Basic HTML Version
634
IBRACON Structures and Materials Journal • 2012 • vol. 5 • nº 5
Fatigue lifetime of a RC bridge along the Carajás railroad
Table � � Compressive strength of concrete from sclerometry tests
Impact
Compressive strength f (MPa)
c
Stringer
Slab
Block
Abutment 1
Abutment 2
Caisson T7
1
60
61
52
56
60
43
2
52
61
48
46
58
46
3
42
61
52
59
59
43
4
54
60
55
60
62
42
5
62
65
54
60
62
47
6
62
61
52
58
62
37
7
56
63
56
50
62
45
8
56
63
54
56
61
42
9
42
63
54
55
59
42
Average
54
62
53
54
61
43
Ta��e � � E�perimenta� mec�anica�
properties of concrete
Testimony
E (GPa)
c
f (MPa)
c
Abutment 02 (CP01)
38,6
51,5
Abutment 02 (CP02)
42,4
52,3
Slab (CP01)
41,1
39,2
Slab (CP02)
44,0
50,0
Stringer (CP01)
58,8
38,7
3. Concrete mechanical characterization
results
The Schmidt rebound hammer method is simple to use and offers
a quick and cheap way to evaluate the uniformity of the hardened
concrete “in situ”, so the test result is susceptible to factors such
as: concrete mix proportion, age and environmental conditions,
surface roughness, moisture condition, surface carbonation, the
element stiffness and location of the hammer. The sclerometry av-
erage results for the “in situ” studied elements are presented in
Table 3.
The results observed with the non-destructive testing of scle-
rometry were all higher than those for the testimonies. Accord-
ing to Malhotra [9], the accuracy in estimating the strength of
Figure 1� � �tress-time and stress-strain diagrams for abutment E2, CP01