Select Page

Material testing is a critical step in construction and manufacturing, ensuring that the materials used meet the necessary standards for quality, safety, and performance. One important consideration in material testing is the choice of where the testing should take place – on-site, that is, at the location of the construction project, or in a laboratory testing facility. In this blog, we will weigh the pros and cons of on-site vs. testing facility material testing leading to informed decisions.

On-Site Material Testing

On-site or field testing takes place on the site. During on-site testing, variables including air, moisture content, bulk density, etc. can be assessed using visual examination and/ or non-destructive methods.

Advantages:

1. Real-World Conditions:

On-site testing allows for the evaluation of parameter in the actual environment. This can provide valuable insights into how materials will perform under real-world conditions, and subsequently make improvements and reduce hazards.

2. Cost and Time Savings:

On-site testing can be more time and cost-effective for certain materials and projects. With newer and advanced technologies, the need to transport materials to a separate testing facility can be eliminated, consequently reducing logistic expenses.

3. Immediate Feedback:

Testing on-site provides immediate feedback, allowing for quick adjustments and decisions. If a material does not meet the required standards, changes can be accommodated, minimizing delays in construction or production.

Disadvantages:

1. Limited Facilities:

On-site testing lacks testing in a controlled environment which is available in testing facilities. This limitation can impact the accuracy of results to some extent.

2. Environmental Variables:

On-site disturbances such as weather conditions, noise, vibrations, are difficult to control, and can affect the accuracy of test results.

3. Safety Concerns:

On-site testing can pose safety risks to personnel and equipment. It may require additional safety measures and precautions, particularly when conducting tests in busy or hazardous construction sites.

Also Read: The Importance of Material Testing in Construction

Testing Facility Material Testing

Materials samples are obtained and delivered to a building material testing facility for testing when field testing shows the need for additional study of parameters.

Advantages:

1. Controlled Environment:

Testing facilities offer controlled environments that minimize on-site disturbances (temperature, humidity, etc.), ensuring the accuracy and reliability of test results.

2. Specialized Equipment:

Testing facilities are equipped with specialized testing equipment that may not be carried to or set up at construction sites.

3. Standardization:

Testing facilities often adhere to strict testing standards and protocols, ensuring consistency and comparability of results. This helps in adhering to regulatory compliance and standards.

4. Safety:

Proper safety measures and protocols are in place to protect personnel and equipment.

Disadvantages:

1. Cost:

Testing facilities often come with associated costs, including rental fees and testing equipment expenses. In addition, transporting materials to a testing facility can incur logistic costs. These costs can add to the overall project budget.

2. Time-Consuming:

Testing in a dedicated facility can be time-consuming, which can result in project delays.

3. Less Realistic Conditions:

Testing facilities may not replicate real-world conditions accurately, as they eliminate real-world disturbances. This can be a limitation for materials that require testing under specific environmental.

Also Read: 7 Key Considerations for a Successful Soil Compaction Testing

Choosing the Right Approach

The decision of selecting between on-site and testing facility material testing should be made based on project-specific considerations. Following are the few factors governing this decision:

1. Material Type:

Some materials may require specialized equipment available only in testing facilities, while others can be adequately tested on-site.

2. Project Size and Scope:

For smaller projects with limited material quantities, on-site testing may be more practical and cost-effective, in contrast to larger-scale projects may benefit from the comprehensive testing at a dedicated facility.

3. Project Timeline:

If time is of the essence, on-site testing may be the preferred choice as it allows for immediate feedback and adjustments.

4. Testing Requirements:

Some tests may be best suited for controlled environments, while others can be conducted effectively on-site.

5. Budget Constraints:

On-site testing may be preferred when budget is limited, as running tests in testing facilities require higher investment.

Observations from lab testing is always slightly higher than those conducted on-site. Therefore, both on-site and testing facility material testing has their advantages and disadvantages, and the choice should be guided by considering that the materials used meet the necessary standards for quality, safety, and performance.

Ataur Rahman

President at prycoglobal
Ataur Rahman is the president at Pryco Global Inc (PRYCO). He has more than a decade of experience in the leadership role, majorly into Oil & Energy and Heavy Civil & Commercial Construction Projects. He has turned around a couple of loss-making businesses unit into profit centers through effective Cost Management, Process Improvement, Business Strategy Realignment, Reorganizing Organizational Structure.
Ataur Rahman