AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

Internatıonal Commıttee, Los Angeles Sectıon

5th International Engineering and Construction
Conference (IECC’5), August 27-29, 2008

MULTI-FREQUENCY ULTRASONIC AUSCULTATION AS

A DETECTION AND EVALUATION TOOL FOR DAMAGE
IN CEMENT-BASED MATERIALS

A. Delgado1, R. Talero1, L. Trusilewicz2, T.P. Philippidis3 and D. Polyzos3

(1) Instituto de Ciencias de la Construcción Eduardo Torroja-CSIC, Spain
(2) E.U. Ingeniería Técnica Industrial, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
(3) Dept. Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patra, Greece

Abstract

In this study, the sensitivity of ultrasonic pulse attenuation and pulse velocity applied to
detection and evaluation of cement-based materials integrity is compared. It has been
demonstrated that non-conventional testing in multi-frequency regime increases the
capabilities of ultrasonic non-destructive tests. Mortars with four different types of
aggregates and one portland cement were manufactured and next loaded with 40%, 60%
and two cycles of 40% of their rupture load at the age of 28 days. It has been stated that
ultrasonic pulse attenuation is much more effective than pulse velocity for the assessment
of the induced damage. In some cases the latter parameter has remained useless. Sensitivity
of pulse attenuation increases with frequency, while it does not occur for pulse velocity.

Keywords: Non-destructive test, attenuation, ultrasound, damage.

Introduction

Non-destructive testing (NDT) of concrete is a scientific and technical area of increasing

importance, since structures are being subjected to extreme service and environmental
conditions never encountered before during their operational life. These conditions impose
advanced requirements for concrete. It increases the uncertainty towards future structural
failure. Thus, it is crucial to control quality during service life of either existing concrete or
new concrete. Regarding ultrasonic wave propagation methods, the quality of concrete in
structures is usually achieved by means of ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements. This
method based on the correlation between “real” compressive strength of concrete (obtained
from destructive tests) and measured pulse velocity was established as standard method
(ASTM C597, EN 12504). Unfortunately, employment of this ultrasonic method to
determine qualitatively or quantitatively other properties of concrete is illusory. Moreover,

1
it can be affirmed that mechanical strength in one or several locations of the structure may
not be representative for the whole concrete.

Composite and highly heterogeneous structure of cement based materials (such as concrete
or mortar) makes the nature of wave propagation poorly understood. Absorption, thermal
dissipation and scattering are the main mechanisms that affect a wave when it propagates
through cement based materials. These mechanisms are influenced by individual properties
of every constituent of the material, what is interrelated with the mix-design variables,
microstructure, elastic properties (both time-dependent), and environmental behaviour of
concrete. Univocal relations between concrete properties, mechanisms and ultrasonic
descriptors have to be established in order to find what ultrasonic descriptor represents
better every property of concrete.

Regarding concrete damage evaluation and ultrasonic testing, firstly, it can be stated that
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) has been widely used for this purpose; moreover it is an
ultrasonic descriptor with an underlying knowledge, experience and scientific background.
On the contrary, ultrasonic pulse attenuation (UPA) has been sparsely investigated and
used as descriptor for quality assessment of both plain and damaged concrete. Secondly,
the great variety of attacks which can affect negatively the quality of concrete makes rather
difficult to well-define concrete damage. At early 90`s, the capabilities of ultrasonic-NDT
to assess the quality of concrete were strongly discussed. While some authors
(Tharmaratnan et al., 1990) defended the use of combined UPA and UPV method as a
qualitative NDT technique, other author (Berthaud, 1991a, Berthaud, 1991b) discussed the
difficulty to obtain mechanical information from ultrasonic waves. Some publications
about NDT continue pursuing the same objective: the evaluation of concrete damage by
ultrasounds. For example, there are several works based on ultrasounds to evaluate the
damage caused by alkali-silica reaction (Garnier et al., 2000, Chen et al., 2008), which it
means in a first instance microcraking and utterly cracking. Other authors have performed
ultrasonic tests for monitoring damage caused by freezing and thawing by means of the
analysis of the transmitted signal energy (Akhras, 1998) and UPA itself (Shah et al., 2000).
It is clear that further investigations are necessary in order to implement these testing
methods in structural concrete.

Objectives

The main objective of the present work is to compare the suitability of ultrasonic pulse
velocity (UPV) and ultrasonic pulse attenuation (UPA) as descriptor of the damage in
mortar when microcracking occurs. Moreover, the subjacent aim of this investigation is to
contribute to the understanding of wave propagation through cement based materials

Materials and Experimental procedure

Mortars with dimensions of 4cm x 4cm x 8cm were manufactured according to the
European Standard EN 196-1. The water-to-cement and aggregate-to-cement ratios were

2
0.5 and 3, respectively. Four different types of natural aggregates and one portland cement,
CEM I 42.5 N SR (EN 197-1) were selected. Aggregates were two different quartzes (acid
aggregates), α-SiO2, those specified as standard sand in ASTM C778 and EN 196-1, and
two calcites (basic aggregates), limestone (nearly pure CaCO3) and white marble
(magnesium calcium carbonate, Mg0.064Ca0.936CO3). Here in after notations for mortars
containing each aggregate are: quartz ASTM as ‘QA’, quartz EN as ‘QE’, limestone as ‘L’
and marble as ‘M’. The size distribution of aggregates was the same (ASTM C778). Once
mortars were manufactured and casted, specimens were cured in a fog room (Tª = 20 ± 1
ºC/relative humidity > 90%) during 24 hours. After demoulding, the specimens were stored
in laboratory conditions (Tª = 20 ± 2 ºC/relative humidity > 50%).

In order to evaluate the sensitivity of UPV and UPA as a function of the mortar integrity,
several compressive testing programmes were performed to induce controlled and
equivalent damage in mortars. Previously, compressive strength of mortar was determined
according to EN 196-1 at the age of 28 days. One specimen was taken from each family of
mortar as a reference -designated as ‘REF’-, and three different specimens were subjected
to compressive load tests; the load was proportional to their respective rupture load. The
first program test was «40% load/5 s hold/unload» -designated as ‘40’-, the second one
was «60% load/5 s hold/unload» -designated as ‘60’- and the third one consisted of two
cycles of «40% load/5 s hold/unload» -designated as ‘40-0-40’-. The compressive strength,
rupture load and the testing equivalent load are shown in Table 1. Note: Loading speed was
the same as the one in the compressive strength determination.

Table (1): Compressive strength, rupture load and equivalent loads for inducing damage
Mortar/Aggregate Compressive strength Rupture load Load, 40% Load, 60%
type [MPa] [N] [N] [N]
QA 25.5 408.0 163.2 244.8
QE 25.8 412.8 165.1 247.7
L 31.5 504.0 201.6 302.4
M 26.6 425.6 170.2 255.4

The ultrasonic device consisted of two piezoelectric sensors attached to opposite faces of
the mortar specimens. Auscultations were performed in contact mode and through
transmission wave propagation regime. The wave propagation direction was perpendicular
to the direction of the compacting process during manufacture of mortar specimens. The
equipment used was a wave generator PC-board of Physical Acoustical Corporation (PAC),
WaveGen 1410 v. 2.0, a PAC MISTRAS data acquisition system built with 4 channels, 40
dB PAC 1220A preamplifier and four transducers. The transducers were used in pairs
connected to different channels in PAC MISTRAS. Thus, two broadband piezoelectric
transducers Panametrics V413 were connected to Channel 1 to perform through mortar
specimen transmission tests, and two narrowband piezoelectric transducers Panametrics
V133 were connected to Channel 2 for triggering and setting time zero. The electric pulse
from WaveGen 1410 was split before transmitters into Channel 1 and Channel 2 by using a
T-connector. Channel 1 and Channel 2 delay times, attributed to the propagation of the
wave through the sensor’s wearplate, connections and cables were measured according to
the procedure described in previous publications (Philippidis et al. 2003, Philippidis et al.

