PARAPHRASE ONLY
Discussion of Results
When a company wants to buy a proper concrete for their constructionproject, they should buy a concrete with a suitable strength for the constructionso that no accidents happen in the future. There are two ways to estimate thestrength of the concrete, and both of the ways were applied and tested in theexperiment. The rst method is a non-destructive way to evaluate the strengthof the concrete digitally without smashing it. First, by using a Schmidt hammereither horizontally or vertically downward or upward, a plunger hits the surfaceand immediately shows on the screen the strength value. The procedure wasrepeated for ten times and then the average of rebound numbers is calculated toget the closest number to the real strength of the concrete which was 39.2MPa(for MegaPascal). As it is known that the higher the rebound number is thestronger the concrete is. As for the second way to nd the strength of theconcrete is a destructive method by using several equipment. At the beginning, aVernier caliper was used to calculate from a at surface at two di erent points ofa sample which is a concrete cube the width, depth, and height, and thencalculate the average of each one of them. Second, we nd the mass of the cubeby using a digital balance which was 2.929 kg, hence, we found the density byusing mathematical equations and converting the measurements to the neededunits such as Density= Mass÷Volume (which is W×D×H). Then, we nd the
compression failure load by using the Compression machine that crushes theconcrete completely at a speci c point and the number does not change which
was 320.6 kN (for kiloNewton). Last, the compressive strength of the cube canbe calculated by an equation F÷A (Compression failure load÷ Area) where the
unit of it is MPa.
8
9
Conclusion
To reach to our purpose of calculating the compressive strength ofthe concrete using di erent methods .We used the destructive andnon-destructive methods. As what is mentioned in the previous pages, forthe destructive method a compression machine was used, as for thenon-destructive method the electronic Vernier caliper and the Schmidthammer were used. Both of these methods were tested against ahardened concrete block.
After testing the rst method that we used “Non Destructive Tests (NDT)“we concluded that it has many advantages such as time saving, testingcan be rehashed, and enables continuous checking of the execution of thestructure. On the other hand, the one disadvantage was noticed isStrength properties are not measured speci cally. Hence, it needsadjustment.
In addition, after using the second method, we concluded the advantagesand disadvantages of destructive testing. The advantage of thedestructive testing is that it allows us to test di erent mix designs toaccomplish required strength. In the opposite side, the rst disadvantageof this testing is that it is costly, time consuming, and specimen do notactually represent actual structures.
