International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 222-227, 2013 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsrk ISSN: 2322-4541; 2013 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2013-p222-227

Full Length Research Paper Assessing Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Structure Using Acoustic Emission
Alireza Panjsetooni1,2,*, Norazura Muhamad Bunnori1, Tze Liang Lau1
1

School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Seri Ampangan, Seberang Perai Selatan, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia 2 Bakhtar institute of higher education, Ilam, Iran *Corresponding Author: E-mail: Alireza5civil@yahoo.com
Received 15 May 2013; Accepted 18 June 2013

Abstract. Acoustic emission (AE) is an important nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technique used in the field of structural engineering. In this study AE technique with a new approach was employed to investigate the process of fracture formation in reinforced concrete structure. A number of reinforced concrete (RC) frames were tested under cyclic load and were simultaneously monitored using AE. The AE test data using intensity analysis method were analyzed. This is based on calculating two values called the historic index (HI) and severity (Sr). The results showed that HI and Sr increase with increasing of loading cycle and trend of HI and Sr showed that these parameters are able to indicate the levels of damage. Also, the results indicated that AE can be considered as a viable method to investigate the process of fracture formation in reinforced concrete structure. Key words: Reinforced concrete; Acoustic emission; nondestructive evaluation technique; AE source location; Intensity analysis

1. INTRODUCTION The AE technique is one of the non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques that have been considered as the prime candidate for damage monitoring in loaded structures and structural health (Surgeon and Wevers, 1999). This technique is a useful testing tool for examination of the behavior of materials deforming under stress real time(Nair and Cai, 2010). AE technique have been used in the field of reinforced concrete structure for investigation process of damage in both case local and global monitoring (Panjsetooni and Bunnori, 2013). The primary sources of acoustic emission in concrete structures are numerous and include cracking of the concrete, rubbing of crack surfaces during crack closure, de-bonding of the reinforcing steel from the surrounding concrete (Pollock, 1981). The main goal of AE monitoring in structures is to detect, source, and assess the intensity of damage(Holford and Lark, 2005). AE data can be evaluated by means of several methods. The Intensity analysis is a significant method for analysis of AE signals. This technique has already been success- fully applied to FRP and metal piping system evaluations(Nair and Cai, 2010) . Also, a few works was found that IA method has been used for evaluation of the RC beam such as (Golaski et al., 2002)and (Proverbio, 2011) In main objective of this current study was evaluation of damage using Intensity analysis method.

Commonly, previous works focused on local evaluation of RC beams using Intensity analysis method. However in this research, suitably of Intensity analysis method for global evaluation of RC frame was investigated. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Intensity analysis Intensity analysis (IA) evaluates the structural significance of an AE event and the level of deterioration of a structure by calculating two values called the historic index (HI) and severity (Sr)(Proverbio, 2011). The HI compares the signal strength of the most recent emissions to the signal strength of all emissions (Degala et al., 2009). Also, HI a measure of the changes in signal strength throughout the test which is an analytical method for estimating the changes of slop in cumulative signal strength against time(Proverbio, 2011) . The Severity index, which is defined as the J largest signal strength emissions received at a sensor (Degala et al., 2009). HI is calculated using the following formulas (Blessing et al., 1992). HI= {N/ (N-K)} { (1)

Where N is number of hits up to and including time, K is an empirical constant and is signal

222

Panjsetooni et al. Assessing Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Structure Using Acoustic Emission

strength of ith hits. K is constant based on material. For concrete, N<50, K=0 ; 51<N<200, K=N-30; 201<N<500, K=0.85N; and N>501, K=N-75 as well as J valus for N<50, J=o and N>50 J=50 (Golaski et al., 2002) . ( ) Where, is the signal strength of the hit, J is an empirical constant based on material and based on magnitude of signal strength.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 3.1. Material details A series of experiments was conducted on reinforced concrete (RC) frame. A total of five RC frame specimens were built. The dimension of RC frames, were length of 2000mm, height of 1000mm and crocs section of 250x250 mm. The water to cement ratio was 0.5 and the material proportions were 1:3:4:0.6 by weight of cement, sand, aggregate and water respectively. The average compressive strength of concrete at 28 days was 240Mpa.Figure 1 shows the detail and dimension of RC frame specimens.