3
2005). Roller bearing grease which has demonstrated its effectiveness (Philippidis et al.
2005) was used as acoustic coupling. The input ultrasonic pulse was a sine wave with sine
envelope with an amplitude of the electric input signal of 8 V. The range of frequencies
was from 25 KHz up to 1 MHz. The sampling rate was 10 MHz. The 16-bit analogical to
digital board ensures accurate depiction of the waveform through the resolution of 0.305
mV.

In this work, UPV is defined as the specimen thickness divided by the real transit time of
waves through it. Due to the specimen geometry, the wavepaths were in the range of 40 ±
0.05 mm. On the other hand, UPA refers to peak amplitude attenuation. The attenuation
coefficient is determined by measuring the reduction ratio in the ultrasonic wave amplitude
after travelling through the material a determined distance (x) which is given by following
equation (1):
20 ⎛ A ⎞
α = − log⎜⎜ X ⎟⎟ (1)
x ⎝ A0 ⎠
where A0 is the initial amplitude of the pulse entering the specimen, measured separately on
a face to face configuration of the V413 transducers, and Ax is the output wave peak
amplitude after it has travelled through the material a distance x. In this paper, units for
attenuation are expressed in decibels per millimetre [dB/mm].

The contact pressure between transducers and specimen was increased until the wave was
displayed constant unambiguously. Furthermore, it was ensured that when at the
commence sensors were coupled to the specimen surface, the lowest frequencies, furthest
apart from the broadband sensors’ sensitivity, were transmitted clearly. This guaranteed
that the coupling was appropriate and that all other frequencies used in the test are
transmitted in a reliable way.

Results

In this work, the digitized waves were subjected to offline analysis by means of a Visual
Basic application built ad hoc. Thus, first point and peak amplitude of the arrival wavefront
were determined unequivocally in the same way. Results of UPV and UPA are shown in
Fig. (1).

The UPV results do not show any clear tendency towards the induced damage. Some UPV
values increased for some damaged mortars. For example, UPV of mortar M 60 and L 40
were clearly the highest in their respective family. This makes its application unsuitable to
assess mortar quality when damage leads to microcracks. Moreover, the alternation of the
maximum values of UPV depends on the frequency, since maximum values were obtained
for specimens with different damage for the same family of mortars at different
frequencies. It has to be underlined that UPV does not show any significant dependence on
frequency. In contrast to UPV, the results from UPA showed clear trends. The attenuation
coefficients of mortars REF were the lowest in the whole range of frequency in all families.
UPA has shown to be a frequency dependent descriptor; its minimum value is about 400

4
KHz. Moreover, UPA can be divided clearly in two regions, bellow 200 KHz in which
UPA is not greatly affected by the damage and their values are poorly differenced and
second one, in which UPA differs clearly depending on the induced damage.

Discussion

In relation with wave propagation, since UPV has not shown a frequency-dependent
behaviour, it means lower values at lower frequencies, the dispersive nature (Filodinow,
1970, Popovics, 1990) of mortar can be refuted. Therefore, dispersion may be a geometric
effect and should be related to the attenuation suffered by the wave at low frequency. This
may cause a lost of amplitude of the first oscillation and its phase point. According to this,
the lower UPV could be an artifact derived from the inaccuracy in the determination of the
first point when the wave rises. This is only a hypothesis that needs further investigation.

