p-ISSN 2980-4868 | e-ISSN 2980-4841
https://ajesh.ph/index.php/gp
Evaluation of Destructive and Non-Destructive Testing
of Existing Hotel Structures for Shopping Centre Conversion
Nurokhman1*, Hery Kristiyanto2,
Muhammad Ryan Iskandar3, Edy Masduqi4, Qodri Sihotang5
1,2,3Universitas Cokroaminoto Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
4Institut Teknologi Yogyakarta, Bantul, Special
Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia
5QIES
Nusantara Konsultan, East Jakarta, DKI Jakarta,
Indonesia
Email: nurokhman.gmail@gmail.com
ABSTRACT:
Changes in the function of a building will
affect the structural loading, which, based on government regulations in
building permits, must be reviewed for the feasibility of building functions
through structural assessment. This research aims to analyze the condition of
the concrete quality of building beams, columns, and slabs that are more than
50 years old. The methods used include non-destructive testing (NDT) and
destructive testing (DT) on the structures. From the results of the
non-destructive UPV (Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity) Test on 20 elements (100 tests)
using the PUNDIT tool, the average concrete quality based on BS 1881 and ASTM
C597-16 standards was found to be 28.15 MPa for columns, 25.11 MPa for beams,
and 25.60 MPa for slabs. The Hammer Test showed an average concrete quality of
27.95 MPa for columns, 31.41 MPa for beams, and 31.20 MPa for slabs. The
destructive method using core drilling on 8 structural elements revealed an
average concrete quality of 25.58 MPa for columns, 34.61 MPa for beams, and
35.89 MPa for slabs. The hardness test for reinforcing steel indicated an
average yield strength of 361 MPa. The compressive strength results of the
column structure concrete meet the minimum requirements of 21 MPa for special
structure concrete quality based on SNI-2847-2019. It is recommended to
recalculate the structure with concrete quality fc' 25 MPa and steel quality fy 360 MPa to identify elements that need structural
strengthening.
Keywords:
Destructive and Non-Destructive Struktur Test; UPV
Test; Coredrill Test.
INTRODUCTION
The existing condition of the
Former Hotel Mutiara I Building is located on Jl. Malioboro No.18, Suryatmajan, Danurejan District,
Yogyakarta City, DIY has 4 (four) floors. On the ground floor there is an
arcade area of the building located at the front. On this floor there is also a
lobby, reception desk, reception office, men's toilet, women's toilet, bar
& coffee shop, outdoor restaurant, cashier, electric utility area located
in the back corner of the building, canteen, pantry, kitchen, mechanical room, panel
room, security post and ATM center. On
the 1st (one) floor, the majority of the building is
used as rooms and offices. On the 2nd (two) floor this building has the exact
same layout as the 1st (one) floor. On the 3rd (third) floor functions as a
hotel room, a corridor in front of the stairs, a warehouse, a ballroom and a
kitchen located next to the ballroom. On
the 4th (four) floor of the building as a room, elevator house, water tank and
cooling tower
In the context of structuring
the Malioboro area which at the same time grows the scale of DIY MSME
businesses, the DIY Regional Government in 2020 has officially acquired the
Mutiara Hotel located in the Malioboro area. The 4-storey Mutiara I Hotel building
is about 50 years old. In optimizing the use of these assets as an MSME plaza
while maintaining the uniqueness and architectural characteristics of cultural
heritage which is part of the Yogyakarta philosophy axis area. Furthermore, to strengthen the basis of
technical justification in submitting a Building Approval to transfer the
function for the Jogjakarta Creative UKM & Cultural Plaza Trading House, a
follow-up assessment of the building structure was carried out.
The problem of technical
planning supporting data is only found in the working drawings there is no
information on concrete quality, steel quality and reinforced concrete
specifications which are usually described in the Work Plan and Conditions
RESEARCH METHODS
This study uses a combination of
non-destructive testing (NDT) and destructive testing (DT) to assess the
quality of concrete and steel structures on columns, beams, and slabs on four
floors of a building. The non-destructive methods used include UPV Pundit Test,
Hammer Test, and Profometer/Covermeter
Test
The research data was obtained
through direct testing in the field using special testing tools and through
laboratory analysis of concrete samples taken from buildings. Additional data
is taken from the technical records of the building construction project,
including data on the specifications of the materials used and the maintenance
history of the structure. The population in this study is all structural
elements on the four floors of the building. Samples were taken based on
representative estimates that included 20 test points for the UPV Pundit Test,
Hammer Test, and Profometer/Covermeter
Test, 10 points for the Brinell/Hardness Test, and 8 points for the Coredrill Test. In addition, foundation excavation was
carried out at 2 points.
