Detection of Common Defects in Concrete Bridge Decks

Using Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques

Sherif Yehia1; Osama Abudayyeh2; Saleh Nabulsi3; and Ikhlas Abdelqader4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The transportation infrastructure in the United States is deteriorating and will require significant improvements. Consequently,
innovations in the area of transportation infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation are keys to the health and wellness of this valuable
national asset. A major component of maintenance and rehabilitation is the ability to accurately assess the condition of the transportation
infrastructure. This can be accomplished in part by using nondestructive evaluation techniques. Several nondestructive techniques have
been used on concrete bridge decks and have proven to be efficient and effective. This paper aims at studying the different nondestructive
evaluation techniques used in the assessment of concrete bridge deck conditions. An experimental investigation to evaluate the ability of
infrared thermography, impact echo, and ground penetrating radar to detect common flaws in concrete bridge decks is developed and
discussed. Results from this study showed the ability of these methods to detect defects with varying precision. Capabilities of the
methods were verified and comparisons among the methods were made.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2007兲12:2共215兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridge maintenance; Nondestructive tests; Radar; Bridges; Concrete; Bridge decks; Evaluation.

Introduction
Bridges are one of the most important elements of the transpor-
tation network in the United States. Therefore, continuous main-
tenance and inspection of bridges is vital and should be
performed according to fixed schedules in order to check for
safety and serviceability 共Washer 2003兲. The advent of nonde-
structive testing for bridge decks facilitated this need. Different
nondestructive methods have been adopted for the case of con-
crete bridge decks. Each of these methods has its advantages and
limitations and no one method is complete. This paper will dis-
cuss inspection criteria and nondestructive techniques 共NDTs兲
used for concrete bridge deck evaluation. Three nondestructive
techniques have been selected to evaluate their capabilities in the
detection of voids, cracks, and delaminations. These are consid-
ered the most serious types of defects present in concrete bridge
decks 共Washer 2003; Rhazi 2000兲. The objective is to provide a
comparison among the three selected methods and determine
which of these methods performs best. Comparisons and general
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI 49008. E-mail: sherif.yehia@
wmich.edu
2 It was just after the collapse of the Silver Bridge in Point
Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Programs, and Professor,
Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, Western Michigan Univ.,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
3
Project Controls Technician, Black and Veatch, Co., Ann Arbor, MI
48105; formerly, Graduate Research Assistant, Western Michigan Univ.
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Western
Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2007. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on May 6, 2005; approved on January 3, 2006. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2,
March 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2007/2-215–225/$25.00.
criteria for the selection among these methods will be established
depending on the level of information required.
Problems in Bridge Decks
The service life of bridge decks is usually shorter than other parts
of the bridge because they provide the driving surface. A bridge
deck is the part that is designed to carry the loads and traffic
moving over the bridge and is prone to deterioration 共Washer
2003; Ryall 2003兲. The ability to detect problems that occur in
concrete bridge decks is critical. Cracking, leaching, scaling, spal-
ling, corrosion of reinforcement, poor quality concrete, and
delaminations are common problems in concrete bridge decks.
Table 1 provides descriptions and causes of some of these com-
mon problems 共Ryall 2003; Rhazi 2000; Alongi et al. 1992兲.
Inspection
One of the very important tasks in the life cycle of bridges is
inspection. Inspection of any structure is performed to determine
the amount of maintenance needed. This is necessary in predict-
ing the costs associated with repairs and in allocating funds. It is
also essential to ensure the serviceability and safety of bridges
共Postema and Van Beek 2003兲.
Pleasant in 1967 when the Federal Highway Administration de-
cided to develop guidelines for the bridge inspection process.
Those guidelines require the periodic inspection of all bridges on
public roadways at least once every two years 共AASHTO 1994;
NBI 2003兲. The main goal of inspection is to determine the de-
gree of repair needed and to determine whether more testing is
required. The focus of this paper will be on concrete bridge decks.
Methods of Inspection
Destructive techniques require the mechanical testing of materials
to quantitatively evaluate specific characteristics of the material

