Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 50:90 | Cite as

Using Monte-Carlo simulations to evaluate the efficiency of different strategies for nondestructive assessment of concrete strength

  • Maitham Alwash
  • Denys Breysse
  • Zoubir Mehdi Sbartaï
Original Article

Abstract

An international benchmark comparing a large variety of concrete strength assessment strategies was proposed by NDT experts of the RILEM committee TC-249. It was based on synthetic data and devoted to the estimation of average strength and concrete strength variability of a series of concrete columns of a single floor building using fixed budget. Based on information gathered after this benchmark, the main contribution of this paper is to simulate, using Monte Carlo simulation, the experts’ assessment strategies (i.e. NDT investigation program and data analysis process). These strategies are repeated a certain number of times in order to establish a representative assessment of each strategy. The quality of estimation by each strategy is evaluated using several indicators. The results show that this quality can be improved by using/changing several controlling factors: improving the quality of measurements, selecting core locations depending on the NDT test results (conditional cores), combining several NDT techniques and increasing the amount of resources.

Keywords

Benchmark Concrete strength Engineering practice Non-destructive techniques Monte Carlo simulation Assessment strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge all members of RILEM Technical Committee TC-249 ISC for their efforts in preparing this benchmark. Special thanks are due to S. Biondi, M. Fontan, V. Luprano S. and K. Szilágyi for sharing the information about their strategies in the benchmark.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Biondi S (2008) The knowledge level in existing buildings assessment. In: 14th world conference on earthquake enginneering, Beijing, China, October 12–17, 2008, CAEE Chinese Association. Earthquake Engineeing, IAEE International Association. Earthquake engineering, digital paper ID 05-01-0447, Mira Digital PublishingGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breysse D, Balayssac JP, Biondi S, Borosnyói A, Candigliota E, Chiauzzi L, Garnier V, Grantham M, Gunes O, Luprano V, Masi A, Pfister V, Sbartai ZM, Szilagyi K, Fontan M (2015) Comparing investigation approaches and NDT methodologies for concrete strength estimation: an international benchmark. In: NDT-CE conference, Berlin, 15–17 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alwash M, Breysse D, Sbartai ZM (2015) Non-destructive strength evaluation of concrete: analysis of some key factors using synthetic simulations. Constr Build Mater 99:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alwash M, Sbartai ZM, Breysse D (2016) Non-destructive assessment of both mean strength and variability of concrete: a new bi-objective approach. Constr Build Mater 113:880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breysse D (2012) Nondestructive evaluation of concrete strength: an historical review and new perspective by combining NDT methods. Const Build Mater 33:139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breysse D, Martinez-Fernandez J (2014) Assessing concrete strength with rebound hammer: review of key issues and ideas for more reliable conclusions. Mater Struct 47:1589–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szilagyi K (2013) Rebound surface hardness and related properties of concrete. Ph. D. thesis, University of Technology and Economics, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    EN 13791 (2007) Assessment of in situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chai T, Draxler R (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? —Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev J 7:1247–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyndman R, Koehler A (2006) Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. Int J Forecast 22:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ris R, Holthuijsen L, Booij N (1999) A third-generation wave model for coastal regions. J Geophys Res 104:7667–7681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency (2002) Guidebook on non-destructive testing of concrete structures. Testing training course series n° 17Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masi A, Vona M (2009) Estimation of the in situ concrete strength: provisions of the European and Italian seismic codes and possible improvements. In: Cosenza E (ed) Proceedings of the eurocode 8 perspectives from the Italian standpoint workshop, Naples, April 1–3, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pereira N, Romao X (2016) Assessment of the concrete strength in existing buildings using finite population approach. Constr Build Mater 110:106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Concrete Institute (2003) In-place methods to estimate concrete strengths, ACI 228.1R-03 report; 2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Masi A, Chiauzzi L (2013) An experimental study on the within-member variability of in situ concrete strength in RC building structures. Constr Build Mater 47:951–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qasrawi H (2000) Concrete strength by combined nondestructive methods simply and reliably predicted. Cem Concr Res 30:739–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soshiroda T, Voraputhaporn K (1999) Recommended method for earlier inspection of concrete quality by non-destructive testing. In: Proceedings symposium concrete durability and repair technology, Dundee, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mikulic D, Pause Z, Ukraincik V (1992) Determination of concrete quality in a structure by combination of destructive and non-destructive methods. Mater Struct 25:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahmoudipour M (2009) Statistical case study on Schmidt hammer ultrasonic and core compression strength tests’ results performed on cores obtained from Behbahan cement factory in Iran. NDT in progress 2009. In: 5th international workshop of NDT experts, Prague, 12–14 Oct, pp 189–196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maitham Alwash
    • 1
    • 2
  • Denys Breysse
    • 1
  • Zoubir Mehdi Sbartaï
    • 1
  1. 1.I2 M-GCE, University of BordeauxTalenceFrance
  2. 2.Civil Engineering Department, College of EngineeringUniversity of BabylonBabelIraq

Personalised recommendations