The non-destructive testing
techniques used include the UPV Pundit Test using BS 1881: Part 203:1986 and
ASTM C597-16 standards to measure the velocity of ultrasonic pulses passing
through concrete; Hammer Test uses BS 1881 Part 202:1986 and ASTM G80S-89
standards to measure the homogeneity and hardness of concrete surfaces through
mass impact; and Profometer/Covermeter
Test to detect the position and condition of rebar (steel reinforcement) in
concrete. Destructive testing techniques used include the Coredrill
Test using ASTM C42 and SNI-1974-2011 standards to sample concrete cylinders
which are then tested for compressive strength in the laboratory, and the
Hardness Test (Brinell Test) using the ASTM E140 standard to measure the
hardness of steel and correlate it with tensile strength values.
Data obtained from field and
laboratory tests are analyzed to assess the quality of concrete and steel
structures. The analysis is carried out by comparing the test results with
relevant standards, such as BS and ASTM. Data from UPV Pundit Test and Hammer
Test were used to evaluate the homogeneity and estimation of concrete
compressive strength, while data from Profometer/Covermeter Test was used to assess the condition of rebar.
The results of the Coredrill Test provide the actual
compressive strength value of concrete, while the Brinell Test provides the
tensile strength value of steel. This analysis allows for a thorough evaluation
of the building's structural condition and the identification of potential
structural issues that may need to be repaired or strengthened.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
From the results of the
collection of planning documents, it turned out that no information was found
on the quality of concrete and the quality of reinforcement as the basis for
calculating the structure. Meanwhile, when the building was erected in that
year, of course, it was treated by the Indonesian Concrete Regulation PBI 1971
NI-2 and in line with the revision, changes were made up to almost every 10
years, starting from SKNI T-15-1991-03 to SNI 03-2847-1992, then SNI
03-2847-2002, then SNI 2847-2013 and changed again to SNIi
2847-2019. If it is associated with the current regulation, namely
SNI-2847-2019 as a standard for compressive strength requirements for the
quality of concrete structures of a minimum of 21 MPa. In addition, there is no
Work Plan and Conditions (RKS) document or description of concrete and steel
quality in the DED, so that in testing the quality of concrete in order to find the average quality range which will be
used as the basis for the calculation of the restructure.
Visual Survey Results
Based on the results of the
visual survey, it can be seen that the condition of
the column structure, beams and slabs is still quite good, but it can be seen
that some concrete parts of the beam structure are segregated. The condition of
the joint between the column structure and the beam is also still quite good.
No structural damage was found in the columns, beams and plates.
Figure 1. Existing Condition of
Ex. Hotel Mutiara 1 Building
Non-Destructive Testing on Existing Structures
UPV Pundit Test Results
From the results of the Concrete
Quality Density Test (UPV Test) on 20 elements (100 tests), the test method was
carried out with the PUNDIT tool speed criteria on concrete quality based on BS
1881 Concrete Quality Based On Pulse Velocity at 3000
- 3500 m/s including Medium Concrete Condition. For the quality of concrete
according to the formula based on ASTM C597 - 16 Standard Test Method for Pulse
Velocity Through Concrete, the average quality of column concrete is 28.15 MPa,
beam concrete is 25.11 MPa, slab concrete is 25.60 MPa. These results have met
the minimum requirements for concrete compressive strength of 21 MPa for the
quality of concrete for special structures based on SNI-2847-2019.
Based Guidebook on Non-destructive testing of
concrete structures, Ch.11.1.4.4 based on ASTM C215 Test Method for Fundamental
Transverse, Longitudinal, and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of Concrete
Specimens konversi Indirect factor ke direct factor by increasing the velocity result by 5% -
30%. In this case, an indirect factor value of 10% was taken.
