Comparison of Nondestructive Methods for Detecting Reinforcing Bar Placement

被引:0
|
作者
Burney, David C. [1 ]
Kurtis, Kimberly E. [2 ]
Jacobs, Laurence J. [3 ]
Sherman, Ryan J. [4 ]
机构
[1] Lewis & Clark Coll, Portland, OR 97219 USA
[2] Georgia Inst Technol, Sch Mat Sci & Engn, Civil & Environm Engn, Atlanta, GA USA
[3] Georgia Inst Technol, Civil & Environm & Mech Engn, Atlanta, GA USA
[4] Georgia Inst Technol, Civil & Environm Engn, Atlanta, GA USA
关键词
cover; dowel; eddy current; epoxy-coated; galvanized; ground-penetrating radar (GPR); quality assurance; stainless steel; CONCRETE;
D O I
10.14359/51742260
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Despite improvements in nondestructive testing (NDT) technologies, the quality assurance of concrete reinforcing bar placement is still primarily conducted with conventional methodologies, which can be time-consuming, ineffective, and damaging to the concrete components. This study investigated the performance of two commercially available cover meters and one groundpenetrating radar (GPR) device. A cover meter was found to have the greatest accuracy for depths smaller than 3.19 in. (81.0 mm), while the GPR performed better for greater depths. The effect of reinforcing bar depth, diameter, and type; neighboring reinforcing bars; and concrete conditioning on the performance of the devices was quantified. The use of epoxy-coated reinforcing bar, galvanized reinforcing bar, and stainless-steel reinforcing bar were found to have a negligible effect on cover meter accuracy. A model was developed to predict the precision of the GPR post-measurement analysis given a depth and concrete dielectric constant.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 40
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Gastrostomy placement in paediatrics: comparison of two methods
    Steyaert, H.
    Lecompte, J. -F.
    Triolo, V.
    ARCHIVES DE PEDIATRIE, 2010, 17 (06): : 752 - 753
  • [32] Comparison of three nondestructive methods for determination of vegetable surface area
    Furness, NH
    Upadhyaya, A
    Upadhyaya, MK
    HORTSCIENCE, 2002, 37 (03) : 550 - 553
  • [33] Comparison of American and European methods for attestation of nondestructive testing specialists
    Khening, D.
    Defektoskopiya, 1994, (07): : 38 - 45
  • [34] Comparison of magnetic nondestructive methods applied for inspection of steel degradation
    Takahashi, S.
    Kobayashi, S.
    Tomas, I.
    Dupre, L.
    Vertesy, G.
    NDT & E INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 91 : 54 - 60
  • [36] COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR DETECTING CHLAMYDIA-TRACHOMATIS
    RIDGWAY, GL
    ORIEL, JD
    MUMTAZ, G
    MELLARS, B
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1986, 39 (02) : 232 - 233
  • [37] Comparison of computerized methods for detecting the ventilatory thresholds
    Santos, EL
    Giannella-Neto, A
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY, 2004, 93 (03) : 315 - 324
  • [38] COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS FOR DETECTING OVULATION IN CATTLE
    HOWES, JR
    WARNICK, AC
    HENTGES, JF
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 1960, 11 (05) : 508 - 517
  • [39] A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Examinee Preknowledge of Items
    Wang, Xi
    Liu, Yang
    Robin, Frederic
    Guo, Hongwen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TESTING, 2019, 19 (03) : 207 - 226
  • [40] Comparison of computerized methods for detecting the ventilatory thresholds
    Edil Luis Santos
    Antonio Giannella-Neto
    European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2004, 93 : 315 - 324