buildings

Article
About the Possible Limitations in the Usage of the
Non-Destructive Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method for
Assessment of Cracks in Reinforced Concrete
Structures, Subjected to Direct
Environmental Exposure
Ivan Ivanchev 1, * and Veselin Slavchev 2
1 Department Reinforced Concrete Structures, Faculty of Structural Engineering, University of Architecture,
Civil Engineering and Geodesy (UACEG), 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
2 Department Building Structures, Faculty of Construction, University of Structural Engineering
&Architecture, 1373 Sofia, Bulgaria
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +359-988-364-706




Received: 29 June 2019; Accepted: 29 August 2019; Published: 11 September 2019


Abstract: Failures occur in the structures of reinforced concrete buildings and facilities during
their continuous exploitation, without being overloaded or exposed to extreme impacts, the most
common being cracks. Their detection and change in time are related to the assessment of the state of
the structures, their safety, and reliability during their construction and especially for their safety
exploitation. This paper describes the results of the experimental studies conducted by authors aiming
to verify the possibility of using the non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method (NDUPVM) for
detection and evaluation of cracks. Results of an experimental study of 12 reinforced concrete beams
are presented. In previous experiments, some of them were subjected to bending until the maximum
crack width of 0.3 mm was reached and others until yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.
The results obtained from the measurements of the depths of the normal cracks with different widths
with NDUPVM were compared with the visually measured ones. In the present research cracks with
the same width and with a similar depth were chosen. The influence of extreme external conditions
to the accuracy of the measured crack depths by the NDUPVM was investigated. Non-destructive
ultrasonic research was done by a portable device Proceq TICO.

Keywords: cracks; defects; reinforced concrete; non-destructive testing; ultrasonic testing

1. Introduction
As a result of improper and/or continuous operation, inevitable aging, poor maintenance, making
unregulated reconstructions, fatigue in materials and structures, overload, temperature changes,
shrinkage, action of aggressive chemical environments, change in humidity, fire damages, and other
factors in the structures of reinforced concrete buildings and facilities damages occur [1–3]. Some of
the most common in reinforced concrete buildings and facilities are cracks. They worsen the service
properties and durability of structures. The crack width for elements, subjected to bending has to
be limited for ensuring the durability of the structures (reinforcement protection), the acceptable
appearance of the elements, and the stiffness of the elements. Cracks in concrete are a natural result
of its low tensile strength. Tensile stresses can occur in different situations, at different times in the
structural members or in their separate sections. Even under proper operation and maintenance
most reinforced concrete structures, with the exception of fully compressed elements and beams with
prestressed reinforcement, work with cracks in the tension area.

Buildings 2019, 9, 202; doi:10.3390/buildings9090202 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2019, 9, 202 2 of 15

Ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of reinforced concrete structures and extending their
service life requires evaluation and diagnosis of their condition. Depending on the method of impact,
on the condition and suitability of the structures after the test, the control of the materials and elements
of reinforced concrete structures can be destructive and non-destructive [3].
In the case of destructive (traditional) control, we have complete damage in the test area. It is
labor-intensive and expensive. The study is limited to individual points and does not provide
information on the quality and damages of the whole structure [3–5].
With non-destructive testing (NDT) the parameters of materials, elements and joints of reinforced
concrete structures can be verified, tested and evaluated non-invasively [3]. This can be done both
during construction and during service. The tests can be repeated several times, in different sections
of the structure, to track in real time the change of important parameters for the reinforced concrete
structure, related to their suitability and proper operation.
The advantages of NDT are many [3–22], namely:

• The integrity of the structural element is preserved.

• There is an ability for measuring locations that are difficult to reach or within considerable
distances from the surface of the elements.
• High sensitivity, allowing detection of very small defects.
• Obtaining data on structures that are unsafe.
• Opportunity to study part or all of the structure.
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of reconstructions.
• Repeatability of results.
• Safety for operators.
• Faster execution.
• Saving of materials and equipment.
• Method automation, continuous data recording, integration into information systems.
• Portability of equipment.
• Minor energy consumption.
• Minimal impact on staff.

For tracking the appearance and propagation of cracks in reinforced concrete elements in real
time different non-destructive methods can be used. The main methods are:

• Acoustic emission (AE) is a method used for characterization of the crack initiation and propagation
mechanisms of a structure in real time. It enables recording of the initiation and spreading of
elastic waves of acoustic signals at propagating cracks. Information regarding the location of
the cracking sources and their mode can be supplied by proper analysis of acoustic emission.
The experience of the user is essential in order to explain the acoustic emissions trends [23].
• The ultrasonic pulse velocity method is based on the propagation of ultrasonic waves in the
elements. Short ultrasonic pulse-waves are transmitted into materials to detect internal flaws
or to characterize materials. It continues to be an important non-destructive technique, which
provides reliable results based on rapid measurements with relatively inexpensive equipment.
It has many advantages, such as: it does not affect the appearance or the functioning of the
structures under analysis and there is no need for application of cables, fibers, and equipment on
the structure; data can be periodically collected from the same test points, making possible the
control of variations over time; the ultrasonic pulse velocity can be employed for the detection of
cracks but this cannot be used solely and should be accompanied by other techniques for better
accuracy and identification of the cracks. The main disadvantages of non-destructive ultrasonic
pulse velocity method (NDUPVM) are: it is necessary to have free access to the examined element
and surfaces (sometimes it requires a cut in traffic temporary, a need for additional facilities, etc.);
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 3 of 15

results are affected in the case of the elements are exposed on direct external conditions (such as
rain, snow, etc.), as the results of this research shows.
• Digital image correlation (DIC) is a non-destructive, non-contact and precise method for crack
measurements in reinforced concrete elements [23–27]. This method is of interest for monitoring
at different loading stages in real time. Digital images are taken and by comparing the images it
is possible for the crack initiation and crack propagation to be obtained in the object subjected
to external loads. It gives a clear depiction of the surface strain field and its transient changes
according to stress redistribution which occurs after fracture moments [28]. This method is very
effective for measuring the crack growth in concrete. Different pattern that should be printed on
the object can be used to get the best results with this method [27]. The main disadvantage is that
only the surfaces of the elements can be evaluated. DIC has big advantages to other methods,
but it is more appropriate if we start monitoring an element, or even a whole structure from
the beginning—after the structure is built and the pattern is printed on an unloaded structure.
There are still some limitations for application on existing concrete structures, especially if they
have existing cracks.
• Fiber optic crack sensors are used for detecting and monitoring cracks in real time in concrete and
reinforced concrete structures, where the crack locations are often not known in apriori. Tiny cracks
before visual recognition could be detected with these sensors [28–30]. Their advantages are the
small weight and dimensions, the strong immunity to electromagnetic interference and the scale
flexibility for small-gauge and long-gauge measurements, and they provide high-resolution and
measurement capabilities that are not feasible with conventional technologies [30]. They can
be placed on the surface or to be embedded in reinforced concrete elements. Fiber optic crack
sensors are a powerful tool for detection, even very small cracks, and are useful in many cases,
such as usage of high performance concrete, concrete structures, and bridges that should not open
cracks during their exploitation, etc., but they are very expensive and they still cannot be used to
determine the depth of the cracks.
• Visual observation by crack magnifiers [3,10,11,15–17,20] is a conservative and very reliable
method. As it is well known that cracks have different patterns, and depths, because of the
nature of the concrete (they follow gravels, internal small defects, etc.), the method has the same
disadvantage, like DIC, that cracks can be evaluated only on the surfaces of the elements and
require a clear access to the elements.
In recent years, for assessment of reinforced concrete structures, construction quality control,
and detecting existing cracks, NDUPVM has gained increasing popularity and interest [3–11,21]. It is
a highly specialized and complex method that requires careful data collection and expert analysis.
It is possible to be carried out periodically or by continuous measurements for the same test points
during the service of the reinforced concrete structure and the process of detecting the damages to be
automated. Among the available methods of NDT, the NDUPVM methods can be considered as one of
most promising methods for evaluation the concrete structures.

2. Essence of the Non-Destructive Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method

In the assessment, diagnosis, forecasting, and control of defects and cracks in existing reinforced
concrete structures very often only one of their sides is available. Then, NDUPVM is irreplaceable
and reliable. The method is based on the propagation of ultrasonic waves which passes through the
material. The speed of the wave varies as a function of the density and elastic properties of the material,
allowing the estimation of the porosity and the detection of discontinuities.
Two transducers are used—one transmitter of ultrasonic signals and the other as a receiver of
these signals [3–22]. They usually operate in the frequency range of 25–60 kHz. The transmitter of
ultrasonic pulses [10,11] causes longitudinal, transverse, and surface waves, which undergo numerous
reflections on the boundaries of the various components of reinforced concrete within the reinforced
concrete element. The receiving transducer registers the beginning of the longitudinal ultrasonic waves,
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 4 of 15

which are2019,
Buildings the fastest. It is REVIEW
9, x FOR PEER measured the velocity and/or time of passing of the pulses between 4the two
of 15
transducers. In concrete without any defects, the transmitting time of the ultrasonic signal is less than
in signal
the caseis less
withthan in the Thus,
defects. case with defects. Thus,this
by determining by determining this time, of
time, the properties thestructural
propertiesconcrete
of structural
can be
concrete
assessed can be assessed [10].
[10].
TheThe mechanicalproperties,
mechanical properties, the
the deformation
deformationcharacteristics, and
characteristics, thethe
and concrete parameters
concrete such such
parameters as
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity [3,6,7] can be determined from
as compressive strength and modulus of elasticity [3,6,7] can be determined from the velocity or the velocity or
transmittingtime
transmitting timeofofthe
theultrasonic
ultrasonic signal.
signal. The
The NDUPVM
NDUPVMisisused usedininorder
ordertotoverify thethe
verify concrete
concrete
homogeneity, to detect internal imperfections (presence of caverns, internal defects and cracks), to
homogeneity, to detect internal imperfections (presence of caverns, internal defects and cracks), to
evaluate the depth of imperfections, to estimate the modulus of elasticity and the compressive
evaluate the depth of imperfections, to estimate the modulus of elasticity and the compressive strength
strength of the concrete, and to monitor the characteristics variations of concrete throughout time [3–
of the concrete, and to monitor the characteristics variations of concrete throughout time [3–22,31–41].
22,31–41].
The ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete reaches 4500–5000 m/s.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity in concrete reaches 4500–5000 m/s.
There are difficulties when using the NDUPVM related to the non-homogeneity of the concrete,
There are difficulties when using the NDUPVM related to the non-homogeneity of the concrete,
which
which should
shouldbebetaken
takenintointoaccount
account inin the
the measurements.
measurements. There Therearearemany
manyfactors
factors that
that affect
affect thethe
accuracy
accuracy ofof
the
themeasurement
measurement[3–22]:
[3–22]:
• • temperature;
temperature;
• • water–cementratio;
water–cement ratio;
• • inclusion
inclusion ofofairairininthe
theconcrete;
concrete;
• • age, type, properties, and parametersof
age, type, properties, and parameters of the
the concrete,
concrete, through
throughwhich
whichultrasonic
ultrasonicpulses
pulsespasses;
passes;
• type and size of coarse aggregate (crushed stone, gravel, chemical and/or mineral additives, etc.);
• type and size of coarse aggregate (crushed stone, gravel, chemical and/or mineral additives, etc.);
• technology for preparing and laying the concrete mix;
• technology for preparing and laying the concrete mix;
• contact between transducers and the surface of the reinforced concrete element;
• • contact between
distance between transducers and the surface of the reinforced concrete element;
the transducers.
• distance between the transducers.
The dependence of ultrasonic spread on all the factors above is very complex.
The dependence of ultrasonic spread on all the factors above is very complex.
3. Experimental Setup
3. Experimental Setup
The research was carried out on four series of three specimens (total 12) of reinforced concrete
beams
The (Figure
research1),was
which differed
carried in longitudinal
out on four series ofreinforcement, concrete
three specimens (totalcover,
12) ofand reinforcement
reinforced concrete
ratio.(Figure
beams All beams had a span
1), which of 3in
differed m.longitudinal reinforcement, concrete cover, and reinforcement ratio.
All• beams had a span
Specimens type of 3 m.a cross section of 27/15 cm, bottom longitudinal reinforcement 2N12 (steel
A had
B500), stirrups ф8/10(15) cm (steel B235).
• Specimens type A had a cross section of 27/15 cm, bottom longitudinal reinforcement 2N12 (steel
• Specimens type B had a cross section 27/15 cm, bottom longitudinal reinforcement 2N18 (steel
B500), stirrups
B500), N8/10(15)cm
stirrupsф8/10(15) cm(steel
(steelB235).
B500).
• • Specimens
Specimens type C had a crosssection
type B had a cross section 27/15
30/15 cm,
cm, bottom longitudinalreinforcement
bottom longitudinal reinforcement 2N18
2N12 (steel
(steel
B500), stirrups
B500), stirrupsN8/10(15)
ф8/10(15)cm
cm(steel
(steelB500).
B235).
• • Specimens
SpecimenstypetypeCDhad
hadaacross
crosssection
section 30/15
30/15 cm, bottom longitudinalreinforcement
bottom longitudinal reinforcement 2N12
2N18 (steel
(steel
B500), stirrups
B500), N8/10(15)cm
stirrupsф8/10(15) cm(steel
(steelB235).
B500).
• Specimens type D had a cross section
The 12 beams were prepared of concrete 30/15 cm, bottom
grade C25/30, longitudinal
a fine fractionreinforcement 2N18 (steel
of the coarse aggregate
B500),
(dmax = 12 stirrups
mm), and N8/10(15) cm (steel B500).
with a consistency S3.

