Technical Note

Field Test of Magnetic Methods for Corrosion Detection

in Prestressing Strands in Adjacent Box-Beam Bridges
Bertrand Fernandes1; Michael Titus2; Douglas Karl Nims, P.E., M.ASCE3;
Al Ghorbanpoor, P.E., F.ASCE4; and Vijay Devabhaktuni5

Abstract: Magnetic methods are progressing in the detection of corrosion in prestressing strands in adjacent precast, prestressed concrete box-
beam bridges. This study is the first field trial of magnetic strand defect detection systems on an adjacent box-beam bridge. A bridge in Fayette
County, Ohio, that was scheduled for demolition was inspected. The prestressed box beams had significant strand corrosion. The corroded
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Doug Nims on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strands showed discontinuities and a reduced cross-sectional area. These changes are reflected in the magnetic signatures of the prestressing
steel. Corrosion in the prestressing steel was detected using two magnetic methods; namely, the magnetic flux leakage method and the induced
magnetic field method. The purpose of these tests was to demonstrate the ability of the magnetic methods to detect hidden corrosion in box
beams in the field and tackle the logistic problem of inspecting box beams from the bottom. The inspections were validated by dissecting
the bottom of the box beams after the inspections. The results showed that the magnetic flux leakage method detects hidden corrosion and strand
breaks with a sufficient amount of accuracy. Both magnetic field methods were also able to estimate corrosion by detecting the effective cross-
sectional area of the strand. Thus, it was shown that the magnetic methods can be used with sufficient reliability to predict hidden corrosion in
prestressing strands of box beams. The recommended actions to make magnetic inspection practical are discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000379. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Bridge inspection; Box beams; Corrosion; Magnetic fields; Nondestructive tests; Prestressed concrete;
Field tests; Prestressing.
Author keywords: Bridge tests; Bridge inspection; Corrosion; Magnetic fields; Nondestructive tests; Prestressed concrete; Box beams;
Prestressing; Probe instruments.

Introduction presented here. Ghorbanpoor and coworkers have developed a sig-

Invisible deterioration of prestressing strands in box beams has been
a concern in recent years because bridges built in the latter half of
the twentieth century are reaching their life expectancy of about
50 years (Ciolko and Tabatabai 1999). In some instances, the pre-
stressed strand in box-beam bridges deteriorates significantly with
no visible indications. There have been instances of collapses of
prestressed concrete structures, which have caused concern among
transportation officials. Field testing using two magnetic methods,
magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and induced magnetic field (IMF) are
1
Doctoral Candidate, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Dept., Univ. of Toledo, M.S. 308, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH
43606. E-mail: Bertrand.Fernandes@rockets.utoledo.edu
2
Project Engineer, RJ Runge Company, Inc., 2868 E. Harbor Rd., Port
Clinton, OH 43452. E-mail: Mike.Titus11@gmail.com
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toledo, M.S.
307, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606 (corresponding author).
E-mail: Douglas.Nims@utoledo.edu
4
Professor and Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering and
Applied Science, Univ. of WisconsineMilwaukee, 3200 N. Cramer St.,
Milwaukee, WI 53211. E-mail: algh@uwm.edu
5
Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Dept., Univ. of Toledo, M.S. 308, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH
43606. E-mail: Vijay.Devabhaktuni@utoledo.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 25, 2011; approved on
January 27, 2012; published online on January 31, 2012. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 6, November 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/
2012/6-984e988/$25.00.
nificantly improved version (Ghorbanpoor 2000; Ghorbanpoor
et al. 2000) of a previously proposed MFL detection system
(Kusenberger and Barton 1981), and successfully evaluated a test
slab and prestressed box beams removed from decommissioned
bridges, to provide information about fractures and hidden corrosion
(Jones et al. 2010). In this study, research on developing an elec-
tromagnet sensor to measure the IMF as a result of the main flux
inside the strand has been carried out at The University of Toledo.
By drawing a correlation between the existing magnetic field lab-
oratory data and recorded data, an estimate is made of the cross-
sectional area loss of the prestressing strand. Laboratory tests
conducted using various diameters of prestressing strand and steel
bars using a yoke-shaped electromagnet showed a direct relationship
between the cross-sectional area and the magnetic field induced
(Fernandes et al. 2010, 2012), which established proof-of-concept
results indicating that the main flux can be used to deduce cross-
sectional area.
Field Tests
The Washington Waterloo Road Bridge (No. 35-17-6.80) is a three-
span structure in Fayette County, Ohio. Each span consists of nine
noncomposite adjacent prestressed concrete box beams. Each box
beam is 14.6 m (47.83 ft.) long. The total bridge length is 43.8 m
(143.8 ft.). Fig. 1 shows the detailed cross section of the bottom
portion of the box beam. It was inspected using both MFL and IMF
methods to assess the strand condition and test these methods. The
MFL method was expected to detect hidden corrosion and fractures