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 215

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

 Table 1. Summary of Common Problems in Concrete Bridge Decks
Defect Definition
Spalling Concrete falls away leaving a little hole that defines the
fracture surface
Corrosion of Weakening of some metals such as steel due to exposure
reinforcement to corrosive environment where it becomes brittle and
goes back to its ore state
Leaching Drainage or removal of soluble or constitutes in porous
materials by water seeping action
Scaling Deterioration of concrete into smaller parts and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
individual aggregates
Cracking Breakage in the concrete causing a discontinuity without
causing a complete separation of the structure
Honeycombing The presence of exposed coarse aggregate without enough
concrete paste covering the aggregates, causing the
presence of small holes
Delaminations Cracks or fracture planes at or just above the level of
reinforcement that grow big and can affect the integrity
of the structure
共Hellier 2001兲. It is considered to be accurate and precise; how-
ever, it is not always reliable to assume that the rest of the mate-
rial will have the same properties as the tested part. Thus, the
need for nondestructive testing emerged. Although nondestructive
tests are useful tools in evaluating the state of bridge decks and
many other components, they cannot ensure that the part under
testing will not fail or malfunction. That is because every nonde-
structive test has limitations and engineers have been skeptical
about applying nondestructive evaluation techniques on routine
basis because of the difficulty of using the equipment and in the
interpretation of the results resulting from lack of standardization
共Hellier 2001; Abudayyeh et al. 2004兲. Advantages of nondestruc-
tive testing can include: cost efficiency, the ability to test elements
while in service, and the portability of the methods. The advan-
tages along with the disadvantages of destructive testing, which
involve high expenditures, quantitative information rather than
qualitative testing results, have made the use of nondestructive
testing more desirable. Although the use of NDT is encouraged,
the selection of the NDT is very important and several factors
must be taken into consideration to ensure meaningful results
共Abudayyeh et al. 2004兲:
1. The technique must be suitable for the structural component
under investigation;
2. Approved procedures must be developed and used based on
the requirements that are relevant to NDT applications; and
3. NDT must be performed by qualified personnel who are
properly trained on the operation of the equipment.
Overview of Nondestructive Methods for Concrete
Bridge Decks
Several nondestructive techniques have proven their ability to de-
tect discontinuities and flaws for the purpose of bridge deck
evaluation. Table 2 summarizes some of the nondestructive tech-
niques often used for bridge deck evaluation 共Abudayyeh et al.
2004兲. A recent survey by the authors was sent to the 50 depart-
ments of transportation 共DOTs兲. The questionnaire focused on
collecting information about the use of nondestructive evaluation
216 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225
Cause
Internal pressure due to freezing and thawing, insufficient
consolidation during construction and the formation of
inner cracks which are later transformed to spalls
Presence of a conductive solution, corrosion agent, and a
corrosion cell
Occurs due to dissolving water constitutes like calcium
hydroxide at crack locations
Scaling may be a result of freezing and thawing, and
chemical attacks
Cracks form due to tensile forces caused by shrinkage,
temperature changes, bending, loading, corrosion of
reinforcement, sulfates, and chemical attacks
Poorly graded concrete mix, the use of large coarse
aggregates, and insufficient vibration at the time of
placement
Corrosion of steel reinforcement, high amount of moisture
and chloride content, and the presence of cracks in
concrete surface
methods in DOTs, the criteria by which NDT methods are se-
lected if available, the frequency of use of each of the methods,
and what are they used for along with the challenges faced while
implementing those NDT methods. The survey showed that 29%
of the respondents are using NDT techniques for bridges, mostly
using visual inspection alone or as a precursor to other NDT
methods. Only 29% they have in-house selection criteria for NDT
methods. The respondents ranked the selection of NDT methods
as dependent on several factors:
1. Condition of the structure;
2. Size and complexity of the structure;
3. Environmental issues;
4. Traffic density; and
5. Geographic location.
Based on the findings of the survey, literature reviews, and on
Table 2, three nondestructive methods for bridge deck evaluation
were chosen for further study. Those methods were found to be of
great value and very low frequency of use in DOTs. The methods
were selected to verify their capabilities and compare their abili-
ties in detecting different flaws in concrete bridge decks. The
three selected methods were ground penetrating radar 共GPR兲,
thermography, and impact echo 共IE兲. Table 3 summarizes some of
the important features of the selected equipment which include
concept, controlling parameters, advantages and limitations
共Maser 1996a,b; Zhao et al. 2001; Annan 2003; Hahn 2000; Rod-
dis 1987; Loulizi 2001; Chen and Halabi 1994; Maser and Roddis
1990; Zachar and Naik 1992; Sansalone et al. 1998; Hugenshmidt
1997; Knorr and Buba 1983; Halabe and Maser 1995; Sansalone
and Streett 1997; Kraus and Maierhofer 1995; Cheng and Sansa-
lone 1995; Manning and Holt 1980; Sansalone and Carino 1989;
Rhazi et al. 2003兲.
Experimental Investigation
The objective of the experimental investigation in this research
was to determine and compare the abilities of GPR, impact echo,
and thermography to detect flaws in concrete bridge decks. Three
 Table 2. Summary of Nondestructive Methods for Concrete Bridge Decks
Method Uses Advantages Limitations
Visual inspection • Cracks • Accessibility • Subjective
• Geometry • Oldest known technique • Time consuming
• Surface roughness • Well established • Qualitative results
Liquid penetrant dye • Surface flaws • Portable • Surface preparation
• Detection of irregularities • Easy interpretation • Exhausting for inspector
• Time consuming
Chain drag • Flaw detection inside decks • Simple • Time consuming
• Delaminations • Portable • Tedious
• Good for delaminations • Subjective
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• Not good with overlays

Half-cell potential • Detect corrosion state in
concrete reinforcement
• Corrosion rate
Acoustic emission • Cracks
• Delaminations
• Corrosion
Ultrasonic pulse velocity • Homogeneity of concrete
cracks, voids
• Strength determination
Ground penetrating radar • Concrete mapping, mining,
geotechnical, road, and bridge
• Forensics
• Detection of voids,
honeycombing,
• Delaminations
• Moisture content
Impact echo • Detection of voids, cracks,
delaminations, unconsolidated
concrete, and debonding
• Determining thickness
Thermography • Detection of thermal
differences, delaminations,
cracks, voids
• Simple
• Portable
• Good for corrosion
• Real-time response
• No lane closures
• Portable
• Easy test procedure at
relatively low cost
• Relatively easy to interpret
• Versatility
• Portability
• Effectiveness
• Low cost
• Good with overlays
• Minimum traffic control
• Prediction of repair quantities
in roads
• Requires one surface of the
tested material to be exposed,
independent of the geometry of
the structure
• Less susceptible to steel
reinforcement
• High accuracy
• Portable
• Simple, easy interpretation
• Minimum traffic interference
• Deck needs preparation
• Time consuming
• Not good for delaminations
• Lane closure
• Not very accurate
• Qualitative results only
• Not good with overlays
• Interpretation
• Costly
• Not reliable
• Not very reliable for concrete
• Attenuation negatively affects results
• Does not give information about the shape
of defect
• Interpretation
• Complexity of results
• Interpretation of results sometimes requires
destructive testing
• Size of detected flaws is highly dependent on
the impact duration
• Less reliable in the presence of asphalt overlays
• Interpretation of the results is difficult
• No information about depth of defects
• Dependant on environmental conditions

