2016 Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking Crack Using Rayleigh Wave Measurement PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/297657915
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking Crack Using Rayleigh

Wave Measurement
Article in Sensors · March 2016

DOI: 10.3390/s16030337
CITATIONS READS
7 122
3 authors, including:
Hwa Kian Chai Kok-Sing Lim

The University of Edinburgh University of Malaya
61 PUBLICATIONS 564 CITATIONS 128 PUBLICATIONS 1,124 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Composite Structure Fracture Analysis and Failure Prediction View project
The 8th Asia and Pacific Young Researchers and Graduates Symposium (YRGS 2017) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hwa Kian Chai on 10 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

sensors
Article
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking
Crack Using Rayleigh Wave Measurement
Foo Wei Lee 1 , Hwa Kian Chai 1, * and Kok Sing Lim 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia;
ah_foo3@hotmail.com
2 Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia; kslim@um.edu.my
* Correspondence: hkchai@um.edu.my; Tel.: +60-3-7967-7652
Academic Editor: Vittorio M. N. Passaro

Received: 8 December 2015; Accepted: 2 March 2016; Published: 5 March 2016
Abstract: An improved single sided Rayleigh wave (R-wave) measurement was suggested to
characterize surface breaking crack in steel reinforced concrete structures. Numerical simulations
were performed to clarify the behavior of R-waves interacting with surface breaking crack with
different depths and degrees of inclinations. Through analysis of simulation results, correlations
between R-wave parameters of interest and crack characteristics (depth and degree of inclination)
were obtained, which were then validated by experimental measurement of concrete specimens
instigated with vertical and inclined artificial cracks of different depths. Wave parameters including
velocity and amplitude attenuation for each case were studied. The correlations allowed us to
estimate the depth and inclination of cracks measured experimentally with acceptable discrepancies,
particularly for cracks which are relatively shallow and when the crack depth is smaller than
the wavelength.
Keywords: reinforced concrete; surface breaking crack; surface Rayleigh wave; velocity index;
amplitude index; excitation frequency
1. Introduction
Civil structures are susceptible to various kinds of defects such as cracking, spalling, creeping,
honeycombing, voids and delamination of cover. Cracks are normally formed due to one or a
combination of factors such as drying shrinkage, thermal contraction, restraint (external or internal) to
shortening, subgrade settlement, and applied loads. Severe cracking often affects serviceability and
the integrity of a structure.
Numerous studies have been conducted to assess surface breaking cracks in concrete.
Sham et al. [1] proposed a contactless short-duration pulsed thermography Flash Thermography
(FT) method for surface crack detection. It was concluded that the FT is able to detect surface cracks
with widths between 0.5 mm and 1 mm. However, for smaller crack (0.1–0.5 mm) detection, addition
of adding water was required. Matsuyama et al. [2] developed a Stack Imaging of spectral amplitudes
Based on Impact-Echo (SIBIE) method to identify the presence of voids in delaminated areas and
evaluate the depth of surface cracks. An extended Surface Wave Transmission (SWT) method to
characterize the depths of surface-breaking cracks in concrete bridge was previously carried out by Kee
and Gucunski [3]. The comparison between 3D finite element simulation and actual reinforced concrete
bridge decks’ measurements was reported with an average error of 10%–15%. In addition, Yin et al. [4]
studied a noncontact vision-based sensing method with which cracks in a full-scale reinforced concrete
slab could be detected through image analysis.
The unique features of Rayleigh waves (R-waves), for example, their low attenuation and higher
energy of possession than bulk waves, facilitate detection at long propagation distances. These features
Sensors 2016, 16, 337; doi:10.3390/s16030337 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2016, 16, 337 2 of 22
make R-waves a promising tool for non-destructive evaluation of concrete. The R-wave depth of
propagation depends on its wavelength and it exhibits strong dispersion behavior, e.g., velocity varies
with frequency of wave. Thus, for a medium with a velocity varying with depth, the R-wave velocity
depends on the frequency and is known as dispersion. It is believed that the dispersion and diffraction
characteristics of R-waves can be utilized to provide useful information on the propagation medium,
for example, the existence of a defect [5].
With regards to applications of R-wave in non-destructive testing of concrete, Kim and Kwak [6]
proposed a wavelet-component analysis technique for the measured waveforms. Its accuracy was
comparable to other conventional signal processing methods, besides offering improved reliability
due to successful elimination of various noises and reflection waves. Willcocks et al. [7] extended
the existing half space theory to analyze layered structures of finite depth. It was indicated that the
new proposed Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) tool was applied to estimate the physical
properties of concrete and hybrid structures of unknown layer configurations and the detection of
damage in structures of known physical dimensions. On the other hand, Chai et al. [8] studied the
feasibility of impact-generated R-waves to measure deep surface-opening cracks in concrete structures
with varying vertical crack depths. The authors established correlations between the amplitude factors
and crack depth-to-wavelength ratio. Subsequently, the accuracies were compared with the results
of Primary wave (P-wave) time of flight method. In addition, Lee et al. [9] explored the possibility
of a new method to determine and extract R-wave component from transient elastic waves based on
an algorithm that employs matched filtering of center of energy (MFCE). The authors reported that
experimental results are in good agreement with the numerical findings, confirming the feasibility of
the proposed method in crack depth estimation. Alver and Ohtsu [10] examined the possibility of
ultrasonic methods for subsurface damage detection in concrete specimens with varying depths. Both
the numerical and experimental analyses showed R-wave and P-wave velocities were not responsive
to the subsurface damage. Thus, the rendering establishment of correlations between wave attenuation
rate and crack depth is still uncertain. A complementary stack imaging technique was applied for
subsurface crack depth identification using ultrasonic echo. In addition, the suitability of R-waves
for use in tomographic reconstruction of concrete interior was also previously studied [11]. It was
reported that the single-sided measurement enabled defect visualization inside concrete, where the
sensitivity relied on the penetration depth of R-waves.
The available concrete crack assessment methods were found to have their own limitations.
For example, some methods only focus on detection in a qualitative manner, while others are
confined to evaluating shallow cracks in plain concrete at laboratory scale, which are not sufficiently
cost-effective to be adopted on a mass scale. Various issues have arisen in rationalizing the elastic wave
methods, in particular to the R-waves based methods for assessment of cracks in concrete structures.
In this study, the aim is to improve the R-waves based method through quantitative examination of
the behavior of waves propagating concrete containing surface breaking cracks. To investigate the
effect of concrete inhomogeneity on R-waves’ propagation, steel bars were included to simulate the
actual reinforcement arrangement of a concrete. Key parameters of R-waves that are sensitive against
changes in crack depth and degree of inclination were identified and analysed. Through regression
analyses, correlations between the R-waves’ parameters and properties of cracks were obtained and
validated with experimental measurements. The correlations could facilitate in situ measurements and
characterization of surface breaking cracks.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 3 of 22
2. Numerical Simulations
2.1. Model Description

Numerical simulations were carried out with a commercial software Wave2000 [12] that provides
solutions to the two dimensional (2D) elastic wave propagation problems based on the method of finite
difference. The fundamental equation governing the 2D propagation of stress waves is as follows:
B2 w
„  „ 
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 B 2 B η B 3 of 22
ρ “ µ ` η ∇ w ` λ ` µ ` ∅ ` ∇ p∇ ‚ wq (1)
B2 t Bt Bt 3 Bt
where ρ is material density, ∂ λ is the first

∂ Lame constant, µ ∂is the η∂
ρ = μ+η ∇ + λ + μ + ∅ + second ∇(∇ •Lame ) constant, η is shear(1)
∂ ∂ ∂t 3 ∂
viscosity, φ is bulk viscosity, ∇ is the gradient of operator, ∇‚ is the divergence operator, B is the partial
differential
where ρ is material t is the time
operator,density, λ is the w is Lame
andfirst a two constant,
dimensional μ iscolumn
the secondvector whose
Lame components
constant, are
η is shear
viscosity, ϕ is bulk viscosity, ∇ is the gradient of operator, ∇ • is the divergence operator, ∂ is the
the x and y components of displacement of the medium at location (x, y), that is:
partial differential operator, t is the time and w is a two dimensional column vector whose
components are the x and y components w “ rwx tqs1medium at location (x, y), that is: (2)
px, y, tq wy px,ofy,the
of displacement
where ’ denotes matrix transpose. The = [time( ,function

, ) ( was )] Gaussian pulse and the specific
, , Sine (2)
expression used for
where ’ denotes waveform
matrix is:
transpose. The time function was Sine Gaussian pulse and the specific
expression used for waveform is:
Duration 2 2
r´pt´ q {a qs
p ptq( “ Ae [ 2 / )] sin p2π f tq , t ą 0, t ! duration (3)
(3)
)= sin(2π ), > 0, ≪
where p(t) = = 0 for tt ≪
! 00 and
and tt >> Duration,
Duration, A is the
the amplitude,
amplitude, the time constant a is inversely
bandwidth (decreasing the time
proportional to the bandwidth time constant
constant aa increases
increases the
the bandwidth),
bandwidth), ff is the
nominal center frequency of the waveform, and Duration is the time interval for which the signal is
defined. A reinforced concrete model of of 500
500 mm
mm (width)
(width) ˆ× 300 mm (depth) in size was modelled in
the simulation, as illustrated in Figure 1. The material and acoustic properties used in the model are
tabulated in
tabulated in Table
Table 1.
1. An assumption has been made where the materials used are considered as elastic
concrete and
as all properties of concrete and rebars
rebars are
are uniform.
uniform. Since the numerical model
model is a 2D model and the
wave spreading is not taken totally into account, for example, geometrical spreading. To account for
(ϕ), are considered.
this, additional attenuation factors, namely shear viscosity (η) and bulk viscosity (φ),
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematic sketch
sketch of
of simulation
simulation model
model with
with inhomogeneity
inhomogeneity introduced by an
introduced by an inclined
inclined surface
surface
breaking crack.
breaking crack.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the model materials obtained from experimental measurements.
First Lame Second Lame P-Wave R-Wave

