ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 116-M35
Comparison of Core and In-Place Compressive Strengths
for Early-Age Concrete
by Agustin Spalvier, James A. Bittner, Kerry Hall, and John S. Popovics
Accurate determination of concrete in-place strength remains a
challenge. Although drilled cores provide reasonable represen-
tation of in-place strength, core strength results are known to be
affected by factors such as core aspect ratio, moisture condition,
and internal damage caused by extraction. To account for these
effects, previous research has developed correlations between cores
and standard molded companion cylinders in mature concrete.
In this investigation, the authors evaluate the effectiveness of
compressive strength estimation for new pavement construction
using cores for wet and air-dried sample conditions, and for the
presence of embedded steel reinforcing bar. The effects of these
conditions on in-place strength estimates for early-age concrete
with “good” and “low” quality are studied using statistical
analysis. The actual in-place strength is determined using cast-
in-place cylinders. Based on the analysis, the optimal correction
factors for core to in-place strengths for early-age concrete are
1.05, 1.20, and 1.08 for 1-day air-dried cores, 1-day wet cores, and
1-day air-dried cores containing steel reinforcing bar, respectively.
Keywords: core; correction factor; in-place cylinder; in-place strength;
pavement.
INTRODUCTION
Accurate, efficient, and timely concrete material quality
assurance checks are needed to deploy performance-based
specifications on constructed elements. A longstanding
and commonly used approach to monitor in-place concrete
quality uses the compressive strength measured from cylin-
drical field-cured or standard-cured molded companion
samples, also referred to as “companion cylinders.” Tests
for concrete compressive strength determined from these
companion cylinders are standardized by jurisdictions
around the world.1-4 However, accurate determination of
concrete in-place strength from companion cylinders is
hindered by differences in curing history and consolida-
tion processes, among other things. More accurate in-place
strength estimates should be obtained from compression tests
performed on cylindrical cores that are extracted (drilled)
from the inspected structure because material curing history
and consolidation processes within the structure are more
directly represented.5-7 When drilled cores are used for
in-place strength evaluation, however, new factors may
adversely affect in-place strength estimates. Example factors
include, but are not limited to, core sample diameter and
length, maximum aggregate size, moisture condition, steel
reinforcing bar presence, end capping conditions, and mate-
rial damage caused by the mechanical drilling process.5,6,8-14
Previous studies have investigated the use of cores to
estimate concrete compressive strength, studying aspects
ACI Materials Journal/May 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
such as core sample size, water-cement ratio, and core
sample moisture conditioning.8-12,15,16 These studies have
shown that extracted cores, on average, show lower strength
than companion cylinders of the same mixture and that
the treatment of the core after extraction affects the results
significantly. In particular, Bloem9 studied the use of stan-
dard-cured and field-cured molded cylinders to represent
in-place concrete strength (established from cores and cast-
in-place cylinders), where the focus was on the strength
development over time. The investigation verified that
drilled cores tend on average to yield lower strength results
than standard-cured molded cylinders, field-cured molded
cylinders, and in-place cylinders. Bartlett and MacGregor10
considered the effect of sample moisture condition on core
strength by comparing air-drying and water-saturating treat-
ments that were applied prior to testing. They found that
water-saturating the cores reduced the apparent strength,
while air-drying increased apparent strength. Bartlett and
MacGregor11 further compiled data from multiple research
data sources and analyzed the effect of core diameter on
measured strength. They found that smaller-diameter cores
tend to be adversely affected by damage from the extraction
process more than the larger-diameter cores. Bartlett and
MacGregor12 defined correction factors that accounted for
this core damage to be used for acceptance or rejection based
on fc′, analogous to the recommended process when using
standard-cured molded cylinders.
Design specifications have adopted some findings from
previous research. For example, ACI 318-147 specifies a
procedure to investigate low-strength results from standard
companion molded cylinders using test data from extracted
cores. Even though this approach has some statistical-re-
lated flaws,17,18 it is practical and in general accounts for the
inherent damage known to exist in core samples. If the test
evaluation criteria in ACI 318-14 are not met, the in-place
strength of the existing structure can be evaluated following
guidelines in ACI 214.4R-10,19 which contains provisions
to correlate core strength to in-place strength. However, it
is not clear how the in-place strength should be determined:
companion cylinders, in-place cylinders, non-destructive
tests, or some combination of these. Moreover, ACI
214.4R-10 explicitly states that the given correction factors
ACI Materials Journal, V. 116, No. 3, May 2019.
MS No. M-2018-223, doi: 10.14359/51715584, received June 13, 2018, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
63
should only be employed in existing structures. Thus, the Table 1—Mixture design target properties and
validity of using these specifications to assess in-place nominal proportions
strength in new structures with early-age concrete remains PV/SI PV/SI-low
unclear.
Target properties
The objective of this investigation is to better predict
in-place concrete compressive strength, and to find correction Compressive strength, psi (MPa) 3500 (24)*† Unspecified
factors that correlate drilled core sample strength to in-place w/cm 0.42 0.5
strength under a given statistical confidence. The particular 3.5 to 4.5
focus of the study is early-age strength determination for Slump, in. (cm) Unspecified
(8 to 12)
concrete pavement slabs. The investigation comprised the
Air content, % 5 to 8 8 to 10
study of several variables or affecting conditions: concrete
mixture design, the presence of steel reinforcing bar in the Content per yd3 (m3) of concrete‡
extracted cores, and the application of two types of mois- Coarse agg. 1: CM16§-Kankakee, lb
364 (216) 364 (216)
ture treatments applied to core samples during the time after (kg)
extraction and before testing. Moisture treatments involved Fine agg.: FA-Mid-America-Mahomet,
1227 (728) 1227 (728)
either submerging cores under water for 24 hours or drying lb (kg)
cores in front of a fan in air for 24 hours after extraction. Coarse agg. 2: CM11||-Kankakee, lb
1450 (860) 1450 (860)
All concrete specimens, drilled cores and in-place cylinders, (kg)
were tested under compression 16 days after casting. Fly ash: Class C-MRT Labadie, lb (kg) 145 (86) 145 (86)
This investigation offers several contributions to the
Portland cement Type I, lb (kg) 435 (258) 435 (258)
concrete technical community. Unlike most previous
research efforts, this investigation employs in-place cylin- Water, gal. (L) 29.2 (145) 34.8 (173)
ders, also known as cast-in-place cylinders, to define the Content per 100 lb (kg) of cm#
in-place strength of concrete in slabs. In-place cylinders are 1.9 to 2.0
cast embedded within the slab, so they have the same curing Air-entraining admixture, oz (mL) Variable**
(56 to 59)
temperature history as the rest of the slab.20,21 Moreover, they Water reducer, oz (mL) 4.0 (118.3) 4.0 (118.3)
can be extracted at any given time without causing damage to
the sample. Thus, they should provide a better representation *Minimum acceptable strength required by IDOT specifications, 2012.

