Stephen W.

Hearn received his MS in Civil Engineering at the University of Minne-

sota in 1994. He is currently employed as a structural engineer by Horty, Elving, and
Associates, Inc., where he is responsible for the structural design of hospitals, medical
buildings, and assisted living facilities.

Carol K. Shield is an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at

the University of Minnesota. She received her PhD in Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics from the University of Illinois in 1991. She has also been employed in the
Nondestructive Evaluation and Diagnostics Group of the United Technologies
Research Center, where she was mainly involved with developing new methods in
ultrasonics and acoustic emissions. Her research interests are in acoustic emission
methods for civil structures and the use of advanced composites in civil structures.

land cement was used. The sand-cement, coarse aggregate-

cement and water-cement ratios were 2.63, 3.51, and 0.65,
respectively. The specimens were cured at room tempera-
ture and surface moistened for the first week. The reinforced
beam dimensions were 20.3 cm deep x 30.5 cm wide x 2.44
m long. Each beam was longitudinally reinforced with two
No. 4 and one No. 5 345 MPa reinforcing bars. A cross sec-
tion of the R/C specimens, B2-B4, showing the exact dimen-
sions and reinforcement locations, is shown in Fig.1. No
transverse reinforcement was provided. The concrete
strength for these beams was 41.4 MPa.
The two prestressed beams were donated by Molin Con-
crete. These were hollow-core prestressed floor beams. The
mix design is proprietary information. The overall beam di-
mensions were 20.3 cm deep x 61.0 cm wide x 3.66 m long,
with three 14.0 cm diameter cut-outs. These prestressed
beams were reinforced with four 1.3 cm diameter 1860 MPa
prestressing strands, prestressed to a force of 130 kN/strand.
A cross section of the prestressed specimens, B5-B6, show-
ing the exact dimensions and reinforcement locations, is
shown in Fig.2. The concrete strength for the prestressed
specimens was 48.3 MPa.
All beams were simply supported and loaded at midspan
using an MTS 2700 kN testing machine running in deflec-
tion control. The deflection of the midspan was measured
using the LVDT in the testing machine actuator. The loading
consisted of loading/unloading cycles with gradually in-
creasing deflections until failure occurred. The loading/un-
loading ramp rates were set so that it took between 30 and 90
seconds to reach the prescribed deflection level from the un-
loaded state. The specimen was then kept at the prescribed
deflection level for a minimum of 30 seconds. This time was
used to ensure that all acoustic emission activity that was go-
ing to occur during the loading cycle had time to occur, and
to check the specimens for the formation of new cracks, or
the propagation of pre-existing cracks. All beams were
whitewashed with a mixture of lime and water to enhance the
detection of cracking. During the loading history, cycles us-
ing the same prescribed deflection level were repeated sev-
eral times in an attempt to evaluate the Kaiser effect. Also,
for some specimens, after a cycle which included a new de-
flection level was complete, several cycles with much lower
prescribed deflections were conducted. This was in an effort
to simulate the effects of an overloading, followed by repeat-
ed “service” level cycles. A chart of prescribed displace-
ment levels for each cycle number for beam 6 is given in Fig.
3. The other four specimens had similar loading histories.
Fig. 1—Cross section of conventionally reinforced speci-
mens B2-B4
Fig. 2—Cross section of prestressed specimens B5 and B6
Additional details about the specimens and test can be found
in Reference 12.
Although the two types of specimen had different cross
sectional geometry, the differences in bending behavior due
to the differences in geometry is small compared to the be-
havior difference due to the type of reinforcement. The R/C
beams had a gross area of concrete of 243 cm2 , the pre-
stressed beams had a gross area of concrete of 305 cm 2. The
R/C beams had an area of steel of 1.80 cm 2, the prestressed
beams had an area of steel of 2.03 cm2. The uncracked trans-
formed neutral axis for the R/C beams was located 9.9 cm
from the bottom of the beam; the uncracked transformed
neutral axis for the prestressed beams was located 9.6 cm
from the bottom of the beam.
AE monitoring equipment
The AE monitoring equipment consisted of three parts:
AE transducers, pre-amplifiers, and an AE signal monitor,
all manufactured by Dunegan/Endevco Corporation. The
transducers were piezo-electric resonant devices with fre-
quency sensitivities between 200 kHz and 1 MHz and reso-
nant frequencies of either 490 or 290 kHz. Four AE
transducers were placed on the bottom surface of each spec-
imen, creating an inner linear array and an outer linear array.
The midspan of each array was centered on the midspan of
the beam, directly under the point of applied load. The trans-
ducers were centered across the width of the beam. For the
R/C beams, the inner array spanned a distance of 91 cm and
the outer array spanned a distance of 183 cm. For the pre-
stressed specimens, the inner array spanned a distance of 91
cm and the outer array spanned a distance of 274 cm. An el-
evation view of R/C specimens B2-B4 and prestressed spec-

ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997 511


Fig. 3—Displacement history for prestressed beam B6
Fig. 4—Elevation view showing loading and transducer
placement for conventionally reinforced concrete specimens
B2-B4 and prestressed concrete specimens (in parentheses)
B5 and B6
imens B5 and B6, depicting the transducer locations, is given
in Fig. 4.
The pre-amplifiers had approximately flat frequency re-
sponse from 50 kHz to 2 MHz and were equipped with 50
kHz high pass filters. The AE monitor, a Dunegan-Endevco
model DE8000, was a feature extraction device capable of
monitoring multiple AE transducers, configured either as in-
dividual units or arrays of two transducers. One-dimensional
source location is performed by the monitor for the arrays.
The monitor does not digitize the AE signal waveform but
performs analog signal feature extraction. This greatly in-
creases the number of events per second that the monitor is
capable of recording. The features found most useful were
number of counts per event (the number of times the signal
amplitude crossed a set threshold), the time difference be-
tween signal arrival at the two transducers of each linear pair
(resolution to one microsecond), and the time at which the
event occurred (resolution to 10 msec). Note that the counts
per event are dependent on both the threshold setting and the
resonant frequency of the transducer; hence this measure is
not exclusively a parameter of the AE signal. The minimum
signal thresholds for the AE monitor were established exper-
imentally by gradually lowering the threshold setting for
each individual channel until spurious signals were recorded
while the beam was in a relaxed position. The thresholds
were then increased by one decibel (dB) to eliminate these
spurious signals. This threshold value was then accepted if
512
no spurious signals were recorded for one hour. In this way
the ability of the monitor to capture all significant AE event
signals was maximized. In addition to the signal feature ex-
traction, the AE monitor was set up to record the actuator
load and displacement whenever an AE event occurred.
TEST RESULTS
Event rates
Figure 5 shows the cumulative number of AE events and
visually observed cracks versus loading cycle for each trans-
ducer on prestressed hollow core floor beam B6. The heavy
solid line represents the information from transducer A (see
Fig. 4 for transducer locations); the light dashed line, light
dot-dashed line, and heavy dashed line represent the infor-
mation from transducers B, C, and D, respectively. Two
y-axes are used, due to the difference in total number of
events between the four transducers. Figure 5 is typical of
the results observed at any of the transducers on either of the
prestressed specimens. The vertical lines represent the
points during the loading history where cracks, or crack ex-
tensions were visually observed while the beam was loaded.
For the earlier loadings, these cracks were not visible when
the beam was in the unloaded state and probably would not
have been visible in the loaded state without the aid of white-
washing. The numbers above these lines are the maximum
deflection level in centimeters for the corresponding loading
cycle. As the figure illustrates, formation or growth of each
crack was preceded by a significant increase in AE activity.
As is expected, the center transducer array (transducers B &
C) detected more events than the outer array (transducers A
& D), due to the attenuation of the AE signals in the con-
crete. However, all four transducers appear to contain the
same information about crack propagation.
After each new crack was formed a series of service load
level cycles were performed (see Fig. 3 for a typical loading
history). There is almost no measurable AE activity associ-
ated with these “service level” cycles. However, Fig. 5 dra-
matically illustrates that when the beam was subjected to a
level of deflection not previously applied, which caused
crack formation or crack propagation, there was significant
AE activity. Previous researchers have found that AE event
rate is clearly related to the formation or propagation of ex-
isting cracks, and these experiments have confirmed this.1,2
By monitoring AE event rate, the point when new cracks are
beginning to form or existing cracks are beginning to propa-
gate can be easily identified.
The same correlation between event rate and crack forma-
tion also holds for the R/C specimens. Figure 6 shows the cu-
mulative number of AE events and visually observed
formation or growth of the cracks versus loading cycle for all
four transducers on R/C beam B2. As in the previous figure,
the solid dark line, dashed light line, dot-dashed light line
and dashed dark line correspond to transducers A, B, C, and
D, respectively (see Fig. 4 for transducer locations). Like-
wise, two y-axes are again used due to the difference in the
total number of events between the four transducers, with an
inner transducer detecting approximately twice the number
