Next Article in Journal
Developments in Quantifying the Response Factors Required for Linear Analytical and Seismic Design Procedures
Next Article in Special Issue
Modified Constitutive Models and Mechanical Properties of GFRP after High-Temperature Cooling
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Studies and Finite Element Analysis of Socket-Type Keyway Steel Pipe Scaffolding
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Flexural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Internal and External AR-Glass Textile Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/buildings14010246
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

by
Jesús D. Ortiz
1,*,
Seyed Saman Khedmatgozar Dolati
2,*,
Pranit Malla
2,
Armin Mehrabi
2 and
Antonio Nanni
1
1
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33174, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(1), 246; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010246
Submission received: 15 December 2023 / Revised: 3 January 2024 / Accepted: 11 January 2024 / Published: 16 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Construction)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites offer a corrosion-resistant, lightweight, and durable alternative to traditional steel material in concrete structures. However, the lack of established inspection methods for assessing reinforced concrete elements with externally bonded FRP (EB-FRP) composites hinders industry-wide confidence in their adoption. This study addresses this gap by investigating non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques for detecting damage and defects in EB-FRP concrete elements. As such, this study first identified and categorized potential damage in EB-FRP concrete elements considering where and why they occur. The most promising NDT methods for detecting this damage were then analyzed. And lastly, experiments were carried out to assess the feasibility of the selected NDT methods for detecting these defects. The result of this study introduces infrared thermography (IR) as a proper method for identifying defects underneath the FRP system (wet lay-up). The IR was capable of highlighting defects as small as 625 mm2 (1 in.2) whether between layers (debonding) or between the substrate and FRP (delamination). It also indicates the inability of GPR to detect damage below the FRP laminates, while indicating the capability of PAU to detect concrete delamination and qualitatively identify bond damage in the FRP system. The outcome of this research can be used to provide guidance for choosing effective on-site NDT techniques, saving considerable time and cost for inspection. Importantly, this study also paves the way for further innovation in damage detection techniques addressing the current limitations.

1. Introduction

1.1. FRP Composites

In steel-reinforced concrete (RC) structures, corrosion poses a significant problem, causing the loss of cross-sectional area, deterioration of the rebar-to-concrete bond, and deterioration of the concrete cover [1,2]. Various methods exist to prevent or mitigate corrosion, along with techniques for strengthening, repairing, and retrofitting deteriorated structures. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites offer an alternative to steel for strengthening purposes due to their mechanical properties and chemical resistance [3,4,5]. They are favored for their strength-to-weight ratio, ease of installation, and adaptability to curved surfaces. FRP composites can be produced using various types of fibers, such as glass, carbon, basalt, and aramid [6,7,8,9]. Thermosetting resins, such as polyester, epoxy, and vinyl ester, are commonly employed with fibers in the production of FRP composites.
Extensive research efforts have been dedicated to examining the long-term durability of FRP materials. The findings indicate that FRP materials exhibit minimal degradation over extended periods [10]. Additionally, when compared to traditional materials, FRP composites display superior resistance to salt, water, and various chemicals. Notably, substances like oil and other heavy hydrocarbons have a comparatively reduced impact on FRP composites in comparison to their effects on conventional materials [11,12,13,14]. The aging process typically results in the need of repairs in conventional steel-RC structures. Furthermore, structural elements often require strengthening and retrofitting due to design and construction errors, damage from exceptional events or accidental impacts, natural disasters, and functional modifications [15,16].
FRP laminates (i.e., wraps/fabrics, strips, and plates) are the most common externally bonded FRP (EB-FRP) systems for strengthening existing structures. The application techniques can be categorized into ‘wet lay-up’, ‘prepreg’, and ‘precured’ systems. In a ‘wet lay-up’ system, the resin impregnation occurs on site, while in a ‘prepreg’ system, it takes place at the manufacturer’s facility, with the resin matrix being partially cured beforehand. Conversely, ‘precured’ FRP systems, which are manufactured off site, are available in multiple forms [17]. Commonly, the same polymer resin is also employed to act as an adhesive in plates or as a primer, putty coat, and saturant in ‘wet lay-up’ systems [18].

1.2. Application of EB-FRP Systems

The utilization of FRP composites in concrete bridges has experienced substantial growth in recent decades. EB-FRP systems are generally applied to the tension side of the concrete girders, beams, and slabs to enhance their flexural strength. They can also be used to provide additional shear strength when applied on the sides of beams and girders. In seismic zones, FRP wraps can be used for columns to increase pseudo-ductility due to the induced confinement of the concrete [19]. Although, research studies have indicated substantial increases in flexural ultimate strength, often ranging from 40% to 95%, and stiffness, typically showing improvements of 17% to 95% [20,21,22], design guidelines impose strengthening limits to guard against collapse of the structure. The effectiveness of these applications depends on factors like proper anchorage systems, reinforcement configuration, and FRP type. Due to its ease of installation, the wet-layup system is preferred over other systems when used as an externally bonded strengthening material. Figure 1 shows a typical application procedure for EB-FRP systems. Before strengthening, the extent of deficiency and suitability of FRP strengthening should be evaluated. Surface preparation, which removes contamination and weak surface layers, is one of the most important steps in adhesive bonding of composite laminates to the concrete elements [23,24,25]. Improper surface preparation can lead to premature failure of bonded FRP sheets due to rupture/debonding [26]. It is crucial to ensure that fibers are thoroughly wetted, and the amount of resin is maintained at the minimum level as per the manufacturer’s recommendations.
While a wide variety of fiber and resin combinations exist, carbon FRP (CFRP) with epoxy resin stands out as the most employed type for external applications (strengthening) in RC elements within the US market. It has been extensively studied in the available literature and it has consistently demonstrated superior performance in aggressive environments (typically, there is less than a 10% reduction in tensile strength when subjected to harsh environmental conditions), and its higher stiffness, compare to other types of FRPs [27], makes it more suitable for strengthening applications.
Buildings 14 00246 g001
Figure 1. Application of an Externally Bonded FRP system [28]; (a) surface preparation; (b) application of resin and FRP sheets; (c) coating and finishes.
Figure 1. Application of an Externally Bonded FRP system [28]; (a) surface preparation; (b) application of resin and FRP sheets; (c) coating and finishes.
Buildings 14 00246 g001
Several organizations have developed guidelines for the design of reinforced concrete structures externally bonded with FRP composites [29,30,31]. For external application, different systems can be used for strengthening, retrofitting, or repairing of RC elements that are normally reinforced with conventional steel. However, there are currently no established inspection protocols for evaluation and maintaining structures exposed to demanding environments or dealing with potential issues in the FRP system. These issues in FRP applications can be traced back to various causes, encompassing mechanical, environmental, and design considerations, as well as fabrication and workmanship [27].