Fig. 1: Detail and dimension of RC frame specimen

3.2. Test monitoring using AE technique A total of five RC frame specimens described earlier were tested under loading cycle. In order to perform acoustic emission monitoring, an eight channel AE system (DISP-8PCI) manufactured by Physical Acoustics Corporation (PAC) was employed. Four R6I sensors with the resonance frequency of approximately 60 kHz were used. Figure 2 shows sensor arrangements for the three point bending test. The AE systems hardware was set up was threshold level of 45dB for all channels in order to avoid the possibility of noise effect. The cyclic load pattern was determined. The load applied at one at mid span of the RC frame specimens. The load was applied in 10kN steps at mid span of RC frame. The load was applied from 0.5kN to maximum of each loading cycle (10kN increment) and held constant for one minute. Then, the load was unloaded from maximum of each loading cycle to 0.5kN and was held for 2 minutes. The test was monitored by AE throughout the test. The measurement include load, mid span deflection and

AE data were recorded continuously during the three point bending test. 4. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Responses of test RC frame to cyclic loading The RC frames described early were tested under loading cycle. Figure 3 shows a typical cracks development in the RC frames specimen. The behaviour of all RC frames under loading cycle can be divided into seven stages of failure namely:(I)Microcracking at the mid span of RC frame (II) First flexural cracks at mid span of RC frame (III) distributed flexural cracks at the mid span of RC frame (IV) first cracks at the BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTION ZONES (V)Distributed cracks at BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTION ZONES (VI) Damage localization at the BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTION ZONE (VII) Failure at beam-column connection zone.

223

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 222-227, 2013

Fig. 2: Sensor arrangements for the three point bending test

Fig. 3: Photographs of development of cracks in RC frame specimen

4.2. Intensity Analysis The AE data obtained in test was used in order to carry out Intensity Analysis (IA). The maximum of Severity (Sr) and Historic Index (HI) for all channels were calculated. These results are summarized in Table 1 and 2. Also, Figure 4 shows the maximum value of Sr and HI against loading cycle number for a sample of RC frame specimen. Data points shows that the maximum Sr and HI are increased with increasing of damage. Data points show that in stage microcracks, initiate cracks and distribution of cracks in mid-span of beam that HI is low level and without significant changes. Also, data points indicate that in stage initiate cracks and distribution of cracks in beam column connection, HI is high level with significant changes. HI is a measure of the changes in signal strength throughout the test(Proverbio, 2011) . Also, a significant increase in HI can indicate the onset of more serious structural damage as the loading

progresses (Lovejoy, 2008). Furthermore, The AE knees may be used to identify possible damage mechanisms and to locate the onset of failure (Gostautas et al., 2005) The results of this study show that early stage of failure that load cycles is less than 50% ultimate load, HI havent significant change. Also, the results indicated that is in stage in stage initiate in beam column until specimen failure that that load cycles is more than 50% ultimate load, HI have significant changes. Thus, using the interpretation described above it is clear to see that HI can indicate serious structural damage in RC frame. With respect to Sr that is average signal strength, the value of Sr can be used to show the level of damage. The primary advantage of using both HI and Sr in this application is the high sensitivity to stage of failure. Figure 5 shows a intensity chart for a sample RC frame (SPRCF1). Data point indicate that the points relative to the first until sixth loading cycle ( micro

224

Panjsetooni et al. Assessing Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Structure Using Acoustic Emission

cracks behavior stage) fall in the area of low damage level and the point relative to the seventh and ninth loading cycle ( initial cracks stage in mid span of frame) falls in the area of moderate. Furthermore, all of the points relative to the tenth loading cycle until twelfth loading cycle (Damage localization until
Cycle no. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Stage of failure. I I I II III III IV V V V VI VII

failure in beam-column connection) fall in the area of high damage level. The results for RC beam and frame show that three levels of damage (heavy, moderate and low) can be recognised using intensity chart. Data points show that stages of damage is recognizable using IA chart.
Maximum Severity Index

Table 1: a summary of maximum Historic index during cycle loading

SPRCF1 1.47E+06 2.95E+06 6.58E+06 1.04E+06 5.40E+06 1.55E+07 1.94E+07 4.02E+07 4.46E+07 6.87E+07 7.08E+07 2.32E+08 SPRCF2 1.24E+06 2.10E+06 4.84E+06 1.04E+06 4.96E+06 1.29E+07 1.58E+07 2.54E+07 7.07E+07 5.39E+07 6.01E+07 1.40E+08 SPRCF3 3.25E+06 6.05E+06 1.37E+07 2.48E+06 1.24E+07 3.40E+07 4.22E+07 7.88E+07 1.38E+08 1.47E+08 1.57E+08 4.46E+08 SPRCF4 1.35E+06 1.68E+06 4.15E+06 1.39E+06 6.07E+06 1.37E+07 1.65E+07 1.43E+07 1.30E+08 5.23E+07 6.62E+07 6.41E+07 SPRCF5 1.01E+06 1.25E+06 3.10E+06 1.04E+06 4.53E+06 1.02E+07 1.23E+07 1.07E+07 9.68E+07 3.90E+07 4.94E+07 4.79E+07

