Delaminations in Concrete: A Comparison of Two Common Nondestructive Testing Methods

Author(s): Linnea M. Linton

Source: APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 2/3 (2005), pp. 21-27
Published by: Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)Association for Preservation
Technology International (APT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40004701
Accessed: 29/08/2010 16:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to APT Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
Delaminations in Concrete: A Comparisonof
Common NondestructiveTesting Methods
LINNEA M. LINTON
This research project compares the
accuracy of hammer and impact-
echo tests when searching for
delaminations in a concrete slab.
Fig. 1. Square sheets of bubble wrap were
placed at opposite quadrants (upper right and
lower left) as the test slab was being poured. All
images by the author.
Many structuresundergoingpreserva-
tion work today contain at least some
concrete,whetheras the main structural
materialor as only an auxiliarycompo-
nent, such as flooring.As these struc-
tures age, it is vital to assess the struc-
tural condition of the concreteto assure
that the buildingsare, and will remain,
in good condition throughouttheir life.
It is importantthat preservationistswho
work with historicconcreteunderstand
not only how robust concretebehaves,
but also how concretedeteriorates,how
to locate this deterioration,and how to
repairit.
When modernconcretecures,water
and cementjoin togetherwith fine and
coarseaggregatesto form a solid entity.
This mixturealso bonds to any reinforc-
ing steel present,assumingthat the steel
is clean. One enemyof concretedurabil-
ity is delamination,or separationof the
concreteinto layers.Delaminationscre-
ate artificialdivisionswithin the struc-
ture and can reduceits overallload
capacity.
Delaminationsalso offeropportunities
for antagonisticelements,suchas water
or chlorides,to enterthe concreteand
furtherweakenthe structure.Delamina-
tions in concreteare a seriousproblem
for the use, safety,and, in some cases,
stabilityof concretestructures.Delami-
nationsare often not evidentthrough
visualinspectionuntilthey are severeand
spallingof the concretehas begun.At
this point the damageto the structureis
often extensive,even beyondthe visible
problems,and repairsare costly.
Confirmingthe existenceof delami-
nations and locatingthem beforethe
spallingstage allows the preservationist
an opportunityto counteractthe cause
of the deteriorationand preventfurther
damageto the structure.Discovering
and repairingdamageat an earlystage
of delaminationalso assuresthat more
Two
of the originalmaterialremainsintact.
It is preferablefor the integrityof the
structureif the testingmethodsused are
nondestructive,as destructivemethods
can createlocationsof new deterioration
or aggravateexistingproblems.The
fewerrepairsrequired,the fewer new
deteriorationhot spots, assumingthat
the cause of the initial deteriorationhas
been eliminated.
As concreteages, it becomesmore
importantto monitorits conditionbe-
fore any deteriorationbecomesvisible.
Earlydetectionand repairof deteriora-
tion can eliminatethe need for more
extensiveand expensiverepairsin the
future.In buildingsof historicalsignifi-
cance, earlydetectionand repairof
deteriorationis vital to preservingthe
originalmaterialand the historiccon-
text of the building.
Testing Methods
Severalmethodsarecurrentlyusedto
test for and locate delaminationsin con-
crete;these tests are effectiveto varying
degrees.Eachmethodhas its uses and is
best fittedto certainsituations,depend-
ing on the type and amountof informa-
tion required.Two commontypesof
testingare audible-soundingtests and
impact-echotests.
Hammertest. The most basicmethod
of discoveringdelaminationsin concrete
is the audible-soundingtest. Sounding
tests may be performedwith a hammer,
a chain, a golf ball, or otherimpactor.
For this researchproject,a hammerwas
used. A standardsteel hammeris tapped
on the concretesurface,and the engineer
listensfor differencesin tonal response
of the concrete.Whenthe hammer
comes in contactwith sound, solid con-
crete,a sharp,ringingtone is produced,
while delaminatedconcretecreatesa
21
22 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 36:2-3,
Fig. 2. Average results of all hammer tests. The scale used by the testing
engineer ranged from 1 (definitely delaminated) to 5 (definitely not
delaminated).
dull, hollow sound. Similaracoustical
resultsoccurwhen a heavychain is
draggedor flippedacrossthe surfaceof
the concrete.