of events as an outer transducer. Figure 6 is typical of the re-
ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997
Fig. 5—Cumulative events versus loading cycle and
observed crack formation and propagation for specimen B6,
in cm
sults observed at any transducer on any of the R/C speci-
mens. Once again the vertical lines represent the points
during the loading history where formation of cracks, or
crack extensions, were visually observed, and the numbers
above these lines are the maximum deflection level in centi-
meters for the corresponding loading cycle. Because the pat-
tern of crack formation and propagation in the R/C beams is
much more distributed along the length of the beam, it is dif-
ficult to correlate every increase in event rate to a specific,
visually observable crack formation or growth. Many more
discrete cracks were observed in the R/C specimens.
For both the prestressed and R/C beams, observed crack
formation/propagation can be correlated with the event rate;
however, the effect is much more definitive in the pre-
stressed concrete specimens. Although the authors tend to
believe that this effect is due to the difference in reinforce-
ment, it is not possible to rule out this difference being
caused by the different cross sectional geometries.
Source location
Source location is performed by measuring the time differ-
ence in the arrival time of an AE signal between the different
transducers. Using the time difference with the Rayleigh
wave propagation velocity, VR , the corresponding location
where the AE signal originated can be determined. One lim-
iting factor for the accuracy of this source location is the ac-
curacy of the wave propagation velocity. For the purposes of
source locations an experimentally derived value of the wave
propagation velocity was used. This value was obtained by
simulating AE events using pencil lead or glass capillary
breaks at specific locations along the surface of the beams.
Using the recorded time differences the Rayleigh wave ve-
locity could be calculated as:
∆s L – 2x
V R = ------ = --------------- (1)
∆t ∆t
where L is the distance between transducers, x is the location
of the simulated AE event, ∆s is the difference in path
lengths between the paths the signal travels to the two trans-
ducers, and ∆t is the measured time difference, as shown in
Fig. 7. Experimental values of VR , for the two different types
of specimens, were determined using a linear regression on
measured pairs of ∆s vs. ∆t. For the R/C specimen, the Ray-
ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997
Fig. 6—Cumulative events versus loading cycle and
observed crack formation and propagation for specimen B4,
in cm
leigh wave velocity was found to be 170 cm/msec. This mea-
surement was based on a linear regression of 45
measurements. These measurements used both transducer
arrays and had path length differences varying from 0 to 46
cm. The correlation coefficient for the regression, r2, was
0.95. For the prestressed concrete specimen, the Rayleigh
wave velocity was found to be 267 cm/msec. This measure-
ment was based on a linear regression of 18 data points.
These measurements also used both transducer arrays and
had path length differences varying from 0 to 244 cm. The
correlation coefficient for this regression was 0.98.
A number of AE events were simulated along the top and
side of the prestressed hollow core floor beam to assess the
affects of the complicated geometry on the ability to accu-
rately locate the AE source. The system used was only ca-
pable of performing one-dimensional source location, so
some error in locating events that do not originate on the cen-
ter of the bottom surface is expected. Figure 8 is a plot of er-
ror in source position vs. position along the beam of the
simulated event, as measured from transducer A. The four
sets of data points represent the results from arrays A/D
when events originate on the top side of the beam (open cir-
cles), A/D when events originate on the left side of the beam
(open triangles), B/C when events originate on the top side
of the beam (plus signs) and B/C when events originate on
the left side of the beam (x’s). In addition the error associat-
ed with one-dimensional source location is shown. This er-
ror is a function of the position of the source, and the location
of the transducers. Errors associated with events originating
on the center of the left side are depicted with dashed lines.
Errors associated with events originating on the center of the
top side are depicted with solid lines. The shorter curves are
for array B/C and the curves which span the entire length of
the plot represent the error from array A/D. These curves
were generated by using the actual difference in path length
that the signal travels between the two transducers, but then
assuming that the path difference was only in one dimension.
The actual path length difference for array A/D is calculated
by
2 2 2 2 2 2
∆s = (L1 – x ) + y + z – x + y + z (2)
513

