ACI 214.

4R-03

Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting

Compressive Strength Results
Reported by ACI Committee 214
James E. Cook Jerry Parnes
Chair Secretary

David J. Akers Steven H. Gebler Michael L. Leming D. V. Reddy

M. Arockiasamy Alejandro Graf Colin L. Lobo Orrin Riley
William L. Barringer Thomas M. Greene John J. Luciano James M. Shilstone, Jr.
F. Michael Bartlett* Gilbert J. Haddad Richard E. Miller Luke M. Snell
Casimir Bognacki Kal R. Hindo Avi A. Mor Patrick J. E. Sullivan
Jerrold L. Brown Robert S. Jenkins Tarun R. Naik Michael A. Taylor
* *
Ronald L. Dilly Alfred L. Kaufman, Jr. Robert E. Neal Derle J. Thorpe
Donald E. Dixon William F. Kepler Terry Patzias Roger E. Vaughan
Richard D. Gaynor Peter A. Kopac V. Ramakrishnan Woodward L. Vogt*
*Task force that prepared this document.

Core testing is the most direct method to determine the compressive strength CONTENTS
of concrete in a structure. Generally, cores are obtained either to assess Chapter 1—Introduction, p. 214.4R-2
whether suspect concrete in a new structure complies with strength-based
acceptance criteria or to evaluate the structural capacity of an existing Chapter 2—Variation of in-place concrete strength
structure based on the actual in-place concrete strength. In either case, the in structures, p. 214.4R-2
process of obtaining core specimens and interpreting the strength test results 2.1—Bleeding
is often confounded by various factors that affect either the in-place strength
of the concrete or the measured strength of the test specimen. The scatter in
2.2—Consolidation
strength test data, which is unavoidable given the inherent randomness of in- 2.3—Curing
place concrete strengths and the additional uncertainty attributable to the 2.4—Microcracking
preparation and testing of the specimen, may further complicate compliance 2.5—Overall variability of in-place strengths
and evaluation decisions.
This guide summarizes current practices for obtaining cores and
interpreting core compressive strength test results. Factors that affect
Chapter 3—Planning the testing program, p. 214.4R-4
the in-place concrete strength are reviewed so locations for sampling
3.1—Checking concrete in a new structure using strength-
can be selected that are consistent with the objectives of the investigation. based acceptance criteria
Strength correction factors are presented for converting the measured 3.2—Evaluating the capacity of an existing structure using
strength of non-standard core-test specimens to the strength of equivalent in-place strengths
specimens with standard diameters, length-to-diameter ratios, and
moisture conditioning. This guide also provides guidance for checking
strength compliance of concrete in a structure under construction and Chapter 4—Obtaining specimens for testing,
methods for determining an equivalent specified strength to assess the p. 214.4R-5
capacity of an existing structure.
Chapter 5—Testing the cores, p. 214.4R-6
Keywords: compressive strength; core; hardened concrete; sampling; test.
Chapter 6—Analyzing strength test data, p. 214.4R-6
6.1—ASTM C 42/C 42M precision statements
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and 6.2—Review of core strength correction factors
Commentaries are intended for guidance in planning,
designing, executing, and inspecting construction. This 6.3—Statistical analysis techniques
document is intended for the use of individuals who are
competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its Chapter 7—Investigation of low-strength test results
content and recommendations and who will accept
responsibility for the application of the material it contains. in new construction using ACI 318, p. 214.4R-9
The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all
responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not
be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract ACI 214.4R-03 became effective September 25, 2003.
documents. If items found in this document are desired by the Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute.
Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction
the Architect/Engineer. or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing
is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

214.4R-1
214.4R-2 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

Chapter 8—Determining an equivalent f′c value for c) Low test results attributable to flawed test specimens or
evaluating the structural capacity of an existing improper test procedures;
structure, p. 214.4R-9 d) Effects of the size, aspect ratio, and moisture condition
8.1—Conversion of core strengths to equivalent in-place
of the test specimen on the measured strengths; and
strengths
e) Additional uncertainty attributable to the testing that is
8.2—Uncertainty of estimated in-place strengths
present even for tests carried out in strict accordance with
8.3—Percentage of in-place strengths less than fc′
standardized testing procedures.
8.4—Methods to estimate the equivalent specified strength
This guide summarizes past and current research findings
concerning some of these factors and provides guidance for
Chapter 9—Summary, p. 214.4R-12
the interpretation of core strength test results. The presentation
of these topics follows the logical sequence of tasks in a
Chapter 10—References, p. 214.4R-13
10.1—Referenced standards and reports core-testing program. Chapter 2 reviews factors that affect
10.2—Cited references the in-place concrete strength so that sampling locations
consistent with the objectives of the investigation can be
10.3—Other references
identified. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 present guidelines for planning
the test program, obtaining the cores, and conducting the
Appendix—Example calculations, p. 214.4R-15
tests. Chapter 6 discusses the causes and magnitudes of the
A1—Outlier identification in accordance with ASTM E 178
scatter usually observed in core test strengths and provides
criteria
statistical methods for data analysis. Chapter 7 summarizes
A2—Student’s t test for significance of difference
criteria given in ACI 318 for investigating low-strength tests
between observed average values
in new construction. Chapter 8 presents methods for determining
A3—Equivalent specified strength by tolerance factor
an equivalent fc′ for use in evaluating the capacity of an
approach
existing structure. Various example calculations appear in
A4—Equivalent specified strength by alternate approach the Appendix.
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2—VARIATION OF IN-PLACE
Core testing is the most direct method to determine the CONCRETE STRENGTH IN STRUCTURES
in-place compressive strength of concrete in a structure. This chapter discusses the variation of in-place concrete
Generally, cores are obtained to: strength in structures so that the investigator can anticipate
a) Assess whether suspect concrete in a new structure the relevant factors in the early stages of planning the testing
complies with strength-based acceptance criteria; or program. Selecting locations from which cores will be
b) Determine in-place concrete strengths in an existing extracted and analyzing and interpreting the data obtained
structure for the evaluation of structural capacity. are simplified and streamlined when the pertinent factors are
In new construction, cylinder strength tests that fail to identified beforehand.
meet strength-based acceptance criteria may be investigated The quality of “as-delivered” concrete depends on the
using the provisions given in ACI 318. This guide presents quality and relative proportions of the constituent materials
procedures for obtaining and testing the cores and interpreting and on the care and control exercised during batching,
the results in accordance with ACI 318 criteria. mixing, and handling. The final in-place quality depends on
If strength records are unavailable, the in-place strength of placing, consolidation, and curing practices. Recognizing
concrete in an existing structure can be evaluated using that the delivery of quality concrete does not ensure quality
cores. This process is simplified when the in-place strength in-place concrete, some project specifications require
data are converted into an equivalent value of the specified minimum core compressive strength results for concrete
compressive strength fc′ that can be directly substituted into acceptance (Ontario Ministry of Transportation and
conventional strength equations with customary strength Communications 1985). If excess mixing water was added at
reduction factors. This guide presents procedures for the site, or poor placing, consolidation, or curing practices
carrying out this conversion in a manner that is consistent were followed, core test results may not represent the quality
with the assumptions used to derive strength reduction of concrete as delivered to the site.
factors for structural design. Generally, the in-place strength of concrete at the top of a
The analysis of core test data can be difficult, leading member as cast is less than the strength at the bottom (Bloem
to uncertain interpretations and conclusions. Strength 1965; Bungey 1989; Dilly and Vogt 1993).
interpretations should always be made by, or with the
assistance of, an investigator experienced in concrete 2.1—Bleeding
technology. The factors that contribute to the scatter of Shallow voids under coarse aggregate caused by bleeding
core strength test results include: can reduce the compressive strength transverse to the direction
a) Systematic variation of in-place strength along a of casting and consolidation (Johnson 1973). The strength of
member or throughout the structure; cores with axes parallel to the direction of casting can therefore
b) Random variation of concrete strength, both within one be greater than that of cores with axes perpendicular to the
batch and among batches; direction of casting. The experimental findings, however, are
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-3

