9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

Performance Assurance of Construction Products Using In-Situ Experimental Techniques

Tanmay KUMAR1 and Manish BHARTI2
1

Project Engineer, CH2M Hill

Chief Executive Officer, Cortex Construction Solutions

Abstract
As contracting agencies attempt to move towards
performance based specifications and quality assurance
instead of control, use of experimental techniques
previously limited to the manufacturing industry and
research laboratories has expanded to the construction
industry. This paper explores some non-destructive
techniques that have lately been developed for monitoring
performance
of
construction
products.
Typical
characteristics, results and limitations of these techniques
unique to the construction industry are presented. Finally,
examples of actual deployment on projects are discussed.
Key words
Performance
Assurance,
In-service
Performance,
Performance Monitoring, Non-destructive Testing (NDT),
Construction Quality
1. Introduction
For most of modern construction history, infrastructure
projects have included detailed, prescriptive specifications,
extending from raw materials to construction practice.
Verifying compliance with these prescriptive specifications
involves laboratory testing of materials used in construction
and extensive field inspections of construction processes.
Due to the inherent differences between laboratory and field
conditions, such tests and inspections are often not
representative of the actual construction product.
As a result, several test methods, mostly non-destructive
in nature, have been developed over the last several decades
to measure the performance of structures in-service in-situ
[1]. A significant mass of collective experience has now
been gained regarding the actual performance of
construction products delivered by these prescriptive
specifications. With this experience, and with inspection
costs steadily increasing as a percentage of total project cost,
there is a constant pressure to transfer responsibility for the
performance of the construction products from agencies to
contractors.
With this background, agencies have been largely
moving to the design-build model of project development
for large infrastructure projects, requiring compliance with
a set of Performance Based Specifications (PBS), rather
than with detailed, prescriptive specifications. This model
relieves agencies of a large degree of responsibility for
design and delivery of construction products and transforms
their role from Quality Assurance to that of Performance
Assurance and performance monitoring. However, inservice performance of the construction products delivered
to the agencies must now be measured for example,
deflections in structures under loading, smoothness, noise
and durability characteristics of pavement surface textures,

etc. - with minimal destruction of and damage to the

construction products.
2. Performance of Construction Products
Structures are designed and constructed such as to have a
pre-determined limited magnitude of deflection under a
most-likely set of loads. At the worst case, for example
during earthquakes, structures may deform even into the
plastic range, or may crack, but shall not collapse.
Condition evaluation of structures has traditionally been
performed essentially for estimating the remaining service
life and to determine the ideal rehabilitation measure to be
adopted, if required. Such testing methods range from the
completely non-destructive (where there is no damage to the
concrete), to those where the concrete surface is slightly
damaged, to destructive tests (where the surface has to be
repaired after the test). The primary task, however, is to
control the quality of construction.
Conventional Quality Control (QC) involves verifying
that the compressive or flexural strength of concrete, tensile
strength of reinforcing steel meet or exceed certain
minimums, etc. However, such an approach neglects a few
crucial factors that affect performance and durability of the
structure. For example, construction defects such as under /
over vibration may cause segregation or honeycombing in
concrete; insufficient curing may adversely affect not just
the strength, but also the durability; improper bonding
between the reinforcing steel and concrete may reduce the
bearing capacity; etc. A more holistic approach is to
supplement conventional QC testing with Quality
Assurance (QA) testing involving a combination of various
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques.
NDT techniques also have the added advantage of being
able to indicate the actual performance of the entire
structural system rather than that of individual components
of the system. NDT techniques applied to vertical and
horizontal structures have largely diverged from each other,
largely due to the different performance characteristics that
are of importance in the two categories.
3. Horizontal Structures
Pavement systems are notoriously difficult to assure quality
of, due to the large volumes and several layers of different
materials involved. A typical airfield or highway pavement
section contains a cement or bituminous concrete surface
layer, a bound base, a granular drainage layer and a prepared
subgrade over natural ground for extremely long lengths. One
kilometer of a typical four-lane urban highway can
incorporate more than 10,000m3 of Pavement Quality
Concrete (PQC) for rigid pavements or 6,000MT of
bituminous concrete for flexible pavements and over 7,000m3
each of bound base and unbound granular sub-base layers
over several layers of prepared soil subgrade. With such large

