mix proportions, it might be appropriate to
undertake a test programme to establish the relationships between:
a) variations in water content and compressive strength;
b) variations in air content and compressive strength;
c) variations in level of compaction and compressive strength.
Using this information in conjunction with the core test data and the other information may help
identify the cause(s) of the low strength.
A.6 Acceptance of test data
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
(1) Before any programme is commenced, it is desirable that there is complete agreement between the
interested parties on the validity of the proposed testing procedure, the criteria for acceptance, and the
appointment of a person and/or laboratory to:
— take responsibility for the testing;
— interpret the test results.
(2) It is strongly recommended that testing be undertaken by a laboratory that is accredited for the
whole of the test procedure, not just the testing. This will minimize the risk of a dispute over the quality
of the test data.
(3) Where a core test result is shown to be a statistical outlier (either suspicious or rejected), the reason
should be determined. When on re-examination it is concluded that the outlier was not a valid test
result, the core test result should be rejected and not used in the assessment of the strength in a
structure or precast concrete component. When the core test result is valid and represents a local
defect, e.g. an area that is not properly compacted, the action to be taken shall be determined. For
example, the local area might need removal and replacement. When the outlier represents a local defect
that is being remedied, the core test result should not be included in any calculation of characteristic in
situ compressive strength. There are situations where an outlier needs to be taken into account when
assessing structural adequacy, e.g. where the weak area is not being removed and replaced.
37
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Annex B
(informative)
Example of a generic relationship between rebound number and

compressive strength class
(1) The following example is taken from the procedure given in the German National Annex to
EN 13791:2006.
(2) The apparatus, the test procedure and the expression of test results shall be in accordance with
EN 12504-2. At least 9 test locations within the test region shall be selected and at each test location a
rebound test in accordance with EN 12504-2 shall be undertaken.
(3) Testing shall be undertaken by a person who has been adequately trained in the use of rebound
hammers.
(4) The rebound numbers for all the test locations in the test region are used to determine the median
of the rebound number for the test region (second column in Table B.1 or Table B.2).
(5) Provided all of the following conditions are satisfied:
— the concrete is normal-weight concrete;
— controlled permeability formwork or surface hardeners were not used;
— a Type N rebound hammer having an impact energy of 2,207 Nm was used for measuring the
rebound number based on the rebound distance (R) or by energy or velocity measurements (Q);
— the carbonation depth does not exceed 5 mm;
— the rebound numbers meet both the criteria in column 1 and column 2 of Table B.1 (rebound
distance) or both the criteria in column 1 and column 2 of Table B.2 (energy or velocity
differential);
— the associated compressive strength class (column 3) may be assumed.
NOTE For the Clause 9 procedures, it is reasonable to assume that the carbonation depth has not exceeded
5 mm.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
38
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Table B.1 — Rebound number based on the rebound distance (type R) and associated EN 206
compressive strength classes for normal-weight concrete
Lowest rebound number

Median of the rebound EN 206 compressive strength
from all test locations in the
numbers for the test region classa
test region
≥ 26 ≥ 30 C8/10
≥ 30 ≥ 33 C12/15
≥ 32 ≥ 35 C16/20
≥ 35 ≥ 38 C20/25
≥ 37 ≥ 40 C25/30
≥ 40 ≥ 43 C30/37
≥ 44 ≥ 47 C35/45
≥ 46 ≥ 49 C40/50
≥ 48 ≥ 51 C45/55
≥ 50 ≥ 53 C50/60
≥ 53 ≥ 57 C55/67
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
≥ 57 ≥ 60 C60/75
≥ 62 ≥ 65 C70/85
≥ 66 ≥ 69 C80/95
a At a confidence level of the 10th percentile.
39
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2018 (E)
Table B.2 — Rebound number based on the energy or velocity differential, (type Q) and
associated EN 206 compressive strength classes for normal-weight concrete
Lowest rebound number

