Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

CHAPTER 7. TRANSPORT MECHANISMS AND REFERENCE TESTS

L. Fernndez Luco (1), M. Fischli (2) and J. Podvoiskis (3)
(1) Instituto Eduardo Torroja de Ciencias de la Construccin, Serrano Galvache 4, 28033
Madrid, Spain
(2) Proceq S.A., Ringstrasse 2, Postfach 336, CH-8603 Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
(3) Elcometer Instruments Ltd, Edge Lane, Manchester M43 6BU, United Kingdom

7.1

Introduction

Failure to achieve the specified concrete cover to steel reinforcement is probably the
greatest single factor influencing the premature deterioration of reinforced concrete.
The protective capacity of a given concrete against carbonation or chloride ingress is
broadly related to the square of the cover, so it can be seen that durability performance can be
highly sensitive to deficiencies in cover. Thus, an actual cover of half the specified value
could lead to a reduction in the time to initiation of corrosion of approximately 75 %.
The cover to reinforcement has a large influence on crack width and permissible crack
width may be a determining factor in setting the required cover. Adequate cover is also
required to provide fire resistance and safe transmission of bond forces between
reinforcement and concrete. The required cover is dependent upon the size of reinforcement,
the maximum size of aggregate in the concrete, the exposure conditions and the type and
quality of the concrete.
7.2

Specification of cover

Cover can be specified by a nominal value (BS8110, BS5400) or the minimum value (DIN
1045, UNE ENV 1992-1-1:1993 Eurocode 2).
When a nominal value is specified, the design of depth of cover is intended to all steel
reinforcement, including links and stirrups and it is the dimension used in design and
indicated on the drawings. The actual cover should never be less than nominal cover minus a
pre-established tolerance. Fig. 7-1 from [7.1] represents nominal cover for different
international codes (by 1982) and the positive and negative tolerances for an indoor building
slab made of a 20 MPa concrete.

133

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Fig. 7-1: Nominal cover from different international codes (by 1982).
As is the case for any measurable parameter, there is a tendency towards the use of a
stochastic approach, specifying cover to reinforcement in terms of a characteristic value,
similar to that currently used for compressive strength. The characteristic minimum cover
could be defined as the depth of cover below which no more than 5 % of all cover is expected
to fall. The lowest cover (the absolute minimum depth of cover acceptable) should also be
specified.
As an example, the July 1999 Draft of the European Standard for Concrete Structures ENV
1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures) states (for external exposure classes):
the minimum cover is defined as the 5 % fractile value. This complies with an allowance
in design for tolerances c = 15 mm. For interior components of exposure class XC1 steel
corrosion is less important and therefore the 10 % fractile value applies corresponding to an
allowance in design for tolerances c = 10 mm.
7.3

Achievement in practice

Many studies have shown that the distribution of cover achieved in practice does not
usually meet the expectations of the designer having established a nominal cover specification
with a tolerance of minus 5 mm. It can be assumed that the cover achieved follows a normal
distribution with the average cover close to the specified nominal. The range of the
distribution is, however, greater than required with a significant proportion of the actual cover
less than the nominal value minus 5 mm. A recent BRE (British Research Establishment)
study [7.2] showed this proportion to be on average 6 % over 25 sites surveyed but varied

134

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

widely from 0 % to 38 %. Fig. 7-2 shows the average distribution of cover to reinforcement
measured.

Relative frequency
% cumulative

(%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

<
<
>
<
Spec - Spec - Spec - Spec
10 mm 5 mm 5 mm + 5
mm

>
Spec
+5
mm

>
Spec
+ 10
mm

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
< Spec < Spec > Spec < Spec > Spec > Spec
- 10 - 5 mm - 5 mm + 5
+5
+ 10
mm
mm
mm
mm

Fig. 7-2: Average distribution of cover to reinforcement from 25 sites [7.2].

Gross deficiencies in cover are often the result of major errors, which may originate in
design or execution but which are not part of the normal distribution. Examples of this type of
defect may be caused by poor detailing or bar scheduling errors.
Examination of examples of cover deficiencies has shown that probably about half the
number of defects are attributable to the site operatives. Many of the problems leading to
insufficient cover are related to defects in design, detailing or supply of materials (e.g. steel
bending) and can probably only be solved by tackling them at their roots. These types of
problems are unrelated to the required level of cover and thus cannot be solved by specifying
increased cover.
7.4

Cover to reinforcement testing

Performance testing of cover, in practice, is restricted to direct measurements on the

structure prior to concrete placement and non-destructive measurements on the hardened
concrete, for compliance with the specification. Tolerances for reinforcement location at an
inspection stage, prior to the concrete placement, may need to be different from those which
apply after the concrete has been placed, to allow for the effects of the settlement and form
displacement.
Some contracts require the constructor to provide evidence that the cover is as specified
and usually this requirement will be addressed through a covermeter survey. In this context,
the covermeter survey is used as a conformity check and, in itself, is usually performed too
late in the construction process to have any influence on the achievement of the specified
cover. Indeed, it is preferable to eliminate potential defects prior to concrete placement.
NDT to examine cover deal with different parameters, such as thickness of concrete cover,
size of rebars of the first layer, number of layers and location of rebars.

135

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Most of the developed methods rely on the different behaviour of concrete and steel with
respect to electromagnetic waves, but they differ in the frequency and type of wave they emit
and register. The information given is dependent on the particular geometry of the
reinforcement. Table 7-2 summarises the type of available equipment.
Table 7-2: NDT test methods to assess location of reinforcement and cover.
Reinforcement type / geometry
Steel mesh Multi-layered Cable ducts
X
x (1)
--X
x
x
X
x
x (2)
X
--x
(x)
--x
(x)
--?
x
x (1)
---

Single bar
Test Method
Covermeter
x
X-Ray / Gamma-ray
x
EMR / Radar
x
Inductive termography
x
Conductive termography
(x)
Residual magnetism
(x)
Eddy current
x
(x) Further development is needed
(?) Feature is ignored at present but may theoretically be applied.
(1) Only for special cases, where great spacing between layers is present.
(2) Size of reinforcement bar is great compared to that of 1st and 2nd layers.
Note: Bore-hole probe is not considered as it is a partially destructive test.

From Table 7-2, it can be seen that X-Ray and -Ray and EMR/Radar are the only
methods capable to handle all the situations. In most cases, the application of these methods is
not useful because of economic reasons and the necessary precautions against radiation.
Newly developed application procedures, suitably automated, may significantly reduce cost
while specific designed interpretation software increases the accuracy of the data obtained
[7.3][7.4].
Thus, electromagnetic cover-measuring devices (named covermeters, rebar locators or
pachometers) can be considered as a suitable substitute. As far as durability is concerned, it
is the thickness of the cover to the outer layer of reinforcement that is mostly required.

7.5

Covermeters

All covermeters are electromagnetic in operation. The search head contains one or more
coils carrying a time-varying electric current and this generates a time-varying magnetic field,
which propagates in all directions but mainly towards the metal target. Fig. 7-3 shows
different alternatives for coils and their respective spatial primary magnetic fields.

136

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Fig. 7-3: Different coil-core assembly and shapes for the magnetic field.
This primary field reacts with the electrical and/or magnetic properties of the target, which
responds to it by either modifying the primary field or, as a more general and more accurate
description, generating a secondary magnetic field. One way or the other, the effect links back
into the coils in the search head (sometimes the same coil and sometimes a different one) and
induces an electrical voltage in the receiver coil(s).
The signal received will increase with increasing bar size and decrease with increasing bar
distance (cover). By making certain assumptions, the instrument can be calibrated to convert
signal strength to distance and hence to indicate depth of cover.
Beyond this basic similarity, there is a wide range of different variations used:
number of coils (one, two or three),
shape (spatial agent) of the primary magnetic field,
frequency of the transmitter,
waveform transmitted (sinusoidal or pulsed),
dominant target property responded to (magnetic permeability or electrical
conductivity),
whether the head coil(s) have a magnetic core or are air-cored, and
the electronics used to separate the received voltage (very weak,) from the potentially
much larger voltages present in the search coil, even in the absence of any metal target.

137

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Although all these factors can affect the sensitivity to any one particular target, the last
factor is probably the most important, as it determines the stability or zero-drift (zero-point)
of the instrument; if the zero-point is unstable, high sensitivity will never be achieved, no
matter how the other factors are optimised.
The following paragraphs are aimed at analysing the operational basics of different
covermeters, as well as identifying different factors that may affect the measurement of depth
of cover.
7.5.1 Magnetic Reluctance Technique
The covermeter was first developed in 1955 at the (then) C&CA (Cement and Concrete
Association). The principle then remained virtually unchanged for nearly thirty years, and it is
still found in use today. A U-shaped core of iron lamination or ferrite is energised by lowfrequency AC in one winding, and the signal coupled to a second winding (mutual
inductance) is measured, using a bridge circuit to monitor changes. The physical quantity
being inferred is the reluctance of the magnetic path, which is determined predominantly by
the magnetic properties of the core, and only affected to a lesser extent by the presence of
nearby magnetic steel (See Fig. 7-4).
Since the magnetic properties of the core are inevitably temperature-sensitive (and even
affected by the magnetic fields, including the Earths), zero-drift is as much a problem as in
any other balanced technique.
windings
ferromagnetic
core
magnetic field

rebar
concrete
Magnetic Reluctance

Fig. 7-4: Covermeter based upon magnetic reluctance

The signal is a maximum when the head is aligned with the bar, increasing approximately
but not exactly linearly with bar size and decreasing rapidly with distance (cover). Fig. 7-5
shows different possibilities for a directional head over a single bar.