of the actual in-place strength than drilled cores or standard Compressive strength of standard cylinders at day 14 after casting according to
†

IDOT specifications, 2012.

molded companion cylinders. The use of cores to estimate
in-place strength in “new” (early-age) concrete pavement
slabs, where rapid construction and strength evaluation
times are paramount to all parties involved in the construc-
tion process, is then investigated. For that reason, core condi-
tioning times proposed here (24 hours) are shorter than those
required in test standards: between 2 and 5 days, depending
‡
PV/SI-low mixture proportions are given with respect to 1.03 yd3 (1.02 m3) batch
volume instead of unit volume. Presentation is used to illustrate that both mixtures
designs are similar except for extra water in PV/SI-low.
§
Aggregate CM16 corresponds to 100% passing 1 in. aperture sieve.
||
Aggregate CM11 corresponds to 100% passing 0.5 in. aperture sieve.
#
“cm” stands for “cementitious material,” which corresponds to the combination of
portland cement and other mineral admixtures—in this case, fly ash only.

on the type of conditioning.19,22 Finally, this investigation Different quantities were added for every batch to meet air content specification.
**

uses a statistical framework to evaluate the data, which can
be implemented by others to compute correction factors
for situations different to the ones considered herein—for
example, different mixture designs, concrete testing age, or
moisture treatment durations.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Contractual and financial obligations during construc-
tion require accurate determination of in-place strength
of concrete pavements soon after construction has been
completed. When using drilled cores to estimate concrete
strength in existing structures, existing test standards require
a minimum of 2-day storage for soaked samples19 or 5-day
storage in watertight bags.22 However, all parties involved
in the construction process benefit from a rapid and effi-
cient construction procedure, which implies shorter time
requirements for quality control operations and, in the case
of drilled cores, more rapid core treatment processes. This
study evaluates modified and shortened drilled core sample
storage treatments and calculates the in-place strength
correction factors using a statistical basis to interpret results
from those cores for early-age concrete.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Concrete mixtures
This investigation used two concrete mixture designs; PV/
SI and PV/SI-low. The PV/SI mixture is prescribed in Illi-
nois Department of Transportation (IDOT) specifications.
The PV/SI mixture represents regular-strength concrete
typically used for concrete pavements or structures in Illi-
nois. The PV/SI-low mixture is nominally the same as PV/
SI except that it contains a higher water-cementitious mate-
rials ratio and higher air content; this was done to emulate
low-quality concrete. The mixture design target properties
and nominal proportions are presented in Table 1.
Slab specimens
Concrete batching and mixing was performed in a
ready mix plant. Each batch was at least 4 yd3 (3 m3) in
volume. Concrete was then transported to the laboratory in
concrete mixer trucks. One slab was cast from each batch. A
total of 11 slabs were cast using both mixtures. To achieve a
balance between reliability of the statistical analysis (refer
to the “Analytical Procedure” section) and experimental
practicalities, eight cores and eight in-place cylinders were

64 ACI Materials Journal/May 2019

Fig. 1—(a) Plywood slab form before casting with attached in-place cylinder holders; and (b) concrete slab after casting with
thermocouple wires embedded.