Table 1. Pulse Velocity Value
and Concrete Criteria
|
No. |
Test Location |
Average Direct Velocity |
>4500 m/s |
3500-4500 m/s |
3000-3500 m/s |
<3000 m/s |
||
|
Location |
Type |
Quanty |
[m/s] |
Excellent |
Good |
Medium |
doubtfull |
|
|
1 |
1st Floor |
Column |
3 |
3377,3 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
2 |
2nd Floor |
Column |
2 |
3240,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
3 |
3rd Floor |
Column |
2 |
3311,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
4 |
4th Floor |
Column |
2 |
3275,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
5 |
2nd Floor |
Beam |
2 |
3185,5 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
6 |
3rd Floor |
Beam |
2 |
3219,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
7 |
4th Floor |
Beam |
2 |
3271,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
8 |
Roof Floor |
Beam |
2 |
3170,5 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
9 |
2nd Floor |
Plate |
1 |
3166,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
10 |
3rd Floor |
Plate |
1 |
3167,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
11 |
4th Floor |
Plate |
1 |
3359,0 |
- |
- |
√ |
- |
|
|
|
|
20 |
3249,2 |
|
|
|
|
Hammer Test Results
The results of the Hammer Test
for the compressive strength of concrete on 20 structural elements were
obtained, so the average quality of column concrete was 27.95 MPa, beam
concrete was 31.41 MPa, and slab concrete was 31.20 MPa. These results have met
the minimum requirements for concrete compressive strength of 21 MPa for the
quality of concrete for special structures based on SNI-2847-2019.
Table 2. Hammer Test Results
|
No |
Code |
Location |
Mean Value (kg/cm2) |
Standard deviation Base on Homogenity Concrete Strength (Mpa) |
fc' (Mpa) |
fc' (Mpa) |
||
|
Location |
Type |
As |
||||||
|
1 |
K1, K2, K20 |
1st Floor |
Column |
H/5, H/4, G/3 |
331,3 |
4,58 |
28,1575 |
27,95 |
|
6 |
K6, K10 |
2nd Floor |
Column |
D/5, A/2 |
343,0 |
3,54 |
29,16 |
|
|
11 |
K11, K14 |
3rd Floor |
Column |
B/4, F/2 |
327,0 |
3,91 |
27,8 |
|
|
16 |
K16, K18 |
4th Floor |
Column |
A/6, B/6 |
314,0 |
4,89 |
26,69 |
|
|
3 |
B3, B4 |
2nd Floor |
Beam |
G/3-4,G-H/3 |
401,0 |
4,48 |
34,09 |
31,61 |
|
7 |
B7, B8 |
3rd Floor |
Beam |
C/5-6, C-D/5 |
366,5 |
3,45 |
31,155 |
|
|
12 |
B12 |
4th Floor |
Beam |
E/4-5 |
369,0 |
5,28 |
31,37 |
|
|
15 |
B15, B17,B19 |
Roof Floor |
Beam |
E-F/4, A/4-6, A-B/6 |
350,7 |
3,10 |
29,81 |
|
|
5 |
P5 |
2nd Floor |
Plate |
G-H/3-4 |
357,0 |
9,61 |
30,35 |
31,20 |
|
9 |
P9 |
3rd Floor |
Plate |
C-D/5-6 |
369,0 |
4,73 |
31,37 |
|
|
13 |
P13 |
4th Floor |
Plate |
E-F/4-5 |
375,0 |
5,30 |
31,88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354,86 |
4,80 |
30,17 |
30,25 |
Covermeter and Scanning Rebar Test Results
The results of the Covermeter and Scanning Rebar Test for the inspection of
the test of the rebar steel arrangement on the main column structure are
400x600 mm, plain reinforcement 10D19 mm, plain crossbar D8, spacing 150-200
mm, concrete blanket 15-48 mm. Beams 300x570 mm, plain slats 14D22 mm, plain
slats D8, spacing 130-200 mm, concrete blankets 25 mm. Slabs 10000x10000 mm2
plain reinforcement X direction D8 spacing 100-160 mm, Y direction D8 spacing
100-160 concrete limout 40 mm. From the results of
the covermeter test above, it can
be seen that the reinforcement used for both the main reinforcement and
the sengkang reinforcement is using plain
reinforcement, so if it is related to the regulations when it does not meet the
SNI 2847-2019 article 20.2.1.1 it is not allowed to use plain reinforcement for
the main reinforcement and sengkang reinforcement.
Similarly, the thickness of the concrete blanket in several columns, beams and
slabs has not met the requirements of SNI 2847-2019 article 20.6.1.3.1, which
is 40 mm for beam column structures and 20 mm for slab structures.
