[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals

Construction Method Statements

Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
Method Statements
MS 11
Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
Certain Facts in Engineering History - Concrete Cubes Failure -1997-UAE

Scope
1 Objective of this statement is to give an outlisne procedure wise, effected from stage of
cube test failure to complete rescue of concrete, involving all technical & procedural
steps in compliance to various codes, pertinent one 8th level plant room suspended slab of
a reinforced cement concrete eight storey building.
2 Slab was ordered in 1997 by Consulting Engineer to be demolished for reason of
achieving less than permissible cube test characteristics compressive strength of concrete,
but combined efforts by contractor & ready mix concrete supplier, along with help by
authorities, resulted into approval of slab past four months of issue of demolition order
date, proving that sometimes, faulty testing machines can jeopardize whole project &
erroneous test results may be disastrous.
3 Post twenty eight days curing, after issue of demolition order was also, applied to add to
replenish certain deficient chemical reaction in hardened concrete, which if possibly
could be a cause, based on advice of ready mix supplier’s material research engineer.
4 That time, effect of supplementary cementing material was not known clearly, which
accounted for such untoward testing results, while concrete achieved required strength
successfully.

Key Words
1 Cube test, Core Test, Loading, Characteristic Compressive strength, ACI (American
Concrete Institute), BS (British Standard), Engineer, Contractor, RMC Supplier

History
1 Commercial Building 8th slab core test resulted in failure of its cube compression tests on
7th day/28th days.
2 Matter was reported to Engineer on 8th & on 28th day, who advised for a core test
according to ACI provisions, when requested by contractor, but core test failed, since test
conducted by same laboratory that carried out cube test.
3 Consequently, Engineer ordered for removal of slab completely & reconstruct
accordingly.
4 Ready mix concrete supplier & contractor expressed procedural doubts about laboratory
testing equipment, as well as, core capping material, but laboratory claimed that its
machine was fully updated respecting calibration & core capping compound Sulpha,
being within its defined date of expiry.
5 Immediately, contractor conducted Schimdt or rebound hammer test, which slab
qualified, but Engineer did not approve slab.
6 Meanwhile, conducted another core test, which resulted better than previous test, but
engineer did not pay any attention to this plea.

Page 1 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
7 Another official core test was conducted successfully on request made to engineer by us
& ready mix concrete supplier, but engineer still maintained dismantling/demolition of
slab & reconstruction.
8 Matter was referred to municipal engineer/buildings official, who approved/supported
contractor’s proposal to carry out, either a load test or one more core test.
9 Contractor conducted load test, which was too successful within provisions of deflection
recovery, but even then, Engineer upheld demolition order, for it was not binding on
Engineer to accept load test according to then ACI 318 provisions.
10 Engineer contended that it was discretionary authority, whether or not, to accept load test
results.
11 Municipality was not in a position to approve slab contractually/legally, but requested
Engineer, either to allow one more core test or department shall allow another Engineer
take over management supervision job.
12 One more core test was conducted too successfully & then Engineer approved slab
consequently.
13 Contractor had also, cured slab post 28 days on advice by one material research engineer
of concrete supplier, but this part of curing was meant only, as a preventive measure.
14 Reference tabulation- Cube & Cores Test result data 1, 2 & 3, Load Test result data 4

Notes:
Since applications & communications transpired among various bodies are not available with
me, for in 1997, I did not know use of computers. I cannot actually recall my drafts, which I
wrote self. Many times long letters or applications, as formal communiqué were conducted & it
continued for 6 months durations. Parties on communiqué involved were Abu Dhabi
Municipality, Khalsa Contracting, Ardent Consultants, Al Fanar RMC. Lotus, Arab Material
Testing Laboratory & one more laboratory named by municipality

Slab Testing Procedures

1 Cube Tests for soil testing & construction materials
2 Tests were performed according to BS 1881 part 116; 1983 “method of determination of
compressive strength of concrete cubes”
3 Cubes were tested in presence of consultant’s representative
4 Tested cubes were observed normal in shape

Hammer Test
1 Schmidt hammer test was conducted on June 28, 1997, which observed 34 N/mm^2
gauge reading indicating an equivalent of 40 N/mm^2 compressive strength
2 July 12, 1997, Engineer rejected slab & required removal & reconstruction (Order Copy)
a “Studied core test results taken from top of roof slab.
b Method of testing complied to BS 1881; part 120; 1983, applicable for
determination of compressive strength of concrete cores
c From laboratory tests results of concrete cores, it was found that equivalent cube
strength of all cores is about 50% or more lower than specified design strength of
concrete.
d Such poor results of concrete are unacceptable for structural safety.

