The Open Access NDT Database

Use of Ultrasound to Estimate Depth of Surface Opening Cracks in

Concrete Structures

Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina; Florianpolis; Brazil

Phone: +55 483721 7768, Fax: +55 483721 5191; e-mail: rpinto@ecv.ufsc.br, Arthur.med@uol.com.br,
padaratz@ecv.ufsc.br, patricia.becker@estelarengenharia.com.br
Abstract
This study discusses the use of the ultrasound with the time-of-flight diffraction technique to estimate the depth
of surface opening cracks. This technique is a very useful tool for practical applications. It is inexpensive,
simple and easy to perform, giving a rapid indication of the extension of cracking. BS 1881:Part 203 presents
some mathematical expressions to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks. These expressions are based on
two time-of-flight measurements performed using the indirect mode of transmission. However, BS 1881:Part
203 indicates that when such a mode of transmission is used, it is required at least four measurements to be able
to estimate the ultrasound pulse velocity (UPV). Due to this apparent incoherence, two graphically-based
methods were developed, allowing for the use of several time-of-flight readings. All of these aforementioned
methods were applied to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks of artificially cracked samples produced in
the laboratory. The results indicated that the new developed methods can estimate vertical cracks with an error
of 10%; a smaller value compared to the error of 15% obtained for the BS 1881 method.
Keywords: ultrasound, surface opening cracks, non-destructive testing

1. Introduction
Surface opening cracks often occurs in concrete structures. They may appear as a
consequence of several degradation mechanisms such as repeated loading, differential
settlement, chemical attacks, drying shrinkage, and freeze-thaw cycles, among others. While
in some cases, surface opening cracks may only affect the aesthetics of the concrete surface,
in most cases they are an indication of structural distress and/or decreased durability [1]. In
order to evaluate the damage of the concrete structure due to cracking, it is important to
quantify the crack geometric parameters including width, extension, and more importantly the
depth of penetration. Depending on the type of structure, the nature of the cracking, and the
crack penetration depth, surface opening cracks need to be repaired.
Crack depth determination can be performed non-destructively by the time-of-flight
diffraction technique [2-4]. In this technique, stress waves are generated on one side of the
crack, with wave arrival times monitored by a transducer placed on the opposite side of the
crack. Stress waves can be generated by a mechanical pulse, such as given by ultrasound
equipments, or by mechanical impact, as in the impact echo technique. Crack penetration
depth is determined assuming a particular wave propagation path.
Although there are other techniques available to measure crack geometric characteristics [57], the use of ultrasound with the time-of-flight refraction technique is very simple, easy to
perform, and gives a rapid indication of the extension of cracking. There are a significant
number of commercially ultrasound instruments available to be used in concrete structures.
They usually display the direct transit time of a longitudinal wave in microseconds.
Crack depth estimation by the time-of-flight diffraction technique using conventional
ultrasound equipment can be performed assuming a direct travel path of the stress wave from
the transmitter transducer to the receiver transducer, passing through the crack tip. The
transducers are placed on opposite sides of the crack.

www.ndt.net/?id=9954

Roberto C. A. PINTO 1, Arthur MEDEIROS 1, Ivo J. PADARATZ 1, Patrcia B. ANDRADE1

Bungey [3] presented a simple mathematical expression to calculate crack penetration depth
comparing two time-of-flight measurements through an indirect mode of transmission. The
first one is performed in sound concrete, while the second one is obtained with the transducers
placed equidistantly from the opening surface crack on opposite sides of the crack. In
Bungeys method, it is necessary to know the ultrasound pulse velocity (UPV) in the concrete
which is usually obtained in a region away from the crack.
The former BS 1881 [2] also presented a mathematical expression based on two
measurements with the transducers placed equidistantly from the opening surface crack. With
this special arrangement of transducers, it is possible to estimate both the crack depth and the
UPV. However, when calculating UPV using the indirect mode of transmission, BS 1881
does require more than only two measurements.
In order to overcome this apparent incoherence, two graphically-based methods were
developed to obtain the depth of surface opening cracks based on several ultrasound time-offlight measurements. The first method is an extension of the method presented in BS 1881
but with more measurements taken. The second one was developed specifically when the
crack is close to the side of the concrete member such that there is not enough space available
to place both transducers equidistantly from the opening surface crack. Thus, one transducer
stays stationary whereas the other varies its position. This latter method is similar to the
procedure presented in BS 1881 to measure ultrasonic pulse velocity with both transducers on
the surface of the test specimen, through an indirect mode of transmission.
All four methods were applied to estimate the depth of artificial cracked samples in the
laboratory. Prismatic concrete specimens with vertical cracks were produced. It was
concluded that the graphically-based methods can better predict the depth of surface opening
cracks.