The hammermethodis often used
to locate generalareasof delamination
close to the impactsurfaceor as a first
step in a more detailedprocess.It is in-
expensiveand requiresno equipment
otherthan the hammer,nor does it re-
quirespecialtraining.However,it is a
time-consumingand labor-intensivepro-
cess and requiresthe subjectivejudg-
ment of the testingengineerto locate the
delaminations.The only resultsfrom
this methodare "yes"or "no"- there
are no qualitativemeasures;resultsare
sometimesinconclusive.This method
cannot detectdeep delaminationseffec-
tively,nor is it usefulwhen substantial
overlaysare present.It is also difficultto
locate small areasof delaminationusing
the hammermethod.In spite of these
drawbacks,this is one of the few testing
methodsthat have been incorporated
into an ASTMstandard.1
Impact-echo (pulse-echo) test. The
impact-echo,or pulse-echo,testing
methodintroducesa transientstress
pulse into the slab by mechanicalimpact
on the concretesurface.P-waves(com-
pressionwaves) travelthroughthe
objectand are reflectedby the internal
delaminationsand externalboundaries
of the concrete.A transientresonance
conditionis set up by multiplereflec-
tions betweenthese boundaries.A dis-
placementtransducerlocatedclose to
2005
Fig. 3. Difference between average and expected values for the 20 ham-
mer tests. The larger the number, the less correlation between the two.
the impactpoint measuresthe surface
displacementscausedby the arrivalof
the P-waves.The receiverrecordsthe
arrivalof the P-wavesin the time do-
main, and the frequencyof arrivalcan
be determinedby doing a fast Fourier
transformon those results.The depthto
a reflectingsurface(e.g., a delamination)
can be calculatedusing the recordedP-
wave speed and the frequencyof the P-
wave reflectionsfrom the surface.2
Sphericallytippedhardened-steelim-
pactorsare typicallyused as the impact
source. Contacttime is an important
variablein this processbecauseshorter
impacttime leads to higherfrequencies,
which allows the operatorto test thinner
sectionsand detectsmall flaws. It is
easierto get a short contact time on a
smooth, hard surfacethan on a rough or
soft surface.Therefore,it is easierto
detect small and/orshallow delamina-
tions on hardenedand sound concrete.
Impactsusing the pulse-echomethod are
not easily repeatabledue to susceptibil-
ity of the systemto straycurrentand
changesin resultswith only slight relo-
cation of the impactoror receiver,mak-
ing the resultsdifficultto confirm.
Data Collection and Analysis
Two of the most commonlyused testing
methods are the hammermethod and
the impact-echomethod, as described
above. The goal of this researchwas to
determinewhich of these two methods
was most useful, based on a statistical
analysisof the accuracyand a compari-
son of the feasibilityof both methods.
Testingset up. In the realworld, delami-
nationscan take yearsto form.Forthis
researchdelaminationswere simulated
by placingtwo typesof commonly-used
bubblewrap at half the heightof a con-
creteslab while it was beingpoured(Fig.
1). The "large"bubblewrap has bubbles
lli inch in diameterand 3/sinch high.
The "small"bubblewrap has bubbles3/s
inch in diameterand Vsinch high.Al-
thoughthe roundedsurfaceof the mate-
rial does not necessarilymodelthe typi-
cal shapeof a real-worlddelamination,
the air pocketit formsprovidesthe
requiredgap betweenconcretelayers.
Dimensionsof the concreteslabwere
roughly4 feet squareby 9 inchesthick.
Concretewas pouredinto the form
to a heightof 4 inches,roughlyhalf the
heightof the finishedslab. The "delami-
nation"materialwas placedin opposite
quadrantsand the top half of the slab
was poured,beingcarefulnot to dis-
place the simulateddelaminations.The
concretewas thoroughlycompactedbe-
fore and afterplacingthe bubblewrap,
againwithout disturbingthe "delamina-
tions." The slab surfacewas carefully
finished,and the concretewas allowed
to cure for seven days beforethe forms
were removed.A controlslab containing
no delaminationswas pouredat the
same time and finishedin the sameway.
