Student: Luis Dominguez

A-number: A01834041

Course: Experimental methods in structural engineering, cee 6050

Professor: Marvin Halling, PhD

Assignment: Lab 8

Date: 04/29/2013

Lab 8: NDT on Slabs

CEE 6050
Experimental Methods April 2013 Utah State University

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

Table of Contents
Theoretical Background ............................................................................................................................ 4 Impact-Echo NDT Method ................................................................................................................... 4 Weaknesses ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Experiment .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Slabs ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Spectral Analyzer ............................................................................................................................... 7 Accelerometer ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Impactor (Hammer) ........................................................................................................................... 7 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Analysis & Report .................................................................................................................................. 9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Pictures .................................................................................................................................................. 17 References ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A............................................................................................................................................... 20 Lab Notes .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Calculations Tables .............................................................................................................................. 25

Table of Figures
Figure 1, Slab to be analyze ...................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2, Spectral Analyzer....................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3, Accelerometer ............................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4, Hammer ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

Theoretical Background
Delamination occurs when the corrosion in the steel rebar induces cracks and the cracks joined together to cause the concrete cover to separate from the substrate concrete. It results in the loss of structural strength and facilitates a rapid deterioration of the deck. The delamination impairs both the appearance and the serviceability of the structure, and repairs can be very costly. It is estimated that annual maintenance and repair costs related to corrosion for concrete infrastructure approach $100 billion worldwide. As a corrosion-induced problem, delamination is of great concern for bridges, and routine inspection is necessary. Many methods have been developed to detect concrete delamination. These methods include the conventional chain drag method, impact-echo (the one we will use in this lab), ultrasonic tests, ground penetrating radar, imaging radar, and infrared thermography. Efforts have been made to expand, improve, and combine currently available techniques.

Impact-Echo NDT Method

IE is a widely used NDT method, which has been demonstrated to be effective in detecting delaminations in bare (without asphalt overlay) concrete structures (Sansalone 1996; Tawhed andGassman 2002; Zhu and Popovics 2007). IE is a mechanical-wave method based on the transient vibration response of a platelike structure subjected to mechanical impact. The mechanical impact generates body waves (P waves, or longitudinal waves, and S waves, or transverse waves), and surface guided waves (e.g., Rayleigh surface waves) that propagate within the solid material. The multiply reflected and mode converted body waves eventually set up sets of infinite vibration resonance modes within the solid material (Tolstoy and Usdin 1953). The transient time response of the solid structure is measured with a contact sensor (e.g., displacement sensor or accelerometer) mounted on the surface close to the impact source. The Fourier transform (amplitude spectrum) of the time signal will show maxima (peaks) at certain frequencies, which represent particular resonant modes. Two sets of vibration modes are relevant to this study, the thickness stretch modes and the flexural drum modes. The thickness stretch mode family normally dominates the spectral response of a platelike structure that does not contain any near-surface defects. In that case, the frequency of the fundamental thickness stretch mode (also called the, IE frequency: ) can be related to the thickness of the plate. Knowing the P-wave velocity Cp of concrete, the plate thickness D is related to the IE frequency by:

Where is the correction factor, and ranges from 0.945 to 0.96 for the normal concrete (Gibson and Popovics 2005) and we are going to use 0.96, D is in inches, Cp is 4100 m/s (need to convert), and the frequency is in Hertz. The correction factor is based on elastic-dynamic effects related to a S1 Lamb wave mode with zero group velocity, which depends on the Poissons Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

5 ratio. The thickness stretch mode may also dominate the spectral response when the test is carried out over a relatively deep defect or delamination. However, the flexural modes tend to dominate the spectral response when a test is carried out over a shallow (nearsurface) defect or delamination. These modes normally have much lower frequency than the stretch modes. Unfortunately, a simple analytical expression that relates the fundamental flexural frequency to the defect depth has not yet been established because this frequency value depends on the plate geometry, shape, and boundary condition. Despite this problem, IE test data provide valuable information about the presence of delaminations in concrete plates; areas that show a dominant response frequency with a relatively low value are likely located above the shallow delamination defects, although the depth of the defect cannot be directly estimated.

Weaknesses
Data can be difficult to interpret; especially on thick plates or on layered materials (overlays, soil). Small voids can be missed. Is limited by size of wavelength. Complicated geometries pose difficulties. Flaws beneath sensed flaw must be evaluated from the opposite side.

Experiment
This section will explain the procedure that will be done at the lab, what measurements to take, what to calculate, and will contain relevant information regarding the experiment.

Objectives
1. Understanding of the Impact-Echo method to detect delamination on slabs. 2. Use the IE method to determinate various frequencies values at a given number of points on a slab. 3. With the obtained frequencies at each point, compute D (depth) at each point. (Depth will change if theres delamination at that point or not.) 4. Compare the obtained depth with the measurements done in the lab, and calculate the percentage of error. 5. Calculate the area of delamination on the slab based on the calculated depths. Compare with actual area of delamination and compute the percentage of error.