2. Methods to estimate crack depth

2.1 Existing Methods
Bungey [3] proposed a mathematical expression by comparing the time-of-flight of an
ultrasound longitudinal wave through a sound concrete to the one around a crack, considering
that the velocity of the longitudinal wave in the concrete is the same in both cases. Assuming
the wave travel path presented in Fig. 1a, the crack penetration depth h can be evaluated as:
x
h =
Ts

Tc 2 Ts 2

... (1)

where: Tc represents the travel time around the crack; Ts is the surface travel time in sound
concrete, and x is the least distance between the transducers and the crack, measured on the
surface of the concrete. In order to use Eq. 1, it is necessary to previously obtain the surface
travel time of the longitudinal wave in a region without crack, Ts, with transducers at a
distance 2x apart from each other.
The assumption of the same ultrasonic pulse velocity through a sound surface concrete and
through a path around the crack may lead to errors in the estimate of the crack depth.
Usually, top concrete layers are more porous than inner parts due to differences in settlement

of aggregates, vibration and also humidity loss to the environment. Thus, it is common to
observe a smaller UPV in the surface of the concrete than in the inner parts of the structure.
Bungey [3] states that the depth of surface opening cracks using Eq. 1 can be estimated with a
precision of 15%.
Another method to estimate the depth of surface opening cracks is the one presented in BS
1881: Part 203 [2]. This method uses two measurements taken with the transducers placed
equidistantly from the crack at the distances x, and 2x, according to Fig. 1b. Assuming that
the ultrasonic pulse velocity is the same, it is possible to modify Eq. 1, as follows:

h=x

4T12 T2 2

... (2)

T2 2 T12

where T1 and T2 are the time-of-flight of the longitudinal wave with transducers at distances x,
and 2x from the crack, respectively. BS 1881 [2] suggests a distance x of 15 cm.
X

X
X

a)

b)

Fig.1. Transducer arrangements for Bungeys and BS 1881 methods

This method does not require a complementary test in sound concrete. However, it is based
only in two measurements made with the indirect mode of transmission. In this arrangement,
the exact travel path is uncertain. When calculating the ultrasound pulse velocity using the
indirect mode of transmission, in order to overcome the lack of precision of the travel path,
BS 1881 [2] requires a series of reading. The transmitter is fixed, and the receiver is moved
in a series of fixed incremental points along a chosen line. BS 1881 [2] indicates that the
velocity from the indirect transmission mode is often 5 to 20% smaller than the one obtained
from the direct transmission mode.
Yaman et al [8] recommended that when performing an indirect measurement, it is necessary
at least four readings in order to obtain variability smaller than 2% in the UPV. They also
indicated that the first reading should have the transducers apart from themselves of at least
two times the wave-length , with the subsequent readings at least one half wave length
apart.
While BS 1881 [2] does require a series of measurements when using the indirect mode of
transmission to calculate the ultrasonic pulse velocity, it does not apply this requirement when
using the indirect mode of transmission to calculate estimate crack depth.
2.2 Proposed graphically-based methods to estimate crack depth

2.2.1 Method A
In this method, the transducers are placed in locations equidistantly from the surface opening
crack along a chosen line, similarly to the BS 1881 method, but with at least four positions as

suggested by Yaman et al [8]. Fig. 2 shows a possible arrangement of the transducers. Timeof-flight readings are performed at each transducer arrangement. Assuming the same
ultrasonic pulse velocity in all wave travel paths, the time-of-flight can be expressed by:

Ti =

2 Li
... (3)
V

where Ti is the time-of-flight measured with transducers at a distance xi from the crack; V is
the ultrasonic pulse velocity; and Li is the assumed half travel length corresponding to Ti,
which depends on the distances Xi and h. If one substitutes Li in Eq. 3 by its dependence on Xi
and h, the following expression can be found.
T2
X i 2 = V 2 i h 2 ... (4)
4
X4

X4
X3

X3
X2

X2
X1

L4

L3

L2

L1

X1

L1

L2

L3

L4

Fig. 2. Transducer arrangements for graphically-based Method A

Equation 4 indicates a linear relationship between the parameters Xi2 and Ti2. The crack
penetration depth, h, can be obtained by plotting the results. The slope of the best straight line
is proportional to the UPV while its intersection is proportional to the crack depth.
2.2.2 Method B
A variation of the above method can be used when the crack occurs close to one side of the
specimen. In this case, a procedure similar to the one used to obtain the ultrasonic pulse
velocity through the indirect transmission mode is followed. The transmitter is fixed in one
side of the crack, while the receiver is placed in several locations on the opposite side of the
crack, according to Fig. 3. The first position should have both transducers equidistantly from
the surface opening crack while for the other ones the receiver is moved in fixed increments.
For each arrangement, a time-of-flight reading is taken.
Using similar assumptions regarding travel path and ultrasonic pulse velocity as used in the
previous method, the crack depth can be calculated by subtracting the time of flight from a
given reading to the time-of-flight obtained in the first reading, yielding:
T
X i2 = V 2 ( Ti 1 )2 h 2
2

..... (5)

This expression indicates a linear relationship between the parameters Xi2 and (Ti Ti/2)2.
Similarly as in method A, the crack penetration depth can be obtained by plotting the results.

X4
X3
X2
X1

L1

X1

L1

L2

L3

L4

Fig. 3. Transducer arrangements for graphically-based Method B

4. Experimental program
In order to compare all the aforementioned methods to estimate crack depth, an experimental
program was designed. Concrete specimens with artificial cracks were produced in the
laboratory with time-of-flight measurements taken according to each of the four methods.
Three series of concrete specimens were cast. Series 1 consisted of 8 concrete prisms of 150
x 250 x 700 mm with vertical cracks of 75 and 100 mm of depth and crack width of 6 mm,
with four replicates for each crack depth. Series 2 consisted of four concrete prisms of same
size, with vertical cracks of 50, 75, 100, and 150 mm, and crack widths of 0.5 mm. These
specimens were produced in order to verify the possible influence of crack widths in the
estimate of crack depths. In order to apply Method B, a third series comprising of concrete
prisms of greater length was produced. Four concrete prisms of 200 mm x 200 mm x 800 mm
with vertical crack of depths of 50, 75, and 100 mm, and crack width of 2 mm were chosen.
Table 1 presents a summary of the geometric characteristics of all the specimens.
Table 1 - Specimen characteristics
Specimen

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

S1-75-A
S1-75-B
S1-75-C
S1-75-D
S1-100-A
S1-100-B
S1-100-C
S1-100-D
S2-50
S2-75
S2-100
S2-150
S3-50
S3-75
S3-100

Size
(mm x mm x mm)

150 x 250 x 700

200 x 200 x 800

crack depth
(mm)
75
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
50
75
100
150
50
75
100

crack width
(mm)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
2
2

All cracks were artificially produced. During casting, plates with different thickness were
positioned on the sides of the specimen. At approximately six hours after casting, the plates
were removed and the artificial crack formed.
Before performing time-of-flight
measurements, the specimens were rotated 90o. This procedure permitted that the ultrasound