Fig. 7—Experiment to determine Rayleigh wave velocity
Fig. 8—Error in source location for events originating on
the side and top of the prestressed specimen
Fig. 9—Geometry for source location error
where x, y, z is the position of the AE source relative to trans-
ducer A, L1 is the distance spanned by array A/D (274 cm),
as illustrated in Fig. 9. The origin is taken at transducer A,
with x along the axis of the beam, y along the width of the
beam, and z through the thickness of the beam. If the change
in only one dimension (x) is considered by setting y and z to
zero, then the path difference for array A/D is given by
∆s = L 1 – 2 x1D (3)
which can be rearranged to solve for x1D ,
L 1 – ∆s
x1D = ------------------ (4)
2 tion, the stress wave must propagate in sufficient signal
Hence the error due to one-dimensional source location for
array A/D is found by subtracting x from x1D . In a similar
514
manner, the error due to one-dimensional source location
can also be found for array B/C. Figure 8 illustrates that the
error due to one-dimensional source location is quite small
unless the source originated close to one of the two transduc-
ers. It is also evident from this figure that the majority of the
experimental source location errors are not due to using one-
dimensional location. The remainder of the error comes
from error in the assumed wave speed (due to the non-ho-
mogenous nature of reinforced concrete), dispersion, differ-
ences in transducer response (leading to timing based on
different parts of the waveform), and the fact that for some
source origins, there are no direct paths to the transducers.
However, despite the complicated and varying signal paths
from the event locations to the transducers, due to the unusu-
al geometry of the hollow core specimen, reasonably accu-
rate source locations were obtained. The average absolute
error for the four conditions discussed above: array A/D-side
event, array A/D-top event, array B/C-side event, array B/C-
top event are 21.1 cm, 11.3 cm, 2.9 cm, and 8.6 cm respec-
tively. If the one outlying event on array A/D-side event is
removed, then the average absolute error becomes 5.2 cm.
These values seem reasonable with regard to the 3.66 m
length of the beam. More accurate locations could be made
by using more transducers and placing them in more than
just one plane.
Figure 10 shows the cumulative number of located events
divided into 15 cm bins for the two different transducer ar-
rays mounted on prestressed specimen B5. Array A/D
spanned the center 274.3 cm section of the beam, and array
B/C spanned the center 91.4 cm section. The majority of lo-
cated events for both arrays were between 176 and 191 cm
which corresponds to the observed crack located between
175 and 187 cm, shown in Fig. 11. Though specific events
were not directly linked to specific cracks or crack exten-
sions, there was a high correlation between the source loca-
tion results and the visually observed cracks, to within ±6
cm. Due to inaccuracies in the experimentally derived value
for the wave propagation velocity and the unknown AE sig-
nal path between the source and the transducers, locations
with only two transducers can probably not be more accurate
than this in concrete without additional signal processing.
Figure 12 shows the cumulative number of located events
divided into 15 cm bins for array A/D on R/C beam B2. The
array spanned the middle 183 cm section of the beam. Be-
cause of the large number of discrete cracks along the length
of this beam, no attempt was made to quantitatively correlate
specific events to specific cracks. However, the general par-
abolic distribution of the located events matches the parabol-
ic distribution of cracks that results from the bending stress
distribution in a simply supported beam subjected to three
point bending. Figure 13 shows a typical crack pattern for R/
C beams.
Table 1 shows the percentage of the total number of events
for which the AE system was able to locate the source from
the signals on Array A/D. In order to perform source loca-
strength to both transducers of the array. The second column
of the table lists the total number of discrete events that were
detected by either transducer A or transducer D. The third
ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997

