The Open Access NDT Database

Use of Ultrasound to Estimate Depth of Surface Opening Cracks in Concrete Structures

www.ndt.net/?id=9954

Roberto C. A. PINTO 1, Arthur MEDEIROS 1, Ivo J. PADARATZ 1, Patrcia B. ANDRADE1

Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina; Florianpolis; Brazil Phone: +55 483721 7768, Fax: +55 483721 5191; e-mail: rpinto@ecv.ufsc.br, Arthur.med@uol.com.br, padaratz@ecv.ufsc.br, patricia.becker@estelarengenharia.com.br Abstract This study discusses the use of the ultrasound with the time-of-flight diffraction technique to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks. This technique is a very useful tool for practical applications. It is inexpensive, simple and easy to perform, giving a rapid indication of the extension of cracking. BS 1881:Part 203 presents some mathematical expressions to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks. These expressions are based on two time-of-flight measurements performed using the indirect mode of transmission. However, BS 1881:Part 203 indicates that when such a mode of transmission is used, it is required at least four measurements to be able to estimate the ultrasound pulse velocity (UPV). Due to this apparent incoherence, two graphically-based methods were developed, allowing for the use of several time-of-flight readings. All of these aforementioned methods were applied to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks of artificially cracked samples produced in the laboratory. The results indicated that the new developed methods can estimate vertical cracks with an error of 10%; a smaller value compared to the error of 15% obtained for the BS 1881 method. Keywords: ultrasound, surface opening cracks, non-destructive testing
1

1. Introduction
Surface opening cracks often occurs in concrete structures. They may appear as a consequence of several degradation mechanisms such as repeated loading, differential settlement, chemical attacks, drying shrinkage, and freeze-thaw cycles, among others. While in some cases, surface opening cracks may only affect the aesthetics of the concrete surface, in most cases they are an indication of structural distress and/or decreased durability [1]. In order to evaluate the damage of the concrete structure due to cracking, it is important to quantify the crack geometric parameters including width, extension, and more importantly the depth of penetration. Depending on the type of structure, the nature of the cracking, and the crack penetration depth, surface opening cracks need to be repaired. Crack depth determination can be performed non-destructively by the time-of-flight diffraction technique [2-4]. In this technique, stress waves are generated on one side of the crack, with wave arrival times monitored by a transducer placed on the opposite side of the crack. Stress waves can be generated by a mechanical pulse, such as given by ultrasound equipments, or by mechanical impact, as in the impact echo technique. Crack penetration depth is determined assuming a particular wave propagation path. Although there are other techniques available to measure crack geometric characteristics [57], the use of ultrasound with the time-of-flight refraction technique is very simple, easy to perform, and gives a rapid indication of the extension of cracking. There are a significant number of commercially ultrasound instruments available to be used in concrete structures. They usually display the direct transit time of a longitudinal wave in microseconds. Crack depth estimation by the time-of-flight diffraction technique using conventional ultrasound equipment can be performed assuming a direct travel path of the stress wave from the transmitter transducer to the receiver transducer, passing through the crack tip. The transducers are placed on opposite sides of the crack.

Bungey [3] presented a simple mathematical expression to calculate crack penetration depth comparing two time-of-flight measurements through an indirect mode of transmission. The first one is performed in sound concrete, while the second one is obtained with the transducers placed equidistantly from the opening surface crack on opposite sides of the crack. In Bungeys method, it is necessary to know the ultrasound pulse velocity (UPV) in the concrete which is usually obtained in a region away from the crack. The former BS 1881 [2] also presented a mathematical expression based on two measurements with the transducers placed equidistantly from the opening surface crack. With this special arrangement of transducers, it is possible to estimate both the crack depth and the UPV. However, when calculating UPV using the indirect mode of transmission, BS 1881 does require more than only two measurements. In order to overcome this apparent incoherence, two graphically-based methods were developed to obtain the depth of surface opening cracks based on several ultrasound time-offlight measurements. The first method is an extension of the method presented in BS 1881 but with more measurements taken. The second one was developed specifically when the crack is close to the side of the concrete member such that there is not enough space available to place both transducers equidistantly from the opening surface crack. Thus, one transducer stays stationary whereas the other varies its position. This latter method is similar to the procedure presented in BS 1881 to measure ultrasonic pulse velocity with both transducers on the surface of the test specimen, through an indirect mode of transmission. All four methods were applied to estimate the depth of artificial cracked samples in the laboratory. Prismatic concrete specimens with vertical cracks were produced. It was concluded that the graphically-based methods can better predict the depth of surface opening cracks.