Afterthe formswere removed,a grid
containing121 intersectionswas drawn
on both concreteslabs at 4 inch incre-
 DELAMINATIONSIN CONCRETE 23

Table 1. Occurrences of Each Range in Each Hammer Test. Percent Chance that One Test will be Correct, Given the Cutoff
Percent Error.
Occurrences Percentagescorrect
vs. expected: vs. average: vs. expected: vs. average:
0 12 3 4 .6- 1.6- 2.6- 3.6- .6- 1.6- 2.6- 3.6-
0-.5 0 12 3 4 0-.5
1.5 2.5 3.5 4 1.5 2.5 3.5 4
test
1 51 48 14 8 0 52 63 6 0 0 42.1 39.7 11.6 6.6 0.0 43.0 52.1 5.0 0.0 0.0
2 47 53 17 2 2 56 56 7 2 0 38.8 43.8 14.0 1.7 1.7 46.3 46.3 5.8 1.7 0.0
3 61 40 15 5 0 57 60 4 0 0 50.4 33.1 12.4* 4.1 0.0 47.1 49.6 3.3 0.0 0.0
4 47 54 19 1 0 64 53 4 0 0 38.8 44.6 15.7 0.8 0.0 52.9 43.8 3.3 0.0 0.0
5 52 48 20 1 0 68 46 7 0 0 43.0 39.7 16.5 0.8 0.0 56.2 38.0 5.8 0.0 0.0
6 56 49 14 2 0 70 49 2 0 0 46.3 40.5 11.6 1.7 0.0 57.9 40.5 1.7 0.0 0.0
7 51 57 12 1 0 69 50 2 0 0 42.1 47.1 9.9 0.8 0.0 57.0 41.3 1.7 0.0 0.0
8 47 55 15 4 0 62 54 5 0 0 38.8 45.5 12.4 3.3 0.0 51.2 44.6 4.1 0.0 0.0
9 61 51 6 3 0 77 43 1 0 0 50.4 42.1 5.0 2.5 0.0 63.6 35.5 0.8 0.0 0.0
10 57 43 17 4 0 56 54 11 0 0 47.1 35.5 14.0 3.3 0.0 46.3 44.6 9.1 0.0 0.0
11 51 46 21 3 0 59 56 5 1 0 42.1 38.0 17.4 2.5 0.0 48.8 46.3 4.1 0.8 0.0
12 51 57 11 2 0 67 50 4 0 0 42.1 47.1 9.1 1.7 0.0 55.4 41.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
13 45 48 21 7 0 55 59 6 1 0 37.2 39.7 17.4 5.8 0.0 45.5 48.8 5.0 0.8 0.0
14 56 48 10 7 0 69 49 3 0 0 46.3 39.7 8.3 5.8 0.0 57.0 40.5 2.5 0.0 0.0
15 53 52 16 0 0 71 48 2 0 0 43.8 43.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 58.7 39.7 1.7 0.0 0.0
16 43 55 19 4 0 68 51 2 0 0 35.5 45.5 15.7 3.3 0.0 56.2 42.1 1.7 0.0 0.0
17 56 50 13 2 0 60 57 4 0 0 46.3 41.3 10.7 1.7 0.0 49.6 47.1 3.3 0.0 0.0
18 48 55 13 5 0 72 44 5 0 0 39.7 45.5 10.7 4.1 0.0 59.5 36.4 4.1 0.0 0.0
19 62 48 10 1 0 66 47 8 0 0 51.2 39.7 8.3 0.8 0.0 54.5 38.8 6.6 0.0 0.0
20 48 54 16 3 0 77 41 3 0 0 39.7 44.6 13.2 2.5 0.0 63.6 33.9 2.5 0.0 0.0

Using0 and 1 values (exactagreementor off by one value on the rangefor hammertests):

Accuracy(vs. expected): Precision(vs. average):

Givencutoff, % chance Givencutoff, % chance
Cutoff Total that 1 test will be correct Cutoff Total that 1 test will be correct
>95% 0 0 >95% 15 75
>90% 2 10 >90% 20 100
> 85% 9 45
> 80% 19 95
> 75% 20 100

ments,startingin the centerof the slabs,
with the outer-mostgrid lines beingap-
proximately2 inchesfrom the edges of
the slab. Intersectionson the delami-
nated-slabgridwere numberedand used
as the locationswherethe tests would be
performedto assurethat the samecon-
ditionwas evaluatedfor both the ham-
mer and impact-echotests. Intersections
on the control-slabgridwere used to
finda non-delaminatedbaselinefor both
types of tests.
Hammer-testresults. The hammertest
is a subjectivetest, meaningthat the test
resultis basedon the operator'sopinion
and indicatesonly whetheror not a de-
laminationexists, not a thicknessof the
slab or depthto the delamination.To
comparethe subjectivehammertest
with the objectiveimpact-echotest, it
was necessaryto createa numerical
scalefor the hammer-testresults,that is,
to forcethe hammertest resultsto simu-
late an objectivescale.The scale used
was:
1 = definitelydelaminated
2 = probablydelaminated
3 = uncertain
4 = probablynot delaminated
5 = definitelynot delaminated
Twentytests were performedby the
hammermethod in a varietyof patterns
on the grid. Eachgrid intersectionwas
tested, and a numberfrom the scale
assignedto the location basedon the
operator'sbest estimateof the test re-
sults. While the operatorwas aware of
the locationsof the delaminationsin the
slab, a concertedeffortwas made to
base the resultson only the information
heardduringthe test and not on previ-
ous knowledge.Performingthe tests in
variablepatternson the grid assisted
with this effort.3
Afterthe hammertests were perfor-
med, the data from each test at each grid
intersectionwere averaged.The averages
were then compiledinto a chartwith
each averageat the correspondinggrid
location to show the data at its corre-
spondinglocation on the slab (Fig.2).
Outeredges of the chartare the outer
grid-intersectionpoints;the edges of the
slab are not shown becausethey were
not includedwithin the grid.
Figure2 representsdata collectedand
plotted at each grid intersectionon the
chartand then interpolatesbetweenthe
intersectionpoints. Becausethe values
are shown as a rangeinsteadof as indi-
vidualvalues,the data on each end of
the scale is representedas follows: data
in the 0 to 1 rangeis an area of all 1
values, and data in the 5 to 6 rangeis an
area of all 5 values.Neither of these
areasoccurredon the average-results
chart.
Four quadrantsare clearlydelineated
in Figure2, with the most uncertaintyin
resultlocated at the boundariesbetween
solid concreteand delamination.These
averagevalueswere then comparedto
the known conditionof the slabsto cre-
ate an "expectedvalues"chart:delami-
nated quadrantswere assigneda value
of 1 and solid quadrantsa value of 5.
24 APT BULLETIN:JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION
TECHNOLOGY/ 36:2-3, 2005

Fig. 4. Average of the impact-echo-test depth measurements in inches. Fig. 5. Percent errorcalculated by comparingthe average of all five impact-
Measurements reflect depth from the top of the slab down to the first echo tests with the expected values.
obstacle encountered, be it delaminationor the bottom of the slab.

The centerrow and column of intersec- lute value, the more precisethe results percenterror)of the hammertests. Be-
tion lines were given an expectedvalue for that specifictest. cause the scale used to indicatedelami-
of 3, correspondingto the questionable The hammer-testexpectedvalues nation or solid concretehad no direct
boundarybetweensolid and delami- were also comparedwith the average correlationto a physicalpropertyof the
natedconcrete. values of the 20 tests. Subtractingthe slab, it was not possibleto calculatea
Data for each of the 20 hammertests averagevalues from the expectedvalues meaningfulpercenterrorof the results.
were analyzedfor both precisionand showed that the best accuracyfor the Instead,the differencesbetweenthe ham-
accuracyof each test. To measureaccu- testingmethod occurredin the centerof mer-testdata and the expectedvalues
racy,the values from a specifictest were each quadrant,while bordersbetween were compiledand split into number
comparedto the expectedvalues at each delaminationsand solid concrete,as ranges:0.0 to 0.5, 0.6 to 1.5, 1.6 to 2.5,
grid intersectionby subtractingthe well as edge conditions,adverselyaf- 2.6 to 3.5, and 3.6 to 4.0. The total
actualdata from the expectedresult. fectedthe accuracyof the results.Again, numberof grid intersectionswith a
The lower the absolutevalue of the re- a lower numberindicateshigheraccu- value in each rangewas counted.This
sultingnumber,the more accuratethe racy (Fig. 3). countednumberof intersectionpoints in
resultsfor the specifictest. Precisionwas To comparethe hammer-testresults each rangewas then dividedby the over-
measuredby comparingthe resultsof a with the impact-echo-testresults,it was all numberof intersectionson the grid,
specifictest with the averageresultsof necessaryto createa methodto deter- 121, to obtain the percentof intersec-
all 20 tests. Again,the lower the abso- mine the percentcorrect(oppositeof tion points within that accuracyrange
- the percentcorrect.
Basedon the rangebreakdownof
Table 2. Percent Errorfor Each Grid Intersection for a Typical Impact-Echo Test, expectedvaluesdescribedabove, a dif-
Shown at Corresponding Location on Test Grid: ferencein measurementof 1.5 or less
was decidedto be considered"correct."
0 I 0 I 43 I 0 I 0 1 93 I 47 I 11 I 0 1 56 1 38
0 11 0 0 62 33 2.2 27 2.2 31 33 Thus, to determinethe percentcorrect,
0 5.7 0 0 0 93 16 42 6.7 11 40 the percentof grid intersectionpoints
0 0 0 59 45 40 24 27 40 44 18 fallingwithin this rangewas calculated.
0 0 47 45 57 36 44 40 8.9 27 49 For example,if therewere 51 grid inter-
44 44 6.7 16 24 29 18 31 24 40 38
2.2 6.1 33 16 44 49 I 70 69 66 56 47
sectionpoints with a differencefrom 0.0
2.2 11 16 31 29 6.7 0 0 56 48 52 to 0.5, then that numbercorrespondsto
0 ~~2.2 I 11 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.1 percentof the total numberof in-
0 2.2 2.2 16 11 22 53 48 54 57 0 tersections;if therewere 48 intersection
2.2 [ 2.2 1 2.2 | 6.7 |- 2.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 [ 56 [ 64
points with a differencein the range
Percenterror: Numberof occurrences: Percenterror: Numberof occurrences: from 0.6 to 1.5, that numbercorre-
5% 43 55% 3
10% 7 60% 7 spondsto 39.7 percent.The total per-
15% 6 65% 2 cent correctfor that one test would then
20% 9 70% 2 be 81.8 percent.
25% 4 75% 1
30% 5 80% 0
To furtherassistthe comparisonbe-
35% 6 85% 0 tween the hammertest and the impact-
40% 3 90% 0 echo test, the percentchancethat any
45% 14 95% 2
50% 7 100% 0 one test would provide"correct"results
was also calculated.Of the 20 hammer
 DELAMINATIONSIN CONCRETE 25

Fig. 6. Result of transformationof average impact-echo-test results into Fig. 7. Difference of transformedvalues of the impact-echotest to the
hammer-testscale. The transformedscale was equivalentto that used for hammer-test scale and expected values from the hammer test (accuracy).
the hammer tests and ranged from 1 (definitelydelaminated)to 5 (defi- The largerthe number,the less correlationbetween the two.
nitely not delaminated).

tests, two had resultshigherthan 90 was necessaryto performan averageof mer test, the averagevalues for the five
percentcorrect,nine were higherthan five impactsat each gridlocationto impact-echotests were compiled(Fig.
85 percentcorrect,19 were higherthan obtaina consistentreading.Severalof 4). Again,the graphrepresentsdata col-
80 percentcorrect,and all 20 were these factorsare dependenton the con- lected and plotted at each grid intersec-
higherthan 75 percentcorrect(Table1). figurationof this specificimpact-echo tion on the chartand then interpolates
testingequipmentand could be remedied betweenthe intersectionpoints.