Fig. 10—Number of source located events for transducer
arrays 1 and 2 on a hollow core prestressed floor beam, B5
(cumulative located events shown for each 15 cm of the
beam)
Fig. 11—Actual location of observed crack for specimen B5
corresponding to located events shown in Fig. 10
Fig. 12—Number of source locations for transducer array
A/D on conventionally reinforced beam, B2 (cumulative
located events are shown for each 15 cm of the beam)
column of this table lists the number of discrete AE events
that were detected by both transducers A and D. This subset
of column 2 is the total number of AE events that were of
sufficient signal strength to be located using AE. The fourth
column is the percentage of the AE events from column 2
that were successfully located using AE. As indicated by the
table, source location was much more successful for the pre-
stressed beams, even though the transducer array spanned a
50 percent longer distance. Anywhere from 4 to 25 times
ACIMaterialsJournal/November-December1997
larger a percentage of events were located on the prestressed
specimens. This difference could be caused by two different
mechanisms. There could be some difference in AE signal
behavior due to the type of reinforcing, or more likely due to
the cross sectional geometry difference between the two
types of specimens. The hollow cores of the prestressed con-
crete specimens could have caused the bottom 4 cm of the
beams to act essentially as wave guides, funneling the stress
waves in this depth. This would lead to less attenuation of
the signal as it travels along the length. More work should
be performed to determine the attenuation characteristics of
both types of reinforced concrete structures.
Time of events during a cycle
The primary difference in AE behavior between R/C and
prestressed concrete is illustrated in Figs. 14 and 15. Figure
14 shows the actual AE events recorded superimposed on the
event history for loading/unloading cycle for R/C beam 4,
loading cycle 26. AE activity begins after previously applied
deflection levels (0.5 cm) are exceeded. It continues during
the time when the deflection is held constant. There is no ac-
tivity during unloading. Figure 15 shows the event history
for a loading/unloading cycle of prestressed specimen B5,
loading cycle 28. Once again AE activity begins when prior
deflection levels were exceeded and continues until the max-
imum deflection level is reached. There is no activity during
the time the deflection is held constant but there is activity
during crack closure. These figures are typical of the loading
cycles throughout the tests. The differences in AE behavior
are most likely a direct consequence of the two different re-
inforcing methods. For the R/C beams there is a continuing
transfer of stress from the concrete in tension to the reinforc-
ing steel; this accounts for the AE activity during the time
when the deflection is held constant. On the prestressed
beam, however, the tensile stresses are all taken by the pre-
stressing steel, so no AE activity is expected during the hold
portion of the cycle. During crack closure there is significant
AE activity for the prestressed beam due to the two surfaces
being forced together under the effect of the prestressing
load. The force causing crack closure in the R/C beams is
much smaller than the force in prestressed concrete beams,
and, hence, is generally not large enough to generate signif-
icant AE activity on crack closure. There were sporadic
events recorded during the unloading cycles for the R/C
beams, but these make up only a small percentage of the total
number of events, typically 15 percent or less. For the pre-
stressed beams the events recorded during the unloading cy-
cles account for anywhere from 65 percent to 90 percent of
the total. Table 2 shows the total number of events for both
loading and unloading cycles for each of the test specimens.
Kaiser effect / Felicity effect
The existence of the Kaiser effect was evaluated in two
different ways. First by looking at AE activity during repeat-
ed cycles at the same displacement level. Figure 16 shows
evidence of a Kaiser-like effect in reinforced concrete. This
figure shows four repeating loading cycles at one deflection
level for R/C beam 2, loading cycles 80-83. Clearly if the
deflection level for each cycle is constant, then the load
515
needed to produce the deflection in subsequent cycles is ei-
ther equal to or less than the load needed in the preceding cy-