9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

quantities, it is fairly common to encounter problems due to

material deficiencies or construction defects caused by
human error. In addition, rigid pavements usually also contain
steel dowel bars for load transfer from one slab to the next.
Misalignment of only a few dowel bars may also lock the
joints causing uncontrolled cracking. Cement concrete itself
may crack uncontrollably during or shortly after construction
due to shrinkage, curling or warping. Adequate drainage of
the pavement structure and surrounding areas is also critical,
without which the structure may lose support quickly.
Expectedly, the potential for undetected defects during
construction is high. Control of construction quality of
pavement systems is naturally, therefore, a rather intensive
exercise that must be sustained over long periods of time.
Post-construction evaluation of pavement structures attains
significant importance. Traditionally, the Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) has been used to evaluate the condition
of the pavement structure by interpreting the deflection,
measured by a series of sensors, caused by a known weight
falling from known heights. While it is possible to estimate
the load transfer efficiency across concrete slabs in rigid
pavements, other performance parameters such as deflection
can only be estimated as an average for a somewhat large area
getting tested. Under the smallest loads for which meaningful
deflection can be measured, the FWD measures the response
of a pavement system over an area of influence
3.1 In-Situ Instrumentation
Due to the above inherent limitations of the FWD as a tool for
quality assurance, The Long Term Pavement Performance
(LTPP) program was started in the United States [2] to
monitor performance of pavements over a period of time.
Strain gauges were installed under bound layers under
expected wheel paths and real time stress and strain data was
recorded over several months or years. Climatic conditions
were also recorded alongside using remote data acquisition
systems. Veracity of installed gauges was confirmed using
FWD testing. Due to distresses experienced by the gauges
during construction, only about 40% of installed gauges could
eventually be used to collect data. Data collected over several
years from all over the United States was used to develop
performance models and thereby develop the design guide.
This project provided a large amount of pavement
performance data for various structures at different ages, in
various climatic conditions, under different trafficked
conditions.
Some of this data was used while developing the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (M-EPDG)
under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) 1-37A [3]. A large part of the data used to develop
the M-EPDG was obtained by in-situ instrumentation of new
pavements being constructed.
Since the success of in-situ instrumentation as described
above, it becomes possible to undertake similar
instrumentation for monitoring actual deflection of a
pavement system under real traffic loading. Although this is
perhaps the most direct evaluation of performance possible, it
is an expensive and resource intensive method that is also
inherently inefficient in that serious construction defects

mostly cannot be noticed until consequent distresses have

already manifested.
3.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
With this backdrop, the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
provides for pavement systems a technology equivalent to the
X-Ray for medical purposes. GPR utilizes the different
electrical conduction properties of different materials to help
visualize the thickness and condition of different layers in the
pavement system being evaluated [4], [5].
A small pulse of energy of a frequency dependent on the
expected depth of the layer, material or defect in the pavement
(Table 1) is sent into the pavement system. A series of pulses
over a single area constitute a scan. Each time the pulse
encounters a change in the dielectric constant, i.e., at each
interface of one layer with the next, or at each defect (void,
crack, etc.), a reflection is produced. The time taken by the
signal to return to the sensor and the strength of the returning
signal is recorded. The gap between peaks can be interpreted
to estimate the thickness of each layer [6]. The basic GPR
system will typically provide a +/-7.5% accuracy in thickness
estimation, provided no significant defects are present in the
layers being tested. Improved accuracy and interpretation of
the data became possible with the recent development of the
Electromagnetic Waveform Analysis model, which
reproduces a full GPR waveform, including time and
amplitude [4], [6]. A typical waveform scan is shown in Fig.
1.
Table 1 GPR frequency choices for different applications
and depths
Appropriate
Application

Primary
Antenna

Secondary
Antenna

Depth
(Approx.)