contradictory because some investigators observed appreciable

differences between the strengths of horizontally and vertically
drilled cores (Sanga and Dhir 1976; Takahata, Iwashimizu,
and Ishibashi 1991) while others did not (Bloem 1965).
Although the extent of bleeding varies greatly with mixture
proportions and constituent materials, the available core strength
data do not demonstrate a relationship between bleeding and the
top-to-bottom concrete strength differences.
For concrete cast against earth, such as slabs and pavements,
the absorptive properties of the subgrade also affect core
strength. Cores from concrete cast on subgrades that absorb
water from the concrete will generally be stronger than cores
from concrete cast against metal, wood, polyethylene,
concrete, or wet, saturated clay.
Fig. 2.1—Relationships between compressive strengths of
2.2—Consolidation column core samples and standard-cured specimens cast
Concrete is usually consolidated by vibration to expel with high-strength concrete (Cook 1989).
entrapped air after placement. The strength is reduced by
about 7% for each percent by volume of entrapped air surfaces of the element, which remain relatively cool. In this
remaining after insufficient consolidation (Popovics 1969; case, the surfaces are restrained from contracting by the
Concrete Society 1987; ACI 309.1R). The investigator may interior of the element, which can cause microcracking that
need to assess the extent to which poor consolidation exists reduces the strength at the surface. This phenomenon has
in the concrete in question by using the nondestructive been clearly observed in some investigations (Mak et al.
techniques reported in ACI 228.2R. 1990) but not in others (Cook et al. 1992).
Consolidation of plastic concrete in the lower portion of a The in-place strength of slabs or beams is more sensitive
column or wall is enhanced by the static pressure of the to the presence of adequate moisture than the in-place
plastic concrete in the upper portion. These consolidation strength of walls or columns because the unformed top
pressures can cause an increase of strength (Ramakrishnan and surface is a relatively large fraction of the total surface area.
Li 1970; Toossi and Houde 1981), so the lower portions of cast Data from four studies (Bloem 1965; Bloem 1968; Meynick
vertical members may have relatively greater strengths. and Samarin 1979; and Szypula and Grossman 1990) indicate
that the strength of cores from poorly cured shallow
2.3—Curing elements averages 77% of the strength of companion cores
Proper curing procedures, which control the temperature from properly cured elements for concrete ages of 28, 56, 91,
and moisture environment, are essential for quality concrete. and 365 days (Bartlett and MacGregor 1996b). Data from
Low initial curing temperatures reduce the initial strength two studies investigating walls and columns (Bloem 1965;
development rate but may result in higher long-term Gaynor 1970) indicate that the strength loss at 91 days
strength. Conversely, high initial-curing temperatures attributable to poor curing averages approximately 10%
increase the initial strength development but reduce the long- (Bartlett and MacGregor 1996b).
term strength.
High initial temperatures generated by hydration can 2.4—Microcracking
significantly reduce the strength of the interior regions of Microcracks in a core reduce the strength (Szypula and
massive elements. For example, the results shown in Fig 2.1 Grossman 1990), and their presence has been used to explain
indicate that the strength of cores obtained from the middle why the average strengths of cores from two ends of a beam
of mock 760 x 760 mm (30 x 30 in.) columns is consistently cast from a single batch of concrete with a cylinder strength
less than the strength of cores obtained from the exterior of 54.1 MPa (7850 psi) differed by 11% of their average
faces (Cook 1989). The mock columns were cast using a (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994a). Microcracks can be present
high-strength concrete with an average 28-day standard if the core is drilled from a region of the structure that has
cylinder strength in excess of 77 MPa (11,200 psi). Similarly, been subjected to stress resulting from either applied loads or
analysis of data from large specimens reported by Yuan et al. restraint of imposed deformations. Rough handling of the
(1991), Mak et al. (1990, 1993), Burg and Ost (1992), and core specimen can also cause microcracking.
Miao et al. (1993) indicate a strength loss of roughly 6% of the
average strength in the specimen for every 10 °C (3% per 2.5—Overall variability of in-place strengths
10 °F) increase of the average maximum temperature sustained Estimates of the overall variability of in-place concrete
during early hydration (Bartlett and MacGregor 1996a). The strengths reported by Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) are
maximum temperatures recorded in these specimens presented in Table 2.1. The variability is expressed in terms
varied between 45 and 95 °C (110 and 200 °F). of the coefficient of variation VWS, which is the ratio of the
In massive concrete elements, hydration causes thermal standard deviation of the in-place strength to the average in-
gradients between the interior, which becomes hot, and the place strength. The overall variability depends on the
214.4R-4 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

Table 2.1—Coefficient of variation due to in-place is comparable to the other placement or if more investigation
strength variation within structure VWS is warranted.
Structure composition One member Many members
One batch of concrete 7% 8% 3.2—Evaluating the capacity of an existing
Many batches of concrete structure using in-place strengths
Cast-in-place 12% 13% To establish in-place strength values for existing structures,
Precast 9% 10% the sample size and locations from which the cores will be
extracted need to be carefully selected using procedures such
as those described in ASTM E 122 and ASTM C 823.
number of members in the structure, the number of concrete
As the sample size increases, the accuracy of the result
batches present, and whether the construction is precast or
improves; the likelihood of detecting a spurious value in the data
cast-in-place. The values shown are for concrete produced,
set also improves, but greater costs are incurred and the risk of
placed, and protected in accordance with normal industry
weakening the structure increases. ASTM E 122 recommends
practice and may not pertain to concrete produced to either
sample sizes be computed using Eq. (3-1) to achieve a 1-in-20
high or low standards of quality control.
chance that the difference between the measured average of the
sample and the average of the population, expressed as a
CHAPTER 3—PLANNING THE
TESTING PROGRAM percentage of the average of the population, will be less than
The procedure for planning a core-testing program depends on some predetermined error.
the objective of the investigation. Section 3.1 presents
procedures for checking whether concrete in a new structure 2
n = ⎛ 2V
-------⎞ (3-1)
complies with strength-based acceptance criteria, while ⎝ e⎠
Section 3.2 presents those procedures for evaluating the strength
capacity of an existing structure using in-place strengths.
As noted in Chapter 2, the strength of concrete in a placement where
usually increases with depth. In single-story columns, cores n = the recommended sample size;
should be obtained from the central portion, where the e = the predetermined maximum error expressed as a
strength is relatively constant, and not in the top 450 to 600 mm percentage of the population average; and
(18 to 24 in.), where it may decrease by 15%, or in the bottom V = the estimated coefficient of variation of the population, in
300 mm (12 in.), where it may increase by 10% (Bloem 1965). percent, and may be estimated from the values shown
in Table 2.1 or from other available information.
3.1—Checking concrete in a new structure using For example, if the estimated coefficient of variation of
strength-based acceptance criteria
To investigate low-strength test results in accordance with the in-place strength is 15%, and it is desired that the
ACI 318, three cores are required from that part of the structure measured average strength should be within 10% of the true
cast from the concrete represented by the low-strength test average strength approximately 19 times out of 20, Eq. (3-1)
result. The investigator should only sample those areas indicates that (for V = 0.15 and e = 0.10) a total of nine cores
where the suspect concrete was placed. should be obtained. If a higher confidence level is desired, or
In some situations, such as a thin composite deck or a if a smaller percentage error is necessary, then a larger
heavily reinforced section, it is difficult or impossible to sample size is required. Statistical tests for determining
obtain cores that meet all of the length and diameter whether extreme values should be rejected, such as those in
requirements of ASTM C 42/C 42M. Nevertheless, cores ASTM E 178, become more effective as the sample size
can allow a relative comparison of two or more portions of a increases. As indicated by the relationships between the
structure representing different concrete batches. For example, percentage error and the recommended number of specimens
consider two sets of columns placed with the same concrete shown in Fig. 3.1, however, the benefits of larger sample
mixture proportion: one that is acceptable based on standard sizes tend to diminish. ASTM C 823 recommends that a
strength tests and one that is questionable because of low minimum of five core test specimens be obtained for each
strength test results. Nondestructive testing methods category of concrete with a unique condition or specified
(ACI 228.1R) may indicate that the quality of concrete in the quality, specified mixture proportion, or specified material
suspect columns exceeds that in the acceptable columns. property. ASTM C 823 also provides guidance for repeating
Alternatively, it is appropriate to take 50 mm (2 in.) diameter the sampling sequence for large structures.
cores from the columns where 25 mm (1 in.) maximum size The investigator should select locations from which the
aggregate was used. After trimming the cores, however, the l/d cores will be extracted based on the overall objective of the
will be less than 1.0 if the cover is only 50 mm (2 in.) and investigation, not the ease of obtaining samples. To characterize
reinforcing bars cannot be cut. Acknowledging that strength the overall in-place strength of an existing structure for
tests of the “short” cores may not produce strength test results general evaluation purposes, cores should be drilled from
that accurately reflect the strength of the concrete in the columns, randomly selected locations throughout the structure using a
a relative comparison of the two concrete placements may be written sampling plan. If the in-place strength for a specific
sufficient to determine if the strength of the concrete in question component or group of components is sought, the investigator
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-5

l/d, of the specimen. Strength correction factors for these

effects are derived empirically from test results (Bartlett and
MacGregor 1994b) and so are not universally accurate.
Therefore, it is preferable to obtain specimens with diameters
of 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in.) and l/d ratios between 1.5 and 2
to minimize error introduced by the strength correction factors
(Neville 2001).
The drilling of the core should be carried out by an
experienced operator using a diamond-impregnated bit
attached to the core barrel. The drilling apparatus should be
rigidly anchored to the member to avoid bit wobble, which
results in a specimen with variable cross section and the
introduction of large strains in the core. The drill bit should
be lubricated with water and should be resurfaced or
Fig. 3.1—Maximum error of sample mean for various replaced when it becomes worn. The operator should be
recommended number of specimens. informed beforehand that the cores are for strength testing
and, therefore, require proper handling and storage.
should extract the cores at randomly selected locations from Core specimens in transit require protection from freezing
those specific components. and damage because a damaged specimen will not accurately
When determining sample locations, the investigator should represent the in-place concrete strength.
consider whether different strength categories of concrete may A core drilled with a water-cooled bit results in a moisture
be present in the structure. For example, the in-place strengths gradient between the exterior and interior of the core that
of walls and slabs cast from a single batch of concrete may adversely affects its compressive strength (Fiorato, Burg,
differ (Meininger 1968) or concrete with different required Gaynor 2000; Bartlett and MacGregor 1994c). ASTM C 42/
strengths may have been used for the footings, columns, and C 42M presents moisture protection and scheduling
floor slabs in a building. If the concrete volume under requirements that are intended to achieve a moisture
investigation contains two or more categories of distribution in core specimens that better represent the
concrete, the investigator should objectively select sample moisture distribution in the concrete before the concrete was
locations so as not to unfairly bias the outcome. Alternatively, he wetted during drilling. The restriction concerning the
or she should randomly select a sufficient number of sampling commencement of core testing provides a minimum time for
locations for each category of concrete with unique composition the moisture gradient to dissipate.
or properties. The investigator can use nondestructive testing The investigator, or a representative of the investigator,
methods (ACI 228.1R) to perform a preliminary survey should witness and document the core drilling. Samples
to identify regions in a structure that have different should be numbered and their orientation in the structure
concrete properties. indicated by permanent markings on the core itself. The
ACI 311.1R (SP-2) and ASTM C 823 contain further investigator should record the location in the structure from
guidance concerning sampling techniques. which each core is extracted and any features that may affect the
strength, such as cracks or honeycombs. Similar features
CHAPTER 4—OBTAINING SPECIMENS observed by careful inspection of the surrounding concrete
FOR TESTING should also be documented. Given the likelihood of questionable
Coring techniques should result in high-quality, undamaged, low-strength values, any information that may later identify
representative test specimens. The investigator should delay reasons for the low values will be valuable.
coring until the concrete being cored has sufficient strength
and hardness so that the bond between the mortar and aggregate CHAPTER 5—TESTING THE CORES
will not be disturbed. ASTM C 42/C 42M suggests that the ASTM C 42/C 42M presents standard methods for
concrete should not be cored before it is 14 days old, unless conditioning the specimen, preparing the ends before testing,
other information indicates that the concrete can withstand and correcting the test result for the core length-to-diameter ratio.
the coring process without damage. ASTM C 42/C 42M further Other standards for measuring the length of the specimen and
suggests that in-place nondestructive tests (ACI 228.1R) may be performing the compression test are referenced and information
performed to estimate the level of strength development of the required in the test report is described.
concrete before coring is attempted. Core densities, which can indicate the uniformity of
Core specimens for compression tests should preferably consolidation, are often useful to assess low core test results.
not contain reinforcing bars. These can be located before Before capping, the density of a core can be computed by
drilling the core using a pachometer or cover meter. Also, dividing its mass by its volume, calculated from its average
avoid cutting sections containing conduit, ductwork, or diameter and length.
prestressing tendons. When testing cores with small diameters, careful alignment
As described in Chapter 6, the strength of the specimen is of the specimen in the testing machine is necessary. If the
affected by the core diameter and the ratio of length-to-diameter, diameter of the suspended spherically seated bearing block
214.4R-6 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

material, discusses other possible reasons for strength variation

that require consideration, and briefly reviews statistical
techniques for identifying sources of variability in a specific data
set. Detailed descriptions of these statistical techniques can
be found in most statistical references, such as Ang and Tang
(1975) or Benjamin and Cornell (1970).

6.1—ASTM C 42/C 42M precision statements

ASTM C 42/C 42M provides precision statements that
quantify the inherent error associated with testing cores from
a homogeneous material tested in accordance with the
standardized procedures. The single operator coefficient
of variation is 3.2%, and the multilaboratory coefficient of
variation is 4.7%. In the interlaboratory study used to derive
Fig. 5.1—Use of load-machine displacement curves to these values, the measured values of the single operator
identify outlier due to flawed specimen (Bartlett and coefficient of variation varied from 3.1 to 3.4% for cores
MacGregor 1994a). from the three different slabs, and measured values of the
multilaboratory coefficient of variation varied between 3.7
exceeds the diameter of the specimen, the spherical seat may
and 5.3% (Bollin 1993).
not rotate into proper alignment, causing nonuniform contact
These precision statements are a useful basis for preliminary
against the specimen. ASTM C 39 limits the diameter of the
checks of core strength data if the associated assumptions
upper bearing face to avoid an excessively large upper
and limitations are fully appreciated. Observed strength
spherical bearing block.
differences can exceed the limits stated in ASTM C 42/C 42M
A load-machine displacement response graph can be a
due to one or more of the following reasons:
useful indicator of abnormal behavior resulting from testing
a) The limits stated in ASTM C 42/C 42M are “difference
a flawed specimen. For example, the two curves in Fig. 5.1
2 sigma” (d2s) limits so the probability that they are
are for 100 x 100 mm (4 x 4 in.) cores, obtained from one
exceeded is 5%. Therefore, there is a 1-in-20 chance that the
beam, that were given identical moisture treatments. The
strength of single cores from the same material tested by one
lower curve is abnormal because the load drops markedly
operator will differ by more than 9% of their average, and
before reaching its maximum value. This curve is consistent
also a 1-in-20 chance that the average strength of cores
with a premature splitting failure and may be attributed to
from the same material tested by different laboratories will
imperfect preparation of the ends of the specimen. Thus, the
differ by more than 13% of their average;
low result can be attributed to a credible physical cause and
should be excluded from the data set. b) The variability of the in-place concrete properties can
Sullivan (1991) describes the use of nondestructive tests to exceed that in the slabs investigated for the multilaboratory
check for abnormalities in cores before the compressive study reported by Bollin (1993); and
strength tests are conducted. c) The testing accuracy can be less rigorous than that
If the investigator cannot find a physical reason to explain achieved by the laboratories that participated in the study
why a particular result is unusually low or unusually high, reported by Bollin (1993).
then statistical tests given in ASTM E 178 can be used to The single-operator coefficient of variation is a measure of
determine whether the observation is an “outlier.” When the the repeatability of the core test when performed in accordance
sample size is less than six, however, these tests do not with ASTM C 42/C 42M. A practical use of this measure is
consistently classify values as outliers that should be so to check whether the difference between strength test results
classified (Bartlett and MacGregor 1995). An example of two individual cores obtained from the same sample of
calculation using ASTM E 178 criteria to check whether a material does not differ by more than 9% of their average.
low value is an outlier is presented in the Appendix. If an The difference between consecutive tests (or any two
outlier can be attributed to an error in preparing or testing the randomly selected tests) is usually much less than the overall
specimen, it should be excluded from the data set. If an range between the largest and least values, which tends to
observation is an outlier according to ASTM E 178 criteria increase as the sample size increases. The expected range
but the reason for the outlier cannot be determined, then the and the range that has a 1-in-20 chance of being exceeded,
investigator should report the suspect values and indicate expressed as a fraction of the average value, can be determined
whether they have been used in subsequent analyses. for different sample sizes using results originally obtained by
Pearson (1941-42). Table 6.1 shows values corresponding to
CHAPTER 6—ANALYZING STRENGTH the ASTM C 42/C 42M single-operator coefficient of
TEST DATA variation of 3.2%, which indicate, for example, in a set of
The analysis and interpretation of core strength data are five cores from the same sample of material, the expected
complicated by the large scatter usually observed in the test range is 7.2% of the average value and there is a 1-in-20
results. This chapter describes the expected scatter of properly chance the range will exceed 12.4% of the average value.
conducted tests of cores from a sample of homogeneous Table 1 of ASTM C 670 gives multipliers that, when applied
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-7