Median of the rebound EN 206 compressive strength
from all test locations in the
numbers for the test region class a
test region
≥ 25 ≥ 34 C8/10
≥ 29 ≥ 40 C12/15
≥ 36 ≥ 45 C16/20
≥ 42 ≥ 49 C20/25
≥ 46 ≥ 52 C25/30
≥ 51 ≥ 56 C30/37
≥ 56 ≥ 60 C35/45
≥ 58 ≥ 62 C40/50
≥ 60 ≥ 64 C45/55
≥ 62 ≥ 66 C50/60
≥ 64 ≥ 68 C55/67
≥ 66 ≥ 71 C60/75
≥ 69 ≥ 73 C70/85
≥ 71 ≥ 75 C80/95
a At a confidence level of the 10th percentile.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
40
BS EN 13791:2019
EN 13791:2019 (E)
Bibliography
[1] CEN/TR 17086 1, Further guidance on the application of EN 13791 and background to the
provisions
[2] EN 12390-7, Testing hardened concrete - Part 7: Density of hardened concrete
[3] ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
[4] EN 1998-3, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings
[5] INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of

measurement methods and results, ISO 5725
[6] AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS, Standard practice for dealing with outlying
observations, ASTM E178
[7] EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEE, Inter-laboratory comparisons in support of CEN/ISO

standards called up in EN 206, Concrete. Final report on experiment C, June 1997
[8] THE CONCRETE SOCIETY, In situ concrete strength. An investigation into the relationship between core
strength and standard cube strength. The Concrete Society, Camberley, UK, 2004
[9] AINSWORTH P.R., HOPKINS C.J. Action in the case of nonconformity of concrete structures. C519.
CIRIA, 2000. ISBN 978 0 86017 519 3
[10] HARRISON T. A., Concrete properties: Setting and hardening, Advanced Concrete Technology —
Concrete Properties, 2003, p4/11
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
1 Under preparation. Stage at the time of publication: FprCEN/TR 17086:2017.
41
BS EN 13791:2019
National Annex NA
(informative)
Guidance and complementary provisions
NA.1 Introduction
NA.1.1 General
(1) This national annex sets out additional guidance and complementary provisions for the use of
BS EN 13791:2019 in the UK to ensure that technically sound and established processes continue to be
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
covered by the standard, even though consensus could not be achieved at the European level.
NA.1.2 National provisions

(1) BS EN 13791:2019 permits national provisions in a number of situations. Table NA.1 is the UK
committee's position in respect of those permissions.
Table NA.1 — UK committee's position on permissions

Clause Permission UK committee's position
(paragraph)
Introduction (6) Combining two indirect test methods Guidance on this approach is not provided.
with core testing
Introduction (7) Different factors for αcc and η BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014 recommends for
αcc: 0.85 for compression in bending or axial
loading; and 1.00 for all other phenomena.
BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014 permits η × γc to
be reduced to 1.3 for direct testing of compressive
strength on the structure.
Introduction (8) Use of cores of diameter less than Not recommended. Consequently, guidance is not
50 mm provided.
Introduction (8) Use of pull-out testing Guidance is not provided.
Introduction (8) A screening test conforming to the Given the wide range of aggregates in use in the
principles specified in 9.4 UK, a general relationship is not considered to be
appropriate. The procedure given in Annex B is not
recommended for use in the UK. A specific screening
test developed for the concrete under consideration
is an acceptable approach and a recommended first
step if testing the structure is necessary. A proce‑
dure for developing such a relationship is given in
PD CEN/TR 17086[NA.1].
Introduction (8) Assessing the strength gradient Guidance is not provided.
across a section after a fire
Introduction (8) Relationship between 2:1 and 1:1 core Given the range of constituents used in the UK, there
compressive strength if a value other is no evidence to permit a general relaxation. A high‑
than 0.82 is justified on the basis of er factor is permitted if justified by test data for the
test data for the local materials concrete being investigated.
Introduction (8) Relationship between in situ com‑ The need for other length to diameter ratios is ex‑
pressive strength for core length to ceptional and no guidance is provided.
diameter ratio other than 2:1 and 1:1
42
BS EN 13791:2019
Table NA.1 (continued)

Clause Permission UK committee's position
(paragraph)
Introduction (8) Relationship between in situ com‑ NA.6.3 specifies a value of 0.91 if no other value has
pressive strength for lightweight been established by testing for converting 1:1 cores
concretes and core length to diameter to in situ compressive strength.
ratio
Introduction (8) Adjustment to core strength for cores Guidance is given in BS EN 12504‑1:2019, National
containing transverse reinforcement Annex NA.
Introduction (8) Relationship between core strength Although it is recognized that there may be a differ‑
and the strength of a cast cylinder of ence, no relationship is provided.
equal diameter and length
Introduction (8) Factors when the assess‑ In the UK, BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014 and
ment is other than with BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 are applicable. No guid‑
BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014 or ance is provided for other standards.
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005
Introduction (8) Factor ƞ given in The UK adopts the recommended value and there‑
BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014, A.2.3 fore no different value is needed.
where the national provisions use a
value different from the recommend‑
ed value of 0.85
Introduction (8) Guidance on appropriate actions See NA.5.
where the producer of the concrete
has declared nonconformity or where
the concrete has been proven to be
nonconforming
8.1 (6), (7) Provisions for fewer than eight cores The procedure given in 8.1 (7) is an acceptable
without indirect testing procedure. No additional requirements are specified
and the parties involved are free to select a proce‑
dure that fits the specific situation.
8.3 (2) Different criteria for structural as‑ The UK accepts the given criteria.
sessment
9.2 and 9.3 Different assessment criteria where The UK uses the criteria given in
the criteria for compressive strength BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016, B.3.1 and consequently
in BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016, B.3.1 different criteria are not required.
were not used for the assessment of
a number of loads delivered to a con‑
struction site
9.4 (1) Comparing an element where the A procedure is set out in NA.5.5.
concrete quality is in doubt with a
similar element containing conform‑
ing concrete
NA.2 Normative references [Cl 2 of BS EN 13791:2019]

BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016, Concrete — Specification, performance, production and conformity
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Eurocode — Basis of structural design
BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures — Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings
BS EN 12504‑1:2019, Testing concrete in structures — Part 1: Cored specimens — Taking, examining and
testing in compression
BS 8500‑2:2015+A2:2019, Concrete — Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206 — Part 2:
Specification for constituent materials and concrete
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---

Copyright British Standards Institution Licensee=Shenzhen Institute of Standards and Technology 9972181 43
BS EN 13791:2019
NA.3 Terms and definitions, symbols and abbreviations [Cl 3 of

BS EN 13791:2019]
NA.3.1 Terms and definitions [Cl 3.1 of BS EN 13791:2019]
(1) The terms and definitions given in 3.1 apply together with the following additions.
(2) The core strength given in Table 2 (fc,1:1core or fc,2:1core) should not be significantly affected by the
presence of transverse reinforcement. See BS EN 12504‑1:2019, National Annex NA.
NA.3.1.1 excess voidage
voidage in excess of that present in test specimens that have undergone standard compaction
NA.3.2 Symbols and abbreviations [Cl 3.2 of BS EN 13791:2019]

(1) The symbols and abbreviations given in 3.2 apply together with the symbols in Table NA.2.
Table NA.2 — Symbols
Symbol Explanation
Kv correction factor for excess voidage
Sr sample standard deviation of reference test region
Ss sample standard deviation of the test region under investigation
X̅ r mean ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)/rebound number of the reference test region
X̅ s mean UPV/rebound number of the test region under investigation
NA.4 Estimation of compressive strength for structural assessment of an existing

structure — based only on core test data [Cl 8.1 of BS EN 13791:2019]
(1) In general, the procedure given in 8.1 should be used. Nevertheless, it is recognized that if the test
region is small, it may be appropriate to estimate the in situ strength with fewer than eight cores. The
risks associated with such a procedure, as described in PD CEN/TR 17086[NA.1] should be taken into
consideration when planning to use a low number of core test results without an indirect test survey.
(2) BS EN 1992‑1‑1:2004+A1:2014 requires 2:1 cores for structural assessment, and the use of such
specimens does not require adjustment for establishing the in situ compressive strength. The use of 2:1
cores is not always practical or appropriate if structural assessment is based on other design codes.
NA.5 Assessment of compressive strength class of concrete in case of doubt [Cl 9

