vibrating rod or tampering rod

[englishr]

I am writing a proposal to a company to invest in a vibrating rod for casting concrete cylinders. I was wondering if anybody had an opinion on either one. I am trying to prove that a vibrating rod will save time and money when performing concrete testing and the compressive strength test results will be more accurate. When answering list your creditials please.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

field or lab use?
type of company you're marketing too.

as far as field testing by CMT, more time means more money not less since the contracts are usually T&M (but we're not intentionally stalling since it's not worth the political capital to blow testing allowances all the time). Also, building code frequency of testing means there is usually some down-time between trucks anyway. some jobs are rushed but there are other time-killers (air testing, bad access) that force the extra tech on quick jobs with high frequency testing. also CMT managers don't like to give too much expensive equipment to field techs.

more accurate..
you'll have a hard time saying this since both are approved as equals by ACI. i personally see how both can be misused to give bad results.

internal QC lab technician use at a concrete plant or a precast fabricator...
i would buy one for this type of work.

PE, ACI field I, CMT asst manager 4yrs, Rein. Conc Special Inspector

 

[mitchelon]

What is accurate? Will a 4" cube sample yield results similar to those of a 6" x 12" cylinder? The ASTM standard and the ACI variability allowances are based on a tampering rod. So why even bother. Cost savings? Agree w/ soilsguy. Beware of the hype of new technologies; they are not always what they seem to be.

PE, MSCE, 5 yrs construction and design.