Digital Proceeding of ICOCEE – CAPPADOCIA2017

S. Sahinkaya and E. Kalıpcı (Editors)

Nevsehir, TURKEY, May 8-10, 2017

Crack Localization in Reinforced Concrete Beam by Acoustic

Emission Technique
Sena Tayfur1* , Ninel Alver2
1, 2
Department of Civil Engineering, Ege University, TURKEY.
(E-mail: sena.tayfur@ege.edu.tr, ninel.alver@ege.edu.tr)

ABSTRACT

Predetermining of failure sources for safety of the structures is a significant and demanding
issue. There are several damage assessment methods to overcome this problem. Most of these
techniques generally investigate damaged status of the structure and need sampling. However,
it is important to identify the current state and safety of the structure before the damage
becomes visible. Nondestructive methods circumvent this problem and provide an opportunity
to monitor the damage without any harming.
Acoustic Emission (AE) is one of the nondestructive testing methods and provides to monitor
fracture processes even at low load levels. The technique bases on propagation and detection
of elastic waves generated by energy discharging due to failure. By this means, it is possible
to determine location, time of origin and propagation of fracture sources in material by AE.
In this study, a reinforced concrete beam was tested under cyclic loading and monitored by
AE. Afterwards, AE data obtained from the test was processed, a specific localization
algorithm was applied to the data and cracks of the beams were localized. Thus, invisible
crack propagation of reinforced concrete beam was revealed by AE source localization
technique.

Keywords: Acoustic emission, crack, reinforced concrete beam, source localization.

1. INTRODUCTION

Identifying fracture mechanisms and crack patterns of reinforced concrete structural elements
is not always very easy for invisible regions. In recent years, significant developments have
been made to improve structural health monitoring methods to overcome this problem. These
methods are generally based on detecting elastic waves propagating in the material by
transducers. By this means, damage states, defect locations and failure progresses of the
specimens can be determined.
Acoustic Emission (AE) is one of the nondestructive testing methods and provides to monitor
fracture processes even at low load levels. The technique bases on propagation and detection
of elastic waves generated by energy discharging due to failure. In the technique, a stress
wave is introduced by applying an instant stress on surface of the test material. These waves
propagate into the material, arrive to the surface and stimulate the piezoelectric sensor. Then
the sensors convert the dynamical movements into electrical signal and the signal is processed
by preamplifier, filter, amplifier, counters and monitoring devices, respectively. The signal

1
consists of some parameters such as energy, amplitude, average frequency and count. By
using these parameters, magnitudes and origin times of the AE activities can be determined.

AE activities can be considered as a micro-seismic fault activity [1]. Thus, algorithms used in
earthquake analyses can be used for analysis of AE data. Apart from the other AE parameters,
by using only arrival time values of the AE waveform to the sensors, locations and origination
times of the fracture sources can be revealed. For this purpose, source localization techniques
have been developed and give accurate results as to location of the AE activities. The solution
of the localization problem bases on five main stages: acquisition of AE data, calculation of
arrival times, calculation of wave velocity, analysis within proper algorithm and comparison
of the results to satisfy the convergence criteria [2]. While some of the methods solving this
problem are iterative processes, the others are non-iterative. Which method will be used is
varied according to test conditions. A large number of studies have been conducted in
different materials to improve source localization algorithms and prove effectiveness of the
methods [3-6].

In this study, in order to clarify cracking mechanism by AE localization, a reinforced concrete

beam was tested under cyclic loading and monitored by AE. A localization algorithm was
applied to AE data obtained from the test and cracks of the beams were localized. Thus,
invisible crack propagation in reinforced concrete beam was revealed by AE source
localization technique.

2. AE SOURCE LOCALIZATION

Localization of sources, which cause to failure of a material, without any harming is an

interesting matter. AE is one of methods providing data for application of source localization
algorithms. According to ASTM E 1316 [7], AE is defined as an event producing transient
elastic waves by releasing of a number of local sources in materials under stress. Some
theories and methods are used for seismic and acoustic studies to obtain as the most accurate
as possible localization results. While some of these methods are iterative processes, the
others are non-iterative. Which method will be used is decided by researcher depending on
test conditions (e.g. purpose of the test, number of sensors, geometry of the material).

Fundamental methods using for localization of an earthquake source can be also applied to
AE source localization [8]. Source localization is an inverse problem. In the other words,
using time differences between sensors and failure, source can be localized. For the source
localization, data should be imported from minimum two, three and four sensors in linear,
planar and volumetric AE activity, respectively. Afterwards, system of equations is
constituted and unknown parameters of the source can be solved by several algorithms. In
these equations, coordinates of the sensors and P-wave velocity in material are knowns.
Velocity of the P-wave in a material can be calculated using Equation (1), where λ and μ are
Lamé constants and ρ is density of the material.

λ  2μ
VP= (1)
ρ

Because inaccurate determination of arrival times causes to inaccurate source localization,

researcher must be sure about exactness of these arrival time values. In order to overcome this
problem, generally picker algorithms are used. AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion) picker is
one of these algorithms and was developed by Grosse and Reinhardt in 1999 based on
Hinkley Criterion. Using statistical parameters of AE data, AIC values are calculated and

2
arrival time of the P-wave is determined when ACI curve starts to show a rising tendency
(Figure 1). AIC value is calculated by using Equation 2 as follows, where N is number of
amplitudes in AE waveform, Xi are amplitude values, var{X, [1,k]} is variance between X1
and Xk and var{X, [k,N]}is variance between Xk and XN [9] .

AICk = k . log{var{X, [1,k]}} + (N-k) . log{var{X, [k,N]}} (2)

Amplitude (V)

AIC Value
Time (sec)

Minimum AIC Value

Figure 1. An example for calculation of arrival time using AIC picker [10].

In a three dimensional AE analysis, source location, coordinates of the ith sensor, origination
time of failure and arrival time of a wave to ith sensor are defined as (x, y, z), (xi, yi, zi), to and
ti, respectively (Figure 2). Distance between the sensor and source (Di) can be calculated from
multiplication of time difference and velocity of the wave (Equation 3). This hyperbola
equation is written for all sensors and solution of a system involving i equations supply
intersection point (x, y, z) of the hyperbolas which is location of the source.

Sensor #1 Sensor #2
(x1,y1,z1) (x2,y2,z2)

Source (x,y,z)

Sensor #3
X
(x3,y3,z3) O
Sensor #i
(xi,yi,zi)

Z
Figure 2. Three dimensional AE source localization problem.

Di = Vp. (ti-to) = (x i  x)  (yi  y)  (z i  z)

2 2 2
(3)

3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

In the experimental program, a T-section cantilever reinforced concrete beam was produced.
The details of the reinforcements and dimensions of the specimen are given in Figure 3.

3
 A-A
120 120 120
Test Specimen
A 320

75
1200

285
300 300
A 320
B B 220 220
50 50
330 330

400 1750
110 8/300

Unit: mm

Figure 3. Reinforcement details of the test specimen.

2.1. Materials

Concrete used for the specimen was a mixture of water, cement, sand and aggregate with the
ratio of 0.68:1:2:3 by mass. The average compressive strength of 28-day concrete cylinder for
the beam was 28 MPa. For the specimen, standard deformed reinforcement steel bars with a
characteristic strength of 490 MPa and elastic modulus of 208 GPa were used for longitudinal
reinforcement. 8 mm diameter deformed steel bars were used as stirrups and their
characteristic strength was 510 MPa and elastic modulus was 210 GPa.

2.2. Test setup

The specimen was tested under cyclic loading at its free end which was placed vertically and
fixed at the bottom end. A schematic view of experimental set-up and the arrangement of the
measurement devices are shown in Figure 4.a. The loading protocol consisted of thirteen load
steps as shown in Figure 4.b. Loading was increased until the failure of the specimen. Four
potentiometers located at the end of the beam were used to monitor displacement.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. a) Test setup, b) loading protocol.

4
Eight AE sensors of 150 kHz (R15, PAC) were attached to the surface of the test specimen by
silicon grease to capture elastic waves that nucleate due to release of stored strain energy
during fracture (Figure 5). An 8-channel DiSP AE system by Mistras Holdings was used to
record AE data. AE waves were amplified with 40 dB gain by pre-amplifiers and 40 dB gain
by DiSP system. A threshold level of 42 dB was set.

Sensor X (m) Y (m) Z (m)

1 0.360 0.300 0.180
2 0.360 0.800 0.180
3 0.000 0.300 0.180
8 4 0.000 0.800 0.180
64 5 0.285 0.350 0.120
2 6 0.105 0.760 0.120
7 7 0.105 0.380 0.240
3 Z 8 0.285 0.750 0.240
5 1

Figure 5. AE sensor locations.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Mechanical results

Force-displacement hysteretic curves of the test specimens are presented in Figure 6.a. The
specimen failed in shear as expected due to critical shear crack propagation. As the load
reached to 40 kN, flexural cracks occurred at the bending region. Also the first shear crack
was observed at backward loading of this cycle and at 50 kN load level, main shear crack
developed at 0.20 m away from the beam support. After exceeding 60 kN load level, cracks
started to widen and the rigidity of the beam decreased. Finally, the specimen failed at −63.50
kN load level due to the main crack shear. Crack propagation after failure of the test specimen
is presented in Figure 6.b.

4.1. AE source localization results

AE data obtained from the test was analyzed by source localization algorithm based on
Geiger’s Method [11]. Cumulative AE source localization activities observed in the specimen
is shown in Figure 7. As shown, first flexural cracks were observed in flange at 0.37 m in y-
axis and interior zone of the beam which were seen during the test before 30 kN load level.
After presenting of first invisible cracks in sides of the flange, they progressed to surface and
bottom of the beam as the load increased. Also, the other cracks were observed in 0.28 m,
0.55 m and 0.80 m. The new cracks were concentrated in 0.40 m and 0.80 m. A great majority
of the activities were observed in interior zone of the beam. The cracks which originated in
middle region of cross section moved towards surface of the beam. All these activities show
that, AE source localization results accord with mechanical observed crack locations.

5
 Load (kN)

Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 6. a) Force-displacement curve, b) crack propagation after failure of the test specimen.

Figure 7. AE source localization results of the test specimen.

6
5. CONCLUSION

In this study, a T-section reinforced concrete beam was tested under cyclic loading and
monitored by acoustic emission technique. AE data obtained from the test were analyzed by
using source localization algorithm and crack locations of the specimen were determined. It
was clearly seen that AE source localization results of the specimen are compatible with
mechanical observed cracks. Thus, as a result of the study, effectiveness and applicability of
source localization technique by using AE data was proved.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Experimental data of this study was taken from a project with the grant number 111M559
financially supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey) and is greatly acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] G. Ma and H. Li, 2017. Acoustic emission monitoring and damage assessment of FRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete columns under cyclic loading. Construction and
Building Materials 144, 86-98.
[2] V. Salinas, Y. Vargas, J. Ruzzante and L. Gaete, 2009. Localization algorithm for acoustic
emission, International Congress on Ultrasonics, Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
January.
[3] T. I. Khan, N. Sunichi and M. Hasan, 2014. Structural damage localization by linear
technique of acoustic emission, Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics 4, 425-432.
[4] S. Gollob and T. Vogel, 2014. Localisation of acoustic emission in reinforced concrete
using heterogeneous velocity models, 31st Conference of the European Working Group on
Acoustic Emission (EWGAE), Dresden, Germany.
[5] Q. Han, A. Carpinteri and G. Lacidogna, 2015. Localization of acoustic emission sources
in structural health monitoring of masonry bridge, Structural Control and Health
Monitoring 22, 314-329.
[6] R. Richter, M. Juknat, M. Raith, B. Portner, J. Schmidt, F. Dehn and C. U. Grosse, 2015.
Methods and limitations of source-localization in concrete specimens under tunnel fire
exposure, 31st Conference of the European Working Group on Acoustic Emission
(EWGAE), Dresden, Germany.
[7] Standard Terminology for NDT, 2002. ASTM E 1316.
[8] C. U. Grosse and M. Ohtsu, 2008, Acoustic Emission Testing, Basics for Research-
Applications in Civil Engineering, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
[9] N. Maeda, 1985, A method for reading and checking phase times in auto-processing
system of seismic wave data, Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan, 38, 365-379.
[10] K. Ohno, 2013, Introduction of SiGMA analysis (Presentation), Department of Civil and
Enviromental Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan.
[11] G. E. Maochen, 2003, Analysis of source location algorithms part II: iterative methods,
Journal of Acoustic Emission, 21, 29-51.