--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
of BS EN 13791:2019]
NA.5.1 Introduction
(1) NA.5.2 provides further guidance on the assessment of compressive strength class of recently
supplied concrete using in situ testing where nonconformity has been declared in accordance with 9.5.
(2) NA.5.3 sets out a comparative testing procedure for assessing placed concrete where there is no
doubt concerning its compressive strength class with placed concrete where there is doubt. The in situ
testing is carried out using either ultrasonic pulse velocity or rebound number.
44
BS EN 13791:2019
NA.5.2 Concrete declared as nonconforming
NA.5.2.1 General
(1) Concrete might be declared as nonconforming for a number of reasons, such as:
• failure of an individual batch to satisfy the BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016 minimum compressive
strength criterion;
• failure to satisfy the BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016 mean compressive strength criterion for an
assessment period; and
• failure by the contractor to satisfy the Engineer's specification — for example when a purchaser
has instructed the producer to change the specification by adding water at site but the Engineer
requires conformity to the original specification.
NOTE This situation is different from that of investigating an unknown structure, because in this case the
producer is likely to supply additional data on the concrete supplied as part of the analysis of the nonconformity
and its consequences.
(2) As the concrete producer has declared nonconformity in accordance with 9.5, there should not be a
need to establish responsibility. An exception is where the producer has accepted that the concrete is
nonconforming on the basis of being instructed to add additional water on site by the purchaser and the
purchaser is claiming that the concrete would have been nonconforming even if they had not changed
the specification.
(3) The options available to the Engineer are described in NA.5.2.2, NA.5.2.3 and NA.5.2.4.
NA.5.2.2 Accept producer's estimated characteristic compressive strength
(1) In many cases of nonconformity the producer is able to estimate the actual characteristic strength of
the concrete supplied from the test data, batch records and knowledge of the cause of the nonconformity.
Provided that the uncertainty associated with such an estimate is taken into account, the Engineer may
use such data for checks on the structure without having to undertake in situ testing.
NA.5.2.3 Determine whether a batch or a limited number of batches satisfies the minimum
compressive strength criterion
(1) Even when the concrete is nonconforming or part of a nonconforming population, the structure
might be adequately strong. A structural assessment is needed to determine whether this is the case.
NA.5.2.4 Determine the characteristic in situ compressive strength

--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
(1) The characteristic in situ compressive strength may be determined using any of the procedures
specified in Clause 8 or using the producer's estimate of characteristic in situ compressive strength and
checking this estimate with the Clause 9 procedures.
NA.5.3 Comparative testing

(1) In addition to the three methods given in BS EN 13791:2019, Clause 9 for estimating compressive
strength in case of doubt, comparative testing may be used in some circumstances. For example, when
the recently supplied concrete under investigation is in one or more of a series of elements where other
elements have been accepted — that is the other elements have been made with conforming concrete
and the level of care in placing, compacting and curing the concrete conforms to BS EN 13670:2009 or
BS EN 13369:2018 as appropriate — the approach is to compare the concrete in the elements under
investigation (test region under investigation) with the concrete in elements that have been accepted
(the reference test region). This may be done using ultrasonic pulse velocity or rebound number. It is
not a suitable procedure to use with cores because if cores are taken, there is no need to compare them
with a reference test region.

BS EN 13791:2019
(2) The null hypothesis1) is that the mean strengths are the same. The fewer the data, the lower the
chance of showing that the hypothesis is not correct. For this reason it is recommended that indirect
test values are taken at not less than 20 test locations in the test region under investigation. The same
number of indirect test values should also be taken from equivalent test locations in the reference
test region.
(3) By applying the accepted statistical principles of hypothesis testing, this technique may be applied
to any combination of data sets, but this general approach is not detailed in this national annex.
(4) Agree a reference test region that is similar to the test region under investigation. Select a reference
test region that has a similar maturity to the test region under investigation or select a more mature
element where the difference in maturity will have a minor effect. Select a set of 20 test locations
that are the same in the test region under investigation and the reference test region (to minimize
differences due to location in the element). At the 20 test locations in the reference test region measure
the ultrasonic pulse velocity or the rebound number. Calculate the mean value (X̅ r) and the sample
standard deviation (Sr). Repeat with the test region under investigation and in this case the mean value
is denoted X̅ s and the standard deviation as Ss.
NOTE 1 The rebound number at each test location is the median value of at least nine valid readings and is
expressed as a whole number. The median values for each test location are used to calculate the mean value of
the medians for each region, X̅ r and X̅ s, which is then used for the statistical comparison.
(5) Calculate
(NA.1)
If the numerical value is not more than 2.024 and not less than -2.024, then there is no significant
difference, at the 0.05 two-tailed significance level, between the concrete under investigation and the
reference concrete.
NOTE 2 The range from +2.024 to -2.024 is for a two tailed t-test at a significance level of 0.05 for 38 degrees of
freedom (i.e. n = 40 results). The limits are denoted t0.05, 38.
(6) With this procedure the higher the significance level, the lower the numerical difference between
the mean strengths to be regarded as significant, but it would be unusual to use a significance level
higher than 0.05. As reducing the number of pairs of results from 20 will increase the numerical
difference between the mean strengths for it to be regarded as significant, this should be avoided
wherever practical.
NOTE 3 See PD CEN/TR 17086[NA.1].
NA.6 Additional guidance for assessment based on core test data [Cl A.4 of
BS EN 13791:2019]
NA.6.1 Length to diameter ratio
(1) Where practical, either 2:1 or 1:1 cores should be taken in accordance with BS EN 12504‑1:2019 and
BS EN 13791:2019. If the limitations for core locations given in A.4 (8) are applied, an adjustment for
the direction of drilling is not appropriate.
NOTE BS EN 12504‑1:2019, National Annex NA does not include a formula for converting other length to
diameter ratios into in situ compressive strength.
1) This is the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed
difference being due to sampling or experimental error.
46
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
BS EN 13791:2019
NA.6.2 Adjustment for transverse reinforcement

