SEHS 4595 MTM

Tutorial :
Testing Method
Comparison
 Estimate concrete
strength (old concrete,
not new concrete)

Which 1) ???

tests?
(1 min) 2) ???

3) ???
Estimate concrete
strength (old concrete,
not new concrete)

1) Coring Test

2) Rebound Hammer

3) Ultrasonic Meter
 Concrete strength (2 min)
What are the
Tests ??? ??? selection ??? ????
criteria?
Coring
Test

Rebound
Hammer

Ultrasonic
 Concrete strength
Speed of Damage Representative- Reliability of
Tests Cost Test (Destructive or ness Result
NDT)
Coring Test

Rebound
Hammer

Ultrasonic
 Concrete strength
Speed of Damage Representative- Reliability of
Tests Cost Test (Destructive or ness Result
NDT)
Coring Test

Rebound
Hammer

Ultrasonic
 Concrete strength
Speed Damage Representati Reliability of
Test Cost of Test (Destructive ve-ness Result
Method or NDT)
Coring Test High Slow

Rebound Very Fast

Hammer Low

Ultrasonics Low Fast

 Concrete strength
Speed Damage Representati Reliability of
Test Cost of Test (Destructive ve-ness Result
Method or NDT)
Coring Test High Slow Destructive Good

Rebound Very Fast NDT Surface Only

Hammer Low

Ultrasonic Low Fast NDT Good

 Concrete strength
Speed Damage Represent Reliability of
Test Cost of Test (Destructive -ativeness Result
Method or NDT)
Coring Test High Slow Destructive Good Very Good

Rebound Very Fast NDT Surface Only Test quality

Hammer Low of cover
concrete
Ultrasonic Low Fast NDT Good Moderate
(*)
* Direct method – more accurate as sonic wave penetrate
throughout entire concrete thickness
* Indirect method – only reflect concrete surface quality
 Concrete Cracks
Monitoring

1) ???
5 tests
(2 mins)
2) ???

3) ???
• Crack width gauge >>

• Tell-tale + Calipers >>>

• <<<<< Crack Microscope

 3-pin method -
Calipers

Ultrasonic Pulse Method

 Cracks
???? ???? Criteria ???? ???

Tell-tales

3-pin method
(with
calipers)

Crack width
gauge

Crack
Microscope

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error

Tell-tales

3-pin method
(with
calipers)

Crack width
gauge

Crack
Microscope

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error
Tell-tales Crack Low No need 1mm (naked High
movement eyes)
(width &
direction) 0.01mm (with Low
calipers)
3-pin method
(with
calipers)

Crack width
gauge

Crack
Microscope

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error
Tell-tales Crack Low No need 1mm (naked High
movement eyes)
(width &
direction) 0.01mm (with Low
calipers)
3-pin method Crack Low Small 0.01mm Low
(with movement
calipers) (width &
direction)

Crack width
gauge

Crack
Microscope

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error
Tell-tales Low No need 1mm (naked High
eyes)
Crack
movement
0.01mm (with Low
(width &
calipers)
direction)
3-pin method Low Small 0.01mm Low
(with
calipers)
Crack width Crack Minimum No need 0.05mm High
gauge width

Crack
Microscope

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error
Tell-tales Low No need 1mm (naked High
eyes)
Crack
movement
0.01mm (with Low
(width &
calipers)
direction)
3-pin method Low Small 0.01mm Low
(with
calipers)
Crack width Crack Minimum No need 0.05mm High
gauge width

Crack Crack Minimum Inexpensive 0.02mm Medium

Microscope width

Ultrasonic
 Cracks
Usage Cost Equipment Accuracy Reading
error
Tell-tales Low No need 1mm (naked High
eyes)
Crack
movement
0.01mm (with Low
(width &
calipers)
direction)
3-pin method Low Small 0.01mm Low
(with
calipers)
Crack width Minimum No need 0.05mm High
gauge
Crack
Crack width Minimum Inexpensive 0.02mm Medium
Microscope

Ultrasonic Crack Minimum Expensive Take average Low

depth readings
(0.1mm)
 Test Tile Bonding on
Substrate

1) ???

Tile
Bonding: 2) ???

3 Tests (2
mins) 3) ???
 Tests of Tiles
???? ???? ??? Criteria? ????? ???? ????

Hammer
Tapping
test

Infrared
Thermo
imaging

Pull-off
Test
 Tests of Tiles
Usage Cost Speed Need Damage? Coverage Reliability
access? Area

Hammer
Tapping
test

Infrared
Thermo
imaging

Pull-off
Test
 Tests of Tiles
Usage Cost Speed Need Damage? Coverage Reliability
access? Area

Hammer De- Minimum Slow Physical No Limited to High

Tapping bonded accessible testing area
test tiles

Infrared
Thermo
imaging

Pull-off
Test
 Tests of Tiles
Usage Cost Speed Need Damage? Coverage Reliability
access? Area

Hammer High Slow Physical No Limited to High

Tapping (labour + accessible testing area
test scaffold)
De-
Infrared Minimum Fast Remote No Large area Moderate
bonded
Thermo (but $ of sensing (affected
tiles
imaging consultant (good for by a lot of
) external factors,
wall) e.g.
weather
Pull-off
Test
 Tests of Tiles
Usage Cost Speed Need Damage? Coverage Reliability
access? Area

Hammer High Slow Physical No Limited to High

Tapping accessible testing area
test
De-
Infrared Minimum Fast Remote No Large area Moderate
bonded
Thermo (but $ for sensing (affected
tiles
imaging consultant (good for by a lot of
) external factors,
wall) e.g.
weather
Pull-off Bonding Relatively Fast Physical Minor Limited to High
Test strength low accessible damage testing area
 Pull-Off (Bond) Test
[if minimum bonding strength = 0.2N/mm2]

epoxy

adhesive
metal disc

tiles

substrate

Break at Break at Break at tile Break at epoxy

substrate adhesive
Reading = 0.25
Reading = 0.20
Reading = 0.15
 Pull-Off (Bond) Test
[e.g. (adhesive) bonding strength >=0.2N/mm2]

epoxy

adhesive
metal disc

tiles

substrate

Break at Break at Break at tile Break at epoxy

substrate adhesive
Reading = 0.25 Pass [B>0.25] B=0.25 Pass [B>0.25] Pass [B>0.25]
Reading = 0.20 Pass [B>0.20] B=0.20 Pass [B>0.20] Pass [B>0.20]
Reading = 0.15 Unknown (?) 0.15 Unknown (?) Redo (stronger epoxy)