2. Methods to estimate crack depth

2.1 Existing Methods Bungey [3] proposed a mathematical expression by comparing the time-of-flight of an ultrasound longitudinal wave through a sound concrete to the one around a crack, considering that the velocity of the longitudinal wave in the concrete is the same in both cases. Assuming the wave travel path presented in Fig. 1a, the crack penetration depth h can be evaluated as:
x h= T s 2 2 Tc Ts

... (1)

where: Tc represents the travel time around the crack; Ts is the surface travel time in sound concrete, and x is the least distance between the transducers and the crack, measured on the surface of the concrete. In order to use Eq. 1, it is necessary to previously obtain the surface travel time of the longitudinal wave in a region without crack, Ts, with transducers at a distance 2x apart from each other. The assumption of the same ultrasonic pulse velocity through a sound surface concrete and through a path around the crack may lead to errors in the estimate of the crack depth. Usually, top concrete layers are more porous than inner parts due to differences in settlement

of aggregates, vibration and also humidity loss to the environment. Thus, it is common to observe a smaller UPV in the surface of the concrete than in the inner parts of the structure. Bungey [3] states that the depth of surface opening cracks using Eq. 1 can be estimated with a precision of 15%. Another method to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks is the one presented in BS 1881: Part 203 [2]. This method uses two measurements taken with the transducers placed equidistantly from the crack at the distances x, and 2x, according to Fig. 1b. Assuming that the ultrasonic pulse velocity is the same, it is possible to modify Eq. 1, as follows:

h=x

4T12 T2 2 T2 2 T12

... (2)

where T1 and T2 are the time-of-flight of the longitudinal wave with transducers at distances x, and 2x from the crack, respectively. BS 1881 [2] suggests a distance x of 15 cm.
X X
X X X X

a)

b)

Fig.1. Transducer arrangements for Bungeys and BS 1881 methods

This method does not require a complementary test in sound concrete. However, it is based only in two measurements made with the indirect mode of transmission. In this arrangement, the exact travel path is uncertain. When calculating the ultrasound pulse velocity using the indirect mode of transmission, in order to overcome the lack of precision of the travel path, BS 1881 [2] requires a series of reading. The transmitter is fixed, and the receiver is moved in a series of fixed incremental points along a chosen line. BS 1881 [2] indicates that the velocity from the indirect transmission mode is often 5 to 20% smaller than the one obtained from the direct transmission mode. Yaman et al [8] recommended that when performing an indirect measurement, it is necessary at least four readings in order to obtain variability smaller than 2% in the UPV. They also indicated that the first reading should have the transducers apart from themselves of at least two times the wave-length , with the subsequent readings at least one half wave length apart. While BS 1881 [2] does require a series of measurements when using the indirect mode of transmission to calculate the ultrasonic pulse velocity, it does not apply this requirement when using the indirect mode of transmission to calculate estimate crack depth. 2.2 Proposed graphically-based methods to estimate crack depth

2.2.1 Method A
In this method, the transducers are placed in locations equidistantly from the surface opening crack along a chosen line, similarly to the BS 1881 method, but with at least four positions as

suggested by Yaman et al [8]. Fig. 2 shows a possible arrangement of the transducers. Timeof-flight readings are performed at each transducer arrangement. Assuming the same ultrasonic pulse velocity in all wave travel paths, the time-of-flight can be expressed by:

Ti =

2 Li ... (3) V

where Ti is the time-of-flight measured with transducers at a distance xi from the crack; V is the ultrasonic pulse velocity; and Li is the assumed half travel length corresponding to Ti, which depends on the distances Xi and h. If one substitutes Li in Eq. 3 by its dependence on Xi and h, the following expression can be found.
T2 X i 2 = V 2 i h 2 ... (4) 4
X4 X3 X2 X1 X1 X2 X3 X4

L4

L3

L2

L1

L1

L2

L3

L4

Fig. 2. Transducer arrangements for graphically-based Method A

Equation 4 indicates a linear relationship between the parameters Xi2 and Ti2. The crack penetration depth, h, can be obtained by plotting the results. The slope of the best straight line is proportional to the UPV while its intersection is proportional to the crack depth. 2.2.2 Method B A variation of the above method can be used when the crack occurs close to one side of the specimen. In this case, a procedure similar to the one used to obtain the ultrasonic pulse velocity through the indirect transmission mode is followed. The transmitter is fixed in one side of the crack, while the receiver is placed in several locations on the opposite side of the crack, according to Fig. 3. The first position should have both transducers equidistantly from the surface opening crack while for the other ones the receiver is moved in fixed increments. For each arrangement, a time-of-flight reading is taken. Using similar assumptions regarding travel path and ultrasonic pulse velocity as used in the previous method, the crack depth can be calculated by subtracting the time of flight from a given reading to the time-of-flight obtained in the first reading, yielding:
T X i2 = V 2 ( Ti 1 )2 h 2 2

..... (5)

This expression indicates a linear relationship between the parameters Xi2 and (Ti Ti/2)2. Similarly as in method A, the crack penetration depth can be obtained by plotting the results.

X4 X3 X2 X1 X1

L1

L1

L2

L3

L4

Fig. 3. Transducer arrangements for graphically-based Method B

4. Experimental program
In order to compare all the aforementioned methods to estimate crack depth, an experimental program was designed. Concrete specimens with artificial cracks were produced in the laboratory with time-of-flight measurements taken according to each of the four methods. Three series of concrete specimens were cast. Series 1 consisted of 8 concrete prisms of 150 x 250 x 700 mm with vertical cracks of 75 and 100 mm of depth and crack width of 6 mm, with four replicates for each crack depth. Series 2 consisted of four concrete prisms of same size, with vertical cracks of 50, 75, 100, and 150 mm, and crack widths of 0.5 mm. These specimens were produced in order to verify the possible influence of crack widths in the estimate of crack depths. In order to apply Method B, a third series comprising of concrete prisms of greater length was produced. Four concrete prisms of 200 mm x 200 mm x 800 mm with vertical crack of depths of 50, 75, and 100 mm, and crack width of 2 mm were chosen. Table 1 presents a summary of the geometric characteristics of all the specimens. Table 1 - Specimen characteristics
Specimen S1-75-A S1-75-B S1-75-C S1-75-D S1-100-A S1-100-B S1-100-C S1-100-D S2-50 S2-75 S2-100 S2-150 S3-50 S3-75 S3-100 Size (mm x mm x mm) crack depth (mm) 75 75 75 75 100 100 100 100 50 75 100 150 50 75 100 crack width (mm) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2

Series 1

150 x 250 x 700

Series 2

Series 3

200 x 200 x 800

All cracks were artificially produced. During casting, plates with different thickness were positioned on the sides of the specimen. At approximately six hours after casting, the plates were removed and the artificial crack formed. Before performing time-of-flight measurements, the specimens were rotated 90o. This procedure permitted that the ultrasound