measurements could be performed on a flat and smooth surface; and that any line of testing
perpendicular to the crack would be at the same level of consolidation.
A 0.57 w/c concrete mixture was used to produce specimens for Series 1 and 2 while a higher
w/c of 0.63 was used to produce Series 3 specimens. The coarse aggregate used in both
concrete mixtures was a granite coarse aggregate with maximum nominal size of 19 mm.
For each series, 10 x 20 cm concrete cylinders were also cast. These cylinders were
maintained under the same curing conditions as the prisms specimens. Concrete compressive
strength was evaluated after 28 days. The results indicated a compressive strength of 36 MPa
for concrete of Series 1 and 2, and 20 MPa for concrete of Series 3.
Ultrasound time-of-flight measurements were performed with a commercially available
equipment. For specimens of Series 1 and 2, two 54 kHz transducers were initially placed on
opposite sides of the crack at a distance of 100 mm; afterwards both transducers were moved
simultaneously to the next test location at 50 mm increment following the transducer
arrangement presented in Fig. 2. For specimens of Series 3, the transmitter was fixed at a
distance of 100 mm from the crack, while the receiver was firstly placed at a distance of 100
mm on the opposite side of the crack, and then moved away from the crack in 50 mm
increments. These transducers arrangement permitted that the first reading was performed
with the transducers at 200 mm apart from each other, which is greater than twice the wave
length , as suggested by Yaman et al [8]. The wave-length was in the order of 75 mm,
considering an UPV of 4000 m/s.
For all specimens, UPV was also obtained using the indirect mode of transmission on the
surface of the specimen away from the crack according to recommendations of BS 1881 [2]
with at least four readings taken.

5. Results
Table 2 presents the time-of-flight results obtained by placing both transducers at equidistant
locations from the crack.
Table 2 - Time-of-flight readings with transducers equidistant from crack (in s)
Specimen
S1-75-A
S1-75-B
S1-75-C
S1-75-D
S1-100-A
S1-100-B
S1-100-C
S1-100-D
S2-50
S2-75
S2-100
S2-150
S3-50
S3-75
S3-100

100
66.1
61.4
60.0
62.6
71.7
72.2
71.3
71.8
52.5
62.4
80.3
81.3
60.4
69.5
75.6

Distance x (mm)
150
200
250
83.1
109.2
129.6
80.7
102.6
124.4
78.6
105.6
124.2
78.6
102.2
126.7
88.3
111.2
130.6
88.0
109.6
131.8
87.1
111.2
131.6
90.7
112.2
131.9
77.6
97.7
122.5
79.7
104.8
125.8
90.2
108.3
132.8
114.1
121.5
139.7
90.0
113.8
136.5
89.8
114.5
141.5
91.7
114.6
135.1

300
153.2
145.9
147.8
149.3
151.5
151.7
155.4
156.2
144.4
148.8
152.1
160.2
-

Table 3 presents the time-of-flight results obtained by fixing the transmitter at 100 mm from
the crack with the receiver at various distances from the crack. Table 4 presents the UPV
obtained by the indirect transmission mode performed in a region away from the crack, as
well as the ones obtained by the graphically-based methods A and B.
Table 3 - Time-of-flight readings with transmitter fixed at 100 mm from crack and
receiver at various distances (in s)
Specimen
S3-50
S3-75
S3-100

100
62.6
69.0
77.0

150
73.9
78.9
87.2

200
86.7
90.2
98.0

Distance x (mm)
250
300
98.9
110.1
101.2
115.8
105.8
120.2

350
125.8
127.4
133.6

400
136.0
139.2
144.8

450
149.1
150.3
159.4

Table 4 - Ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/s)

Specimen
S1-75-A
S1-75-B
S1-75-C
S1-75-D
S1-100-A
S1-100-B
S1-100-C
S1-100-D
S2-50
S2-75
S2-100
S2-150
S3-50
S3-75
S3-100

Indirect transmission
sound concrete
3900
3750
4250
4100
4150
4000
4000
3950
4100
4250
3900
3950
3650
3500
3750

Method A

Method B

4100
4250
4200
4150
4250
4200
4100
4100
4200
4150
4300
4200
-

3860
3950
3850

6. Analysis and Discussion

6.1 Crack Depth Estimates by Different Methods
6.1.1 Bungeys method
For the time-of-flight results with transducers positioned at 100 mm and 150 mm from the
crack tip, presented in Tables 2 and 3, crack penetration depth was estimated using Eq. 1. The
ultrasound pulse velocities were the ones obtained using the indirect mode of transmission on
sound concrete presented in Table 4. The obtained crack depth estimates were grouped
according to their actual crack depths, as presented in Fig. 4. Besides the estimated crack
depths, Fig. 4 also shows the actual depths and their 15% range for all specimens.
Fig. 4 indicates that although most of the individual results lies within 15% of the actual crack
depth, there were some poor estimates, specially the ones obtained for specimens S1-75-B,
and S3-75.

Estimated crack depth (mm)

200
150

100
50

50
-1
S2

-1
0
S1 0 - A
-1
0
S1 0 - B
-1
0
S1 0 - C
-1
00
-D
S2
-1
0
S3 0
-1
00

S1

-7
5
S 1 -A
-7
5
S 1 -B
-7
5
S 1 -C
-7
5D
S2
-7
5
S3
-7
5

S1

S2

S3

-5

-5

specimen
100mm

150mm

15% actual depth

actual depth

Fig. 4. Crack depth penetration estimates by Bungey method with transducers at 100 and 150 mm from crack tip

6.1.2 BS 1881 Method

When applying the BS 1881 method to estimate crack depth, it was necessary to choose a pair
of time-of-flight measurements among those presented in Table 2 to be used in Eq. 2. Timeof-flight measurements of transducers at the distances of 100 and 200 mm, and 150 and 300
mm were selected and used in Eq. 2 although others combinations could have also been
chosen. The results were grouped according to the crack depths, shown in Fig. 5.
Similarly to the results given by Bungeys method, Fig. 7 indicates that most of the individual
estimates lies within 15% of the actual depths.
Estimated crack depth (mm)

250
200
150
100
50

50
S2

-1

00
-1

-D

S2

-C
-1

00

00
S1

-1

-1

00
S1

S1

S1

-1

00

-B

-A

5
-7

D
5-7

S1

S2

C
5-

B
-7

5S1

-7

5S1

-7
S1

S2

-5

specimen
100mm-200mm

150mm-300mm

15% actual depth

actual depth

Fig. 5. Crack depth estimates by BS 1881 method

6.1.3 Graphically-based Methods A and B

For the proposed Methods A and B, time-of-flight measurements presented in Tables 2 and 3
were used in Eqs. 4 and 5, respectively. Graphs relating the corresponding parameters were

produced for each specimen with the depth penetration crack and the UPV estimated. Figure 6
presents the crack depth estimates for each specimen grouped according to their actual depths,
as well as, the 15% range of the actual depths for all specimens.
Estimated crack depth (mm)

200
150

100
50

50
-1
S2

-1
0
S 1 0- A
-1
0
S 1 0- B
-1
0
S 1 0- C
-1
00
-D
S2
-1
0
S3 0
-1
00

S1

S1

-7
5
S 1 -A
-7
5
S 1 -B
-7
5
S1 -C
-7
5D
S2
-7
5
S3
-7
5

-5
S3

S2

-5

specimen
Method A

Method B

15% actual depth

actual depth

Fig. 6 Crack depth estimates by graphically-based Methods A and B

6.1.4 Comparison of all methods

Table 4 indicates that the ultrasound pulse velocities obtained by the graphically-based
methods A and B were consistently higher than the ones obtained through the indirect mode
of transmission in the surface of sound concrete. As previously discussed, the UPV in the
concrete surface is expected to be lower than the one in the inner part of the concrete member.
Although the concrete region close to the crack might be of lower quality due to the cracking
process, the UPVs estimated in that region were still higher than the ones in the surface of
the concrete, as the data from Table 4 indicate.
Table 5 presents a comparison between estimates given by each method. Crack penetration
depth estimates from Bungeys method, with transducers at 150 mm; from the BS 1881
method, with transducers at 150-300 mm, and from graphically-based methods A and B are
presented. When the arrangement of 150-300 mm as proposed by BS 1881 was not possible
(S3-50, S3-75, and S3-100), the results presented in Table 5 came from the 100-200 mm
arrangement. In order to better compare the depth estimates given by the four aforementioned
methods, the average normalized error of the estimates was calculated by Eq. 6 for each
method. Table 5 also presents the calculated average errors, and their standard deviation.
hei hi
hi
i =1
n

j =

... (6)

where j is the normalized error given by method j; hei and hi are the estimated and actual
penetration depths for specimen i respectively, and n is the total number of specimen tested.
It can be seen that the graphically-based Method A yielded a smaller normalized error with
smaller standard deviation than the other methods. While an error of approximately 10% was

obtained when Method A was applied, the other methods yielded errors of 16 to 24%. Such
results can be better visualized in Fig. 7.
Table 5- Actual and Estimated Penetration Depths (mm)
Actual
depth

Specimen

S1-75-A
75
S1-75-B
75
S1-75-C
75
S1-75-D
75
S1-100-A
100
S1-100-B
100
S1-100-C
100
S1-100-D
100
S2-50
50
S2-75
75
S2-100
100
S2-150
150
S3-50
50
S3-75
75
S3-100
100
mean error (%)
standard dev. (%)

Bungey
error
estim.
(%)
61
18.7
20
73.3
73
2.7
59
21.3
105
5.0
92
8.0
89
11.0
98
2.0
53
6.0
79
5.3
92
8.0
168
12.0
67
34.0
44
41.3
86
14.0
17.5
19.2

BS 1881
error
estim.
(%)
75
0.0
85
13.3
64
14.7
58
22.7
111
11.0
108
8.0
92
8.0
109
9.0
70
40.0
68
9.3
119
19.0
217
44.7
42
16.0
87
16.0
115
15.0
16.4
11.8

Method A
error
estim.
(%)
88
17.3
86
14.7
77
2.7
73
2.7
115
15.0
113
13.0
102
2.0
109
9.0
55
10.0
80
6.7
130
15.0
158
5.3
67
34.0
76
1.3
115
15.0
10.9
8.5

Method B
error
estim.
(%)
72
44.0
95
26.7
96
4.0
24.9
20.1

Estimated Crack Depth (mm)

250
225

Bungey - 150 mm

200

BS 150-300 mm

175

Method A
Method B

150
125
100
75
50
25
0

50

75
100
Actual Crack Depth (mm)

150

Fig. 7. Comparison between estimated and actual crack penetration depth

Table 5 also shows that there was not an apparent influence of different crack widths in the
estimates. The individual normalized errors for specimens of Series 1, 2 and 3 (crack width
of 6, 0.5 and 2 mm, respectively) did not differ significantly among themselves.

6. Conclusions
Two graphically-based methods have been developed to estimate crack penetration depths
from time-of-flight measurements. The results indicated that the method developed as an
extension of the one in the BS 1881 standard with at least four readings was able to improve

the overall estimation with an estimated error close to 10%, smaller than the errors from the
others methods. This method also permits the estimation of the ultrasound pulse velocity in
the region tested.
Finally, despite of the methods available to estimate geometric characteristics of surface
opening cracks [5-7], the ultrasound time-of-flight refraction technique may still be a very
useful tool for practical applications. It is cheap, simple and easy to perform, and gives a rapid
indication of the extension of cracking.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study was partially provided by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development (CNPq), and by LEME Engenharia, Ltda, a Brazilian
consultant engineering company. The authors express special thanks to GPEND/LEE/UFSC
where this research was performed.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

BS 1881: Part 203, Recommendations for measurement of the velocity of ultrasonic

pulses in concrete, London, 1986.
J H Bungey, S G Millard, M G Grantham, Testing of concrete in structures, 4 ed. Taylor
& Francis, 2006.
ACI Committee 224. Causes, evaluation, and repair of cracks in concrete structures,
ACI 224.1R-07. American Concrete Institute, 2007.
M J Sansalone, J Lin, W B Street, Determining the depth of surface-openings cracks
using impact-generated stress waves and time-of-flight techniques, ACI Materials
Journal. V. 95. No. 2, 1998.
M Goueygou, O Abrahan, J-F Lataste, A comparative study of two non-destructive
testing methods to assess near-surface mechanical damage in concrete structures,
NDT&E International. 41, 2008.
S W Shin, J Zhu, J Min, J S Popovics, Crack depth determination in concrete using
energy transmission of surface waves, ACI Materials. Vol. 105. No. 5, 2008.
Y-F Chang, C-Y Wang, A 3-D image detection method of a surface opening crack in
concrete using ultrasonic transducer arrays, Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation. Vol.
16. No. 4, 1997.
I O Yaman, G Inci, N Yesiller, H M Aktan, Ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete using
direct and indirect transmission, ACI Materials Journal. Vol. 98. No. 6, 2001.