Density, ρ Poisson
Material Constant, Constant, µm Velocity, CP Velocity, CR
(kg/m3) Ratio, v
λm (GPa) (GPa) (m/s) (m/s)
Concrete 10.82 15.98 2313 0.202 4300 2311
Steel 124.82 83.59 7850 0.299 6099 3219
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 4 of 22
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the model materials obtained from experimental measurements.
First Lame Second Lame P-Wave R-Wave

Density, ρ Poisson
Material Constant, λm Constant, µm Velocity, CP Velocity, CR
(kg/m3 ) Ratio, v
(GPa) (GPa) (m/s) (m/s)
Concrete 10.82 15.98 2313 0.202 4300 2311
Steel 124.82 83.59 7850 0.299 6099 3219
Infinite boundary conditions were configured to prevent reflection of the wave from reaching the
edges of the model. This is to avoid confusion during results’ analysis, since the reflected components
could converge with the incoming ones, causing the actual change in waveforms. In the simulation,
the input of the wave was configured as pin-point excitation on the top surface, of which the dominant
frequency was varied to enable investigation of multiple cases. The simulations were implemented
with one excitation that yielded a sine cycle wave propagating from one side to the other side of
the model. The effect of crack on wave propagation, attenuation and pulse velocity was studied.
The simulated waveform recording frequency was about 5 ˆ 106 samples per second. Three sensors
were fixed on one side of the crack and another three were placed on the other side. The distance
between sensors, d, was kept at 40 mm. The variations being investigated include angle of inclination,
vertical depth, frequency of excitation and approximate R-wave wavelength, as given in Table 2.
A similar procedure for the simulation can be found in [13].
Table 2. Orientation, degree and depth of cracks.
Frequency of Wave, F Corresponding R-Wave Degree of Inclination θ against

Depth of Crack, d (mm)
(kHz) Wavelength, λ (mm) the Horizontal Plane, (˝ )
10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 221, 114, 78, 59, 47, 39, 29,
30 to 150 at 30 increment 30, 60, 90, 120, 150
100, 150 24, 16
2.2. Waveform Results

The Rayleigh wave is generally detectable since it corresponds to a strong peak following the first
arrival of the P-wave which is of certainly lower amplitude. In addition, R-wave velocity was also
computed, which adopts the R-wave arrival time difference between the first burst peaks detected
from two sensors. Figure 2 shows waveform data obtained from simulating models without crack:
one composed of concrete only while the other with inclusion of steel reinforcements. The excitation
frequencies used were 10 and 150 kHz. At 10 kHz excitations, the two sets of waveforms were almost
identical to each other in terms of propagating speed and amplitude (Figure 2a,c), On the other hand,
at 150 kHz excitations, R-waves were found to be propagating slightly faster in the steel reinforced
concrete sound model, although the amplitude did not seem to differ much from those propagating the
plain concrete model (Figure 2b,d). The differences between arrival times of R-waves were found to be
approximately 7% at most between the two sets of waveforms with different excitation frequencies.
Negligible influence by the presence of steel reinforcements on the propagation behavior of R-waves
is reckoned, due to their small coverage relative to the total area by concrete in the model. Both the
longitudinal and transverse reinforcements took up just 5% area of the 300 mm ˆ 500 mm model,
rendering insignificant relative displacement between steel and concrete which can be neglected.
In addition, the highest frequency of the excited wave is 150 kHz, corresponding to a wavelength of
16 mm (twice the rebar diameter of 8 mm), and causing to the propagation to be insensitive to the
reinforcement [14]. It is also to be noted that, in this study, the R-wave parameters, namely velocity
and amplitude acquired from simulation models with cracks, would be normalized with the ones
from the sound model of identical reinforcement arrangements to eliminate any possible influence on
waveforms by the presence of reinforcements.
concrete which can be neglected. In addition, the highest frequency of the excited wave is 150 kHz,
corresponding to a wavelength of 16 mm (twice the rebar diameter of 8 mm), and causing to the
propagation to be insensitive to the reinforcement [14]. It is also to be noted that, in this study, the
R-wave parameters, namely velocity and amplitude acquired from simulation models with cracks,
would2016,
Sensors be normalized
16, 337 with the ones from the sound model of identical reinforcement arrangements 5 of 22
to eliminate any possible influence on waveforms by the presence of reinforcements.
Rayleigh Peak Steel reinforced concrete model Steel reinforced concrete model
Rayleigh Peak
Time (μs)
S1 Time (μs)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
S2 S1
Amplitude
Amplitude
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
S3 S2
S4 S3
S5 S4
S6 S5
S6
Sound (10 kHz) Sound (150 kHz)
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 5 of 22

(a) (b)
Rayleigh Peak Plain concrete model Figure 2. Cont. Rayleigh Peak Plain concrete model
Time (μs) Time (μs)

S1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300S1
S2
Amplitude
Amplitude
S3 S2
S4 S3
S5 S4
S6 S5
Sound (10 kHz) S6

Sound (150 kHz)
(c) (d)
Figure 2. Simulated waveforms collected for steel reinforced concrete model using (a) 10 kHz and (b)
Figure 2. Simulated waveforms collected for steel reinforced concrete model using (a) 10 kHz and
150 kHz excitations as well as the plain concrete model using (c) 10 kHz and (d) 150 kHz excitations.
(b) 150 kHz excitations as well as the plain concrete model using (c) 10 kHz and (d) 150 kHz excitations.
Examples of simulated waveform results of the cracked concrete model acquired from excitation
Examples
frequencies of kHz
of 10 simulated
and 150 waveform
kHz are results
given in ofFigure
the cracked
3. Theconcrete
strongest model
cycleacquired
belongs to fromtheexcitation
Rayleigh
frequencies of 10 kHz and 150 kHz are given in Figure 3.
mode, which follows the weak longitudinal arrivals that were observed, especially for The strongest cycle belongs to the Rayleigh
higher
mode, which follows the weak longitudinal arrivals that were observed,
excitation frequencies. From the figure, distorted waveforms recorded by sensors after the crack (S4, especially for higher excitation
frequencies. From the figure,
S5 and S6) indicated a largerdistorted
decreasewaveforms
in amplitude recordedand byaresensors
hardly after visiblethe(waveforms
crack (S4, S5were and
S6) indicated a larger decrease in amplitude and are hardly visible (waveforms
magnified by a factor of 5 in Figure 3f,g and a factor of 10 in Figure 3j) compared to the ones from the were magnified by
asensors
factor ofof the
5 inhomogeneous
Figure 3f,g and a factor
concrete of 10or
model ineven
Figure to 3j) compared
those to the ones
sensors before from(S1,
the crack theS2 sensors of
and S3),
the homogeneous concrete model or even to those sensors before the
which are quite clear. This shows that a very small part of the energy is transmitted through the crack. crack (S1, S2 and S3), which
are
Thequite
depthclear.
of theThis
crackshows that a influenced
has greatly very smallthe part of the energy
amplitude recordedis transmitted
by sensors after through the crack.
the crack and
The
theirdepth of the crack
relationship is foundhasto greatly influenced
be inversely the amplitude
proportional. recorded
Besides, by sensors
the arrival of R-waves after hasthe obviously
crack and
their
been relationship is foundintothe
delayed, especially bedeeper
inversely proportional.
crack cases (150 mm) Besides,
due the arrival
to the longer of R-waves
pathway has thatobviously
has to be
been delayed, especially in the deeper crack cases (150 mm)
taken to the corresponding sensors. The crack acted as a void which does not allow the wavesdue to the longer pathway thattohas to
pass
be taken to
through. the corresponding
Therefore, a longer pathwaysensors. and The lower
crack acted velocity as are
a void which does
expected. not allow
It is worthy the waves
to note to
that the
pass through. Therefore, a longer pathway and lower velocity are
orientations of the surface breaking crack can be identified from the simple arrangement of the expected. It is worthy to note that
the orientations
waveforms of theby
recorded surface
all thebreaking
sensors. crack can be identified
For example, from the
the waveforms simplefrom
obtained arrangement of the
sensors before
waveforms recorded by all the sensors. For example, the waveforms
the crack show a consistent delay of R-wave peak for the 90° vertical and 150° inclined crack cases, obtained from sensors before
the
whilecrack show
in the casea of
consistent delay of
30° inclination R-wave
cracks, peak for
distorted the 90˝ vertical
waveforms and 150˝ from
were recorded inclined
sensorscracklocated
cases,
while ˝
beforein the
the caseas
crack ofcan30 be inclination
seen in Figurecracks,3g,h
distorted
due towaveforms
the convergence were between
recorded reflected
from sensors bodylocated
waves
before the crack as can be seen in Figure 3g,h due to the convergence
from the crack and the coming Rayleigh wave. In addition, one can notice that the arrival of R-wave between reflected body waves
from
peaksthe forcrack
sensorsandlocated
the coming Rayleigh
after the crack wave.
behaves In inaddition,
an inverseonemanner
can notice for that the arrival
the 150° inclinationof R-wave
crack
peaks for sensors located after the crack behaves in an inverse manner for the 150 ˝ inclination crack
(see Figure 3i,j). From the simulated wave motion, the generated waves were seen to travel along the
(see
crackFigure 3i,j). to
face down From the simulated
the crack tip, before wave
beingmotion,
projected theupward
generated wavesthe
to reach were seen to
concrete toptravel along
face on the
the
othercrack
sideface
of thedown
model to the crackR-waves.
to form tip, beforeThebeing projected
projection was upward
complicated to reach the concrete
as observed and ittop face
would
on the other
be highly side offor
possible the
themodel
wavefrontto form R-waves.
energy to reach Thesensors
projection
S5 andwasS6complicated
first depending as observed and
on the crack
it would be highly possible for the wavefront energy to reach sensors
inclination degree and depth. Under such circumstances, R-waves would propagate in two directions S5 and S6 first depending on
the crack
on the inclination
concrete top facedegree
and,and sensordepth. Underrecord
S4 would such circumstances,
its arrival later R-waves
on. Hence, would
in thepropagate in two
results’ analysis
directions on the concrete top face and, sensor S4 would record its arrival
that will be discussed in section 2.3, the sum of R-wave velocity from all the sensors was taken into later on. Hence, in the results’
analysis
account in that will to
order be cater
discussed
for the in uncertainty
Section 2.3, thein thesum of R-wave
sensor velocity
acquisition from all It
sequence. theissensors
understood was taken
from
into account that
the findings in order to cater for
the behavior of the
the uncertainty
wave following in the sensor acquisition
interaction sequence.
with the crack It is understood
has significant angle
dependences and the effect of this angular dependence is clearly defined in the R-wave arrival times.
Based on this measurement configuration, the change of R-wave propagation trend could be used to
identify the inclined direction of the crack. It is clear that the behavior of the wave following
interaction with the defect has a significant angle dependence.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 6 of 22
from the findings that the behavior of the wave following interaction with the crack has significant
angle dependences and the effect of this angular dependence is clearly defined in the R-wave arrival
times. Based on this measurement configuration, the change of R-wave propagation trend could be
used to identify the inclined direction of the crack. It is clear that the behavior of the wave following
interaction
Sensors with
2016, 16, 337 the defect has a significant angle dependence. 6 of 22
Rayleigh Peak Rayleigh Peak