cle; hence any events recorded in the second, third, or fourth
cycles of this figure must have occurred at a load level small-
er than or equal to the maximum of the first cycle. The pres-
ence of events in cycles 2 and 3 is a violation of the Kaiser
effect; however, the number of events is decreasing for each
subsequent cycle, so there is some sort of effect similar to the Fig. 13—Typical crack formation pattern for ordinary rein-
Kaiser effect at work. An interpretation of the results illus- forced beams subjected to three-point bending
trated in this figure could be that it required three cycles for
all of the tensile stress to be transferred from the concrete to
the reinforcing steel at this deflection level; once this oc-
curred there was no longer any AE activity recorded. It is im-
portant to note that the exact stress distribution in the
specimen was unknown.
A more traditional approach to evaluating the Kaiser effect
was also taken. Figure 17 shows a plot of the Felicity ratio
versus the percent of ultimate load for R/C beams B3 and B4
and prestressed concrete beams B5 and B6. Reinforced con-
crete beam B2 has been omitted due to a technical problem
with the analog-digital converter for the load during that test.
The ultimate loads for the four beams (B3, B4, B5, B6) are
41.6kN, 34.2 kN, 78kN, and 78kN, respectively. The Felic-
ity ratio is defined as the load at which AE activity begins
(P f) divided by the previously attained load (Pm).13 A Felic- Fig. 14—Recorded AE events versusactual loading cycle
ity ratio equal to or above 1 indicates that the Kaiser effect is history for conventionally reinforced beam B4
not violated. Felicity ratios below one are a violation of the
Kaiser effect. Interpretation of Felicity ratios must be done
carefully. Whether to take the load at which the first AE
event occurs or the load at which substantial AE activity be-
gins as Pf is open to some debate. For this work, the begin-
ning of AE activity was taken to be the AE event that
occurred at the lowest load, such that there was another event
within 3 kN for the R/C beams, or 6 kN for the prestressed
beams. Using this type of philosophy avoids spurious AE
events from being used in the calculation of the Felicity ratio.
Events that occurred during unloading were not considered
when making these calculations. Although there is a bit of
scatter in the results, there are no discernible differences be-
tween the Felicity ratios in the R/C beams, and the pre-
stressed concrete beams. Both types of beam illustrate a
trend of decreasing Felicity ratio with increasing maximum Fig. 15—Recorded AE events versus actual loading cycle
load. All but one Felicity ratio calculated were below 1. history for prestressed beam B5
This indicates that the Kaiser effect is not observed in the
strictest of definitions. Hence one would not be able to use at a load lower than 18.1 kN (between 16.0 kN and 18.1kN).
acoustic emission to determine exactly what the previously Because of the large amount of data near failure, only the Fe-
applied maximum load had been. In addition to the plot, Ta- licity ratio and not the exact number of felicity events near
ble 3 lists for each new maximum load (Pmax ), the Felicity failure are listed in the table. At most load levels, there are
force (Pf), the Felicity ratio, the number of non-Felicity more than a handful of Felicity events (averages of 149, 26,
events (Nnf—events which occurred during or after the pre- 69, and 64 for beams B3, B4, B5, and B6 respectively), lend-
viously attained maximum load had been passed), the num- ing more confidence to a Felicity ratio less than one, than if
ber of Felicity events, (Nf—events which occurred at a load there had been only one or two Felicity events. The data
lower than Pmax after Pmax had been previously attained) for clearly indicate that the Kaiser effect, in its purest interpreta-
specimens B3, B4, B5, and B6 respectively. The Felicity tion, does not hold for reinforced concrete beams in flexure.
events are events which are in violation of the Kaiser effect.
As an example of the information in this table, looking at the CONCLUSIONS
first row for specimen B3, the specimen was loaded to a The test results clearly indicate that the observed forma-
maximum load of 18.1 kN, during which time 52 events took tion or propagation of cracks in concrete is preceded by a sig-
place. Upon reloading of the specimen, 13 events took place nificant increase in AE activity rate. Monitoring AE activity