1.3. Inspection of EB-FRP Concrete Elements

Nondestructive testing (NDT), in general, is defined as “an examination, test, or evaluation performed on any type of test object without changing or altering that object in any way, in order to determine the absence or presence of conditions or discontinuities that may have an effect on the usefulness or serviceability of that object.” [32]. NDT methods have been increasingly used for quality control, quality assurance and quality assessment of both new and old structures [33,34,35]. Many NDT techniques, such as visual inspection (VT) [36,37], tap testing (TT) [38,39,40,41,42], impact echo testing (IE) [43,44,45,46,47], microwave testing (MW) [48,49,50,51,52,53], ground penetrating radar (GPR) [54,55,56,57,58], ultrasonic testing (UT) or phased array ultrasonic testing (PAU) [59,60,61,62,63,64], infrared thermography testing (IR) [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64], acoustic emission testing (AE) [65,66,67,68], laser testing (LT) [69,70,71,72,73,74], radiographic testing (RT) [75], etc., have been studied for detecting damage in the externally applied FRP composites.
The external application of FRP composites to strengthen/repair RC structures involves three materials: internal reinforcement (typically steel rebars, with the potential for future adoption of FRP rebars), and concrete and FRP composites (wet lay-up system), along with the different interfaces. Defects associated with the external application of FRP composites can occur within either of the three materials or at the interface between them [15].
The present study was divided in the following tasks: The initial step involved identifying and classifying the location of potential damage and defects in externally bonded FRP (EB-FRP) concrete elements. This included determining where the damage occurs on the element (i.e., rebar, concrete, or interface, as seen in Figure 2). Understanding “where” the potential defects can occur was crucial to further investigation, as it facilitated precise targeting of the specific location. Along with the “where”, it was essential to address the timing and reasons behind the occurrence of damage. This involved investigating the factors that contribute to defects/damage in FRP external applications and when they manifest (i.e., during fabrication or service life). Understanding the “why” and “when” helped uncover the root causes of the potential defects/damage. Building upon the understanding of the location, timing, and causes, the subsequent step was to conduct a literature review focusing on the damage and defects of EB-FRP concrete elements. The objective was to identify and classify observed and potential damage comprehensively. This step aimed to answer the question of “what” potential defects/damage exist. Finally, an experimental phase was carried out to assess the selected NDTs. Two small-scale slabs were fabricated with different rebars and internal/external defects to evaluate the feasibility of the chosen NDT method. The findings of this research offer a reference for inspectors in choosing the most suitable on-site NDT techniques, with the prospect of saving both time and cost significantly.

2. Location of Potential Defects or Damage

The term “defect” can be defined as “discontinuity whose size, shape, orientation or location (1) makes it detrimental to the useful service of its host object or (2) exceeds an accept/reject criterion of an applicable specification” [76], while damage can be defined as “changes introduced into a system that adversely affect its current or future performance” [77]. Defects denote material-level anomalies, while damage encompasses the combination of these material-level imperfections, ultimately evolving into system-level deterioration. Breaking down the EB-FRP concrete element into its distinct components enables a focused approach to examine the potential defects and damage that may arise during its service life. Initially, potential damage and defects in EB-FRP concrete elements were categorized based on their likely locations, i.e., where they occur, typically falling into three distinct groups: (1) defects in FRP composites (i.e., FRP composites (F)); (2) bond defects (i.e., FRP–adhesive interface (I-FA), adhesive (A), and adhesive–concrete interface (I-AC); and (3) defects in concrete (i.e., concrete (C) and concrete–steel rebar interface (I-CS)) [15]. In a prior study, the authors classified damage based on its location and initiation time, while also identifying its sources. Figure 2 illustrates the location of the most likely defects in EB-FRP concrete elements [15].

3. Damage and Defects in EB-FRP Concrete Elements

Once the locations of potential defects have been determined and the question “where do they occur?” has been answered, it is important to establish “what” damage and defects exist that affect the performance of the EB-FRP concrete element. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 present the defects shown in Figure 2 with brief descriptions. These defects were identified based on the available literature [6,33,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87] and can be further explored in Malla et al. (2023) [15] for more in-depth information.

4. Source of Damage

After locations and potential defects (“where” and “what”) have been determined, it is important to establish the possible sources of these defects/damage (“why”) as well as the timing during the service life when they occur (“when”). Based on the existing literature reports on similar studies [88], the causes of defects in FRP application can be categorized into four main sources. These sources include fabrication and workmanship, design factors, mechanical factors, and environmental factors, as presented in Table 4. The initial two sources are associated with the construction process of the EB-FRP concrete element, encompassing the manufacturing of the FRP composite, the design of the RC element, and its subsequent construction. The latter two occur during the in-service stage.
The classification of damage/defects in EB-FRP concrete elements and their sources are depicted in Figure 3. The damage is classified based on “when” they could occur. Malla et al. (2023) [15] and Ortiz et al. (2023) [27] provide more in-depth information about the source of the damage. Each defect is rationally related to its possible cause.

5. NDT Methods Applicable to EB-FRP Concrete Elements

A previous study by the authors reviewed the applicability of available non-destructive testing (NDT) methods for detecting damage in structural elements reinforced or strengthened with FRP [89]. An extensive literature survey was conducted, encompassing over 100 past studies on the application of NDT methods in detecting damage in FRP for external applications. The damage detectability was divided into seven groups: i. surface Anomalies (F.1–F.5), ii. defects within FRP composite layers (F.6–F.10), iii. bond defects (I-FA, A, I-AC), iv. cracks in concrete (C.1), v. voids in concrete (C.2), vi. delamination in concrete (C.3), vii. steel reinforcement defects (I-CS). The most promising methods were selected and are summarized in Table 5, along with the percentage of applicability in the available literature for detecting each of the seven groups of damage. Khedmatgozar Dolati et al. (2023) [89] can be consulted for a deeper explanation on each NDT method. The following is a brief description of the most used NDT methods found in the available literature.
  • Visual Inspection (VT): A common, versatile, and straightforward NDT method, is used to identify surface defects in EB-FRP concrete elements. Although some researchers do not consider VT as an NDT method, it completely fits the definition of NDT method as described earlier in this paper. In any case, it is a fast and cost-effective method, and provides real-time results, serving as a baseline for other NDT techniques. Based on its findings, decisions can be made about further inspection. However, it can only detect surface defects and may be subjective, depending on individual perception.
  • Tap Testing (TT): This method detects defects by analyzing changes in stiffness and sound frequency upon impact. It is a quick, cost-effective, and user-friendly approach for inspecting large areas in real-time, but its results are subjective and can vary due to differences in applied force, angle, and equipment. Misinterpretations may occur due to ambient noise and geometric changes.
  • Impact Echo Testing (IE): This method relies on stress waves from an impact to identify subsurface defects in materials, particularly in concrete. It is effective for evaluating issues like cracks and delamination. By using lower frequencies, it can penetrate deeper and requires access to only one surface for testing. However, its applicability is limited to materials up to 40 inches thick. Skilled operators are needed, and it may have difficulty detecting smaller cracks and discontinuities.
  • Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR): This method uses radio waves to pass through a material and detects reflections from any interfaces between materials or subsurface defects like voids, cracks, debonding, and delamination. It can go beyond concrete–air interfaces, inspecting features below, and identifying defects at greater depths than some other NDT methods. It is not effective for detecting air-filled defects.
  • Ultrasonic Testing (UT) and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAU): This method uses the reflection of ultrasonic waves at material interfaces with differing acoustic impedances to locate defects. It excels in identifying defects in concrete and composites due to the strong reflection caused by these flaws. It offers fast and field-friendly testing with good resolution, capable of penetrating materials and detecting various defects. It necessitates highly trained personnel for conducting and interpreting tests and is primarily suitable for materials of limited thickness. PAU uses multiple transducer elements in a phased array probe to enable precise control.
  • Infrared Thermography Testing (IR): This method relies on differences in thermal properties between anomalies and sound areas within the material. By measuring surface temperature, it can detect subsurface defects to some extent. It is particularly suitable for inspecting larger surface areas quickly and cost-effectively, with real-time data interpretation. However, it is not reliable for detecting water-filled defects, has limitations in identifying deep-seated defects in concrete, and necessitates specific environmental conditions for optimal results.
The results from their literature review indicated that IR, GPR, and UT can be considered the most applicable methods for detecting bond defects [89]. For damage detection within FRP composites (e.g., debonding, voids, delamination at layers), UT, IR, and TT have been recognized as the most suitable ones. For concrete damage detection, UT, IRT, GPR, and IE have emerged as the most promising approaches. For all FRP surface anomalies, visual testing (VT) is proposed. Overall, GPR has been selected as the most effective NDT method for detecting different types of damage in FRP strengthened concrete elements followed by UT, as shown in Table 5.
GPR with high frequency antennas of about 2 GHz was able to easily detect debonding and delamination. A 1.5 GHz ground-coupled GPR antenna was effective for water-filled voids (as small as 50 × 50 × 1.5 mm3). Air-filled voids could not be detected because of CFRP’s higher electrical conductivity that leads to higher attenuation and smaller echoes [90]. However, it exhibits limitations in accuracy and frequency dependencies when assessing various structural defects. UT was able to detect debonding of 6.3 mm in diameter and qualitatively detect debonding and voids. Studies confirmed its efficacy in detecting and locating typical FRP defects. It was able to detect flaws as small as 0.8 mm with a penetration depth of 25 mm. IR detected air-filled debonding of sizes 75 mm × 75 mm, 50 mm × 50 mm, and 35 mm × 35 mm along with water-filled debonding. It also detected near-surface voids (<10 cm from surface). Furthermore, it provided qualitative detection of delamination.

6. Experimental Verification—Inspection of EB-FRP Concrete Elements

6.1. Materials and Constrcution

In order to assess the most promising NDT methods for damage detection in EB-FRP concrete elements (i.e., VT, TT, GRP, UT, IR), two small-scale slab specimens were fabricated (as shown in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Slab M’ was 760 mm (30 in.) wide by 760 mm (30 in.) long and 178 mm (7 in.) deep, and Slab Q’ was 904 mm (36 in.) wide by 904 mm (36 in.) long and 178 mm (7 in.) deep. The concrete mix used to cast the slab specimens was ‘Class II 4500 Bridgedeck’ concrete, as per the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). This class specified a guaranteed compressive strength of 31 MPa (4500 psi). Type II Cement was used with a water to a cementitious material ratio (w/m) of 0.44, and #57 stone and silica sand were used as coarse and fine aggregate, respectively. To obtain the actual strength value, concrete cylinders were fabricated and tested according to ASTM C39 [91]. An average compressive strength of 31.7 MPa (4600 psi) was obtained with a standard deviation of 0.69 MPa (100 MPa).
To eliminate the need for plastic chairs/spacers or internal supports for the rebars, openings were made in the sides of the formwork and the rebars were inserted through them for support. In Slab M’, the internal steel reinforcement was located in different depths in order to target different possible concrete covers (see Figure 4). Additionally, as in a future FRP-RC elements will become more available and they could also require strengthening and retrofitting, Slab Q’ was constructed using different internal reinforcement types (i.e., glass-, carbon-FRP, and steel rebars). In this case, they were all located at the same depth since this slab had defects and damage within the concrete, as shown in Figure 5. The reason to incorporate different reinforcement types was also to evaluate the detectability of these materials when an EB-FRP system is used.
Four types of defects in concrete were simulated to evaluate the feasibility of different NDT methods when an EB-FRP system is applied on the surface of the element. These defects were selected based on the literature review of prior phase (i.e., C1 to C3 in Table 3). Delamination, flexural and split cracks, as well as voids in the concrete, were simulated in Slab Q’ using thin architectural polystyrene foam (thickness of 6.35 mm or 1/4”) held in place with the use of epoxy as shown in Figure 5a.