138

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Fig. 7-5: Different situations for a directional head located over a single bar
The relationship between signal strength and cover is not a simple power law but
sometimes can be approximated by an inverse-fourth to inverse-sixth law, depending on the
applied methodology.
As it is really a measurement of small changes in the characteristics of the core (the signal
is continuously present and only increases slightly with the bar presence), it is strongly
affected by variations in the core due to e.g. temperature changes and external magnetic fields
(even the earths field), and also by magnetic aggregates in concrete.
7.5.2 Electrical Conductivity technique
A magnetic field (of similar shape to that above) of higher frequency and using air-cored
coils is generated. This induces eddy currents to flow round the circumference of the bar, and
the magnitude and phase of the eddy currents will affect the loading on the coil and thus its
impedance, producing a signal in the head, as can be seen in Fig. 7-6. Pulse techniques
separate the received signal from the transmitted one; there is no signal in the absence of the
bar, which provides stability to the technique. As always, signal increases with bar size and
decreases with depth of cover.
search coils

magnetic field

eddy current
rebar
concrete
Electrical conductivity
Fig. 7-6: Principle of covermeters based on electrical conductivity

139

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.5.3

Factors affecting eddy current response

A number of factors will affect the eddy current response from a probe. It is the elimination of
undesired responses that forms the basis of much of the technology of eddy current
inspection. The main factors are:

Material conductivity: the conductivity of the material has a very direct effect on the eddy
current flow: the greater the conductivity of the material, the greater the flow of eddy
currents on the surface. Indeed, conductivity is often measured by an eddy current
technique.

Magnetic Permeability: This may be described as the ease with which a material can be
magnetised. For non-ferrous metals and for austenitic stainless steel the permeability is the
same as that of free space, i. e. the relative permeability (mr) is 1 (one). For ferrous
metals, such as reinforcing bars, the value of mr may be several hundreds, having a
significant influence on the eddy current response. In addition, it is not uncommon for the
magnetic permeability to vary greatly within a metal part due to localised stresses, heating
effects, etc.

Frequency: eddy current response is greatly affected by the test frequency chosen.

Geometry: geometrical features such as curvature, edges, groove, etc. will affect the eddy
current response.

Proximity: the closer a probe coil is to the surface the greater will be the effect on that
coil. This has two main effects: the lift-off signal as the probe is moved on and off the
surface and a reduction in the sensitivity as the coil-to-object spacing increases.

7.6

Determination of cover depth with covermeters

Instruments are normally internally calibrated to directly display the cover to a bar of
known diameter, and also sometimes include provision for the indication of original signal
strength to allow the user to draw up their own conversion graphs for bar-sizes not included
by the manufacturer.
As has been explained above, the signal received is dependent upon the bar diameter and
the depth of cover, so theoretically there are infinite combinations of diameters and covers
corresponding to a determined signal (with the larger diameters being associated with larger
covers, and vice versa). Fortunately, reinforcement is available in well-defined sizes, thus
reducing the possibilities to just a few choices.
Since the signal varies more rapidly with cover than with diameter, a discrepancy between
assumed and actual diameter will produce a small error in indicated cover, which may or may
not be acceptable.
To resolve the ambiguities, more information is required, typically at least one further
measurement on the same bar but with some difference in the conditions of measurement.
Applicable methods are described in the following paragraphs (Note: some of them may be
out of date with latest-generation testing equipment).

140

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.6.1 The Spacer method - differences

This is one of the oldest methods and is described in BS 1881:204. [7.16] A non-metallic
spacer of known thickness is placed between the surface of the concrete and the measuring face of
the covermeter search probe. A weaker signal is received, corresponding to a second list of
increasing values of possible covers. A third list is tabulated containing the differences in covers
from the first two lists; the values obtained increase with diameter, but at a much lower rate than
the absolute values of cover. The list entry where the difference is equal (or nearest) to the spacer
thickness is then taken as the actual value of bar diameter and the corresponding cover can be read
off the first list. Table 7-3 shows the calculations and they are plotted in Fig. 7-7.
Table 7-3: readings and calculations for measuring depth of cover by spacer method
Setting of
diameter control
6
7
8
10
12
16
20
25
32

Indicated
cover
(direct)
34
36
38
40
42
45
47
49
52

Indicated
cover
(spaced)
61
63
66
69
72
75
78
81
85

Difference
(col 2 - col 3)
27
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
33

Note: Spacer
thickness is 30 mm

mm (cover)
60
Spaced readings minus
spacer thickness

55
50
45

direct readings (without

spacer)

40

Actual conditions
Bar diameter: 16 mm
Cover to reinforcement: 45 mm

35
30
25
5

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

Bar diameter

Fig. 7-7: Determination of cover to reinforcement and assessment of bar diameter by the
spacer method calculating differences between readings.

141

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.6.2 The spacer method - ratio

This method is an evolution of the traditional spacer method and was described in 1993
(5). A spacer of known thickness is used as before and values of direct and spaced signal
strength are recorded. The ratio between spaced to direct readings is calculated. This ratio,
obviously less than one, increases with cover. The ratio also increases with bar diameter, but
it is mainly a function of the distance from the surface of the concrete to the centre of the bar.
Thus, once the reference curve has been established by laboratory measurements, a simplified
site procedure is made available whereby a spaced and a direct reading are taken.
A graph such as Fig. can be used to read off this distance to centre, corresponding to the ratio
observed. By regression techniques two lines including 80 % of all measurements for a given spacer
are plotted [7.6] The width of this band represents the probable error of any one experimental
measurement and the same probable error will apply to any single measurement during a site task.

