Anda di halaman 1dari 27

# CORROSION EVALUATION OF BRIDGE COLUMN USING IMPACT ECHO METHOD

Prepared by: R. Hamid, Mohd Azizi Ismail and Syahrul Fithry Senin Civil Engineering Department, UKM

INTRODUCTION

## THE CORROSION INIATIATION IN CONCRETE

CORROSION PROCESS

## THE PROBLEM OF CORROSION IN CONCRETE

No
1 2 3

Problems of Corrosion To Reinforced Concrete Loss of Load-Carrying Capacity of Steel Bond deterioration between steel-concrete Crack promotion due to expansion of rust

References
Cairns J., Zhao Z., 1999 Fang C. et. Al, 2004 Seok J.B., Hwan O.B., 2010

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The corrosion of rebar in reinforced concrete had been found to reduce the mechanical properties of concrete. As the corrosion process is silently progress inside a concrete, a non-destructive method that capable to detect the process is needed before the concrete structure is severely damage. Therefore, a study on using Impact-Echo Method on possibility to detect rebar corrosion in concrete bridge columns was conducted onsite by studying the wave velocity and frequency response on corroded rebar.

Transducer

Impactor

## IMPACT-ECHO METHOD( CONTINUE)

Elastic wave propagates when subjected to impact force Stress pulses propagates in concrete as
P-wave (pressure wave) S-wave (shear/Rayleigh wave) R-wave (surface wave)

## IMPACT-ECHO RESPONSE ON SOLID

P and S-wave will be reflected when encounter boundary with different acoustic impedance
R

2P 4P

6P

## IMPACT-ECHO METHOD (CONTINUE)

If wave encounters internal defect:
part of the wave reflected back to surface

## IMPACT-ECHO OPERATING EQUATIONS

Parameter
Velocity of pressure wave, Cp Frequency of wave, fp Frequency of rebar, fst

Equation
Cp = 2T/t

START

## Corrosion Rebar Evaluation Using Impact-Echo Method

Concrete wave velocity, Cp Frequency and amplitude of rebar Comparison Cp with UPV

END

## MEASURED COLUMN CONCRETE COVER

Column Points I 1 II III IV V I 2 II III IV V I 3 II III IV V

## Cover measured (mm)

Average (mm)

5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 0 0 9 8 8 7 5 5 5 0 8 7 6 6

50

fst

Points

Column

Frequency (kHz)

## Wave Velocity, CP (m/s) I 3012 5.02 II

3456
2988 2988 4.98 4.98

5.76

III IV V

2988
2976 2976

4.98
4.96 4.96

I II 2

2940
3528 2976

4.90
5.88 4.96

III IV V I

2988
2988 2190

4.98
II 4.98 3.65 3

III IV V

2952
2988

4.92
4.98

## CONCRETE QUALITY EVALUATION

Column 1
I II III IV V I II

2
III IV V I II

3
III IV V

Points
Wave Velocity, (m/s)
Concrete Quality*

2988

2988

2988

3012

3456

2988

2988

2976

2976

2940

3528

2976

2988

2190

2952

## WHITEHURST (1951): CONCRETE QUALITY CLASSIFICATION

Condition UPV values (m/s)

Excellent (E)

> 4500

Good (G)
Doubtful (D)

3500-4500
3000-3500

Poor (P)
Very Poor (VP)

2000-3000
<2000

## Rebar Freq, (kHz)

Points

Column

Amp. (dB) fst I -50 II -55 III -58 -60 -62 -50 -55 -60 -32 -65 -52 -55 -56 -60 -65 14.88 14.7 17.64 14.88 14.94 14.94 10.95 14.76 14.94 14.88 14.94 14.94 2988 2988 2976 II 2976 2940 3528 2976 2988 II 2988 2190 2952 2988 14.94 2988 17.28 3456 15.06 3012 1 IV V I III IV V I III IV V 3 2

## PLOT OF AMPLITUDE (dB) vs. IMPACT POSITION

-31 1 2 3 4 5 -36

-41

-46

-51

-56

-61

-66

## CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

The average measurement of columns cover is 50 mm The concrete quality of the columns can be classified as either doubtful or poor based on the Cp values The amplitude of the rebar frequency decreased as the locations of the rebars are further down submerged underwater Further research are needed for calibration with actual steel cross section loss to determine the level of corrosion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The project was under the financial support through project GUP-2013017

THANK YOU