to the single-operator coefficient of variation, also estimate Table 6.1—Probable range of core strengths due to
the range that has a 1-in-20 chance of being exceeded. single-operator error
The multilaboratory coefficient of variation is a measure Expected range of core Range with 5% chance of
Number of strength as % of average being exceeded as % of
of the reproducibility of the core test, as performed in accor- cores core strength average core strength
dance with ASTM C 42/C 42M. Although the reported 3 5.4 10.6
values are derived for tests defined as the average strength of 4 6.6 11.6
two specimens, they can be assumed to be identical to those 5 7.2 12.4
from tests defined as the average strength of three specimens. 6 8.1 12.9
Thus, this measure indicates that, for example, if two 7 8.6 13.3
independent laboratories test cores from the same sample of 8 9.1 13.7
material in accordance with criteria given in ACI 318, and 9 9.5 14.1
each laboratory tests three specimens in conformance with 10 9.8 14.3
ASTM C 42/C 42M, there remains a 1-in-20 chance that the
reported average strengths will differ by more than 13% of
their average. Table 6.2—Strength correction factors for
length-to-diameter ratio
6.2—Review of core strength correction factors l /d ASTM C 42/C 42M BS 1881
The measured strength of a core depends partly on factors 2.00 1.00 1.00
that include the ratio of length to diameter of the specimen, 1.75 0.98 0.97
the diameter, the moisture condition at the time of testing, 1.50 0.96 0.92
the presence of reinforcement or other inclusions, and the 1.25 0.93 0.87
direction of coring. Considerable research has been carried 1.00 0.87 0.80
out concerning these factors, and strength correction factors
have been proposed to account for their effects. The research
findings, however, have often been contradictory. Also, They also observed that the strength correction factors are
published strength correction factors are not necessarily less accurate as the magnitude of the necessary correction
exact and may not be universally applicable because they increases for cores with smaller l/d. Thus, corrected core
have been derived empirically from specific sets of data. To strength values do not have the same degree of certainty as
indicate the degree of uncertainty associated with these strength obtained from specimens having l/d of 2.
factors, this section summarizes some of the relevant 6.2.2 Diameter—There is conflicting experimental
research findings. Chapter 8 presents specific strength evidence concerning the strength of cores with different
correction factor values. diameters. While there is a consensus that differences
6.2.1 Length-to-diameter ratio—The length-to-diameter between 100 and 150 mm (4 and 6 in.) diameter specimens
ratio l/d was identified in the 1927 edition of ASTM C 42/ are negligible (Concrete Society 1987), there is less agreement
C 42M as a factor that influences the measured compressive concerning 50 mm (2 in.) diameter specimens. In one study
strength of a core, and minor variations of the original l/d involving cores from 12 different concrete mixtures, the
strength correction factors have been recommended in ratio of the average strength of five 50 mm (2 in.) diameter
subsequent editions. Specimens with small l/d fail at greater cores to the average strength of three 100 mm (4 in.) diameter
loads because the steel loading platens of the testing machine cores ranged from 0.63 to 1.53 (Yip and Tam 1988). An analysis
restrain lateral expansion throughout the length of the specimen of strength data from 1080 cores tested by various investigators
more effectively and so provide confinement (Newman and indicated that the strength of a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter core was
Lachance 1964; Ottosen 1984). The end effect is largely on average 6% less than the strength of a 100 mm (4 in.)
eliminated in standard concrete compression test specimens, diameter core (Bartlett and MacGregor 1994d).
which have a length to diameter ratio of two. The scatter in the strengths of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter cores
Table 6.2 shows values of strength correction factors often exceeds that observed for 100 or 150 mm (4 or 6 in.)
recommended in ASTM C 42/C 42M and British Standard diameter cores. The variability of the in-place strength
BS 1881 (1983) for cores with l/d between 1 and 2. Neither within the element being cored, however, also inflates the
standard permits testing cores with l/d less than 1. The variability of the strength of small-volume specimens. Cores
recommended values diverge as l/d approaches 1. The drilled vertically through the thickness of slabs can be
ASTM factors are average values that pertain to dry or particularly susceptible to this effect (Lewis 1976).
soaked specimens with strengths between 14 and 40 MPa In practice it is often difficult to obtain a 50 mm (2 in.)
(2000 and 6000 psi). ASTM C 42/C 42M states that actual diameter specimen that is not affected by the drilling process
l/d correction factors depend on the strength and elastic or does not contain a small defect that will markedly affect
modulus of the specimen. the result. If correction factors are required to convert the
Bartlett and MacGregor (1994b) report that the necessary strength of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter cores to the strength of
strength correction is slightly less for high-strength concrete equivalent 100 or 150 mm (4 or 6 in.) diameter cores, the
and soaked cores, but they recommend strength correction investigator should derive them directly using a few cores of
factor values that are similar to those in ASTM C 42/C 42M. each diameter obtained from the structure in question.
214.4R-8 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

6.2.3 Moisture condition—Different moisture-conditioning Statistical tests are particularly useful for analyzing
treatments have a considerable effect on the measured preliminary hypotheses developed during an initial review of
strengths. Air-dried cores are on average 10 to 14% (Neville the data, which are logically consistent with the circumstances of
1981; Bartlett and MacGregor 1994a) stronger than soaked the investigation and are credible in light of past experience.
cores, although the actual ratio for cores from a specific While it is possible to conduct “fishing expeditions” using
concrete can differ considerably from these average values. statistical techniques to look for correlations and trends in data
Soaking causes the concrete at the surface of the specimen to in an exploratory manner, it is rarely efficient to do so. Flawed
swell, and restraint of this swelling by the interior region conclusions are undetectable if statistical analyses are conducted
causes self-equilibrated stresses that reduce the measured without a clear understanding of the essential physical and
compressive strength (Popovics 1986). Conversely, drying behavioral characteristics represented in the data. Instead, it is
the surface causes shrinkage that, when restrained, creates a preferable to first identify the possible factors that affect the
favorable residual stress distribution that increases the strength in a particular instance and then use statistical analyses
measured strengths. In both cases the changes in moisture to verify whether these factors are in fact significant.
condition are initially very rapid (Bartlett and MacGregor Perhaps the most useful analysis method is the Student’s
1994c, based on data reported by Bloem 1965). If cores are not t test, which is used to decide whether the difference between
given standardized moisture conditioning before testing, two average values is sufficiently large to imply that the true
or if the duration of the period between the end of the mean values of the underlying populations, from which the
moisture treatment and the performance of the test varies samples are drawn, are different. ASTM C 823 recommends the
significantly, then additional variability of the measured use of the Student’s t test to investigate whether the average
strengths can be introduced. strength of cores obtained from concrete of questionable quality
The percentage of strength loss caused by soaking the core differs from the average strength of cores obtained from
depends on several factors. Concrete that is less permeable concrete of good quality. Details of the Student’s t test can
exhibits a smaller strength loss. Bartlett and MacGregor be found in most statistical references (Benjamin and
(1994a) observed a more severe strength loss in 50 mm Cornell 1970; Ang and Tang 1975), and a numerical
(2 in.) diameter cores compared with 100 mm (4 in.) example illustrating its use is presented in the Appendix.
diameter cores from the same element. Extending the There are two types of error associated with any statistical
soaking period beyond 40 h duration can cause further test. A Type I error occurs when a hypothesis (such as: “the
reduction of the core strength. The difference between true mean values of two groups are equal”) is rejected when,
strengths of soaked and air-dried cores may be smaller for in fact, it is true, and a Type II error occurs when a hypothesis
structural lightweight aggregate concrete (Bloem 1965). is accepted when, in fact, it is false. In the practice of quality
6.2.4 Presence of reinforcing bars or other inclusions— control, these are referred to as the producer’s and the
The investigator should avoid specimens containing embedded consumer’s risk, respectively, because the producer’s
reinforcement because it may influence the measured concern is that a satisfactory product will be rejected, and the
compressive strength. Previous editions of ASTM C 42 have consumer’s concern is that an unsatisfactory product will be
recommended trimming the core to eliminate the reinforcement accepted. It is not possible to reduce the likelihood of a Type I
provided, l/d, of at least 1.0 can be maintained. error without increasing the likelihood of a Type II error, or
6.2.5 Coring direction—Cores drilled in the direction of vice versa, unless the sample size is increased. When decisions
placement and compaction (which would be loaded in a are made on the basis of a small number of tests (and so the
direction perpendicular to the horizontal plane of concrete as likelihood of an error is large), the investigator should recognize
placed, according to ASTM C 42/C 42M) can be stronger that most statistical tests, including the Student’s t test, are
than cores drilled normal to this direction because bleed designed to limit the likelihood of a Type I error. If an
water can collect underneath coarse aggregate, as described observed difference obtained from a small sample seems
in Chapter 2. In practice, it is often easier to drill horizontally large but is not statistically significant, then a true difference
into a column, wall, or beam in a direction perpendicular to may exist and can be substantiated if additional cores are
the direction of placement and compaction. The influence of obtained to increase the sample size.
coring direction can be more pronounced near the upper
surface of members where bleed water is concentrated. To CHAPTER 7—INVESTIGATION OF
determine whether the in-place strength is affected by the LOW-STRENGTH TEST RESULTS IN NEW
direction of drilling, the investigator should assess this CONSTRUCTION USING ACI 318
directly using specimens drilled in different directions from In new construction, low cylinder strength tests are
the structure in question, if possible. investigated in accordance with the provisions of ACI 318.
The suspect concrete is considered structurally adequate if
6.3—Statistical analysis techniques the average strength of the three cores, corrected for l/d in
Statistical analysis techniques can determine if the data are accordance with ASTM C 42/C 42M, exceeds 0.85fc′ , and no
random or can be grouped into unique sets. For example, individual strength is less than 0.75fc′ . Generally, these
statistical tests can verify that the strengths in the uppermost criteria have served producers and consumers of concrete
parts of columns are significantly less than the strengths well. ACI 318 recognizes that the strengths of cores are
elsewhere, and so the investigation is focused accordingly. potentially lower than the strengths of cast specimens
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-9

Table 8.1—Magnitude and accuracy of strength correction factors for

converting core strengths into equivalent in-place strengths*
Factor Mean value Coefficient of variation V, %
Fl/d: l/d ratio†
2 2
As-received‡ 1 – { 0.130 – αf core } ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞ 2.5 ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠
2 2
Soaked 48 h 1 – { 0.117 – αf core } ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞ 2.5 ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠
2 2
Air dried‡ 1 – { 0.144 – αf core } ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞ 2.5 ⎛ 2 – --l-⎞
⎝ d⎠ ⎝ d⎠
Fdia: core diameter
50 mm (2 in.) 1.06 11.8
100 mm (4 in.) 1.00 0.0
150 mm (6 in.) 0.98 1.8
Fmc: core moisture content
As-received‡ 1.00 2.5
Soaked 48 h 1.09 2.5
‡ 0.96 2.5
Air dried
Fd: damage due to drilling 1.06 2.5
*
To obtain equivalent in-place concrete strength, multiply the measured core strength by appropriate factor(s) in accordance with
Eq. (8-1).
†
Constant α equals 3(10–6) 1/psi for fcore in psi, or 4.3(10–4) 1/MPa for fcore in MPa.
‡
Standard treatment specified in ASTM C 42/C 42M.

representing the quality of concrete delivered to the project. 8.1—Conversion of core strengths to equivalent
This relationship is corroborated by observations that the in-place strengths
strengths of 56-day-old soaked cores averaged 93% of the The in-place strength of the concrete at the location from
strength of standard 28-day cylinders and 86% of the which a core test specimen was extracted can be computed
strength of standard-cured 56-day cylinders (Bollin 1993). using the equation
ACI 318 permits additional testing of cores extracted from
locations represented by erratic strength results. ACI 318 fc = Fl/dFdiaFmcFd fcore (8-1)
does not define “erratic,” but this might reasonably be
interpreted as a result that clearly differs from the rest that where fc is the equivalent in-place strength; fcore is the core
can be substantiated by a valid physical reason that has no strength; and strength correction factors Fl/d, Fdia, and Fmc
bearing on the structural adequacy of the concrete in question. account for the effects of the length-to-diameter ratio, diameter,
For structural adequacy, the ACI 318 strength requirements and moisture condition of the core, respectively. Factor Fd
for cores need only be met at the age when the structure will accounts for the effect of damage sustained during drilling
be subject to design loads. including microcracking and undulations at the drilled surface
and cutting through coarse-aggregate particles that may
CHAPTER 8—DETERMINING AN EQUIVALENT f c′ subsequently pop out during testing (Bartlett and MacGregor
VALUE FOR EVALUATING THE STRUCTURAL 1994d). Table 8.1 shows the mean values of the strength
CAPACITY OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE correction factors reported by Bartlett and MacGregor
This chapter presents procedures to determine an equivalent (1995) based on data for normalweight concrete with
design strength for structural evaluation for direct substitution strengths between 14 and 92 MPa (2000 and 13,400 psi). The
into conventional strength equations that include customary right-hand column shows coefficients of variation V that
strength reduction factors. This equivalent design strength is indicate the uncertainty of the mean value. It follows that a
the lower tenth percentile of the in-place strength and is 100 mm (4 in.) diameter core with l/d = 2 that has been
consistent with the statistical description of the specified soaked 48 h before testing has fc = 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.09 × 1.06fcore =
strength of concrete fc′ . This chapter presents two methods for 1.16fcore.
estimating the lower tenth-percentile value from core test data.
The procedures described in this chapter are only 8.2—Uncertainty of estimated in-place strengths
appropriate for the case where the determination of an After the core strengths have been converted to equivalent
equivalent fc′ is necessary for the strength evaluation of an in-place strengths, the sample statistics can be calculated.
existing structure and should not be used to investigate low The sample mean in-place strength fc is obtained from the
cylinder strength test results. following equation
214.4R-10 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

n than 35 MPa (5000 psi), or below 0.90fc′ if the specified

1
f c = ---
n ∑ f ci (8-2) strength exceeds 35 MPa (5000 psi). These criteria imply
i=1 that fc′ represents approximately the 10% fractile, or the
lower tenth-percentile value, of the strength obtained from a
where n is the number of cores, and fci is the equivalent in- standard test of 28-day cylinders. In other words, one standard
place strength of an individual core specimen, calculated strength test in 10 will be less than fc′ if the target strength
using Eq. (8-1). The sample standard deviation of the in-place criteria required by ACI 318 are followed. Various methods
strength sc is obtained from the following equation for converting in-place strengths obtained by nondestructive
testing into an equivalent fc′ are therefore based on estimating
n 2 the 10% fractile of the in-place strength (Bickley 1982;
( f ci – f c ) Hindo and Bergstrom 1985; Stone, Carino, and Reeve 1986).
sc = ∑ ---------------------
(n – 1)
- (8-3)
This practice was corroborated by a study that showed fc′
i=1
represents roughly the 13% fractile of the 28-day in-place
strength in walls and columns and roughly the 23% fractile
The sample mean and the sample standard deviation are
of the 28 day in-place strength in beams and slabs (Bartlett
estimates of the true mean and true standard deviation,
and MacGregor 1996b). The value for columns is more
respectively, of the entire population. The accuracy of these
appropriate for defining an equivalent specified strength
estimates, which improves as the sample size increases, can
because the nominal strength of a column is more sensitive
be investigated using the classical statistical approach to
to the concrete compressive strength than a beam or slab.
parameter estimation (Ang and Tang 1975).
Therefore, a procedure that assumes that the specified
The accuracy of the estimated in-place strengths also depends
strength is equal to the 13% fractile of the in-place
on the accuracy of the various strength correction factors used in
strength is appropriate, and one that assumes that fc′ is
Eq. (8-1). The standard deviation of the in-place strength due to
equivalent to the 10% fractile of the in-place strength is
the empirical nature of the strength correction factors sa can be
slightly conservative.
obtained from the following equation
8.4—Methods to estimate the equivalent
2 2 2 2 specified strength
s a = f c Vl ⁄ d + V dia + V mc + Vd (8-4)
There is no universally accepted method for determining
the 10% fractile of the in-place strength, which, as described
The right column of Table 8.1 shows the values of Vl/d, in Section 8.3, is roughly equivalent to fc′ . In general, the
Vdia, Vmc, and Vd, the coefficients of variation associated following considerations should be addressed:
with strength correction factors Fl/d, Fdia, Fmc, and Fd,
a) Factors that bias the core test result, which can be
respectively. The coefficient of variation due to a particular
accounted for using the strength correction factors
strength correction factor need only be included in Eq. (8-4)
discussed in Chapter 6;
if the corresponding factor used in Eq. (8-1) to obtain the in-
b) Uncertainty of each strength correction factor used to
place strength differs from 1.0. If the test specimens have
estimate the in-place strength;
different l/d, it is appropriate and slightly conservative to use
c) Errors of the measured average value and measured
the Vl/d value for the core with the smallest l/d. For cores
standard deviation that are attributable to sampling and
from concrete produced with similar proportions of similar
therefore decrease as the sample size increases;
aggregates, cement, and admixtures, the errors due to the
strength correction factors remain constant irrespective of d) Variability attributable to acceptable deviations from
the number of specimens obtained. standardized testing procedures that can cause the
The overall uncertainty of the estimated in-place strengths measured standard deviation of strength tests to exceed the
is a combination of the sampling uncertainty and the uncertainty true in-place strength variation; and
caused by the strength correction factors. These two sources e) Desired confidence level, which represents the likelihood
of uncertainty are statistically independent, and so the that the fractile value calculated using the sample data will
overall standard deviation so is determined using the be less than the true fractile value of the underlying population
following equation from which the sample is drawn.
This section presents two methods for estimating the 10%
fractile of the in-place strength. To use either method, it is
2 2
so = sc + sa (8-5) necessary to assume a type of probability distribution for the in-
place strengths and to determine the desired confidence level.
8.3—Percentage of in-place strengths less than f c′ There is a general consensus that concrete strengths are
The criteria in ACI 318 for proportioning concrete normally distributed if control is excellent or follow a
mixtures require that the target strength exceeds fc′ to lognormal distribution if control is poor (Mirza, Hatzinikolas,
achieve approximately a 1-in-100 chance that the average of and MacGregor 1979). The assumption of a normal distribution
three consecutive tests will fall below fc′ , and approximately always gives a lower estimate of the 10% fractile; although, if
a 1-in-100 chance that no individual test will fall more than the coefficient of variation of the in-place strength is less
3.5 MPa (500 psi) below fc′ if the specified strength is less than 20%, any difference is of little practical significance. It
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-11