(1) Cores containing reinforcing bars should be avoided wherever possible by the selection of an
appropriate core diameter and the use of cover meters when deciding where to cut the cores. Provided
the amount and position of any transverse reinforcement in the core comply with the requirements
given in BS 12504‑1:2019, National Annex NA, NA.3, an adjustment for the presence of reinforcement
is not appropriate. For other cases the impact of reinforcement on core strength is variable and the
measured value obtained is unlikely to represent the strength of the concrete. These results should
be discarded.
NA.6.3 Adjustments to core strength of lightweight concrete

(1) The factor for converting 1:1 cores of lightweight concrete to in situ compressive strength should be
taken as being 0.91 except where a different value has been proven by testing.
NOTE The factor 0.91 is the average of the ratio of cube to cylinder strength given in
BS EN 206:2013+A1:2016, Table 13.
NA.7 Additional guidance for the assessment of compressive strength in cases of

doubt [Cl A.5 of BS EN 13791:2019]
NA.7.1 General
(1) Cores drilled for the estimation of characteristic compressive strength should not be taken from
areas of poorly compacted concrete. The test locations should be such that the test length of the core
conforms to the recommendations given in A.4 (8). Whenever practical, the tested cores should have a
length to diameter ratio of 1:1 (i.e. a length to diameter ratio in the range 0.90:1 to 1.10:1, see Clause 6),
as these proportions represent the commonly used cube for conformity purposes in the UK.
(2) This publication does not take into account differences in compressive strength based on core
diameter, and it is established that, on average, smaller diameter cores are weaker than larger diameter
cores. Consequently, where practical, the core diameter should be the same as the size of the specimens
used for conformity (e.g. 100 mm diameter core if 100 mm cubes were used for conformity).
(3) When reporting core test data for a Clause 9 procedure, an estimate of the voidage should be
provided. See BS EN 12504‑1:2019, National Annex NA for guidance on reporting this value. However,
the core strength in the test report should not include any adjustment for voidage.
NA.7.2 Adjustment for excess voidage

(1) After a nonconformity of recently supplied concrete has been reported, it may be appropriate to
establish to what extent poor compaction may have contributed to this nonconformity (see general
guidance in A.5).
(2) Where the excess voidage exceeds 2.5%, the estimated fully compacted in situ cube strength and
any subsequent estimate of the characteristic compressive strength of the supplied concrete should not
be regarded as being reliable. However, excess voidage above 2.5% is an indication that the concrete
has not been compacted properly.
(3) Air entraining admixtures entrain air and many other admixtures entrain a small percentage of air.
The air content of test specimens that have undergone standard compaction should be established to
enable excess voidage to be estimated.
(4) There are two uncertainties associated with the effect of excess voidage. The first is the estimate
of excess voidage itself, and it is often regarded as being subjective if it is done by comparison with
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---

