Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Correlation between compressive strength of concrete and ultrasonic pulse

velocity: A case of study and a new correlation method
Ramón Mata a, Rafael O. Ruiz b, Eduardo Nuñez a, *
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concrete strength assessment is an important topic in evaluating existing structures. Formerly, only destructive
UPV test tests were employed, limiting the number of tests due to their complexity and cost. Nowadays, the application of
Assessment of existing structures non-destructive tests has been booming to determine material strength, offering a more accessible and cheaper
Concrete strength
strategy than its counterpart. Non-destructive strategies are based on two steps: (1) the identification of the
Concrete core
Destructive testing
correlation between the concrete strength and another parameter that is easy to measure in situ, and (2) the use
In-situ concrete strength evaluation of this easy-to-measure parameter to infer the concrete strength in any desired element of the structure. The most
common parameter adopted for this purpose is the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV). However, the correlation
between concrete strength and UPV must be determined via destructive experiments. From the research
perspective, attention has focused on determining the correlation coefficient and the range of credibility for
estimating the inferred concrete strength. Despite it, this strategy has remained elusive in the fundamental
understanding and accounting of the joint dispersion of the concrete strength and the UPV. The present work
addresses this knowledge gap by proposing a new correlation method based on probability interpretations to
infer the compressive concrete strength from in-situ UPV measurements and including the dispersion evidenced
in UPV measurements in both steps mentioned. The results demonstrated that it is possible to determine the
confidence interval for the concrete compressive strength given a certain percentile of the UPV measured in situ.
Finally, the application of the proposed method is illustrated through a case study, which is representative of
different building pathologies. This novel proposal is a foundation to deal with the uncertainties involved in non-
destructive tests, inspiring future advances in this field.

1. Introduction
The structural intervention of actual buildings represents one of the
most important tasks in modern civil engineering practice. These in­
terventions are usually motivated by construction regulations, design
codes, changes in the building’s extension and use, demolitions, and
retrofitting. The current design codes have evolved, demanding a careful
structural analysis that ensures these interventions’ structural safety and
feasibility. Here, the standard practice is to develop numerical structural
models such that the structure’s geometrical and mechanical charac­
teristics are accounted for to identify the structural performance under
service and extreme loads. In this sense, an adequate determination of
the current mechanical properties of the materials involved is crucial for
a reliable numerical performance prediction. The material’s properties
identification is commonly carried out by destructive tests, i.e.,
extracting concrete cores of the structural system and testing them at the
laboratory. However, the number of concrete cores is typically reduced
since their extraction could be complex, slow, and costly. On the other
hand, other non-destructive tests have recently gained attention, for
example, measuring Ultrasound Pulse Velocities (UPVs) in situ to esti­
mate concrete strength or another mechanical characteristic indirectly.
However, the results of the non-destructive tests are commonly based on
correlations between the lecture of the instrument and the target
property, which introduces an uncertainty in the mechanical property
identified, especially in concrete structures [1].
The use of non-destructive tests based on UPV has been applied in
many concrete composites and structures. For example, UPV and con­
crete strength correlations have been proposed and studied for concrete
based on recycled waste liquid crystal display glass [2], aggregate
seawater [3], rubbers containing silica-fume-zeolite [4], lightweight

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: enunez@ucsc.cl (E. Nuñez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130569
Received 19 October 2022; Received in revised form 16 January 2023; Accepted 27 January 2023
Available online 9 February 2023
0950-0618/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Mata et al.
[5], segregated lightweight [6], and standard concrete [7]. The results
obtained in these studies revealed the robust capability of the UPV to
infer concrete strength. However, the adequacy of this technique relies
on proper identification of the UPV-concrete strength correlation, which
in cases of using nonstandard aggregates could be required a nonlinear
regression model [2–4]. Additionally, the use of UPV has also been
studied to predict crack patterns and propagations using support vector
machines [7], to track concrete damage based on an ad hoc index [8],
and to track concrete strength degradation due to extreme temperatures
[9]. However, the most common application of this non-destructive
technique is oriented to asset the concrete strength in structures where
standard aggregates are employed and where a linear correlation be­
tween UPV and concrete strength is feasible.
Many researchers have proposed different alternatives for the cor­
relation between concrete strength and UPV, ranging from correction
factors [10] to correlations based on artificial neural networks [6].
However, practitioners do not prefer techniques based on artificial
neural networks since they require a significantly extensive database of
destructive tests, making their implementation expensive, slow, and
unfeasible. Therefore, some relevant studies, from the practitioner’s
perspective and regarding the correlation between concrete strength
and UPV, are presented next.
In 2013, Pucinotti [8] presented a study using 359 concrete cores
extracted from an existing reinforced concrete structure. The cores were
subjected to a destructive test to identify the concrete strength. Three
approaches according to the NTC 08 Italian Code [11], EN 1990 Euro­
code [12], and EN 13791 Eurocode [13] were used to determine the
characteristic concrete strength, and a new formulation to determine it
was proposed [11]. The formulation allows the introduction of correc­
tive coefficients to consider the geometry of drilled specimens and the
disturbance during drilling operations. The results indicate that the
methodology proposed in EN 1990 [12] offers a lower value for concrete
strength in comparison to [13] and [14], indicating a possible under­
estimation. The formulation proposed by Pucinotti tries to avoid this
underestimation by incorporating correction factors.
On the other hand, Giannini et al., in 2014, adopted a probabilistic
approach based on Bayesian inference [15]. This approach defines the
UPV and the concrete strength by probability density functions (PDFs).
First, a linear regression with deterministic coefficients between con­
crete strength and UPV is established to estimate the concrete strength
PDF given the in-situ measurement of the UPV. This strategy guides the
prior PDF selection for the concrete strength based only on the in situ
UPV measurements. Second, a likelihood function is proposed adopting
the same linear regression but conditioning the concrete strength PDF to
a known UPV. Finally, the measurements of the UPV and the concrete
strength pairs obtained from the extracted cores allow using the Bayes
theorem to update the concrete strength PDF. The procedure was vali­
dated in two real cases with experimental data from more than 20
concrete cores. The primary assumption that justifies the implementa­
tion of this approach is that the dispersion of the identified concrete
strength in the destructive experiments significantly differs from that
identified in the in-situ tests. Other than that, the approach lacks closed-
form expressions making difficult its incorporation into the current
design provisions or the general adoption by the practitioners. Other
recent work proposes a new correlation method to analyze the reliability
of the concrete strength variability evaluation, considering a core se­
lection based on non-destructive tests (conditional coring) [16]. The risk
curves concept was adopted to correlate the reliability of the estimation
with the considered factors in the analysis. The use of risk curves shows
that the risk on mean strength assessment decreases as the number of
test locations for cores increases. This is because increasing the number
of cores reduces the sampling uncertainty. However, due to its
complexity, the authors only recommend this approach when the eval­
uation of the concrete strength variability is requested. In this sense,
[17] proposes a methodology that defines the number of cores necessary
to reach a target accuracy of the concrete strength estimation. However,
2
Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569
the methodology does not allow the evaluation of the concrete strength
variability from non-destructive tests.
The destructive and non-destructive tests have also been applied in
historical buildings. For example, the National Museum of “Magna
Grecia” in Reggio Calabria was studied in Pucinotti [8]. Here, 36 con­
crete cores were extracted from structural elements to assess the
building’s concrete strength. Additionally, 100 UPV measurements and
64 rebound hammer tests were realized. Both non-destructive methods
(UPV and rebound hammer) were properly calibrated (adopting the
method presented in ACI-228.1R [10]) using the concrete strength ob­
tained in the destructive tests, obtaining a better correlation for the UPV,
which agrees with the results found in [1]. The results show a significant
dispersion in the inferred concrete strength and the measured UPVs.
Nevertheless, the assessment of new correlation methods was not
deemed or compared, and the dispersion evidenced in the UPV was not
explicitly accounted for. A similar study but in a historic masonry
building was conducted by Sýkora et al. [18]. Here, 15 historic stone and
clay masonry brick structures were studied using destructive tests to
identify the correlation with the rebound hammer test. The results show
that a non-destructive test can be used to estimate the masonry strength;
however, a more significant number of destructive tests is required to
improve the concrete strength identification.
As mentioned above, non-destructive tests have been widely
employed for the indirect estimation of concrete strength. However,
after a careful literature review, it is possible to conclude that there is a
limited number of case studies on real structures containing correlations
between UPV and concrete strength. Concerning the correlation
methods, it is possible to highlight the following aspects: (1) it is
observed that assuming a Gaussian PDF for the concrete strength is
widely accepted [19–24], (2) despite that some works have introduced
spatial correlation for the concrete strength [19,20,25–27], there is no
consensus in the adequate model [28], and (3) the dispersion observed
in the UPV measurements are not explicitly accounted adopting a sta­
tistical metric.
In the present work, a new correlation method between the
compressive strength of concrete and UPV is proposed and implemented
in an actual structure, presented here as a case study. The proposed
method assumes the compressive concrete strength and the UPV as a
multivariate Gaussian PDF which is calibrated using the results coming
from destructive tests. Afterward, the practitioner can use in situ UPV
measurements to make inferences about the compressive concrete
strength. The most important feature of the proposed method is that the
practitioner can incorporate the dispersion of the in situ UPVs in terms of
percentiles while the inference of the compressive concrete strength is
offered based on a probability of exceedance or a particular confidence
interval. Ultimately, the method allows the practitioners to select/
identify the compressive concrete strength based on their attitude to­
wards risk. Here, a risk-averse position will look for low UPV percentiles
and high exceedance probabilities for concrete strength, while a risk-
neutral position, for example, will look for medium UPV percentiles
and exceedance probabilities for concrete strength. Finally, the imple­
mentation of the method is illustrated in a case study of an existing
building and compared with other well-known correlation methods. The
case study corresponds to an icon close-to-the-sea hotel located in
Vargas-Venezuela. The main goal is to study a structure with different
pathologies due to earthquakes, aging, and advanced corrosion pro­
cesses. Additionally, the details of the destructive and non-destructive
tests are presented, facilitating their use in future studies.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents an
overview of the formulation for the standard correlation method. Sec­
tion 3 presents the proposed multivariate correlation model for the
compressive concrete strength and UPV. Section 4 presents the case
study and the comparison of the proposed method with well-known
correlations. Finally, Section 5 concludes the study.
R. Mata et al.
2. Standard procedure to estimate the correlation between
concrete compression resistance and the UPV
The correlation between compression strength and UPV is obtained
by adopting the procedure presented by the ACI228.1R [10], which
relies on four steps: (i) experimental characterization of the concrete
cores, (ii) identification of the concrete strength and UPV correlation,
(iii) identification of the in situ UPV, and (iv) corrections to the corre­
lation function to estimate the in situ concrete strength indirectly. A
brief description of this procedure is presented next.
2.1. Experimental characterization of the concrete cores
After extracting the hardened concrete cores from the structural el­
ements, the concrete cores should be prepared to obtain the concrete
strength employing a compression test protocol. First, the dimension
and weights of the specimens should be established according to [29],
and the edges of the concrete cores should be cut to remove bumps. After
obtaining the dimensional and physical characteristics of the concrete
cores, the ultrasound test is applied to take three readings per probe
[29]. Subsequently, the capping is applied to the cores at the edges
(upper and lower), enforcing a uniform distributed load on the entire
surface of the core at the moment of the compression test. Finally, the
compressive strength test to the concrete cores is performed, obtaining a
set of n pairs of ultimate compression strength fc and ultrasound pulse
′
velocity V. For the sake of simplicity, the set of n pairs of fc − V is denoted
′
as follows:
′ ′ ′ ′
f c− sample = [ fc− fc− ⋯ fc− ] threshold
1 2 n
V sample = [ Vc− 1 Vc− 2 ⋯ Vc− n ]
2.2. Identification of the correlation between concrete strength and UPV
According to [10], the correlation between concrete compression
strength and UPV is typically established by the equation:
′
fc = a + Vb
where a and b are constant coefficients that define a linear regression.
The identification of the coefficients a and b is performed by adopting
the least square method employing the n pairs fc − V identified in step 1:
′ information on how to define k, please refers to [10]. Ultimately, the
( (( )2 ) )
′
a, b = min sum f c− sample − a − V sample b (4)
It is important to note that the correlation quality depends on the
number of samples (number of concrete cores tested), then it is impor­
tant to select cores that represent the entire structure, more details on
this can be found in ACI-228.1R [10]. Although the linear correlation
( ′ )
Fig. 1. Behavior of p fc , V for a strong correlation coefficient. a) shows the bi-variate Gaussian distribution for the concrete strength and the UPV assuming a
correlation coefficient of 0.8. b) shows the marginal distribution (blue line) and a conditional distribution (assuming Vo = μV 0.9) for the concrete strength.
Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569
model is the most popular approach, other alternatives can better suit
particular applications. Breysse in [30] presents an extensive review in
this regard.
2.3. Identification of the in situ UPV
Once a and b are identified, it is possible to use Eq. (3) to predict the
value of fc in any desired element of the structure. In that sense,
′
recording the UPV in the elements of interest is required. In other words,
this step involves identifying a set of m measurements of the ultrasound
pulse velocity V = [ V1 V2 ⋯ Vm ]. Then, Eq. (3) could be
rewritten to estimate the set f c = [ fc1 fc2 ⋯ fcm ] such that:
′ ′ ′ ′
′
f c = a + Vb (5)
The regression model presented above is not perfect due to the un­
certainties associated with fc . In this sense, it is necessary to introduce a
′
correction factor that accounts for the uncertainties in the regression
model. Furthermore, this factor makes it possible to decide whether to
consider the estimate as representative or not. The correction factor
introduced for the estimation of fc is based on the application of the
′
Danish method described in the next section.
2.4. Correction to the correlation function
The Danish method [31] is used here to correct the correlation
function. This method identifies the ultimate compression threshold
′
fc− threshold , so the probability of obtaining fc < f c− will be low
′ ′
(1)
(typically lower than 10 %). The concrete strength fc is treated as a
′
(2) random variable defined by a log-normal distribution. In other words, if
Y = log(f c ), then Y follows a Gaussian distribution with mean Y and
′
standard deviation σ y . Note that Y and σ y can be computed directly from
the mean and the standard deviation of log(f c ). Here, a finite-sample-
′
size-population correction factor can be introduced to improve the
method [1]. Additionally, it is possible to define a tolerance interval
(3) between Y − kσ y and Y + kσ y . The parameter k is related to the proba­
bility that Y lies inside the interval. The suggested confidence level
values are 75 % for ordinary structures, 90 % for buildings of excep­
tional interest, and 95 % for nuclear power plants. For more detailed
concrete strength value used as reference is just fc− threshold , which is
′
defined as follows
( )
(6)
′
fc− threshold = exp Y − kσy
Although the methodology is widely adopted, it is very restrictive
since it does not entirely offer control over the tolerance interval asso­
ciated with both parameters: the ultimate compression resistance and
3
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

fc
fc

V
Po =

V
Po =

V V

Fig. 2. Illustrative implementation of the proposed method for: a) data with strong correlation (0.8), and b) a week correlation (0.2). The data presented was
artificially created. Blue circles represent data from destructive tests. Black and red stars represent the recommended fc for a 0.5 and 0.9 probability of exceedance
′

flowing the proposed procedure, respectively. Black solid lines represent the Danish recommended fc . The proposed procedure is more conservative than the Danish
′

method for data with small coefficient of correlation. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

( ′ ) ( ′ )
the UPV. Next, a methodology is proposed that provides a robust esti­ p fc |V =Vo . If p fc , V is assumed as a Gaussian distribution, the con­
mation of the ultimate concrete strength by adopting a specific proba­ ( ′ )
ditional distribution p fc |V =Vo is also Gaussian with mean and vari­
bility of exceedance and an ad hoc percentile for the UPV. ance given by [32]:
( )
3. Proposed method based on exceedance probability μo = μfc′ + ρσfc′ o
V − μV
σV
(9)
The proposed procedure is based on identifying the statistical cor­ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
σo = σV 1 − ρ2
relation between fc and V rather than imposing a linear regression.
′

Previous works have already determined that the UPV and the ultimate Note that the normality assumption (Gaussian distribution) must be
concrete strength could be assumed as random variables normally checked, for example using the Shapiro-Wilk test [33] for fc and V
′

distributed [15,19–24]. Based on these observations, it is assumed that fc

′
independently or using the Royston’s test [34] for the multivariate
and V follow a normally distributed probability density function fc ∼ distribution. Also, it is important to mention that the proposed proced­
′

(μfc′ , σ 2f ′ ) and V ∼ (μV , σ2V ). Here, μ and σ2 denote the mean and the
c
variance, respectively. Additionally, it is expected an important corre­
ure is easy extendable to log-normal distribution. The only special
consideration is that the analysis must be conducted over the natural
logarithm of fc and V. Back to equation (9), different scenarios can be
′

lation coefficient ρ between fc and V; then, it is convenient to define a

′

evaluated; for example, it is possible to identify the distribution of fc

′

bivariate Gaussian distribution for fc and V:

′

assuming that V could reach any value Vo. This analysis is illustrated in
( )
Fig. 1b, where the blue line indicates the unconditional distribution of fc
′
( ′ ) 1 1 ∑
∑ ̅ exp − (x − μ)
p fc , V = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ T
(x − μ) (7)
while the red line indicates the distribution of fc for a Vo = μV 0.9 (Vo is
′
2π | | 2
arbitrarily selected as the 90 % of the mean only to illustrate the point).
with:
In other words, the blue line is the distribution of the concrete strength
x = [ fc
′
V]
T values assuming that the UPV is unknown. In contrast, the red line is the
[ ]T distribution of the concrete strength value when the UPV takes a specific
μ = μfc′ μV known value.
⎡ ⎤ (8)
∑ σ 2f ′ σ fc′ σV ρ Now, the question here is how to select the Vo properly. First, recall
=⎣
c
⎦ that two different data sets are available. One corresponds to the
σfc′ σ V ρ σ2V destructive test (described in section 2.1), which is used to define the
bivariate Gaussian distribution presented in Eq. (7). The other data set
Eq. (7) can be used to describe the relationship between fc and V
′
corresponds to the UPV recorded across the building, previously iden­
obtained experimentally in the compression test (explained in section tified as V in Section 2.3. This data set could be used to select Vo based on
∑
2.1). Specifically, the mean vector μ and the covariance matrix are a specific percentile. Note that the worst-case scenario is to use the
obtained using the data set identified in Eq. (1) and (2). Fig. 1a shows the lowest value reported in V (lower V also implies lower values of fc ), then
′
( ′ )
behavior of p fc , V under a strong correlation coefficient. A correlation the percentiles used should also be lower values.
ρ = 0.8 is arbitrarily selected here only for an illustrative purpose. The Once Vo is defined, it is possible to estimate the conditional proba­
important issue here is that the information associated with fc strongly
′
bility distribution of fc . Ultimately, the concrete compression strength to
′

depends on the available information of V. In this sense, it is essential to be used in the building retrofit (fc− recommended ) can be established by
′

identify the conditional probability distribution for fc given a known

′
adopting a specific probability of exceedance (Po) over the distribution
value of the ultrasound pulse velocity Vo, which can be expressed as ( ′ )
p fc |V =Vo . Formally, the problem is posed as the identification of

4
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Po
Po

V V

Fig. 3. Illustrative isocurves for fc (units in MPa). The curves were obtained employing data generated artificially. The isocurves represent the recommended fc given
′ ′

by the proposed method but adopting different values for the probability of exceedance Po and different percentiles for the UPV. Figure a) represents a case with a
significant correlation between fc and UPV (ρ = 0.8). Figure b) represent a case with a poor correlation between fc and UPV (ρ = 0.2). The Danish recommendation
′ ′

corresponds to fc = 26.5 MPa and fc = 34.9 MPa, for case a) and b), respectively.
′ ′

fc−
′
recommended such that desired value of Po.

∫∞
( ′ ) ( ′ ) ′ 3.1. Effect of the variance and the correlation coefficient in the
(10)
′
P fc > fc− recommended |V =Vo = p fc |V =Vo dfc = Po
fc− recommended
′

′
fc− recommended

( ′ ) The primary assumption adopted in the standard approach described

Note that as p fc |V =Vo is Gaussian, the previous integral is
( ′ ) in ACI228.1R [10] (which is based on the Danish Method [31]), deals
computed using the cumulative distribution function for p fc |V =Vo .
with the expectation of a significant correlation between the ultimate
Ultimately, the user has to iterate fc− until it achieves the
′
recommended concrete strength and the UPV. However, this assumption could not

Fig. 4. Caribbean Hotel located in Venezuela. a) the limits of the hotel are marked in red. It is observed a near-to-the-sea location (picture taken from google maps).
b) picture of the hotel’s pools before the closeness in 1999. c) picture of the hotel’s pool in 2014 after more than 10 years out of service. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Fig. 5. Plan view of buildings distribution. The Hotel comprises 12 independent buildings. Buildings are identified with a number and shadowed in colors. The two
main sections of the hotel are shown in red dotted lines and identified as sections A and B. Concrete cores for destructive tests were extracted from buildings 1 to 4,
together with buildings 6 and 9. Nondestructive tests with UPV were performed in buildings 3 to 8. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

always be adequate since the correlation depends on uncontrolled var­ circles) are below that line. On the other hand, the Scenario B (Fig. 2b),
iables, i.e., concrete homogeneity, crack dimension, and orientation. In the Danish method recommendation of fc is inadequate since almost half
′

this sense, finding low correlation coefficients between fc and V is of the tested specimens are below the recommended value. Therefore, if
′

plausible. In cases where a low correlation is identified, the Danish the proposed method is used instead, it is necessary to define the
method estimates a linear regression with a slope close to zero, i.e., small percentile of interest for the UPV and the probability of exceedance (Po)
b in equations (3) and (4). As a consequence, the recommended fc is
′
for the ultimate concrete strength. In this particular case, two conditions
almost independent of the UPV leading to a non-conservative estimation are presented: (1) Vo defined as the 10th percentile of V together with a
of fc .
′
Po = 50 % (black star in Fig. 2), and (2) Vo defined as the 10th percentile
To illustrate the impact of the correlation coefficient on the fc esti­
′ of V together with a Po = 90 % (red star in Fig. 2). Remember that Po
indicates the probability of fc being greater than fc− recommended given Vo.
′ ′

mation, two scenarios are studied, one with a strong correlation (Sce­
nario A) and the other under a weak correlation (Scenario B). For both Here, it is possible to observe that the proposed method provides a
conservative recommendation (fc− recommended ) even in weak correlation
′
scenarios, a set of 500 pairs of fc − V is artificially created following a
′

Gaussian distribution, where the mean of fc and V are 36 MPa and 4500
′ scenarios.
m/s, respectively. Additionally, it is imposed a coefficient of variation
equal to 20 % for both parameters, while the correlation coefficient is 3.2. Risk-informed decision making
ρ = 0.8 for Scenario A and ρ = 0.2 for Scenario B. These data sets
simulate the experimental characterization of the core drills explained in The proposed method requires the selection of the percentile asso­
ciated with the UPV and the probability of exceeding fc− recommended given
′
section 2.1. The distributions of the data set with strong and weak cor­
relations are presented in blue circles in Fig. 2a and b, respectively. Vo. This formulation facilitates the generation of maps where
Additionally, it is required the data set of the UPV recorded across the fc− recommended depends on the in situ UPV percentile and the probability of
′

building (vector V defined in Section 2.3); this set is also generated exceedance for the concrete strength. Fig. 3 shows the isocurves of
artificially using the same mean and coefficient of variation employed fc− recommended generated by using different Vo and Po; in particular, the left
′

before. and right figures show the results for strong and weak correlations,
The recommended fc obtained by the Danish method [10] is identi­ respectively. The proposed method represents a powerful tool since the
′

fied in Fig. 2a and b by a solid black line. Here, it is important to note isocurves include relevant information that can be used in decision-
that for Scenario A (Fig. 2a), the recommended fc represents a conser­ making. Additionally, the decision maker can incorporate the attitude
′

vative scenario since only a small number of tested specimens (blue towards risk in the selection of the ultimate concrete resistance. These
concepts are applied in a case study presented in the following section.

6
R. Mata et al.
Fig. 6. Elevation view of buildings 5 and 8 according to Section A-A presented in Fig. 5. Only nondestructive tests were performed in this section of the building.
Fig. 7. Elevation view of buildings 2, 6, and 12 according to Section B-B presented in Fig. 5. Only destructive tests thought concrete core extraction were performed
in this section of the building.
4. Case study
The Caribbean Hotel (Fig. 4) was an icon hotel located in Vargas-
Venezuela, incorporating the learned lessons from the 1967 Caracas
Earthquake [35], which was the most destructive seismic event during
the 20th century according to [36] in Venezuela. This structure was built
in the 70s, and the construction system used was characterized by con­
crete moment frames without interaction between masonry (following
recommendations to avoid the short-column effect), ties closed in col­
umns and beams, and ribbed slabs in one direction. Posteriorly in 1999,
the structure was hit by the most important debris flow recorded in
Venezuela’s history [37], causing the hotel’s closure. In Fig. 4a, it is
possible to appreciate the near-to-the-sea hotel’s location (marked in
red), which also suggests a deterioration caused by salinity. In 2014, the
recovery of the hotel was mandated, requiring an extensive assessment
process. For the sake of comparison, a picture of the hotel previous and
posterior to the closure in 1999 is presented in Fig. 4b and 4c, respec­
tively. The evaluation due to the current seismic hazard and the structural
assessment according to standards as ACI-318 [38] was performed,
paying special attention to the elevated deterioration of structural ele­
ments due to environmental factors. This section presents a
7
Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569
comprehensive characterization of the concrete strength assessment for
the mentioned structure, including destructive and non-destructive tests
and the indirect characterization methods presented in previous sections.
4.1. General description
The mechanical properties specified by the original structural design
engineer and the project documents were unavailable. Therefore, the
building’s configuration and elements’ dimensions were obtained by as-
built information. The hotel comprises 12 independent structures
separated by structural joints, numbered from 1 to 12, according to the
original project (see Fig. 5). Each building is presented and identified in
a colored shadow. Additionally, the figure presents the two most
important structural sections identified as Sections A-A and B-B. The
elevation view according to these structural sections can be seen in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 were used for
rooms; structures 7-to-11 were used for offices; structure 5 was used for
events; structure 12 for the reception hall; and structure 9 for access
stairs and elevators.
The structural condition showed advanced deterioration, mainly
concentrated in the modules near the beach, reaching columns, beams,
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Fig. 8. View of generalized damage. Damage in the ceiling, partition walls and structural members are shown in a). Damages in beam-column joints are shown in b).
Damages in the column and ribbed slab are shown in c).

Fig. 9. A general view of the foundation. a) Shows a representative pile of the whole structure. b) Shows a pile cap.

Fig. 10. Structural members after the removal of the concrete cover. a) part of a beam used to extract steel samples, b) column after extracting concrete cores, and c)
view of core extraction procedure.

and ribbed slabs. The most common damages were corrosion of the
reinforcing steel and cracking of the concrete sections due to the
corrosion process’s expansion of reinforcing steel bars. Examples of
these damages are shown in Fig. 8 where it is observed a damage in the
ceiling, partition walls, structural member, and column-beam joints.
Although the structure was designed in the 1970 s, it does not show any
damage associated with cracks or fissures due to other actions during the
visual inspection. The subsoil profile is constituted by a sequence of
detrital sediments of alluvial and torrential origin, formed by the
interdigitation of silty sands intercalated with pebbles and cobbles. At
the surface level, variable thicknesses of fill materials between 3 m and
5 m thick were detected. Subsequently, silty sands and silty sands with
gravel were detected up to depths of no more than 8 m. Additionally,
gneissic shales were reported in diameters from 10 cm to 60 cm with
variable thicknesses from 1 m to 2 m and depths ranging from 4 to 9 m
up to 11–14 m. A water table measured from the surface of 3.8 m was
detected in the six borings carried out. The type of foundation identified
is a deep foundation with piles and pile caps (see Fig. 9a and 9b). The
piles have a diameter of 500 mm and a distribution of 4 piles per column.
However, the length of the piles was not reported. On the other hand,
isolated reinforced concrete footing foundations were reported in the
structural modules up to 2-floor levels. To obtain the distribution of the
reinforcing steel, the demolition of concrete cover in the face of beams,
columns, and slabs was performed. Fig. 10 shows an example of the
naked structural members studied. Note that the removal of the concrete
cover also helps to extract cleaner concrete cores used later in the
compressive tests. Although the information presented in this paragraph
is not required to perform the concrete strength identification via UPV, it
is decided to present it since has the potential to add value in future
analysis.

