Pulse Echo Testing of I-85 CRCP, Atlanta, GA

Kyle Hoegh, Graduate, Research Assistant, email: hoeg0021@umn.edu Dr. Lev Khazanovich, Associate Professor, email: khaza001@umn.edu University of Minnesota Civil Engineering Department Executive Summary This document summarizes the results of ultrasound pulse echo testing of continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) that was conducted September 28th, 29th, and 30th, 2009 on I-85 near Atlanta, GA for project NHS-M002-00(434)01, Coweta county. Pulse echo obtained longitudinal bar depths and concrete thicknesses are presented along with a comparison with pachometer and core measurements. In addition, the measurement process and data interpretation method are detailed. An appendix providing an introduction to ultrasonic testing and the Mira pulse echo device as applied to civil engineering materials, discussion on the self calibration, and sensitivity analysis is also enclosed. Measurement Procedure Recently constructed sections of CRCP pavement on I-85 in Atlanta were suspected to have variability in concrete thickness as well as cover between the reinforcement bars and surface and/or base. Pulse echo testing was conducted on September 28th, 29th, and 30th on these sections to estimate the variability in construction, as other nondestructive techniques such as the pachometer proved to be inconsistent for this application. Measurements were taken in 50 ft intervals on lane 3 and the shoulder (designed as a traffic lane for the future) of northbound I-85 from stations 145+00 to 324+00 (excluding the bridge section) as well as southbound shoulder I-85 from stations 360+00 to 430+00. Figure 1 illustrates the general layout of the tested sections with northbound I-85 lanes on top in figure 1a and the southbound lane on the bottom in figure 1b (not to scale/proportional).
Station # 324+00 Station # 279+00 NORTHBOUND I-85 M B Station # Station # SHOULDER A 272+50 145+00 IR NI LD IG NORTHBOUND I-85 N E 50 ft interval LANE 3 E Measurement points
B R I D G 51 E E X I T

longitudinal joint

1a. Northbound Lane 3 and shoulder general layout.

Station # 430+00

SOUTHOUND I-85

Station # 360+00

1b. Southbound shoulder general layout. Figure 1. Illustration of the general layout of testing (not to scale/proportional).
1

Seven cores were taken at the center of the lanes for calibration/verification purposes (2 in the northbound lane 3, 2 in the shoulder of the northbound lane, and 3 in the southbound shoulder). Measurements were centered approximately 18 in. from the longitudinal joint with the long portion of the device aperture perpendicular to the direction of traffic and the right side of the device and corresponding right side of the B-scans (B-scans discussed in more detail in the appendix) closest to the longitudinal joint. Figure 2 shows an example of the orientation of the device aperture with respect to the lane (lane 3 of the northbound lane in this case). The southbound lane measurements were made in closer proximity to the edge as shown in figure 3. This was done for comparison with the visible interface at the longitudinal joint as no pachometer markings were present for comparison. The concrete cover of the rebars closer to the center of the lane was not measured in this study except for the core location measurements for calibration purposes. At the calibration locations in lane 3 of northbound I-85, 28 scans were taken leading up to and beyond the 50 ft interval marking with the measurement directly over the marking between the 15th and 17th scans. Five scans were taken on all locations between calibration points with the 3rd scan directly over the marking.

Lane 3 Measurement Point 18 in. Longitudinal Joint Shoulder

Figure 2. Orientation of the Mira device in lane 3 of northbound I-85.

Figure 3. Orientation of the device for measurements of the southbound I-85 lane. Figure 4 shows an example calibration point where 28 measurements were taken at 20 mm intervals (measurement 16 is directly over the top of the 50 ft interval marking in this case). In the shoulder of northbound I-85, 3 scans were taken at each location with the 2nd scan directly over the marking. In some locations (<5%) the surface was too rough or uneven for proper coupling of all 40 transducers of the device aperture. In these locations, the aperture was moved to a location in close proximity where proper coupling could be achieved, or no measurement was given in that location. Figure 5 shows an example location where the surface was rough/uneven so the measurement was moved closer to the center of the lane. In the southbound lane, 6 scans were taken at each measurement location with the 4th scan corresponding to the center of the measurement point.