BS EN 13791:2019
the reference samples and not by measurement. This uncertainty associated with a comparison can be
minimized by having more than one determination of the excess voidage and taking the average value.
NOTE The method for estimating excess voidage given in BS EN 12504‑1:2019, National Annex NA, NA.4.2
has limitations. The comparison with reference photographs is subjective and although attempts are being made
to develop a method to scan and record the areas of voids, such a method is not yet fully developed [NA.2].
(5) The other uncertainty is associated with the relationship between excess voidage and strength
reduction. The values given in Table NA.3 are average values. The uncertainty associated with this
relationship has not been established.
(6) An estimate of in situ strength assuming fully compacted concrete may be calculated from:
(NA.2)
where the excess voidage correction factor, Kv, is given in Table NA.3.
Table NA.3 — Correction factor for excess voidage, Kv

Correction factor to fully compacted in situ strength
Estimated excess voidage
(Kv)
0.0 1.00
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
0.5 1.03
1.0 1.06
1.5 1.09
2.0 1.12
2.5A) 1.15
Where the excess voidage exceeds 2.5% it is unlikely that any estimate of the fully compacted in situ cube strength
A)
using an assumed voidage correction factor is reliable.
(7) Variations in compaction will not be the only reason there are differences in compressive strength
of test specimens and in situ concrete. Notwithstanding this caveat, applying a strength correction for
excess voidage may give a useful indication of strength if the concrete had been fully compacted.
48
BS EN 13791:2019
Bibliography
[NA.1] PD CEN/TR 17086,2) Further guidance on the application of EN 13791 and background to
the provisions
[NA.2] TRUE, G.F. and SEARLE, D. Digital imaging and analysis — cores aggregate particles and flat
surfaces. Concrete, June 2012. pp. 16-18.
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
2) Under preparation. Stage of CEN's Technical Report at the time of publication: FprCEN/TR 17086 (publication
anticipated in 2020).

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW
British Standards Institution (BSI)

BSI is the national body responsible for preparing British Standards and other
standards-related publications, information and services.
BSI is incorporated by Royal Charter. British Standards and other standardization
products are published by BSI Standards Limited.
About us Reproducing extracts

We bring together business, industry, government, consumers, innovators For permission to reproduce content from BSI publications contact the BSI
and others to shape their combined experience and expertise into standards Copyright and Licensing team.
-based solutions.
The knowledge embodied in our standards has been carefully assembled in Subscriptions
a dependable format and refined through our open consultation process. Our range of subscription services are designed to make using standards
Organizations of all sizes and across all sectors choose standards to help easier for you. For further information on our subscription products go to bsigroup.
them achieve their goals. com/subscriptions.
With British Standards Online (BSOL) you’ll have instant access to over 55,000
Information on standards British and adopted European and international standards from your desktop.
We can provide you with the knowledge that your organization needs It’s available 24/7 and is refreshed daily so you’ll always be up to date.
to succeed. Find out more about British Standards by visiting our website at You can keep in touch with standards developments and receive substantial
bsigroup.com/standards or contacting our Customer Services team or discounts on the purchase price of standards, both in single copy and subscription
Knowledge Centre. format, by becoming a BSI Subscribing Member.
Buying standards PLUS is an updating service exclusive to BSI Subscribing Members. You will
automatically receive the latest hard copy of your standards when they’re
You can buy and download PDF versions of BSI publications, including British and revised or replaced.
adopted European and international standards, through our website at bsigroup.
com/shop, where hard copies can also be purchased. To find out more about becoming a BSI Subscribing Member and the benefits
of membership, please visit bsigroup.com/shop.
If you need international and foreign standards from other Standards Development
Organizations, hard copies can be ordered from our Customer Services team. With a Multi-User Network Licence (MUNL) you are able to host standards
publications on your intranet. Licences can cover as few or as many users as you
Copyright in BSI publications wish. With updates supplied as soon as they’re available, you can be sure your
documentation is current. For further information, email cservices@bsigroup.com.
All the content in BSI publications, including British Standards, is the property
of and copyrighted by BSI or some person or entity that owns copyright in the Revisions
information used (such as the international standardization bodies) and has
formally licensed such information to BSI for commercial publication and use. Our British Standards and other publications are updated by amendment or revision.
Save for the provisions below, you may not transfer, share or disseminate any We continually improve the quality of our products and services to benefit your
portion of the standard to any other person. You may not adapt, distribute, business. If you find an inaccuracy or ambiguity within a British Standard or other
commercially exploit or publicly display the standard or any portion thereof in any BSI publication please inform the Knowledge Centre.
manner whatsoever without BSI’s prior written consent.
Useful Contacts
Storing and using standards Customer Services
Standards purchased in soft copy format: Tel: +44 345 086 9001
• A British Standard purchased in soft copy format is licensed to a sole named Email: cservices@bsigroup.com
user for personal or internal company use only.
Subscriptions
• The standard may be stored on more than one device provided that it is Tel: +44 345 086 9001
accessible by the sole named user only and that only one copy is accessed at Email: subscriptions@bsigroup.com
any one time.
• A single paper copy may be printed for personal or internal company use only. Knowledge Centre
Tel: +44 20 8996 7004
Standards purchased in hard copy format: Email: knowledgecentre@bsigroup.com
• A British Standard purchased in hard copy format is for personal or internal
company use only. Copyright & Licensing
Tel: +44 20 8996 7070
• It may not be further reproduced – in any format – to create an additional copy.
This includes scanning of the document. Email: copyright@bsigroup.com
If you need more than one copy of the document, or if you wish to share the BSI Group Headquarters
document on an internal network, you can save money by choosing a subscription
product (see ‘Subscriptions’). 389 Chiswick High Road London W4 4AL UK
--`,,``,,,,,`,`,,```,`,`,`-`-``,```,,,`---
This page deliberately left blank