measurements could be performed on a flat and smooth surface; and that any line of testing perpendicular to the crack would be at the same level of consolidation. A 0.57 w/c concrete mixture was used to produce specimens for Series 1 and 2 while a higher w/c of 0.63 was used to produce Series 3 specimens. The coarse aggregate used in both concrete mixtures was a granite coarse aggregate with maximum nominal size of 19 mm. For each series, 10 x 20 cm concrete cylinders were also cast. These cylinders were maintained under the same curing conditions as the prisms specimens. Concrete compressive strength was evaluated after 28 days. The results indicated a compressive strength of 36 MPa for concrete of Series 1 and 2, and 20 MPa for concrete of Series 3. Ultrasound time-of-flight measurements were performed with a commercially available equipment. For specimens of Series 1 and 2, two 54 kHz transducers were initially placed on opposite sides of the crack at a distance of 100 mm; afterwards both transducers were moved simultaneously to the next test location at 50 mm increment following the transducer arrangement presented in Fig. 2. For specimens of Series 3, the transmitter was fixed at a distance of 100 mm from the crack, while the receiver was firstly placed at a distance of 100 mm on the opposite side of the crack, and then moved away from the crack in 50 mm increments. These transducers arrangement permitted that the first reading was performed with the transducers at 200 mm apart from each other, which is greater than twice the wave length , as suggested by Yaman et al [8]. The wave-length was in the order of 75 mm, considering an UPV of 4000 m/s. For all specimens, UPV was also obtained using the indirect mode of transmission on the surface of the specimen away from the crack according to recommendations of BS 1881 [2] with at least four readings taken.

5. Results
Table 2 presents the time-of-flight results obtained by placing both transducers at equidistant locations from the crack. Table 2 - Time-of-flight readings with transducers equidistant from crack (in s)
Specimen S1-75-A S1-75-B S1-75-C S1-75-D S1-100-A S1-100-B S1-100-C S1-100-D S2-50 S2-75 S2-100 S2-150 S3-50 S3-75 S3-100 100 66.1 61.4 60.0 62.6 71.7 72.2 71.3 71.8 52.5 62.4 80.3 81.3 60.4 69.5 75.6 Distance x (mm) 150 200 250 83.1 109.2 129.6 80.7 102.6 124.4 78.6 105.6 124.2 78.6 102.2 126.7 88.3 111.2 130.6 88.0 109.6 131.8 87.1 111.2 131.6 90.7 112.2 131.9 77.6 97.7 122.5 79.7 104.8 125.8 90.2 108.3 132.8 114.1 121.5 139.7 90.0 113.8 136.5 89.8 114.5 141.5 91.7 114.6 135.1 300 153.2 145.9 147.8 149.3 151.5 151.7 155.4 156.2 144.4 148.8 152.1 160.2 -

Table 3 presents the time-of-flight results obtained by fixing the transmitter at 100 mm from the crack with the receiver at various distances from the crack. Table 4 presents the UPV obtained by the indirect transmission mode performed in a region away from the crack, as well as the ones obtained by the graphically-based methods A and B. Table 3 - Time-of-flight readings with transmitter fixed at 100 mm from crack and receiver at various distances (in s)
Specimen S3-50 S3-75 S3-100 100 62.6 69.0 77.0 150 73.9 78.9 87.2 200 86.7 90.2 98.0 Distance x (mm) 250 300 98.9 110.1 101.2 115.8 105.8 120.2 350 125.8 127.4 133.6 400 136.0 139.2 144.8 450 149.1 150.3 159.4

Table 4 - Ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/s)

Specimen S1-75-A S1-75-B S1-75-C S1-75-D S1-100-A S1-100-B S1-100-C S1-100-D S2-50 S2-75 S2-100 S2-150 S3-50 S3-75 S3-100 Indirect transmission sound concrete 3900 3750 4250 4100 4150 4000 4000 3950 4100 4250 3900 3950 3650 3500 3750 Method A 4100 4250 4200 4150 4250 4200 4100 4100 4200 4150 4300 4200 Method B 3860 3950 3850

6. Analysis and Discussion

6.1 Crack Depth Estimates by Different Methods 6.1.1 Bungeys method For the time-of-flight results with transducers positioned at 100 mm and 150 mm from the crack tip, presented in Tables 2 and 3, crack penetration depth was estimated using Eq. 1. The ultrasound pulse velocities were the ones obtained using the indirect mode of transmission on sound concrete presented in Table 4. The obtained crack depth estimates were grouped according to their actual crack depths, as presented in Fig. 4. Besides the estimated crack depths, Fig. 4 also shows the actual depths and their 15% range for all specimens. Fig. 4 indicates that although most of the individual results lies within 15% of the actual crack depth, there were some poor estimates, specially the ones obtained for specimens S1-75-B, and S3-75.