Time (μs)
S1 Time (μs)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
S2 S1
Amplitude
Amplitude
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
S3 S2
S4 S3
S5 S4
S6 S5
S6
30 mm vertical crack (10 kHz) 30 mm vertical crack (150 kHz)
(a) (b)
Time (μs)
S1 Time (μs)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 S1
Amplitude
Amplitude
S2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

S2
S3 S3
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 S6
150 mm vertical crack (10 kHz) 150 mm vertical crack (150 kHz)
(c) (d)
Time (μs)
S1 Time (μs)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 S1
Amplitude
Amplitude
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

S2 S2
S3 S3
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 S6
150 mm inclined 300 crack (10 kHz) 150 mm vertical crack (150 kHz)
(e) (f)
Time (μs)
S1 Time (μs)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 S1
Amplitude
Amplitude
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

S2 S2
S3 S3
S4 S4
S5
S6
S6 150 mm inclined 300 crack (150 kHz)
150 mm inclined 1500 crack (10 kHz)
(g) (h)
Figure 3. Simulated waveforms collected for 30 mm vertical (90°) crack model using (a) 10 kHz and
Figure 3. Simulated waveforms collected for 30 mm vertical (90˝ ) crack model using (a) 10 kHz and
(b) 150 kHz excitations; for 150 mm vertical (90°)˝ crack model using (c) 10 kHz and (d) 150 kHz
(b) 150 kHz excitations; for 150 mm vertical (90 ) crack model using (c) 10 kHz and (d) 150 kHz
excitations; for 150 mm inclined 30° crack model using (e) 10 kHz and (f) 150 kHz excitations; for
excitations; for 150 mm inclined 30˝ crack model using (e) 10 kHz and (f) 150 kHz excitations;
150 mm inclined 150° crack model using (g) 10 kHz and (h) 150 kHz excitations.
for 150 mm inclined 150˝ crack model using (g) 10 kHz and (h) 150 kHz excitations.
Waveform data recorded from sensors S3 (left hand size of crack) and S4 (right hand side of
crack) at excitation frequency of 30 kHz is depicted in Figure 4, for the vertical crack (90°) and the one
inclining at 150°. For the vertical crack, waveforms obtained from the sensor on the left hand side of
the crack did not exhibit much difference in terms of amplitude and R-wave arrival time.
Nevertheless, for waveforms obtained by sensors at the right hand side of the crack, delay of arrival
time of Rayleigh peaks as well as the decline in amplitude were noticed. The delay and decline
became significant as the depth of the crack increased. From the results, it is evident that the crack
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 7 of 22
Waveform data recorded from sensors S3 (left hand size of crack) and S4 (right hand side of
crack) at excitation frequency of 30 kHz is depicted in Figure 4, for the vertical crack (90˝ ) and the
one inclining at 150˝ . For the vertical crack, waveforms obtained from the sensor on the left hand
side of the crack did not exhibit much difference in terms of amplitude and R-wave arrival time.
Nevertheless, for waveforms obtained by sensors at the right hand side of the crack, delay of arrival
time of Rayleigh peaks as well as the decline in amplitude were noticed. The delay and decline
became significant as the depth of the crack increased. From the results, it is evident that the crack
depth2016,
Sensors has 16,
influence
337 on the change in wave propagation behavior. The variations of amplitude 7 offor
22
the shallowest crack depth of 30 mm and deepest crack depth of 150 mm were reported as 10.45%,
77.61%,
77.61%, 16.73%
16.73% andand 85.95%,
85.95%, respectively,
respectively, for 90
90°˝ and 150°
150˝ cases.
cases. This
This is
is explainable
explainable since
since the
the elastic
elastic
wave with a propagation frequency of 30 kHz is able to pass directly underneath
wave with a propagation frequency of 30 kHz is able to pass directly underneath the crack depth the crack depth of
30
of mm
30 mmwith minor
with scattering
minor and and
scattering attenuation due to
attenuation itsto
due wavelength (78 mm)
its wavelength (78 greater than the
mm) greater crack
than the
depth. SimilarSimilar
crack depth. results results
are found
are in [15] in
found as [15]
low as
frequencies pass underneath
low frequencies the crack,
pass underneath thewhile
crack,higher
while
frequencies which which
higher frequencies are transmitted are more
are transmitted likely
are more to have
likely to havetravelled
travelledalong
alongthethecrack
crack faces.
faces.
Additionally, the corresponding percentage of delay in arrival time of R-wave peaks was calculated calculated
as
as 10.43%,
10.43%, 23.94%,
23.94%, 12.64%
12.64% and
and 29.62%,
29.62%, respectively,
respectively, for the same cases. Similar
Similar results
results were
were reported
reported
from
from aa previous
previous study,
study, confirming the influence by crack depth to the velocity and amplitude amplitude of of the
the
R-waves
R-waves [16].
[16].
0.6 1
S3 30 mm vertical crack S3 60 mm vertical crack
0.8
0.4 S4 S4
0.6
0.2 0.4
Amplitude
Amplitude
Time (μs)
0.2 Time (μs)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6 -0.8
1 0.8
S3 90 mm vertical crack S3 150 mm vertical crack
0.8 0.6
S4 S4
0.6
0.4
0.4
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.2 Time (μs)

0.2 Time (μs)
0
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
0.8
S3 120 mm vertical crack
0.6 S4
0.4
Amplitude
0.2
Time (μs)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
(a)
Figure 4. Cont.
Sensors
Sensors 2016,
2016, 16,
16, 337 8 of 22
0.8 1
S3 S3
30 mm inclined crack (1500) 0.8 60 mm inclined crack (1500)
0.6 S4 S4
0.6
0.4
0.4
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.2 0.2 Time (μs)
Time (μs)
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6 -0.8
1 0.8
S3 S3
0.8
90 mm inclined crack (1500) 120 mm inclined crack (1500)
0.6 S4
S4
0.6
0.4
0.4
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.2
Time (μs) Time (μs)
0.2
0
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
1
S3 150 mm inclined crack (1500)
0.8
S4
0.6
0.4
Amplitude
0.2
Time (μs)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
(b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Waveforms
Waveforms collected
collected at
at the
the third
third sensor
sensor (S3)
(S3) and
and fourth
fourth sensor
sensor (S4)
(S4) (a)
(a) vertical
vertical (90°)
(90˝ ) surface
surface
breaking crack and (b) inclined (150°)
˝ surface breaking crack for 30 kHz excitations.
breaking crack and (b) inclined (150 ) surface breaking crack for 30 kHz excitations.
2.3. Correlations of Waveform Parameters with Crack

2.3. Correlations of Waveform Parameters with Crack
In previous researches, the crack depth is essentially divided by the major wavelength of
In previous researches, the crack depth is essentially divided by the major wavelength of
R-waves in order to offer a parameter that gives flexibility and broader coverage in comparison and
R-waves in order to offer a parameter that gives flexibility and broader coverage in comparison
assessment [8,17–22]. In this paper, the said parameter results are presented in Figure 5. The velocity
and assessment [8,17–22]. In this paper, the said parameter results are presented in Figure 5. The
indices, VI for each propagation was computed using the following equation:
velocity indices, VI for each propagation was computed using the following equation:
∑ , ~
=ř6 V (4)
∑j“2 C,, ~1„ j
V I “ ř6 (4)
VS, 1„ j
where ∑ , ~ and ∑
j “ 2
, ~ are summation of R-wave velocities from sensor S1 to the other
respective
ř6 sensors, for crack
ř6 and the sound model, respectively. It is noticeable that a velocity index
where j“2 VC, 1„ j and j“2 VS, 1„ j are summation of R-wave velocities from sensor S1 to the other
of 1.0 indicates that the propagation of R-waves is the same as in the sound model condition and has
respective sensors, for crack and the sound model, respectively. It is noticeable that a velocity index of
not been disturbed by the crack.
1.0 indicates that the propagation of R-waves is the same as in the sound model condition and has not
It is found that the velocity index decreased as the ratio of crack depth-to-wavelength, d/λ
been disturbed by the crack.
increased, in logarithmic regressions for crack cases of 30° and in linear regressions for the vertical
one, respectively. A dissimilar trend is observed in which the velocity index decreased in polynomial
regressions for cases of cracks inclining more than 90°. The figures also indicated that higher
excitation frequencies will result in higher values of velocity indices. Similar findings were reported
from previous studies, suggesting that although waves with higher frequencies experience stronger
attenuation than lower ones, their propagation velocity is faster in inhomogeneous media like
concrete [23,24] passing through the thickness transmission of P-wave, as well as R-waves [25]. Based
on the findings, the velocity index could be considered as a useful parameter for identifying the
existence of a crack and quantifying its depth. From the results, it is also suggested that even higher
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 9 of 22
frequencies with lower penetration depth are still applicable for deeper crack identification.
1.00
F=10 kHz
0.95 F=20 kHz
Veloccity Index F=30 kHz
0.90 F=40 kHz
F=50 kHz
F=60 kHz
0.85 R² = 0.9772 R² = 0.9858
R² = 0.9689 F=80 kHz
R² = 0.9596 F=100 kHz
0.80 R² = 0.945 F=150 kHz
R² = 0.9263
R² = 0.9113
R² = 0.9125
0.75 R² = 0.9358
d/λ
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a)
1.00
0.95 F=10 kHz