984 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:984-988.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Doug Nims on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Cross section of the Washington Waterloo Road Bridge box beam (data from Wagner 1967)
in the prestressing strands and provide an estimate of the loss in the
section. The IMF method was expected to determine corrosion
depending on the healthy volume of steel detected in the inspected
area. The inspection areas were selected based upon visual in-
spection to encompass areas ranging from little to no corrosion up to
heavily corroded areas. The end span on the east side of the bridge
was selected with Interior Beams 2, 3, and 4 and Exterior Beam 9
on the north side. The MFL tests were performed on both interior
(suffixed I) and exterior (suffixed E) beams while the IMF tests were
conducted only on Interior Beam 3. The MFL and IMF tests were
both carried out separately using a temporary wooden platform
suspended from the weep holes. The test equipment containing the
magnet and Hall sensors was placed on the wooden platform aligned
along the beam length and was moved (starting from the 0-m mark)
along the track to be scanned (see Fig. 2). As the equipment moved,
the magnet magnetized the prestressing strands inside the track and
magnetic leakage flux (for the MFL system) or induced magnetic
field (for the IMF system) recorded by Hall sensors traveling with the
magnet. Each test was identified with data for a specific track that
covered an area with a scan width of 20 cm (8 in.) (see Fig. 2).
Results and Data Interpretation
Magnetic Flux Leakage Method
Fig. 2 shows corrosion estimated for each track using the MFL
method. The circled numbers represent the locations of dissection
following the MFL and IMF scans. Fig. 3 shows the MFL data for
Sensor 4 located at the center of the scan width for Tracks 3I and 4E.
The graph is a plot of magnetic leakage field (in terms of the Hall
sensor output voltage) detected along the length of the scanned track.
The shape and extent of perturbation in the wave form relate to the
characteristics of the strand within the track. The peaks in the graph
indicate the presence of transverse stirrups along the beam. The
peak-to-peak width of the signal indicates the stirrup spacing in the
box beam. The graphs show signal variations caused by a distinctive
magnetic flux pattern created by corrosion or other discontinuities
(e.g., chairs, fractures, etc.) in the strand. These variations between
peaks indicate the level of corrosion along the prestressing strand.
The evidence of strand fracture, or abrupt change, at the location of
2.7 m (9 ft.) can be seen for Track 3I as an abrupt interruption in the
signal. For Track 4E, clear indications of the presence of a steel chair
as well as exposed and bent strands are seen marked in the graph. The
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 985
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:984-988.
bumps or bends in the signal between the peaks indicate the presence
of chairs at that point inside the box beam. MFL signals from flaws
are identified from the graph displaying the signal amplitude. Loss is
estimated by comparing signals of the strand in the region of interest
to an uncorroded strand. This was accomplished when the flaw size
was larger than approximately 10% of the cross-sectional area of the
strand section. For flaws smaller than 10% of the cross-sectional
area, the correlation method was used, where a predefined signal was
compared with the recorded test data for the entire length of the
specimen. Depending on the degree of similarity between the two
signals, a correlation factor between 2100% and 100% was cal-
culated (Ghorbanpoor et al. 2000).
Induced Magnetic Field Method
Two tracks, 3I and 7I, on Interior Beam 3 were scanned along
a length of approximately 4 m (13 ft.) (see Fig. 4). To estimate the
cross-sectional area of the strand from the IMF values measured,
data from the laboratory experiments were correlated to the field
data. As shown in the bridge drawing in Fig. 1, the strands closest to
the bottom of the box beam were embedded 44.5 mm (1.7 in.). The
magnetic field induced in the strand is very sensitive to this distance
between the strand and the electromagnet. The soffit had a slight
curvature that caused a variation of about 6e12 mm (0.2e0.5 in.)
between the pole face and the embedded strand. During the field
trials, it was also observed that because of this curvature this distance
was higher at the beginning of the tracks (near the 0-m mark) than
toward the end (near the 4-m mark). During testing, a gap of roughly
13e20 mm (0.5e0.8 in.) was maintained between the pole face and
the concrete surface being scanned. Thus, the average gap between
the pole face and the actual strand was 57e64.5 mm (2.2e2.5 in.).
From Fig. 4, the IMF signal appears wavy because of the presence of
a transverse stirrup rebar in the box beam. The actual IMF value for
the track is marked as a dashed line. To estimate the healthy steel in
the tracks, a laboratory test was conducted with the same prestressing
strand layout including stirrups in the same plane as the tracks
scanned using healthy strands in wooden beams. Concrete or wood
do not affect the magnetic field values significantly. The results for
these tests are shown in Fig. 5. The no-strand value (Bo) is measured
for the electromagnet sensor without any strands over it. By mea-
suring the difference between the IMF values for healthy (Bhealthy)
and corroded strands (Bcorr) after deducting the no-strand values
from it, the percentage loss of steel is calculated as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Doug Nims on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Results of corrosion detected on interior and exterior tracks by the MFL method (reflected plan)