Figure 1. The 12 tested beams

Figure preparation
1. The 12 tested (personal archive). (personal archive).
beams preparation
 required scaled elements. For the longitudinal tensile reinforcement of the beams for the different
types of specimens, reinforcing steel with common reinforcement ratios were used as in the real
practice. The distance between the stirrups was chosen to ensure that the specimen’s failure would
be due to bending, and not by sheer force. Different reinforcement ratios, cross sections, and concrete
covers resulted in different density and inclination of the cracks for each type of specimen (Figure
Buildings 2019, 9, 202
2).
5 of 15
Some of the beams were loaded (Figure 3) until the stage corresponding to yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement and others to a loading stage reaching a maximum crack width of 0.3 mm.
The
The 12 beams
impact waswere
fromprepared of concreteforces
two concentrated gradelocated
C25/30,ina the
finethirds
fraction
of of
thethe
spancoarse
withaggregate
the static
(d
scheme
max = 12
of mm),
a simplyand with a
supported consistency
beam S3.
(four-point bending test). According to EC2 for exposure classes
XC2,Their
XC3, structural
XC4, XD1, parameters
XD2, XS1, XS2,were andchosen
XS3 theto maximum
meet the characteristic
allowed crackparameters
width is 0.3ofmm thefor
beams
non-
used in practice
prestressed in industrial
structures and civil construction.
at quasi-permanent The During
combination. laboratory natureexperimental
previous of the experimental
studies onstudy
the
required scaled elements. For the longitudinal tensile reinforcement of the beams for
two side-surfaces of the beams, the cracks were outlined in the order of their appearance and their the different types
of specimens,
depths reinforcing
were noted at eachsteel withloading
of the common reinforcement
stages. ratios were
After completion usedofasthe
of each in the real practice.
experiments the
The distance
location between
of the cracks the stirrups
on the wassurfaces
bottom chosen ofto the
ensure thatwere
beams the specimen’s
outlined toofailure
(Figurewould be due
2). For to
all the
bending,
cracks, the anddistances
not by sheer force. them
between Different
(at reinforcement ratios, cross
the reinforcement’s sections,
centroid), andand concrete
their depthscovers
were
resulted
measured. in different density and inclination of the cracks for each type of specimen (Figure 2).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 2.
Figure Typical crack
2. Typical crack patterns
patternson
onboth
bothsides
sidesand
andbottom
bottomsurfaces
surfaces
forfor
thethe Specimens—(a)
Specimens type
- (a) type A,
A, (b)
(b) type
type B, (c)
B, (c) typetype C, (d)
C, (d) type
type D D.

Some
For two of years,
the beams were loaded
the reinforced (Figure
concrete 3) untilwere
elements the stage corresponding
in enclosed premises to andyielding of the
the following
longitudinal reinforcement and others to a loading stage reaching a maximum crack
three years were left outdoors, subject to external atmospheric impacts, such as wind, rain, and snow width of 0.3 mm.
The impact was from two concentrated forces located in the thirds of
(Figure 4). Presented measurements were made in the springtime, when it often rains, after the the span with the static
scheme of a when
wintertime simplythesupported
specimens beam
were(four-point
exposed to bending
rain and test).
snow.According to EC2 for exposure classes
XC2, This
XC3,experiment
XC4, XD1,aimed XD2, toXS1, XS2, and XS3 the maximum allowed crack
explore the possibilities for the application width isfor
of NDUPVM 0.3detecting
mm for
non-prestressed structures at quasi-permanent combination. During previous
and determining the depth of normal cracks and to examine the impact of the extreme external experimental studies
on the two side-surfaces
conditions to the accuracy of of
thethe
beams,
measuredthe cracks
crack were
depths.outlined in the order of their appearance and
their The
depths were noted at each of the loading stages.
results obtained for the depths of normal cracks with After completion
NDUPVM of each
wereofcompared
the experiments the
with those
location
visually of the cracks
measured usingon the bottom
a crack surfaces
magnifier of the(Figure
Proceq beams5b) were outlined too (Figure 2). For all the
[42].
cracks, the distances between them (at the reinforcement’s
For the experimental research of the normal cracks with NDUPVM, centroid), and their depthsultrasonic
portable were measured.
testing
For two years, the reinforced concrete elements were in enclosed premises
instrument Proceq TICO [12] was used (Figure 5a). The operating frequency of the transmitting and the followingand
three yearstransducer
receiving were left outdoors,
was 54 kHz,subject
theto resolution was 0.1 μs. impacts,
external atmospheric The contactsuchbetween
as wind,therain, and snow
piezoelectric
(Figure 4). Presented
transducers measurements
and the surface were made
of the reinforced concretein the springtime,
element must be when it often
very good, rains,
so the aftermust
surface the
wintertime when the specimens were exposed to rain and snow.
This experiment aimed to explore the possibilities for the application of NDUPVM for detecting
and determining the depth of normal cracks and to examine the impact of the extreme external
conditions to the accuracy of the measured crack depths.
The results obtained for the depths of normal cracks with NDUPVM were compared with those
visually measured using a crack magnifier Proceq (Figure 5b) [42].
For the experimental research of the normal cracks with NDUPVM, portable ultrasonic testing
instrument Proceq TICO [12] was used (Figure 5a). The operating frequency of the transmitting and
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 6 of 15