F=20 kHz
0.90 F=30 kHz
Veloccity Index
F=40 kHz
0.85
F=50 kHz
0.80 F=60 kHz
R² = 0.9954 F=80 kHz
0.75 R² = 0.9957
R² = 0.9929 R² = 0.9941 F=100 kHz
R² = 0.9937 F=150 kHz
0.70 R² = 0.9952
R² = 0.9887
0.65 R² = 0.9829
0
R² = 0.9796
2 4 6 8 10
d/λ
(b)
0.95
0.90 F=10 kHz

F=20 kHz
0.85
F=30 kHz
Veloccity Index
0.80 F=40 kHz

F=50 kHz
0.75
F=60 kHz
0.70 R² = 0.8304 R² = 0.8598 R² = 0.8585 F=80 kHz
R² = 0.9097
0.65 R² = 0.9396 F=100 kHz
R² = 0.9836 F=150 kHz
0.60 R² = 0.9919
R² = 0.9991
R² = 0.9958
0.55
d/λ
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c)
Figure 5. Velocity index versus d/λ for crack cases (a) 30°˝ inclined; (b) vertical (90°) and
Figure 5. Velocity index versus d/λ for crack cases (a) 30 inclined; (b) vertical (90˝ ) and
(c) 150°˝ inclined.
(c) 150 inclined.
It is found that the velocity index decreased as the ratio of crack depth-to-wavelength, d/λ
increased, in logarithmic regressions for crack cases of 30˝ and in linear regressions for the vertical
one, respectively. A dissimilar trend is observed in which the velocity index decreased in polynomial
regressions for cases of cracks inclining more than 90˝ . The figures also indicated that higher excitation
frequencies will result in higher values of velocity indices. Similar findings were reported from previous
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 10 of 22
studies, suggesting that although waves with higher frequencies experience stronger attenuation than
lower ones, their propagation velocity is faster in inhomogeneous media like concrete [23,24] passing
through the thickness transmission of P-wave, as well as R-waves [25]. Based on the findings, the
velocity index could be considered as a useful parameter for identifying the existence of a crack and
quantifying its depth. From the results, it is also suggested that even higher frequencies with lower
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 10 of 22
penetration depth are still applicable for deeper crack identification.
To evaluate the effect
To evaluate of cracks
the effect onon
of cracks the
theamplitude
amplitude ofof R-wave,
R-wave, amplitude
amplitude index,
index, AI AI6)(Figure
(Figure was 6) was
calculated using
calculated using the following: the following:
, ∑ ∑
ř , ¯ =6
´ř
(5)
AC,, i {∑ 3j“1, AC, j ∑4
i“
AI “ ´ř ¯ (5)
where Ac is R-wave amplitude in model with
6 crack andř AS3is R-wave amplitude in the sound model.
i“4 AS, i { j“1 As, j
The amplitude index is also presented in a dimensionless form for better assessment adaptability.
From the results, it is noted that the amplitude index of all crack cases decreased as the ratio of crack
where Ac depth-to-wavelength,
is R-wave amplitude in model
d/λ increased, in with
a polynomial and AS istrend.
crack regression R-wave
Apartamplitude
from this, thein the sound model.
amplitude
The amplitude index islower
index becomes also as presented
the frequencyin a increases
dimensionless
due to theform for better
tendency assessment
for higher frequencyadaptability.
components simply to lose their energy via absorption, scattering and also attributed
From the results, it is noted that the amplitude index of all crack cases decreased as the ratio of crack to distortion by
the crack. Generally, the amplitude index seemed to decrease with regards to the degree of inclination
depth-to-wavelength, d/λ increased, in a polynomial regression trend. Apart from this, the amplitude
from 30° to 150°. It supports the phenomenon that more energy was blocked from being detected on
index becomes lower as the as
other side of the crack frequency increases
the degree of inclinationdue tocrack
of the the tendency
increased. Theforattenuation
higher frequency
of amplitude components
simply tomanifested
lose theirtoenergy
be a more via absorption,
suitable parameter scattering and also attributed
for crack characterization to distortion
than velocity index since theby the crack.
Generally,discrepancy between
the amplitude the homogenous
index seemed toand cracked with
decrease modelsregards
was greater anddegree
to the more noticeable than it from 30˝
of inclination
was for velocity. This agrees well with the previous findings [26,27].
to 150˝ . It supports the phenomenon that more energy was blocked from being detected on other
The amplitude index also appears to lose its sensitivity towards the detection of crack depth of
side of the150crack as the
mm. The degree
energy of theofwave
inclination of the crack
is not proportional to theincreased.
amplitude butThetoattenuation
the square of of theamplitude
manifested to be a This
amplitude. more suitable
implies that parameter
the major energy for crack
of R-wavecharacterization than velocity
propagates in shallower index since the
zones. Hence,
discrepancydespite the fact the
between that the penetration depth
homogenous and ofcracked
R-wavesmodels
which is considered
was greater to beand
one wavelength and
more noticeable than it
larger than the crack, the energy passing below the crack is insignificant, and, therefore, the
was for velocity. This agrees well with the previous findings
waveform readings for the larger cracks do not show any discrepancy [16].
[26,27].
1.00 R² = 0.9873
0.90 R² = 0.9938 F=10 kHz
0.80 R² = 0.9934 F=20 kHz
0.70 F=30 kHz
Amplitude Index
0.60 F=40 kHz

R² = 0.9613
F=50 kHz
0.50 R² = 0.9641 F=60 kHz
0.40 R² = 0.9673 F=80 kHz
0.30 R² = 0.9879 F=100 kHz
0.20 R² = 0.991 F=150 kHz
R² = 0.9854
0.10
0.00
d/λ
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a)
0.90
R² = 0.96
0.80 F=10 kHz
R² = 0.979 F=20 kHz
0.70
R² = 0.9723 F=30 kHz
0.60
Amplitude Index
R² = 0.9726 F=40 kHz

0.50 F=50 kHz
R² = 0.9776
0.40 F=60 kHz
R² = 0.9811
F=80 kHz
0.30
R² = 0.9839 F=100 kHz
0.20 R² = 0.9852 F=150 kHz
R² = 0.9871
0.10
0.00
d/λ
0 2 4 6 8 10
(b)
Figure 6. Cont.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 11 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 11 of 22
0.80
0.70 R² = 0.9829 F=10 kHz

R² = 0.9451 F=20 kHz
0.60
R² = 0.9206 F=30 kHz
Amplitude Index
0.50 F=40 kHz
F=50 kHz
0.40
F=60 kHz
0.30 R² = 0.9388 F=80 kHz
R² = 0.9842 F=100 kHz
0.20 R² = 0.9913 F=150 kHz
R² = 0.9875
0.10 R² = 0.975
R² = 0.9812
0.00 d/λ
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 11 of 22
(c)
Figure 6. 0.80
Amplitude index versus d/λ for crack cases (a) 30° inclined; (b) vertical (90°) and
Figure 6. (c)Amplitude
150° inclined. index versus d/λ for crack cases (a) 30˝ inclined; F=10
R² = 0.9829 vertical (90˝ ) and
(b)kHz
0.70
˝
(c) 150 inclined. R² = 0.9451 F=20 kHz
2.4. Correlations0.60
of Waveform Parameters with Degree of Inclination
R² = 0.9206 F=30 kHz
Amplitude Index
0.50and amplitude indices versus the crack inclination degree are shown in Figures 7 F=40 kHz
The velocity
The amplitude index also appears to lose its sensitivity towards the detection of crack depth of
F=50 kHz
and 8. It seems0.40 that both the velocity and amplitude indices decreased in polynomial trends as the
150 mm. The energy of the wave is not
degree of inclination increased.
proportional to the amplitude but to the square of the amplitude.
F=60 kHz
In addition, it can be seen that the lowest indices were obtained for
0.30 R² = 0.9388 F=80 kHz
This implies thatofthe
the case major
crack energy
inclining of
atR²150°, R-wave
while
= 0.9842
propagates
the highest in shallower
values were found fromzones.
the one Hence,
F=100inclining
kHz
despite
at 30°. the fact
0.20
that the penetration
On the other depth
hand, the ofamplitude
R-waves which
R² =index
0.9913 is
for the considered
first two casesto
R² = 0.9875
be one
(Figure wavelength
8a,b) displayed a
F=150 kHz and larger
comparable than the
decrease, contrary
0.10 to the trend observed
crack, the energy passing below the crack is insignificant, R² for other
R² = crack
0.975 cases (depth of greater than 90 mm).
and, therefore, the waveform readings for
= 0.9812
Generally, both the velocity and amplitude indices decreased as the degree of inclination increased
the larger from
cracks do not
0.00show any discrepancy [16].
30° to 150°, proving that 2large energy d/λ
0 4 content has 6 been blocked 8 due to10an increase in effective
vertical depth as crack inclination increased. In addition to this, it is also confirmed that the drop of
2.4. Correlations (c) Inclination
velocityofwith
Waveform
the increaseParameters with Degree
of crack inclination was of due to the fact that R-waves, in particular those
withFigure 6. Amplitude
effective penetrationindexdepth versus d/λ for
less than thecrack
crackcases (a) depth,
vertical 30° inclined; (b) vertical
took longer (90°) andto the
to propagate
The velocity 150°and
other(c)side
amplitude indices versus the crack inclination degree are shown in Figures 7
inclined.
of the crack. It was considered that the results obtained would be of real benefit for the
and 8. It seems that both the
same measurement setup.velocity
The results and mayamplitude
also be applied indices decreased
to other in polynomial
setup conditions trends as the
with adequate
2.4. Correlations
adjustments, of Waveform
especially the Parameters
scaling with
between Degree
the of
crack Inclination
degree of inclination increased. In addition, it can be seen that the lowest indices were obtained for
depth and sensor distance.
The velocity
the case of crack inclining andat 150˝ , while
amplitude indices theversus the crack
highest valuesinclination
were degree
foundare shown
from theinoneFigures 7
inclining at 30˝ .
1.00
and 8. It seems that both the velocity and amplitude indices decreased in polynomial trends as the
On the other hand, the amplitude index for the first two cases (Figure 8a,b) displayed a comparable
degree of inclination increased. In addition, it can be seen that the lowest indices were obtained for
F=10kHz
decrease, the
contrary to0.95
case of cracktheinclining
trend observed fortheother
at 150°, while crack
highest cases
values were(depth
found fromof greater than 90 at
the oneF=20kHz
inclining mm).
30°. Generally,
Velocity Index
both the velocity and amplitude indices ˝

On the other hand, the amplitude indexdecreased
for the first as
twothe degree
cases (Figureof inclination
8a,b) displayed aincreased
comparablefrom 30 to
F=30kHz
0.90 F=40kHz
˝ decrease,
150 , proving thatcontrary
large energy to the trend
contentobserved
has been for other crackdue
blocked casesto(depth of greater
an increase in than 90 mm).
effective vertical depth
F=50kHz
Generally, both the velocity and amplitude indices decreased as the degree of inclination F=60kHz increased
as crack inclination increased. In addition to this, it is also confirmed that the drop of velocity with
0.85
from 30° to 150°, proving that large energy content has been blocked due to an increase F=80kHzin effective
the increase of crack
vertical depth0.80inclination
as was increased.
crack inclination due to the fact that
In addition R-waves,
to this, it is alsoin particular
confirmed that those
F=100kHz
the drop with
of effective
penetration depth less F=150kHz
velocity with thethan theofcrack
increase crack vertical
inclinationdepth,
was due took longer
to the to R-waves,
fact that propagate to the other
in particular those side of the
with considered
crack. It was effective0.75
penetration
that thedepth less than
results the crack
obtained vertical
would bedepth,
of realtook longer for
benefit to propagate
the same to measurement
the
0
other side of the crack. It was30considered60that the results
90 120 would be
obtained 150of real benefit for the
setup. The results may also be applied to other setup conditions with adequate
Degree adjustments,
of Inclination especially
same measurement setup. The results may also be applied to other setup conditions with(Ѳ)
adequate
the scaling between especially
adjustments, the crackthedepth scalingand sensor
between distance.
the crack
(a) depth and sensor distance.
1.00
F=10kHz
0.95
F=20kHz
Velocity Index
F=30kHz
0.90 F=40kHz
F=50kHz
0.85 F=60kHz
F=80kHz
0.80 F=100kHz
F=150kHz
0.75
0 30 60 90 120 150
Degree of Inclination (Ѳ)
(a)
Figure 7. Cont.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 12 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 12 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 12 of 22

1.00
1.00
0.95 F=10kHz
0.95 F=20kHz
0.90 F=10kHz
F=30kHz
F=20kHz
Index
0.90
0.85 F=40kHz
F=30kHz
F=50kHz
Index
0.85
0.80 F=40kHz
F=60kHz
Velocity
F=50kHz
0.80
0.75 F=80kHz
F=60kHz
Velocity
F=100kHz
0.75 F=80kHz
0.70 F=150kHz
F=100kHz
0.70
0.65 F=150kHz
0 30 60 90 120 150
0.65
0 30 60 90 120
Degree 150
of Inclination (Ѳ)
(b) Degree of Inclination (Ѳ)
0.90 (b)
0.90 F=10kHz
0.85
F=20kHz
0.85 F=10kHz
0.80 F=30kHz
F=20kHz
Index
F=40kHz
0.80 F=30kHz
0.75 F=50kHz
Index
F=40kHz
F=60kHz
Velocity
0.75 F=50kHz
0.70 F=80kHz
F=60kHz
Velocity
0.70 F=100kHz
0.65 F=80kHz
F=150kHz
F=100kHz
0.65 F=150kHz
0.60
0 30 60 90 120 150
0.60
0 30 60 90 120 Degree 150
of Inclination (Ѳ)
(c) Degree of Inclination (Ѳ)
Figure 7. Velocity index versus different degree of(c)
inclination for crack depth of (a) 30 mm, (b) 90 mm
Figure 7. Velocity index versus different degree of inclination for crack depth of (a) 30 mm, (b) 90 mm
and (c)
Figure 150 mm.
and (c)7.150
Velocity
mm. index versus different degree of inclination for crack depth of (a) 30 mm, (b) 90 mm
and (c) 150 mm.
1.00 F=10kHz
0.90
1.00 F=20kHz
F=10kHz
0.80
0.90
Index
F=30kHz
F=20kHz
0.70
0.80 F=40kHz
Index
F=30kHz
0.60
0.70
Amplitude
F=50kHz
F=40kHz
0.50
0.60
Amplitude
F=60kHz
F=50kHz
0.40
0.50
F=80kHz
F=60kHz
0.30
0.40
F=100kHz
F=80kHz
0.20
0.30
0.10 F=150kHz
F=100kHz
0.20
0 30 60 90 120 150 F=150kHz
0.10
0 30 60 90 120 Degree
150of Inclination (Ѳ)
(a) Degree of Inclination (Ѳ)
(a)
Figure 8. Cont.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 13 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 13 of 22
0.60
F=10kHz
0.50 F=20kHz
Amplitude Index
F=30kHz
0.40
F=40kHz
0.30 F=50kHz
F=60kHz
0.20
F=80kHz
0.10 F=100kHz
0.00 F=150kHz
0 30 60 90 120 150
(b)
0.40
F=10kHz
0.35
F=20kHz
0.30
Amplitude Index
F=30kHz
0.25
F=40kHz
0.20 F=50kHz
0.15 F=60kHz
0.10 F=80kHz
0.05 F=100kHz
0.00 F=150kHz
0 30 60 90 120 150
(c)
Figure 8. Amplitude index versus different degree of inclination for crack depth of (a) 30 mm;
Figure 8. Amplitude index versus different degree of inclination for crack depth of (a) 30 mm; (b) 90 mm
(b) 90 mm and (c) 150 mm.
and (c) 150 mm.
3. Experimental Verification
3. Experimental Verification
3.1. Specimen and Instrumentation
3.1. Specimen and Instrumentation
Four reinforced concrete specimens were prepared (300 × 300 × 500 mm). One of the specimens
Four reinforced concrete specimens were prepared (300 ˆ 300 ˆ 500 mm). One of the specimens
was the control with no defect, while the other three comprised of one artificial crack inclining at 30°,˝
was the control with no defect, while the other three comprised of one artificial crack inclining at 30 ,
60°˝and 90°˝(vertical crack), respectively, as measured against the horizontal plane. Additionally, 120°˝
60 and 90 (vertical crack), respectively, as measured against the horizontal plane. Additionally, 120
and 150°˝ can be measured from the other side of the crack of 60°˝ and 30°˝ inclinations. The artificial
and 150 can be measured from the other side of the crack of 60 and 30 inclinations. The artificial
crack was formed by hanging a polystyrene foam board in the concrete mould before pouring
crack was formed by hanging a polystyrene foam board in the concrete mould before pouring concrete.
concrete. Steel bars of 10 mm in diameter were arranged in meshes of 100 × 100 mm and 170 × 150
Steel bars of 10 mm in diameter were arranged in meshes of 100 ˆ 100 mm and 170 ˆ 150 mm at both
mm at both tension and compression zones, respectively. The reinforcement meshes were placed at
tension and compression zones, respectively. The reinforcement meshes were placed at a depth of
a depth of 50 mm from the bottom and top surfaces before casting. The concrete mixture was
50 mm from the bottom and top surfaces before casting. The concrete mixture was prepared using
prepared using ordinary Portland cement, a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm, and water to cement
ordinary Portland cement, a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm, and water to cement ratio of 0.53.
ratio of 0.53. After casting, the specimens were cured under air-dried condition. At 28 days, the
After casting, the specimens were cured under air-dried condition. At 28 days, the concrete achieved
concrete achieved an average compressive strength of 31.1 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 21 GPa
an average compressive strength of 31.1 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 21 GPa based on testing
based on testing procedures as prescribed in BS EN 12390-3: 2002 and ASTM C469-10, using
procedures as prescribed in BS EN 12390-3: 2002 and ASTM C469-10, using cylindrical specimens
cylindrical specimens prepared in accordance with ASTM C469.
prepared in accordance with ASTM C469.
A digital data acquisition system (NI PXIe-4492 by National Instruments Corporation) was
A digital data acquisition system (NI PXIe-4492 by National Instruments Corporation) was
employed in the experiment measurement. Six accelerometers (352A60 (PCB Group Inc. with a
employed in the experiment measurement. Six accelerometers (352A60 (PCB Group Inc. with a
frequency range of 0.005–60 kHz were mounted on the top surface of concrete specimen using petrol
frequency range of 0.005–60 kHz were mounted on the top surface of concrete specimen using petrol
gel couplant. The arrangement of sensors was identical to the configuration adopted for numerical
investigations. The specimen cross sectional dimensions, density, Lamé constants and modulus of
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 14 of 22
gel 2016,
Sensors couplant.
16, 337 The arrangement of sensors was identical to the configuration adopted for numerical 14 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 14 of 22
investigations. The specimen cross sectional dimensions, density, Lamé constants and modulus of
elasticity
elasticity were
were similar
similar to those
to those of of numerical
numerical models.
models. Figure
Figure 9 shows
9 shows thethe experimental
experimental setset
up.up. It was
It was
elasticity were similar to those of numerical models. Figure 9 shows the experimental set up. It was
considered
considered thatany
that anydistortion
distortion of waves
waves asasrecorded
recorded by by
accelerometers S3, S4
accelerometers and
S3, S4S5 would
and S5 be governed
would be be
considered that any distortion of waves as recorded by accelerometers S3, S4 and S5 would
by the
governed presence
by by
thethe of the
presence crack.
of the In the
crack. experimental
In the measurements,
experimental generations
measurements, of
generations waves were
of waves made
were
governed presence of the crack. In the experimental measurements, generations of waves were
by impact
made by excitations
impact fromfrom
excitations steelsteel
ballsballs
of different
of ball diameters
different ball (19 mm,
diameters (19 15
mm,mm,15 13 mm,
mm, 1310 mm10
mm, and
made by impact excitations from steel balls of different ball diameters (19 mm, 15 mm, 13 mm, 10
mm 9 mm).
andand The
9 mm). purpose
TheThe was
purpose to have
was wave
to have excitations
wave of different
excitations dominant
of different frequencies.
dominant Figure
frequencies. 10 shows
Figure
mm 9 mm). purpose was to have wave excitations of different dominant frequencies. Figure
10 the measurement
shows the arrays and
measurement are labeled
arrays and are A,labeled
B, C and
A, D.
B, The
C crack
and D. has
The varying
crack
10 shows the measurement arrays and are labeled A, B, C and D. The crack has varying depths
depths
has depending
varying depths on
measurement
depending on location.
measurement location.
depending on measurement location.
(a) (a) (b)(b)