Fig. 2—(a) Photo of in-place cylinder holder attached to slab form indicating plastic mold, steel sleeve, and bracer; and (b)
longitudinal section diagram of in-place cylinder holder with dimensions indicated in inches (Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)
extracted from each slab. The slabs’ nominal dimensions x 20 cm) plastic mold inside a thin galvanized steel sleeve.
were 5 ft x 5 ft x 9 in. (1.5 x 1.5 x 0.23 m). Figures 1(a) and Galvanized steel bracers were used to fix the system to the
(b) show photographs of a slab form before and after casting, form. A 3/64 to 5/64 in. (1 to 2 mm) gap remained between
respectively. the plastic mold and the steel sleeve, the interface of which
was greased to ease in-place cylinder extraction. Figure 2
In-place cylinder specimens shows detail of the in-place cylinder holders.
Before casting the slab, eight in-place cylinder holders In-place cylinders were removed from the slab by pushing
were fixed to the bottom of the plywood formwork, as seen them upward from the bottom on day 16 after casting. Their
in Fig. 1(a). The in-place cylinders were cast along with the final nominal dimensions were 4 in. (10.2 cm) diameter and
whole slab specimen. In-place cylinder consolidation was 8 in. (20.3 cm) height. In-place cylinders were tested under
performed immediately before placing the concrete into the compression the same day of extraction.
rest of the slab’s form; cylinder consolidation was carried Throughout this paper, it is assumed that the actual
out as specified for regular standard molded cylinders by concrete in-place strength is represented by the mean value
ASTM C192/C192M-13a23 and AASHTO R 39.24 of the strength results obtained from the in-place cylinders.
In-place cylinders where held in position using in-place
cylinder holders. These holders consisted of a 4 x 8 in. (10