Table 8.2—K-factors for one-sided tolerance limits Table 8.3—Z-factors for use in Eq. (8-7) and (8-8)
on 10% fractile (Natrella 1963) (Natrella 1963)
Confidence level Confidence level, % Z
n 75% 90% 95% 75 0.67
3 2.50 4.26 6.16 90 1.28
4 2.13 3.19 4.16 95 1.64
5 1.96 2.74 3.41
6 1.86 2.49 3.01
Table 8.4—One-sided T-factors for use in Eq. (8-8)
8 1.74 2.22 2.58 (Natrella 1963)
10 1.67 2.06 2.36
Confidence level
12 1.62 1.97 2.21
n 75% 90% 95%
15 1.58 1.87 2.07
3 0.82 1.89 2.92
18 1.54 1.80 1.97
4 0.76 1.64 2.35
21 1.52 1.75 1.90
24 1.50 1.71 1.85 5 0.74 1.53 2.13
27 1.49 1.68 1.81 6 0.73 1.48 2.02
30 1.48 1.66 1.78 8 0.71 1.41 1.90
35 1.46 1.62 1.73 10 0.70 1.38 1.83
40 1.44 1.60 1.70 12 0.70 1.36 1.80
Note: n = number of specimens tested. 15 0.69 1.34 1.76
18 0.69 1.33 1.74
21 0.69 1.33 1.72
is convenient to adopt the normal distribution because this
24 0.69 1.32 1.71
permits the use of many other statistical tools and techniques
30 0.68 1.32 1.70
that have been derived on the basis of normality. If a
Note: n = number of specimens tested.
lognormal distribution is adopted, however, these tools can be
used by working with the natural logarithms of the estimated
in-place strengths. 10% fractile value, shown in Table 8.2, decreases markedly
There is less available guidance concerning the appropriate as the sample size n increases.
confidence level. Hindo and Bergstrom (1985) suggest that The estimate of the lower tenth-percentile of the in-place
the 75% confidence level should be adopted for ordinary strength obtained from Eq. (8-6) does not account for the
structures, 90% for very important buildings, and 95% for uncertainty introduced by the use of the strength correction
crucial components in nuclear power plants. ACI 228.1R factors. This uncertainty, which does not diminish as the
reports that a confidence level of 75% is widely used in number of specimens increases, can be accounted for using
practice when assessing the in-place strength of concrete a factor Z shown in Table 8.3, which is derived from the
during construction. Tables 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 give parameters, standard normal distribution. Thus, the equivalent design
based on a normal distribution of strengths, to facilitate the strength f c′, eq , following the tolerance factor approach, is
use of one of these three confidence levels in calculating the obtained from the equation
equivalent specified strength.
8.4.1 Tolerance factor approach—The conventional 2
f c′, eq = f c – ( Ks c ) + ( Zs a )
2
(8-7)
approach to estimate a fractile value is to use a tolerance
factor K that accommodates the uncertainties of both the
sample mean and the sample standard deviation caused by An example calculation using the tolerance factor
smaller sample sizes (Philleo 1981). If the samples are drawn approach is given in the Appendix.
from a normal population, values of K are based on a noncentral 8.4.2 Alternate approach—Bartlett and MacGregor
t distribution (Madsen, Krenk, and Lind 1986) and are tabulated (1995) suggest that the tolerance factor approach may be
for various sample sizes, confidence levels, and fractile unduly conservative in practice because core tests tend to
values in Natrella (1963). The tolerance factor approach is overestimate the true variability of the in-place strengths.
presented in detail in ACI 228.1R as a relatively simple Therefore, the resulting value of f c′,eq is too low because the
statistically based method for estimating the tenth percentile value of sc used in Eq. (8-7) is too high. Also, the precision
of the strength. Neglecting errors due to the use of empirically inherent in the tolerance factor approach is significantly
derived strength correction factors, the lower tolerance limit higher than that associated with current design, specification,
on the 10% fractile of the in-place strength data f 0.10 is and acceptance practices.
obtained from the following equation A study of a large number of cores from members from
different structures indicated that the variability of the
average in-place strength between structures dominates the
f 0.10 = f c – Ks c (8-6) overall variability of the in-place strength (Bartlett and
MacGregor 1996b). Thus, core data can be used to estimate
where fc and sc are obtained from Eq. (8-2) and (8-3), respec- the average in-place strength and a lower bound on this
tively. The value of K for one-sided tolerance limits on the average strength for a particular structure. Assuming that the
214.4R-12 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

Table 8.5—C-factors for use in Eq. (8-9) for precast construction or cast-in-place members cast using
Structure composed of: One member Many members a single batch of concrete. An example illustrating this
One batch of concrete 0.91 0.89 approach is presented in the Appendix.
Many batches of concrete
Cast-in-place 0.85 0.83 CHAPTER 9—SUMMARY
Precast 0.88 0.87 This guide summarizes current practices for obtaining
cores and interpreting core compressive strength test results
actual within-structure strength variation is accurately in light of past and current research findings. Parallel procedures
represented by the generic values shown in Table 2.1, the are presented for the cases where cores are obtained to assess
approximate 10% fractile of the in-place strength can then be whether concrete strength in a new structure complies with
obtained. Thus, the variability of the measured core strengths, strength-based acceptance criteria, and to determine a value
which can exceed the true in-place strength variability due to based on the actual in-place concrete strength that is equivalent
testing factors that are hard to quantify, affects only the estimate to the specified compressive strength f c′ and so can be
of the lower bound on the mean strength. directly substituted into conventional strength equations
In this approach, the equivalent specified strength is with customary strength reduction factors for the strength
estimated using a two-step calculation. First, a lower bound evaluation of an existing structure. It is inappropriate to use
estimate on the average in-place strength is determined from the the procedures for determining an equivalent specified
core data. Then the 10% fractile of the in-place strength, which concrete strength to assess whether concrete strength in a
is equivalent to the specified strength, is obtained. new structure complies with strength-based acceptance criteria.
The lower-bound estimate of the mean in-place strength The order of contents parallels the logical sequence of
( f c ) CL can be determined for some desired confidence level activities in a typical core-test investigation. Chapter 2 describes
CL using the following equation how bleeding, consolidation, curing, and microcracking affect
the in-place concrete strength in structures so that the
2
investigator can account for this strength variation when
( Ts c ) 2 planning the testing program. Chapter 3 identifies preferred
( f c ) CL = f c – --------------
- + ( Zs a ) (8-8)
n sample locations and provides guidance on the number of
specimens that should be obtained. Chapter 4 summarizes
The first term under the square root represents the effect of coring techniques that should result in high-quality, undamaged,
the sample size on the uncertainty of the mean in-place representative test specimens. It is recommended that specimens
strength. The factor T is obtained from a Student’s t distribution with diameters of 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in.) and length-
with (n – 1) degrees of freedom (Natrella 1963), which to-diameter ratios between 1.5 and 2 be obtained wherever
depends on the desired confidence level. The second term possible to minimize any errors introduced by the strength
under the square root reflects the uncertainty attributable to correction factors for nonstandard specimens.
the strength correction factors. As in the tolerance factor Chapter 5 describes procedures for testing the cores and
approach, it depends on a factor Z obtained from the standard detecting “outliers” by inspection of load-machine displacement
normal distribution for the desired confidence level. curves or using statistical tests from ASTM E 178. Chapter 6
Tables 8.3 and 8.4 show values of Z and T for the 75, 90, and summarizes the subsequent analysis of strength test data
95% one-sided confidence levels, respectively. Bartlett and including the use of ASTM C 42/42 M precision statements
MacGregor (1995) suggest that a 90% confidence level is that quantify the expected variability of properly conducted
probably conservative for general use, but a greater confidence tests for a sample of homogeneous material, research findings
level may be appropriate if the reliability is particularly concerning the accuracy of empirically derived core strength
sensitive to the in-place concrete strength. correction factors, and statistical analysis techniques that can
The estimated equivalent specified strength is defined determine if the data can be grouped into unique categories.
using ( f c ) CL from the following expression Chapter 7 briefly elaborates on criteria presented in
ACI 318 for using core test results to investigate low-
f c′, eq = C ( f c ) CL (8-9) strength cylinder test results in new construction.
Chapter 8 presents two methods for estimating the lower
Assuming the in-place strengths to be normally distributed, tenth-percentile value of the in-place concrete strength using
the desired 10% strength fractile is obtained using the core test data to quantify the in-place strength. This value is
constant C equal to (1-1.28VWS), where VWS is the within- equivalent to the specified concrete strength f c′ and so can be
structure coefficient of variation of the strengths shown in directly substituted into conventional strength equations
Table 2.1. Therefore, values of C depend on the number of with customary strength reduction factors for the strength
batches, number of members, and type of construction, as evaluation of an existing structure.
shown in Table 8.5. To estimate the 13% fractile of the in- Example calculations are presented in an appendix for:
place concrete strength, Bartlett and MacGregor (1995) outlier identification in accordance with ASTM E 178
recommend values of C equal to 0.85 for cast-in-place criteria; determining whether a difference in mean strengths
construction consisting of many batches of concrete, or 0.90 of cores from beams and columns is statistically significant;
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-13