Figure 9. 9.
(a) Schematic representation of ofmeasurement setup; (b) photograph of laboratory
Figure 9. (a)
(a) Schematic
Schematic representation
representation of measurement
measurement setup; (b)
(b) photograph
photograph of laboratory
measurement setup.
setup.
measurement setup.
Figure 10. 10.

Figure 3D 3D
view of concrete
view specimen
of concrete block
specimen andand
block testtest
grids over
grids surface
over breaking
surface crack.
breaking crack.
Figure 10. 3D view of concrete specimen block and test grids over surface breaking crack.
3.2.3.2.
Results
ResultsDiscussions
Discussions
3.2. Results Discussions
Steel balls
Steel with
balls withdiameters
diameters of of
19 19
mm,mm, 15 15
mm, 13 13
mm, mm, mm,10 10
mm mmandand9 mm
9 mm were
wereusedusedas as
impact
impact
sources Steel
in the balls with
experimentaldiameters of 19
measurements. mm, The15 mm,
forcing13 mm,
function10 mm and
associated 9 mm
with were
an used
impact as
eventimpact
of of
sources in the experimental measurements. The forcing function associated with an impact event
sources
these balls in the experimental
exhibits consistent measurements.
and broad spectralThecontent
forcingwithfunction associated
dominant with anofimpact
frequencies 11.1 event
kHz,
these balls exhibits consistent and broad spectral content with dominant frequencies of 11.1 kHz,
ofkHz,
13.4 these15.3
balls exhibits
kHz, 18.2 consistent
kHz andand and
19.5 broad
kHz, spectral content
respectively. ForFor with
thethe dominant
control andand frequencies
vertical surface of 11.1 kHz,
breaking
13.4 kHz, 15.3 kHz, 18.2 kHz 19.5 kHz, respectively. control vertical surface breaking
13.4
crack kHz,
(90°) 15.3
concrete kHz, 18.2
block kHz and
specimens, 19.5 kHz,
excitations respectively.
from both For
sidesthe control
were and
considered vertical
for surface
each array.breaking
TheThe
crack (90°) concrete block specimens, excitations from both sides were considered for each array.
crackwere
results (90˝ ) then
concrete block specimens,
averaged. However, excitations
only one fromexcitation
side both sideswasweretaken
considered
for forarray
each each array.
for theThe
results were then averaged. However, only one side excitation was taken for each array for the
resultssurface
inclined were then averaged.
breaking However,
concrete only
block one side (30°,
specimen excitation was
60°,60°,
120° taken
andandfor each
150°) duearray
to tofor the
the inclined
intrinsic
inclined surface breaking concrete block specimen (30°, 120° 150°) due the intrinsic
geometrical
geometrical limitation. AnAn
limitation. example
exampleof the time
of the domain
time domain traces measured
traces measured on on
array A on
array A onthethe
upper
upperfaceface
of the control specimen is shown in Figure 11a. In addition, time domain traces measured
of the control specimen is shown in Figure 11a. In addition, time domain traces measured at the same at the same
array
arraylocation
locationforfor
thethe
specimen
specimen with vertical
with vertical crack (crack
crack (crackdepth of 125
depth mm),
of 125 mm), andand
on onarray B (crack
array B (crack
depth of 100 mm) as well as on array D (crack depth of 25 mm) are also
depth of 100 mm) as well as on array D (crack depth of 25 mm) are also depicted in Figure depicted in Figure 11b–d,
11b–d,
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 15 of 22
surface breaking concrete block specimen (30˝ , 60˝ , 120˝ and 150˝ ) due to the intrinsic geometrical
limitation. An example of the time domain traces measured on array A on the upper face of the control
specimen is shown in Figure 11a. In addition, time domain traces measured at the same array location
for the specimen with vertical crack (crack depth of 125 mm), and on array B (crack depth of 100 mm)
as well as on array D (crack depth of 25 mm) are also depicted in Figure 11b–d, respectively. From
the figures, one can notice that there is a delay in the arrival of Rayleigh peaks for all cases. Apart
from that,Sensors
the delay
2016, 16, of
337 Rayleigh peaks between S3 and S4 becomes longer when the depth 15 of 22 of surface
breaking crack is increased. From the point of view of amplitude, a significant reduction of amplitude
respectively. From the figures, one can notice that there is a delay in the arrival of Rayleigh peaks for
is noticeable when comparing
all cases. Apart from that, the amplitude
the delay recorded
of Rayleigh from sensors
peaks between S3 and S4after the longer
becomes crackwhen
to those
the recorded
from sensors
depthbefore the crack.
of surface breakingNevertheless, dueFrom
crack is increased. to intrinsic
the pointattenuation, reductions
of view of amplitude, of amplitude are
a significant
reduction
also reported of amplitude
for sound is noticeable
concrete cases.when
It iscomparing
noted that the amplitude
the elasticrecorded
wavefrommight sensors
have after the
traveled down
crack to those recorded from sensors before the crack. Nevertheless, due to intrinsic attenuation,
other shorter paths in concrete medium and been diffracted by the crack tip, rather
reductions of amplitude are also reported for sound concrete cases. It is noted that the elastic wave
than traveling in a
“straight and direct” direction underneath the crack along the measurement array.
might have traveled down other shorter paths in concrete medium and been diffracted by the crack This affects mostly
the first arrival of P-wave
tip, rather and causing
than traveling it to be
in a “straight andinsignificant as underneath
direct” direction comparedthe to that
crack coming
along thefrom other
measurement
travel paths and possibly array.produced
This affects more
mostly erroneous
the first arrival of P-wave and
estimations. causingfindings
Similar it to be insignificant
were also reported
as compared to that coming from other travel paths and possibly produced more erroneous
in a previous study [8].
estimations. Similar findings were also reported in a previous study [8].
50
Rayleigh Peak
Time (s)
0
0.009 0.0095 0.01 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013 0.0135 0.014
-50
Offtset (mm)
-100
-150
-200
-250
Array A-Sound Specimen

-300
(a)
50 Rayleigh
Peak Time (s)
0
0.009 0.0095 0.01 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013 0.0135 0.014
-50
Offtset (mm)
-100
-150
-200
-250
Array A-Vertical Crack Specimen
-300
(b)
50
Rayleigh
Peak Time (s)
0
0.009 0.0095 0.01 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013 0.0135 0.014
-50
Offtset (mm)
-100
-150
-200
-250
Array B-Vertical Crack Specimen
-300
(c)
Figure 11. Cont.

Sensors 2016, 16, 337 16 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 16 of 22

50
Sensors 2016, 16, 337
Rayleigh 16 of 22
Peak Time (s)
0
50
0.009 0.0095 0.01
Rayleigh 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013 0.0135 0.014
Peak Time (s)
-50 0
0.009 0.0095 0.01 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013 0.0135 0.014
Offtset (mm)
-50
-100
Offtset (mm)
-100
-150
-150
-200
-200
-250 -250
Array D-Vertical Crack Specimen
Array D-Vertical Crack Specimen
-300
-300
(d)
(d)
Figure 11. Time domain traces collected on array A for (a) control specimen and (b) specimen with
Time crack
Figure 11.vertical domain(c)
traces collected onconcrete
array specimen
A for (a)and
control specimen theand (b) specimen with
Figure 11. Time domainand on collected
traces array B for latter
on array (d) on
A for (a) control array
specimenD forand specimen with
(b) specimen with
vertical crack and (c) on array B for latter concrete specimen and (d) on array D for the specimen with
the crack.
vertical crack and (c) on array B for latter concrete specimen and (d) on array D for the specimen with
the crack.
the crack. Figure 12 illustrated the general procedure involved in the crack depth estimation. Amplitude
and velocity indices were calculated by using Equations (4) and (5) with the same signal processing
Figure
Figure 12and12 illustrated
illustrated
data analysisthe the general
general
procedures procedure
procedure
as mentioned in involved
involved
the previousin inthethe crack
crack
section. depth
depth
Since estimation.
estimation.
the wavelength Amplitude
canAmplitude
be
and velocityknown and obtained
indices were from the excitation
calculated frequency used, the(4)estimated depth orthe
degree of inclination
and velocity indices were calculated byby using
using Equations
Equations (4) and and(5)(5)withwith
the same
same signal
signal processing
processing
can be numerically derived from AI and VI correlations obtained from simulation result analysis.
and data analysis
and data analysis procedures
procedures as mentioned
mentioned in the previous section. Since the wavelength be
in the previous section. Since the wavelength can canknown
be
The actual and experimental measured crack depths as well as their discrepancies are depicted in
and obtained
known and obtained from
Figures the excitation
13 from
and the
14, onfrequency
excitation
based used,
frequency
an evaluation the
used,
using estimated
the estimated
velocity depthdepth
and amplitude orindices.
degree In of
or degree inclination can be
of inclination
general, the
cannumerically
be numerically derived
amplitude from
derived
index AI
from
provided and aAIVIand
more correlations obtained
VI correlations
accurate estimation, from
obtained
with simulation result analysis.
frominsimulation
discrepancies all measurement result The actual
casesanalysis.
being lowermeasured
than those obtained from an evaluation using thediscrepancies
velocity index. In are addition, the largest
The actual and experimental measured crack depths as well as their discrepancies are depicted in13
and experimental crack depths as well as their depicted in Figures
discrepancy was found from measuring the specimen with vertical cracks especially for the two
and 1413based
Figures and on
14,an evaluation
based on an using velocity
evaluation and velocity
using amplitude and indices.
amplitude In general,
indices. theInamplitude
general, index
the
deeper depths (d = 100 mm and 125 mm). It is noticeable that for all cases when the propagation
providedindex
amplitude awavelength
more accurate
provided a estimation,
more accuratewith discrepancies
estimation, with in all measurement
discrepancies
is smaller than the crack depths, the corresponding discrepancy values between the in cases
all being
measurement lower than
cases
those
being obtained
lower actual from obtained
than those
and an evaluation
estimated crackfrom an
are using
lower. the velocity
evaluation
Apart from using index.
that, the velocity
it shows In addition,
that index. Inthe
the depth of thelargest the
addition,
crack discrepancy
was largest
was foundunderestimated
discrepancy fromfound
was measuringif compared
from to the actualwith
the specimen
measuring theones. The propagation
vertical
specimen cracks
with of especially
elastic wavesfor
vertical cracksinespecially
concrete
the two medium
deeper
for the depths
two
could be more complicated compared to the 2D simulation; the elastic wave may have been
(d = 100
deeper depths mm (d = 100 mm and 125 mm). It is noticeable that for all cases when the propagation is
and 125 mm). It is noticeable that for all cases when the propagation wavelength
propagated down other shorter pathways in concrete medium and diffracted by the crack tip, rather
smaller than
wavelength is the
than crackthan
smaller
traveling depths,
in thethe
a “straight corresponding
crack
and depths,
direct” thediscrepancy
direction corresponding
from below the values between
However,the
discrepancy
crack. actual
values
the and estimated
between
discrepancy the
crackand
actual are estimated
lower.
betweenApart from
crack
estimated are
and that, it shows
lower.
actual Apart thatfrom
depths/degree the
of depth
that, itofshows
inclination the
wascrack thatwas
within theunderestimated
±18%, depth
suggestingof the if compared
crack
that the was
proposed method could be usefuloffor crack depth andin degree of inclination
to the actual
underestimated ones. The propagation
if compared to the actualelastic ones. waves
The concrete
propagation elasticestimation.
ofmedium couldinbeconcrete
waves more complicated
medium
compared
could be more to the 2D simulation;
complicated compared the elastic
to thewave may have been
2D simulation; propagated
the elastic wavedown may other
have shorter
been
pathwaysdown
propagated in concrete medium
other shorter and diffracted
pathways in concreteby the crack tip,
medium and rather
diffractedthanbytraveling
the crackintip,a “straight
rather
andtraveling
than direct” direction from and
in a “straight below the crack.
direct” However,
direction the discrepancy
from below the crack.between
However, estimated and actual
the discrepancy
depths/degree
between estimated of and
inclination
actual was within ˘18%,
depths/degree suggesting that
of inclination was the proposed
within ±18%,method suggestingcouldthatbe useful
the
for crack depth and degree of inclination estimation.
proposed method could be useful for crack depth and degree of inclination estimation.
Figure 12. Procedure for crack depth and degree of inclination estimation.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 17 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 17 of 22
70.0 Inclined 300 14

Actual depth Measured depth Discrepancy
60.0 12
50.0 10
Crack depth (mm)
Discrepancy (%)
40.0 8
30.0 6
20.0 4
10.0 2
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(a)
140.0 Vertical 900 20
18
120.0
16
100.0 14
Crack depth (mm)
Discrepancy (%)
12
80.0
10
60.0
8
40.0 6
4
20.0
2
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(b)
70.0 18
16
60.0
14
50.0
Crack depth (mm)
12
Discrepancy (%)
40.0 10
30.0 8
6
20.0
4
10.0
2
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(c)
Figure 13. Comparison between actual and experiment measured crack depth based on velocity index
Figure 13. Comparison between actual and experiment measured crack depth based on velocity index
for (a) inclined 30°, (b) vertical 90° and (c) inclined 150°.
for (a) inclined 30˝ , (b) vertical 90˝ and (c) inclined 150˝ .
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 18 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 18 of 22
70.0 Inclined 300 12