Structural Concrete,
Roadways, Bridge
Decks

2600 MHz

1600 MHz

0-0.3 m

Structural Concrete,
Roadways, Bridge
Decks

1600 MHz

1000 MHz

0-0.45 m

Structural Concrete,
Roadways, Bridge
Decks

1000 MHz

900 MHz

0-0.6 m

Concrete, Shallow
Soils, Archaeology

900 MHz

400 MHz

0-1 m

A key advantage of the GPR technique is that the

equipment can be mounted on regular vehicles and data can
be collected at highway speeds if so required (Fig. 2). On
the other hand, specialized training is required for an
operator to accurately interpret the results of the GPR.
An experienced operator using appropriate frequencies
and waveform analysis procedures can accurately determine
layer thicknesses, presence of utilities and extent of defects,
if present. In 2007, for example, it was noted that several
slabs of rigid pavement on I-5 in southern California had
shattered. Edge drains were found to be clogged, indicating
the wash-out and erosion of underlying unbound layers had
caused loss of support to the slabs, resulting in the damage.
The damaged slabs were, of course, removed and replaced,

9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

but other slabs had to be proactively monitored. Since this

is a particularly busy highway, minimizing public
inconvenience was of prime importance to the agency. GPR
was used to scan the entire width of the carriageway for the
affected length without any traffic control. Detailed analysis
of collected data could identify some of the slabs with loss
of support. Slab jacking procedures were then used to
restore support to the affected slabs by filling the voids with
incompressible foam. FWD testing confirmed adequate
rehabilitation of the slabs.

recording the magnetic field (Fig. 4). Recordings are

calibrated against known parameters for each type of dowel
bars material, length, diameter, coating, etc. The obtained
data is then analyzed using proprietary software to
determine the orientation and depth of each dowel bar (Fig.
5). Finally, some spreadsheet calculations can be done to
prepare presentable reports.
Analysis gets difficult when more than one magnetic
material is present at a location, for example, in rigid
pavements where dowel bars and tie bars are close (Fig. 6).
In such cases, traditional methods such as coring remain the
last resort.

Fig. 1 A typical GPR waveform scan from I-75 in Ohio,

USA

Fig. 2 Schematic of a typical GPR setup for pavement

evaluation.
3.3 Magnetic Imaging Tomography
Magnetic Imaging Tomography (MIT) is essentially a
technology that utilizes the ability of metallic objects to alter
a magnetic field to locate those metallic objects. The device,
developed in Germany in 2007, consists of a coil that
generates a magnetic field and electromagnetic sensors that
measure the intensity of the magnetic field created by the
eddy current in metallic reflector placed at the depth of
interest prior to construction. Since concrete materials have
no effect on magnetic fields, the eddy current approach
eliminates thickness measurement biases caused by
variations in the properties of concrete materials and
remains effective up to depths of about 500mm.
Thickness of a pavement layer can be easily measured
by placing a metallic disc of 300mm diameter prior to
construction of a layer. The handheld MIT-Scan device can
then be used after construction to locate the disc and read
off its depth (Fig. 3) [7]. Each test requires less than a minute
to perform. Up to 500mm deep, the device can provide an
accuracy of 0.5% of the thickness plus 1mm. On I-210 in
southern California, rigid pavement of about 350mm
thickness was measured using the MIT Scan T2 device with
an accuracy of 3mm with high repeatability.
In a slightly advanced application of the MIT
technology, the same firm in Germany developed a device
to locate and visualize dowel bars in rigid pavements [8].
The device is pulled on a set of rails with a handheld device

Fig. 3 A magnetic disc placed on the base prior to

construction of concrete pavement (Top) and MIT-Scan
device being used to measure pavement thickness over the
disc (Bottom). Images courtesy: FHWA, USA.

Fig. 4 MIT Scan 2 Device for location of dowel bars in

rigid pavements

9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

Fig. 5 Dowel bars located using MIT Scan 2 on I-210 in

California, USA

4.1 Rebound Hammer

Developed first by a Swiss engineer Ernst Schmidt in 1948,
the rebound hammer utilizes the rebound of an elastic mass to
help estimate the hardness (elasticity) and soundness
(uniformity) of concrete. It consists of a plunger with a
spring-controlled mass that moves from the holding position
at a known velocity towards the concrete that the other end of
the plunger is held to. The magnitude of rebound depends on
the hardness and soundness of the concrete. Schmidt
published his work in 1950 [9] and a considerable amount of
literature detailing the use of the rebound hammer for tests on
concrete has been developed since then.
Calibration of the rebound hammer prior to any test on a
standard metal anvil is of critical importance, since the test is
essentially a comparative test rather than an absolute
measurement. For the same reason, single readings of the
hammer are practically useless. Most standards specify
recording and averaging a set of at least six points within
close proximity of the point to be tested.
Although practitioners have developed detailed statistical
approaches to relate the rebound index to compressive
strength of concrete [10], the rebound hammer test is greatly
influenced by a large number of factors that include not just
the size, shape and rigidity of the sample, but also the age of
the specimen, degree of carbonation of the concrete, moisture
content within the mass of concrete as well as smoothness of
the surface against which the hammer is held. Edge
conditions, such as being too close to a corner, can also
greatly impact the rebound index readings. Most standard test
procedures mention a 25% variability (precision) statement.
Consequently, it should be considered as a means of assessing
variations of strength of concrete within a structure, rather
than as an accurate means of estimating the strength itself
[11].

Fig. 6 Interference of dowel and tie bars

4. Vertical Concrete Structures
Key parameters of interest in vertical concrete structures are
strength and uniformity of concrete. Strength of the concrete
mix is best monitored and assured during construction by
regular sampling of the concrete and testing for strength at the
design age. The as-constructed performance of concrete is
primarily affected by curing of the concrete and presence of
rock-pockets (honeycombs) and mix segregation.
The fundamental effect of improper construction resulting
in honeycombed or segregated concrete is to modify the
characteristics of how stress waves are transferred from one
portion of the concrete member to another. At the macro
level, this manifests itself as lowered concrete strength and /
or durability. This enables one to exploit techniques that
measure propagation of stress waves in concrete and interpret
results to evaluate the overall quality of concrete.
The most commonly used techniques are use of the
Rebound Hammer to evaluate elasticity of the concrete and
measurement of the velocity of an ultrasonic pulse through
the concrete member.

Fig. 7 Rebound Hammer testing of a concrete wall in

progress
On a recent military project in India, consolidation of
concrete in two columns of a building being constructed was
suspect. After chipping out the suspect concrete, the columns
were patched with micro-concrete (high strength mortar). In
order to verify that the original concrete and repair patch had
bonded well and performed monolithically together, the
rebound hammer test was performed on portions of the

9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

columns not affected by poor consolidation and around the

repair patch spanning across the joint. The rebound indices
were compared to gain confidence that the patch and concrete
were well bonded and would most likely perform together as
intended by the structural designer for the original structure.
It was found that for one of the two columns, rebound indices
for original concrete and mortar patch were statistically
different, with the patch reading lower than the original
concrete. On review, the Structural Engineer of Record
(SEoR) determined that although the construction did not
strictly conform to the specifications, the constructed product
met the design intent. Due to the somewhat lower factory of
safety of the structure as constructed, it was recommended to
the contracting agency to accept the product with a
commensurate reduction in payment.
This technique was also used on a project aimed at
determining the condition of old concrete railway bridge
structures (Fig. 7) in the Udaipur-Himmatnagar section of
Northern Railway of the Indian rail network. Actual condition
of concrete had to be determined since the structures were
several decades old. The test program, therefore, included
several destructive tests, such as compressive strength testing
and rapid chloride permeability testing of cores, in order to
determine the extent of carbonation, condition of
reinforcement, etc. Rebound hammer tests were able to
confirm the overall consistency of concrete in the bridges,
thereby giving confidence that emergency localized repairs
were not needed. Funds could therefore be more strategically
used for overall improvement of the infrastructure.

The apparatus consists of an ultrasonic pulse generator

and a sensor. The combination of the two is checked against
a standard metal bar prior to testing concrete. The parameter
recorded and reported is the velocity of the pulse from the
generator to the sensor, as calculated by dividing the distance
between the two by the time lapse recorded by the apparatus.
Since a compression wave propagates uniformly in all
directions, the generator and sensor need not be directly
aligned and facing each other [14]. When the generator and
sensor do not align with each other, the testing method is said
to be the Indirect Method (Fig. 9).
Presence of cracks, rock-pockets or any other nonhomogeneity in the concrete, when present in a non-trivial
amount, will alter the overall pulse velocity. Theoretically,
with equipment of sufficient sensitivity, even small nonhomogeneities can be traced by successively reducing the
tested length. Currently available instruments, however, can
normally only indicate imperfections in the mass of concrete
when they are of significant size or extent. This practical
limitation causes one to only be able to broadly classify the
quality of concrete as in Table 2.
Unlike the rebound hammer test, this procedure can in fact
be used with a fair degree of accuracy to estimate the
compressive strength of concrete, provided extensive
laboratory correlation data is available for the specific
materials and proportions of the concrete being tested. This
utilizes the strong correlation that exists between modulus of
elasticity and compressive strength of elastic materials such
as concrete [15]. However, wave velocity in a medium is
significantly affected by various factors, including moisture
content, density, etc. As a result, moisture content, age and
temperature of concrete, among other factors, results in
significant variability in test results. Most standard test
procedures mention a 25% variability (precision) statement.

Fig. 8 Rebound Indices around one point on two faces of a

column one without any defects (left) and one with high
strength mortar repair (right)
Standards such as BS6089, BS1881 (Part 202), IS13311
(Part 2) and ASTM C805-02 are typically referred for
standard test procedures and interpretation of results.
4.2 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Another concept that can be used is the velocity with which
waves of known frequency (usually in the range of 20 to 60
kHz) and amplitude travel through the concrete and get
attenuated by it. The velocity and attenuation of the wave
primarily depends on the elastic modulus of the material
being tested. Although attempts at using this technique for
non-destructive testing of concrete are recorded as far back as
1962 [12], this validity of this hypothesis was first
demonstrated by rigorous theoretical treatment in 1980 [13].

Fig. 9 Direct (top) and Indirect (bottom) methods for

defect detection using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity testing
The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test is usually accompanied
by other tests to garner a complete picture of the structure
being tested. On an airfield project in Ghaziabad, India, in
2013, a reinforced concrete culvert was constructed with the
top slab also serving as the travel surface for aircraft. The top
slab was designed for a thickness of 350mm. Soon after

9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, 1-6 November, 2014, New Delhi, India

construction, several full width cracks were observed on the

top slab. Coring the concrete to determine the depth and
extent of cracking was not desirable, since this was likely to
damage the reinforcement. Also, some of the cracks were at
locations expected to be directly under the main gear of the
aircraft. The velocity of a 54 kHz pulse was first measured
using the direct method by placing the generator and receiver
at opposite ends of the culvert length at mid-depth of the slab
at five locations across the width of the slab. Pulse velocities
recorded were in the range of 3.6 to 3.9 km/sec. Tests were
not done at other depths, since measurements are usually not
accurate within 100mm from an edge or corner.
Subsequently, the indirect method was used by placing the
sensors on the travel surface (after grinding test locations
smooth), varying lengths apart. Similar pulse velocities were
recorded as for the direct method. Although this range of
pulse velocity only barely put the concrete in the Good
category as per Table 2, it was realized that concrete age at
time of testing was only 14 days, due to schedule constraints.
This provided some degree of confidence that the culvert
would be able to perform as designed. After sealing of the
cracks with epoxy resin, the culvert was subjected to a static
load test [16] to confirm the findings of the pulse velocity
tests. Maximum deflection as well as deflection recovery of
the top slab under different loads was both recorded to be
within the designed limits as per the SEoR, confirming the
interpretation of the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity tests.
Table 2 Classification of Concrete Quality Based on
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
S. No.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity by