ACI Materials Journal/May 2019 65

Fig. 3—(a) Slab top view showing relative positions of in-place cylinders, cores, and embedded reinforcing bars (green lines);
and (b) core disposition during air-drying treatment. (Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)
Drilled core specimens
Drilled cores were extracted from the concrete slabs on
day 15 after casting using a diamond‐tipped drilling bit.
They were drawn from the top side of the slabs through their
full thickness, yielding cores of 9 in. (22.9 cm) height.
After extraction, cores were moisture-treated for 24 hours
before being tested under compression. Two types of mois-
ture treatments were employed: air-dried and wet. The
air-dried moisture treatment consisted of placing the cores
in front of a running box fan at ambient room temperature
and humidity. The wet treatment consisted of submerging
the cores in a water bath at 73 ± 2°F (23 ± 1°C).
Three of the slabs contained embedded epoxy-coated No. 5
steel reinforcing bars; these were placed at specific positions
from which cores were to be extracted and leaving a 2 in. (5 cm)
top cover depth. All cores with embedded steel reinforcing
bar were air-dried. Figure 3(a) shows the nominal positions
of in-place cylinders, cores, and reinforcing bars. Figure 3(b)
shows the sample layout for the air-dried treatment.
To prepare cores for the compressive strength test, the
bottom 1 in. (2.5 cm) was trimmed off using a diamond-
bladed wet saw. Thus, the final nominal dimensions of each
core were 4 in. (10.2 cm) diameter and 8 in. (20.3 cm) height.
Temperature monitoring
Internal concrete temperatures were monitored to verify
that concrete within the in-place cylinders and in the body of
the slab experienced similar temperature histories.
One thermocouple wire was inserted into one of the in‐
place cylinders to monitor temperature at middepth. Another
thermocouple wire was inserted into the slab’s concrete
(outside any in-place cylinder) to monitor concrete tempera-
ture at middepth. Ambient air temperature was monitored
using a third thermocouple wire. Temperature measure-
ments were collected at a rate of one measurement every 30
66
seconds during the first 66 hours after casting. The equip-
ment’s resolution and accuracy were 0.018°F (0.01°C) and
approximately 0.117°F (0.65°C), respectively.
Compressive strength tests
The compressive strength tests included several subtests
to measure the sample’s perpendicularity, height, diameter,
failure load, type of break, and final compressive strength.
All these parameters were measured following ASTM C39/
C39M-121 and AASHTO T 22.25
Casting and testing procedure summary
Concrete slabs were placed, and fresh concrete property
tests were carried out to accept/reject the batch according to
the target properties shown in Table 1. In-place cylinders were
consolidated using the standard rodding procedure. Then, an
internal vibrator was used to consolidate the rest of the slab.
A separate investigation showed that the respective consoli-
dating methods for the in-place cylinders and slab provided
concrete with equivalent compaction.21 The slabs’ surfaces
were finished by steel troweling. Concrete slabs were moist-
cured for 3 days using wet burlap with plastic sheets on top of
the burlap. The slabs were demolded between days 5 and 6 after
casting. Drilled cores were extracted at day 15 after casting.
Then the core samples were moisture-treated (air-dried or
wet) for 24 hours. In-place cylinders were extracted at day 16.
Cores and in-place cylinders were prepared and tested under
compression at day 16 after casting. This testing timeline was
used to recreate common practices carried out in Illinois when
questions about concrete quality arise,21 as introduced in the
Research Significance section.
Table 2 displays the experimental testing matrix. A total of
88 in-place cylinders and 88 cores were tested.
Three core conditions were studied separately in this inves-
tigation. Thus, the slabs (and their corresponding cores and
ACI Materials Journal/May 2019
Table 2—Experimental testing matrix Factor-II: three levels for groups B and W and four levels for
Steel bar
group A (j = 1, 2, 3, or 4), which represent individual slabs
Slab Mixture Core treatment presence in the group. Finally, because of inherent variability in the
strength results of different samples from the same slab, it is
A1 PV/SI Air-dried No
necessary to introduce a third variable, k, which represents
A2 PV/SI Air-dried No the sample number within each sample type and each slab.
A3 PV/SI-low Air-dried No In this investigation, each slab had eight sample replicates,
A4 PV/SI-low Air-dried No meaning that k = {1, 2, 3, …, 8} for each {i,j} combination.
The model assumes that the strength measurement obser-
W1 PV/SI Wet No
vations yijk for all samples follow a linear statistical behavior
W2* PV/SI Wet No described by Hines et al.26
W3 PV/SI-low Wet No
W4 PV/SI-low Wet No yijk = μ + τi + βj + (τβ)ij + εijk (1)
B1 PV/SI Air-dried Yes
where µ is the overall mean effect among all slabs and both
B2 PV/SI Air-dried Yes sample types; τi is the effect on strength caused by the i-th
B3 PV/SI Air-dried Yes level of Factor-I; βj is the effect on strength caused by the
j-th level of Factor-II; (τβ)ij is the effect on strength caused
*
Batch W2 failed to meet specifications, so it was not considered in any analyses.
by Factors I and II interaction effect; and εijk is the random
in-place cylinder specimens) formed three distinct groups: component error assumed to be independent and normally
A, W, and B. Group A corresponds to the air-dried drilled distributed.
cores without steel reinforcing bar; group W corresponds Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of
to the wet drilled cores without steel reinforcing bar; and Factor-I—that is, to test for statistically significant differ-
core condition B corresponds to the air-dried drilled cores ences between core and in-place cylinder strengths. The null
with embedded steel reinforcing bar. It should be noted that and alternative hypotheses—H0 and H1, respectively—were
groups A and W include both PV/SI and PV/SI-low mixtures, defined as
whereas condition B only comprises the PV/SI mixture.
H0: τi = 0 for every i (2)
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Statistical analysis basics H1: τi ≠ 0 for at least one i (3)
The datasets corresponding to groups A, W, and B, were
analyzed separately. Each dataset defined a “two-factor In other words, the null hypothesis H0 is true if no statis-
factorial experiment,” as defined in Reference 26. Through tically significant difference exists between the drilled core
this approach, every compressive strength measurement was and the in-place cylinder strengths.
an observation of a theoretical infinite population comprising The statistic F0 was used to evaluate the hypotheses, as
every possible concrete strength value. In this analysis, two explained in detail in Reference 26. The null hypothesis was
separate factors were evaluated: Factor-I was the test sample rejected if
type, either drilled core or in-place cylinder, and Factor-II
was the slab type, which accounts for mean strength differ- F0 > Flimit = Fα,a– 1,N–a (4)
ences between slabs. Two-way analysis of variance (two-
way ANOVA) can test hypotheses related to statistically where Flimit is a threshold number that depends on the level
significant differences owing to Factor-I effects, Factor-II of confidence of the test (1 – α), the total number of observa-
effects, or Factor-I-II-interaction effects. In this study, the tions (N), and the number of levels in factor-I (a). The Fα,a-
focus was principally on Factor-I effects, which considered 1,N-a threshold corresponds to the α upper percentage point of
damage to core samples, core moisture treatment, and pres- the F-distribution with a – 1 and N – a degrees of freedom.
ence of steel reinforcing bar; results from in-place cylinder The level of confidence used for this investigation was set to
tests do not exhibit any of these characteristics. Factor-II 95% (α = 0.05). If the condition of Eq. (4) is “true,” the null
effects were also considered to account for inherent concrete hypothesis is rejected with a confidence level of 95%. Alter-
strength variations, even for mixture batches that nominally natively, if the condition of Eq. (4) is “false,” drilled cores
are identical. The analyses assumed that the observations and in-place cylinder strength mean values have no mean-
were affected only by the identified factors plus additional ingful statistical difference, and therefore core strength can
noise error, which was assumed to be independent and be considered an acceptable representation of the concrete’s
normally distributed. in-place strength.

Comparison of mean values of two populations Computation of correction factors

using two-way ANOVA A core correction factor is a real number that is multiplied
To apply the two-factor factorial experiment, two levels with a core compressive strength measurement to obtain
of Factor-I were considered: either a drilled core (i = 1) or a better estimation of the concrete in-place compressive
an in-place cylinder (i = 2); and either three or four levels of strength. Three different drilled core conditions were studied

ACI Materials Journal/May 2019 67

(group of slabs A, W, and B), and distinct correction factors
were obtained for each core condition.
Preliminary analysis—A preliminary estimate of the
correction factor associated with each core condition data
set was computed by calculating the ratio of mean values of
the in-place cylinder strength data to the core strength data
for each slab, and then taking the average of those mean
correction factors. The variances of the correction factors
were calculated by considering the variance of the ratio
Xmean to Ymean, which are the mean values of the in-place
cylinder strength sample set and core strength sample set,
respectively; X and Y are considered independent random
variables. The coefficient of variation (CV) for each correc-
tion factor was calculated by taking the standard deviation
(square root of the variance) divided by the mean for each
slab. This preliminary estimate provides an overall obser-
vation of the effects of the three core conditions. A more
sophisticated approach, described next, involves rigorous
statistical methodology that improves the significance of,
and confidence in, the analysis.
Computation of correction factors using two-way
ANOVA—The two-way ANOVA was performed on each
group of core conditions (A, W, and B) individually. A
starting core correction factor value of 0.5 was assumed. The
assumed core correction factor value was applied to every
core strength dataset of every slab, yielding a modified-core-
strength sample set. The two-way ANOVA was carried out
on the modified data set, yielding the corresponding modi-
fied F0 value. This procedure was repeated by sweeping
through the range of potential correction factors, 0.5 to 1.5,
using a step size of 0.001. Those factors that yielded asso-
ciated F0 values providing a “false” condition of Eq. (4)
were identified as viable correction factors. Of that subset,
the correction factor that yielded the minimum F0 value was
identified as the optimal statistical correction factor of the
group being studied.
Any correction factor that satisfied the established
null hypothesis—that is, when Eq. (4) is false—provides
corrected strength values that are not statistically different
from the in-place cylinder strength population with a 95%
confidence, assuming the strength observations follow the
model and are consistent with the assumptions described by
Eq. (1).
Monte Carlo analysis of estimation errors
The Monte Carlo analysis method describes a class of
techniques that use repeated random sampling to carry
out statistical analyses.27 In general, Monte Carlo analyses
complement or substitute the use of traditional deterministic
approaches. In this case, a Monte Carlo-type analysis was
carried out to evaluate the uncertainty of the strength esti-
mations when using the obtained optimal correction factors.
The procedure, which involves several steps, is applied
to each dataset corresponding to each group of slabs repre-
senting one core condition. First, one slab was randomly
selected. The actual in-place strength of that slab was
calculated as the mean value of the eight in-place cylinder
strength values. Then one core strength value was randomly
selected from the eight possible core strength values. The
68
optimal correction factor of the given core condition was
multiplied by the core strength value, yielding the estimated
in-place strength of the slab. The difference between the esti-
mated and actual in-place strength was then calculated and
saved. This difference is the estimation’s error associated
with that single core. This procedure, which uses random
core selection with replacement, was repeated 10,000 times,
thus producing a large dataset of estimation errors. The large
data set ensures that all possible core samples from the popu-
lation are considered and improves the accuracy with which
statistical parameters are determined. The 95% confidence
(centered) interval of the large error dataset was computed;
this value represents the estimation’s uncertainty when using
one core strength measurement.
Next, the same procedure was carried out, where two cores
were selected randomly (with replacement) from within a
core condition group, and the estimated in-place strength
was then computed using the average of both core-strength-
values. The rest of the procedure remained unchanged.
The analysis continued following a similar procedure but
randomly selecting increasing numbers of core sets to
consider. The analysis generated an anticipated uncertainty
of the correction factors, given an increasing amount of
measured core locations.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature monitoring
The temperatures measured in in-place cylinders and
within the body of the slab were effectively equivalent at all
times. The single maximum registered temperature differ-
ence between in-place cylinders and the body of the slab was
2.7°F (1.5°C), considering all possible cases at every instant
of time, and on average, the temperature difference was less
than 1.1°F (0.6°C). The complete set of temperature data can
be found in Reference 21.
Strength results
Figure 4 presents the compressive strength results from
core and in-place cylinder samples for all slabs, and Table 3
presents the mean values and CVs of core and in-place
cylinder strength data of each slab. The results show that
the mixture designs were effective and provided either
normal compressive strengths (always greater than 4000 psi
[27.6 MPa]) or low strengths (always less than 4000 psi).
The results confirm that core strengths were on average
lower than those from the associated in-place cylinders.
Core strength data from each slab exhibited generally greater
variability than those from in-place cylinders, although this
difference was modest.
Correction factors
Table 4 (columns two and three) contain the results of
the preliminary analysis. Table 4 (columns four to six) and
Fig. 5 present the correction factors computed following
the two-way ANOVA procedure explained earlier. The
minimum, optimal. and maximum correction factors for
each core condition are shown. The ANOVA optimal correc-
tion factors are similar to the preliminary mean correction
factors, with differences of less than 1.5%. The computed
ACI Materials Journal/May 2019
correction factors show a clear difference between the Monte Carlo analysis
air-dried (A) and wet (W) core treatments. The wet treat- Figure 6 presents curves for the three groups A, W, and
ment reduces the core strength far more than the air-dried B, computed using the Monte Carlo analysis described
treatment. This observation is in agreement with previous previously. Each curve represents the maximum expected
research.10 Therefore, the use of wet-treated cores requires error interval, which is the central 95th percent interval of
the use of a larger correction factor than if using air-dried estimated strength error with respect to the actual in-place
cores. The range of correction factors associated with condi- strength of each core condition. The figure expresses the
tions A and W do not overlap. core correction interval, assuming 95% confidence, as a
The presence of reinforcing bar (case B) slightly decreases function of the number of core samples being considered
the core strength (correction factor = 1.079) as compared in the analysis. Each core condition is associated with a
with cores that do not contain reinforcing bar (case A— different optimal correction factor, denoted as “CF” in the
correction factor = 1.052); a partial overlap exists between legend. Those optimal values were identified for strength
the two uncertainty ranges for the A and B correction factors. estimation, as presented in Table 4.
As expected, all three curves monotonically decrease as
Table 3—Core and in-place cylinder strength mean the number of cores used to estimate strength increases,
values and CV for each slab but the rate of reduction, in terms of absolute value, also
Core In-place decreases. This observation suggests potential for a cost
strength Core In-place cylinder benefit analysis to optimize the number of core samples in
mean, psi strength cylinder strength strength terms of the potential error interval size.
Slab (MPa) CV, % mean, psi (MPa) CV, %
The three curves are nearly parallel, where on average,
A1 4693 (32) 4.7 4924 (34) 4.7 curve W is approximately 380 psi (2.6 MPa) above curve
A2 5223 (36) 3.9 5520 (38) 4.0 A and curve B is approximately 455 psi (3.1 MPa) above
A3 2851 (20) 4.2 2966 (20) 4.1
curve A.
A4 3055 (21) 3.8 3236 (22) 2.9 Table 4—Correction factors
W1 5407 (37) 5.3 6261 (43) 2.0 Preliminary
analysis—correc-
W2 5387 (37) 4.0 5671 (39) 3.0
tion factors ANOVA—correction factors
W3 2964 (20) 5.5 3640 (25) 2.2
Core Mean
W4 2086 (14) 4.8 2632 (18) 4.4 condition Mean CV, % Minimum Optimal Maximum
B1 4570 (32) 3.3 5051 (35) 2.2 Air-dried (A) 1.051 2.0 1.030 1.052 1.075
B2 5896 (41) 3.7 6128 (42) 2.8 Wet (W) 1.216 2.2 1.169 1.198 1.230
B3 5406 (37) 6.1 5945 (41) 3.7 Bar (B) 1.081 1.9 1.055 1.079 1.103

