Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, 15: 191–208, 2004

Copyright # American Society for Nondestructive Testing

ISSN: 0934-9847 print /1432-2110 online
DOI: 10.1080/09349840490915654

ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS

Recep Birgul,1 F. M. Wegian Al-shammari,2 I. Ozgur Yaman,3 M. Haluk Aktan4

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technological Studies, Kuwait
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University (METU),
Ankara, Turkey
4
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA

An experimental investigation was conducted to address the durability aspect of steel-

reinforced concrete (RC) culverts using an accelerated aging environment. Analysis of the
experimental data was built on the acoustic emission (AE) activity. AE methodologies were
used to compare the behaviors of RC culverts after an aging process using a rate-process
analysis. In the rate-process analysis, probability density functions (PDF) of AE activity
were obtained from the experimental data to indicate the damage status of experimental
specimens. This AE assessment procedure included only the incidence of an AE event,
ignoring any features of the AE signal itself. Results showed reliable and quantitative assess-
ment based on AE activity for defining the relative strengths of steel-reinforced specimens.

Keywords: Accelerated aging, acoustic emission assessment, corrosion, durability, reinforced concrete
culvert

INTRODUCTION
Acoustic emission (AE) is one of the nondestructive evaluation (NDE)
techniques that provides critical information on interior failure. When dam-
age or failure occurs during loading, part of the strain energy is released in
the form of elastic waves that are perceived as AE at ultrasonic frequencies.
This AE is detected using sensitive piezoelectric transducers, which convert
mechanical energy into electrical energy and which are placed in contact
with the structures or materials under investigation.
In this study, AE is utilized to provide a quantitative nondestructive
evaluation tool to address the durability issue in reinforced-concrete (RC)
culverts. One of the most important durability problems observed in RC
culverts is the corrosion of steel rebars. Methods which use epoxy coatings,
additives to concrete, galvanization, and so forth have been proposed to
overcome the corrosion problem. Aside from these methods, replacing
steel rebars (reinforcing bars) with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) or

Address correspondence to Recep Birgul, Department of Civil Engineering, Mugla University, Mugla,
48020, Turkey. E-mail: rbirgul@mu.edu.tr

191
192 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

glass-fiber–reinforced polymers (GFRP) [1] is being increasingly considered

as an alternative. However, there exists a critical lack of fundamental data
and understanding of their behavior in relation to traditional civil engineer-
ing materials. Although efforts to create a complete design code are as yet
immature [2], there are works on the determination of the strength and
failure modes [3–5] and on the determination of stiffness properties [6, 7].
In an attempt to prolong the lifetime of RC structures, a durability-
focused study was carried out by replacing steel reinforcement with glass-
fiber–reinforced polymers (GFRP) in circular RC culverts. The structural
behavior of culverts reinforced with traditional steel rebars and GFRP bars
has been published already by the authors [1]. One of the two GFRP-
reinforced specimens failed during an accelerated aging process. The other
specimen survived the aging process but catastrophically failed very early
in the post-aging loading phase. The failure of the GFRP-reinforced speci-
mens was presumed to be due to alkali-silica reaction. As a result, it was con-
cluded that GFRP-reinforcement in an alkali environment presents many
challenges when trying to overcome the corrosion problem in RC structures.
The focus of this paper is to elaborate on the AE assessment procedure used
in the durability study. The GFRP-reinforced specimens are excluded because
post-aging data are not available for these specimens. The concentration is on
the versatility of the AE technique as an evaluation tool on the RC structures.
The details of AE evaluation are given in the ‘‘AE Assessment Procedure’’ section.

AE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

In RC structures, acoustic emission primarily is due to 1) cracking pro-

cess, 2) slippage between concrete and reinforcement, and 3) damage in
the reinforcement itself, especially in the case of reinforcement made of
composite materials [8]. Although AE studies in concrete can be traced back
to early 1960s, the results reported are obtained by employing relatively
crude devices. Literature survey on more recent publications, starting from
1980s, reveals the following approaches to AE assessments:

. The first is a parameter analysis, which has been widely employed by

many researchers [9–13]. In this approach, AE activities based on the
measurement of parameters such as event counting, amplitude, and energy
are analyzed with respect to the cause, such as applied load, stress, and
temperature. Results, most of the time, are presented in the form of quali-
tative observations of the cause and AE activities. However, only a few of
the publications proposed relationships suggesting correlations between
the cause and the parameters under investigation [9, 14–16].
. The second approach employs moment-tensor analysis, borrowed from
seismology, to obtain quantitative information on AE sources by applying
theoretical treatment to the recorded waveforms [17, 18]. This theoretical
type of work mainly deals with locating the AE sources.
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 193

Parametric analysis of AE testing is questionable because major limita-

tions restrict its potential applications in reinforced concrete. The most
important problem is the lack of test reproducibility. For instance, an AE
study, using number of counts for each signal, would produce different
results when the specimen size, loading path, or the type of transducer is
changed. In their study, Maji and Sahu [19] conclude that the extent of vari-
ables associated with instrumentation, specimen geometry, and loading con-
figuration are too large for any parametric study using AE in nondestructive
evaluation of reinforced-concrete structures. Additionally, the distance
between an AE source and a transducer plays a key role in determining
the strength of the signal. Uomoto [20] has reported that the attenuation of
acoustic waves is approximately 100 dB=m in terms of peak amplitude of sig-
nals. This value is quite large but is typical in concrete. He concluded that
considering the background noise of about 30 dB, the range of AE monitoring
is limited to only 20 to 30 cm. Any relationship between energy content of a
signal and source characteristics such as debonding, amount of sliding, and
volume of cracking will be unique to each application.
The purpose of this research is the assessment of RC culverts reinforced
with steel after being exposed to an aging environment. A parametric analy-
sis of AE events would not be conclusive because of the reasons explained
previously. Therefore, a third alternative, a qualitative approach using a
probability density function of AE appears to be more certain [21–24]
because it includes only the occurrence of AE events and disregards any fea-
tures of the AE signal itself. The only requirement is the adequate calibration
of the data acquisition system to differentiate AE events from noise.

AE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
AE activities are observed when a member is subjected to some type of
loading in an experiment. A plot of load vs. AE events presents the raw data
generated by the experiment. The independent variable is the applied load
that creates the AE activities, and the method of presenting should follow this
logic. Most of the time, any AE analysis starts from this point and shapes its
characteristics on its own course, one of which is shown in Figure 1. It
depicts the typical raw data of an AE experiment. Although it is not necessary
to normalize the applied load as given in Figure 1, this type of analysis
greatly enhances the comparative evaluation.
For the purpose of a better explanation of AE assessment procedure,
Figure 1 depicts a nice relation between the load ratio and the cumulative
number of AE events, even though this is not always the case. Assume that
the load level V
corresponds to some level of AE events. When load reaches
V
þ dV , there will be an increase in the AE events; this possible increase is
quantified as dN. No shows the total cumulative number of AE events gener-
ated in the experiments as the load changes from V ¼ 0% to V ¼ 100%.
194 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

FIGURE 1. The concept of rate process.

Then, it follows that the probability of AE occurrences when load is

increased from V
to V
þ dV can be obtained from Eq. (1), which is also
known as rate-process theory [21]. Probability term is described by its
probability density function f ðV Þ.
dN
f ðV ÞdV ¼ ð1Þ
N0
Ohtsu [21] claims that physical interpretation of the probability density
function f ðV Þ is the rate of microcracking within the concrete during an
increment of applied load (dV ). He assumes [21–23] a shape for the prob-
ability density function itself as given in Eq. (2) to relate AE activity to
material damage.
a
f ðV Þ ¼ þb ð2Þ
V
When we substitute Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) and integrate both sides, the relation-
ship between load level ðV Þ and the number of AE events ðNÞ is obtained
and shown in Eq. (3). (See Appendix.)
N ¼ CV a expðbV Þ ð3Þ
The constants ‘C’, ‘a’, and ‘b’ are determined from a nonlinear regression
analysis of the experimental data.
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 195

FIGURE 2. Damage assessment in Ohtsu’s model.

The damage assessment in this model is based on the value of ‘a’, which
is considered to depend on the number of critical cracks from the previously
applied load [21]. The actual number of cumulative AE events generated
in the experiment is irrelevant. A sketch of Eq. 2 is given in Figure 2.
In this figure, two possible relationships between the probability density
function and the applied-load level are depicted. When the value of ‘a’ is
positive, it is highly probable that AE events will be observed in the low-load
zone. On the other hand, if the value of ‘a’ is negative, the probability of
AE occurrence will be low for the same load zone. However, it should be
noted here that this methodology applies to previously loaded materials
and specimens. For virgin materials and specimens, one may still obtain
positive values of ‘a’. In such a case, it should not be construed as the sign
of weakness because it is common for cracks to form in intact concrete
sections in the low-load level as the cracking-moment capacity is in the
low-load range. Therefore, the experimental results should be interpreted
in light of an engineering judgment.
Another model is proposed by Dai and Labuz [24]. In their model a
relationship between load and AE events, as given in Eq. (4), is directly
assumed.
V ¼ aN þ c
lnð1 þ qNÞ ð4Þ
However, it should be noted here that they take the AE event as the inde-
pendent variable and try to estimate at which load level the event will occur.
196 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

Probability density function f ðV Þ, shown below, is obtained by substituting

Eq. (4) into Eq. (1). (See Appendix.)


1 1 þ qN
f ðV Þ ¼ ð5Þ
N0 a þ cq þ aqN
The coefficients a, c, and q are determined through a nonlinear regression
analysis of the experimental data.
In this model, the damage condition for different specimens using the AE
response is established by comparing the probability density functions. Take
note that the comparison is not based on the actual cumulative number of AE
events because it is unique to each application; the comparison is based on
the values of probability density functions.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

The objective in this research is to elaborate on the use of AE assessment

when comparing the behaviors of steel-reinforced circular culverts after
being exposed to an accelerated-aging environment. To achieve this objec-
tive, two specimens were deteriorated by exposing them to a rapid aging pro-
cess (S1-AGED and S2-AGED), the details of which are given in a following
section, while another set of two specimens was kept as control specimens
(S3-CONTROL, S4-CONTROL) under laboratory conditions.

Experimental Specimen

The moment diagram [8] obtained from the structural analysis was used
to design the shape of the experimental specimen. Therefore, the specimen
represents the portion of the culvert between the inflection points, zero-
moment locations, which were located at quarter points of the circumfer-
ence (Figure 3). The tool available for the structural analysis, design, and
evaluation of buried culverts and other soil-structure systems is a finite-
element–based program called CANDE (culvert analysis and design). Its
methodology incorporates the soil mass along with the structure into an
incremental, static, plane-strain boundary value problem.

Materials and Material Properties

The gravimetric proportion of the concrete mix was 1:2.36:2.73:0.45 for

cement, sand, gravel, and water, respectively. The cement used was ordinary
type I Portland cement. To eliminate batch-to-batch variability, all speci-
mens were manufactured from one batch delivered by a ready-mix concrete
supplier. The plastic concrete tests revealed an air content of 2.1%, a slump
of 50 mm (2 in.), and a unit weight of 2323 kg=m3 ð145 lb=ft3 Þ of the mix.
Moreover, the mean value of the 28th-day compressive strength of concrete
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 197

FIGURE 3. Experimental test specimen.

was 54.6 MPa (7922 psi) with 4.43% coefficient of variation (COV). As for
the elasticity modulus of concrete, the mean value of the 28th-day measure-
ments was 33.8 GPa (4905 ksi) with a 4.39% COV. AE testing requires the
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) measurements of the concrete material;
therefore, UPV was also determined and was found to be 4848 m=sec
(15,906 ft=sec) with a 1.12% COV.
The specimens were reinforced with two 13-mm-diameter (0.5-in.-
diameter), commercially available steel rebars. Elasticity modulus of steel
rebars was 200 GPa (29,000 ksi) with a yield stress of 414 MPa (60 ksi) and
an ultimate stress of 725 MPa (105 ksi).

Experimental Procedure

All specimens were instrumented to record load and AE events generated

during loading. Each specimen was loaded by an instrumented turnbuckle,
as shown in Figure 4, mounted on a tie rod. The turnbuckle, instrumented
as a load cell, was designed for both load application and measurement.
Four 5=8 in. turnbuckles were instrumented using strain gages configured
as a Wheatstone bridge circuit. This system is calibrated to obtain a corre-
lation to convert from output voltage to applied load. To apply the load,
the tie rod itself was put into tension by turning the turnbuckle. The output
voltage readings were simultaneously recorded along with the AE events
by a data acquisition system procured from Physical Acoustics Corporation
(PAC) of New Jersey. The voltage readings were converted to load values
in the analysis phase.
The data-acquisition system for AE monitoring in the experiments
consisted of a personal computer (PC), a two-channel AEDSP-32=16 printed
circuit board, software, and wideband AE transducers with preamplifiers and
coaxial cables. The AEDSP-32=16 board has a sampling rate of 2,000,000
198 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

FIGURE 4. Turnbuckles instrumented for load application and measurements.

samples per second for each channel corresponding to 0.5 msec between two
consecutive samples. The system was set with an internal trigger activated
whenever an AE signal exceeded a preset (threshold) value of 45 dB
(17 mV). This threshold of signal amplitude must be set so that ambient noise
could not trigger the system. However, the threshold level should not be set
too high because it can exclude AE signals of low amplitude. The value of
45 dB for the threshold was obtained by carrying out trial-and-error experi-
ments in the actual test environment without load application on the testing
samples. The system’s software was set to acquire 1024 data points for each
AE event corresponding to a time of 512 msec event duration.
The AE signals were captured using PAC transducers (Model Number
WDI, serial numbers 55 and 56) and were preamplified before recording.
The transducers have a reasonably flat frequency response ranging from
100 kHz to 1 MHz with a transducer diameter of 25 mm (1 in.). Preamplifiers
(20 dB gain) and filters (band pass from 10 kHz to 400 KHz) were chosen to
minimize noise and maximize amplification. The band-pass values were
determined by following the findings of the literature review in which Ohtsu
[21] showed that the essential features of AE activity in concrete are
presented within 10 kHz to 300 kHz.
All four specimens were tested using the same testing procedure. The
specimens were placed and secured on the supports as shown in Figure 3.
The placement of the two AE transducers was selected such that the focus
of monitoring was on the maximum moment region. The distance between
the two AE transducers is 127 mm (5 in.). Calibration and performance of
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 199

the AE system was checked by the pencil-lead-break procedure. For a signal

to be considered as an AE event, it had to be strong enough to be detected
above the threshold value at the other transducer as well. Thus, each pair
of waveforms was defined as an AE event if the time difference between
the threshold crossings from the two AE transducers was equal to or less than
0.25 msec; this value was obtained by dividing the distance between trans-
ducers (0.127 m) by the UPV of concrete material (4848 m=sec). The output
voltages from the instrumented turnbuckle were directed to the AE data
acquisition board. In doing so, the system was capable of recording the load
data and the occurrences of AE activity simultaneously. After completing all
the checks for the threshold level and AE activity, data acquisition was
initiated and then the specimens were loaded by turning the force turnbuckle
at a slow (approximately static) rate until any crack on the tensile stress face
of the specimen reached to a width of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.), the maximum
allowable crack width for a reinforced concrete culvert.