8
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Fig. 11. Values of compression resistance for the concrete cores extracted for different L/D ratios and different floor levels. Red circles indicate the fc− mod , red dotted
′

lines indicate fc− mod /0.75, and the blue dotted lines represent fc− mod /0.85. Results for level 8, 5, lobby, beach, and foundation are presented in a), b), c), d), and e),
′ ′

respectively. Note that some points are overlapped. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

4.2. Destructive tests identification of the concrete strength by adopting a non-destructive

Sixty-six concrete cylinders (cores) were extracted from structural
elements considering the extraction feasibility and structural impor­
tance, removing, in all cases, the non-structural mortars from the
structural element studied. Pictures of the core extracting process with
the drilling tool are shown in Fig. 10c, while Fig. 10a and b show the
strategy. This indirect identification of the concrete strength (sup­
ported by ASTM-C597 [29]) is desirable since the core extraction for
destructive tests is not economically efficient and, in some cases, diffi­
cult to access.
The details of the concrete cores extracted in terms of location,
dimension, weight, density, UPV, cross-section area, volume, and fc− mod
′

place of extraction for a column and beam, respectively. Before per­
forming the destructive compression test, the UPV for each concrete core
was identified. In this test, a vibrating pulse is transmitted between two
transducers, and the wave travel time is recorded to obtain a propaga­
tion velocity. From the principles of elastic wave propagation and ACI-
228.1R [10], the UPV is proportional to the square root of the elastic
modulus of the hardened concrete. Therefore, identifying this velocity
and the concrete strength identified later in the destructive test is
are presented in the Appendix Table 1. Note that all buildings are
studied except buildings 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12. First, the length L and
diameter D of each concrete core was identified. The dimensional values
reported in the table corresponds to average values. Similarly, the
density was estimated using average dimensions and the measured
weight. Next, the pulse time was identified using an ultrasonic pulse
transducer PROCEQ PUNDIT LAB+, serial number PL02-003-0503.
Finally, the value of fc is identified by employing a universal compres­
′

mandatory to establish a correlation that enables the indirect sion machine (IBERTEST, MEH model) with a capacity of 5000 kN

9
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

70

60

50

[MPa]
f'c (MPa) 40

30
′

20

y = 0.0171x - 40.86
10 R² = 0.3063

0
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

V [m/s]

Fig. 12. Linear regression applied to the results obtained in the concrete core destructive tests. A poor R2 coefficient of determination is shown..fc−
′
mod

following the procedure indicated by ASTM-C42 [39]. According to
ASTM-C42 [39], the values of fc’ must be corrected by slenderness ratio
L/D, obtaining a modified resistance value fc− mod . Moreover, the con­
′
crete is considered structurally adequate (structural verification) ac­
selected according to the judgment of the structural engineer from the
results obtained in the tests performed. In the case study, the building
was built by floor levels, i.e., the same concrete mix was used per floor
level constructed. Therefore, it is decided to suggest a fc− d value per
′

cording to ACI-318 [32] if it satisfies two conditions: (i) floor, allowing a direct comparison between the concrete strengths
fc−
′
≥ 0.85fc− d , and (ii) fc−
′ ′
≥ 0.75fc− d . Here, fc−
′ ′
corresponds to identified and their variation across the building’s levels. Fig. 11 pre­
mod mod mod
sents in red circles the values of fc− mod , together fc− in blue
′
the compression strength average for the concrete cores tested, fc− mod
′ ′
mod /0.85
corresponds to the compression strength value for the core with the dotted lines, and fc− mod /0.75 in red dotted lines. Here, it is observed that
′

smallest compression strength, while fc− d corresponds to the design fc− d is controlled by fc− mod /0.75, being the most unfavorable condition
′ ′ ′

strength. For this case study, the design strength fc− d is not available,
′
being impossible to perform a structural verification. However, the two
for the case study. At the 8th, 5th, Lobby, Beach, and Foundations levels,
the value of the concrete design strength fc− d obtained are 33.8 MPa,
′

conditions presented above can be used to suggest a value for fc− d such
′
34.6 MPa, 29.3 MPa, 33.3 MPa, and 48.5 MPa, respectively. Notably, the
that it can be used as a reference to perform any new numerical foundations levels present a remarkable high concrete strength, which
assessment of the structure’s performance. The simplest way to suggest a can be attributed to the insulation respect to the saline environment or
value for fc−
′
is to select the minimum between fc−
′
and to the deliberate use of a stronger concrete mix. Unfortunately, there is
d mod /0.85
not available information to corroborate the later.
fc− Currently, the requirements for defining the most repre­
′
mod /0.75. The concrete strength of each core is also compared with its
sentative design strength fc in a structural evaluation are not established
′

respective UPV, this comparison is presented in Fig. 12. Here, the data
in the design codes. As a common practice, the design strength fc is coming from the five levels studied are used (levels presented in Fig. 11).
′
Po

V V

Fig. 13. Isocurves for the inferred compressive concrete strength (units correspond to MPa) obtained via the proposed method for buildings 3 and 4. The inference
are made with UPV measurements exclusivity recorded within each building. Additionally, results of the Standard method (Section 2.2), Danish [34], General
Tolerance Factor [35], Rigorous [36], and Alternative [37] are also presented.

10
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Po

V V

Fig. 14. Isocurves for the inferred compressive concrete strength (units correspond to MPa) obtained via the proposed method for buildings 5 and 6. The inference
are made with UPV measurements exclusivity recorded within each building. Additionally, results of the Standard method (Section 2.2), Danish [34], General
Tolerance Factor [35], Rigorous [36], and Alternative [37] are also presented.

The data related to the foundation level is incorporated despite it has a
significant higher strength compare with other levels. The main reason
to use the whole data set is to avoid a discretional data selection. The
coefficient of variations for the concrete strength and the UPV are 26 %
and 7 %, respectively; with a correlation coefficient between them of
0.55, which is considered a low value. Additionally, a linear fit was
imposed, obtaining a low coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.3063)
which is expected due to the significant disparity on the coefficient of
variations. Given the analysis presented in Section 3 (low correlation
coefficients), it is expected that this data set will be not adequate to
calibrate a standard correlation model for the concrete strength and
UPV.
Po
4.3. Non-destructive tests
The data set obtained in the destructive test, composed of the UPV and
the concrete compression resistance, could be used to establish a corre­
lation model. Then, the correlation model is used to infer the concrete
compression resistance in situ for any desired element of the studied
structure. The only requirements to perform this task are to correctly
account for the correlation model and have the UPV for the structural
element of interest. The most standard model corresponds to the model
presented in Section 2; however, provision ACI-228.1R [10] contains
detailed information about its implementation and the available alter­
natives. The case study recorded 120 UPV in situ across different

V V

Fig. 15. Isocurves for the inferred compressive concrete strength (units correspond to MPa) obtained via the proposed method for buildings 7 and 8. The inference
are made with UPV measurements exclusivity recorded within each building. Additionally, results of the Standard method (Section 2.2), Danish [34], General
Tolerance Factor [35], Rigorous [36], and Alternative [37] are also presented.