Fig. 4—Compressive strength values of cores (“Core” blue triangles) and in-place cylinders (“InCyl” orange squares) from
all slabs distinguished by steel reinforcing bar presence, core moisture-treatment (air-dried or wet), and mixture design (PV/
SI or PV/SI-low).

ACI Materials Journal/May 2019 69

Fig. 5—Correction factors computed using two-way ANOVA for each core condition. Colored bars indicate optimal correction
factors (minimized F0 value). Error bars indicate range of possible correction factors providing 95% statistical confidence.

Fig. 6—Results from Monte Carlo analysis showing relationship between maximum expected error interval of compressive
strength and number of core strength values used to support strength estimation for each core condition (A, W, and B).
The data in Fig. 6 can also be used to evaluate the uncer- showed higher variability than cores without reinforcing bar
tainty of strength estimation. For example, when using two (condition A) but similar to condition W.
cores with the air-dried treatment and the optimal correc-
tion factor 1.052, the maximum expected error interval is Comparison with ACI 214.4R-10
482  psi (3.3 MPa); thus, estimated strength will be ±241 ACI 214.4R-1019 provides correction factors to modify
psi (1.7 MPa) from the in-place strength with 95% statis- core strengths to equivalent in-place strengths that depend
tical confidence. In the case of wet core treatment using the on the length-diameter ratio, diameter, moisture treatment,
optimal correction factor 1.198, the estimated strength will and drilling damage. Table 5 presents a comparison between
be ±415 psi (2.9 MPa) when using two cores, with 95% the hypotheses and correction factors considered by ACI
confidence. 214.4R-10 and those derived in this investigation.
Regardless of the number of cores considered, this analysis Both recommendations observed that the wet-type core
shows that wet core treatment (condition W) yielded in-place conditioning requires larger correction factors than air-dried
strength estimations with higher variability than air-dried conditioning. However, ACI 214.4R-10 provides air-dried-
treatment (condition A). Strength estimations carried out type and wet-type correction factors that are 3.2% and 3.6%
from cores with embedded reinforcing bar (condition B) also lower, respectively, than those yielded by this investigation.