Impact-echo-testresults. Data collected with simpleredesignof the equipment.
fromthe impact-echotest was in the Inspectionof Figure4 does not clear-
Once the P-wavespeed of the con- ly reveal four quadrants,as the corre-
formof a depthin inches,eitherto a cretewas determined,it was possibleto
delaminationor the bottom of the slab. spondinghammertest graph,Figure2,
test each grid intersectionand obtain a does. Again, each impact-echotest was
This depthhas a directcorrelationto a
depthfrom the top of the slab to an ob- comparedto an "expected"value that
physicalpropertyof the slab;therefore, structionin the concrete,be it delamina- correspondedto the depth of eitherthe
unlikethe hammertest, thereis a "right tion or bottom surface.As in the ham- delaminationor the bottom of the slab.
answer,"not just a value on a scale
which the operatorcreated.This "right
answer"makescalculatingaccuracyand Table 3. Occurrences of Percent Errors in Each Impact-Echo Test when Compared
precisionmuch simpler. to Expected Values. Percent Chance that One Test will be Correct, Given the
The originalplanwas to perform20 Percent Errors.
impact-echotests,whichwould directly vs. expected(a):
correlateto the hammertests. However, test 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
once testingbegan,severalfactorscom- 143 769 45 63 14 7
binedto reducethe numberof impact- 2 45 668 85 4137
3 351089923095
echo tests performedto five. First,the 4 40 10 8 9 7 13 2 1 5 6
impact-echoequipmentusedwas very 5 41 11 11 8 5 2 6 3 7 4
sensitiveto strayvoltageand to vibra-
test 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
tion, which often causedthe equipment 13722 10 0020
to registera falsereadingbeforethe 25774 10 0040
36593 512000
impactorhad struckthe surfaceof the 4 10 441 00 0010
concrete.Second,achievinga solid im- 5673110 0050
pact requiredflickingthe impactorbe-
tween one'sfingersonto the surfaceof Percenterrors:
Versusexpected:
the concreteinsteadof justtappingas Givencutoff, % chance Givencutoff, % chance
recommended,and this repeatedfatigue Cutoff Total that 1 test will be correct Cutoff Total that 1 test will be correct
<5% 204 34 <55% 516 85
causedseveralof the most commonly 41 < 60% 546 90
< 10% 248
used sizesof impactorsto break.Third, < 15% 287 47 < 65% 571 94
the equipmentwould not run solely off <20% 330 55 <70% 582 96
<25% 363 60 <75% 590 98
A/C currentand the batteryrequired < 30% 390 64 < 80% 591 98
frequentrecharging.Fourth,a slight <35% 411 68 <85% 593 98
changein positionon the surfaceof the <40% 419 69 <90%
< 95%
539
605
98
100
<45% 457 76
concrete,even a quarterof an inch, often <50% 486 80 <100% 605 100
produceda muchdifferentresult,so it
26 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 36:2-3,
Table 4. Overall Comparison of the Hammer Test and the Impact-Echo Test.
Criterion
equipmentcost
trainingtime
time for averagetest
time spentmaintainingequipment
level of skill required(1-10 scale)
type of informationgathered
value of informationgathered(1-10 scale)
Eachtest was comparedto the expected
value for accuracyand the averagesfor
precision,and percenterrorswere calcu-
lated. The expectedvalueswere also
comparedwith the averagevaluesto de-
terminethe overallaccuracyof the set of
tests (Fig.5).
Percenterrorswere calculatedfor
each impact-echotest. It was necessary
to calculatethe numberof occurrences
of certainpercenterrorrangesper given
impact-echotest in orderfor the percent
errorscalculatedin the impact-echotests
to be comparedwith the percent-correct
valuesfrom the hammertests. Ranges
used for the impact-echotests were in-
crementalby 5 percent,startingfrom 5
percenterrorand proceedingto 100 per-
cent error(Table2).
Thesetotal numbersof occurrences
in each test were then dividedby 5, the
total numberof impact-echotests, and
by 121, the numberof data points taken
per test. This calculationprovidesthe
percentchancethat one test would yield
the givenpercenterror(Table3). Table3
shows that thereis a 30 percentchance
of one test beingcorrectif no more than
5 percenterroris acceptable.Theseval-
ues were directlycomparableto the re-
sultsof the hammertests, as less than 5
percenterroris equivalentto greater
than 95 percentcorrect.