60.0
10
50.0
Crack depth (mm)
Discrepancy (%)
40.0
6
30.0
4
20.0
2
10.0
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(a)
140.0 Vertical 900 16
120.0 14
12
100.0
Crack depth (mm)
Discrepancy (%)
10
80.0
8
60.0
6
40.0
4
20.0 2
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(b)
70.0 Inclined 1500 14
60.0 12
50.0 10
Crack depth (mm)
Discrepancy (%)
40.0 8
30.0 6
20.0 4
10.0 2
0.0 0
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(c)
Figure 14. Comparison between actual and experiment measured crack depth based on amplitude
Figure 14. Comparison between actual and experiment measured crack depth based on amplitude
index
index for (a)
for (a) inclined
inclined 30°;
30˝ ; (b)
(b) vertical
vertical 90°;
90˝ ; (c)
(c) inclined
inclined 150°.
150˝ .
Figures 15 and 16 show the discrepancy between actual and experimentally measured degree of
inclination for velocity and amplitude indices, respectively. It can be seen from the figure that the
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 19 of 22
Sensors Figures 15
2016, 16, 337 and 16 show the discrepancy between actual and experimentally measured 19 degree
of 22
of inclination for velocity and amplitude indices, respectively. It can be seen from the figure that the
determinationofofthe
determination thedegree
degreeofofinclination
inclinationofofsurface
surfacebreaking
breakingcrack
crackwas
wasgreatly
greatlyinfluenced
influencedby bythethe
crackdepth.
crack depth.Few Few factors
factors contributed
contributed to the
to the discrepancy.
discrepancy. First,
First, the sample
the sample surface
surface is relatively
is relatively flat,
flat, but
but has
still still ahas a slight
slight locallocal curvature;
curvature; thisthis
cancan
leadlead
to to incomplete
incomplete andand inconsistentcontact
inconsistent contactbetween
betweenthe the
surfacesofofthe
surfaces theaccelerometers
accelerometersand andthe
thespecimen.
specimen.Second,
Second,eveneventhough
thoughthethecontact
contactpressure
pressureon onthethe
accelerators is maintained as constant as possible, the contact condition varies
accelerators is maintained as constant as possible, the contact condition varies in each measurementin each measurement
duetotothe
due theinherently
inherentlyporous
porousnature
natureofofthe
theconcrete
concretesurface.
surface.Third,
Third,thethespecimen
specimenhas haslocalized
localizedminor
minor
surfacecracks
surface cracksororunseen
unseenvoids
voidsthat
thatare
arepossibly
possiblydueduetotothe
thehardening
hardeningofofconcrete
concretebinder
binderover
overtime.
time.
In addition, the discrepancy can be due to the intrinsic attenuation caused by the
In addition, the discrepancy can be due to the intrinsic attenuation caused by the material since the material since the
concreteisisknown
concrete knowntotobe bean
aninhomogeneous
inhomogeneousmaterialmaterialand
andgeometrically
geometricallyspreads
spreadswhen
whenthe thewaves
wavespasspass
throughthe
through thespecimen.
specimen.Finally,
Finally,the
thevariation
variationofofthethesignal
signalshape
shapedue duetotothe
theabove-mentioned
above-mentionederror error
sourcescauses
sources causessome
somedifficulty
difficultyin
inconsistent
consistentwindowing
windowingof ofthe
thesignals.
signals.
160 Actual angle Measured angle Discrepancy d = 30 mm 10.00
9.00
140
8.00
120
Degree of Inclination (θ0)
7.00
100
Discrepancy (%)
6.00
80 5.00
4.00
60
3.00
40
2.00
20
1.00
0 0.00
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(a)
120 14.00
12.00
100
10.00
Discrepancy (%)
80
8.00
60
6.00
40
4.00
20 2.00
0 0.00
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(b)
Figure 15. Comparison between actual and experimentally measured degree of inclination based on
velocity index for (a) 30 mm crack depth and (b) 90 mm crack depth.
velocity index for (a) 30 mm crack depth and (b) 90 mm crack depth.
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 20 of 22
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 20 of 22
140 8.00
7.00
120
6.00
100
Discrepancy (%)
5.00
80
4.00
60
3.00
40
2.00
20 1.00
0 0.00
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(a)
140 Actual Angle Measured angle Discrepancy d = 90 mm 14.00
120 12.00
100 10.00
Discrepancy (%)
80 8.00
60 6.00
40 4.00
20 2.00
0 0.00
10.9 13.4 15.3 18.2 19.5
Frequency (kHz)
(b)
amplitude index for (a) 30 mm crack depth and (b) 90 mm crack depth.
amplitude index for (a) 30 mm crack depth and (b) 90 mm crack depth.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The interaction of wave propagation with the surface breaking crack is studied both numerically
The interaction of wave propagation with the surface breaking crack is studied both numerically
and experimentally in this paper. The study is focused on the determination of the surface breaking
and experimentally in this paper. The study is focused on the determination of the surface breaking
crack depth and also its degree of inclination. Two parameters—namely, velocity and amplitude—
crack depth and also its degree of inclination. Two parameters—namely, velocity and amplitude—were
were calculated and extracted from simulated time domain waveforms and the corresponding
calculated and extracted from simulated time domain waveforms and the corresponding established
established correlations were verified through experimental measurements. The overall results
correlations were verified through experimental measurements. The overall results exhibit a good
exhibit a good qualitative agreement regarding the relationship between the proposed parameters
qualitative agreement regarding the relationship between the proposed parameters and surface
and surface breaking crack depth as well as the degree of inclination with a maximum discrepancy
breaking crack depth as well as the degree of inclination with a maximum discrepancy of around
of around 16%. From the analyses, the amplitude index seemed to be more sensitive towards the
16%. From the analyses, the amplitude index seemed to be more sensitive towards the changes in
changes in crack depth and also the degree of inclination, especially when the wavelength is greater
crack depth and also the degree of inclination, especially when the wavelength is greater than the
than the crack depth due to its higher penetration ability. Apart from the proposed wave parameters
crack depth due to its higher penetration ability. Apart from the proposed wave parameters used
used for crack characterization, the feasibility of other parameters, such as the central frequency, peak
for crack characterization, the feasibility of other parameters, such as the central frequency, peak
frequency, coherence, the cut off frequency and phase velocity, are worth exploring. In addition, the
parameters used for simulations can be better defined to overcome the discrepancies between the
actual and measured values such as the intrinsic geometrical attenuation and the viscoelasticity of
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 21 of 22
frequency, coherence, the cut off frequency and phase velocity, are worth exploring. In addition,
the parameters used for simulations can be better defined to overcome the discrepancies between
the actual and measured values such as the intrinsic geometrical attenuation and the viscoelasticity
of concrete materials as well as the three-dimensional (3D) propagation behavior of elastic waves.
An interesting future work could focus on the neural network for simultaneous identification of crack
depth and degree of inclination. Apart from this, a real site investigation, especially for a large concrete
specimen, could look at different sizes or forms of cracking or deterioration. It is recommended that
cross-checking the proposed parameters will enhance their reliability in crack characterization.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported under the Ministry of Education Malaysia-High Impact
Research (MOHE-HIR) UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/ENG/54 and University of Malaya Research Grant Scheme
RP004B-13AET. Special appreciation is expressed to MDC Precast Industries Sdn Bhd (501872-A) for the
experimental supports.
Author Contributions: H.K. Chai and K.S. Lim conceived and designed the experiments; F.W. Lee performed the
experiments; H.K. Chai and F.W. Lee analyzed the data; H.K. Chai contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools;
H.K. Chai and F.W. Lee wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Sham, F.C.; Chen, N.; Long, L. Surface crack detection by flash thermography on concrete surface. Insight Non
Destr. Test. Cond. Monit. 2008, 50, 240–243. [CrossRef]
2. Matsuyama, K.; Yamada, M.; Ohtsu, M. On-site measurement of delamination and surface crack in concrete
structure by visualized NDT. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2381–2387. [CrossRef]
3. Kee, S.H.; Gucunski, N. Characterizing a Surface-Breaking Crack in Concrete Bridge Decks Using
Surface Wave Measurements. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting
(No. 14-3944), Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2014.
4. Yin, Z.; Wu, C.; Chen, G. Concrete crack detection through full-field displacement and curvature
measurements by visual mark tracking: A proof-of-concept study. Struct. Health Monit. 2014. [CrossRef]
5. Hevin, G.; Abraham, O.; Pederson, H.A.; Campillo, M. Characterization of surface cracks with Rayleigh
waves: A numerical model. NDT&E Int. 1998, 31, 289–297.
6. Kim, J.H.; Kwak, H.G. Rayleigh wave velocity computation using principal wavelet-component analysis.
NDT&E Int. 2011, 44, 47–56.
7. Willcocks, M.; Veidt, M.; Palmer, G. Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves for Damage Detection in Layered
Concrete Structures. In Acoustics 2011: Breaking New Ground; The Australian Acoustical Society: Gold Coast,
Australia, 2011; pp. 1–7.
8. Chai, H.K.; Momoki, S.; Aggelis, D.G.; Shiotani, T. Characterization of Deep Surface-Opening Cracks in
Concrete: Feasibility of Impact-Generated Rayleigh-Waves. ACI Mater. J. 2010, 107, 305–311.
9. Lee, F.W.; Lim, K.S.; Chai, H.K. Determination and extraction of Rayleigh-waves for concrete cracks
characterization based on matched filtering of center of energy. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 363, 303–315. [CrossRef]
10. Alver, N.; Ohtsu, M. Nondestructive Evaluation of Surface Crack Depth in Concrete. In Topics in Dynamics of
Civil Structures; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 4, pp. 269–275.
11. Chai, H.K.; Aggelis, D.G.; Momoki, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; Shiotani, T. Single-side access tomography for
evaluating interior defect of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2411–2418. [CrossRef]
12. Wave2000. Available online: http://www.cyberlogic.org (accessed on 11 April 2014).
13. Lee, F.W.; Chai, H.K.; Tan, T.O. Feasibility Study on Evaluating Surface Opening Cracks in Concrete by
Multi-Channel Instrumented Surface Rayleigh Wave Propagation. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2014, 17, 785–800.
14. Aggelis, D.G.; Shiotani, T. Repair evaluation of concrete cracks using surface and through-transmission wave
measurements. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007, 29, 700–711. [CrossRef]
15. Dutton, B.; Clough, A.R.; Rosli, M.H.; Edwards, R.S. Non-contact ultrasonic detection of angled surface
defects. NDT&E Int. 2011, 44, 353–360.
16. Aggelis, D.G.; Shiotani, T.; Polyzos, D. Characterization of surface crack depth and repair evaluation using
Rayleigh waves. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 77–83. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2016, 16, 337 22 of 22
17. Doyle, P.A.; Scala, C.M. Crack depth measurement by ultrasonics: A review. Ultrasonics 1978, 16, 164–170.
[CrossRef]
18. Pecorari, C. Rayleigh wave dispersion due to a distribution of semi-elliptical surface-breaking cracks.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 103, 1383–1387. [CrossRef]
19. Pecorari, C. Scattering of a Rayleigh wave by a surface-breaking crack with faces in partial contact.
Wave Motion 2001, 33, 259–270. [CrossRef]
20. Arias, I.; Achenbach, J.D. A model for the ultrasonic detection of surface-breaking cracks by the scanning
laser source technique. Wave Motion 2004, 39, 61–75. [CrossRef]
21. Tsutsumi, T.; Wu, J.; Wu, J.; Huang, X.; Wu, Z. Introduction to a new surface-wave based NDT method for
crack detection and its application in large dam monitoring. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Dam Safety and Detection of Hidden Troubles of Dams and Dikes, Xi’an, China, 1–3 November 2005;
pp. 1–3.
22. Zewer, A.; Polak, M.A.; Santamaria, J.C. Detection of surface breaking cracks in concrete members using
Rayleigh waves. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 2005, 10, 295–306. [CrossRef]
23. Chaix, J.F.; Garnier, V.; Corneloup, G. Ultrasonic wave propagation in heterogeneous solid media: Theoretical
analysis and experimental validation. Ultrasonics 2006, 44, 200–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Philippidis, T.P.; Aggelis, D.G. Experimental study of wave dispersion and attenuation in concrete. Ultrasonics
2005, 43, 584–595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Aggelis, D.G.; Shiotani, T. Experimental study of surface wave propagation in strongly heterogeneous media.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122, EL151–EL157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Selleck, S.F.; Landis, E.N.; Peterson, M.L.; Shah, S.P.; Achenbach, J.D. Ultrasonic investigation of concrete
with distributed damage. ACI Mater. J. 1998, 95, 27–36.
27. Shah, S.P.; Popovics, J.S.; Subramaniam, K.V.; Aldea, C.M. New directions in concrete health monitoring
technology. J. Eng. Mech. 2000, 126, 754–760. [CrossRef]
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
View publication stats

2016 Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking Crack Using Rayleigh Wave Measurement PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2016 Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking Crack Using Rayleigh Wave Measurement PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Surface Breaking Crack Using Rayleigh

Article in Sensors · March 2016

Hwa Kian Chai Kok-Sing Lim

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Composite Structure Fracture Analysis and Failure Prediction View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Academic Editor: Vittorio M. N. Passaro

Sensors 2016, 16, 337; doi:10.3390/s16030337 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

2.1. Model Description

where ρ is material density, ∂ λ is the first

where ’ denotes matrix transpose. The = [time( ,function

First Lame Second Lame P-Wave R-Wave

First Lame Second Lame P-Wave R-Wave

Table 2. Orientation, degree and depth of cracks.

Frequency of Wave, F Corresponding R-Wave Degree of Inclination θ against

2.2. Waveform Results

Sensors 2016, 16, 337 5 of 22

Time (μs) Time (μs)

Sound (10 kHz) S6

Rayleigh Peak Rayleigh Peak

S2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0.2 Time (μs)

2.3. Correlations of Waveform Parameters with Crack

0.95 F=10 kHz

0.90 F=10 kHz

0.80 F=40 kHz

0.60 F=40 kHz

R² = 0.9726 F=40 kHz

0.70 R² = 0.9829 F=10 kHz

both the velocity and amplitude indices ˝

Sensors 2016, 16, 337 12 of 22

(a) (a) (b)(b)

Figure 10. 10.

Array A-Sound Specimen

Figure 11. Cont.

Sensors 2016, 16, 337 16 of 22

70.0 Inclined 300 14

70.0 Inclined 300 12

160 Actual angle Measured angle Discrepancy d = 30 mm 10.00

160 Actual angle Measured angle Discrepancy d = 30 mm 9.00

View publication stats

S-ar putea să vă placă și