Fig. 3. MFL scan data for Tracks 3I and 4E

" #
ðBcorr 2 Bo Þ Bridge Dissection
Percentage loss ¼ 12   100
Bhealthy 2 Bo After the field tests were completed, concrete in the areas that had
been inspected was chipped off to visually determine the actual
For the laboratory test, the distance between the pole face of the condition of the strand. This was necessary to determine the accu-
electromagnet and the top strand was maintained at 57 mm (2.2 in.). racy of the inspection test results. Because of the difficulty of ex-
For the field test, this distance varied along the track length, which posing strands, specific areas of interest were selected based upon
makes it is difficult to get an exact estimate of the loss of steel for the visual and nondestructive evaluation (NDE) (MFL and IMF) in-
track as a result of the uncertainty of the distance. spection results. The strands were then extracted from the bridge to

986 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:984-988.

 Table 1. Comparison of Percentage Corrosion Values Estimated from the
MFL and IMF Results with Visual Inspection Results after Dissection of
the Bridge
MFL method IMF method Visual inspection
Track (% corrosion) (% corrosion) (% corrosion)
1I ,,10 — —
2I ,,10 — —
3I ∼20 22–48 10–30
4I ,10 — 5
5I ,10 — —
6I ,10 — No significant
corrosion
7I ,20 3–22 No significant
Fig. 4. IMF scan data for the interior beam (Tracks 3I and 7I) corrosion
8I ,10 — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Doug Nims on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9I No significant — No significant
corrosion corrosion
10I No significant — No significant
corrosion corrosion
4E ∼20 — 20
3E ∼20 — 15–20
2E ,10 — 10–15
1E No significant — 5
corrosion

