Skip to main content

CROSS Safety Report

Concern over concrete test methods used on site

Report ID: 840 Published: 13 December 2022 Region: CROSS-UK


A reporter is concerned about the test method a contractor uses to justify the strength of concrete placed on site.

Key Learning Outcomes

For contractors and the construction team:

  • Quality control and competent supervision on site can help to ensure that the structure is built in accordance with the design
  • It is good practice to provide all test records to the design engineer/test specifier for their review. This is particularly relevant if the results do not meet the test requirements.

Full Report

Find out more about the Full Report

The Full Report below has been submitted to CROSS and describes the reporter’s experience. The text has been edited for clarity and to ensure anonymity and confidentiality by removing any identifiable details. If you would like to know more about our secure reporting process or submit a report yourself, please visit the reporting to CROSS-UK page.


A  reporter worked as a structural designer on a project where a reinforced concrete basement was being constructed under an existing domestic property. The underpinning was performed in a typical hit and miss construction sequence. In the structural drawings it was specified that the contractor should take cube tests to verify the strength of the concrete which they were mixing themselves on site. The reporter attended site when around 50% of the underpinning was complete, at which point they asked to see the results from the cube tests.

The results showed that the strength was over 25% lower than the required strength. It was clear that the contractor was performing the cube tests but was not looking at the results to confirm that they met the specification. Their remedial solution to justify the strength of the underpinning that was already complete was to perform Schmidt hammer tests. This test uses a hammer that measures the rebound of a spring-loaded mass impacting against the surface of a sample. The reporter is not convinced that this is an appropriate way to justify the strength of concrete and would be interested to know other views on how a safety issue like this should be managed.

Expert Panel Comments

Find out more about the Expert Panels

Expert Panels comment on the reports we receive. They use their experience to help you understand what can be learned from the reports. If you would like to know more, please visit the CROSS-UK Expert Panels page.

There are no Expert Panel comments on this report. The Expert Panels are only asked to comment on selected reports. These are normally reports where there is an opportunity for them to help you understand what can be learned from the report.

Submit a report

Your report will make a difference. It will help to create positive change and improve safety.

Our secure and confidential safety reporting system gives professionals the opportunity to share their experiences to help others.