516 ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997

 Table 1
Total number of events, Total number of events Percent of successful
Specimen no. channels A and D located source locations
B2 10,842 373 3.4
B3 13,671 1155 8.5
B4 3911 94 2.4
B5 3621 2778 76.7
B6 6641 1547 23.3

Table 2
Total number of Percent of events
Beam no. Events loading/hold Events unloading events unloading
B2* 3328 567 3895 14.56
B3* 1838 346 2184 15.84
B4* 1256 60 1316 4.56
B5** 332 2808 3140 89.43
B6** 1236 2369 3605 65.71

* Conventionally reinforced
** Prestressed

Fig. 16—Recorded AE events versus loading history for four Fig. 17—Felicity ratio versus percent of ultimate load for
loading cycles, at the time of deflection level, for a conven- specimens B3-B6
tionally reinforced beam

is a viable method of determining active crack growth in re-
inforced concrete structures. The source location of these
cracks can be accurately determined to within several centi-
meters with just two AE transducers. Arrays using more than
two transducers should be able to locate cracks more accu-
rately. Additionally it has been shown that the source of the
AE events need not have a direct path to the transducers in
order for source location to be done; on specimens with a
complicated geometry, such as the hollow core floor beams,
events originating almost anywhere on the beam were suc-
cessfully located with only two transducers mounted on the
bottom surface of the beam. There are also clearly demon-
strated differences in AE behavior between R/C and pre-
stressed concrete specimens. There is extensive AE activity
during unloading or crack closure for prestressed beams
while very little or often none is recorded during the unload-
ing cycles for R/C beams. These differences may be exploit-
ed in future AE research to develop specific NDT
applications. Additionally these test results indicate that
there is some violation of the Kaiser effect at all load levels,
although it is much more pronounced nearer the ultimate
load in both conventionally reinforced and prestressed con-
crete. Although the current work has indicated that AE is a
viable NDT tool for both R/C and prestressed concrete
beams, it appears that the method may be easier to develop
for use with prestressed concrete structures.
Test results do suggest two potential applications of AE
monitoring as a NDT tool. One would be proof load testing
of beams and girders. By monitoring AE activity, the for-
mation of cracks could be identified. If a proof load test is
carried out with loads lower than those that are predicted to
cause cracking, any AE activity would be a good indicator
of problems. The other potential application would be as a
monitoring tool for concrete tanks and pressure vessels. AE
activity would be an indicator that cracks were forming that
could lead to potential leaks. AE monitoring is also a valu-

ACIMaterialsJournal/November-December1997 517
 Table 3
Pmax Pf Felicity ratio N nf Nf
18.1 16.0 0.88 52 13
18.7 17.1 0.91 177 36
19.7 16.0 0.81 90 120
20.8 16.5 0.79 96 58
21.4 17.1 0.80 44 101
21.9 14.4 0.66 118 44
22.4 19.2 0.86 189 31
B3 23.0 19.7 0.86 86 47
24.0 16.5 0.69 375 152
27.8 16.0 0.58 401 166
28.3 14.9 0.53 41 532
28.8 18.1 0.63 394 342
30.4 13.9 0.46 304 193
32.0 11.2 0.35 465 257
41.6 9.6 0.23 353 260+
16.0 14.4 0.90 5 4
17.1 16.0 0.94 13 1
17.6 14.9 0.85 19 9
18.1 18.1 1.00 36 0
18.7 16.0 0.86 26 10
19.7 16.0 0.81 55 30
20.8 16.5 0.80 40 27
B4
21.4 18.1 0.85 71 24
22.4 17.6 0.79 119 37
23.0 20.8 0.91 51 43
24.6 21.4 0.87 125 55
25.6 20.8 0.81 78 37
27.8 22.4 0.81 80 59
29.4 20.3 0.69 121 47+
52.8 39.4 0.75 18 140
55.3 35.0 0.63 14 30
B5
57.3 33.0 0.58 18 38
61.8 28.5 0.46 27 16+
41.9 41.4 0.99 20 63
49.4 38.7 0.78 8 105
51.0 35.0 0.69 14 48
58.4 37.1 0.63 42 30
61.1 36.6 0.60 15 26
B6
64.3 45.4 0.71 36 109
73.1 33.4 0.46 111 56
73.7 45.9 0.62 21 33
75.3 38.2 0.51 16 108
77.9 14.7 0.19 36 5+