types of simulated flaws of known dimensions, locations, thick-
nesses, and geometry were introduced to the specimens. The goal
was to conduct each of the tests over the flaws locations and
evaluate the detection ability and how much information each of
the methods can provide about the flaw.
Specimens
Six 1.2 m ⫻ 1.2 m 共4 ft⫻ 4 ft兲 concrete specimens were designed
and fabricated to compare the abilities of GPR, IE, and thermog-
raphy in detecting delaminations, voids, and surface cracks. Three
specimens simulated internal bridge flaws while the other three
specimens were used as control specimens with no defects
present. The specimens’ width to thickness ratio is larger than five
to avoid interference caused by wave reflections from the side
boundaries of the slab 共Cheng and Sansalone 1995兲. The thick-
nesses of the specimens, which were called Specimens A, B, and
C were 102 mm 共4 in.兲, 152 mm 共6 in.兲, and 203 mm 共8 in.兲, re-
spectively, to study the effect of defects depth on the ability of the
selected equipment to detect different flaws. Two parameters were
included in this research; depth of the defects from the surface
and the size of the defect. The increase of the thickness of the
slabs meant an increase in the depth of the defects since they were
placed on the steel layer where they typically exist except for
surface cracks. Voids on the other hand, were placed at different
depths. A concrete mix commonly used for bridge decks was used
in casting the specimens. Each of the concrete slabs contained six
delaminations, three voids and seven different surface cracks of
different lateral dimensions. Tables 4–6 provide schedules for the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 217

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

 Table 3. Summary of the Important Features of Ground Penetrating Radar, Impact Echo, and Thermography
Ground penetrating radar
Depends on the principle of scattering of
electromagnetic waves to locate buried
objects in any nonmetallic material by
relating to the delay time and the amplitude
of the return signal
The dielectric contrast plays an important
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Impact echo Thermography
共a兲 Concept
•Based on the use of sound waves Based on the detection of thermal
generated by elastic impact differences which exist between sound and
•Waves at frequencies of 50– 300 kHz are defected concrete
introduced to the surface of the concrete
element using impactors of different sizes
ranging from 3 to 15 mm
共b兲 Controlling parameters
•The selection of the steel sphere plays a •Thermography readings are affected by

role in the ability of GPR to detect the
interfaces or discontinuities between or
within the tested medium
•Ability to detect the structural composition
and objects in ground such as pipes and
cables
•Locating steel reinforcement
•Localization of damaged areas and
deteriorated areas in bridge decks
•Ability to determine thicknesses,
honeycombing locations, voids,
delaminations, and moisture content
•GPR is not affected by ambient
temperatures and covers large areas when
scans are performed
In some cases it is difficult to interpret the
return signal, the interpretation may require
information obtained by destructive methods
such as coring or drilling 共Washer 2003兲.
great part in the ability to detect different
sizes of flaws
•Some important characteristics of the
impact are impact time tc, diameter of
Sphere D, and kinetic energy produced by
the impact
•These characteristics determine the wave’s
ability to propagate and detect flaws in
concrete
共c兲 Advantages
•This method can be used for the detection
of voids, cracks, delaminations,
unconsolidated concrete, and debonding
between interfaces
•Used for the determination of thicknesses
•Requires only one surface of the tests
material to be exposed and is independent
of the geometry of the structure 共NBI
2003兲, unlike some other nondestructive
tests ultrasonic tests
•Provides information about the depth and
extent of the flaw
•Less time consuming and reduces the costs
associated with testing
•The method is also less susceptible to
metal reinforcement unlike GPR
共d兲 Limitations
•Size of detected flaws is highly dependent
on the impact duration
•Interpretation of the results is difficult and
needs experience
•Method is unable to detect grouted areas in
concrete, and the results tend to become
less reliable in the presence of asphalt
overlays
emissivity, which is the ability of the
element to radiate energy
•Emissivity increases if the surface is
rougher or darker
•Radiant heat is also affected by
environmental variables such as the cloud
cover, wind speed, which has to be
⬍10– 15 mph, and surface moisture, which
tends to decrease the heat differences
•Ability to scan larger areas in little time
•Ability to detect delaminations, cracks,
voids, debonding between layers
•Low operating cost and minimal disruption
to traffic and requires minimal lane closure
•Methods can only be used during certain
months of the year
•Cannot detect depth and extent of defect
so it cannot be used in preparing repair
documents
•Cannot detect delaminations if they are
water filled instead of air filled
•Not reliable when the cover over the
defects increases

induced delaminations, voids, and cracks, respectively. Defects Equipment

were simulated using different approaches. To mimic the real
bridge deck situation, the three types of defects were simulated as
follows:
• Crack simulation: Plexiglas, of different lengths and thick-
nesses, was used to create cracks in the specimens. The coor-
dinates of the cracks shown in Table 6 are taken from the point
of origin at the corner of the slab as shown on Fig. 1 that
shows a slab with induced defects before casting.
• Delamination simulation: Delaminations were simulated using
Styrofoam blocks, which were later dissolved after casting by
the injection of acetone through fine tubes connected to the
Styrofoam blocks.
• Void simulation: Voids were simulated using PVC pipes that
run through the specimen. After casting, the PVC pipes were
pulled out of the specimen to leave a void behind.
The GPR device consisted of a high-resolution, high-frequency
antenna with a center frequency of 1,500 MHz suitable for bride
deck applications and shallow detection. The system also com-
prised of a data acquisition system, survey cart, and the postpro-
cessing software called RADAN.
The impact echo device consisted of an analog/digital data
acquisition system with 14 bit resolution, 2 MHz maximum sam-
pling speed. The system also included one hand-held pistol grip
transducer that measures displacements and transfers data to the
acquisition system; a set of 10 steel sphere compactors of differ-
ent sizes; and the accompanying computer software for data
processing.
The thermography infrared 共IR兲 camera consisted of an un-

