CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
5.4 ONE WAY ANOVA
than in slabs. The similar is observed for rate of carbonation after deterioration and ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration.
From table 43, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level and hence, the null hypothesis is to be rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in compressive strength after deterioration.
2.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the ultrasonic pulse velocity values of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 44: one-way anova test for ultrasonic pulse velocity amongst the statistical elements P054
From table 44, we can clearly see that the p value is less than the standard significant level of 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis is not accepted. This means that there is a significant difference between the statistical elements in ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration.
3.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the rates of carbonation of statistical elements.
Table 45: one-way anova test for carbonation amongst the statistical elements P054
From table 45, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level and hence, the null hypothesis is omitted. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in the rate of carbonation.
5.4.2 PROJECT P056
1.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the compressive strength of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 46: one-way anova test for compressive strength amongst the statistical elements P056
From table 46, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level and therefore, the null hypothesis is to be rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in compressive strength after deterioration.
2.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the ultrasonic pulse velocity values of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 47: one-way anova test for ultrasonic pulse velocity amongst the statistical elements P056
From table 47, we can clearly see that the p value is less than the standard significant level of 0.05 and the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration.
3.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the rates of carbonation of columns, beams, and slabs.
Table 48: one-way anova test for carbonation amongst the statistical elements P056
From table 48, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level and hence, the null hypothesis is omitted. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in the rate of carbonation.
5.4.3 PROJECT P068
1.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the compressive strength of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 49: one-way anova test for compressive strength amongst the statistical elements P068
From table 49, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level.
The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in compressive strength after deterioration.
2.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the ultrasonic pulse velocity values of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 50: one-way anova test for ultrasonic pulse velocity amongst the statistical elements P068
From table 50, we can clearly see that the p value is less than the standard significant level of 0.05 and hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration.
3.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the rates of carbonation of columns, beams, and slabs.
Table 51: one-way anova test for carbonation amongst the statistical elements P068
From table 51, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant. The null hypothesis is omitted. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in the rate of carbonation.
5.4.3 PROJECT P069
1.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the compressive strength of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 52: one-way anova test for compressive strength amongst the statistical elements P069
From table 52, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level of 0.05 and the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in compressive strength after deterioration.
2.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the ultrasonic pulse velocity values of columns, beams, and slabs after deterioration
Table 53: one-way anova test for ultrasonic pulse velocity amongst the statistical elements P069
From table 53, we can clearly see that the p value is less than the standard significant level of 0.05 and hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration.
3.) Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the rates of carbonation of columns, beams, and slabs.
Table 54: one-way anova test for carbonation amongst the statistical elements P069
From table 54, we can clearly observe that the p value is less than the standard significant level.
We can reject the null hypothesis. There is a significant difference between the statistical elements in the rate of carbonation.
From the anova test we can observe that the rate of carbonation, the compressive strength after deterioration and the ultrasonic pulse velocity after deterioration are not similar for columns, beams and slab. They vary accordingly. Hence we can say that occurrence of deterioration and reduction in the compressive strength varies for all the elements and is not constant throughout.