70 ACI Materials Journal/May 2019

Table 5—Comparison between ACI 214.4R-10 and this investigation
Procedure’s goal
Structure type
Specimen type employed to represent
in-place strength
Core strength data volume
Air-dried-type of core treatment
Wet-type of core treatment
Air-dried-type correction factor
5-day bagging correction factor
Wet-type correction factor
ACI 214.4R-10
Determine equivalent fc′
Existing (mature concrete)
Not specified
Thousands of samples from multiple investigations
Air-dried at 60 to 70°F (16 to 21°C) and relative
humidity less than 60% for 7 days before testing
Soaked 48 hours under water before testing
1.018
1.060
1.155
This investigation
Determine in-place strength—for example, after
obtaining low standard cylinder strength
New (early-age concrete, within first weeks after
casting)
In-place cylinders
Eighty-eight cores and 88 in-place cylinders from
one controlled investigation
Air-dried in front of fan at ambient room tempera-
ture and humidity for 24 hours before testing
Soaked 24 hours at 73°F (23°C) before testing
1.052
N/A
1.198

The difference in these correction factors could be caused
by several influences. For instance, the factors provided by
ACI 214.4R-10 are applicable to mature concrete where,
presumably, core drilling would do less damage than in
early-age concrete conditions that are assumed in this inves-
tigation. In addition, the moisture conditioning for each
procedure is different, which suggests strict adherence to
conditioning durations is critical for proper implementa-
tion of correction factors. Finally, the correction factors
provided in this investigation were computed by comparing
core strengths to those from in-place cylinder samples,
while in ACI 214.4R-10, cores were compared to a mixture
of sample types. From this standpoint, using this investiga-
tion’s correction factors would be more representative of the
actual in-place strength for early-age concrete than those
provided by ACI 214.4R-10.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn based on the results
and analyses presented in this paper:
1. Drilled cores exposed to condition A (air-dried cores
without embedded steel reinforcing bar) had lower compres-
sive strength than in-place cylinders with a statistical confi-
dence of 95%. A correction factor of 1.05 was found to
provide optimal in-place strength prediction for condition A.
2. Drilled cores exposed to condition B (air-dried cores
with embedded steel reinforcing bar) had lower compressive
strength than in-place cylinders with a statistical confidence
of 95%. A correction factor of 1.08 was found to provide
optimal in-place strength prediction for condition B.
3. Drilled cores exposed to core condition W (wet cores
without embedded steel reinforcing bar) had statistically
lower compressive strength than in-place cylinders with a
confidence level of 95%. A correction factor of 1.20 was
found to provide optimal in-place strength prediction for
condition W.
4. The Monte Carlo analysis showed that concrete
in-place compressive strength estimations obtained from
cores exposed to conditions B and W exhibited similar
uncertainty, which were higher than that from core samples
exposed to condition A.
5. The correction factors provided by ACI 214.4R-10
for conditions similar to those in this investigation differ
from those determined here. Correction factors from ACI
214.4R-10 are lower in magnitude than the ones found
herein, thus this study indicates a larger difference between
early-age core and in-place strengths than ACI 214.4R-10.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Agustin Spalvier is a PhD Student at Universidad de la
Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay. He received his MS in civil engineering
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, and
his civil engineering degree from the Universidad de la Republica. His
research interests include nondestructive testing and structural analysis of
concrete structures, and nondestructive detection of mechanical stresses in
concrete structures.
ACI member James A. Bittner is a PhD Candidate in the Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. He received his BS in civil engineering from Michigan
Technological University, Houghton, MI, and his MS in civil engineering
from the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. His research
interests include nondestructive characterization of materials, ultrasonic
imaging of heterogeneous composites, intelligent sensing, and dynamic
time-dependent behaviors of materials.
ACI member Kerry Hall is an Associate Professor at the University of
Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN. He received his BS from the University
of Evansville, Evansville, IN, and his MS and PhD from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a member of ACI Committees 123,
Research and Current Developments; 228, Nondestructive Testing of
Concrete; 327, Roller-Compacted Concrete Pavements; and the Student
and Young Professional Activities Committee. His research interests include
nondestructive testing, strength estimation, and roller-compacted concrete.
John S. Popovics, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign. He is past Chair of the ACI Publications Committee; current Chair of
ACI Committee 228, Nondestructive Testing of Concrete; and a member of
ACI Committees 123, Research and Current Developments; 215, Fatigue of
Concrete; and 444, Structural Health Monitoring and Instrumentation. His
research interests include testing, sensing, and imaging concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication is based on the results of research project ICT-R27-137,
“Evaluation of PCC Pavement and Structure Coring and In-Situ Testing
Alternatives.” ICT-R27-137 was conducted in cooperation with the Illinois
Center for Transportation, the Illinois Department of Transportation, and
the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

