Next Article in Journal
Toward a Fully Analytical Contact Resistance Expression in Organic Transistors
Next Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning Techniques in Concrete Mix Design
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Internal Force Detection Method of Steel Bar in Elastic and Yielding Stage Based on Metal Magnetic Memory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Singular Value Truncation Method for Non-Destructive Evaluation of Structural Damage Using Natural Frequencies
Open AccessArticle

Accuracy of Eddy-Current and Radar Methods Used in Reinforcement Detection

Department of Building Structures, Silesian University of Technology; ul. Akademicka 5, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2019, 12(7), 1168; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071168
Received: 4 March 2019 / Revised: 3 April 2019 / Accepted: 5 April 2019 / Published: 10 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Non-destructive Testing of Materials in Civil Engineering)
This article presents results from non-destructive testing (NDT) that referred to the location and diameter or rebars in beam and slab members. The aim of paper was to demonstrate that the accuracy and deviations of the NDT methods could be higher than the allowable execution or standard deviations. Tests were conducted on autoclaved aerated concrete beam and nine specimens that were specially prepared from lightweight concrete. The most advanced instruments that were available on the market were used to perform tests. They included two electromagnetic scanners and one ground penetrating radar (GPR). The testing equipment was used to analyse how the rebar (cover) location affected the detection of their diameters and how their mutual spacing influenced the detected quantity of rebars. The considerations included the impact of rebar depth on cover measurements and the spread of obtained results. Tests indicated that the measurement error was clearly greater when the rebars were located at very low or high depths. It could lead to the improper interpretation of test results, and consequently to the incorrect estimation of the structure safety based on the design resistance analysis. Electromagnetic and radar devices were unreliable while detecting the reinforcement of small (8 and 10 mm) diameters at close spacing (up to 20 mm) and of large (20 mm) diameters at a close spacing and greater depths. Recommendations for practical applications were developed to facilitate the evaluation of a structure. View Full-Text
Keywords: NDT methods; rebar location; eddy-current method; GPR method NDT methods; rebar location; eddy-current method; GPR method
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Drobiec, Ł.; Jasiński, R.; Mazur, W. Accuracy of Eddy-Current and Radar Methods Used in Reinforcement Detection. Materials 2019, 12, 1168.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop