NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration Nenad Gucunski Rutgers University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) April 23, Portland, Oregon

Bridge Deck Damage

Typical Deck Deterioration

Roughly 600,000 Nation s bridges with an average age of 44 years. At the same time concrete decks are deteriorating faster than other bridge components. Between 50 and 85% of bridge maintenance funds are spent to repair or replace portions of the Nation s 2.8 billion square feet of bridge decks. Several billion dollars are spent annually to maintain, repair and replace bridge decks.

SHRP 2 R06-A NDT for Bridge Decks Traditional Methods of Deck Evaluation

NDE Techniques for Bridge Decks GPR Ultrasonics GPR Half- Cell Seismic/Ultrasonic Impact Echo Resistivity Ultrasonics and Impact Echo

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration Project Objectives and Scope

Project Objectives 1. To identify and characterize rapid NDT technologies for concrete deck deterioration; 2. To evaluate the strengths and limitations of applicable NDT technologies from the perspective of speed, accuracy, precision, and ease of use; to validate the promising technologies; 3. To recommend test procedures and protocols for the most effective application of the bridge deck NDT methods evaluated, and; 4. To develop an NDT repository for practitioners.

Outline NDT technology validation objectives Validation testing of NDT technologies Field validation testing Laboratory validation testing Grading and ranking of NDT technologies Electronic repository of NDT technologies NDToolbox Conclusions

Selection of Deterioration Types The evaluation of NDT technologies was carried out with respect to the following four deterioration types: Delamination, Corrosion, Cracking, and Concrete degradation.

Selection of Performance Measures Five performance measures selected for categorizing and ranking of technologies: Accuracy, Repeatability, Ease of data collection, analysis and interpretation, Speed of data collection and analysis, and Cost of data collection and analysis.

Considered NDE Technologies 1. Impact echo 2. Ultrasonic pulse echo (UPE) 3. Ultrasonic surface waves (USW) 4. Impulse response (IR) 5. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) 6. Microwave moisture technique 7. Eddy current 8. Half-cell potential 9. Galvanostatic pulse measurement (GPM) 10.Electrical resistivity (ER) 11. Infrared (IR) thermography 12.Visual inspection 13. Chain drag/hammer sounding 14.Chloride concentration measurement

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration NDT Technology Validation Field Validation

Field Validation Testing 1. Testing conducted on the LTBP Program bridge in Haymarket, VA, on a section approximately 84 x 12 ft. Testing took place in November, 2010. 2. Concentrated on repeatability, speed, ease of use of NDT technologies. 3. Information regarding the cost associated with the testing obtained from the participants.

Rt.15 over I-66 Bridge, Haymarket, VA

Field Validation Test Area

Field Validation Testing F E D C B A 0 10 20 30 40 50 F 0 10 20 30 40 E D C B A Test line for repeatability testing Test lines and points for the result reporting Core locations for corrosion validation Core locations for vertical crack validation Core locations for delamination validation Core locations for concrete deterioration validation

Haymarket Bridge Deck Surface

SHRP 2 R06-A NDT for Bridge Decks 2013 Bridge Inspectors Conference 2013Pacific PacificNorthwest Northwest Bridge Inspectors Conference Haymarket Bridge Deck Surface

Vertical Crack Evaluation

Validation Cores

GPR Single Antenna System

GPR Single Antenna System

GPR Single Antenna System

GPR Multi Antenna System

GPR Multi Antenna System

Impact Echo and Surface Wave Testing

Impact Echo Testing

Air-Coupled Impact Echo

Air-Coupled Impact Echo

Impulse Response

Surface Wave Testing

Air-Coupled Surface Wave Testing

Galvano-static Pulse Measurement

Chain Drag

Hammer Sounding

Field Validation of NDT Technologies

Sample Impact Echo Results

Sample Impact Echo Results

Sample GPR Results

Sample GPR Results Depth Corrected GPR Condition 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Longitudinal Distance (ft) SERIOUS POOR FAIR GOOD -40-30 -20-18 -16-14 -12-10 -8-6 -4 Signal Attenuation (Normalized db) as Condition Indicator