6.2. Defects Generation for EB-FRP Concrete Elements

External application commonly refers to the installation of an FRP system, typically a wet-layup system where an FRP fabric/sheet is impregnated with resin in situ to facilitate the strengthening process. To simulate the common/potential defects of external FRP applications, two layers of an CFRP unidirectional system was applied on one face of the slab. Two different types of defects were generated to evaluate the feasibility of application of the selected NDT methods. The first, “adhesive–concrete debonding” (or FRP composite–concrete debonding in general) was generated by placing a thin film of 1.2 mm expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) on the surface of the concrete before impregnating it with resin. Figure 6a shows the first layer of defects also with a 40 μm thin film of polyethylene; however, this material was more difficult to bond to the concrete surface and prevent movement during installation. The second defect, FRP–adhesive debonding or delamination between layers of FRP sheets in a composite, was simulated by applying the same thin film (polystyrene foam) between the CFRP layers, thus creating a discontinuity between the layers. Figure 5 shows the strengthening application process.

7. Results and Discussion

7.1. Visual Inspection (VT)

Visual inspections were conducted on the EB-FRP slab specimens to identify various defects and damage such as fiber kinks, waviness, swelling, bubbles, voids, debonding, delamination, peeling, cracking, and fiber breakage (Figure 7), with further tap testing to confirm defects in areas suspected of having air pockets. Inspectors should also watch for signs of internal steel reinforcement damage, like corrosion, indicating potential concrete deterioration beneath the FRP layer. Visual inspection is limited to determining the location and quantity of defects/damage that appear on the surface, while additional NDT like UT, GPR, and IR may be needed to accurately size defects or locate those not visible on the surface, such as voids. The visual inspection on Slab M’ and Q’ successfully detected defects simulated with polystyrene foam but struggled to identify those created using thinner and denser polyethylene cutouts, suggesting that delamination without bulging of the laminate could be challenging to perceive.

7.2. Tap Testing (TT)

Tap testing (TT) was conducted over the suspected areas determined from visual inspection and over remaining areas with at least one strike per 0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft), as shown in Figure 8. The procedure was executed on the external FRP application to discern variations in sound between bonded and unbonded laminate. It is similar to the one performed over concrete elements by bridge inspectors trained to hear the difference between concrete with and without delamination. The tap testing conducted successfully detected all simulated defects and damage in Slab M’ and Q’. Small areas of 625 mm2 (1 in.2) were detected with TT. Typically, delamination less than 1300 mm2 (2 in.2) is permissible as long as the delaminated area is less than 5% of the total laminate area and there are no more than 10 such delaminations per 1 m2 (10 ft2) [30].

7.3. Infrarred Thermography (IR)

Infrared thermography was conducted on the slab specimens to identify minor defects and damage beneath the laminate, which may not have been detected through visual inspection and tap testing. The test relied on solar heating to establish a thermal gradient between the defective and intact areas. In cases where the slabs had maintained a uniform temperature across the top surface due to prolonged sun exposure prior to testing, a canopy was employed to induce the necessary thermal gradient. All defects and damage appeared as thermal anomalies or hot spots in the infrared images of the slabs (Figure 9). These anomalies recorded temperatures of about 49 °C (120 °F) in contrast to approximate 40 °C (105 °F) registered in the sound element. The IR was capable of highlighting defects as small as 625 mm2 (1 in.2), but the most favorable results were observed in the 2500 mm2 (4 in.2), whether between layers (delamination) or between the substrate and FRP (debonding). The B1 defect (delamination between layers) in Slab Q’ was created using a 40 μm polyethylene film, making it harder to identify the defect. However, this demonstrates that IR could detect delamination without bulging with the adequate expertise of the inspector.

7.4. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)

The externally applied CFRP sheets on Slabs M’ and Q’ acted as a reflective surface for GPR devices due to their conductivity. GPR line scans (Figure 10) indicated significant interference, with multiple hyperbolas and reflections, making it challenging to discern any targets beneath the CFRP layer. The distinctive hyperbolas representing the four steel rebars embedded in Slab M’ before the application of the EB-FRP system, were no longer discernible in the line scan conducted over the slab with the EB-CFRP layer, as displayed in Figure 10 (perpendicular to the direction of the rebars). No information about external defects could be detected. No tests were conducted for the external application of GFRP sheets in this study, primarily because the vast majority of external FRP applications utilize CFRP due to its higher strength and stiffness. Therefore, it remains a possibility that GPR could detect anomalies in the concrete substrate if GFRP sheets were employed.

7.5. Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAU)

The advantage of employing PAU instead of a GPR device for inspecting externally applied FRP systems is its ability to penetrate conductive FRP layers, such as CFRP layers. The individual B-scan (line scan) of Slab Q’ with externally applied CFRP sheets, obtained during a PAU stripe scan, revealed the detectability of internal features like a 230 mm × 76 mm (9 in. × 3 in.) concrete delamination (Figure 11i) and steel rebars (Figure 11iii), which was not achievable using GPR. Although, in Figure 11ii, it is evident that a debonding introduced between the first layer of CFRP and the concrete substrate is clearly detectable, the size of this defect cannot be clearly established (in this case, it was a 100 mm × 100 mm (4 in. × 4 in.) debonding). However, this defect also acts as a strong reflector for nearly all ultrasonic waves, which explains why Figure 11ii appears uniformly red beneath the top surface. This implies that it is not possible to detect internal features immediately beneath the defects or damage on the top surface using PAU. Furthermore, other simulated defects such as voids and cracks could not be detected using PAU.
The effectiveness of the evaluated NDT methods (i.e., GPR, PAU, VT, TT, and IR) for inspection of EB-FRP concrete elements is presented in Table 6. They were classified into three different categories based on the detectability of the introduce defect: D (Detectable) if the defect was detectable either quantitative or qualitative; LD (Limited Detectability) is based on size of defect/damage; and ND (Not Detectable) if the defect cannot be either quantitatively or qualitatively detected by the technique evaluated.