Experimental data
Signal spaced: 0.085
Signal direct: 0.720
Ratio: 0.118
From Fig. 7-8:
Distance to centre of bar
Min: 50
Max: 55
Fig. 7-8: Graph to convert
direct-spaced readings ratio
to distance to centre of bar,
for a given spacer.

A list of diameters and increasing covers corresponding to the direct reading is made and a
second list is prepared by subtracting half of each bar diameter from the distance to centre
to yield a list of decreasing values, as shown in Table 7-4. The entry for the diameter for
which the covers in both lists (table 7-3 and 7-4) are nearly equal is taken as the actual value
for diameter and cover. The distance minus radius has a 2 mm error limit, but the crossing is
not ambiguous, as in the previous method. Fig. 7-9 highlights the differences between cover
and distance to centre as bar diameter varies.

142

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Head of covermeter

d1

Head of covermeter

d2

c1

c2
d

Fig: 7-9: Distinction between cover and distance to centre as bar diameter varies.
Table 7-4: Estimating cover and bar-diameter with the spaced to direct signal ratio method.
Setting of
Indicated
cover
diameter
control
(direct)
6
34
7
36
8
38
10
40
12
42
16
45
20
47
25
49
32
52
Indicated cover: 45 mm
Bar diameter estimated: 16 mm

Radius

Cover +
radius

3
3,5
4
5
6
8
10
12,5
16

37,0
39,5
42,0
45,0
48,0
53,0
57,0
61,5
68,0

Distance to
center from
Fig. 7-8

50 to 55

Bar congestion, by increasing the signal strength of the spaced measurement, does increase
the deduced bar diameter and distance to centre; but when half the over-estimated diameter is
subtracted from the over-estimated distance, the residual error in deduced cover is usually
negligible.
This method can be used with any covermeter with a linear signal scale. Although this
method yields a more reliable value for diameter than the previous variant, its most accurate
application is in the determination of the cover to a bar of unknown size, its diameter being a
secondary result.
Another way of visualising the improvement of this method can be seen from Table 7-5
and Fig. 7-10, when compared to the corresponding figure from the Spacer-differences
method. Data were reproduced from [7.5].
Spaced signal strength: 0.085 v
Direct signal strength: 0.720 v
Ratio: 0.118
Distance to centre of bar: 52 mm (from Graph shown in Fig. 7-8)

143

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Values corresponding to the third column are obtained by subtracting bar radius from
distance to centre of bar, obtained from the calibration graph.
Table 7-5: Data for graphic assessment of bar diameter and cover
Setting of
diameter
control
6
7
8
10
12
16
20
25
32

Indicated cover
(direct)

Graphically determined
distance to centre minus
radius
49
48,5
48
47
46
44
42
40
36

34
36
38
40
42
45
47
49
52

55
Values calculated from graph:
distance m inus radius

mm (cover)

50
45

direct readings
(w ithout spacer)

40
35
Actual conditions
Bar diameter: 16 mm
Cover to reinforcement: 45 mm

30
25
6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

Bar diameter

Fig. 7-10: Graphic for the assessment of bar diameter and cover to reinforcement
7.6.3 Orthogonal Iterative Method [7.7]
As originally described in 1977, two measurements of signal strength are taken, first with
the probe axis aligned parallel to the bar, and then with the probe rotated by 90 (orthogonal),
as it is shown in Fig. 7-11. Two graphs are then used, one for each orientation, both
containing a family of curves of cover versus signal strength for every diameter. As in the
other cases, the intersection of both lines would give an appropriate indication of cover and
diameter. This method can be considered as an intermediate step to Method described in
7.6.4).

144

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Fig. 7-11: Parallel (over the bar) and orthogonal positions of the head (directional)
An alternative description can be given as follows: A measurement is taken in the
conventional way, and a list of increasing diameters and increasing covers is tabulated. A
second measurement is taken with the search probe rotated by 90, and a second list is
tabulated.
The covers in the second list increase more rapidly than in the first list. The entry for the
diameter for which the covers in both lists are (most nearly) equal is taken as the actual value
of diameter and cover.
As the two lists are both in ascending order, the entry for which the covers are most nearly
equal can still be subject to ambiguity. Bar congestion and particularly the proximity of
transverse bars will increase orthogonal signal strength and produce unreliable results
(overestimates of diameter and cover), as can be seen in Fig. 7-12.

Fig. 7-12: Overestimation of diameter and cover when transverse bars are close to head-probe

7.6.4 Orthogonal Signal ratio

This was described in 1995 [7.8] and can be considered as an evolution of the previous
orthogonal method. Two measurements of signal strength are again taken, first with the probe
axis aligned parallel to the bar, and then with the probe rotated by 90 to be at right angles.
The ratio orthogonal to parallel is then calculated. It is found that this ratio depends strongly
upon bar diameter, but is essentially independent of cover, as is indicated in Fig. 7-13. A

145

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

single graph could therefore be used to read off the bar diameter corresponding to an observed
ratio, see Fig. 7-14.
Because the ratio varies rapidly with diameter and bars can be assumed to exist only in a
series of discrete values of diameter, an unambiguous determination of the size of the bar can
be obtained. Then, the covermeter can be used conventionally to assess the cover to a bar of
known diameter.