receiving transducer was 54 kHz,

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the resolution was 0.1 µs. The contact between the piezoelectric 6 of 15
transducers and the surface of the reinforced concrete element must be very good, so the surface must
be smooth.
be smooth. Ultrasonic
Ultrasonicwaves
wavescannot move
cannot movethrough the air,
through thesoair,
the so
surfaces of the transmitting,
the surfaces receiving
of the transmitting,
transducer and concrete
receiving transducer andsurfaces
concretehave to behave
surfaces covered
to bewith a special
covered withcoupling
a specialpaste.
coupling paste.

Figure 3. Load of the beamsFigure

(personal archive).
3. Load of the beams (personal archive).

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.
Figure 12 beams—series
4. The 12 beams—seriesAAtotoD, D,(a)
(a)subject
subjecttoto
external atmospheric
external impacts,
atmospheric (b)(b)
impacts, preparation for
preparation
measurements
for (personal
measurements archive).
(personal archive).
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 7 of 15
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

(a) (b)
Figure 5.5.Determination
Determination of crack depths
of crack in reinforced
depths concreteconcrete
in reinforced elementselements
by ultrasonic testing instrument
by ultrasonic testing
Proceq-TICO
instrument (a), visually(a),
Proceq-TICO by using crack
visually magnifier
by using crackProceq (b) (personal
magnifier archive).
Proceq (b) (personal archive).

If there
If there areare no
no defects
defects or or cracks
cracks in in the
the test
test area
area of
of concrete
concrete withwith aa homogeneous
homogeneous structure,
structure, thethe
ultrasonic signal
ultrasonic signal will
will pass
pass inin the
the least
least amount
amount of of time
time between
between the the transmitting
transmitting and and the
the receiving
receiving
transducer. If
transducer. If there
there isis reinforcement,
reinforcement, the the ultrasonic
ultrasonic signal
signal spreads
spreads faster.
faster. InIn the
the case
case ofof very
very small
small
defects or cracks and if they are filled with water or other inclusions, the transmitting time will not
defects or cracks and if they are filled with water or other inclusions, the transmitting time will not
change significantly.
change significantly.
When the
When the ultrasonic
ultrasonicpulses
pulsesencounter
encounteraacrack, crack,they
theydodo not pass
not passthrough
through thethe
air-filled space
air-filled [8–11],
space [8–
and some of them surround it by moving along trajectories that allow it
11], and some of them surround it by moving along trajectories that allow it to pass in the shortestto pass in the shortest way, i.e.,
with
way, the
i.e.,highest
with thevelocity
highest[9], see Figure
velocity 6a.Figure 6a.
[9], see
The distance between the transducers
The distance between the transducers should shouldbebeininthe the range
range from
from 1010cmcm to to
25 25
cmcm depending
depending on
on the
the frequency
frequency of used
of the the used transducers.
transducers. According
According to [9],to [9], distance
if the if the distance is less
is less than 10than
cm, the10 cm, the
surface
surfacearrive
waves wavesfaster
arrivetofaster to the receiver
the receiver than thethan the reflected
reflected longitudinal
longitudinal waves, and waves,
if theand if the distance
distance is greater is
greater than 25 cm the receiver will have multiple reflected waves and
than 25 cm the receiver will have multiple reflected waves and this will increase the error in the this will increase the error in
the measurement.
measurement.
For the
For the ultrasonic testing instrument
ultrasonic testing instrument Tico Tico [12],
[12], used
used in in the
the research,
research, the the minimum
minimum distance
distance
between the transducers for concrete, with ultrasonic pulse
between the transducers for concrete, with ultrasonic pulse velocity from 3600 to 4800 velocity from 3600 to 4800 m/s,
m/s, isis from
from
5.4 cm
5.4 cm toto 7.2
7.2 cm,
cm, and
and thethe maximum
maximum distance distance is is 25
25 cm.
cm.
Depending on
Depending onthethelocation
location of the
of sensors on theonreinforced
the sensors concreteconcrete
the reinforced beams the following
beams transition
the following
is possible:isdirect
transition (thedirect
possible: sensors aresensors
(the locatedare on located
two oppositeon twosides), semi-direct
opposite (the sensors(the
sides), semi-direct are sensors
located
on two
are adjacent
located on sides) and indirect
two adjacent sides)(theand
sensors are located
indirect on one are
(the sensors side). In the on
located experimental
one side).tests, an
In the
indirect location of the sensors on the bottom
experimental tests, an indirect location of the sensors on surface of the reinforced concrete elements
bottom surface of the reinforced concretewas used.
elements was used.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Measuring the Depth of Normal Cracks
Different the
4.1. Measuring normal
Depthcracks withCracks
of Normal different widths located on the tested beams (Figure 7) were
investigated by the NDUPVM and by visual observation. The width of the investigated cracks was
Different normal cracks with different widths located on the tested beams (Figure 7) were
between 0.05 and 1.30 mm. The transmitter and receiver were located on both sides of the crack at the
investigated by the NDUPVM and by visual observation. The width of the investigated cracks was
same distances (Figure 6). For cracks that were located closer to each other (a distance less than 5 cm)
between 0.05 and 1.30 mm. The transmitter and receiver were located on both sides of the crack at
the depth could not be measured due to the minimum gap between the transducer and the crack.
the same distances (Figure 6). For cracks that were located closer to each other (a distance less than 5
cm) the depth could not be measured due to the minimum gap between the transducer and the crack.
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Buildings 2019, 9, 202 b b 8 of 15

Crac k Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Transducer
b b
Crac k
Transducer C

Reinforc ed c oncrete beam

Reinforc ed c oncrete beam

(a) (a) (b) (b)

Figure 6. (a)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. (a) Location
(a) Location ofLocation
of the of the transmitter
transmitter
the transmitter and and
and thethe
the receiver relative
receiver
receiver relative to to
relative the the
to crackcrack
the and distribution
crack of the
and distribution
and distribution of the
of the
ultrasonic signal for normal cracks,(b) measurement (personal archive).
ultrasonic signal for normal cracks, (b) measurement (personal
ultrasonic signal for normal cracks, (b) measurement (personal archive). archive).