Vibration Frequency Test Results
The results of the existing
vibration test were then compared with the vibration frequency of the walking
person, which was 2.5 Hz (based on ISO 2631-2). The compressive strength
results of column structure concrete have met the minimum compressive strength
requirement of concrete of 21 MPa for the quality of concrete for special
structures based on SNI-2847-2019.
Destructive Testing on Existing Structures
Coredrill Test Results
The results of the Coredrill Test are destructive testing in the form of
sampling by punching holes in the structure for compressive strength testing.
In 8 structural elements, a core drill with a size of D45 mm L = 90 mm and a
shape factor for the standard sample is required, so corrections are needed fud
= 1.00 fdia = 1.07 fmc =
1.00 and fd = 1.06 until the average quality of
column concrete is 25.58 MPa, block concrete is 34.61 MPa, and slab concrete is
35.89 MPa. From the test results, an
analysis of the average compressive strength of concrete for each structural
element will be carried out for equality with SNI-2847-2019 regulation as a
standard for compressive strength requirements for minimum structural concrete
quality of 21 MPa.
Table 3. Coredril
Test Results
|
No |
Code |
Push Force |
Tegangan |
Tegangan |
Average elements |
Average elements |
|
(kN) |
N/mm2 |
(N/mm2) |
(N/mm2) |
(N/mm2) |
||
|
1 |
CD1 - KOLOMLT1 |
37,5 |
23,59 |
26,76 |
24,33 |
25,58 |
|
2 |
CD2 - KOLOMLT1 |
30,7 |
19,31 |
21,90 |
||
|
5 |
CD5 - KOLOMLT2 |
43,1 |
27,11 |
30,75 |
30,75 |
|
|
6 |
CD6 - KOLOMLT3 |
32,1 |
20,19 |
22,90 |
22,90 |
|
|
3 |
CD3-BALOKLT2 |
38,3 |
24,09 |
27,33 |
34,60 |
34,60 |
|
4 |
CD4-BALOKLT2 |
58,7 |
36,93 |
41,88 |
||
|
7 |
CD7-PLATLT2 |
39,9 |
25,10 |
28,47 |
28,47 |
35,89 |
|
8 |
CD1-PLATLT3 |
60,7 |
38,19 |
43,31 |
43,31 |
|
|
|
|
43 |
26,81 |
30,41 |
30,73 |
30,73 |
If taken in replanning for all
structural elements then fc' 25 MPa is taken. In
general, it meets the requirements of SNI-2847-2019 quality for a minimum
compressive strength fc' = 21 Mpa.
Result Hardness Test
From testing the melting
strength of steel by means of hardness test at 8 points, the average tensile
strength of plain rebar has been obtained =
363 MPa. The average result of the tensile strength of plain reinforcement has
met the minimum requirements based on SNI 2052-2017, which is 350 MPa.
Table 4. Hardness Test Results
|
No. |
Code |
Location Test |
Average |
Tensile Strength |
Ket. |
|||
|
Test Field (MPa) |
SNI 2052-2017 (MPa) |
|||||||
|
Location |
Type |
As |
||||||
|
1 |
B - 01 |
Ground Floor Column |
Ø 19 |
G/3 |
116 HB |
385 |
350 |
OK |
|
2 |
B - 02 |
Ground Floor Column |
Ø 8 |
G/3 |
110 HB |
370 |
350 |
OK |
|
3 |
B - 03 |
2nd Floor Beam |
Ø 22 |
G/3-4 |
110 HB |
370 |
350 |
OK |
|
4 |
B - 04 |
2nd Floor Beam |
Ø 8 |
G/3-4 |
103 HB |
350 |
350 |
OK |
|
5 |
B - 05 |
2nd Floor Beam |
Ø 22 |
F-G/3 |
106 HB |
360 |
350 |
OK |
|
6 |
B - 06 |
2nd Floor Beam |
Ø 8 |
F-G/3 |
103 HB |
350 |
350 |
OK |
|
7 |
B - 07 |
Floor Plate 2 |
Ø 8 |
G-H/3-4 |
106 HB |
360 |
350 |
OK |
|
8 |
B - 08 |
Floor Plate 2 |
Ø 8 |
G-H/3-4 |
106 HB |
360 |
350 |
OK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
In general, the Ex Hotel
Mutiara 1 Yogyakarta Building, which will be converted into an MSME shopping
center, will certainly have an effect on architecture, spatial planning,
electrical systems, plumbing and of course the burden of life will increase.
The live load used in this analysis refers to the SNI Loading Regulation for
Building 1727:2020, namely for the roof of 0.96 kN/m2,
and as a shopping center function of 4.79 kN/m2.
Testing the quality of concrete and reinforcing steel through destructive and
non-destructive tests has obtained the quality of fc' 25 MPa concrete and plain
rebar fy 360 MPa. Some parameters such as plain
reinforcement and the thickness of the concrete blanket that are not in
accordance with SNI 2847-2019 cannot be used as
a basis for concluding compliance with the regulations.
CONCLUSION
In the change of building
function in accordance with regulations related to the PBG Building Approval
and SLF Functional Fitness Certificate, it is necessary to review the
fulfillment of building reliability in structural technical requirements. In
the calculation of the structure in addition to the load change parameters,
data on concrete quality, rebar steel quality and vibration influence are
needed so that destructive and non-destructive tests of the structure with a sufficient number are needed. The test results showed the
quality of fc' 25 MPa concrete and fy 360 MPa
plain reinforcing steel. Some parameters such as plain reinforcement and the
thickness of the concrete blanket that are not in accordance with SNI
2847-2019 cannot be used as a basis for concluding compliance with the
regulations. Next, a calculation of the structure is carried out to find out
which structural elements need to be strengthened.
Bode, R. W., Novak, M. A., & Abele, L. E. (1991). Quality
assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State.
Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division
of ….
Bureau, S. (2009). The use of non-destructive methods to analyse fruit quality. Fresh Produce, 3(1),
23–34.
CHAMPLAIN, L., & RIVER, R. (2017). WORK PLAN FOR.
Choo, H. J., Tommelein, I. D.,
Ballard, G., & Zabelle, T. R. (1999). WorkPlan:
Constraint-Based Database for Work Package Scheduling. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 151–160.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(151)
Earley, P. C., & Perry, B. C. (1987). Work plan
availability and performance: An assessment of task strategy priming on
subsequent task completion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 39(3), 279–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90025-2
Germay, C., Lhomme, T.,
McPhee, C., & Daniels, G. (2018). An objective review of non-destructive
methods for the direct testing of strength on rock cores. ARMA US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA-2018.
Hassoun, M. N., & Al-Manaseer, A. (2020). Structural
concrete: theory and design. John wiley &
sons.
Karahan, Ş., Büyüksaraç, A.,
& Işık, E. (2020). The relationship between concrete strengths obtained by
destructive and non-destructive methods. Iranian Journal of Science and
Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44, 91–105.
Magwaza, L. S., & Tesfay, S. Z. (2015). A review of
destructive and non-destructive methods for determining avocado fruit
maturity. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 8(10), 1995–2011.
Maierhofer, C., Reinhardt, H.-W., & Dobmann,
G. (2010). Non-destructive evaluation of reinforced concrete structures:
Non-destructive testing methods. Elsevier.
Montgomery, T. D., Han, H.-S., & Kizha,
A. R. (2016). Modeling work plan logistics for centralized biomass recovery
operations in mountainous terrain. Biomass and Bioenergy, 85,
262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.11.023
Nath K., D., & Ramanathan, P. (2017). Non-destructive
methods for the measurement of moisture contents – a review. Sensor Review,
37(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/SR-01-2016-0032
Ritz, E., Honarpour, M., Dula, W.
F., & Dvorkin, J. P. (2014). Core Hardness Testing and Data Integration
for Unconventionals. Proceedings of the 2nd
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference.
https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2014-1916004
Skłodowski, M., Snethlage, R., & Kocher, M. (2008). Micro Drill
Cores-A New Tool For Testing Stones For Conservation
Purposes. Proc. 11th Int. CONGRESS on Deterioration and Conservation of
Stones, 15-20 Sept. 2008, Toruń, POLAND, 1,
513–520.
Yarali, O., & Kahraman, S. (2011). The drillability assessment of rocks using the different
brittleness values. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 26(2),
406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.11.013
|
Nurokhman, Hery Christiyanto, Muhammad Ryan Alexander, Edy Masduqi, Wardrie
Sihotang (2024) |
|
First publication
right: Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and
Health (AJESH) |
|
This article is
licensed under: |