Figure 7-13: Signal ratio vs cover

Figure 7-14: Tabulation of figure 7.13

Bar congestion, and particularly the proximity of transverse bars, will increase the
orthogonal signal and produce an overestimate of diameter (and hence, cover), as was shown
in Fig. 7-12. A degree of compensation for this effect can be obtained by zeroing the
instrument with the search probe in the orthogonal orientation but not over any bars; this
usually results in over-compensation, and so can be used to place confidence limits on the
deduced results.
This method can be used with any covermeter with a directional search probe and linear signal
strength scale; the preparation of the necessary calibration table is a relatively simple matter.
This method allows to determine bar diameter directly (as opposed to deducing it
indirectly), and is therefore accurate enough for measuring bar size (assuming the level of bar
congestion permits).
7.6.5 Transverse profile method
This was described in 1995 [7.9] with both computer and manual implementations. The
search probe is scanned sideways in a traverse across the centre-line of the bar. A note is
taken of the signal strength when the probe is directly over the bar. The concrete surface is
marked at the points either side at which the signal strength has reduced to half the maximum.
The distance between these two points is the width at half height (see Fig. 7-15). This
profile width can be shown to be a function of the distance from the surface of the concrete to
the centre of the bar (and of the spatial characteristics of the field of the probe).

146

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

The reported data confirm that the shape and intensity of the received signal is dependent
upon the depth of cover and almost independent of bar size.
The distance to centre can then be read off a single graph of distance vs. width, such as that
in Fig. 7-16. The meter is then used in the usual way to find a pair of diameter and cover
values such that the cover plus radius equals the distance to centre.

Figure 7-15: Traverse profile

Figure 7-16: Profile width vs distance to centre

The deduced cover is the more reliable result, with diameter being a secondary result
derived from it.
Bar congestion will result in an over-estimate of distance, cover and diameter; but a
method of compensation for these errors can be achieved by utilising the minimum signal
strength recorded when the probe is midway between neighbouring parallel bars.
This method can be used with any covermeter with a linear signal strength scale; it requires
an appropriate graph for the particular model of covermeter probe to be prepared. Although it
is the most suitable technique for applications involving computer-controlled inspection
robots, its manual implementation is appropriate when the requirement is to determine the
cover to a bar of unknown size.
7.6.6 Other procedures
At the same cover depth bars with larger diameters produce stronger signals than those
with smaller ones. Often both parameters (cover depth and bar size) are unknown. To make it
easier for the user, a bar size can be assumed. The closer this assumed size is to the actual size
the better the accuracy of the cover reading.
7.6.6.1 Measurement of cover depth if bar size is known
If the bar size is known, pre-callibrated instruments with the required conversion curves
are available. All the required conversion curves for the whole bar and cover ranges are stored

147

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

in the instrument. The user just has to set the respective bar size as default and the cover depth
is displayed directly in digital form.
Appropriate microprocessors, not available before 1984, have made these instruments to be
commercially cost-effective. The complete equipment consists of specialised probes for a
small and a large measuring range plus one for the determination of the bar size.
Later models from 1995 are able to store a large number of values. With the help of an
attachable displacement measuring device, position and cover depth of the bars can be stored.
All results can also be downloaded to a PC and presented in a user-friendly manner. New
developed covermeters operate this way, as can be seen at their respective web pages.
7.6.6.2 Measurement of cover depth if bar size is unknown
If the bar size is unknown, the user should try to estimate it before assessing the cover to
reinforcement. Since 1984, a special probe is available which determines the size of a bar in
one measurement [7.10], [7.11].
Coils are arranged at different positions inside the probe. They measure simultaneously the
signals of the rebars. Coils positioned directly above the bar measure strong signals, those
further away, smaller ones. An appropriate calibration procedure performed by the
manufacturer and stored in the unit allows the instrument to calculate the bar size with only
one measurement, displaying it in digital form.
Attention should be paid to the position of the neighbouring bars as they can affect the
readings. They must be located in advance in order to determine a suitable measurement spot,
which gives the most accurate result. The parallel and the transverse bars must be at a
minimum distance from the measuring point.
7.6.6.3 Universal probe
A further development of the previous 3 probes represents a combination of the different
functions in the universal probe [7.12]. Several coils are placed inside this probe. Some are
used for the small measuring range, others for the large measuring range. A third combination
of coils measures the signals for the determination of the diameter.
Switching between small and large measuring ranges can be done at a keystroke. For the
determination of the bar size, the surrounding area of the bar to be measured must be checked.
After locating all bars the probe can be placed at the appropriate position. At a single
keystroke, all required signals are measured and the diameter is calculated and displayed.
Another new feature of the instrument which is on the market since 2001 is a function that
eliminates the influence of parallel bars on both cover reading and determination of bar
diameter, and the need for determination of the bar diameter to assess the cover-toreinforcement as well. A microprocessor in the instrument replaces all previously required
diagrams and tables. Once the user has determined and input the spacing of the bars, cover
reading and bar size are automatically corrected.
As in the previous instruments, an attachable cart to carry the probe and measure the
displacements can be coupled to the instrument, thus making the procedure more userfriendly and cost-effective.
7.6.7 Decay time constant
This method, as described in [7.13], is only applicable to instruments using the pulseinduction eddy current technique to locate and measure stainless-steel bars. Readings are