out at a scan speed of 8e10 cm/s. The average ambient temperature

Fig. 5. Laboratory test results of the Tracks 3I and 7I setups maintained
constant at 57 mm (2.2 in.) between the pole face and strand
be analyzed in the laboratory to determine their level of corrosion.
Visual inspection was performed by cutting the strand to expose the
cross-sectional area; observations are given in Table 1. The MFL tests
showed a good correlation between the test results and the actual
condition of the strand. The MFL results indicated moderate corrosion
(20%) in Track 7I. However, upon dissection very little corrosion was
found in the strands. The MFL testing predicted medium to heavy
corrosion in Area 2 of Beam 3. In Area 2, the strands that were
completely or partially exposed showed heavy corrosion. The mag-
netic testing was accurate in this region, except that a full break in the
strands depicted in the MFL scan was not found. The results from the
IMF test were consistent with the dissection findings for the ending
portion of the tracks. In Track 3I, the IMF predicted about 22% steel
loss, which fell within the range of the dissection results. The same
can be said for Track 7I, which showed about 3e6% loss in that
region. However, the IMF calculations did not match the calcu-
lations for the beginning portion of both tracks. This is probably
a result of the fact that the variation in the distance between the strand
and the pole face of the sensor was not known exactly.
Discussion
The IMF method must be further developed to overcome problems
in the collection and measurement of data. It was learned that the
varying distance between the pole face and the strand embedded in
the concrete needs to be measured correctly to accurately determine
the loss of strand volume. The MFL and IMF tests were both carried
was 23°C (83°F). This was consistent and did not appear to cause any
variations in data patterns. Because of the lack of experience in
performing field tests and the unsophisticated maneuvering equip-
ment, the data collection for the IMF method took longer than that
for the MFL method. The weight of the IMF equipment was also
a deterrent because it weighed 113.4 kg (250 lb) (roughly five times
that of the MFL equipment). It is clear that a more sophisticated
testing arrangement would greatly enhance the capabilities of the
IMF system. Possible redesign of the electromagnet to reduce
the weight would also increase the ease of use in the IMF system.
The MFL equipment has already been refined to optimize weight,
ease of use, and ruggedness. It has been proven in both laboratory
and field tests to qualitatively determine corrosion in prestressed
strands located in box beams. In the future, a signal-processing
algorithm could be produced that would increase the consistency
and speed of the MFL test system. The level of precision expected
from the NDE methods needs to be established to decide how much
information is required to successfully load rate bridges. Higher
precision yields to more information; however, it requires a more
powerful magnet, and hence an increase in the weight of the IMF
system.
Conclusions
The field test performed on the IMF and MFL methods showed sat-
isfactory proof-of-concept results that these magnetic methods could
be a valuable tool in assessing hidden damage in embedded strands in
prestressed box-beam bridges. It was found that both methods gave
indications of corrosion that generally correspond to the corrosion
observed following dissection. These systems can be helpful in bridge
condition assessment. While it was clear that MFL is in a more ad-
vanced stage of development, IMF shows promise. For both methods,
scanning the box beams from the bottom on a large scale is a chal-
lenge. A more sophisticated test platform is required for practical
bridge inspection. In the future, more tests and dissections need to be
performed to confirm the reliability of these NDE methods. A
computer-aided model of these magnetic systems used to predict the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 987

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:984-988.

 expected signal from field tests would be a very valuable tool in the
evaluation procedure and needs to be considered as future work. This
would reduce the dependency on laboratory experiments to make
correlations with field data and corrosion estimations.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Steinberg, P.E., of Ohio University
and Dr. Miller, P.E., of University of Cincinnati for their support.
They also thank the Ohio Department of Transportation for funding
this work and Fayette County Engineer, Mr. Steven Luebbe, P.S.,
P.E., for being available and providing necessary on-site help during
the tests.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Doug Nims on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ciolko, A. T., and Tabatabai, H. (1999). “Nondestructive methods for
condition evaluation of prestressing steel strands in concrete bridges.” Final
Report. Phase I: Technology Review, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Fernandes, B., Wade, J., Nims, D., and Devabhaktuni, V. (2010). “De-
velopment of a sensor for nondestructive inspection of deteriorated
988 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:984-988.
prestressing strands in prestressed concrete bridges.” Proc., NDE/NDT
for Highways and Bridges: Structural Materials Technology Conf.,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, New York, 162e170.
Fernandes, B., Wade, J., Nims, D., and Devabhaktuni, V. (2012). “A new
magnetic sensor concept for nondestructive evaluation of deteriorated
prestressing strand.” Res. Nondestruct. Eval., 23(1), 46e68.
Ghorbanpoor, A. (2000). “Condition assessment of external P-T tendons in
the Mid Bay Bridge.” Final Rep., Florida Dept. of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL.
Ghorbanpoor, A., Borchelt, R., Edwards, M., and Abdel Salam, E. (2000).
“Magnetic-based NDE of prestressed and post-tensioned concrete
members—The MFL system.” Final Rep. FHWA-RD-00-026, U.S.
Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Jones, L., Pessiki, S., Naito, C., and Hodgson, I. (2010). “Inspection methods
& techniques to determine non visible corrosion of prestressing strands
in concrete bridge components, Task 2—Assessment of candidate NDT
methods.” ATLSS Rep. No. 09-09, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA, and
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA.
Kusenberger, F. N., and Barton, J. R. (1981). “Detection of flaws in re-
inforcement steels in prestressed concrete bridges.” Final Rep. FH-WA/
RD-81/087, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Wagner, C. P. (1967). Bridge No. 35-17-6.80, Fayette Co. Ohio on
WashingtoneWaterloo Road, Office of Fayette County Engineer,
Washington Courthouse, OH.