11
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Table 1
Distribution of tests in structural elements and results of physical properties of specimens.
Building N◦ Story Level Dimensions UPV Area Volume Load fc−
′
mod
Weight Density
2 3
D [mm] L [mm] [m/s] [cm ] [cm ] [kgf] [Mpa] [g] [g/cm3]

1 8 74.1 106.5 4278.3 43.1 458.8 11230.0 25.3 1097.2 2.4

1 74.1 133.5 4291.0 43.1 574.9 13710.0 31.9 1347.4 2.3
1 74.0 132.8 4338.6 43.1 571.6 14860.0 34.6 1352.9 2.4
2 74.1 132.4 4427.8 43.2 571.5 17100.0 39.7 1342.9 2.3
2 74.0 104.3 4458.5 43.0 448.5 18220.0 41.0 1077.3 2.4
2 74.0 107.4 4588.5 43.0 462.0 20960.0 47.4 1090.8 2.4
2 74.1 115.2 4251.7 43.1 497.0 11640.0 26.5 1156.5 2.3
2 74.1 102.2 4369.2 43.1 440.3 18470.0 41.3 1029.8 2.3
2 74.1 93.1 4351.9 43.1 401.5 12640.0 27.8 956.4 2.4
3 74.1 89.0 4974.3 43.1 383.9 18530.0 40.2 930.2 2.4
3 73.9 115.3 4451.7 42.9 495.1 14270.0 32.7 1215.6 2.5
3 74.1 139.9 4572.9 43.1 602.7 12740.0 29.9 1434.6 2.4
1 5 74.2 130.1 4184.2 43.2 562.6 16140.0 37.3 1300.6 2.3
1 74.2 133.6 4423.5 43.2 577.1 16330.0 37.9 1340.1 2.3
1 74.0 130.1 4424.8 43.0 559.5 14710.0 34.2 1359.1 2.4
2 74.3 131.2 4139.4 43.3 568.5 13850.0 32.0 1331.5 2.3
2 74.1 129.2 4013.4 43.2 557.8 11220.0 25.9 1285.9 2.3
2 74.1 122.7 4172.4 43.1 529.1 13390.0 30.8 1214.9 2.3
2 74.3 132.7 3834.4 43.4 575.5 16410.0 37.9 1305.1 2.3
2 74.2 133.1 4008.1 43.2 575.1 14550.0 33.7 1309.4 2.3
2 74.2 112.5 4033.7 43.3 486.8 15200.0 34.5 1103.9 2.3
3 74.0 103.5 4621.4 43.0 445.2 16650.0 37.4 1082.9 2.4
3 74.2 126.2 4396.5 43.2 545.5 16240.0 37.4 1293.4 2.4
3 74.0 117.0 4270.1 43.0 503.2 15730.0 36.0 1206.8 2.4
6 Lobby Level 74.2 116.8 4184.9 43.2 504.7 10710.0 24.4 1180.9 2.3
6 74.3 101.0 4510.3 43.4 438.3 15970.0 35.4 1044.2 2.4
6 74.3 94.5 4218.8 43.3 409.3 14110.0 31.0 962.8 2.4
2 73.8 87.7 4641.8 42.8 375.3 14340.0 31.3 893.5 2.4
2 74.2 109.5 4310.6 43.2 473.4 10810.0 24.4 1107.5 2.3
2 74.2 94.3 4406.1 43.2 407.4 17880.0 39.3 990.2 2.4
4 74.3 87.9 4310.3 43.3 380.9 13250.0 28.5 881.6 2.3
4 74.3 108.5 4445.9 43.3 470.0 13480.0 30.3 1083.9 2.3
4 74.3 84.6 4361.3 43.4 366.9 10350.0 22.0 842.8 2.3
4 72.8 72.9 4288.2 41.7 303.7 13200.0 28.1 690.9 2.3
4 74.3 102.0 4881.8 43.4 442.7 13440.0 29.8 1033.1 2.3
4 74.0 74.0 4378.7 43.0 318.2 16010.0 33.0 743.2 2.3
2 Beach Level 74.3 89.5 4864.7 43.3 387.9 15420.0 33.3 917.6 2.4
2 74.3 94.7 4756.3 43.4 410.4 12840.0 28.2 960.1 2.3
2 74.2 113.4 4343.3 43.2 490.1 11010.0 25.0 1167.6 2.4
2 74.2 110.1 4511.1 43.3 476.2 21070.0 47.6 1156.3 2.4
2 74.3 96.7 4984.0 43.4 419.2 15510.0 34.1 1003.0 2.4
2 74.4 97.4 5154.5 43.5 423.6 18460.0 40.6 1248.9 2.9
9 74.3 127.1 4208.3 43.3 550.4 17000.0 39.1 1253.1 2.3
9 74.0 125.8 4279.6 43.0 541.4 14110.0 32.6 1280.2 2.4
9 73.8 109.1 4134.1 42.7 466.4 16270.0 37.2 1123.9 2.4
4 74.3 133.5 4319.1 43.3 577.9 16850.0 39.0 806.8 1.4
4 74.3 79.0 4411.7 43.3 342.0 12270.0 25.6 1357.3 4.0
4 74.3 97.6 4669.4 43.4 423.1 16320.0 36.0 1006.8 2.4
4 74.3 115.5 4324.3 43.4 500.7 19380.0 43.9 1176.3 2.3
4 74.3 124.5 4382.0 43.3 539.4 15190.0 34.8 1279.4 2.4
4 74.3 97.0 4530.8 43.4 420.8 15630.0 34.4 989.9 2.4
1 Found. Level 74.2 83.6 5099.4 43.3 361.7 31910.0 67.7 871.3 2.4
1 74.3 121.8 4890.0 43.4 528.3 20420.0 46.6 1260.8 2.4
1 74.2 102.3 4893.3 43.3 442.5 19790.0 44.1 1071.0 2.4
1 74.3 81.2 4665.5 43.3 351.7 29630.0 62.2 836.2 2.4
1 74.3 104.4 4766.7 43.3 452.4 18440.0 41.1 1082.0 2.4
1 74.2 74.2 4979.9 43.2 320.8 22350.0 45.9 769.5 2.4
4 74.4 108.0 4822.8 43.5 469.7 21390.0 47.9 1128.1 2.4
4 74.2 92.0 4867.7 43.3 398.2 22050.0 48.2 959.6 2.4
4 74.3 91.9 4738.7 43.3 398.3 27500.0 60.0 968.0 2.4
3 74.3 93.1 5059.2 43.4 403.6 24110.0 52.8 969.6 2.4
3 74.3 104.1 4862.1 43.3 450.8 19720.0 44.0 1088.7 2.4
3 74.4 116.6 4777.5 43.5 506.6 21190.0 48.0 1225.3 2.4
4 74.4 99.5 4759.8 43.5 432.5 16510.0 36.4 1031.3 2.4
4 74.2 121.1 4962.3 43.3 524.2 29610.0 67.6 1286.4 2.5
4 74.2 132.0 4905.6 43.3 570.8 17180.0 39.8 1381.7 2.4

structural elements. The results are presented in Tables 2 and 3, where it is
possible to find the building identification number, the level at which the
test was performed, the type of structural component, and the UPV.
According to ACI-228.1R [10], the interpretation and reporting of
results can be performed using the following methods: Danish method
[31], General tolerance factor method [40], Rigorous method [41], and
Alternative method [42]. Additionally, for the case studied, it is decided
to include the standard method presented in Section 2.2 and the pro­
posed method introduced in Section 3. The standard method is benefi­
cial to perform a fast in situ estimation of fc . Note that all mentioned
′

12
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

Table 2 measurements with 10, while building 6 has the more significant
Results of UPV tests in structural elements for buildings 3, 4, and 5 ac­ number of measurements with 38.
cording to ASTM-C597 [29]. The proposed method presented in Section 3 is first implemented.
Building 3 Building 4 Building 5 The Shapiro-Wilk test is applied to the concrete strength and UPV,
Level UPV (m/s) Level UPV (m/s) Level UPV (m/s)
obtaining that UPV can be considered normal distributed but the con­
crete strength not (adopting a p-value of 0.05). However, when the
8 4561 8 4357 Lobby 3927
Shapiro-Wilk test is repeated using the natural logarithm of fc− mod and
′

8 4089 8 4137 Lobby 3673

UPV, the results indicate that ln(fc− mod ) and ln(UPV) can be considered
′
8 4476 8 4294 Lobby 4184
8 4020 8 4184 Lobby 3996 normally distributed. Additionally, the Royston’s test is also applied to
5 3788 8 4136 Lobby 4094
the natural logarithm of fc− mod and UPV, indicating that the multivariate
′
5 4163 5 4541 Beach 3895
5 4175 5 4141 Beach 4260 distribution can be considered log-normal distributed. Thus, the equa­
5 3992 5 4541 Beach 4090 tion (9) is employed adopting the natural logarithm of fc− mod and UPV.
′

Lobby 4923 5 4289 Beach 3914

The proposed method requires identifying fc− recommended for different
′
Lobby 4175 5 4467 Beach 4442
Lobby 3913 Lobby 4451 – – probabilities of exceedance Po and difference ultrasonic pulse velocities
Lobby 4913 Lobby 4012 – – Vo by solving Eq. (10). Hence, it is required to define Vo based on a
Beach 4670 Lobby 4333 – –
particular percentile obtained from the in situ UPV measurements. The
Beach 4382 Lobby 4337 – –
Beach 4816 Lobby 4373 – – range selected to evaluate Vo is from the 10th to 50th percentile. Note
Beach 4447 Beach 4050 – – that lower percentiles cannot be accounted for since the minimum
– – Beach 4198 – – number of measurements for the UPV is 10. The range for Po is estab­
Beach 4333
– – – –
lished between 0.5 and 0.95. The isocurves of fc− recommended for different
′

– – Beach 4437 – –
– – Beach 4249 – – Po and velocity percentiles are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15 for the
buildings studied. These isocurves allow selecting the concrete strength
based on the risk attitude of the engineer. For example, the concrete
strength value located at the lower left corner of the map (Po = 0.95 and
Table 3
Results of UPV tests in structural elements for buildings 6, 7, and 8 ac­
the 10th percentile for the UPV) represents a lower risk identification
cording to ASTM-C597 [29]. since the corresponding velocity is low (compared to the set of measured
velocities), and the probability that the current concrete strength ex­
Building 6 Building 6 Building 7 Building 8
ceeds fc− recommended is 95 %. The concrete strength value identification
′

Level UPV Level UPV Level UPV Level UPV

ultimately depends on the engineer’s attitude toward risk. However, for
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
engineers with a risk-averse attitude, the combination of a 10th
8 4396 Beach 4374 8 4397 8 3751
percentile for the UPV and Po = 0.90 seems to be an adequate recom­
8 4205 Beach 4374 8 4184 8 4391
8 4211 Beach 4345 8 4611 8 4228
mendation. For the mentioned risk-averse attitude, the concrete strength
8 4585 Beach 4313 8 4531 8 4318 value identified corresponds to 21.2 MPa, 22.7 MPa, 18.8 MPa, 24.0
8 4278 Beach 4371 5 4692 8 4321 MPa, 23.3 MPa, and 20.8 MPa, for buildings 3 to 8, respectively.
8 4177 Beach 4464 5 4481 5 4499 In the case presented (Figs. 13, 14 and 15), it is possible to observe
8 4158 Beach 4328 5 4115 5 4518
that all buildings present similar isocurves, except for building 5, which
5 4608 Beach 4145 5 4458 5 4331
5 4787 Beach 4215 Lobby 5083 5 4276 shows isocurves with significantly reduced values. A possible reason to
5 4889 Beach 4267 Lobby 4162 5 3933 explain this accelerated deterioration is its location since this building
5 4520 Beach 4307 Lobby 4107 Lobby 4263 receives straight salinity wind from the sea. Additionally, the isocurves
5 4362 Beach 4379 Lobby 4171 Lobby 4322 also present the concrete strength values identified by adopting other
5 4561 Beach 4404 Beach 4564 Lobby 4246
5 4016 Beach 4307 Beach 4299 Lobby 3873
methods. In this regard, the Danish [31] and General tolerance factor
Lobby 4790 Beach 4211 Beach 4032 Lobby 4184 methods [40] offer a similar identification for the concrete strength
Lobby 4404 Beach 4352 Beach 4098 Beach 4314 value. The least conservative identification (larger values of concrete
Lobby 4328 Beach 4143 – – Beach 4337 strength) is obtained from the Rigorous [41] and the standard method
Lobby 4455 Beach 4314
followed by the Alternative method [42]. If the identified concrete
– – – –
Lobby 4431 – – – – Beach 4257
Lobby 4395 – – – – Beach 4171 strength is compared to the destructive test results, it is possible to
Lobby 4357 – – – – – – observe that the non-destructive tests offered lower values, 22-to-34
MPa and ~ 36 MPa, for the non-destructive and destructive tests,
respectively.
methods offer either a single scalar value or a value associated with
reliability or probability of exceedance for the concrete strength. How­ 5. Conclusions
ever, the proposed method is the only method that explicitly in­
corporates the dispersion evidenced in the in situ UPV measurements. This research proposes a new method of correlation between con­
The identification of the UPV and the concrete strength obtained crete compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity using a statis­
from the destructive test are used here to establish the correlation tical method. In order to compare the existing methods and the proposed
described in Section 2.2. This correlation is assumed valid for all method, a case study is analyzed and the results are compared. The main
buildings presented in Fig. 5. However, the indirect identification of the conclusions of the present work are listed as follows:
concrete strength is performed using the UPV recorded within each
building, i.e., there is a different concrete strength identification in each • A case study is presented towards the identification of the
building. In other words, Section 2.3 is applied independently in each compressive concrete strength via destructive and non-destructive
building. Although the hotel comprises 12 buildings, the UPV presented tests based on UPV. All data was presented facilitating future
in the appendix Tables 2 and 3 only show the measurements for build­ studies and comparisons.
ings 3 to 8; the remaining buildings were not included because the • The proposed method allows the identification of the concrete
contractor catalog them as an unsafe and difficult-to-access area. In strength by considering its probability of exceedance and the
particular, building 5 has the lowest number of in situ UPV

13
R. Mata et al. Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569

percentile associated to the in situ UPV measurements. The method
generates concrete strength isocurves facilitating the incorporation
of the practitioner’s attitude towards risk. This represents a contri­
bution compared to the methods currently established in the current
standards.
• The methods established in ACI228.1R for correlation between UPV
and destructive tests do not allow for rationally established scenarios
for decision-making, sometimes reaching an overestimation of con­
crete strength values. However, the proposed method (concrete
strength isocurves) could be used jointly with the standardized
method to extend the interpretation based on risk.
• The standard non-destructive methods based on UPV improves the
characterization of concrete strength using an incremental of studied
zones. However, the correction of data generates a decrease in the
concrete resistance of up to 30 % without further justification. This
confirms the importance and the need to build an appropriate cor­
relation curve or to use methods that justify the results obtained.
• Finally, the models are valid in the domain where it was built.
Therefore, using the presented models for different types of concrete
is not recommended without a previous extensive study. The corre­
lations with concrete resistance obtained from cores should be per­
formed when non-destructive tests are required.
• An interesting future direction is to incorporate the concept of con­
ditional coring within the proposed procedure, i.e., to use UPV to
select the core extraction location such that the uncertainty in the
concrete strength identification will be reduced.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ramón Mata: Software. Rafael O. Ruiz: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Eduardo Nuñez: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Software, Validation,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.

Appendix

This section contains the details of the different tests performed in the case study. In particular, Table 1 presents the information of the physical
properties and characteristic of the concrete core extracted, including the compressive concrete strength fc and the UPV. On the other hand, Tables 2
′

and 3 present the information of the UPV measured in different structural elements of buildings 3 to 8.

References [17] D. Breysse, X. Romao, M. Alwash, Z.M. Sbartai, V.A. Luprano, Risk evaluation on
concrete strength assessment with NDT technique and conditional coring
approach, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020), 101541.
[1] N. Pereira, X. Romão, Assessing concrete strength variability in existing structures
[18] M. Sýkora, D. Diamantidis, M. Holický, J. Marková, Á. Rózás, Assessment of
based on the results of NDTs, Constr. Build. Mater 173 (2018) 786–800.
compressive strength of historic masonry using non-destructive and destructive
[2] C. Wang, H. Wang, Assessment of the compressive strength of recycled waste LCD
techniques, Constr. Build. Mater 193 (2018) 196–210.
glass concrete using the ultrasonic pulse velocity, Constr. Build. Mater 137 (2017)
[19] Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Service life prediction of reinforced concrete structures
345–353.
exposed to aggressive environments. In: 9th International Conference on Durability
[3] Y. Tan, H. Yu, R. Mi, Y. Zhang, Compressive strength evaluation of coral aggregate
of Building Materials and Components, CSIRO BCE, 2002.
seawater concrete (CAC) by non-destructive techniques, Eng. Struct 176 (2018)
[20] K.A.T. Vu, M.G. Stewart Predicting the likelihood and extent of reinforced concrete
293–302.
corrosion-induced cracking J Struct Eng, 131 (11) (2005), pp. 1681-1689.
[4] M. Jalal, N. Nassir, H. Jalal, P. Arabali, On the strength and pulse velocity of
[21] M.G. Stewart, Q. Suo, Extent of spatially variable corrosion damage as an indicator
rubberized concrete containing silica fume and zeolite: prediction using
of strength and time-dependent reliability of RC beams, Eng Struct 31 (2009)
multivariable regression models, Constr. Build. Mater 223 (2019) 530–543.
198–207.
[5] J. Bogas, M. Gomes, A. Gomes, Compressive strength evaluation of structural
[22] M.G. Stewart, J.A. Mullard, Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of corrosion
lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method,
damage and the timing of first repair for RC structures, Eng Struct 29 (2007)
Ultrasonics 53 (2013) 962–972.
1457–1464.
[6] A.J. Tenza-Abril, Y. Villacampa, A.M. Solak, F. Baeza-Brotons, Prediction and
[23] A. Firouzi, A. Rahai, Prediction of extent and likelihood of corrosion-induced
sensitivity analysis of compressive strength in segregated lightweight concrete
cracking in reinforced concrete bridge decks, Int. J. Civil Eng. 9 (3) (2011)
based on artificial neural network using ultrasonic pulse velocity, Constr. Build.
183–192.
Mater 189 (2018) 1173–1183.
[24] O.-S. Kwon, A. Elnashai, The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on
[7] G. Bayar, T. Bilir, A novel study for the estimation of crack propagation in concrete
the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 289–303.
using machine learning algorithms, Constr. Build. Mater 215 (2019) 670–685.
[25] A. Firouzi, A. Rahai, Prediction of extent and likelihood of corrosion-induced
[8] R. Pucinotti, Reinforced concrete structure: non-destructive in situ strength
cracking in reinforced concrete bridge decks, Int. J. Civil Eng. 9 (3) (2011)
assessment of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater 75 (2015) 331–341.
183–192.
[9] E. Hwang, G. Kim, G. Choe, M. Yoon, N. Gucunski, J. Nam, Evaluation of concrete
[26] X. Tang, et al., Study on the heterogeneity of concrete and its failure behavior using
degradation depending on heating conditions by ultrasonic pulse velocity, Constr.
the equivalent probabilistic model, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 23 (4) (2011) 402–413.
Build. Mater 171 (2018) 511–520.
[27] R. Rackwitz, K.F. Müller. On the correlation and autocorrelation of in situ strength
[10] ACI 228.1R-19. Report on In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength
and standard strength test results. In: Quality control of concrete structures –
STANDARD by American Concrete Institute.
Volume 1, Vol. 21, RILEM; 1979, pp. 159–164.
[11] NTC (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. D.M. Ministero Infrastrutture e
[28] M. Bonfigli, A. Materazzi, M. Breccolotti, Influence of spatial correlation of core
Trasporti 14 gennaio 2008, G.U.R.I. 4 Febbraio 2008, Roma (in Italian).
strength measurements on the assessment of in situ concrete strength, Struct.
[12] European Committee for Standardization. EN 1990:2002 – Eurocode – Basis of
Safety 68 (2017) 43–53.
Structural Design, 2002.
[29] ASTM C597–2 (2003), standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete,
[13] BS EN 13791: 2007. Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and
2003.
precast concrete components. BSI, London; 2007. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-58050271-2.
[30] D. Breysse, Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical review
[14] R. Pucinotti, Assessment of in situ characteristic concrete strength, Constr. Build.
and a new perspective by combining NDT methods, Constr. Build. Mater. 33 (2012)
Mater 44 (2013) 63–73.
139–163.
[15] R. Giannini, L. Sguerri, F. Paolacci, S. Alessandri, Assessment of concrete strength
[31] J.A. Bickley, Variability of Pullout Tests and InPlace Concrete Strength, Concr. Int.
combining direct and NDT measures via Bayesian inference, Eng. Struct 64 (2014)
4 (4) (1982) 44–51.
68–77.
[32] S. Kocherlakota, The bivariate inverse Gaussian distribution: an introduction,
[16] Z.M. Sbartai, M. Alwash, D. Breysse, X. Romao, V.A. Luprano, Combining the
Commun. Stat. - Theory Methods 15 (4) (1986) 1081–1112, https://doi.org/
biobjective approach and conditional coring for a reliable estimation of on-site
10.1080/03610928608829171.
concrete strength variability, Mater. Struct. 54 (6) (2013) 1–12.

14
R. Mata et al.
[33] S.S. Shapiro, M.B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples), Biometrika 52 (3/4) (1965) 591–611.
[34] J.P. Royston, Algorithm AS 181: the W test for normality, Appl. Stat. (1982)
176–180.
[35] G. Suarez, J. Nabelek, The 1967 Caracas earthquake: fault geometry, direction of
rupture propagation and Seismotectonic implication, J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990)
459–474.
[36] F. Audemard, Surface rupture of the Cariaco July 09, 1997 earthquake on the El
Pilar fault, northeastern Venezuela, Tectonophysics 424 (2006) 19–39.
[37] W. Méndez, Análisis cuantitativo del relieve en cuencas de drenaje de la vertiente
norte del macizo “El Ávila” (estado Vargas, Venezuela) y su significado
hidrogeomorfológico, Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de
Geografía, UNAM 91 (2016) 25–42.
15
Construction and Building Materials 369 (2023) 130569
[38] ACI 318-19. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
STANDARD by American Concrete Institute.
[39] ASTM C42–12 (2004), standard test method for obtaining and testing drilled cores
and sawed beams of concrete, 2004.
[40] K.R. Hindo, W.R. Bergstrom, Statistical evaluation of the in-place compressive
strength of concrete, Concr. Int. 7 (2) (1985) 44–48.
[41] W.C. Stone, C.P. Reeve, New statistical method for prediction of concrete strength
from in-place tests, J. Cem. Concr. Aggregates, ASTM 8 (1) (1986) 3–12.
[42] N.J. Carino. 1993, “Statistical Methods to Evaluate In-Place Test Results,” New
Concrete Technology: Robert E. Philleo Symposium, SP-141, T. C. Liu and G. C.
Hoff, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 39-64.