218 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

 Table 4. Delaminations Schedule for Defective Fabricated Slabs Table 6. Cracks Schedule for Fabricated Slabs
Depth Depth in
from Thickness Length concrete X-coordinate Y-coordinate
Length Width Thickness surface
Crack mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in.
Delaminations mm in. mm in. mm in. Specimen mm in.
C1 1 0.04 25 1.0 25 1.0 350.0 13.8 340 13.4
D1 51 2.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 A 25 1.00 共at 45°兲
51 2.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 B 25 1.00 C11 1 0.04 76 3.0 25 1.0 775.0 30.5 889 35.0
51 2.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 C 70 2.75 C2 2 0.08 25 1.0 51 2.0 3.5 89.0 363 14.3
D2 51 2.0 38 1.5 25 1.0 A 19 0.75 C22 2 0.08 64 2.5 51 2.0 10.2 259.0 102 4.0
51 2.0 38 1.5 25 1.0 B 76 3.00 C3 3 0.12 51 2.0 13 0.5 20.8 528.0 574 22.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

51 2.0 38 1.5 25 1.0 C 102 4.00 C4 3 0.12 51 2.0 25 1.0 28.0 1.1 805 31.7
D3 103 4.0 102 4.00 13 0.5 A 19 0.75 C5 1 0.04 64 2.5 51 2.0 818.0 32.2 1,006 39.6
共at 315°兲
103 4.0 102 4.0 13 0.5 B 51 2.00
103 4.0 102 4.0 13 0.5 C 102 4.00
D4 38 1.5 38 1.5 38 1.5 A 32 1.25 ⑀r = ⑀/⑀0 共2兲
38 1.5 38 1.5 38 1.5 B 51 2.00
where ⑀⫽dielectric constant of the material 共F/m兲; and
38 1.5 38 1.5 38 1.5 C 89 3.75
⑀0⫽dielectric constant of air, which is 8.85⫻ 10−12 共F/m兲
D5 102 4.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 A 32 1.25
102 4.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 B 38 1.50
Impact Echo
102 4.0 76 3.0 51 2.0 C 57 2.25
D6 76 3.0 76 3.0 38 1.5 A 38 1.50 Tc = 0.0043D 共3兲
76 3.0 76 3.0 38 1.5 B 38 1.50
76 3.0 76 3.0 38 1.5 C 76 3.00 Fmax = 291/D 共4兲

C = f␭ 共5兲
cooled BST focal plane array IR sensor, which had a resolution of
320⫻ 240 with a 12 bit digitization, and a thermal sensitivity of
F = ␤Cp/2T 共6兲
0.08°C 共0.15°F兲.
where Tc⫽contact time of the impact, D⫽diameter of the sphere
used in impact; Fmax⫽maximum useful frequency of the impact;
Equations
C⫽wave speed; f⫽frequency; ␭⫽wave length; F⫽frequency of
Equations used to calculate the depth of defects during the experi- the P wave; ␤⫽shape factor for plates and is equal to 0.96;
mental investigation are summarized in this section. Cp⫽wave speed; and T⫽thickness.

Ground Penetrating Radar Thermography

The velocity of the traveling electromagnetic pulse within the Qe = ␴⑀T4 共7兲
medium is given by Eq. 共1兲 共Maser 1996a; Sansalone and Carino
1987兲 where Qe⫽total radiant emission of the surface;
␴⫽Stephan–Boltzman constant 5.673⫻ 10−12 W / cm2 k4;
V = C/⑀r1/2 共1兲 ⑀⫽emissivity factor, which is less than 1 共1⫽black body兲, for
concrete⫽0.92 at 20°C; and T⫽absolute temperature of the object
where V⫽velocity in the medium 共m/s兲; C⫽velocity in free space
共K兲.
共3 ⫻ 108 m / s兲; and ⑀r⫽relative dielectric constant; and

Table 5. Voids Schedule for Defective Fabricated Slabs

Diameter Length Depth from surface
Void mm in. mm in. Specimen mm in.
V1 13 0.50 305 12 A 25 1.00
13 0.50 305 12 B 38 1.50
13 0.50 305 12 C 76 3.00
V2 7 0.25 407 16 A 13 0.50
7 0.25 407 16 A 114 4.50
7 0.25 407 16 C 89 3.50
V3 25 1.00 305 12 A 32 1.25
25 1.00 305 12 B 51 2.00
25 1.00 305 12 C 64 2.50 Fig. 1. Slabs with induced defects before casting

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 219

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

 Table 7. Summary of the GPR Tests Results
Delamination
Slab D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 V1
Defective A D ND D D D D ND
Defective B D ND D ND D D D ND
Defective C D D D D D D D ND
Note: D⫽detected and ND⫽not detected.
Experimental Results
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ground Penetrating Radar Results
The GPR test was performed on the specimens prepared for this
study. Scans were conducted in both directions in order to deter-
mine the direction of the upper steel bars. It was very important to
determine the direction in which the upper steel was running in
order to determine which direction the scan lines would follow.
The test was usually done perpendicular to the target unless the
response of that target was not of significance and was to be
minimized; in such a case, a scan parallel to the target’s direction
was carried out. Since the defects were of importance in this test
and not the steel, the scans were taken in the direction parallel to
the upper steel in order to minimize their response and as a mea-
sure to get the maximum response from the defects. This ap-
proach was also followed whenever targets underneath the steel
layers were of interest.
Tests were performed at the locations of the different simu-
lated flaws. The objective was to evaluate the precision with
which GPR can detect flaw locations and depths. The tests were
performed in the same manner on Specimens A, B, and C. Scans
were taken on both defective and sound concrete specimens be-
fore dissolving the Styrofoam blocks. The reasoning behind this
approach was to determine the difference in the response obtained
from the tests performed on the defective and sound concrete
slabs. At a later stage, the tests were performed again after dis-
solving the Styrofoam blocks that simulated delaminations using
acetone. This was done in order to study the effect of air-filled
delamination compared to Styrofoam filled delamination on the
response obtained from GPR testing.
Table 7 shows a summary of the testing done on each of the
defective fabricated specimens. GPR was able to detect most of
the delaminations in Defective Specimen A, except for Delami-
nation D2, which was small in lateral dimension in addition to
being very shallow. On the other hand, some voids in Defective
Specimen A were not detected since they were either shallow or
had small diameters. For example, Void V3 was the only detect-
able void as it was more than 25 mm 共1 in.兲 deep and was 25 mm
共1 in.兲 in diameter while Voids V1 and V2 were 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲
and 7 mm 共0.25 in.兲 in diameter, respectively, and both were shal-
lower than 25 mm 共1 in.兲 in depth. Those detected defects that
were more than 31 mm 共1.25 in.兲 deep allowed for a high-
precision depth calculation that exceeded 95% accuracy when
compared to the actual depth. GPR was able to detect defects that
were less than 31 mm 共1.25 in.兲 deep. The responses obtained
from tests performed at the locations of those defects indicated
their presence but did not give clear results to enable the calcu-
lation of their depths.
The results obtained from the tests performed on Defective
Specimen B showed that GPR was able to detect the delamina-
tions in the same manner as was the case for Defective Specimen
A. Delaminations D2 and D4 were not detected although the test
220 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225
Void Crack
V2 V3 C1 C11 C2 C22 C3 C4 C5
ND D ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
D ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
D ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
was repeatedly performed at their locations. It was expected that
GPR would be able to detect their presence. The only explanation
was that they had small lateral dimensions when compared to
their depth in Defective Specimen B. GPR showed excellent abil-
ity to detect the rest of the delaminations with very high depth
calculation accuracy which exceeded 95% in this specimen. The
voids in this specimen were detected with high depth calculation
accuracy except for Void V2. Void V2 was 7 mm 共0.25 in.兲 in
diameter and was 114 mm 共4.5 in.兲 deep. The diameter of the
void and its depth from the surface are two factors that affect the
ability of GPR to detect the flaws’ presence. When the flaw was
larger and deeper in the specimen it was easier for GPR to sense
its presence. V2 was placed under the steel layer, which masked
its response. In addition, V2 had a very small diameter making it
invisible to GPR.
Defective Specimen C showed better results when tested with
GPR. As all the defects were more than 56 mm 共2.25 in.兲 in
depth, they were visible for GPR waves, and they showed very
strong responses. All delaminations were detected with a depth
calculation accuracy that exceeded 95% of the actual depth. GPR
was able to detect the presence of Voids V1 and V3 in this case
because they had diameters big enough for GPR to detect. Also,
their depths were more than 63 mm 共2.5 in.兲 and above the steel
layer. Void V1 was 76 mm 共3 in.兲 deep and had a diameter of
13 mm 共0.5 in.兲, while V3 had a diameter of 25 mm 共1 in.兲 and
was 63 mm 共2.5 in.兲 deep. On the other hand, V2, which was
7 mm 共0.25 in.兲 in diameter, was not detected as was the case in
the other two defective slabs; this led to the conclusion that GPR
can not detect any crack or discontinuation that is less than
13 mm 共0.5 in.兲in diameter regardless of its depth. The ability to
detect voids that were 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 or more in diameter de-
pended on their depth in the specimen; those deeper than 25 mm
共1 in.兲 were detected. Moreover, all the surface cracks that were
introduced to the specimen as shown in Table 6 were not detected,
suggesting that GPR is not an appropriate method for the detec-
tion of these types of flaws.
Fig. 2 shows an example of a scan taken on sound concrete
Specimen C, while Fig. 3 shows the results of a scan taken over
Delaminations D1 and D5. This scan also passed over Void V3 in
the Defective Specimen C.
The tests performed after the Styrofoam was dissolved showed
identical results to those obtained from the test while the Styro-
foam was present. This indicated that there was no need to dis-
solve the Styrofoam blocks in future studies using GPR.
Impact Echo Results
Testing of the concrete slabs was done using impact echo in two
stages. The first stage was with the Styrofoam blocks present and
the second stage was after the Styrofoam blocks were dissolved.
The results obtained from the impact echo testing on the fabri-
cated slabs are summarized in Table 8. Impact echo was able to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. GPR scan taken over D1 and D5 close to void V3 in

Fig. 2. GPR scan taken on sound Specimen C Defective Specimen C

detect all the defects 共delaminations and voids兲 in Defective
Specimens A, B, and C. The calculation of the defects’ depths was
not possible except when those defects were deeper than 51 mm
共2 in.兲 from the concrete surface. The impact echo test was also
able to detect the presence of surface cracks and voids.
The presence of all six delaminations and the three voids in
Defective Specimen A was indicated in the obtained responses.
However, their depths could not be calculated as they were all
less than 51 mm 共2 in.兲 deep. The delaminations and voids re-
sponses from Defective Specimen A generally showed down-
shifted thickness frequencies. This occurs when the response
shows a frequency that is lower than the expected thickness fre-
quency indicating the presence of a defect without showing a
peak at the defects calculated frequency using Eq. 共6兲.
Surface cracks were all detected in Defective Specimen A.
However, no attempt was made to calculate the depths of those
flaws as a second transducer was needed but was not available. In
the case of another transducer was available; the depth of cracks
could have been calculated.
The responses from most of the delaminations in Defective
Slab B showed a downshifted thickness frequency suggesting a
delay in the time it took the wave to reach the full thickness. The
P wave propagating the slab contains a certain energy level and
maximum frequency that depends on the impactor’s size. If the
wave frequency is less than that required to detect the flaw, the
wave will not have enough energy. The result will show a peak
that has a lower frequency than that expected from the flaw. The
shallow delaminations such as D1, D5, and D6 showed flexural
vibrations caused by the vibration of the thin concrete layer above
the shallow delaminations. These usually appear as single, low-
frequency peaks as will be shown later. Calculating the depth of
the defects was not possible because the defects were less than
51 mm 共2 in.兲 deep from the concrete surface.
Responses obtained from tests done over the cracks were very
similar to those obtained from the tests over Defective Specimen
A in that it had several low frequency peaks corresponding to the
P wave bouncing back and forth between the transducer and the
crack tips. In addition, the depth of the cracks was not calculated
because of the absence of a second transducer.
The responses obtained from the defects when the impact echo
test was performed on Defective Specimen C showed its ability to
detect the defects, especially when defects were deeper than
51 mm 共2 in.兲. The responses obtained in this case showed two
major peaks, one corresponding to the thickness frequency, which
was downshifted due to the presence of the defect, and the other
due to the presence of the defect. This is illustrated in Fig. 4,
which shows the result of a test done at the location of Delami-
nation D3 in Defective Specimen C. The first peak appears at a
frequency of 7.8 kHz, which is less than the calculated thickness
frequency. The appearance of a low-frequency, high-amplitude
peak gives the indication of the presence of a defect. Reflections
from the flaw produce a series of frequency peaks grouped around
the flaw frequency 共Sansalone and Catino 1987兲. This appears as
the group of peaks and the high-frequency, low-amplitude
22.5 kHz peak, which corresponds to the delamination located
102 mm 共4 in.兲 below the surface. The depths were calculated