Lane 3

Longitudinal Joint

28 scan markings

Shoulder

Figure 4. Calibration location in lane 3 where 28 scans were made with the 16th scan located directly over the measurement location.

Rough Surface

Figure 5. Example of a rough surface that required the device to be move to the left for proper coupling of the transducers. Data Interpretation In each pulse echo scan, the presence of two or three longitudinal bars could be identified, and their depths measured. Figures 6a and 6b show typical output displays showing 2 and 3 longitudinal bars within the aperture, respectively. The center of objects shown in the scans corresponds to the center of the longitudinal bars and the radius of the bars (0.375 in.) was subtracted to obtain the concrete
4

cover over each bar. Figure 6c shows a typical output signal where a reflection between the concrete and base can be seen. The thickness of the concrete was measured by applying the same method to the oblong reflection at the base as was used for the concrete cover measurements. It should be noted that the data interpretation for the concrete thickness was more difficult to obtain than the concrete cover measurements. Depth measurements were highly dependent on a proper coupling condition at the surface.

Depth
left bar right bar Pointing towards center of lane Pointing towards longitudinal joint

6a. Two longitudinal bar reflections within the device aperture

Depth
left bar Pointing towards center of lane

middle bar shallowest bar

right bar

Pointing towards longitudinal joint

6b. Three longitudinal bar reflections within the device aperture

Reflection at pavement thickness interface

6c. PCC bottom surface reflection Figure 6. Examples of scans with reinforcement and PCC bottom surface reflections. Results Since the concrete cover could be estimated for multiple bars in each scan, we used two different methods to estimate the concrete cover for each measurement location. One method was to estimate the concrete cover of each longitudinal bar in the device aperture. In this output method (we will call it all bars) the concrete cover of the left and right bars, or left, middle, and right bars were all estimated depending on if there were 2 or 3 bars in the aperture, respectively. Another method (we will call it shallowest bar) that proved to be less time consuming was to estimate the concrete cover of only the shallowest bar within the device aperture. In the shallowest bar method only the middle bar would be estimated in figure 6b as the center of the middle scatterer (longitudinal bar reflection) is shallower than the center of the scatterers (longitudinal bar reflections) on the left and right within the device aperture.

Figure 7 shows the pulse echo estimated concrete cover for all bars within the device aperture for stations 145+00 through 238+50, and for the shallowest bar for all stations greater than 238+50 of northbound lane 3. Even for the shallowest bar method, the position of the shallowest bar is still labeled in the plot. These measurements were taken at 50 foot intervals centered 18 in. from the longitudinal joint in northbound lane 3. In northbound lane 3 the right part of the aperture is closest to the lane edge and the left part is toward the center of the lane, as is the case for all measurements. The pulse echo measured concrete covers ranged from 2.63 in. to 5.64 in. The FHWA, GA Division (Painter, 2009) provided the concrete cover specifications. It can be observed that a significant amount of concrete cover measurements were above (28%) or below (25%) the specified upper limit and lower limits of concrete cover of 4.25 in. and 3.5 in. respectively.
6.0 5.5 5.0

Concrete Cover, in.

4.5 Top Limit 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

140+00 190+00 240+00 290+00 340+00

Left Middle Right Bottom Limit

Station #

Figure 7. Concrete cover measurements for northbound lane 3 including all bars within the Mira pulse echo device aperture.

Figure 8 shows the pulse echo measured concrete cover for all bars within the device aperture for stations 223+00 through 228+00 of northbound lane 3. This zoomed in view of some of the data presented in figure 7 shows the slight variation (in some cases up to ~0.4 in.) in concrete cover of adjacent longitudinal bar depths even within the same longitudinal line. It can also be observed that most of the concrete cover measurements were below the specifications.
6.0 5.5 5.0

Concrete Cover, in.

4.5 Upper Limit 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

223+00 224+00 225+00 226+00 227+00 228+00

Left Middle Right Bottom Limit

Station #

Figure 8. Pulse echo concrete cover all bars measurements for northbound lane 3 zoomed in to station numbers 223+00 through 228+00.

Figure 9 shows the pulse echo measured concrete cover for the shallowest bar from 145+00 to 250+00 and all bars measured in stations 250+50 through 321+50 of the northbound shoulder. It can be observed that a most of the concrete cover measurements were above (75%) the specified upper limit. Only 4% of the concrete cover measurements were below the specified concrete cover lower limit, and only 21% of the concrete cover measurements were within the specified limits. The pulse echo measured concrete covers ranged from 3.20 in. to 6.87 in.

Concrete Cover, in.

6 Top Limit 5 Left Middle 4 Right Bottom Limit 3

2
140+00 190+00 240+00 290+00 340+00

Station #

Figure 9. Concrete cover measurements for northbound shoulder between 145+00 and 321+50.

Figure 10 shows the pulse echo estimated concrete cover for the shallowest bar in stations 360+82 through 430+19 of the southbound lane. It can be observed that most of the concrete cover measurements were below (51%) the specified lower limit. There was also a significant amount of concrete cover measurements (18%) with below 2.5 in. of concrete cover. A small amount (16%) of the concrete cover measurements were above the specified concrete cover upper limit, and only 33% of the concrete cover measurements were within the specified limits. The pulse echo measured concrete covers ranged from 1.53 in. to 5.37 in.

6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5

Concrete Cover, in.

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

350+00 360+00 370+00 380+00 390+00 400+00 410+00 420+00 430+00 440+00

Top Limit Left Middle Right Bottom Limit

Station #

Figure 10. Critical bar concrete cover (southbound).

10

Since the thickness determination process is more time consuming and less straight forward than rebar concrete cover determination, only selected measurements at locations where the bottom PCC reflections have been analyzed. Therefore, less measurement points were evaluated for the thickness measurements than were evaluated for the concrete cover measurements. Figure 11 shows the pulse echo estimated thicknesses at locations along the southbound lane from stations 360+82 through 430+19. The pulse echo measured concrete thickness ranged from 9.20 in. to 12.60 in. .
14.0

13.0

Concrete Thickness, in.

12.0

11.0

Upper Limit thickness Lower Limit

10.0

9.0

8.0
355+00 365+00 375+00 385+00 395+00 405+00 415+00 425+00 435+00

Station #

Figure 11. Southbound I-85 pulse echo results for concrete thickness.

11

Comparisons In this study, pulse echo measurements were compared with measurements obtained from 7 cores taken at the center of the lanes. Four cores were used for verification (2 in northbound lane 3, 2 in the shoulder of the northbound lane), and 3 cores in the southbound lane were used as a blind test verification, as the core evaluation results were not available until analysis of the data was completed. Table 1 gives the core and pulse echo measurements at the core locations taken in the north and southbound lanes. Figure 12 shows the pulse echo versus core measured concrete cover for north and southbound core locations. It also shows a linear regression assuming a y-intercept of 0. An Rsquared of 0.991 suggests that the regression explains more than 99% of the variation. It also shows that pulse echo measurements underestimate the concrete cover by a slight amount (3%) compared to core measurements. It should be noted that this is comparable with the accuracy of the core measurements themselves. Table 1. Pulse Echo and core cover measurements for southbound (SB) and northbound (NB) I-85 lanes.
SB Pulse Echo Concrete Cover (in) Core Concrete Cover (in) 4.64 SB 3.74 SB 4.90 NB 4.09 NB 4.40 NB 4.12 NB 6.87

4.75

4.125

4.5

4.375

8 7.5
Pulse Echo Concrete Cover, in.

7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 3 4

y = 0.972x R = 0.991

Core Concrete Cover, in.

Figure 12. Northbound and Southbound pulse echo versus core concrete cover measurements.

12

Table 2 gives the core and pulse echo measurements at the core locations taken in the north and southbound lanes. Figure 13 shows the pulse echo versus core measured concrete depth for the same cores. It also shows a linear regression assuming a y-intercept of 0. An R-squared of 0.967 suggests that the regression explains about 97% of the variation. The slope suggests that the concrete thickness is consistently underestimated by the same amount as the concrete cover (3%). As both concrete cover and thickness measurements were slightly under predicted by the same percentage with a high R-squared, a practical approach to this issue would be to adjust the computed concrete covers and thicknesses by increasing the pulse echo estimated results by 3%. However, in this study no adjustments such as this have been applied. Table 2. Pulse Echo and core thickness measurements for southbound (SB) and northbound (NB) I85 lanes.
SB Pulse Echo Concrete Thickness (in) Core Concrete Thickness (in) 12.68 SB 10.93 SB 12.14 NB 12.66 NB 12.33 NB 11.65 NB 14.37

12.75

11.17

12.75

13.00

12.625

12.25

14.75

15.0

Pulse Echo Pavement Thickness, in.