(a)

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

Figure 7.Different normal cracks in the tested beams, (a)typical general view, (b), (c), (d) detailed Commented [i6]: We confirm!
views(personal archive).

At least nine measurements were made for each of the typical crack’s width. The measured
velocity of ultrasonic pulse vno crack in the region of the beam without crack was in the range Commented [i7]: We confirm!
between 5050 m/s and 5160 m/s. The measured transmitting time of the ultrasonic pulse t no crack in
(b) of the beam without a crack (Figure
the region (c) 8) was in the range between 19.38 μs(d)
and 19.802 μs.
Results confirmed the good quality and homogeneity of the concrete used for the production of tested
Figure 7. Different
elements. normal cracks
cracks in the tested beams, (a) typical generalgeneral view, (b), (c), (d) detailed
views (personal measured transmitting time of the ultrasonic pulse t crack in region of the beam with a
Thearchive).
normal crack (Figure 9) was in the range between 25.84 μs and 80.00 μs. For all the measurements
the distance between the measuring transducers was 10 cm.
At least nine measurements were made for for each
each of
of the
the typical
typical crack’s
crack’s width.
width. The measured
of ultrasonic pulse nov crack
velocity of ultrasonic pulse v in the region of the beam without crack
in the region of the beam without crack was in the
wasrange
in thebetween
range
5050 m/s and
between 50505160
m/s m/s. The measured
and 5160 transmitting
m/s. The measured time of thetime
transmitting ultrasonic
of thepulse tno crack
ultrasonic t region in
in the
pulse of
the beam
regionwithout a crackwithout
of the beam (Figurea8)crack
was in the range
(Figure between
8) was in the19.38
range and 19.802
µsbetween µs. μs
19.38 Results 19.802 μs.
and confirmed
the goodconfirmed
Results quality and
thehomogeneity
good quality of andthe concrete used
homogeneity of for
the the production
concrete used forof the
tested elements.of tested
production
The measured transmitting time of the ultrasonic pulse tcrack in region of the beam with a normal
elements.
crackThe
(Figure 9) was in
measured the range between
transmitting time of 25.84 µs and 80.00
the ultrasonic pulse t all in
µs. For theregion
measurements
of the beamthe distance
with a
normal crack (Figure 9) was in the range between 25.84 μs and 80.00 μs. For all the measurements
between the measuring transducers was 10 cm.
the distance between the measuring transducers was 10 cm.
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 9 of 15

Figure
Figure8.8.
Figure 8.Transmitting
Transmittingtime
Transmitting timeofof
time ofthe
theultrasonic
the ultrasonic pulsetttno crack in
ultrasonicpulse
pulse
inthe
theregion
in the
regionof
ofthe
region of
thebeam
beamwithout
the beam
withoutaacrack
crackin
without a crack
inananarea
areaclose
closetotothe
thecrack
crackfor
forthe
thecorresponding
correspondingcrack
crackwidths.
widths.
in an area close to the crack for the corresponding crack widths.

Maximum,
Maximum,minimum,
minimum, and mean value t
valueofoftcrack and standard deviation at different crack
Maximum, minimum, andmean
mean value of t and and
standard deviation
standard at different
deviation crack widths
at different crack
widths
are are in
given given in 1.
Table Table 1.
widths are given in Table 1.

Transmittingtime
Figure9.9.Transmitting
Figure time of
of the
the ultrasonic
ultrasonic pulse
pulsetcrack
t in in
thethe
region of the
region beam
of the withwith
beam a normal crack
a normal
Figure
for the 9. Transmittingcrack
corresponding of the ultrasonic pulse t
time widths. in the region of the beam with a normal
crack for the corresponding crack widths.
crack for the corresponding crack widths.
Depth of normal cracks “c”, based on the physics law of distance at a constant velocity v , is
Depth of normal cracks “c”, based on the physics law of distance at a constant velocity vno crack ,
Depth of
determined bynormal “c”, based on the physics law of distance at a constant velocity v
cracks[3,8,10,11,40]:
the formula ,
is determined by the formula [3,8,10,11,40]:
is determined by the formula [3,8,10,11,40]:
s
tcrack 2 v
− 1 = no crack tcrack 2 − tno crack 2
p
c=b (1)
t tno crack 2 v 2
c=b t −1= v t −t (1)
c=b t −1= 2 t −t (1)
where: t 2
where:b is the distance from the center of the transducer to the middle of the crack;
where:
bvisnothe is the velocity
distance
crack from theofcenter
the ultrasonic pulse in region
of the transducer of the beam
to the middle without
of the crack; a crack;
b is the distance from the center of the transducer to the middle of the crack;
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