Table 8. Summary of the Results Obtained from Impact Echo Testing

Delamination Void Crack
Specimen D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 V1 V2 V3 C1 C11 C2 C22 C3 C4 C5
A D D D D D D D D D D YN YN YN YN NA NA YN
B D YD D D D D NA D YD D YN YN YN YN YN NA YN
C YD YD YD D YD YD NA YD YD YD NA NA YN YN YN YN YN
Note: D⫽flaw was detected with the ability to calculate its depth; and YD⫽defect was detected and its depth was calculated; YN⫽flaw was detected but
no attempt was made to calculate its depth; and NA⫽test was not performed on the location of this flaw.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 221

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Impact echo response above D3 in Defective Specimen C
with great accuracy 共always higher than 95%兲 for most of the
defects. Fig. 5 shows another sample result of the impact echo
tests when performed above Delaminations D3 in 102 mm 共4 in.兲.
The responses showed the flexural vibrations in Defective Speci-
men A. The response was a single peak corresponding to the
flexural modes of vibrations of the concrete plate above the flaw
at a value of 6.8 kHz. The responses obtained from all of the
delaminations in Defective Specimen A showed that the impact
echo had the potential to detect the presence of a defect. How-
ever, no information about the depth, size, or geometry of the
delaminations could be obtained from the responses.
Tests done after Styrofoam blocks were dissolved gave identi-
cal results in all three defective specimens.
Infrared Thermography Results
Concrete specimens were tested on different days and at different
times of the day in an attempt to study the effect of temperature
variations during different times of the day on the obtained re-
sults. It has been stated in literature that results from Infrared are
most accurate during the hours of maximum heating, between
11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 共Manning and Holt 1980兲. The results
Fig. 5. Impact echo response above delamination D3 in Defective Specimen A
222 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225
obtained from tests done on the concrete slabs verified this fact.
The test was done in two stages, with and without Styrofoam
blocks as in the cases of GPR and impact echo.
IR testing on the concrete blocks showed that ambient tem-
perature is not a very important factor in the obtained result as
long as there is enough sunshine. All tests were done on sunny
days and in temperatures that ranged between 20° C 共68° F兲 and
26° C 共78° F兲.
The results from the tests performed on the three defective
specimens are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. Tests were per-
formed in three time periods, 10:00 a.m. to noon, noon to 3:00
p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to midnight, to study the effect of the time of
test on the obtained responses. The results from Defective Speci-
men A showed that the larger the defect the easier it is for ther-
mography to detect. All defects were less than 38 mm 共1.5 in.兲
deep. The results showed that thermography was able to detect all
the delaminations in Defective Specimen A between 10:00 a.m.
and noon. The responses obtained from the tests done on the
delaminations between noon and 3:00 p.m. showed that thermog-
raphy was still able to detect most of the delaminations. However,
some of the defects showed weak responses as the time got closer
 Table 9. Thermography Results of Delaminations on the Defective are harder to be detected at night. These results were consistent
Specimens A, B, and C with other research findings 共Manning and Holt 1980兲.
Time Depth The tests performed on Defective Specimen B showed the
weak ability of thermography to detect different defects if they
10:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. were small in lateral dimensions. The defects in Defective Speci-
to to to
men B were deeper inside the specimen as per Tables 4 and 5.
Defect Specimen 12:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. mm in.
This fact made the detection of the temperature differences be-
D1 A D D,WD ND 25 1.00 tween sound and defective concrete harder. The observation that
B WD ND ND 25 1.00 the size of the defect played a role in the detection capability was
C ND ND ND 69 2.75 still valid in this case. This is because a bigger defect results in a
D2 A D WD ND 19 0.75 larger temperature difference making it easier to be detected by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B ND ND ND 76 3.00 thermography. Results from Defective Specimen B showed

C ND ND ND 101 4.00
weaker responses when compared to that of the Defective Speci-
men A when tested under the same conditions. Delaminations D1,
D3 A D D ND 19 0.75
D2, D3, and D4 showed weak responses between 10:00 a.m. and
B WD WD ND 51 2.00 noon and showed weaker responses when the tests were per-
C ND ND ND 101 4.00 formed later during the day closer to 3:00 p.m. Tests performed at
D4 A D D,WD ND 31 1.25 night showed no responses. Surface cracks were not identifiable
B WD WD ND 51 2.00 using thermography when they were simulated by Plexiglas such
C ND ND ND 88 3.50 was the case in Defective Specimen A.
D5 A D D ND 31 1.25 The tests performed on Defective Specimen C were unable to
detect any of the defects. This is due to the fact that most of the
B D D ND 25 1.00 defects were more than 76 mm 共3 in.兲 deep. Defects that were
C ND ND ND 56 2.25 less than 76 mm 共3 in.兲 showed very weak responses with very
D6 A D D ND 38 1.50 low-temperature variations.
B D WD ND 38 1.50 The tests performed after the removal of the Styrofoam blocks
C ND ND ND 76 3.00 showed better results. Responses obtained from these tests indi-
Note: D⫽flaw was detected; WD⫽flaw was detected, but response was cated that air-filled voids or delaminations are more visible to the
weak, ND⫽flaw was not detected. infrared camera when compared to Styrofoam-filled delamina-
tions when heated in the right manner. IR thermography was able
to detect all delaminations in this case in Defective Specimens A
to 3:00 p.m. Tests done at night failed to detect any of the defects. and B. Temperature differences between sound and defective con-
Similarly, voids were detected after long periods of sun exposure, crete areas reached up to 4 ° C 共7 ° F兲. The images obtained from
but were not detected during night tests. This was due to the fact the tests showed that the geometry or size of the defect was not
that flaws heat and cool faster than the surrounding sound con- possible to determine since the responses were nonuniform in
crete. During the day, flaws heat at a faster rate during periods of shape. The results from Defective Specimen C, having defects
sunshine. When the sun starts to set, flaws start losing temperature that were deeper than 76 mm 共3 in.兲, showed very weak or no
faster than sound concrete and reach a point at night were tem- responses. This led to the conclusion that thermography was not
peratures of the sound concrete and flaws are equal. Thus, flaws efficient in detecting deep defects and would function better if
employed as a surface or near-surface detection method.

Table 10. Thermography Results of Voids on the Defective Specimens Discussion of the Results
A, B, and C The tests performed on the three defective and three sound con-
Time Depth crete specimens using the three selected methods showed the vari-
able abilities of each of the methods in detecting different flaws.
10:00 a.m. 12:00 3:00 p.m.
GPR showed excellent ability to detect delaminations and voids
to to to
Defect Specimen 12:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. mm in. but was not able to detect surface cracks. Impact echo, on the
other hand, showed exceptional abilities in detecting the three
V1 A D D ND 25 1.00 types of flaws with high precision. However, it was a slow
B D D ND 38 1.50 method that required many testing points. Thermography demon-
C ND ND ND 76 3.00 strated its ability to detect flaws only when they are shallow and
V2 A D D ND 13 0.50 large in dimensions; delaminations and voids that were deep were
B ND ND ND 113 4.50 less likely to be detected, especially those deeper than 51 mm
C ND ND ND 88 3.50 共2.0 in.兲. From all of the above, a general comparison can be
V3 A D D ND 31 1.25
established among the three methods. These can be followed as
general guidelines on which of the methods to select depending
B D D ND 13 0.50 on several factors as shown in Table 11.
C ND ND ND 63 2.50
Cracks A ND ND ND Surface Surface
Concluding Remarks
B ND ND ND Surface Surface
C ND ND ND Surface Surface The tests performed using the three methods showed that GPR,
Note: D⫽flaw was detected and ND⫽flaw was not detected. IE, and IR thermography are promising techniques for the detec-