Additionally, averaging the UPV for mortars REF in the whole range of frequency and
comparing with their respective mechanical strength (see Table 1), it can be stated that
UPV does not correlate with mechanical strength of mortars made from different
aggregates, since their UPV do not follow the same order as mechanical strength. Ordered
averaged UPV are QA (3771 ± 99 m/s) > M (3757 ± 114 m/s) > QE (3646 ± 104 m/s) > L
(3608 ± 189 m/s) while mechanical strength are L > M > QE > QA. UPV is more related
with the elastic properties of the individual constituents (in this particular case, aggregates)
and other factors, such as air content and porosity.

Comparing UPV and UPA, it can be appreciated how UPA is more effective than UPV to
assess the induced damage. Furthermore, sensitivity of attenuation coefficient increases
with frequency, while it does not occur for UPV. The latter parameter can lead to fatal error
since damaged specimens leaded to greater values. As it has been refereed UPV is more
related with the elastic properties than mechanical strength, thus, induced damage do not
affect proportionally to UPV. Moreover, it can occur by the reason of a differential
distribution of the generated microcracks which conducts to preferential paths through the
wavefront travel, which have the same speed as before damaging. It is needed a large
extension of microcracks to produce a drop in the value of UPV. For example, this fact had
to occur in mortars QE 60, L 40-0-40 and M 40-0-40. UPV measurements allow obtaining
general information about the state of the material, but not about its quality. Finally, UPV
rise produced in some damaged mortars can not be explained by this kind of results. Only it
can be discussed that the assessment of the concrete mechanical strength by means of UPV
is not equivalent to determine its quality, since microcracks increase porosity, hence
diffusion of aggressive solutions or carbonation becomes greater.

UPA has shown to be sensitive to the presence of damage in the form of distributed
microcracking in mortars. The measurement of the attenuation coefficient allows to
evaluate the influence of the microcracks on wave propagation. Microcracks behave as
diffusers, the generated interfaces material-air at the microcracks produces scattering on the
wave, so that the envelope wave has lower peak amplitude, but not lower pulse velocity.
The magnitude of this process results to be frequency-dependent. The importance of multi-

5
frequency testing in cement based materials is based on the fact that as frequency increases,
wavelength decreases, and sensitivity to small flaws (microcracks, pores, etc.) improves.
Depending on the wavelength the contribution of the different microstructural components
changes according to their relative size. The criteria for selecting frequency is d << λ << x,
where the length of the wavepath (x) is large compared to the wavelength (λ), and
wavelength is larger than the size (d) of the constituents (Constantinides et al., 2004). Non-
conventional testing in multi-frequency regime increases the capabilities of ultrasonic NDT
because different wavelength scans different microstructure. This could be applicable in the
following cases when damage results in generation of microcracks, such as moderated
shrinkage, fire attack, impacts, early alkali-silica reaction, freeze-thaw exposure, etc.

Conclusions

In this study, ultrasonic tests of mortar with different level of damage revealed the
following points:
− Ultrasonic pulse velocity is not a clear indicative descriptor of the induced damage in
mortars, neither for one frequency nor in multi-frequency regime. The induced
damage does not affect proportionally pulse velocity.
− Tested mortars have not demonstrated to have a dispersive nature. There was not any
evidence about dependence between ultrasonic pulse velocity and frequency.
− Ultrasonic pulse velocity does not correlate with mechanical strength of mortars
made from different aggregates.
− Ultrasonic pulse attenuation is a precise descriptor of the induced damage. Its
sensitivity increases with frequency.
− Non-conventional testing in multi-frequency regime increases the capabilities of
ultrasonic NDT.

Recommendation

According to the results obtained and the conclusions, it is strongly recommended to

extend the principles of this research and increase the scale to concrete. It can be achieved
by means of carrying measurements in both laboratory and field. In any case, ultrasonic
wave propagation NDT-methods for testing concrete in structures ought to include an
adequate digitization of wave after travelling through it. After that, processing wave point
by point is an effortless task and therefore UPA and UPV can be obtained in parallel since
the acquisition of only a signal per frequency is sufficient. Finally, in those cases when it is
possible, it is also recommended to perform ultrasonic tests within high frequency ranging
from 250 KHz up to 1 MHz.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support of the temporary stay at FORTH/ICE-HT and Dep. Mechanical
Engineering and Aeronautics/University of Patra to perform the ultrasonic measurements

6
of one of the authors (A. Delgado) by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science is
gratefully acknowledged.

References

Akhras, N.M. (1998). “Detecting freezing and thawing damage in concrete using signal
energy”, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 28, pp. 1275-1280.

Berthaud, Y. (1991). “Damage measurements in concrete via an ultrasonic technique. Part

I Experiment”, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 21, pp. 73-82.

Berthaud, Y. (1991). “Damage measurements in concrete via an ultrasonic technique. Part

II Modeling”, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 21, pp. 219-228.

Chen, X.J., Kim, J-Y., Kurtis, K.E., Qu, J. Shen, C.W., Jacobs, L.J. (2008).
“Characterization of progressive microcracking in Portland cement mortar using
nonlinear ultrasonics”, NDT&E International, Volume 41, pp. 112-118.

Constantinides, G., Ulm, F.J. (2004). “The effect of two types of C-S-H on the elasticity of
cement-based materials: Results from nanoindentation and micromechanical modelling”,
Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 34, pp. 67-80.

Filonidow, A.M. (1970). “Relation between ultrasound propagation velocity and path
length in solid concrete”, Power Technology and Engineering, Volume 4, pp. 145-151.

Garnier V, Corneloup G. (2000). “Non-destructive evaluation of concrete damage by

ultrasounds”. 15th World Conference on Non- Destructive Testing, 15–21 October, Rome.
/http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn402/idn402.htm.

Philippidis, T.P., Aggelis, D.G. (2003). “An acousto-ultrasonic approach for the
determination of water-to-cement ratio in concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research,
Volume 33, pp. 525-538.

Philippidis, T.P., Aggelis, D.G. (2005). “Experimental study of wave-dispersion and

attenuation in concrete”, Ultrasonics, Volume 43, pp. 584-595.

Popovics, S. (1990). “The behavior of ultrasonic pulses in concrete”. Cement and Concrete
Research Volume 20, pp. 259-270.

Shah, P.H., Popovics, J.S., Subramanian, K.V., Aldea, C.M. (2000). “New directions in
concrete health monitoring technology”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE,
Volume 126, Issue 7, pp. 754-760.

Tharmaratnan, K., Tan, B.S. (1990). “Attenuation of ultrasonic pulse in cement mortar”,
Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 20, pp. 335-345.

7
 5000 1.4
REF 40 60 40-0-40 REF 40 60 40-0-40
1.2
4500
1

Attenuation (dB/mm)
Pulse velocity (m/s)

4000 0.8

0.6
3500

0.4

3000
0.2

2500 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Frequency (KHz) Frequency (KHz)

Mortars QA
5000 1.4
REF 40 60 40-0-40 REF 40 60 40-0-40
1.2
4500
1

Attenuation (dB/mm)
Pulse velocity (m/s)

4000
0.8

0.6
3500

0.4
3000
0.2

2500 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (KHz) Frequency (KHz)

Mortars QE
5000 1.4
REF 40 60 40-0-40 REF 40 60 40-0-40
1.2
4500
1
Attenuation (dB/mm)
Pulse velocity (m/s)

4000
0.8

0.6
3500

0.4
3000
0.2

2500 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (KHz) Frequency (KHz)

Mortars L
5000 1.4
REF 40 60 40-0-40 REF 40 60 40-0-40
1.2
4500
1
Attenuation (dB/mm)
Pulse velocity (m/s)

4000
0.8

0.6
3500

0.4
3000
0.2

2500 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (KHz) Frequency (KHz)

Mortars M

Figure (1): Ultrasonic pulse velocity (left) and attenuation (right).