200 Estimated crack depth (mm) 150

100 50 0
0 0 -7 5 S 1 -A -7 5 S 1 -B -7 5 S 1 -C -7 5D S2 -7 5 S3 -7 5 -1 0 S1 0 - A -1 0 S1 0 - B -1 0 S1 0 - C -1 00 -D S2 -1 0 S3 0 -1 00 -5 -5 S3 S2 S2 -1 50

S1

specimen
100mm 150mm 15% actual depth actual depth

Fig. 4. Crack depth penetration estimates by Bungey method with transducers at 100 and 150 mm from crack tip

6.1.2 BS 1881 Method When applying the BS 1881 method to estimate crack depth, it was necessary to choose a pair of time-of-flight measurements among those presented in Table 2 to be used in Eq. 2. Timeof-flight measurements of transducers at the distances of 100 and 200 mm, and 150 and 300 mm were selected and used in Eq. 2 although others combinations could have also been chosen. The results were grouped according to the crack depths, shown in Fig. 5. Similarly to the results given by Bungeys method, Fig. 7 indicates that most of the individual estimates lies within 15% of the actual depths.
250 Estimated crack depth (mm) 200 150 100 50 0
0 A 5 -A 5555-7 -5 -B -D -C 00 00 00 -7 -7 -7 -7 S2 S2 00 00 S2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 S2
actual depth

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

specimen
100mm-200mm 150mm-300mm 15% actual depth

Fig. 5. Crack depth estimates by BS 1881 method

6.1.3 Graphically-based Methods A and B For the proposed Methods A and B, time-of-flight measurements presented in Tables 2 and 3 were used in Eqs. 4 and 5, respectively. Graphs relating the corresponding parameters were

S1

-1

50

produced for each specimen with the depth penetration crack and the UPV estimated. Figure 6 presents the crack depth estimates for each specimen grouped according to their actual depths, as well as, the 15% range of the actual depths for all specimens.
200 Estimated crack depth (mm) 150

100 50 0
0 -7 5 S 1 -A -7 5 S 1 -B -7 5 S1 -C -7 5D S2 -7 5 S3 -7 5 0 -1 0 S 1 0- A -1 0 S 1 0- B -1 0 S 1 0- C -1 00 -D S2 -1 0 S3 0 -1 00 -5 -5 S2 S3 S2 -1 50

S1

specimen
Method A Method B 15% actual depth actual depth

Fig. 6 Crack depth estimates by graphically-based Methods A and B

6.1.4 Comparison of all methods Table 4 indicates that the ultrasound pulse velocities obtained by the graphically-based methods A and B were consistently higher than the ones obtained through the indirect mode of transmission in the surface of sound concrete. As previously discussed, the UPV in the concrete surface is expected to be lower than the one in the inner part of the concrete member. Although the concrete region close to the crack might be of lower quality due to the cracking process, the UPVs estimated in that region were still higher than the ones in the surface of the concrete, as the data from Table 4 indicate. Table 5 presents a comparison between estimates given by each method. Crack penetration depth estimates from Bungeys method, with transducers at 150 mm; from the BS 1881 method, with transducers at 150-300 mm, and from graphically-based methods A and B are presented. When the arrangement of 150-300 mm as proposed by BS 1881 was not possible (S3-50, S3-75, and S3-100), the results presented in Table 5 came from the 100-200 mm arrangement. In order to better compare the depth estimates given by the four aforementioned methods, the average normalized error of the estimates was calculated by Eq. 6 for each method. Table 5 also presents the calculated average errors, and their standard deviation.
hei hi hi i =1

j =

S1

... (6)

where j is the normalized error given by method j; hei and hi are the estimated and actual penetration depths for specimen i respectively, and n is the total number of specimen tested. It can be seen that the graphically-based Method A yielded a smaller normalized error with smaller standard deviation than the other methods. While an error of approximately 10% was