148

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

taken from a single probe in a single position on the concrete (over the bar); the electronic
unit measures the decay time-constant of the signal, which is a function of the bar diameter
and steel conductivity, but independent of cover. The variation with steel conductivity
between grades 304 and 316 is much smaller than the variation with diameter, so diameter can
be determined unambiguously, and the grade can also be inferred under some conditions. The
instrument can then be used to measure the cover to a bar of now-known diameter.
This technique can not be applied to high tensile reinforcement, because for magnetic steel,
the decay time constant is essentially independent of diameter; but it does allow magnetic
steel to be recognised as such.
Neighbouring bars of the same diameter may increase the strength of the received signal
but will not alter its decay time constant; the diameter determination is therefore essentially
immune to effects of bar congestion but the cover indication may be underestimated.
The technique is however undeniably instrument-specific. Determination of diameter (in
situations where the bar size is unknown) is more important with stainless reinforcement than
high-tensile steel because the signal strength varies with bar diameter more rapidly than in the
case of magnetic steel.
7.6.8 Other techniques
7.6.8.1 Leakage Flux Method
The energising field is a steady magnetic field (frequency equals zero) and, unlike the
previous techniques, is applied transverse to the bar. Miniature field sensors (Hall effect or
fluxgate) are used to plot the variation in field strength along the line between the two poles
of the magnet. The magnitude and shape of this plot will be a function of the cover to the bar,
and the shape of the plot has also been observed to depend upon bar diameter. It has been
proposed [7.14] that neural networks can be trained to analyse these plots to deduce bar
diameter.
7.6.8.2 Image Enhancement
If a small probe is scanned in two dimensions across the surface of concrete, and the signal
strength and the position co-ordinates recorded, it is possible to present a graphical image of the
structure of the reinforcement. The simple image so obtained will be blurred, but it is possible to
apply a deconvolution algorithm [7.15] to sharpen the image sufficiently to be able to assess the
diameter of the bars from the image. Unfortunately, the algorithm requires, as a vital parameter,
prior knowledge of the exact cover to the bar(s) being imaged, so this method is not suitable for
investigating completely unknown structures. Further work [7.23] expanded this and showed
the capability of measuring depth and diameter on unknown structures was now possible.
7.7

Accuracy of cover thickness measurement

The importance of achieving an adequate cover to reinforcement can be understood from

different points of view. On the one hand, it is recognised that there is a minimum cover
requirement to protect the reinforcement from corrosion to initiate in a predetermined period.
For this reason, codes and standards define a nominal cover accordingly to the severity of the
environment and strength class of concrete; they may also give positive and negative
tolerances (see Specification of cover).

149

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

In BS 1881 [7.16] references to three different accuracy levels, here referred to as L1 to

L3, can be found:

L1: 2mm or 5%: required under ideal laboratory conditions;

L2: 3mm (8%) (earlier draft only): desirable target for on-site use;
L3: 5mm or 15%: upper limit for on-site use.

Unfortunately, no criteria are given to define "on-site" realistically.

On the other hand, compliance with the specifications can be checked prior to or after
concrete is placed and in both cases, the analysis of the results must include a statistical
approach. It is common practice to assume that covermeter readings follow a normal
distribution, with a mean value C and a variance S2.
This variance can be decomposed in two parts: the variance of the concrete-cover itself and
the variance of the measurement. Applying the rules of error propagation, the variance of the
measurement will be composed by different items: instability of the zero-point, influence of
temperature, erroneous reading, improper positioning of the sensor, effect of neighbouring
bars, etc. [7.16].
In a similar manner, Snell et al., [7.17] consider that the standard deviation of the
measurements can be composed by the statistical variations in cover and the variations due to
the instrument, which may be determined while the instrument is under calibration.
Thus, a complete equation to represent the variance of the measurement can be written as
follows:
S2 = S2c + S2i + S2m
Where
S2: variance of the measurement with the covermeter, considering a normal
distribution
S2c: variance of the cover to reinforcement itself
S2i: variance of the instrument in controlled conditions (laboratory?)
S2m: variance due to variable factors during on site measurements (temperature,
influence of neighbouring bars, human factor, etc.).
A study [7.1] reported that the distribution of the cover to reinforcement can be assumed to
have a normal distribution, with a mean deviation from the nominal value ranging from 1,3
mm to 4,5 mm, and a standard deviation of approximately 1,6 mm to 4.0 mm
According to Fehlhaber and Krogger [7.18], the influence of human factors in the global
variance is too high, in agreement with the BRE findings [7.2] so efforts must be done to
improve this component of the total error.
Taking into account these considerations, proper confidence limits for the cover itself
could be estimated, and then checked against the limits established by codes and standards.

150

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.8

Dependence on external factors

The results obtained may be affected by external factors other than the actual variation on
cover and the intrinsic characteristics of the equipment itself.
Taking into account the general methods described to measure depth of cover, it can be
seen that there is a need to develop a calibration curve for the instrument, where random
errors are considered.
However, systematic errors are not covered by the calibration curve, and can not be
reduced by repeated measurements, so there is a need for them to be discussed.
Variation in the spacer thickness
Any variation in the spacer thickness used for the calibration and the head
manufacturing tolerances may affect the readings. Experiments show that a discrepancy
of 1 mm in spacer thickness leads to an error of about 3 to 4 mm in deduced distance to
centre (of the bar). Similarly, head manufacturing differences of 1 mm may lead to an
error of 2,5 mm in distance to centre when the head is used as its own spacer [7.5]. At
present, manufacturing differences of head thickness are well below the 1 mm.
Effect of neighbouring bars
Usually, covermeters perform perfectly well when measuring cover to an isolated bar.
Actually, all reinforced concrete structures contains multiple bars, so whenever the head
is positioned over any one bar, it is bound to also receive additional signals from
neighbouring bars, as illustrated in Fig. 7-17

Fig. 7.17: Effect of neighbouring parallel bars Resolution is dependent on cover.

The extent to which bar congestion influences cover measurements varies between
different models and manufacturers, and depends on a number of factors, chiefly those
associated with the design and geometry of the search head. A general rule of thumb,
described by Krell [7-19] suggests that the minimum value of the ratio of centres-pitch
to cover depth for reliable results is about 1.5: 1. Some experiments carried out by
Alldred [7-5] confirmed this, showing that the measurement of the cover to a bar of

151

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

unknown size can be performed down to a pitch-to-depth ratio of 1,6 with an error
marginally greater than that permitted by BS1881:204.
Since 2001, there is an instrument [7.12] that can detect parallel bars in the first layer at
a ratio of centres-pitch to cover depth at about 1,3:1. It can also make a correction for
the additional signals from neighbouring parallel bars. This feature was developed for
the measurement of the cover depth and for the estimation of the bar size. The
correction can be used for a centres-pitch of 50 mm or larger. When centres-pitch is
more than 200 mm, the influence of neighbouring bars is negligible.
This property should be included in the manufacturer data sheet as resolution of paired bars.
Lapped bars / paired bars
These give a larger signal than a single bar, so cover is underestimated. Lengthwise
scanning will possibly identify them; if cover is to be assessed, assume a diameter twice
that of a single bar. In practice, bars and concrete surface may not always be very
straight and parallel to each other, thus resulting in different readings as well.
Relative humidity of concrete (degree of saturation)
Water content of concrete does not affect the readings of a covermeter. Even those
which respond to metallic conductivity remain accurate through water, even sea-water,
as the instrument does not respond to ionic conductivity.
This principle can be extended to requirements to locate reinforcement and measure
concrete cover under water, or on bridge piers or jetties, for example. Special care
should be taken as the equipment might be weatherproof but not water-immersible.
Concrete composition
It is well known that some aggregates can exhibit magnetic properties or be conductive,
affecting the readings. It is always advisable to perform a calibration. Some mineral
additions (like fly ash) may also modify the measurements [7.20].
Andrade et al [7.21] found that the use of high-alumina cement in concrete can be
identified by means of covermeters because of its lower magnetic reluctance.
Effect of temperature extremes
Temperature may affect the electronics of the covermeter, although the technique itself
may not be affected. There are some indications that low temperatures are worse than
high ones, and the effects may start to be noticeable as the temperature drops below
about 10C [7.22] or even 0C [7.12]. The convenient operating temperature range
should be stated in the data sheet provided by the manufacturer.
Proximity of the end of the bar
Measurements performed at a close proximity from the end of a bar may alter the
results, depending on the instrument and search-head design. As a general rule,
measurement of the cover to reinforcement should be avoided for positions located
close to the end of a bar.

152

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.9

Need for calibration

Calibration of the equipment is always needed for some of the factors that may influence
the results to be taken into account.
There are two approaches: a basic one consists of drilling little holes over some detected
bars and measuring the cover to reinforcement in a direct way. With a sufficient number of
data, a proper calibration curve estimated vs. measured can be made.
Whenever it is not convenient to damage the concrete surface, completely non-destructive
calibration procedures must be carried out using the above described methods. A statistic
analysis of the results would give suitable confidence limits for the calibration.
7.10

Sensitivity

As a general rule, sensitivity decreases as the cover increases and the bar-diameter
decreases. But very shallow covers may also lead to errors, the signal being too strong.
There are different ways of improving or adapting the sensitivity to the actual conditions:

by mean of a knob to pre-select the supposed bar diameter,

by using a suitable spacer (when the signal is too strong) or
by changing the search head (some equipment include more than one head).
by selecting the appropriate measuring range of the search head.