14.0

y = 0.971x R = 0.967

13.0

12.0

11.0

10.0

9.0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Core Pavement Thickness, in.

Figure 13. Northbound and Southbound pulse echo versus core thickness measurements.

13

A comparison of the pulse echo results with pachometer measurements conducted at the same locations of northbound lane 3 was also conducted. Figure 14 shows the core measured versus pachometer measured concrete cover for north and southbound I-85 data. There is a low correlation (R2 = 0.186) between the core measured concrete cover and pachometer measurements.

6.0 5.5 5.0

y = 1.042x R = 0.186

Core Concrete Cover, in.

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

2 3 4 5 6

line Core vs Pacometer Linear (Core vs Pacometer)

Pachometer Concrete Cover, in.

Figure 14. Core versus pachometer concrete cover for north and southbound I-85.

14

Figure 15 shows the pulse echo measured concrete cover versus pachometer measured concrete cover for northbound lane 3, including a linear fit assuming a y-intercept of 0. There is a very low correlation (less than 2%) between the pulse echo and pachometer measurements.
6 6
Pulse Echo Concrete Cover, in.

5 5

y = 1.079x R = 0.020

pulse echo vs pachometer 4 line 4 3 3 2

2 3 4 5 6

Linear (pulse echo vs pachometer)

Pachometer Concrete Cover, in.

Figure 15. Pulse echo versus pachometer measured concrete cover for lane 3 of northbound I-85.

Conclusion Testing on I-85 in Atlanta, GA was the first extensive application of the Mira ultrasonic testing device for a large scale pavement evaluation. The results of over 3 miles of testing showed that the device can reliably determine the depth of rebars with an accuracy significantly exceeding pachometer results. Concrete pavement thickness was also determined for the southbound I-85 sections comparing favorably to the accuracy of depth measurements determined by coring. Nevertheless, this testing identified possible opportunities for improving this technology. One of these potential bottlenecks includes the productivity level of the device. While the 2 person crew production rate was about 85 points per hour (~1.65 miles of pavement/hr) at 50 ft intervals once the procedure was established, it should be noted that achieving this rate is highly dependent on significant physical efforts of a two member testing crew. Development of a semi-automated scanner incorporating the Mira device as a measurement unit would significantly speed up the testing process and reduce the required number of testing personnel for productive testing. Another possible bottleneck is the time intensive manual data interpretation procedure that requires experience/expertise. Development of software to automate interpretation of the signals would provide a more efficient and less subjective analysis of the collected data and reduce the cost of testing and data interpretation.
15

While the pavement section results in locations where the concrete cover and thickness were measured can be reported with confidence, this is not a comprehensive report representative of the entire pavement section. For example only three rebars in the pavement cross-section were evaluated. Despite the opportunities for improvement of the PE productivity, an evaluation of this technology for project NHS-M002-00(434)01, Coweta County, shows that the results for the measured locations are clear. A summary of the results of the measured locations is given below. Northbound lane 3 from 145+00 to 324+00: 53 percent of the measured concrete covers were out of the range between 3.5 and 4.25 in (tolerance levels). The northbound shoulder/lane 4 from 145+00 to 321+50: 79 percent of the measured concrete covers were out of the range between 3.5 and 4.25 in (tolerance levels). The southbound shoulder/lane 4 from 360+82 to 430+19: 67 percent of the measured concrete covers were out of the range between 3.5 and 4.25 in (tolerance levels), where 18% percent were below 2.5 inches of concrete cover. Overall, concrete slab thickness showed a similar out-of-tolerance pattern with 40 percent of the measurements outside the 11 to 13 inch thickness range.

16