able tool for research on all types of concrete structures. REFERENCES

Just by monitoring AE activity the formation or propaga-
tion of cracks can be verified before they can be visually
observed in unloaded specimens, without special surface
preparations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express appreciation to United Technologies
for the loan of the acoustic emission monitoring equipment and to Molin
Concrete Products for the donation of the prestressed concrete beams.
1. Ohtsu, M., “Acoustic Emission Characteristics in Concrete Diagnostic
Applications,” Journal of Acoustic Emission, V. 6, No. 2, April-June 1987,
pp. 99-108.
2. Reymond, M.; Raharinaivo, A.; Brachet, M., “Characterization of
Concrete Damages by Acoustic Emission Analysis,” Journal of Acoustic
Emission, V. 2, No. 3, July 1983, pp. 159-168.
3. Ouyang, C.; Landis, E.; Shah, S.P., “Damage Assessment in Concrete
Using Quantitative Acoustic Emission,” Journal of Engineering Mechan-
ics, V. 117, No. 11, Nov. 1991, pp. 2681-2698.
4. Chen, H. L., and Cheng, C. T., “Study of Three Dimensional Crack
Tip Location of Mortar by Acoustic Emission,” Nondestructive Testing of

518 ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997

Concrete Elements and Structures, edited by F. Ansari and S. Sture, Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 25-36.
5. Ohtsu, M., “Source Mechanism and Waveform Analysis of Acoustic
Emission in Concrete,” Journal of Acoustic Emission, V. 1, No. 2, April
1982, pp. 103-112.
6. Yuyama, S.; Okamoto, T.; Tomita, R.; Fujiwara, H.; Kajio, S., “Dis-
crimination of Cracking and Estimation of Cracking Width Developed in
Reinforced Concrete Structures by Acoustic Emission,” Technical Report
TR-103-105-'92, Physical Acoustics Corporation.
7. Yuyama, S.; Nagataki, S.; Okamoto, T.; Soga, T., “Several AE Sources
Observed During Fracture of Repaired Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Tech-
nical Report TR-103-97-10/90, Physical Acoustics
Corporation.
8. Ohtsu, M., and Ono, K., “The Generalized Theory and Source Repre-
sentations, of Acoustic Emission,” Journal of Acoustic Emission, V. 5, No.
4, October-December 1986, pp. 124-133.
ACI Materials Journal / November-December 1997
9. Ohtsu, M., “Acoustic Emission Source Kinematics Based on the Mov-
ing Dislocation Theory,” Journal of Acoustic Emission , V. 2, No. 3, July
1983, pp. 151-158.
10. Ghorbanpoor, A., and Rentmeester, A.T., “NDE of Steel Bridges By
Acoustic Emission,” Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards Mitiga-
tion, Volume 2, edited by A. H.-S. Ang and R. Villaverde, American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, 1008-1013.
11. Hopwood II, Theodore, “Acoustic Emission Inspection Of Steel
Bridges,” Public Works , May 1988, 66-69.
12. Hearn, Stephen W., “Determination of Crack Initiation and Propaga-
tion in Reinforced Concrete Beams Via Acoustic Emission Monitoring,”
MS Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1994.
13. Hamstad, M. A., “Quality Control and Nondestructive Evaluation
Techniques for Composites—Part VI: Acoustic Emission—A State-of-the-
Art Review,” AVRADCOM Report TR 83-F-T, University of Denver,
1983.
519