Page 2 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
e Since, concrete core tests results have failed to achieve desired results, as such
relevant top roof slab should be demolished immediately, following precautions,
as noted herewith.
f Any extra cost or time will not be allowed for demolishing & re concreting said
slab, according to drawing & specification.
g However, supplier for ready mix concrete is hereby suspended, until further order
& approval for same company is henceforth being withdrawn.
h Concrete cores, which were tested, should be analyzed further to determine
ingredients of concrete with a view to justify mix design.
i Necessary arrangements should be made to send test specimen through our
engineer to laboratory selected by us & cost of such results should be borne by
you.
j Since, cores were taken from in situ concrete slab in presence of our
representative & contractor as well as, testing of specimen was witnessed by us,
as such, question of any further test for same does not arise.
k Special care should be taken to avoid damages to any structural element, while
doing demolition.
l Should there be any damage to any part of existing structure, while carrying out
demolition then you will be held responsible to repair or replace same, as
instructed by us.
m Any extra cost & time will not be allowed for such consequences.

Precautions for demolition of roof slab

1 Demolition should be done by concrete cutter & steel cutter with aid of mechanical
jackhammer of smaller size making cutting pieces not more than 30x30 cm
2 Supporting columns should be protected from getting damaged while breaking slab
3 Plywood shutter with supporting props, should be built 50 cm below top roof slab & 1 m
wide platform around slab level to hold concrete debris falling from cutting
4 In any case, concrete pieces should not be allowed to fall on first roof slab to avoid any
damage from falling impact”

Chemical Analysis
Chemical Analysis report by laboratory
1 Report # …..
2 Concrete core sample cement concrete analysis ASTM C 1084-1992
3 Sample description
4 4-inch dia. x 4-inch length cracked concrete core (core appeared to have already tested
for compression strength)
5 Identification Nil
6 Date received July 20, 1997
7 Date tested July 26, 1997

Results
1 Concrete dry density (as oven dry basis) 2340 kg/m^3
2 Cement content percentage 18.1 %
3 Cement content weight 424 kg/m^3

Page 3 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab

Appeal petition by contractor to municipality

1 Seek a leave to admit this petition representing an appeal on you to approve 8th slab on
above construction project contract XYZ supervised by Engineer.
2 Above engineer’s reference is en closed herewith covering details of representation filed
with engineer.
3 Representation is summarized as follows
a. Slab could not pass cube test compressive strength i.e. average being 37.68
N/mm^2
b. Above slab could not pass first official core test, which was an average 15.75
N/mm^2 (estimated cube strength) & in our representation, raised our doubts
about testing procedures i.e improper use of capping compound (substandard
capping compound)
c. Slab passed 2nd official core test, which was an average 39.3 N/mm^2 (estimated
cube strength) qualifying provision of ACI manual 1991 part 3 reference chapter
17 clause 17.3.2.2 & 17.3.2.3 i.e Evaluation of acceptance of concrete strength
d. During chemical analysis, cement content of concrete has been certified 424
kg/m^3, which is satisfactory
e. Engineer vide above reference instruction has confirmed previous instruction vide
dated 12.7.1997 to demolition & rebuild slab
f. By admittance of this petition, prefer an appeal on final competent authority under
contractual & regulatory provision i.e municipal authority to approve above slab
& advise us further.
g. Should load test be required prior to approval, we propose following laboratories
M/S ………………. Geo Consultants

Municipal Engineer response

1 Your letter dated August 16, 1997
2 We have no objection to, either your carrying out
Additional concrete tests by a third party laboratory
Or a load test on slab per design, relevant code requirements & supervision of
consultants.
3 Our recommendations will be based on results of either procedure
4 Signed dated 19.8.1997

Load Test by laboratory (Result data 4)

1 Between September 8 & 14, 1997, this test was performed in accordance with BS 8110
part 2, 1985 section 9
2 Tests were carried out on whole area of 8th slab, as instructed by consultant with total 221
tonnes load approximately.
3 Applied using solid blocks evenly distributed covering 130 sq m in 5 equal increments as
advised by engineer
4 Vertical movements of slab were measured using a set of 7 dial gauges having 0.01 mm
sensitivity installed at 7 locations at soffit.
5 After completion of loading & deflection measurement, load was left in position for one
hour 1st & 2nd cycle & 24th hours for 3rd cycle.

Page 4 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
6 At end of one hour, load was removed in 5 equal decrements with deflection
measurements at each stage of unloading.
7 In case of 3rd cycle at end of 24 hours, load was removed altogether & deflection
measured.
8 Visual examination of slab indicated no sign of any cracking on concrete during load test.

Core Test (Result data 2, 2a & 3) ………………………………………

1 Certificate of test on Chemical Compound July 28, 1997,

2 Delivery date July 22, 1997
3 Testing date July 26, 1997
4 Cube nominal size 50x50x50mm
5 # of samples 3 cubes
6 Description of materials Flake Capping compound
7 Tests results 1/2/3 ID are 48.8/75.6/76.1 N/mm^2 respectively
8 6 # of concrete cores were drilled out vertically from 8th floor, using rotary core cutting
machine with hollow diamond bit cooled with fresh water, ensuring no rebar being cut as
well as, no portion of slab damaged.
9 Cores were then prepared, trimmed, capped with sulphur & soaked in water for 48 hours.
10 As received bulk density of specimen, were determined, prior to capping.

Engineer’s approval letter

1 “Referring to your letter dated November 4, 1997 containing 3rd core test results of 8th
slab, hereby confirm that, due to satisfactory result of concrete cores, said slab is hereby
acceptable.
2 However, you are requested to fill up all voids formed, due to taking cores with non
shrinking material having strength equivalent to design strength (40 N/mm^2 at 28 days)
of concrete, without extra cost & time “

Conclusion-
1 It is an extremely rare example of concrete cubes failure in field that came across, but
provide an impetus to personnel belonging to contract, supervision & control parties to
have an opportunity of in depth study to practically, testing hardened concrete in all
respects/full range in line/according to internationally, acceptable set procedures applying
British & American codes.
2 Structural engineers supervising concrete working in construction field should be very
careful, while dealing with tests & technicalities involved, pertaining to dimensioning of
core.
3 Sulpha flaky capping compound should be within its shelf life period & must
demonstrate compressive strength more than proposed cube compression strength at least
1.5 times.

1 Result data 1 Cube & Core Tests

Cube size 150x150x150 mm, Specified strength 40 N/mm^2 June 5, 1997

Cube Location Cast Test Age Density Compressive

Page 5 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
Identification date date (Days) (gm/cm^3) strength
(N/mm^2)
- 8th slab May June 5, 7 2.494 27.5
29, 1997
1997

- 8th slab May June 5, 7 2.485 26.1

29, 1997
1997

- 8th slab May June 5, 7 2.469 27.3

29, 1997
1997

- 8th slab May June 5, 7 2.485 25.6

29, 1997
1997

Cube size 150x150x150 mm, Specified strength 40 N/mm^2 June 26 , 1997

- 8th slab May June 28 2.449 35
29, 26,
1997 1997
- 8th slab May June 28 2.459 39.2
29, 26,
1997 1997
- 8th slab May June 28 2.482 38.8
29, 26,
1997 1997
- 8th slab May June 28 2.478 37.7
29, 26,
1997 1997

1 Result data 1a Cube & Core Tests

Concrete Cores Crushing Sheets Laboratory

S# Core Measurements Core 1 Core 2 Core 3

mm
1 Location Top Slab Top Slab Top Slab
2 Dia. mm 9.89 9.89 9.89
3 Max Length 165.4 172.7 162
4 Min Length 140 152 160
5 After Cutting 123 123.6 115

Page 6 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
6 After Capping 127.4 127.6 119.3
7 Steel Measurements
8 Before cutting
9 Dia. - - 12
10 No of bars - - 1
11 Distance - - 33.0
12 After Cutting - - -
13 No of bars - - -
14 Distance - - -
15 Core weight gm 2253 2239 2299
16 Failure load kN 108.2 99.7 118.4
17 Remarks 14.1 13.0 15.4

1 Result data 2 Core Tests

Physical properties of cores

Core Location Length cm Capped Dia. d cm Length As
# length L diameter ratio received
cm L/D bulk
density
g/cm^3
C1 8th slab 10.08 10.52 9.9 1.063 2.429
C2 8th slab 10.12 10.69 9.9 1.08 2.482
C3 8th slab 9.91 10.18 9.9 1.028 2.425

Mechanical properties of cores

Core Location Core Dimension Reinforcement Estimated Remarks
# compressive correction factor rd/cl cube
strength factor D compressive
N/mm^2 strength
N/mm^2
C1 8th slab 41.8 0.942 - 39.4 Within
Limits
C2 8th slab 43.6 0.948 - 41.3 Within
Limits
C3 8th slab 39.9 0.930 - 37.1 Within
Limits
Average 39.3 Within
Limits