ACI Materials Journal/May 2019 71

 The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable help given by
D. Woo, W. Bader, E. Robisch, L. Livers, J. Samp, and Y. Sun during the
experimental campaign, and to E. Canale and E. Cabaña for their guidance
in the statistical analysis.
The contents of this publication reflect the view of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Illi-
nois Center for Transportation, the Illinois Department of Transportation,
or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication presentation does
not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
REFERENCES
1. ASTM C39/C39M-12a, “Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 7 pp.
2. ASTM C31/C31M-17, “Standard Practice for Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens in the Field,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2017, 6 pp.
3. BS EN 12390-3:2009, “Testing Hardened Concrete, Part 3: Compres-
sive Strength of Test Specimens,” British Standards Institution, London,
UK, 2009, 22 pp.
4. NM 101:1996, “Hormigón. Ensayo de compresión de probetas cilín-
dricas,” Norma MERCOSUR, Montevideo, Uruguay, 1996.
5. Malhotra, V. M., “Contract Strength Requirements—Cores Versus In
Situ Evaluation,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 74, No. 4, Apr. 1977,
pp. 163-171.
6. Nikbin, I. M.; Eslami, M.; and Rezvani, S. M. D., “An Experimental
Comparative Survey on the Interpretation of Concrete Core Strength
Results,” European Journal of Scientific Research, V. 37, No. 3, 2009,
pp. 445-456.
7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
8. Bloem, D. L., “Concrete Strength Measurement—Cores Versus Cylin-
ders,” ASTM Proceedings, V. 65, 1965, pp. 668-696.
9. Bloem, D. L., “Concrete Strength in Structures,” ACI Journal
Proceedings, V. 65, No. 3, Mar. 1968, pp. 176-187.
10. Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., “Effect of Moisture Condi-
tion on Concrete Core Strengths,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 91, No. 3,
May-June 1994, pp. 227-236.
11. Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., “Effect of Concrete Core Diam-
eter on Strength,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1994,
pp. 460-470.
12. Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., “Assessment of Concrete
Strength in Existing Structures,” Structural Engineering Report No. 198,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1994.
72
13. Arioz, O.; Ramyar, K.; Tuncan, M.; Tuncan, A.; and Cil, I., “Some
Factors Influencing Effect of Core Diameter on Measured Concrete
Compressive Strength,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 3, May-June
2007, pp. 291-296.
14. Gaynor, R. D., “Effect of Horizontal Reinforcing Steel on the
Strength of Molded Cylinders,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 62, No. 7,
July 1965, pp. 837-840.
15. Mather, B., and Tynes, W. O., “Investigation of Compressive Strength
of Molded Cylinders and Drilled Cores of Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceed-
ings, V. 57, No. 1, Jan. 1961, pp. 767-778.
16. Campbell, R. H., and Tobin, R. E., “Core and Cylinder Strengths of
Natural and Lightweight Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 64,
No. 4, Apr. 1967, pp. 190-195.
17. Bartlett, F. M., and Lawler, J. S., “Strength Compliance Evaluation
with More than Three Core Specimens,” Concrete International, V. 33,
No. 12, Dec. 2011, pp. 46-49.
18. Yaghi, K., and Hammoud, H., “Estimation of the Design Concrete
Strength from Core Tests : Modified Tolerance Factor Approach,” Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (Ahmedabad), V. 5,
No. 1, 2016, pp. 765-769.
19. ACI Committee 214, “Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting
Compressive Strength Results (ACI 214.4R-10),” American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2010, 17 pp.
20. ASTM C873/873M-10a, “Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Concrete Cylinders Cast in Place in Cylindrical Molds,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 4 pp.
21. Popovics, J. S.; Spalvier, A.; and Hall, K. S., “Evaluation of PCC
Pavement and Structure Coring and In-Situ Testing Alternatives,” Research
Report No. FHWA-ICT-16-022, ICT PROJECT R27-137, 2016.
22. ASTM C42/C42M-13, “Standard Practie for Obtaining and Testing
Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 7 pp.
23. ASTM C192/C192M-13a, “Standard Practie for Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 8 pp.
24. AASHTO R 39-17, “Standard Practice for Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,” American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2017.
25. AASHTO T 22-17, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2017.
26. Hines, W. W.; Montgomery, D. C.; Goldsman, D. M.; and Borror,
C. M., Probability and Statistics in Engineering, fourth edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, 2003.
27. Kroese, D. P.; Brereton, T.; Taimre, T.; and Botev, Z. I., “Why the
Monte Carlo Method is So Important Today,” Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Computational Statistics, V. 6, 2014, pp. 386-392.
ACI Materials Journal/May 2019
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.