obtained when Method A was applied, the other methods yielded errors of 16 to 24%. Such results can be better visualized in Fig. 7. Table 5- Actual and Estimated Penetration Depths (mm)
Specimen Actual depth Bungey error estim. (%) 61 18.7 20 73.3 73 2.7 59 21.3 105 5.0 92 8.0 89 11.0 98 2.0 53 6.0 79 5.3 92 8.0 168 12.0 67 34.0 44 41.3 86 14.0 17.5 19.2 BS 1881 error estim. (%) 75 0.0 85 13.3 64 14.7 58 22.7 111 11.0 108 8.0 92 8.0 109 9.0 70 40.0 68 9.3 119 19.0 217 44.7 42 16.0 87 16.0 115 15.0 16.4 11.8 Method A error estim. (%) 88 17.3 86 14.7 77 2.7 73 2.7 115 15.0 113 13.0 102 2.0 109 9.0 55 10.0 80 6.7 130 15.0 158 5.3 67 34.0 76 1.3 115 15.0 10.9 8.5 Method B error estim. (%) 72 44.0 95 26.7 96 4.0 24.9 20.1

S1-75-A 75 S1-75-B 75 S1-75-C 75 S1-75-D 75 S1-100-A 100 S1-100-B 100 S1-100-C 100 S1-100-D 100 S2-50 50 S2-75 75 S2-100 100 S2-150 150 S3-50 50 S3-75 75 S3-100 100 mean error (%) standard dev. (%)
250 Estimated Crack Depth (mm) 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

Bungey - 150 mm BS 150-300 mm Method A Method B

50

75 100 Actual Crack Depth (mm)

150

Fig. 7. Comparison between estimated and actual crack penetration depth

Table 5 also shows that there was not an apparent influence of different crack widths in the estimates. The individual normalized errors for specimens of Series 1, 2 and 3 (crack width of 6, 0.5 and 2 mm, respectively) did not differ significantly among themselves.

6. Conclusions
Two graphically-based methods have been developed to estimate crack penetration depths from time-of-flight measurements. The results indicated that the method developed as an extension of the one in the BS 1881 standard with at least four readings was able to improve

the overall estimation with an estimated error close to 10%, smaller than the errors from the others methods. This method also permits the estimation of the ultrasound pulse velocity in the region tested. Finally, despite of the methods available to estimate geometric characteristics of surface opening cracks [5-7], the ultrasound time-of-flight refraction technique may still be a very useful tool for practical applications. It is cheap, simple and easy to perform, and gives a rapid indication of the extension of cracking. Acknowledgments Funding for this study was partially provided by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and by LEME Engenharia, Ltda, a Brazilian consultant engineering company. The authors express special thanks to GPEND/LEE/UFSC where this research was performed. References 1. 2. 3. 4. BS 1881: Part 203, Recommendations for measurement of the velocity of ultrasonic pulses in concrete, London, 1986. J H Bungey, S G Millard, M G Grantham, Testing of concrete in structures, 4 ed. Taylor & Francis, 2006. ACI Committee 224. Causes, evaluation, and repair of cracks in concrete structures, ACI 224.1R-07. American Concrete Institute, 2007. M J Sansalone, J Lin, W B Street, Determining the depth of surface-openings cracks using impact-generated stress waves and time-of-flight techniques, ACI Materials Journal. V. 95. No. 2, 1998. M Goueygou, O Abrahan, J-F Lataste, A comparative study of two non-destructive testing methods to assess near-surface mechanical damage in concrete structures, NDT&E International. 41, 2008. S W Shin, J Zhu, J Min, J S Popovics, Crack depth determination in concrete using energy transmission of surface waves, ACI Materials. Vol. 105. No. 5, 2008. Y-F Chang, C-Y Wang, A 3-D image detection method of a surface opening crack in concrete using ultrasonic transducer arrays, Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation. Vol. 16. No. 4, 1997. I O Yaman, G Inci, N Yesiller, H M Aktan, Ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete using direct and indirect transmission, ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 98. No. 6, 2001.

5.

6. 7.

8.