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 223

J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225

 Table 11. General Selection Criteria and Comparison among IE, GPR, and Thermography
Variable IE
Test speed Slow
Test results Needs processing
Nature of method Subsurface
Detection depth Good results for defects more than
51 mm 共2 in.兲
Lane closure Requires closure
Surface crack detection Detects cracks
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Depth calculation accuracy Precision ⬎95%
Surface preparation Needs preparation: surface cleaning,
chipping if rough
Equipment cost Low
tion of concrete bridge deck defects. Which method to select for a
specific job depends on the degree of details required and the
types of flaws under study. Infrared thermography is a fast
method with real-time results possible. However, infrared ther-
mography is a surface method. Its ability to detect deep flaws is
controlled by the defect’s depth and size and is not reliable be-
cause it depends on the environment 共i.e., amount of sunshine,
time of test兲. In addition, infrared thermography failed to detect
surface cracks when they were Plexiglas simulated. All defects
deeper than 51 mm 共2 in.兲 in depth and less than 76 mm 共3 in.兲 in
lateral extension were particularly hard to detect.
GPR, on the other hand, is a more sophisticated method used
for subsurface scanning. It is also not time consuming and re-
quires minimum lane closures when compared to other methods
such as impact echo. If a horn antenna is used in a study, GPR
requires no lane closures as this type of antenna can scan the
surface at high speeds up to 96 km/ h 共60 m / h兲. GPR possesses
high capabilities in detection of different flaws but is dependent
on the antenna type for resolution and minimum detection depth.
Results from GPR testing also showed that the deeper the defect
the better the results obtained as long as they were above the steel
layer. Moreover, it was found that defects had to be at least
13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 thick in order for GPR to be able to detect them.
Impact echo was tedious and time consuming since it required
many testing points. However, it provided results that were as
reliable as those obtained from GPR tests. Unlike GPR and infra-
red thermography, impact echo was able to detect surface cracks
in the specimens. Also, impact echo showed good results when
testing defects deeper than 51 mm 共2.0 in.兲. In addition, when
performing impact echo tests, great care should be taken when
testing on rough concrete surfaces as this affects the establish-
ment of low contact times necessary to detect small and shallow
defects.
Acknowledgments
Partial support of this work was provided by National Science
Foundation Grant No. MRI-0215356. The support of NSF is
greatly appreciated. The writers also acknowledge Western
Michigan University for its support and contributions to the In-
formation Technology and Image Analysis Center. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
224 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225
GPR Thermography
Fast Fast
Needs processing Real time
Subsurface Surface
Good for defects deeper than 25 mm Surface methods, good up to 51 mm
共1 in.兲 共2 in.兲
Requires closure if ground couple Requires minimum lane closure
antennas are used
Cannot detect cracks Cannot detect Plexiglas simulated
cracks
Precision ⬎95% Cannot calculate depths
Cleaning, surveying work Cleaning
High Moderate
material are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation or Western Michigan
University.
References
AASHTO. 共1994兲. Manual for condition evaluation of bridges, 2nd Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
Abudayyeh, O., Abdel-Qader, I., Nabulsi, S., and Weber, J. 共2004兲.
“Using nondestructive technologies and methods in bridge manage-
ment systems.” J. Urban Technol., 11共1兲, 63–76.
Alongi, A., Clemena, G., and Cady, P. 共1992兲. “Condition evaluation of
concrete bridges relative to reinforcement corrosion.” Rep. No.
SHRP-S/ FR-92-105, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Annan, A. 共2003兲. “Ground penetrating radar principles, procedures, and
applications.” Sensor and Software, Inc., Ontario, Canada.
Chen, H. L., Halabi, U. B., Sami, Z., and Bhandarkar, V. 共1994兲. “Im-
pulse radar reflection waveform of simulated reinforced concrete
bridge decks.” Mater. Eval., 52共12兲, 1382–1388.
Cheng, C., and Sansalone, M. 共1995兲. “Determining the minimum crack
width that can be detected using the impact-echo method. Part II:
Experimental study.” Mater. Struct., 28共2兲, 74–82.
Hahn, J. 共2000兲. “Case studies of buried anomaly by ground penetrating
radar.” Proc., 15th World Conf. of Nondestructive Testing, Interna-
tional Committee for Nondestructive Testing 共ICNDT兲, Rome.
Halabe, U., and Maser, K. 共1995兲. “Condition assessment of reinforced
concrete structures using electromagnetic waves.” ACI Mater. J.,
92共5兲, 511–523.
Hellier, C. 共2001兲. Handbook of nondestructive evaluation, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Hugenschmidt, J. 共1997兲. “Nondestructive evaluation of bridge decks
using GPR, benefits, and limits.” Recent advances in bridge engineer-
ing: Advanced rehabilitation, durable materials, nondestructive
evaluation, and management, U. Meier and R. Betti, eds., Columbia
University Press, New York, 362–367.
Knorr, R., and Buba, J. 共1983兲. “Bridge rehabilitation programming by
using infrared techniques.” Transportation Research Record. 899,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 32–34.
Kraus, M., and Maierhofer, C. 共1995兲. “Thickness measurement of con-
crete elements using radar and ultrasonic impulse echo techniques.”
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. Structural Faults and Repairs, July, 17–24.
Loulizi, A. 共2001兲. “Development of ground penetrating radar signal
modeling and implementation for transportation infrastructure assess-
 ment.” Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
Blacksburg, Va.
Manning, D., and Holt, F. 共1980兲. “Detecting delaminations in concrete
bridge decks.” Concr. Int.: Des. Constr., 2, 34–41.
Maser, K. 共1996a兲. “Condition assessment of transportation infrastructure
using ground penetrating radar.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2共2兲, 94–101.
Maser, K. 共1996b兲. “Measurement of as-built conditions using ground
penetrating radar.” Proc., Structural Materials Technology: An NDT
Conf., San Diego, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Co-
lumbus, Ohio, 61–67.
Maser, K., and Roddis, K. 共1990兲. “Principles of thermography and radar
for bridge deck assessment.” J. Transp. Eng., 116共5兲, 583–601.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/18/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
National Bridge Inventory 共NBI兲. 共2003兲. United States NBI Rep. 2003,
具www.nationalbridgeinventory.com/nbireport200322.htm典.
Postema, F., and Van Beek, A. 共2003兲. “NDT used in The Netherlands
from a principal point of view.” Proc., Int. Symp. of Nondestructive
Testing in Civil Engineering, German Society for Nondestructive Test-
ing, Berlin.
Rhazi, J. 共2000兲. “NDT in civil engineering: The case of concrete bridge
decks.” CSNDT Journal (Canada), 21共5兲, 18–22.
Rhazi, J., Dous, O., and Ballivy, G. 共2003兲. “Nondestructive health evalu-
ation of concrete bridge decks by GPR and half-cell potential tech-
niques.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Nondestructive Testing in Civil Engi-
neering, Berlin, Germany.
Roddis, K. 共1987兲. “Concrete bridge deck assessment using thermogra-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 225
J. Bridge Eng., 2007, 12(2): 215-225
phy and radar.” MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston.
Ryall, M. J. 共2003兲. Bridge management, Butterworth-Heinemann, New-
ton, Mass.
Sansalone, M., and Carino, N. 共1987兲. “Transient impact response of
thick circular plates.” J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 92共6兲, 355–367.
Sansalone, M., and Carino, N. 共1989兲. “Detecting delaminations is con-
crete slabs with and without overlays using the impact echo method.”
ACI Mater. J., 86共2兲, 175–184.
Sansalone, M., Lin, J., and Streett, W. 共1998兲. “Determining the depth of
surface-opening cracks using impact-generated stress waves and time
of flight techniques.” ACI Mater. J., 95共2兲, pp. 168–177.
Sansalone, M., and Streett, W. 共1997兲. Impact echo: Nondestructive
evaluation of concrete and masonry, Bullbrier, New York.
Washer, G. 共2003兲. “Nondestructive evaluation of highway bridges in the
United States.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Nondestructive Testing in Civil
Engineering, German Society for Non-Destructive Testing, Berlin.
Zachar, J., and Naik, T. 共1992兲. “Principles of infrared thermography and
application for assessment of the deterioration of the bridge deck at
the Zoo Interchange.” Proc., Materials Engineering Congress, New
York, 107–115.
Zhao, Y., Wu, J., Wang, J., and Wan, M. 共2001兲. “Ground penetrating
radar techniques and its application in nondestructive testing of rein-
forced concrete.” Proc., 10th Asia–Pacific Conf. on Nondestructive
Testing, Australian Institute for Nondestructive Testing, Brisbane,
Australia.