Testing-Method Comparison
The hammertests and the impact-echo
tests were firstcomparedby examining
the relativepercentchance that one test
will be correctgiven a certainpercent
error,as discussedin the previoussec-
tion. It is clear from this comparison
that the hammertest is more likely to
give a "correct"responsebased on one
test alone than is the impact-echotest.
Anotherway of looking at this is
throughthe averagepercenterrorsof
both test methods.The averagepercent
errorof the hammertest was 3.9 per-
2005
HammerTest Impact-EchoTest
$10 $10,500
30 minutes 6 hours
8 minutes 1.7 hours
0 minutes 8 hours
3 8
yes/no depth to delamination
5 8
cent; the averagepercenterrorof the
impact-echotest was 21.7 percent.The
impact-echo-testpercenterrorcan be
furtherbrokendown to compareper-
cent errorin delaminatedareasversus
percenterrorin non-delaminatedareas.
In delaminatedareas,the percenterror
was 15.6 percent,while in non-delami-
nated areas,the percenterrorwas 28.7
percent.This indicatesthat the impact-
echo test is more accuratein delami-
nated areasthan in non-delaminated
areas.
While these numbersalone may in-
dicatethat the hammertest is a more
accuratetest than impact-echo,it must
be understoodthat the two tests provide
differentinformation.The percent-cor-
rect evaluationof the hammertest de-
scribeswhetheror not the test will ac-
curatelydiagnosea delamination,and
the only real resultsfrom this test can be
"yes"or "no." On the other hand, the
percent-correctevaluationof the impact-
echo test describeshow accuratelythe
test returnedthe correctdepthto the
delamination.This informationis much
more precisethan the informationpro-
vided by the hammertest, and even if
the resultingdepthwas not locatedex-
actly,the delaminationmay still have
been discoveredto exist.
To betterexaminethe abilityof the
impact-echotest to providethe correct
"yes"or "no" response,the resultsof
the averagedimpact-echotests were
transferredto the same 1 to 5 scale used
by the hammertests. Eachaveragedepth
at each grid intersectionwas evaluated
and transformedinto a 1, 3, or 5, using
the same conditionsas the hammertest
scale. Depths from 0 inchesto 4.7 inches
were considereda 1 value, which indi-
cates a delamination.The 4.7-inch cut-
off was chosen basedon the fact that 4
inches of concretewas pouredbeforethe
bubblewrap was placed;therefore,the
deepestthat the bubblewrap was ex-
pectedto be in the slab was 4.7 inches
from the top. Depthsfrom 4.8 inchesto
7.5 incheswere considereda 3 because
these valueswere too deep in the slab to
be the bubblewrap and yet too shallow
to be the bottom of the slab;therefore,it
was not known if these valuesindicated
an actualdelamination.Depthsfrom 7.6
inchesto 8.7 incheswere considereda 5,
which correspondedto not indicatinga
delamination(Fig.6).
This transformedimpact-echo-test
resultwas then subtractedfromthe ex-
pectedvaluesof the hammertest as
describedpreviously.The resultsare
shown in Figure7. Again,a resultof 0
meansthat the averageaccuratelymea-
suredthe existingcondition,while a
resultof 4 meansthat the averageindi-
cated a conditionexactlyoppositeto
what was expected.
As can be seen from this transforma-
tion analysis,the impact-echotest accu-
ratelyfindsthe "yes"values,but less so
the "no" values. ComparingTable1 and
Table4 indicatesthat the impact-echo
test is less accurateand less precisethan
the hammertest in locatingareaswhich
are and are not delaminated.It is possi-
ble that the areaswhich were not pur-
posefullydelaminatedby the additionof
the bubblewrap containedunexpected
delaminationswhich the impact-echo
tests discovered.However,precaution
was taken againstthis situationby the
carefulvibrationof the slab.