Delamination Detection Results Participant # Technology C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 9 IE 9 Chain Drag/ Hammer Sounding 6 AC IE 7 IE 1 IE 2 Infrared Correct Detection False Detection Approximate Detection No data available: N/A Participant # C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 1 8 N/A N/A N/A 9 4/5 4 Correct Detection False Detection Approximate Detection No data available: N/A Impact Echo GPR

Sample Corrosion Assessment Results 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Longitudinal Distance (ft) Very High H i g h Mod to Low Low Decreasing Corrosion Rate Indication Electrical Resistivity 12 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 Corrosion Rate Grade 8 4 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 Longitudinal Distance (ft) 90% prob. of corrosion transition 90% prob. of no corrosion Half-Cell Potential -720-600 -480-360 -307-237 -180-140 -100-60

Sample Results Technology Repeatability

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration NDT Technology Validation Laboratory Validation

Validation Testing Laboratory component (conducted at UTEP, mid December, 2010 to mid January 2011) a. Testing on a prepared 20x8 ft bare deck slab with a series of defects/deteriorations (delaminations, vertical cracks, corrosion). b. Testing on a section of a real bridge where deterioration and defects were determined after the validation testing through autopsies. c. Concentrated on accuracy and repeatability of NDT technologies.

Test Slab with Simulated Deterioration 20 ft DL9 8 ft C1 C2 DL8 C3 C4 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Shallow Delamination Shallow Severe Delamination Vertical Cracking Test Lines and Points Shallow Very Thin Delamination Deep Delamination Rebar Corrosion Core Location

Laboratory Validation Fabricated Slab

Cores from the Validation Slab C1 C2 C3 Delamination Thick Delamination Very Thin Delamination Delamination Polyester fabric and foam 0.3-2 mm thick C4 Corroded Rebar in Core: Black Corrosion (Fe 3 O 4 )

Seismic/Ultrasonic and GPR Testing

Galvanostatic Pulse Measurement and GPR

Contact and Air-Coupled Impact Echo and Surface Wave Testing

Chain Drag and Hammer Sounding

Delamination Detection from Impact Echo 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Shallow Delamination Shallow Very Thin Delamination Shallow Severe Delamination Deep Delamination Vertical Cracking Rebar Corrosion Test Lines and Points # of Row 7 G SC=Shallow delamination F E D C A B 1 4.2 in. 3~6 in. SC SC SC SC 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 # of Column SC 4 in. Frequency [khz] 14 12 4 6 8 0 6 1 Lateral Distance 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Longitudinal Distance

Delamination Detection Results GPR 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Shallow Delamination Shallow Very Thin Delamination Shallow Severe Delamination Deep Delamination Vertical Cracking Rebar Corrosion Test Lines and Points

Infrared Thermography Result `

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration NDT Technology Grading and Ranking

NDT Performance Measures and Parameters Performance Measure Performance Parameter Weight Factor Detectability Extent 0.3 Accuracy Detectability Threshold 0.3 Severity of Deterioration 0.4 Speed Data Collection 0.6 Data Analysis 0.4 Data Collection 0.45 Ease of Use Data Analysis 0.4 Potential for Automation 0.15 Cost of Data Collection 0.5 Cost Cost of Data Analysis 0.3 Cost of Equipment 0.2

Grading of NDT Technologies - Accuracy Defect Delamination Rebar Corrosion Crack Depth Performance Parameters for Accuracy Technology Participant Device Detectability Detectability Severity of Average Max. Point Extent Threshold Deterioration Point Point (weight =0.3) (weight = 0.3) (weight = 0.4) 8 Air-Couplded 3 3 1 2.2 4 Ground Coupled 3 3 1 2.2 GPR 1 Ground-Coupled 1 1 1 1.0 1.7 2.2 5 Ground-Coupled 1 1 1 1.0 9 Ground-Coupled 3 3 1 2.2 4 Scanning System 3 3 3 3.0 6 Air-Coupled 5 5 1 3.4 Impact Echo 7 Air-Coupled 3 3 1 2.2 2.8 3.4 1 Scanning System 3 3 1 2.2 9 Scanning System 3 3 3 3.0 IE-USW 9 Stationary 3 5 1 2.8 2.8 2.8 Infrared 2 Handheld Camera 3 3 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 Chain Drag 9 -- 3 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 GPM-HCP 4 Stationary 3 1 3 2.4 2.4 2.4 GPR 1 Ground-Coupled 1 3 1 1.6 5 Ground-Coupled 1 3 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 HCP 9 Stationary 3 3 1 2.2 2.2 2.4 SASW 1 Stationary 3 1 1 1.6 4 Stationary 3 3 3 3.0 2.3 3.0 SWT 7 Stationary 3 3 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 TOFD 7 Stationary 3 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 Concrete Degradation USW 9 Stationary 3 3 5 3.8 3.8 3.8