Bsen13791 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bsen13791 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BS

BSI Standards Publication

Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in

Amendments/corrigenda issued since publication

EUROPEAN STANDARD EN 13791

ICS 91.080.40 Supersedes EN 13791:2007

Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures

This European Standard was approved by CEN on 7 July 2019.

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels

European foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

This document supersedes EN 13791:2007.

The main changes compared to EN 13791:2007 are:

e) Clause 8, "Estimation of compressive strength for structural assessment of an existing structure",

g) approaches A and B in EN 13791:2007 are no longer valid;

h) EN 13791 is aligned with the requirements of EN 206.

— assessment of compressive strength class of concrete supplied to a structure under construction

— use of cores of diameter less than 50 mm;

— use of pull-out testing;

— a screening test conforming to the principles specified in 9.4;

— assessing the strength gradient across a section after a fire;

— adjustment to core strength for cores containing transverse reinforcement;

— factors when the assessment is other than with EN 1992-1-1 or EN 1990;

— in 8.3 different criteria for structural assessment;

(9) Guidance on undertaking an investigation is given in Annex A.

Table 1 — Guidance on relevant clauses

EN 1990:2002, Eurocode — Basis of structural design

EN 12350-1, Testing fresh concrete — Part 1: Sampling

EN 12390-3, Testing hardened concrete — Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens

EN 12504-2, Testing concrete in structures — Part 2: Non-destructive testing — Determination of

EN 12504-4, Testing concrete — Part 4: Determination of ultrasonic pulse velocity

EN 13369:2018, Common rules for precast concrete products

EN 13670, Execution of concrete structures

3 Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations

• ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp

combination of cement and addition in use.

Note 1 to entry: The rebound number is expressed as a whole number.

Note 1 to entry: A test region contains test locations.

Copyright British Standards Institution

Licensee=Shenzhen Institute of Standards and Technology 9972181

3.2 Symbols and abbreviations

CLF core length factor

NOTE 2 See Formula (8) for the calculation of sc.

Table 2 — Abbreviations used for compressive strength

Abbreviation Description and explanation

4 Investigation objective and test parameters

b) standards, test methods and assessment techniques to be applied;

c) test region(s) and test locations;

d) number of measurements per test location;

g) technique to be used to prepare the ends of the cores;

i) method of reinstatement after cores have been taken;

j) any deviations from the procedures specified in this document.

5 Test regions, test locations and number of tests

—was produced on or off-site;

—was supplied as a designed or prescribed concrete;

—came from different sources, at different times;

—has undergone variations in curing due to variable exposure.

(5) The site conditions to be considered shall include:

— accessibility to suspect region onsite;

— safety of personnel onsite and of the general public.

— highly stressed or critical sections;

Test Location Region

6 Core testing and the determination of the in situ compressive strength