Aging Process
After quasi-static load application until a crack width of 0.25 mm
(0.01 in.) was completed, two of the specimens (S1-AGED and S2-AGED)
were subjected to an accelerated-aging process for 90 days. It was expected
that the aging environment would expedite the corrosion of reinforcing
steels, providing a damaged state to the specimens. To accurately simulate
the state of a structure during aging, the applied load (and thus the crack
width) was retained in the aging process. During the accelerated-aging
process, the specimens were exposed to intermittent wet and dry cycles.
Each cycle consisted of immersion in water for 3 days with a 3.5% sodium
chloride solution at 122F (50C), and 3 days of drying at ambient laboratory
conditions. The elevated temperature during wet cycles was used to provide
the accelerated-aging environment. Litherland et al. [25] have shown that
one day of immersion in water at 50C is equivalent to 101 days of natural
weathering exposure in England where the mean annual temperature is
10.4C. Therefore, following this approach and to provide about 25 years
of aging, the timeframe for the exposure to the aging environment was
selected as 12 weeks.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The research objective was to compare the performance of steel-
reinforced circular culverts after exposed to a rapid-aging environment by
utilizing AE as the assessment tool. To achieve the objectives, all four speci-
mens were loaded until any crack on the tensile face of the specimen
reached to the maximum allowable value of 0.25 mm (0.01 in). The struc-
tural investigation part of this work was already published elsewhere [1].
The AE assessment for the preaging phase was not conducted because the
200 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

AE assessment models utilized in this research were developed for the struc-
tures and materials that were previously loaded. In addition, it was already
expected to have cracks, and thus AE activity in the very early stages of load-
ing, which might be misleading.
The AE results that will be presented herein were obtained from the
postaging phase. Both aged and control specimens were loaded up to an
ultimate load, which corresponded to zero stiffness; that is, large increases
in the displacement measurements corresponded to very small increases in
the load measurements [1]. Because both models use the load ratio as the
independent variable, the experimental data were presented as the load ratio
versus the cumulative number of AE events. Each specimen was normalized
by its own maximum applied load of 78.85 kN (17,726 lbf), 78.84 kN
(17,724 lbf), 71.06 kN (15,975 lbf), and 67.26 kN (15,121 lbf) for S1-AGED,
S2-AGED, S3-CONTROL, and S4-CONTROL, respectively.
After completing the 12 weeks of accelerated-aging process, all specimens
(both control and aged) were unloaded. A new load-application unit, an instru-
mented turnbuckle mounted on a tie rod, was manufactured to load all four
specimens to eliminate the variation in loading. Load application utilizing just
one load cell was neither necessary nor possible for the preaging phase
because the cracks had to be open during the aging process. Therefore, the
load-application unit had to be left in place for each specimen for the entire
duration of the aging.
Figure 5 shows the load ratio versus accumulated AE events for the two
aged, steel-reinforced specimens. In S1-AGED the first event occurred at a
load ratio of 18%, which corresponded to 13.79 kN (3100 lbf) load. Total
AE event count was 76. Clustering of AE events started at a load ratio of
80%. This occurred at a load level near 61.39 kN (13,800 lbf). Eighty percent
of the AE events in this specimen occurred beyond this load. The first AE
event in the specimen S2-AGED was recorded at a load ratio of about
13% that corresponded to 10.23 kN (2300 lbf). Only three AE events were
recorded up to the load ratio of 53%, corresponding to 41.81 kN
(9400 lbf). The total number of AE events was 156. Eighty-five percent of
the recorded AE events occurred after 63.16 kN (14,200 lbf), corresponding
to about 80% load ratio.
The control specimens were stored in ambient laboratory conditions until
they were tested alongside the aged specimens. This was done to eliminate
all loading variables except the accelerated aging as the factor in the
responses.
The total number of AE events recorded for S3-CONTROL was 532, as
shown in Figure 6. The first AE event occurred as soon as the loading was
started. However, only eight events occurred between the beginning of the
loading cycle and a load of 36.25 kN (8150 lbf), or 51% load ratio.
Ninety-five percent of the AE events occurred after the load exceeded
46.17 kN (10,380 lbf) value, corresponding to about 65% of the maximum
load ratio. A total of 394 AE events were recorded for S4-CONTROL as
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 201

FIGURE 5. Experimental results for the aged specimens.