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

Equipment
Slabs Four reinforced concrete plates were constructed in the SMASH Lab. Each concrete plate has the same size, and same layout of #6 steel rebar. All the concrete was placed from the same ready mix concrete batch in order to achieve similar concrete strengths between specimens. On each slab, plexiglass sheets were used to simulate the effect of a delamination. Plexiglass is unaffected by moisture and offers a high strength-to-weight ratio, which is good for preventing the bonding of concrete above and below it. For the purpose of this experiment we are only going to analyze one of the delaminated slabs. For this experiment we are going to analyze just one slab.

Figure 1, Slab to be analyze

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

7 Spectral Analyzer This piece of equipment is used to read the data from the accelerometer and convert it to frequency as it is displayed on the screen. The user is then able to find the frequency values for each point, each time it is hit with the hammer.
Figure 2, Spectral Analyzer

Accelerometer The accelerometer takes the vibration and transforms it into an electrical signal which is then sent to the Spectral Analyzer to be converted into the frequency and time domains.

Figure 3, Accelerometer

Figure 4, Hammer

Impactor (Hammer) This tool is used to hit the slab at the desired point and generate waves; the stress waves that propagate within the structure and are reflected by flaws or external surfaces.

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

Procedure
The procedure for this lab will be the following: 1. Measure the slab and the location of the points that are going to be tested. 2. At each point indicated on the slab, the participants of the lab are going to do an Impact-Echo Test (5 taps) and write down the value of the frequency read on the Spectral Analyzer. 3. Proceed to compute the depth at each point, and compare it to the ones measured in the lab. 4. Based on its value, determine if the calculated depth corresponds to the bottom of the slab or the delamination. 5. Calculate the percentage of error of the value obtained from Impact-Echo in contrast with the measured value. 6. Compute the percentage of delamination of the slab with the actual value of the delamination. %Delamination=(Adelamination/ASlab)*100. 7. Determine the area of the delamination based only of the information obtain from the Impact-Echo and the location of the tested points and calculate the corresponding percentage of delamination. %Delamination=(Adelamination/ASlab)*100. 8. Calculate the percentage of error of the %Delamination.

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

Analysis & Report

Data acquired at the lab. X Dimension of slab: 9 ft Y Dimension of slab: 6 ft Distance between the points in the X direction: 10 in between points and 4 in from the edge Distance between the points in the Y direction: 6 in between points and 3 in from the edge Thickness of slab: 5.625 in

Point 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x 10x 11x

Frequency (kHz)
18.312 Hz 13.84 Hz 13.84 Hz 14.112 Hz 14.368 Hz 37.984 Hz 35.775 Hz 32.416 Hz 34.496 Hz 38.528 Hz 13.952 Hz

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

10

Point 1y 2y 3y 4y 5y 6y 7y 8y 9y 10y 11y 12y

Frequency (kHz)
14.48 Hz 14.688 Hz 14.384 Hz 12.128 Hz 14.432 Hz 34.592 Hz 34.336 Hz 32.704 Hz 32.96 Hz 33.632 Hz 34.56 Hz 14.16 Hz

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

11 I started this lab transforming the velocity that the waves can travel in concrete from m/s to in/s.

Using

I was able to calculate de depth of the slab.

CP (in/s)

0.96 161417.3228 in/s

Point 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x 10x 11x

Frequency (Hz)
18312 Hz 13840 Hz 13840 Hz 14112 Hz 14368 Hz 37984 Hz 35775 Hz 32416 Hz 34496 Hz 38528 Hz 13952 Hz

Depth (in)
4.231122486 in 5.598288653 in 5.598288653 in 5.49038513 in 5.392560896 in 2.039814526 in 2.165767015 in 2.390187406 in 2.246066644 in 2.011013158 in 5.553348263 in

Slab or Delamination?
Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Delamination Delamination Delamination Delamination Delamination Slab

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

12

Point 1y 2y 3y 4y 5y 6y 7y 8y 9y 10y 11y 12y

Frequency (Hz)
14480 Hz 14688 Hz 14384 Hz 12128 Hz 14432 Hz 34592 Hz 34336 Hz 32704 Hz 32960 Hz 33632 Hz 34560 Hz 14160 Hz

Depth (in)
5.350850481 in 5.27507591 in 5.386562497 in 6.388548397 in 5.368647101 in 2.239833342 in 2.256532938 in 2.369138789 in 2.350737711 in 2.30376769 in 2.241907262 in 5.471773655 in

Slab or Delamination?
Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Delamination Delamination Delamination Delamination Delamination Delamination Slab

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

13 In this table we compared the calculated depth based on the frequency measured versus the actual measures of the slab.