Table 2 : a summary of maximum historic index during cycle loading

Cycle no. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Stage of failure. I I I II III III IV V V V VI VII SPRCF1 2.33E+00 1.10E+02 3.48E+02 5.90E+02 3.40E+02 1.13E+03 6.73E+03 4.41E+03 8.45E+03 5.47E+03 1.41E+04 3.40E+04 Maximum Historic Index SPRCF2 4.09E+02 6.11E+02 1.16E+03 1.02E+03 7.88E+02 1.29E+03 3.97E+03 5.23E+03 8.38E+03 8.88E+03 9.42E+03 2.18E+04 SPRCF3 4.94E+02 8.66E+02 1.81E+03 1.94E+03 1.35E+03 2.90E+03 1.28E+04 1.16E+04 2.02E+04 1.72E+04 2.82E+04 6.70E+04 SPRCF4 1.09E+03 1.49E+03 2.64E+03 1.96E+03 1.66E+03 1.94E+03 1.62E+03 8.11E+03 1.11E+04 1.65E+04 6.39E+03 1.28E+04 SPRCF5 8.16E+02 1.11E+03 1.97E+03 1.46E+03 1.24E+03 1.45E+03 1.21E+03 6.05E+03 8.30E+03 1.23E+04 4.77E+03 9.56E+03

Fig. 4: Sr and HI against loading cycle number SPRCF1

225

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 222-227, 2013

Fig. 5: Intensity chart SPRCF1

5. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides the results from tests on RC frame under loading cycle and was monitored by AE throughout the test. On the basis of AE activities, the analysis of signal characteristics using intensity analysis and with regard to damage levels, the conclusions are presented below: (1) Three levels of damage in concrete structure can be identified using intensity analysis; (2) The trend of historic and severity index during loading cycle showed that these parameters are strongly sensitive with cracks growth in RC frame specimens and were able to indicate the levels of damage; (3) Results showed that AE can be considered as a viable method to predict the remaining service life of reinforced concrete. Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) for providing support through the short term Grant [304/PAWAM/6039047] REFERENCES Astm E (2006). 06a Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness. Annual Book of Astm Standards. Philadelphia PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Blessing J, Fowler T, Strauser F. (1992). Intensity analysis. Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Acoustic Emission from Composite Materials. American Society for Nondestructive Testing. Degala S, Rizzo P, Ramanathan K, Harries KA (2009). Acoustic emission monitoring of CFRP

reinforced concrete slabs. Construction and Building Materials, 23: 2016-2026. Golaski L., Gebski P, Ono K (2002). Diagnostics of reinforced concrete bridges by acoustic emission. Journal of acoustic emission, 20: 8389. Gostautas RS, Ramirez G, Peterman RJ, Meggers D (2005). Acoustic emission monitoring and analysis of glass fiber-reinforced composites bridge decks. Journal of bridge engineering, 10: 713-721. Holford K, Lark R (2005). Acoustic Emission Testing Bridges. Lovejoy SC (2008). Acoustic emission testing of beams to simulate SHM of vintage reinforced concrete deck girder highway bridges. Structural Health Monitoring, 7: 329-346. Nair A, Cai C (2010). Acoustic emission monitoring of bridges: Review and case studies. Engineering structures, 32: 1704-1714. Panjsetooni A, Bunnori NM (2013). Damage Evaluation Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structure using b-value and Damage Parameter Analysis of Acoustic Emission Signals. International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1: 44-50. Pollock A (1981). Acoustic emission amplitude distributions. International Advances in Nondestructive Testing., 7: 215-239. Proverbio E (2011). Evaluation of deterioration in reinforced concrete structures by AE technique. Materials and corrosion, 62: 161-169. Surgeon M, Wevers M (1999). Modal analysis of acoustic emission signals from CFRP laminates. NDT & E International, 32: 311-322.

226

Panjsetooni et al. Assessing Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Structure Using Acoustic Emission

Alireza Panjsetooni was born in Western area of Iran on 2rd January 1976. His first degree at University Tabriz in Bach of Civil Eng (Hons) 2000. Then he continued deeply in Master of earthquake Engineering (M.Struct) at Universiti Tehran in 2008 and currently his pursuing in PhD level at Universiti Sains Malaysia in Structural Health Monitoring.

Norazura Muhamad Bunnori (PhD) has been involved in Acoustic Emission (AE) technique since 2004 while she was pursuing her PhD study at Cardiff University, Wales, UK. She was graduated from Cardiff University in 2008 and continues with the AE research area in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia. Currently she is working as a Senior Lecturer at School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) since 2009. The research covered several topics of AE applications and analysis (quantitative and qualitive). The aim is to continue the AE study especially in Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) research area and to discover more in this potential area. The passion towards AE is deep and she believes that there are a great number of information can be studied and discovered with this tool.

Dr. Lau is a lecturer at School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, University Sains Malaysia.

227