and computing the equivalent specified strength using the Bickley, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
two approaches presented in Chapter 8. Hills, Mich., pp. 211-228.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1996b, “Statistical
CHAPTER 10—REFERENCES Analysis of the Compressive Strength of Concrete in
10.1—Referenced standards and reports Structures,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.,
The standards and reports listed were the latest editions at pp. 158-168.
the time this document was prepared. Because these Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A., 1970, Probability,
documents are revised frequently, the reader is advised to Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill
contact the proper sponsoring group if it is desired to refer to Book Co., New York, 684 pp.
the latest version. Bickley, J. A., 1982, “Variability of Pullout Tests and In-
Place Concrete Strength,” Concrete International, V. 4.
American Concrete Institute No. 4, Apr., pp. 44-51.
228.1R In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength Bloem, D. L., 1965, “Concrete Strength Measurements—
228.2R Nondestructive Test Methods for the Evaluation Cores versus Cylinders,” Proceedings, V. 65, ASTM
of Concrete in Structures International, West Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 668-696.
309.1R Behavior of Fresh Concrete During Vibration Bloem, D. L., 1968, “Concrete Strength in Structures,”
311.1R ACI Manual of Concrete Inspection, SP-2 ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 3, Mar., pp. 176-187.
318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Bollin, G. E., 1993, “Development of Precision and Bias
Concrete and Commentary Statements for Testing Drilled Cores in Accordance with
ASTM C 42,” Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, CCAGDP,
ASTM International V. 15, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.,
C 39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength No. 1, pp. 85-88.
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens British Standards Institution, 1983, “BS 1881: Part 120,
C 42/ Standard Method for Obtaining and Testing Method for Determination of the Compressive Strength of
C 42M Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete Concrete Cores,” London, 6 pp.
C 670 Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Bungey, J. H., 1989, Testing of Concrete in Structures, 2nd
Statements for Test Methods for Construction Edition, Surrey University Press, Blackie & Son Ltd., 228 pp.
Materials Burg, R. G., and Ost, B. W., 1992, “Engineering Properties of
C 823 Standard Practice for Examination and Sampling Commercially Available High-Strength Concretes,” Research
of Hardened Concrete in Constructions and Development Bulletin RD 104T, Portland Cement
E 122 Standard Practice for Choice of Sample Size to Association, Skokie, Ill., 55 pp.
Estimate the Average Quality of a Lot or Process Concrete Society, 1987, “Concrete Core Testing for
E 178 Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Strength,” Technical Report No. 11, The Concrete Society,
Observations London, 44 pp.
Cook, J. E., 1989, “10,000 psi Concrete,” Concrete
10.2—Cited references International, V. 11, No. 10, Oct., pp. 67-75.
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H., 1975, Probability Cook, W. D.; Miao, B.; Aïtcin, P.-C.; and Mitchell, D., 1992,
Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, V. 1, Basic “Thermal Stresses in Large High-Strength Concrete Columns,”
Principles, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 409 pp. ACI Materials Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 61-68.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1994a, “Cores from Dilly, R. L., and Vogt, W. L., 1993, “Statistical Methods
High Performance Concrete Beams,” ACI Materials for Evaluating Core Strength Results,” New Concrete
Journal, V. 91, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 567-576. Technology: Robert E. Philleo Symposium, SP-141, T. C.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1994b, “Effect of Core Liu and G. C. Hoff, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Length-to-Diameter Ratio on Concrete Core Strengths,” ACI Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 65-101.
Materials Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 339-348. Fiorato, A. E.; Burg, R. G.; and Gaynor, R. D., 2000, “Effects
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1994c, “Effect of of Conditioning on Measured Compressive Strength of Concrete
Moisture Condition on Concrete Core Strengths,” ACI Cores,” CTOO3, Concrete Technology Today, V. 21, No. 3,
Materials Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June, pp. 227-236. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill, pp. 1-5.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1994d, “Effect of Gaynor, R. D., 1970, “In-Place Strength: A Comparison of
Core Diameter on Concrete Core Strengths,” ACI Materials Two Test Systems,” Cement, Lime and Gravel, V. 45,
Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 460-470. No. 3, pp. 55-60.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1995, “Equivalent Hindo, K. R., and Bergstrom, W. R., 1985, “Statistical
Specified Concrete Strength from Core Test Data,” Concrete Evaluation of the In-Place Compressive Strength of
International, V. 17, No. 3, Mar., pp. 52-58. Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 7, No. 2, Feb., pp. 44-48.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1996a, “In-Place Johnson, C. D., 1973, “Anisotropy of Concrete and Its
Strength of High-Performance Concretes,” High Strength Practical Implications,” Highway Research Record No. 423,
Concrete: An International Perspective, SP-167, J. A. pp. 11-16.
214.4R-14 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

Lewis, R. K., 1976, “Effect of Core Diameter on the Observed Popovics, S., 1986, “Effect of Curing Method and Final
Strength of Concrete Cores,” Research Report No. 50, CSIRO Moisture Condition on Compressive Strength of
Division of Building Research, Melbourne, 13 pp. Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 4, July-Aug.,
Madsen, H. O.; Krenk, S.; and Lind, N. C., 1986, Methods pp. 650-657.
of Structural Safety, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, Ramakrishnan, V., and Li, Shy-t’ien, 1970, “Maturity
N.J., 403 pp. Strength Relationship of Concrete under Different Curing
Mak, S. L.; Attard, M. M.; Ho, D. W. S.; and Darvall, P., Conditions,” Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-American Conference
1990, “In-Situ Strength of High Strength Concrete,” Civil on Materials Technology, ASCE, New York, pp. 1-8.
Engineering Research Report No. 4/90, Monash University, Sanga, C. M., and Dhir, R. K., 1976, “Core-Cube Relation-
Australia, 120 pp. ships of Plain Concrete,” Advances in Ready Mixed
Mak, S. L.; Attard, M. M.; Ho, D. W. S.; and Darvall, P., Concrete Technology, R. K. Dhir, ed., Pergamon Press,
1993, “Effective In-Situ Strength of High Strength Oxford, pp. 193-292.
Columns,” Australian Civil Engineering Transactions, Stone, W. C.; Carino, N. J.; and Reeve, C. P., 1986,
V. CE35, No, 2, pp. 87-94. “Statistical Methods for In-Place Strength Predictions by the
Meininger, R. C., 1968, “Effect of Core Diameter on Pullout Test,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 5,
Measured Concrete Strength,” Journal of Materials, Sept.-Oct., pp. 745-756.
JMLSA, V. 3, No. 2, pp. 320-326. Sullivan, P. J. E., 1991, “Testing and Evaluating Strength
Meynick, P., and Samarin, A., 1979, “Assessment of in Structures,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-
Compressive Strength of Concrete by Cylinders, Cores, and Oct., pp. 530-535.
Nondestructive Tests,” Controle de Qualite des Structures Szypula, A., and Grossman, J. S., 1990, “Cylinder vesus Core
en Beton, Proceedings of the RILEM Conference, V. 1, Strength,” Concrete International, V. 12, No. 2, Feb., pp. 55-61.
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 127-134. Takahata, A.; Iwashimizu, T.; and Ishibashi, U., 1991,
Miao, B.; Aïtcin, P.-C.; Cook, W. D.; and Mitchell, D., “Construction of a High-Rise Reinforced Concrete Residence
1993, “Influence of Concrete Strength on In-Situ Properties Using High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength Concrete,
of Large Columns,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 3, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute,
May-June, pp. 214-219. Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 741-755.
Mirza, S. A.; Hatzinikolas, M.; and MacGregor, J. G., Toossi, M., and Houde, J., 1981, “Evaluation of Strength
1979, “Statistical Descriptions of Strength of Concrete,” Variation Due to Height of Concrete Members,” Cement and
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings, ASCE, Concrete Research, V. 11, pp. 519-529.
V. 105, No. ST6, pp. 1021-1037. Yip, W. K., and Tam, C. T., 1988, “Concrete Strength
Natrella, M., 1963, “Experimental Statistics,” Handbook Evaluation Through the Use of Small Diameter Cores,”
No. 9, National Bureau of Standards, United States Government Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 40, No. 143, pp. 99-105.
Printing Office, Washington.
Yuan, R. L.; Ragab, M.; Hill, R. E.; and Cook, J. E., 1991,
Neville, A. M., 1981, Properties of Concrete, 3rd Edition, “Evaluation of Core Strength in High-Strength Concrete,”
Pitman Publishing Ltd., London, 779 pp. Concrete International, V. 13, No. 5, May, pp. 30-34.
Neville, A. M., 2001, “Core Tests: Easy to Perform, Not
Easy to Interpret,” Concrete International, V. 23, No. 11,
10.3—Other references
Nov., pp. 59-68. ACI Committee 214, 1977, “Recommended Practice for
Newman, K., and Lachance, L., 1964, “The Testing of Brittle Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete (ACI 214-77),”
Materials under Uniform Uniaxial Compressive Stresses,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 14 pp.
Proceedings, ASTM International, V. 64, pp. 1044-1067. ACI Committee 446, 1999, “Fracture Mechanics of
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Concrete: Concepts, Models, and Determination of Material
1985, “Development of Special Provisions for the Acceptance Properties (ACI 446.1R-91 (Reapproved 1999)),” American
of Lean Concrete, Base, Concrete Base and Concrete Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 146 pp.
Pavement,” Report No. MI-76, Ontario MTC, Downsview,
Ontario, Mar.
APPENDIX—EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Ottosen, N. S., 1984, “Evaluation of Concrete Cylinder A1—Outlier identification in accordance with
Tests Using Finite Elements,” Journal of Engineering ASTM E 178 criteria
Mechanics, ASCE, V. 110, No. 3, pp. 465-481. Six cores are obtained from a single element. All have the
Pearson, E. S., 1941-42, “The Probability Integral of the same diameter l/d and are given identical conditioning treat-
Range in Samples of n Observations from a Normal ments in accordance with ASTM C 42/C 42M before testing.
Population,” Biometrika, pp. 301-308. The measured strengths are 22.1, 29.4, 30.2, 30.8, 31.0, and
Philleo, R. E., 1981, “Increasing the Usefulness of ACI 214: 31.7 MPa (3200, 4270, 4380, 4470, 4500, and 4600 psi).
Use of Standard Deviation and a Technique for Small Sample The average strength is 29.2 MPa (4240 psi), and the standard
Sizes,” Concrete International, V. 3, No. 9, Sept., pp. 71-74. deviation is 3.56 MPa (520 psi). If the smallest strength
Popovics, S., 1969, “Effect of Porosity on the Strength value is an outlier and so can be removed from the data set,
of Concrete,” Journal of Materials, JMLSA, V. 4, No. 2, the average strength will increase by almost 5% and the standard
pp. 356-371. deviation will be markedly reduced.
 GUIDE FOR OBTAINING CORES AND INTERPRETING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS 214.4R-15

The test statistic for checking if the smallest measured where the standard deviation of the pooled sample Sp is
strength is an outlier according to ASTM E 178 criteria is the
difference between the average and minimum values divided 2 2
by the sample standard deviation. In this case it equals SI: ( n 1 – 1 )s 1 + ( n 2 – 1 )s 2
Sp = ----------------------------------------------------------- (A-2)
(29.2 MPa – 22.1 MPa)/3.56 MPa = 1.99 [(4240 psi – 3200 psi)/ ( n1 + n2 – 2 )
520 psi = 2.00]. From Table 1 of ASTM E 178-80, the critical
value for the two-sided test is 1.973 at the 1.0% significance In these equations, x is the sample mean, s is the sample
level for a set of six observations. Thus, an observation this standard deviation, n is the number of observations, and
different from the mean value would be expected to occur by subscripts 1 and 2 are used to distinguish between the two
chance less than once every 100 times, and because this is populations. The test is only valid when the true variances of the
unlikely, the low value of 22.1 MPa (3200 psi) is an outlier and two populations σ2 are equal, which can be verified using
can be removed from the data set. This decision conforms to the an F test (Benjamin and Cornell 1970; Ang and Tang 1975).
ASTM E 178 recommendation that a low significance The rejection region is defined at a significance level α
level, such as 1%, be used as the critical value to test with degrees of freedom df = ν1 + ν2 – 2. Should the
outlying observations. observed t value exceed the critical value, t1 – α/2, which is
If, in this example, the smallest core strength was 26.9 MPa tabulated in most statistical references (Benjamin and
(3900 psi) instead of 22.1 MPa (3200 psi), the average of the Cornell 1970; Ang and Tang 1975), then the probability that
six strengths would be 30.0 MPa (4350 psi) with a standard a difference at least as large as that observed will occur by
deviation of 1.71 MPa (250 psi). The low value is (30.0 MPa – chance is α. Most engineers and statisticians would not
26.9 MPa)/1.71 MPa = 1.81 standard deviations below the mean consider a difference to be statistically significant if the asso-
value [(4350 psi – 3900 psi)/250 psi = 1.80], which is less ciated significance level is greater than 5%. As noted in the
than the critical value of 1.822 given in Table 1 of ASTM E first example, more stringent significance levels are recom-
178-80 for the two-sided test at the 10% significance level. mended for outlier detection.
The low test result would be expected to occur by chance at Thus, for the example data:
least once every 10 times, and because this is likely the
26.9 MPa (3900 psi) value is not an outlier according to 2 2
ASTM E 178 and should not be removed from the data set. ( 4 – 1 ) (1.05 MPa) + ( 5 – 1 ) (0.42 MPa)
Sp = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (A-3)
(4 + 5 – 2)
A2—Student’s t test for significance of difference
between observed average values = 0.76 MPa
It is not always obvious that any difference between
average concrete strengths observed for cores from different
structural components indicate a true difference of concrete ⎛ 4 – 1 ) ( 155 psi ) + ( 5 – 1 ) ( 62 psi ) - = 112 psi⎞
2 2
(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
⎜ Sp = ⎟
quality between the components. For example, assume four ⎝ (4 + 5 – 2) ⎠
cores obtained from four beams have measured strengths of
so
27.3, 29.0, 29.6, and 29.4 MPa (3960, 4210, 4300, and
4270 psi), which average 28.8 MPa (4180 psi) with a standard
deviation of 1.05 MPa (155 psi). Five cores obtained from 31.4 MPa – 28.8 MPa
t = -------------------------------------------------------- = 5.1 (A-4)
five columns have measured strengths of 31.2, 31.8, 30.9,
0.76 MPa ⎛ 1--- + 1---⎞
31.4, and 31.9 MPa (4520, 4610, 4480, 4560, and 4630 psi), ⎝ 4 5⎠
which average 31.4 MPa (4560 psi) and have a standard
deviation of 0.42 MPa (62 psi). Clearly the column cores are
⎛ ⎞
stronger, but is the difference large enough, given the small ⎜ ⎟
4560 psi – 4185 psi
sample sizes, to consider the two data sets separately instead ⎜ t = -------------------------------------------------- = 5.0⎟
⎜ ⎟
112 psi ⎛ --- + ---⎞
of combining them into a single set of nine observations for 1 1
⎝ ⎝ 4 5⎠ ⎠
subsequent analysis?
To check whether the observed 2.6 MPa (380 psi) difference
between the average strengths is statistically significant and not For this case with seven degrees of freedom, the critical
simply a value that might often be exceeded by chance given the values for the two-sided test are 2.37 at the 95% significance
scatter of the data, a test based on the Student’s t distribution level, 3.50 at the 99% significance level, and 4.78 at the
(Benjamin and Cornell 1970; Ang and Tang 1975) can be 99.9% significance level (Ang and Tang 1975). Because the
performed. The test statistic t for testing the hypothesis that the observed t statistic is slightly larger than the critical value at
mean values of the underlying populations are equal is the 99.9% significance level, the value 1 – α/2 exceeds
99.9%, and so α is less than 0.2%. Thus, the probability of a
x2 – x1 difference of this magnitude occurring by chance is less than
t = --------------------------- (A-1) 1-in-500, and it can be concluded that the average strengths
1 1 of the cores from the beams and the columns are signifi-
S P ----- + -----
n1 n2 cantly different. The data sets should not be combined, and
214.4R-16 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE

distinct strength values should be computed separately for = 23.8 MPa

the columns and for the beams.
2 2
′ = 4850 psi –
(fc,eq ( 1.96 × 700 psi ) + ( 0.67 × 171 psi ) = 3470 psi
A3—Equivalent specified strength by tolerance
factor approach
An equivalent specified strength is to be computed using the In this example, the uncertainty due to the strength correction
tolerance factor approach for five 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) factors does not greatly influence the result because the
cores that have been air-dried in accordance with ASTM C 42/ 10% fractile of the in-place strength, Eq. (A-5), is essentially
C 42M before testing. The test strengths are 27.1, 29.8, 32.7, identical to the equivalent specified strength, Eq. (A-7). The
34.8, and 39.6 MPa (3930, 4320, 4740, 5040, and 5740 psi). equivalent specified strength is 23.8 MPa (3470 psi).
Only strength corrections for the effects of the moisture condi-
tion and the damage due to drilling are necessary to obtain the A4—Equivalent specified strength by alternate
equivalent in-place strengths. Thus, using Eq. (8-1) and the approach
factors from Table 8.4, fc = 1.02 fcore, and the corresponding For the core test results from the previous example, the
in-place strengths, rounded to the nearest 0.1 MPa (10 psi) in equivalent specified strength is to be determined using the
accordance with ASTM practice, are 27.6, 30.4, 33.3, 35.5, alternate approach. The 90% one-sided confidence interval
and 40.4 MPa (4010, 4410, 4830, 5140, and 5850 psi). The on the mean in-place strength is, using Eq. (8-8) with Z =
mean in-place strength fc is 33.4 MPa (4850 psi), and the 1.28 from Table 8.3 and T = 1.53 from Table 8.4,
sample standard deviation of the in-place strength values sc is
4.9 MPa (700 psi). If the uncertainty associated with the use of
( 1.53 × 4.9 MPa )
2
the strength correction factors is neglected, then the 75% ( f c) 90 = 33.4 MPa – -------------------------------------------- + ( 1.28 × 1.18 MPa ) 2 (A-8)
confidence limit on the 10% fractile of the in-place strength is 5
obtained using Eq. (8-6) with, from Table 8.2, K = 1.96
= 29.7 MPa
f 0.10 = 33.4 MPa – 1.96 × 4.90 MPa = 23.8 MPa (A-5)
2
( 1.53 × 700 psi )
⎛ ( f ) = 4850 psi – ----------------------------------------
- + ( 1.28 × 171 psi ) = 4320 psi⎞
2
( f 0.10 = 4850 psi – 1.96 × 700 psi = 3480 psi ) ⎝ c 90 5 ⎠

The uncertainty introduced by strength correction factors Hence, from Eq. (8-9) with C = 0.83 for a cast-in-place
Fd and Fmc is determined using Eq. (8-4) structure composed of many members cast from many batches

2 2 2
s a = 33.4 MPa 0 + 0 + 0.025 + 0.025 = 1.18MPa (A-6)
2 ′ = 0.83 × 29.7 MPa = 24.7 MPa
fc,eq (A-9)

2 2 2 2 ′ = 0.83 × 4320 psi = 3580 psi)

(fc,eq
(s a = 4850 psi 0 + 0 + 0.025 + 0.025 = 171 psi )

Thus, from Eq. (8-7), the 75% confidence limit on the 10% The equivalent specified strength is therefore 24.7 MPa
fractile of the in-place strength, determined using Z = 0.67 (3580 psi) using the alternate approach. It is slightly greater
from Table 8.3 is than that computed using the tolerance factor method
because, as described in Section 8.4.2, core test data tend to
2 2
′ = 33.4 MPa –
fc,eq ( 1.96 × 4.9 MPa ) + ( 0.67 × 1.18 MPa ) (A-7) overestimate the true variability of the in-place strengths.