Point 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x 10x 11x

Depth (in) % Error From IE Measured

4.23112249 in 5.59828865 in 5.59828865 in 5.49038513 in 5.3925609 in 2.03981453 in 2.16576701 in 2.39018741 in 2.24606664 in 2.01101316 in 5.55334826 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 5.625 in 24.78% 0.47% 0.47% 2.39% 4.13% 1.99% 8.29% 19.51% 12.30% 0.55% 1.27%

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

14

Point 1y 2y 3y 4y 5y 6y 7y 8y 9y 10y 11y 12y

Depth (in) From IE Measured

5.35085048 in 5.27507591 in 5.3865625 in 6.3885484 in 5.3686471 in 2.23983334 in 2.25653294 in 2.36913879 in 2.35073771 in 2.30376769 in 2.24190726 in 5.47177366 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 5.625 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 2 in 5.625 in

% Error
4.87% 6.22% 4.24% 13.57% 4.56% 11.99% 12.83% 18.46% 17.54% 15.19% 12.10% 2.72%

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

15

Element Slab Actual Delamination IE Delamination

Dimension ft X Y
9 4 3.333 6 3 2.5

Area ft2
54 12 8.333

% of % of Error Delamination
22.22% 15.43% 30.56%

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

16

Conclusion
This experiment taught us a very important way to realize a nondestructive testing of a concrete slab of any type of structure. We had the chance to perform an impact echo test on a slab and see for ourselves the relation between the theoretical background we had acquired so far and the actual values that were obtained and see how close these were to one another. My views on this experiment are that the results were pretty close considering some conditions that might have been a factor in the larger percentage of error that were obtained in some cases. One of the reasons that could mess with the results might have been the use of the wax to place the accelerometer on the slab, we could observe that this was not an easy task and that it required wax which didnt always hold the accelerometer as straight as we would have liked it to be and this may have presented a little bit of an issue in the final readings gotten by the machine. Also I think it is imperative that we understand that the wax, if too much was present between the accelerometer and the concrete face may have also mess a little bit with the results. Another reason we get in some cases a really different frequency reading at really close points might be the way the aggregates are placed on the concrete, since this could factor in the velocity of the wave through the concrete and therefore in the frequency. I believe that this experiment could have presented better results if more modern accelerometers could have been used, if said apparatus could have been placed on the slab without the use of the wax and maybe just to be on the safe side we could have performed a different type of test to compare this results. All in all I think this proved to be an excellent experience for the structural engineer who may have to practice this test in the future and now they possess important knowledge about how to go about it.

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

17

Pictures

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

18

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

19

References
Seong-Hoon, T., John S. Popovics, M., & Ralf and Jinying Zhu, A. (2012). Nondestructive Bridge Deck Testing with Air-Coupled Impact-Echo and Infrared Thermography. Univ of At - Austin, 1-12. Shutao Xing, M. W. (2012). Delamination Detection of Reinforced Concrete Decks Using Modal Identification. Journal of Sensors, 17.

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

20

Appendix A
Lab Notes
Dimension of the Slab

Thickness: _______________in Distance from Surface to Delamination: ______2_________in

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

21 Location of the points to be evaluated

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

22

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

23

Frequency readings

Point 1x: ______________KHz

Point 7x: ______________KHz

Point 2x: ______________KHz

Point 8x: ______________KHz

Point 3x: ______________KHz

Point 9x: ______________KHz

Point 4x: ______________KHz

Point 10x: ______________KHz

Point 5x: ______________KHz

Point 11x: ______________KHz

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

24 Point 6x: ______________KHz

Frequency readings

Point 1y: ______________KHz

Point 7y: ______________KHz

Point 2y: ______________KHz

Point 8y: ______________KHz

Point 3y: ______________KHz

Point 9y: ______________KHz

Point 4y: ______________KHz

Point 10y: ______________KHz

Point 5y: ______________KHz

Point 11y: ______________KHz

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

25 Point 6y: ______________KHz Point 12y: ______________KHz

Appendix B
Calculations Tables

= Cp (in/s)=

Point 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x 10x 11x

Frequency (Hz)

Depth (in)

Slab or Delamination?

Point 1y 2y 3y 4y 5y 6y 7y 8y 9y 10y 11y

Frequency (Hz)

Depth (in)

Slab or Delamination?

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

26 12y

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada

27 Depth (in) From IE Measured

Point 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x 10x 11x

% Error

Point 1y 2y 3y 4y 5y 6y 7y 8y 9y 10y 11y 12y

Depth (in) From IE Measured

% Error

Element Slab Actual Delamination IE Delamination

Dimension Y

Area

% of Delamination % of Error -------------------- ---------------

Team #8: Edyson Rojas, Luis Dominguez, Ivan Quezada