Grading of NDT Technologies - Speed

Grading of NDT Technologies - Speed Technology # of Participants Max Grade Average Grade Infrared 2 4.4 4.1 GPR 5 4.2 3.9 ER 1 3.8 3.8 HCP 1 3.8 3.8 Impulse R 1 3.8 3.8 Chain Drag 1 3.2 3.2 GPM 1 2.4 2.4 USW 1 2.4 2.4 impact Echo 6 2.8 2.3

Grading of NDT Technologies- Ease of Use Technology Participant Data Collection Data Analysis Potential for Automation WF = 0.45 WF = 0.4 WF = 0.15 Overall Index for Ease of Use Infrared 10 3.7 5 3 4.1 Chain drag/hammer sounding 9 3.4 5 3 4 Infrared 2 3.2 5 3 3.9 Resistivity 9 3.7 3 5 3.6 Half Cell 9 3.2 3 5 3.4 Impulse Response 3 2.3 3 3 2.7 Galvanostatic Pulse Meas. 4 2.1 3 3 2.6 Impact echo 9 3.0 1 5 2.5 GPR 9 3.2 1 3 2.3 GPR 1 3.2 1 3 2.3 GPR 5 3.2 1 3 2.3 GPR 4 3.2 1 3 2.3 IE SASW(Surface Waves) 4 3.2 1 3 2.3

Grading of NDT Technologies - Cost Cost between $0.15 and $0.7 per square foot

Summary Grades

Summary Grades - Delamination

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration NDToolbox - NDT Technology Electronic Repository

Content of Electronic NDT Repository 1. Summarized information on all recommended methods for bridge deck evaluation, to obtain: a. Information about a particular NDT technique, and b. A prioritized list of NDT techniques for different types of deterioration detection.

Content of Electronic NDT Repository 2. Documentation for recommended test procedures, protocols, and available standards and guidelines, 3. Samples of data output, results presentation and interpretation, 4. Equipment features, including cost, availability and specifications,

Expanded NDT Toolbox for Transportation Infrastructure Assets Incorporated additional SHRP 2 projects: 1. R06B: Evaluating Applications of Field Spectroscopy Devices to Fingerprint Commonly Used Construction Materials 2. R06C: Using Both Infrared and High-Speed Ground Penetrating Radar for Uniformity Measurement on New HMA Layers 3. R06D: Nondestructive Testing to Identify Delaminations between HMA Layers 4. R06E: Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on Portland Cement Concrete Pavements During Construction 5. R06F: Development of Continuous Deflection Device 6. R06G: Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within Tunnel Linings

NDT to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration Conclusions

Conclusions A number of NDE technologies can provide detailed and accurate information only about a certain type of deterioration or defect. Comprehensive condition assessment of bridge decks, at this stage, can be achieved only through a complementary use of multiple technologies. The NDT technology selection should be guided by the deterioration type and performance measures of the highest interest. Complete conclusions and recommendations can be found in the final report http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/167278.aspx

Anticipated Contributions and Impacts The final product, the electronic repository NDToolbox, is: Complete in the subject matter (detailed in descriptions and discussions, fully illustrated, etc.) Practical in the manner it conveys guidance to engineers and maintenance managers.

Acknowledgements Research team: Rutgers University, UTEP, BAM-Berlin, and Radar Systems Intl. Participants in the validation testing: NDT Corporation Germann Instruments Olson Engineering 3D Radar (V-Metro), Norway IDS, Italy FHWA, Turner-Fairbank s NDE Center University of Texas at Austin University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Rutgers University University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP)

Thank You!