Usually, the data sheet from the manufacturer indicates the maximum depth of the cover to
reinforcement that can be assessed for any given head.
7.11

Equipment available - Duration and manpower

Duration of a cover measurement depends on different factors. As a general rule, the better
the estimation needed, the more the number of points to be measured. Some equipment
includes a built-in microprocessor, allowing direct readings of cover to be made, without
further calculations.
The chosen method may also strongly determine the duration of the whole process. Some
manufacturers offer models that can measure the displacement of the probe. By use of a cart
that can be attached to the probe covers of bars and their position can be detected and stored.
This makes it possible to scan large areas to get an image of the cover depth of the
reinforcement.
As far as manpower is concerned, all commercial equipment is designed for the test to be
carried out by one person, and do not depend on external sources of energy.
7.12

Commercially available models

As models and manufacturers may vary, it would be advisable to check web-pages to

search for up-to-date information on models and features. The web page addresses of the
main manufacturers are listed below, in alphabetical order.

153

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

www.elcometer.com
www.hilti.com
www.kolectric.com
www.ndtjames.com
www.proceq.com

References
7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6
7.7

7.8

7.9

7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13

Morgan, P. R., Ng, T. E., Smith, N. H. M. and Base, G. D. How accurately can
reinforcing steel be placed? Filed Tolerance Measurements Compared to Codes,
Concrete International, October 1982, V. 4, No. 10, pp. 54-65.
Clark, L. A., Shammas-Toma, M. G., Seymour, D. E., Pallet P. F., and Marsh, B. K.
How can we get the cover we need? Institution of Structural Engineers, October
1997.
Helmerich, R., Niederleithinger, E., Non-destructive techniques for the condition
assessment of railway bridges, Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofiting
Alexander et. al (eds), Taylor and Francis Group, 2006, pp. 163-165.
Barnes, C.L., Trottier, J.F. Nondestructive evaluation of concrete cover layer
adequacy for corrosion protection, Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofiting
Alexander et. al (eds), Taylor and Francis Group, 2006, pp. 168-169.
Alldred J. C. An improved method for measuring reinforcing bars of unknown
diameter in concrete using a Covermeter, Proceedings International Conference
NDT in Civil Engineering, Liverpool, UK, 1993, Vol. 2, pp 767-788.
Protovale (Oxford) Ltd. Application Note N 1: Alternative mathematical method
for determining cover (and diameter) when the bar size is unknown.
Tam, C. T, Lai, L. N. and Pam. P. W. Orthogonal detection technique for
determination of size and cover of embedded reinforcement, Journal Inst.
Engineers, Malaysia, 22, 6, 1977.
Alldred, J.C. Improvement to the orthogonal method for determining re-bar
diameter using a covermeter, Conf. Proc. Structural Faults & Repair, London, 1995,
Vol. 2, pp 11-15.
Alldred, J.C., Chua, J. and Chamberlain D.A. Determination of reinforcing bar
diameter and cover by analysing traverse profiles from a covermeter, Proc.
International Symposium on NDT in Civil Engineering, Berlin, 1995, Vol 1, pp. 721728.
Proceq, Profometer 3 (Brochure)
Proceq, Profometer 4 (Brochure)
Proceq, Profometer 5 (Brochure)
Alldred, J.C., Development of covermeters for stainless reinforcement two
successful approaches, Proc. Conf. Concrete in the Service of Mankind, Dundee,
1996, Vol. 3, Appropriate Concrete Technology, pp. 391 400.

154

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

7.14

7.15

7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20

7.21

7.22
7.23

Hentschel, D., Dobman, G., Fiedler, U. and Pridphl, W., Evaluation of concrete
cover thickness and steel bar diameter: interpretation of leakage flux locus curves
with neural networks vs. analytical methods, Proc. Int. Symposium Non-Destructive
Testing in Civil Engineering, Berlin 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 729-735.
Gaydecki, P. A., Glossop, K., Burdekin, F. M. and John, D.G. An interactive
scanning system for imaging metal reinforcing components in concrete: hardware
and image enhancements, Conf. Proc. Structural Faults & Repair, London 1995,
Vol. 2, pp. 63-68.
BS 1881:204:1988 Recommendations on the Use of Electromagnetic Cover
Measuring Devices
Snell, L. M., Wallace, N. and Rutledge, R. Locating reinforcement in concrete,
Concrete International, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 1986, pp. 19-23.
Fehlhaber, T. and Kroggel O. NDE Techniques to examine concrete cover,
Darmstadt Concrete, Vol. 6, 1991, pp. 137-144.
Krell, J. and Deichsel, T., Bestimmung der Betondeckung der Bevehrung am
Baauwerk, Beton 37 (6), 1987, pp. 235-240.
Farrel, Ch. W., Hover, K. C. and Plumley, P. W. Natural remanent magnetization of
portland cement concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 21, 1991, pp. 489495.
Andrade, C., Lozano, J.L., Segui, V, Vicens, E and Hernandez, E. Identification of
high alumina cement in concrete by the use of the pachometer (in Spanish),
Informes de la Construccin, IETCC, No. 419, pp. 65-70.
Protovale (Oxford) Ltd. Effects of temperature extremes, Application note # T15.
Queks Gaydecki, P., Zaid, M., Miller, G., Fernandez, B. Three dimensional image
rendering of steel reinforcing bars using curvilinear models applied to orthogonal
line scans taken by an inductive sensor, NDT&E International 36 (2003), pp 7-18.

155