v is the velocity of the ultrasonic pulse in region of the beam without a crack;
t is the transmitting time of the ultrasonic pulse in region of the beam without a crack;
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 10 of 15
t is the transmitting time of the ultrasonic pulse in region of the beam with a normal crack.
Note: In the experiment, the distance between the transducers was “2b” = 10 cm.
Experimentally determined time
tno crack is the transmitting depths of cracks
of the by NDUPVM
ultrasonic (c of)the
pulse in region and by visual
beam withoutobservation
a crack;
(c t) for the corresponding
is the transmittingcrack widths
time of are shown
the ultrasonic in Figures
pulse 10 and
in region 11,beam
of the respectively.
with a normal crack.
crack
Note: In the experiment, the distance between the transducers was “2b” = 10 cm.
Table 1. Minimum, minimum, and mean value of t and standard deviation at different crack
Experimentally determined depths of cracks by NDUPVM (cUPVM ) and by visual observation
widths.
(cvisual ) for the corresponding crack widths are shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively.
w , (mm) 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.60 1.10 1.30
t , 1. ,Minimum,
Table (μs) minimum, and mean value of t and standard deviation
26.74 27.10 29.50 27.03 31.65 31.65 44.25 44.64 68.97 80.00
crack at different crack widths.
t , ,
wmeasured , (mm) (μs) 26.46
0.05 26.46 0.10
0.09 28.82 0.15
25.84 31.25 0.20 30.49
0.30 43.48
0.50 43.480.60 64.52 1.10 75.19
1.30
t , , (µs)
tcrc,max , (μs) 26.74
26.60 27.10
26.76 29.50
29.22 27.03
26.46 31.4331.65 30.96
31.65 43.90
44.25 44.14
44.64 66.9068.97 77.89
80.00
s,, (μs)
tcrc,min (µs) 26.46
0.09 26.46
0.23 28.82
0.22 25.84
0.44 31.25 0.12 30.49
0.36 43.48 0.36
0.34 43.48 1.69 64.52 1.68
75.19
tcrc,mean , (µs) 26.60 26.76 29.22 26.46 31.43 30.96 43.90 44.14 66.90 77.89
s, (µs) 0.09 0.23 0.22 0.44 0.12 0.36 0.34 0.36 1.69 1.68
Maximum, minimum, and mean value of c and standard deviation at different crack
widths are given in Table 2.
Maximum, minimum, and mean value of cUPVM and standard deviation at different crack widths
are given
Tablein
2. Table 2. minimum and mean value of depths of cracks determined by non-destructive
Maximum,
ultrasonic pulse velocity method (NDUPVM), c , and standard deviation for the corresponding
Table 2. Maximum, minimum and mean value of depths of cracks determined by non-destructive
crack widths.
ultrasonic pulse velocity method (NDUPVM), cUPVM and standard deviation for the corresponding
w widths., (mm) 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50
crack 0.60 1.10 1.30
c , , (cm) 4.73 4.77 5.71 4.86 6.42 6.33 10.26 10.23 17.08 20.03
wmeasured , (mm) 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.60 1.10 1.30
c , (cm
cUPVM,max , ) , (cm)
4.73 4.48
4.77 4.43 5.71
5.29 4.19
4.86 6.14
6.42 5.856.33 9.77 10.269.88 10.23
15.50 18.31 20.03
17.08
c , (,cm) , (cm)
cUPVM,min 4.48 4.59 4.65 5.53
4.43 5.29 4.54
4.19 6.27
6.14 6.12 10.02 10.09 16.33
5.85 9.77 9.88 19.24 18.31
15.50
cUPVM,means,, ((cm)
cm) 4.59 4.65
0.09 0.11 5.53
0.16 4.54
0.21 6.27
0.10 0.196.12 0.15 10.020.11 10.09
0.60 16.33
0.61 19.24
s, (cm) 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.10 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.60 0.61

Figure
Figure 10. Crack
10. Crack depths
depths determined
determined by NDUPVM c cUPVM
by NDUPVM forcorresponding
for the the corresponding crack
crack widths.
widths.
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 11 of 15

Figure11.
Figure 11. Crack
Crack depths
depths determined
determined byby visual
visual observation c cvisualfor
observation forthe
thecorresponding
correspondingcrack
crackwidths.
widths.

Therelative
The relativeerror
errorisiscalculated
calculatedby
bythe
theformula:
formula:

c − cUPVM x100, (%)

εcε%%
= =visual × 100, (%) (2)(2)
cvisual
where: c is the visually measured depth of the crack, c is the measured depth of the crack
where: cvisual is the visually measured depth of the crack, cUPVM is the measured depth of the crack
determined by the NDUPVM.
determined by the NDUPVM.
The depths of 99 normal cracks were experimentally determined, using both methods—by
The depths of 99 normal cracks were experimentally determined, using both methods—by
NDUPVM and by visual measurement.
NDUPVM and by visual measurement.
From the visual observation and NDUPVM measurements of crack depths the relative errors
From the visual observation and NDUPVM measurements of crack depths the relative errors
were calculated, by Equation (2), and the data is plotted in Figure 12.
were calculated, by Equation (2), and the data is plotted in Figure 12.
Maximum, minimum and mean value of ε and standard deviation for the corresponding crack
Maximum, minimum and mean value of εc and standard deviation for the corresponding crack
widths are given in Table 3.
widths are given in Table 3.

12. Relative
Figure12.
Figure Relative errors ε visually
errorsεc for determinate
for visually and NDUPVM
determinate crack depths
and NDUPVM for the
crack corresponding
depths for the
crack widths. crack widths.
corresponding
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 12 of 15

Table 3. Relative errors εc for the corresponding crack widths.

wmeasured , (mm) 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.60 1.10 1.30
εc,max , (%) 23.22 56.99 61.67 53.67 6.38 25.85 50.75 49.25 38.49 18.68
εc,min , (%) 18.07 54.95 59.78 4.35 0.97 19.87 48.68 47.58 33.02 10.14
εc,mean , (%) 19.73 55.68 60.43 29.90 3.15 22.35 49.37 48.48 35.17 13.68
s, (%) 1.63 0.67 0.67 22.84 2.05 1.87 0.82 0.62 1.78 2.19

4.2. Results Summary

The results analysis showed that:

• At crack depths from 4.5 cm to 14.3 cm measured visually and a crack width from 0.05 mm to
0.30 mm, the relative error was from 0.97% to 61.67%.
• At crack depths from 19.2 cm to 20.2 cm measured visually and crack width from 0.50 mm to
0.60 mm, the relative error was 47.58% to 50.75%.
• At crack depths from 21.1 cm to 25.7 cm measured visually and crack width from 1.10 mm to
1.30 mm, the relative error was 10.14% to 38.49%.
• According to [18], the visually determined crack depths are greater than those determined by the
NDUPVM and it was confirmed by the present research.
• Measured values for tno crack and tcrack had good consistency and the obtained standard deviations
were low. It proves that the measurements were properly made.
• The standard deviations for all, but the common crack width of 0.15 mm, εc values were acceptable
for such measurements.
• The biggest value of εc for the common crack’s width showed that these cracks were mainly
affected by external exposure.

5. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of experimental studies on the measurement of cracks depths in
reinforced concrete elements by NDUPVM and by visual observation. The transmitting time of the
ultrasonic pulse in concrete without cracks and defects, and such in cracks with widths from 0.05 to
1.3 mm and depths from 4.8 to 25.5 cm were determined by the NDUPVM. The depths and widths
of normal cracks were also determined visually using a crack magnifier. Maximum, minimum, and
mean value of tcrack and standard deviation at different crack widths, maximum, minimum, and mean
value of cUPVM and standard deviation for the corresponding crack widths, and maximum, minimum,
and mean value of εc , and standard deviation for the corresponding crack widths were obtained
and analyzed.
As we know, cracks in concrete appear because of tensile strain and the low tensile strength of
concrete, but also because of initial small defects, reinforcement, and imperfections, etc. Crack patterns
are unpredictable and follow mainly the tensile strain, but also gravels and imperfections in concrete.
All the non-destructive methods that can be used to access crack parameters have advantages and
disadvantages. The best method still does not exist.
Traditional methods of diagnostics, assessment, and analysis of building structures are destructive,
more costly, and labor intensive. NDT methods are being developed and implemented more and more
worldwide that allow the properties of the building materials used and the quality of the elements and
structures to be controlled repeatedly, both during their construction and during different stages of
their exploitation.
Analyzing the obtained results, some important conclusion can be defined:

• The present study confirmed the possibility of using NDUPVM for the assessment of reinforced
concrete structures and the possibility for obtaining information about the homogeneity of
the reinforced concrete, for detection of caverns and cracks, and assessment of the quality of
the construction.
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 13 of 15

• Measuring, processing, analyzing, and interpreting the obtained results required careful data
collection, high qualification of the researchers, and expert analysis.
• All measured crack depths by the NDUPVM were smaller than the real ones.
• This research confirmed that the visually determined crack depths were greater than those
determined by the NDUPVM.
• The direct exposure on external atmospheric impacts, such as rain, snow, etc. had an influence on
the accuracy of the NDUPVM measurements.
• The relative error εc varied in a wide range, between 0.97% and 61.67%, and it was not possible to
predict the real value of crack depth only by NDUPVM in the case of direct exposure of external
atmospheric impacts over the examined structures.
• Further research is required to systematize the methods for detecting defects and cracks in
reinforced concrete.
• It is necessary to extend the research on beams with different shape, reinforcement ratio, concrete
grade, etc., and on other structural elements, like slabs, columns, walls, etc.

Limitations in the usage of NDUPVM are required if the investigated elements were exposed to
direct atmospheric conditions. This is especially important when examining slabs, walls, and other
elements without clear access and if it is impossible to verify the NDUPVM by visual observation or by
another method.
Authors recommend finally that two different methods should be used in the structural condition
assessment of concrete elements, including crack depth determination. A combination of NDUPVM
with visual observation is still one of the best solutions in most common cases.
The results of this study will contribute to the faster, reliable, and inexpensive control required for
the safe exploitation of buildings and facilities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.I. and V.S.; methodology, I.I. and V.S.; formal analysis: I.I. and V.S.;
investigation: I.I. and V.S.; resources, I.I. and V.S.; writing—I.I. and V.S.; writing—review and editing, I.I. and V.S.;
visualization, I.I. and V.S.; supervision, I.I. and V.S.; project administration, I.I. and V.S.; funding acquisition, I.I.
and V.S.
Funding: This research was supported by the research grant No. KP-06-OPR01/3-2018 for the project “Creation
of a flexible methodology for development and management of innovative project in scientific organizations”
(2018/2021) funded by National Science Fund, “Competition for Financial Support for Basic Research Projects on
Societal Challenges 2018”, Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zaharieva-Gueorguieva, B. Theoretical and Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Elements of High
Strength Concrete Loaded on Compression and Bending. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Architecture, Civil Eng.
and Geodesy (UACG), Sofia, Bulgaria, 1991.
2. Rusev, K.; Kardjiev, V.; Traykova, M.; Yanchev, V.; Andreev, M.; Nikolova, B.; Barakova, N.; Hristov, P.;
Stefanov, G.; Georgiev, E.; et al. Manual on Reinforced Concrete Eurocode 2; Chamber of Engineers in the
Investment Design: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2011.
3. Dimov, D. Non-Destructive Testing of Building Structures; Direct Services: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2011.
4. Concu, G.; Trulli, N. Concrete Defects Sizing by Means of Ultrasonic Velocity Maps. J. Build. 2018, 8, 176.
[CrossRef]
5. Ivanchev, I.; Slavchev, V. Experimental Determination of Homogeneity, Compressive Strength and Modulus
of Elasticity of Concrete in Reinforced Concrete Elements by Non-Destructive Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Method. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on New Trends in Statics and Dynamics of
Buildings, Bratislava, Slovakia, 18–19 October 2018; Faculty of Civil Engineering STU Bratislava, Slovak
Society of Mechanics SAS: Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, 2018; pp. 179–184, ISBN 978-80-227-4845-2.
6. Ivanchev, I. Experimental Determination of Concrete Compressive Strength by Non-Destructive Ultrasonic
Pulse Velocity Method. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2018, 6, 2647–2651. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 14 of 15

7. Ivanchev, I. Experimental Determination of Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete by Non-Destructive Ultrasonic

Pulse Velocity Method. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2018, 6, 1929–1993. [CrossRef]
8. Kumar, S.; Santhanam, M. Detection of Concrete Damage Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method.
In Proceedings of the National Seminar on Non-Destructive Evaluation, Hyderabad, Indian Society for
Non-Destructive Testing Hyderabad Chapter, Hyderabad, India, 7–9 December 2006; pp. 301–308.
9. Lorenzi, A.; Tisbierek, F.; Pinto, L. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Analysis in Concrete Specimens. In Proceedings
of the IV Conferencia Panamericana de END, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 22–26 October 2007.
10. Kalyan, T.; Chandra Kishen, J. Experimental Evaluation of Cracks in Concrete by Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.
In Proceedings of the APCNDT 2013, Asia Pacific Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (14th APCNDT),
Mumbai, India, 18–22 November 2013.
11. Zatar, W. Assessing the Service Life of Corrosion-Deteriorated Reinforced Concrete Member Highway Bridges in West
Virginia; Prepared for the WVDOT/DOH RP# 234; West Virginia Department of Transportation: Charleston,
West Virginia, USA, 2014.
12. Proceq TICO, Operating Instructions, Ultrasonic Testing Instrument, Proceq SA, Switzerland. 2008. Available
online: http://www.abmbv.nl/files/proceq_tico_user_manual_en.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2014).
13. Bogas, J.; Gomes, M.; Gomes, A. Compressive strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by
non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method. Ultrasonics 2013, 53, 962–972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Ponchon, A. Determining of Crack Depths in Reinforced Concrete Elements with Non-Destructive Ultrasonic
Pulse Velocity Method. In Proceedings of the 16 International Conference on New Trends in Statics and
Dynamics of Buildings, Bratislava, Slovakia, 18–19 October 2018.
15. Omar, M. Nondestructive Testing Methods and New Applications; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012;
ISBN 978-953-51-0108-6.
16. Introduction to Nondestructive Testing; The American society for Non-Destructive Testing: Columbus, OH,
USA, 2019.
17. Arne, K.; Crack, C. Depth Measurement in Reinforced Concrete Using Ultrasonic Techniques. Master’s Thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014.
18. Panzera, T.; Christoforo, A.; Cota, F.; Borges, P.; Bowen, C. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Evaluation of Cementitious
Materials. In Advances in Composite Materials—Analysis of Natural and Man-Made Materials; InTech: InTech,
Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; ISBN 978-953-307-449-8.
19. ACI 228.2R-98. Nondestructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures; ACI Committee 228,
Chairman: Davis A.; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1998.
20. Mathey, R.; Clifon, J. Review of Nondestructive Evaluation Methods Applicable to Construction Materials and
Structures; NBS Technical Note 1247; U.S. Government Printing Office: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1988.
21. Ongpeng, J. Non-Destructive Testing Using Ultrasonic Waves in Reinforced Concrete. 2015. Available
online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282869893_NON-DESTRUCTIVE_TESTING_USING_
ULTRASONIC_WAVES_IN_REINFORCED_CONCRETE (accessed on 10 November 2015). [CrossRef]
22. Irie, H.; Yoshida, Y.; Sakurada, Y.; Ito, T. Non-destructive-testing Methods for Concrete Structures.
NTT Tech. Rev. 2008, 6, 1–8.
23. Aggelis, D.; Verbruggen, S.; Tsangouri, E.; Tysmans, T.; Van Hemelrijck, D. Characterization of mechanical
performance of concrete beams with external reinforcement by acoustic emission and digital image correlation.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1037–1045. [CrossRef]
24. Küntz, M.; Jolin, M.; Bastien, J.; Perez, F.; Hild, F. Digital image correlation analysis of crack behavior in a
reinforced concrete beam during a load test. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2006, 33, 1418–1425. [CrossRef]
25. Fayyad, T.; Lees, J. Application of Digital Image Correlation to reinforced concrete fracture. In Proceedings
of the, 20th European Conference on Fracture (ECF20), Trondheim, Norway, 30 June–4 July 2014; Elsevier:
Trondheim, Norway, 2014; Volume 3.
26. Alam, S.; Loukili, A. Application of digital image correlation to size effect tests of concrete. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Jeju, Korea,
23–28 May 2010.
27. Stoilov, G.; Kavardzhikov, V.; Pashkouleva, D. Comparative Study of Random Patterns for Digital Image
Correlation. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2012, 42, 55–66. [CrossRef]
28. Wan, K.; Leung, C. Applications of a distributed fiber optic crack sensor for concrete structures. Sens. Actuators
A Phys. 2007, 135, 458–464. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2019, 9, 202 15 of 15

29. Imai, M.; Nakano, R.; Kono, T.; Ichinomiya, T. Crack Detection Application for Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Using BOCDA-Based Optical Fiber Strain Sensor. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 136, 1001–1008. [CrossRef]
30. Casas, J.; Cruz, P. Fiber Optic Sensors for Bridge Monitoring. J. Bridge Eng. 2003, 8, 362–373. [CrossRef]
31. Silva, M.; Rocha, J.; Monteiro, E.; Póvoas, Y.; Rabbani, E. Evaluation of the ultrasound test for estimating the
depth of cracks in concrete. Rev. ALCONPAT 2018, 9, 79–92. [CrossRef]
32. EN 12504-4:2004 Testing Concrete—Part 4: Determination of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity; CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2014.
33. Prime, F.; Solutions, C. 3 Methods for Crack Depth Measurement in Concrete. 2017. Available online:
https://www.fprimec.com/3-methods-crack-depth-measurement-in-concrete/ (accessed on 1 February 2018).
34. Adamatti, D.; Lorenzi, A.; Chies, J.; Silva Filho, L. Analysis of reinforced concrete structures through the
ultrasonic pulse velocity: Technological parameters involved. Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater 2017, 10, 358–385.
[CrossRef]
35. Hasbullah, M.; Yusof, R.; Yusoff, M. Assessing the Performance of Concrete Structure Based on the Width of
the Crack Using UPV. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2017, 12, 17–25.
36. Ahn, E.; Kim, H.; Sim, S.H.; Shin, S.; Shin, M. Principles and Applications of Ultrasonic-Based Nondestructive
Methods for Self-Healing in Cementitious Materials. J. List Mater. (Basel) 2017, 10, 278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Snyder, K.; Sung, L.; Cheok, G. Nondestructive Testing (NDT) and Sensor Technology for Service Life Modeling of
New and Existing Concrete Structures; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD,
USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
38. Ahmad, N.; Rahim, R.; Rahim, H.; Rahiman, M. A Review of Ultrasonic Application on Non-destructive
Testing Method for Concrete Structure. J. Teknol. 2014, 70, 119–122. [CrossRef]
39. Naik, T.; Malhotra, V.; Popovics, J. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method. In Handbook on Nondestructive
Testing of Concrete; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
40. Guidebook on Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete Structures IAEA; IAEA–TCS–17; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2002;
ISSN 1018-5518.
41. Malhotra, V.; Carino, N. Handbook on Second Edition Nondestructive Testing of Concrete; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2004.
42. PROCEQ. Available online: https://www.proceq.com/ (accessed on 7 November 2014).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).