×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

GPR vs Ultrasonic

GPR vs Ultrasonic

GPR vs Ultrasonic

(OP)
We have a case where some new, large columns were constructed of CIP concrete and there are some surface voids after the form work was removed. The client is concerned that there may be voids in the center of the column as well. We don't believe this to be the case, despite having ties passing through the column, however the client still wants to check.

The client would like to use ground penetrating radar equipment, while we advocate using ultrasonic scanners. Do any of you have any comments on the advantages and disadvantages of these two technologies to be used in this case?

Thanks in advance...


-5^2 = -25 winky smile

http://www.eng-tips.com/supportus.cfm

RE: GPR vs Ultrasonic

Maybe Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

We've used GPR on vertical surfaces of some concrete rigid frame bridges to search for voids. It's a simple process. The technician uses a probe that looks like a paint roller. If the rebar is closely spaced it sometimes creates problems picking up voids behind the bars. I's relatively quick but has depth limitations, about 18"

I also had another project - retaining wall replacement - that used ultrasound (impact-echo) to determine the thickness of the stem (no as-built drawings available). It's not as fast as GPR. It seemed to work; we got a good image of the wall. I say seemed because this part of the project was done by a subconsultant and he hired the ultrasound service. I never witnessed anything; it was about 8 -9 years ago and I don't have the project files in the office anymore.

RE: GPR vs Ultrasonic

If you are worried about areas behind the areas with surface problems, GPR may not work on rougher surfcaes. If you have good access to opposite faces, I would go with pitch and catch UPV. You can use the rubber mold (we've even used plumber's putty) on rough surfaces to get good transducer contact. If you want to go high-tech (and high $$), then go shear-wave tomography on smooth surfaces.

Also, recommend a few small cores or small bit drilling to validate NDT.

IC

RE: GPR vs Ultrasonic

...and if nothing is found, testing is at the client's nickel... a criteria for costs should be determined first. Often with improper consolidation, voids occur between the rebar cage and the formwork.

(Added)Do you have any photos?

Dik

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources