SCHMIDT HAMMER TEST REPORT FOR THE

EXISTING BUILDING AT 39, AKINOLA STREET FADEYI,

MUSHIN L.G.A LAGOS.

21 FEBRUARY 2018

1
 Document Verification

Job title SCHMIDT HAMMER TEST REPORT OF THE Job number

EXISTING BUILDING AT 39, AKINOLA STREET FADEYI, MUSHIN UFA/1013/12/17
L.G.A LAGOS.
Document Title Final Report File Reference

Document Ref
Revision Date Filename Interim Report
Issue 1 16 Feb Description First draft
2018
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Fagbule Oluseyi Fatoki Olumide Fatoki Olumide
Signature

Issue 2 21 Feb Filename

2018 Description First Issue

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Fagbule Oluseyi Fatoki Olumide Fatoki Olumide

Signature

Filename
Description Second Issue

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name

Signature

Filename
Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name

Signature
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BRIEF
2.0 DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE
4.0 INSPECTIONS/TESTS AND METHODOLOGY OF TESTS
5.0 OBSERVATIONS
6.0 DESK STUDY/CALCULATION
7.0 DISCUSSIONS
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

3
1.0 BRIEF

UF-A Consultants were commissioned by Mr. T.J Adedayo of TOPSEA Engineering

Limited to evaluate the strength of some of the Concrete members on the existing
Building at 39, Akinola Street, Fadeyi Lagos; as such we decided to carry out an
investigation on the Structural elements to ascertain their on-site strength.

We were required to submit our findings on the Structural stability of the existing project
in the shortest possible period.

2.0 DOCUMENTS EXAMINED

We were not provided with any of the following:
• As Built Architectural Drawings
• As Built Structural Engineering Drawings
• Soil Test Report
• Material test Report.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE

• The Structure is an existing 2 storey development according to UK Nomenclature (2
suspended floors with the Roof) which was used as a primarily as a residential
building.
• The mode of construction is load bearing walls, albeit some beams and columns were
encountered as at the time of probing. (See appendix C for schematic structural
drawings).
• The roof material is asbestos sheets on timber trusses/carcass.
• In- fill partitions were constructed with sandcrete blocks.
• At the time of visit, some of the structural elements (staircases, beams and columns)
including the internal infill elements like the blockwalls were intact.
4.0 INSPECTIONS/METHODOLOGY OF TESTS

4.1 INSPECTIONS

The schedule of visits are as follows:

Table 1: Schedule of Site visit
Name of personnel Designation Reason of visit

Date of visit

February 12 2018 FAGBULE Oluseyi. Lead Engineer. Reconnaissance

Survey and Initial
GREEN Olalekan. Engineer. Site Visit.

FAGBULE Oluseyi Lead Engineer Non- destructive

February 13 2018 testing (Schmidt
GREEN Olalekan. Engineer. Hammer Testing)

AKINJARE Mayowa Trainee Engineer

There was no hindrance to our inspections

5
4.1.1 TEST AND METHODOLOGY OF TEST
The following is a list of test equipment /processes
A. Basic Tools
• Long Tape (used in measuring length and breadth of building).
B. Specialized Tools
To assist in our desk studies, carried out the following Tests.

SCHMIDT HAMMER
• A concrete rebound test was carried out with the use of a Schmidt hammer.
• It is a strictly Non-Destructive test
• It enabled us to retrieve the on-site concrete strength of concrete elements.
This was done in the steps as listed below.
• We opened the plaster wall in a box-like pattern (150mm maximum) to probe
locations of concrete elements i.e. columns and beams. This means that the
plaster on column members was hacked off 150mm and 150mm with the use
of a hammer and chisel to expose the reinforced concrete surface.
• This exercise was performed so as to impact directly on concrete as plaster
would give a false reading (not the exact strength for the R.C.
member).
• We carried out this exercise in 2 days (see Table 1 above).
 5.0 OBSERVATIONS
5.1 SITE OBSERVATIONS
a. We observed the following during our visits to the site on Wednesday 22th of
February 2018:
b. The existing building consisted of 2 suspended floors.
c. The mode of construction is load bearing walls, albeit some beams and columns
were encountered as at the time of probing. (See appendix C for schematic structural
drawings).
With load-bearing blockwalls and colunms and beams to support at specific areas.
d. We were not provided with existing Architectural or Structural drawings
e. We were uninformed of the age of the existing structure and, no material test
report was issued to us.
f. Structural slab on second floor terrace/veranda has had a collapse at the South
west Wing of the building as at the time of visit (See Pictures in Appendix A).
g. All of the ground beams/foundation have been buried under the ground or
covered with slab thereby restricting our accessibility of these elements. Also, plaster
had to be scrapped off the surface of the structural element just to ensure that there
is a direct contact of the Schmidt hammer with the surface of the concrete.
h. Some of the members did not present any reading on our Schmidt hammer
because the values were so low that the equipment could not record the strength of
the concrete.
i. Concrete spalling was noticed at the soffit of the first floor and second floor slab
(See Pictures in Appendix A).
j. A summary of the average Schmidt hammer readings and structural element
dimensions on site are tabulated below:

NOTE THAT THE HATCHED BOXES FALL BELOW DESIGN STRENGTH OF 25Nmm-2

7
 5.2 SITE READINGS

Table 2: Summary of Concrete Test Result (Schmidt hammer Test)

COLUMN SCHMDIT STRUCTURAL MEMBER STOREY

TEST HAMMER
POINTS TEST

(Nmm-2)

8229 21.5 COLUMN ON GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR TO ROOF

2/K COLUMN

8219 20.8Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR TO ROOF

3/K COLUMN

8209 9.0 COLUMN ON GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR TO ROOF

1/K COLUMN

8199 10.0 SLAB WITHIN GRIDLINE F SECOND FLOOR SLAB

TO E/1 TO 2

8189 16.0 SLAB WITHIN GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR SLAB

A TO C/2 TO 3

8179 13.3Q SLAB WITHIN GRIDLINE C SECOND FLOOR SLAB

TO D/1 TO 2

8169 16.8Q SLAB WITHIN GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR SLAB

A TO B/1 TO 2

8159 16.8Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR TO ROOF

3/H COLUMN

8149 19Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE SECOND FLOOR TO ROOF

3/D COLUMN

8139 13Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE GROUND TO FIRST FLOOR

1/A COLUMN

8129 13.8Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE GROUND TO FIRST FLOOR

1/A COLUMN
 8119 20.8Q SLAB WITHIN GRIDLINE C FIRST FLOOR SLAB
TO D/1 TO 2

8099 20.3Q BEAM ALONG GRIDLINE I FIRST FLOOR BEAM

8089 11.5Q BEAM ALONG GRIDLINE FIRST FLOOR BEAM

J

8074 13.0Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE GROUND TO FIRST FLOOR

1/K COLUMN

8064 15Q COLUMN ON GRIDLINE GROUND TO FIRST FLOOR

3/K COLUMN

See APPENDIX B FOR FULL SCHMIDT HAMMER READINGS and

APPENDIX C for the test points on the structural drawing.

9
6.0 DESK STUDIES.
No desk study was carried out on the project
Table `3: Comparison of the Non Destructive Test with the allowable strength of
concrete.
COLUMN SCHMDIT CRITICAL CONVERSION COMMENTS
MINIMUM VALUE FORM
TEST HAMMER STRENGTH Q VALUE
POINTS TEST (25Nmm-2) (Nmm-2)

(Nmm-2)

8229 21.5 25 21.5

8219 20.8Q 25 10.4

8209 9.0 25 9.0

8199 10.0 25 10.0

8189 16.0 25 16.0

8179 13.3Q 25 6.7

8169 16.8Q 25 8.4

8159 16.8Q 25 8.4

8149 19Q 25 9.5

8139 13Q 25 6.5

8129 13.8Q 25 6.9

8119 20.8Q 25 10.4

8099 20.3Q 25 10.15

8089 11.5Q 25 5.75

8074 13.0Q 25 6.5

8064 15Q 25 7.5

7.0 DISCUSSION
11
The Schmidt hammer readings indicate average concrete strengths between the
range of 11.5Q and 21.5N/mm2. The range between 11.5Q and 21.5N/mm2
indicates that the concrete used in concreting the Structural elements possess
strength lower than the expected concrete strength of 25N/mm2. (As indicated in
Table 1 and 2 above).
 8.0 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION.

From the Result obtained from the test conducted, we hereby conclude and recommend
the following:

 For 7-day old concrete, the concrete is expected to have achieved 65% of the design
strength of the concrete. While at 28 days the concrete should have achieved 99% of the
design strength. Therefore all of the tested concrete that falls below these limit is said to
be of poor strength
 We recommend that necessary measures should be taken to remediate the affected
structural elements in the buildings.

13
APPENDIX A
15
17
19
21
23
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C

25