1 Result data 2a Core Tests Concrete Core Test Results

Client references Given above Given above Given above

Core # C1 C2 C3
Advised details-Core 8th floor slab 8th floor slab 8th floor slab

Page 7 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
identification
Advised direction of coring Vertical Vertical Vertical
Date received July 22, 1997 July 22, 1997 July 22, 1997
Date tested July 26, 1997 July 26, 1997 July 26, 1997
Concrete age at test days 57 57 57
Core length after preparation
Minimum (mm) 100.8 101.2 99.1
Maximum (mm) 100.8 101.2 99.1
With sulphur capping (mm) 105.2 106.9 101.8
Relation to as received length middle middle middle
Mean core diameter (mm) 99.0 99.0 99.0
Length/ Diameter ratio 1.063 1.080 1.028
Bulk density as received 2.429 2.482 2.425
Saturation before test (days) 2 2 2
Maximum load at failure (KN) 321.4 335.8 307.3
Compressive strength
Measured core strength 41.8 43.6 39.9
(N/mm^2)
Dimension correction factor 0.942 0.948 0.93
Reinforcement factor - - -
Estimated cube strength 39.4 41.3 37.1
(N/mm^2)
Mode of failure Normal Normal Normal

1 Result data 3 Core Tests

Brief visual examination of concrete BS 1881: Part 120: 1983

Client reference Given above Given above Given above

Core # C1 C2 C3
Advised details-Core 8th slab 8th slab 8th slab
identification
Core dimension as received
Average dia (mm) 99.0 99.0 99.0
Minimum/Maximum Length 121.0/130.0 124.0/138.0 149.0/161.0
(mm)
Compaction & cracks
Small voids None None None
(0.5 to 3 mm)
Medium voids None None None
(3 to 6mm)
Large voids None None None
(>6mm)
Honey combing None None None
Cracks None None None
Aggregate Maximum size mm 20 20 20

Page 8 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
Petrological description (mm) Brownish dark grey crushed aggregate & screened natural
wadi sand
Distribution of materials Graded Graded Graded
Reinforcement
Number of bars - - -
Diameter of bars (mm) - - -
Axis-end, as received (mm) - - -
Axis-end, as prepared (mm) - - -
Distance between bars (mm) - - -
Other details failure plane passed through matrix with few crushed
aggregates

1 Result data 4 Load Tests

Load Test 8th Slab Report # 4897/A/17/9/1997 Laboratory

Load Deflection
Tonnes mm
First cycle Location
Loading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
68 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.19
119 0.07 0.15 0.03 0.77 0.00 0.02 0.14
170 0.15 0.12 0.12 1.25 0.10 0.10 0.83
221 0.25 0.01 0.16 1.71 0.22 0.14 1.22
0 hour
221 0.25 0.01 0.16 1.71 0.22 0.14 1.22
1 hour
Unloading
170 0.22 0.03 0.15 1.48 0.22 0.15 1.08
119 0.13 0.03 0.15 1.47 0.22 0.12 1.08
68 0.13 0.03 0.15 1.47 0.22 0.10 1.08
0 0.13 0.01 0.15 1.47 0.22 0.10 1.08
Second Location
cycle
Loading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 0.13 0.01 0.15 1.47 0.22 0.10 1.08
68 0.24 0.10 0.23 1.47 0.34 0.29 1.09
119 0.25 0.12 0.23 1.50 0.38 0.32 1.12
170 0.29 0.14 0.24 1.92 0.41 0.32 1.15
221 0.30 0.17 0.25 2.35 0.42 0.33 1.45
0 hour
221 0.30 0.17 0.25 2.35 0.42 0.33 1.45
1 hour
Unloading
170 0.28 0.17 0.25 2.1 0.42 0.33 1.45

Page 9 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh

[Type text] Buildings Practice For Professionals
Construction Method Statements
Chapter 11 Test Methods Respecting RCC Suspended Slab
119 0.28 0.17 0.24 2.07 0.42 0.33 1.44
68 0.28 0.16 0.24 2.07 0.41 0.32 1.44
0 0.12 0.00 0.12 2.05 0.25 0.18 1.25
Third Location
cycle
Loading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 0.12 0.00 0.12 2.05 0.25 0.18 1.25
221 0.42 0.19 0.19 2.48 0.52 0.22 1.35
0 hour
Unloading
221 0.48 0.22 0.20 2.55 0.54 0.24 1.38
1 hour
0 0.17 0.08 0.14 2.06 0.38 0.21 1.09

Page 10 of 10 2012 Int. P Eng (India) Suraj Singh