The finalcomparisonused for the
two nondestructive-testing techniques
was an analysisbasedon cost of equip-
ment, trainingtime requiredfor the
operator,time requiredto performthe
averagetest, time spentmaintainingthe
equipment,level of skill requiredto per-
form the test, type of informationgath-
ered from the test, and value of the in-
formationgatheredfrom the test. This
comparisonlooked at the "bigpicture"
of the two tests insteadof focusingonly
on the data which each test produced
(Table4).
The cost of the steel hammerquoted
in Table4 was providedby a hardware
store. The cost of the impact-echo
equipmentwas providedby the distribu-
tor from whom the impact-echoequip-
ment used in this researchwas pur-
chased.This cost reflectsthe inclusionof
a laptop computerwith the testingsys-

tern.The trainingtime requiredto per-
formthe tests was basedon experience
duringthis researchand on information
gatheredfrom otherengineerswho are
experiencedwith these tests. Time for
the averagetest was calculatedfrom the
timesrecordedduringthe experiments,
and time spentmaintainingthe equip-
mentwas also from the experienceof
this research.The informationgathered
from each test is self-explanatory.
Both the level of skill requiredto
performthe tests and the value of the
informationgatheredfrom the tests are
basedon a typicalscale of 1 to 10, and
the resultingvalueswere chosen to re-
flectthe experiencegainedby perform-
ing this research.A value of 3 was cho-
sen for the skill requiredfor the hammer
test becausesome experienceand ability
to differentiatebetweenresultingtones
is required,but in general,the methodis
simple.Becausethe impact-echotest
equipmentrequiredan understandingof
the equipment,wave forms,and a myr-
iad of otherissues,the level of skill re-
quiredby the operatorwas rankedat 8,
subjectively.
Conclusions
The conclusionresultingfrom this com-
parisonof the hammertest and the im-
pact-echotest is that the hammertest is
best suited to locate generalareasof
delaminationand that if money and
time are available,the impact-echotest
should be performedin areasconsid-
ered delaminatedto find the depth of
the delaminations.Becausethe impact-
echo test has been shown to have a
higherpercenterrorwhen locating
areaswhich are not delaminated,it is
not recommendedthat the impact-echo
test alone be used to locate delamina-
tions in slabs. The hammertest is clear-
ly less expensive,easierto use, and less
complicated.However,if detailedinfor-
mation is requiredabout the depth to
the delaminations,the impact-echotest
would provideadditionaluseful infor-
mation.
LINNEAM. LINTON, E.I., is a structural
engineer with Kloesel Engineeringin Asheville,
N.C. This article is summarized from a section
of her research on delaminations in concrete for
her 2003 master's degree in structuralengineer-
ing at Northeastern University.
DELAMINATIONSIN CONCRETE 27
Notes
1. ASTM Subcommittee D04.32, Standard
Practice for Measuring Delaminations in
Concrete Bridge Decks by Sounding, ASTM
D4580-02 (West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM,
2002).
2. Mary J. Sansalone and William B. Streett.
Impact-Echo: Nondestructive Evaluation of
Concrete and Masonry (Ithaca, N.Y.: Bullbrier
Press, 1997).
3. Some concerns were raised during the peer-
review process about foreknowledge of the
bubble-wrap locations and the effect on testing
results. The researcher'sfirst thoughts during
the research-planningstage were to randomly
place "delaminations" within the concrete slab,
but machinery,time, or funding to then destroy
the slab after the research to positively locate
the "delaminations" was not available. Due to
outside circumstances, the researcheralone had
to set up and perform the tests. Because there
was no way to confirm the physical locations of
the delaminations once the concrete slab had
been poured, they needed to be confirmed
beforehand, so the information required to
calculate the accuracy of the testing methods
would be available after the research had been
performed.
It was stated that the hammer test would
be most affected by knowledge of the delamina-
tion location, and this is true. However, when
performing the tests, the difference in the
sounds produced in the delaminated and
nondelaminated regions was clear - prior
knowledge of locations was not helpful. Areas
which were not clear were marked as uncertain,
as described in the text of the article. The
author requests that the readers understand the
restrictions during this project and believe that
a concerted effort was made to ignore the
foreknowledge of the bubble-wrap locations
during the testing process.