Cross Probing (km/sec)

Concrete
Quality

1
2
3
4

Above 4.5
3.5 - 4.5
3.0 - 3.5
Below 3.0

Excellent
Good
Medium
Doubtful

5. Conclusions
With recent advancement in measurement technology, nondestructive testing has become increasingly accurate.
Deployment to the field has become possible and a lesser
degree of advanced concepts of measurement is required in
interpretation of the data obtained. This has dovetailed
wonderfully with the growing need of contracting agencies to
reduce their supervisory burdens. It is hoped that this paper
describing the state-of-art in select non-destructive testing
techniques in the construction industry will help contractor
and contracting agencies alike deliver higher quality
construction products to the ultimate customers the public
with lower maintenance costs and efforts.
References
[1] ACI Committee 228: In Place Methods to Estimate
Concrete Strength, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, ACI 228.1R-03 (2002).
[2] Schmalzer, P.N.: LTPP Manual for Falling Weight
Deflectometer Measurements, Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA (USA), Report No.
FHWA-HRT-06-132 (2006).

[3] Transportation Research Board: Development of the

2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures, NCHRP 1-37A (2004).
[4] Cao, Y., Guzina, B.B. and Labuz, J.F.: Pavement
Evaluation using Ground Penetrating Radar, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN (USA),
Report No. MN/RC 2008-10 (2008).
[5] Mesher, D.E., Dawley, C.B., Davis, J.L. and Rossiter,
J.R.: Evaluation of New Ground Penetrating Radar
Technology to Quantify Pavement Structures,
Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., Transportation Research
Record, 1505 (1995), 17-26.
[6] Lenngren, C.A., Bergstrom, J. and Ersson, B.: Using
Ground Penetrating Radar for Assessing Highway
Pavement Thickness, Subsurface Sensing Technologies
and Applications, 474 (2000).
[7] Jones, K.B. and Hanson, T.: Evaluation of the MIT
SCAN T2 for Non-Destructive PCC Pavement
Thickness Determination, Iowa Department of
Transportation, Office of Materials, Ames (2008).
[8] Khazanovich, L., Yu, H.T. and Stubstad, R.:
Nondestructive Dowel Bar Detection in Existing Rigid
Concrete Pavement Slabs, California Department of
Transportation (2003).
[9] Schmidt, E.: Rebound hammer for concrete testing,
Schweiz Bau.ztg; 68-28 (1950), 378379.
[10] Liu, J., Sue, M. and Kou, C.: Estimating the Strength of
Concrete Using Surface Rebound Value and Design
Parameters of Concrete Material, Tamkang Journal of
Science and Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2009), 1-7.
[11] Brencich, A., Cassini, G., Pera, D. and Riotto, G.:
Calibration and Reliability of the Rebound (Schmidt)
Hammer Test, Civil Engineering and Architecture, 1-3
(2013), 66-78.
[12] Jones, R., Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete,
Cambridge University Press, London (1962), 103.
[13] Bungey, J.H.: The Validity of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Testing In-place Concrete for Strength, N.D.T.
International, IPC Press (1980), 296-300.
[14] Yaman, I.O., Inci, G., Yesiller, N. and Aktan, H.M.:
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity in Concrete Using Direct and
Indirect Transmission, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98,
No. 6 (2001).
[15] ACI Committee 318: Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, ACI
318-11 (2011).
[16] Lawson, W.D., Wood, T.A., Newhouse, C.D. and
Jayawickrama, P.W.: Evaluating Existing Culverts for
Load Capacity Allowing for Soil Structure Interaction,
Texas Department of Transportation, Report No.
FHWA/TX-10/0-5849-1 (2010).