FIGURE 6. Experimental results for the control specimens.

202 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

shown in Figure 6. The first event occurred at about 3.55 kN (800 lbf), or 5%
of the load ratio. Fifteen events occurred before 50% of the load ratio.
Ninety-five percent of the AE events occurred after reaching 43.59 kN
(9800 lbf), which is equivalent to a 60% load ratio in the test.

EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The main focus of this research was to utilize AE as the assessment meth-
odology to evaluate the performance of steel-reinforced circular culverts
after exposed to a rapid-aging environment. The total cumulative AE event
count was 76 for the specimen S1-AGED, 156 for the specimen S2-AGED,
532 for the specimen S3-CONTROL, and 394 for S4-CONTROL. All four
specimens were identical in terms of concrete material, reinforcement, load-
ing configurations, and measurement instrumentations. The only difference
was that S1-AGED and S2-AGED were exposed to an aging environment
for 12 weeks while the other two specimens were kept as control specimens
under laboratory conditions.
Even when the specimens are grouped as aged and control specimens,
the variation in the total cumulative number of AE events is worrying at first
glance. However, it should be remembered that there are major limitations
of AE applications in reinforced concrete, as already explained in the ‘‘AE
Assessment Methodologies’’ section of this paper. The most important prob-
lem is that AE experiments on concrete, with or without reinforcement, are
not reproducible even for identical specimens. This problem precludes any
type of AE parametric analysis that is based on the number of AE events, rise
time, duration of events, energy of the signal, and so forth. This difficulty
stems from the fact that concrete is not a homogeneous material [19]. In
addition, attenuation of acoustic waves is approximately 100 dB=m in terms
of peak amplitude of signals. This causes AE monitoring to be limited to only
20 to 30 cm [20]. Responding to the concerns described above, a qualitative
approach based on a probability density function is more desirable because
it requires only the occurrence of AE events. The details of this approach and
the two models used in the analysis were already explained in the ‘‘AE
Assessment Procedure’’ section.
The quantification of damage is rather simple in Ohtsu’s model and
depends on the a value as shown in Figure 2. If a is positive, this suggests that
in low-load ranges, the probability of AE occurrence would be high, whereas
if a is negative, it would be low. In Dai–Labuz’s model, a larger value of
probability density function f ðV Þ from a specimen indicates greater damage
for that specimen. The experimental constants described in the assessment
models are obtained by nonlinear regression analysis of the load ratio versus
cumulative number of AE event data.
Nonlinear regression analyses were performed for the two specimens
after the aging process. The regression curves are shown on the experimental
ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 203

FIGURE 7. Regression curves with experimental data for S1-AGED.

FIGURE 8. Regression curves with experimental data for S2-AGED.

204 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

FIGURE 9. Regression curves with experimental data for S3-CONTROL.

FIGURE 10. Regression curves with experimental data for S4-CONTROL.

ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 205

TABLE 1. Coefficients of Determination

Specimens Ohtsu’s Model Dai–Labuz’s Model

S1-AGED 0.92 0.91

S2-AGED 0.96 0.99
S3-CONTROL 0.99 0.99
S4-CONTROL 0.98 0.99

data for S1-AGED in Figure 7 and for S2-AGED in Figure 8. The same non-
linear regression analyses were also performed for the two specimens that
were kept as control specimens. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the regression
curves on the experimental data for S3-CONTROL and for S4-CONTROL,
respectively. The coefficients of determination, also known as r 2 values,
are given in Table 1 to present the qualities of nonlinear regression analyses.
All four specimens yielded negative a values when Ohtsu’s model was
utilized. Table 2 shows the results. The negative a values suggest that the
probability of AE occurrence is low in the low-load levels; this indicates little
or no damage in the aged specimens after the aging process.
Figure 11 shows the load ratio versus PDF calculated by the Dai–Labuz
model. When we use the PDF relation, the probability of AE activity is the
area underneath the curve from 0% to any given load ratio for each individ-
ual specimen. The corresponding PDF values are close to each other as are
the curves and suggest that the specimens have similar retained capacities.
More important, load ratio versus PDF relations for aged specimens yield
lower PDF values relative to those of control specimens for any given load
ratio until 93% of the ultimate load. After that point, S4-CONTROL has the
lowest PDF values. This suggests little or no damage in the aged specimens
exposed to the aging environment, which also verifies the results obtained
by the Ohtsu’s model.
A visual observation was needed to confirm the undamaged status of
steel rebars. Therefore, the specimen was cut in half from the widest crack
location to visually observe the level of corrosion. As seen in Figure 12,
no apparent corrosion took place, which was already inferred from both
AE assessment models. In light of this visual evidence, it can be safely stated
that all four specimens were identical at the time of testing and the assess-
ment models confirmed it.

TABLE 2. AE Assessment by Ohtsu’s Model

Specimens Calculated a

S1-AGED 1:564
S2-AGED 1:890
S3-CONTROL 0:302
S4-CONTROL 1:253
206 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

FIGURE 11. AE assessment by Dai–Labuz’s model.

FIGURE 12. Steel rebars showing no corrosion after aging.

ACOUSTIC EMISSION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE CULVERTS 207

CONCLUSIONS

Two evaluation models utilizing probability density functions of AE

events were used to quantitatively represent the damage state in steel-
reinforced concrete culverts. Both models produced reliable and quantitative
results for defining the status of specimens. Ohtsu’s model yielded negative a
values, indicating little or no damage to the specimens that underwent an
aging process. Dai–Labuz’s model also provided quantitative results to com-
pare the behavior of the specimens based on AE activity. The comparative
behaviors of the specimens were presented in the form of load ratio versus
PDF values. A higher value of PDF up to a given load ratio in a specimen
was used as a measure of higher deterioration for that specimen. This model
also verified the little or no damage result obtained by Ohtsu’s model.
The aging process was reported to have worked well for small-scale
structures; however, a much more aggressive environment should be
developed for large-scale structures.

REFERENCES

1. R. Birgul, I. O. Yaman, and H. M. Aktan. FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Proc. of the Int. Con-
ference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Vols. I and II, December 12–15, Hong Kong, China,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 1607–1616 (2001).
2. N. F. Grace, A. K. Soliman, G. Abdel-Sayed, and K. R. Saleh. Journal of Composites for Construction
2(3): 186–194 (1998).
3. W. An, H. Saadatmanesh, and M. R. Ehsani. Journal of Structural Engineering 117(11): 3434–3455
(1991).
4. N. Deskovic, T. C. Triantafillou, and U. Meier. Journal of Structural Engineering 121(7): 1069–1078
(1995).
5. N. Deskovic, T. C. Triantafillou, and U. Meier. Journal of Structural Engineering 121(7): 1079–1088
(1995).
6. A. H. Toutanji and M. Saafi. ACI Struct. J. (Sept–Oct): 712–718 (2000).
7. A. G. Razaqpur, D. Svecova, and M. S. Cheung. ACI Structural Journal (Jan–Feb): 175–183 (2000).
8. R. Birgul. Durability Investigation of Concrete Culverts Reinforced with Steel and GFRP by Acoustic
Emission, Ph.D. Thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, U.S.A. (2001).
9. H. L. Chen, Z. Sami, and H. V. GangaRao. NCA, Vol. 14, p. 93–100. ASME (1992).
10. H. L. Chen, Z. Sami, and H. V. GangaRao. NCA, Vol. 16, p. 171–178. ASME (1993).
11. H. L. Chen, Z. Sami, and H. V. GangaRao. NCA, Vol. 18, p. 135–142. ASME (1994).
12. Z. Jun and H. Stang. ACI Materials Journal 95(1): 58–67 (1998).
13. Z. Li, F. Li, A. Zdunek, E. Landis, and S. P. Shah. ACI Mater. J. 95(1): 68–76 (1998).
14. H. W. Reinhardt, L. Gollas, B. Weiler, C. Grosse, and K. Eberle. FRP Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, Proc. of the Third International Symposium on Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Con-
crete Structures, FRPPRCS-3, Vol. 2, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 397–404 (1997).
15. C. C. Weng, M. T. Tam, and G. C. Lin. Cem. and Conc. Res. 22(5): 641–652. (1992)
16. S. Yuyama, T. Okamoto, and S. Nagataki. Materials Evaluation 52(1): 86–90 (1994).
17. M. Ohtsu and K. Ono. J. of Acoustic Emission 3(1): 27–40 (1984).
18. S. Yuyama, T. Okamoto, M. Shigeishi, and M. Ohtsu. Materials Evaluation (March): 751–756 (1995).
19. A. K. Maji and R. Sahu. Experimental Mechanics (Dec.): 379–388 (1994).
20. T. Uomoto. J. of Acoustic Emission 6(3): 137–144 (1987).
21. M. Ohtsu. J. of Acoustic Emission 6(2): 99–108 (1987).
22. M. Ohtsu. Materials Evaluation (Sept.): 1070–1075 (1987).
208 R. BIRGUL ET AL.

23. M. Ohtsu, Y. Tomoda, and T. Fujioka. Fourth Far East Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Proc. of
the Fourth Far-East Conference on NDT (FENDT97), The Korean Society of Nondestructive Testing,
Cheju-do, Korea, Oct. 8–11, 1997, pp. S31–S39.
24. S. T. Dai and J. F. Labuz. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 9(4): 200–205 (1997).
25. K. L. Litherland, D. R. Oakley, and B. A. Proctor. Cement and Concrete Research 11: 455–466 (1981).

APPENDIX

The derivations of the equations used in the AE assessment models are

given here. However, these derivations belong to the authors of this
paper. Ohtsu and Dai–Labuz may have arrived at the same results through
a different path.

Ohtsu’s Model
a þb
f ðV Þ ¼ V Assumed probability density function.
Ra  R dN
V þ b dV ¼ N Substitute into the rate-process and integrate. Note
that No is replaced with N here because the model
is supposed to estimate the number of AE events at
a given level of the load ratio provided that the
integration constants C, a, and b are known
quantities.
a ln V þ bV ¼ ln N  ln C Here, lnC is assumed as the integration constant.
ln N ¼ ln V a þ bV þ ln C Rearrange.
ln N  ðln C þ ln V a Þ ¼ bV Separate the terms with and without the
natural logarithm.
ln N  lnðCV a Þ ¼ bV Rearrange.
N
Ln CV a ¼ bV Rearrange.
N ¼ e bV Take the anti logarithm.
CV a
N ¼ CV a e ðbV Þ This is the Eq. (3) in the text.

Dai–Labuz’s Model
f ðV ÞdV ¼ dN Rate process theory.
N0
V ¼ aN þ c lnð1 þ qNÞ Assumed relation between AE events and the load
ratio. It should be noted that this model takes the
AE events as the independent variables and tries to
estimate the load ratio that produced the

 AE events.
dV ¼ a þ c 1 cq
q ¼aþ Take the derivative with respect to N.
dN 1 þ qN 1 þ qN
N0 dV ¼ 1 Rewrite the rate-process.
dN f ðV Þ


cq
N0 a þ ¼ 1 Substitute.
1 þ qN f ðV Þ
cqN0
aN0 þ ¼ 1 Rearrange.
1 þ qN f ðV Þ
cqN0 1 þ qN
f ðV Þ ¼ 1 þ ¼
aN0 1 þ qN aN0 þ aqNN0 þ cqN0


1 þ qN 1 þ qN
f ðV Þ ¼ ¼ 1 Rearrange to obtain Eq. (5) in the text.
N0 ða þ cq þ aqNÞ N0 a þ cq þ aqN