8. Conclusions

This study examined the types, characteristics, and identification of damage and defects that were either observed or expected in EB-FRP concrete elements. The defects and damage were categorized based on their location, time of initiation, and sources. The inspection of FRP-EB concrete elements can be categorized into three main groups. The first category focuses on visible surface damage and defects within the FRP composite. The second category involves inspecting damage within the FRP composite and at the bond layer between the FRP and concrete. The third category concentrates on identifying damage and defects in the concrete substrate itself. The most promising non-destructive testing (NDT) methods were reviewed and subsequently evaluated in small-scale EB-FRP concrete slabs. By offering a structured framework for inspecting structures utilizing wet lay-up carbon FRP systems, the findings of this study can serve as the foundation for the development of a guide and training materials for the inspection of structures employing wet lay-up carbon FRP systems.
  • The externally applied FRP system should be visually examined thoroughly to identify surface anomalies, including blister-like formations, exposed fibers, surface scratches, and cracks. Signs of moisture and water stains near joints or lower areas underneath the structure. Surface anomalies observed in the externally applied FRP may indicate defects within the FRP composite or bonding issues between the FRP and concrete.
  • Inspecting FRP composite defects and bond issues may necessitate NDT methods beyond visual inspection (VT). Tap testing (TT) is suitable for detecting bond defects to prevent the separation of externally applied FRP system from the concrete substrate. Additionally, IR can be employed for quantitative defect assessment within the FRP composite or between the FRP and concrete, capable of detecting areas as small as 625 mm2. PAU can be employed for qualitative assessment of the EB-FRP.
  • Inspecting hidden concrete under external FRP is challenging but achievable by noting evidence of internal defects (e.g., detecting FRP tearing due to concrete spalling), observing anomalies deviating from sound FRP (e.g., CFRP bulging indicating underlying cracks), and checking for rust stains (e.g., a sign of embedded steel corrosion). Employment of NDT devices capable of penetrating FRP (e.g., PAU) is desirable for an in-depth investigation. The coupling of these defects potentially adds complexity to accurate defect identification. However, the effectiveness of the device and the technician’s expertise play a crucial role in detecting and distinguishing such complex defects. Nevertheless, the presence of damage regardless of the type and complexity should trigger further examination and potentially corrective action.
  • In a contrast to the results of a previous literature review, it was determined that GPR could not detect defects or damage introduced into the externally applied CFRP and the internal targets beneath the CFRP layer due to its conductive nature. PAU exhibited relatively better performance in inspecting the external application of FRP, being able to qualitatively detect introduced debonding/delamination in the external FRP and delamination within the concrete. Other NDT techniques, including visual inspection (VT), tap testing (TT), and infrared thermography (IR), were also found to be quite effective in detecting primarily surface anomalies and some bond defects, such as voids.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.D.O. and S.S.K.D.; methodology, J.D.O.; formal analysis, J.D.O., S.S.K.D. and P.M.; investigation, J.D.O., S.S.K.D. and P.M.; resources, A.M. and A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D.O.; writing—review and editing, A.M., A.N., S.S.K.D. and P.M.; visualization, J.D.O., S.S.K.D. and P.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. and A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly acknowledge the internal support of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Florida International University and the Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering at the University of Miami. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rodrigues, R.; Gaboreau, S.; Gance, J.; Ignatiadis, I.; Betelu, S. Reinforced Concrete Structures: A Review of Corrosion Mechanisms and Advances in Electrical Methods for Corrosion Monitoring. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Angst, U.M.; Isgor, O.B.; Hansson, C.M.; Sagüés, A.; Geiker, M.R. Beyond the Chloride Threshold Concept for Predicting Corrosion of Steel in Concrete. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2022, 9, 011321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mugahed Amran, Y.H.; Alyousef, R.; Rashid, R.S.M.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Hung, C.C. Properties and Applications of FRP in Strengthening RC Structures: A Review. Structures 2018, 16, 208–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, T.Q.; Liu, X.; Feng, P. A Comprehensive Review on Mechanical Properties of Pultruded FRP Composites Subjected to Long-Term Environmental Effects. Compos. B Eng. 2020, 191, 107958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Benmokrane, B.; Hassan, M.; Robert, M.; Vijay, P.V.; Manalo, A. Effect of Different Constituent Fiber, Resin, and Sizing Combinations on Alkaline Resistance of Basalt, Carbon, and Glass FRP Bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2020, 24, 04020010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zaman, A.; Gutub, S.A.; Wafa, M.A. A Review on FRP Composites Applications and Durability Concerns in the Construction Sector. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2013, 32, 1966–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moy, S. Advanced Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Civil Engineering Applications. In Developments in Fiber-reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Civil Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 177–204. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hollaway, L.C. A Review of the Present and Future Utilisation of FRP Composites in the Civil Infrastructure with Reference to Their Important In-Service Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2419–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Teng, J.G.; Chen, J.-F.; Smith, S.T.; Lam, L. FRP: Strengthened RC Structures; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 0471487066. [Google Scholar]
  10. Benzecry, V.; Brown, J.; Al-Khafaji, A.; Haluza, R.; Koch, R.; Nagarajan, M.; Bakis, C.; Myers, J.; Nanni, A. Durability of GFRP Bars Extracted from Bridges with 15 to 20 Years of Service Life; ACI Foundation: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Benmokrane, B.; Wang, P.; Ton-That, T.M.; Rahman, H.; Robert, J.-F. Durability of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Environment. J. Compos. Constr. 2002, 6, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Micelli, F.; Nanni, A. Durability of FRP Rods for Concrete Structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2004, 18, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ceroni, F.; Cosenza, E.; Gaetano, M.; Pecce, M. Durability Issues of FRP Rebars in Reinforced Concrete Members. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28, 857–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, Y.; Davalos, J.F.; Ray, I.; Kim, H.Y. Accelerated Aging Tests for Evaluations of Durability Performance of FRP Reinforcing Bars for Concrete Structures. Compos. Struct. 2007, 78, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malla, P.; Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Ortiz, J.D.; Mehrabi, A.; Nanni, A. Damage and Defects in Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced and Strengthened Concrete Elements. J. Compos. Constr. 2023, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Das, S.C.; Nizam, M. Applications of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites (FRP) in Civil Engineering. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 3, 299–309. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wu, Z.; Wu, Y.; Fahmy, M.F.M. Structures Strengthened with Bonded Composites; Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2020; Volume 1, ISBN 9780128210888. [Google Scholar]
  18. Frigione, M.; Lettieri, M. Durability Issues and Challenges for Material Advancements in FRP Employed in the Construction Industry. Polymers 2018, 10, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Motavalli, M.; Czaderski, C. FRP Composites for Retrofitting of Existing Civil Structures in Europe: State-of-the-Art Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Composites & Polycon, Tampa, FL, USA, 17–19 October 2007; American Composites Manufacturers Association: Tampa, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ritchie, P.A.; Thomas, D.A.; Lu, L.-W.; Connelly, G.M. External Reinforcement of Concrete Beams Using Fiber Reinforced Plastic. Master’s Thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  21. Arduini, M.; Nanni, A. Parametric Study of Beams with Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 1997, 94, 493–501. [Google Scholar]
  22. Toutanji, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, Y. Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Strengthened with CFRP Sheets Bonded with an Inorganic Matrix. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 557–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hutchinson, A.R. Surface Preparation of Component Materials; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2008; ISBN 9781845694487. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hutchinson, A. Adhesives for Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement. ICE Man. Constr. Mater. 2009, 2, 667–674. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollaway, L.C. Applications of Advanced Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Bridge Engineering: Rehabilitation of Metallic Bridge Structures, All-FRP Composite Bridges, and Bridges Built with Hybrid Systems; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780857094186. [Google Scholar]
  26. Alkhrdaji, T.; Nanni, A.; Chen, G.; Barker, M.G. Destructive and Non-Destructive Testing of Bridge J857, Phelps County, Missouri. Volume I-Strengthening and Testing to Failure of Bridge Decks; 2001; Vol. No. RDT01-. Available online: https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/cm/CORDT/RDT01002A.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2023).
  27. Ortiz, J.D.; Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Malla, P.; Nanni, A.; Mehrabi, A. FRP-Reinforced/Strengthened Concrete: State-of-the-Art Review on Durability and Mechanical Effects. Materials 2023, 16, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Horse Construction-Structural Strengthening System Structural Strengthening with Carbon Fiber CFRP Composite System. Available online: www.horseen.com (accessed on 21 October 2023).
  29. AASHTO. Guide Specifications for Design of Bonded FRP Systems for Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Bridge Elements, 2nd ed.; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; ISBN 978-1-56051-807-5. [Google Scholar]
  30. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. ACI 440.2R-17. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. JPCI. Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer; Japan Prestressed Concrete Institute: Tokyo, Japan, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Riccitelli, F.; Mehrabi, A.; Abedin, M.; Farhangdoust, S.; Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S. Performance of Existing Abc Projects: Inspection Case Studies; Accelerated Bridge Construction University Transportation Center (ABC-UTC): Miami, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Malla, P.; Mehrabi, A.; Ortiz Polanco, J.; Nanni, A. Non-Destructive Testing Applications for in-Service FRP Reinforced/Strengthened Concrete Bridge Elements. In Proceedings of the Nondestructive Characterization and Monitoring of Advanced Materials, Aerospace, Civil Infrastructure, and Transportation XVI, Long Beach, CA, USA, 6 March–11 April 2022; Wu, H.F., Gyekenyesi, A.L., Shull, P.J., Yu, T., Eds.; SPIE: Long Beach, CA, USA, 2022; Volume 12047, p. 1204708. [Google Scholar]
  34. Malla, P.; Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Ortiz, J.D.; Mehrabi, A.B.; Nanni, A.; Dinh, K. Feasibility of Conventional Non-Destructive Testing Methods in Detecting Embedded FRP Reinforcements. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Caluk, N.; Mehrabi, A.; Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S. Non-Destructive Testing Applications for Steel Bridges. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yazdani, N.; Garcia, E.C.; Riad, M. Field Assessment of Concrete Structures Rehabilitated with FRP; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 9780081021811. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ettouney, S.; Alampalli, M. Infrastructure Health in Civil Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781439866542. [Google Scholar]
  38. Khanal, S. Review of Modern Nondestructive Testing Techniques for Civil Infrastructure; West Virginia University: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wheeler, A.S. Nondestructive Evaluation of Concrete Bridge Columns Rehabilitiated with Fiber Reinforced Polymers Using Digital Tap Hammer and Infrared Thermography Nondestructive Evaluation of Concrete Bridge Columns; West Virginia University: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Halabe, U.B.; Joshi, R.M.; Gangarao, H.V.S. Nondestructive Testing of FRP Composite Structural Components and FRP Rehabilitated Bridge Using Digital Tap Testing. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2020, 7, 11477–11482. [Google Scholar]
  41. Taillade, F.; Quiertant, M.; Benzarti, K.; Aubagnac, C.; Moser, E. Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of Composites: Using Shearography to Detect Bond Defects. In Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of Polymer Matrix Composites Techniques and Applications; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2013; pp. 542–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ekenel, M.; Myers, J.J. Nondestructive Evaluation of RC Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates Containing Near-Surface Defects in the Form of Delaminations. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 2007, 14, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hsieh, C.T.; Lin, Y. Detecting Debonding Flaws at the Epoxy-Concrete Interfaces in near-Surface Mounted CFRP Strengthening Beams Using the Impact-Echo Method. NDT E Int. 2016, 83, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Crawford, K.C. Non-Destructive Testing of FRP-Structural Systems Applied to Concrete Bridges. In Nondestructive Testing of Materials and Structures; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 835–840. [Google Scholar]
  45. Crawford, K.C. NDT Evaluation of Long-Term Bond Durability of CFRP-Structural Systems Applied to RC Highway Bridges. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 8, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. ACI. ACI 228.2R-13: Report on Nondestructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dong, Y.; Ansari, F. Non-Destructive Testing and Evaluation (NDT/NDE) of Civil Structures Rehabilitated Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites. In Service Life Estimation and Extension of Civil Engineering Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 193–222. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gower, M.; Lodeiro, M.; Aktas, A.; Shaw, R.; Maierhofer, C.; Krankenhagen, R.; Augustin, S.; Rollig, M.; Knazovicka, L.; Blahut, A.; et al. Design and Manufacture of Reference and Natural Defect Artefacts for the Evaluation of NDE Techniques for Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Composites in Energy Applications. In Proceedings of the 19th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (WCNDT 2016), Munich, Germany, 13–17 June 2016; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
  49. Aboukhousa, M.; Qaddoumi, N. Near-Field Microwave Imaging of Subsurface Inclusions in Laminated Composite Structures. In Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Montreal, QC, Canada, 30 August–3 September 2004. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kharkovsky, S.; Ryley, A.C.; Stephen, V.; Zoughi, R. Dual-Polarized near-Field Microwave Reflectometer for Noninvasive Inspection of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer-Strengthened Structures. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2008, 57, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Navagato, M.D.; Narayanan, R.M. Microwave Imaging of Multilayered Structures Using Ultrawideband Noise Signals. NDT E Int. 2019, 104, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ekenel, M.; Stephen, V.; Myers, J.J.; Zoughi, R. Microwave Nde of Rc Beams Strengthened With Cfrp Laminates Containing Surface Defects and Tested Under Cyclic Loading; Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla: Rolla, MO, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  53. Akuthota, B.; Hughes, D.; Zoughi, R.; Myers, J.; Nanni, A. Near-Field Microwave Detection of Disbond in Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites Used for Strengthening Cement-Based Structures and Disbond Repair Verification. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004, 16, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Drobiec, Ł.; Jasiński, R.; Mazur, W. The Use of Non-Destructive Methods to Detect Non-Metallic Reinforcement in Concrete and Masonry. Preprints 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jackson, D.; Islam, M.; Alampalli, S. Feasibility of Evaluating the Performance of Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Wrapped Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Ground Penetrating RADAR (GPR) and Infrared (IR) Thermography Techniques. In Proceedings of the Structural Materials Technology IV—An NDT Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 28 February–3 March 2000. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yazdani, N.; Beneberu, E.; Riad, M. Nondestructive Evaluation of FRP-Concrete Interface Bond Due to Surface Defects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 2563079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. La Malfa Ribolla, E.; Rezaee Hajidehi, M.; Rizzo, P.; Fileccia Scimemi, G.; Spada, A.; Giambanco, G. Ultrasonic Inspection for the Detection of Debonding in CFRP-Reinforced Concrete. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 14, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hing, C.L.C.; Halabe, U.B. Nondestructive Testing of GFRP Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar and Infrared Thermography. J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 15, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Taheri, H.; Hassen, A.A. Nondestructive Ultrasonic Inspection of Composite Materials: A Comparative Advantage of Phased Array Ultrasonic. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Taheri, H.; Delfanian, F.; Du, J. Acoustic emission and ultrasound phased array technique for composite material evaluation. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings (IMECE), San Diego, CA, USA, 15–21 November 2013; American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME): New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  61. Meola, C.; Boccardi, S.; Carlomagno, G.M.; Boffa, N.D.; Monaco, E.; Ricci, F. Nondestructive Evaluation of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Composites with Infrared Thermography and Ultrasonics. Compos. Struct. 2015, 134, 845–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Boychuk, A.S.; Generalov, A.S.; Stepanov, A.V. CFRP Structural Health Monitoring by Ultrasonic Phased Array Technique. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, EWSHM 2014—2nd European Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Society, Nantes, France, 8–11 July 2014; pp. 2206–2211. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryan, T.W.; EricMann, J.; Chill, Z.M.; Ott, B.T. Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual. FHWA 2012, BIRM 1, 1020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Galietti, U.; Luprano, V.; Nenna, S.; Spagnolo, L.; Tundo, A. Non-Destructive Defect Characterization of Concrete Structures Reinforced by Means of FRP. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2007, 49, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taillade, F.; Quiertant, M.; Benzarti, K.; Aubagnac, C.; Moser, E. Shearography Applied to the Non Destructive Evaluation of Bonded Interfaces between Concrete and CFRP Overlays: From the Laboratory to the Field. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2010, 15, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yang, L. Recent Developments in Digital Shearography for Nondestructive Testing. Mater. Eval. 2006, 64, 704–709. [Google Scholar]
  67. Qiu, Q.; Lau, D. A Novel Approach for Near-Surface Defect Detection in FRP-Bonded Concrete Systems Using Laser Reflection and Acoustic-Laser Techniques. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 141, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Qiu, Q.; Lau, D. Experimental Evaluation on the Effectiveness of Acoustic-Laser Technique towards the FRP-Bonded Concrete System. Struct. Health Monit. Insp. Adv. Mater. Aerosp. Civ. Infrastruct. 2015, 9437, 943705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Büyüköztürk, O.; Haupt, R.; Tuakta, C.; Chen, J. Remote Detection of Debonding in FRP-Strengthened Concrete Structures Using Acoustic-Laser Technique. In Nondestructive Testing of Materials and Structures; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 6, pp. 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chen, J.G.; Haupt, R.W.; Büyüköztürk, O. Remote Characterization of Defects in FRP Strengthened Concrete Using the Acoustic-Laser Vibrometry Method. In Proceedings of the ASNT Fall Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhu, Y.K.; Tian, G.Y.; Lu, R.S.; Zhang, H. A Review of Optical NDT Technologies. Sensors 2011, 11, 7773–7798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, J.G.; Buyukozturk, O.; Haupt, R.W. Operational and Defect Parameters Concerning the Acoustic-Laser Vibrometry Method for FRP-Reinforced Concrete. NDT Int. 2015, 71, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Malhotra, V.M.; Carino, N.J. Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  74. Garney, G. Defects Found through Non-Destructive Testing Methods of Fiber Reinforced Polymeric Composites. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wan, B. Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Bridge Construction and Monitoring Their Performance: An Overview; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2014; ISBN 9780857097019. [Google Scholar]
  76. American Society for Nondestructive Testing. Nondestructive Testing Handbook, 3rd ed.; Moore, D.G., Moore, P.O., Eds.; American Society for Nondestructive Testing: Columbus, OH, USA, 2008; Volume 8, ISBN 9781571171849. [Google Scholar]
  77. Farrar, C.R.; Worden, K. An Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2007, 365, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Böer, P.; Holliday, L.; Kang, T.H.K. Interaction of Environmental Factors on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites and Their Inspection and Maintenance: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Karbhari, V.M.; Chin, J.W.; Hunston, D.; Benmokrane, B.; Juska, T.; Morgan, R.; Lesko, J.J.; Sorathia, U.; Reynaud, D. Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites in Civil Infrastructure. J. Compos. Constr. 2003, 7, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Miracle, D.B.; Donaldson, S.L. ASM Handbook (Volume 21): Composites; ASM International: Novelty, OH, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  81. Telang, N.; Dumalo, C.; Mehrabi, A.B.; Ciolko, A.T.; Jim, G. Field Inspection of In-Service FRP Bridge Decks; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kang, T.H.K.; Howell, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, D.J. A State-of-the-Art Review on Debonding Failures of FRP Laminates Externally Adhered to Concrete. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2012, 6, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yumnam, M.; Gupta, H.; Ghosh, D.; Jaganathan, J. Inspection of Concrete Structures Externally Reinforced with FRP Composites Using Active Infrared Thermography: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 310, 125265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Barry, K.F.; Silva, M.; Biagini, G.; Santamarina, J.C.; Wall, J.J.; Marcel, Y.; Le, R.; Lindberg, J.T.; Cha, M.; Dai, S.; et al. Void Detection System. US patent 2013/0192375 A1, 1 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
  85. Karbhar, V.M.; Kaiser, H.; Navada, R.; Ghosh, K.; Lee, L. Methods for Detecting Defects in Composite Rehabilitated Concrete Structures; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  86. Da Fonseca, B.S.; Castela, A.S.; Silva, M.A.G.; Duarte, R.G.; Ferreira, M.G.S.; Montemor, M.F. Influence of GFRP Confinement of Reinforced Concrete Columns on the Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in a Salt Water Environment. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 04014107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Masoud, S.; Soudki, K. Evaluation of Corrosion Activity in FRP Repaired RC Beams. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28, 969–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mehrabi, A.; Farhangdoust, S. NDT Methods Applicable to Health Monitoring of ABC Closure Joints; Accelerated Bridge Construction University Transportation Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  89. Khedmatgozar Dolati, S.S.; Malla, P.; Ortiz, J.D.; Mehrabi, A.; Nanni, A. Identifying NDT Methods for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements Reinforced or Strengthened with FRP. Eng. Struct. 2023, 287, 116155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sen, R. Developments in the Durability of FRP-Concrete Bond. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 78, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. ASTM Committee C09 C39/C39M-21; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
Buildings 14 00246 g002
Figure 2. Defects in EB-FRP concrete elements [15].
Figure 2. Defects in EB-FRP concrete elements [15].
Buildings 14 00246 g002
Buildings 14 00246 g003
Figure 3. Source of damage in EB-FRP concrete elements. Note: colors are related to location given in Figure 1 and source given in Table 4.
Figure 3. Source of damage in EB-FRP concrete elements. Note: colors are related to location given in Figure 1 and source given in Table 4.
Buildings 14 00246 g003
Buildings 14 00246 g004
Figure 4. Slab M’, specimen with steel rebars and damage in the EB-FRP system. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Figure 4. Slab M’, specimen with steel rebars and damage in the EB-FRP system. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Buildings 14 00246 g004
Buildings 14 00246 g005
Figure 5. Slab Q’, specimen defects within concrete and in the EB-FRP system. 1 in. = 25.4 mm. (a) Before EB-FRP system installation. (b) After EB-FRP system installation.
Figure 5. Slab Q’, specimen defects within concrete and in the EB-FRP system. 1 in. = 25.4 mm. (a) Before EB-FRP system installation. (b) After EB-FRP system installation.
Buildings 14 00246 g005
Buildings 14 00246 g006
Figure 6. Defects generation in EB-FRP concrete elements. (a) Unidirectional CFRP sheet, (b) mixing of the resin, (c) adhesive–concrete debonding, (d) surface impregnation, (e) first layer of CFRP, (f) strengthened slab.
Figure 6. Defects generation in EB-FRP concrete elements. (a) Unidirectional CFRP sheet, (b) mixing of the resin, (c) adhesive–concrete debonding, (d) surface impregnation, (e) first layer of CFRP, (f) strengthened slab.
Buildings 14 00246 g006
Buildings 14 00246 g007
Figure 7. Visual inspection of slabs: (a) Slab M’, (b) Slab Q’.
Figure 7. Visual inspection of slabs: (a) Slab M’, (b) Slab Q’.
Buildings 14 00246 g007
Buildings 14 00246 g008
Figure 8. Tap Testing on Slab Q’.
Figure 8. Tap Testing on Slab Q’.
Buildings 14 00246 g008
Buildings 14 00246 g009
Figure 9. Infrared image of slabs: (a) Slab M’, (b) Slab Q’.
Figure 9. Infrared image of slabs: (a) Slab M’, (b) Slab Q’.
Buildings 14 00246 g009
Buildings 14 00246 g010
Figure 10. GPR line scans of Slab M’ and Q’. (a) Slab M’ before strengthening, (b) Slab M’ after strengthening, (c) Slab Q’ before strengthening, (d) Slab Q’ after strengthening.
Figure 10. GPR line scans of Slab M’ and Q’. (a) Slab M’ before strengthening, (b) Slab M’ after strengthening, (c) Slab Q’ before strengthening, (d) Slab Q’ after strengthening.
Buildings 14 00246 g010
Buildings 14 00246 g011
Figure 11. PAU stripe scan of Slab Q’. (i) 300 mm, (ii) 570 mm and (iii) 800 mm from face 2.
Figure 11. PAU stripe scan of Slab Q’. (i) 300 mm, (ii) 570 mm and (iii) 800 mm from face 2.
Buildings 14 00246 g011
Table 1. Defects in FRP composites (F—FRP composites).
Table 1. Defects in FRP composites (F—FRP composites).
DefectsDescription
F.1 Surface Defects—BlistersBlisters are observed as bubble-like formations on the surfaces of the EB-FRP system because of the combined action of freeze–thaw cycles and entrapped moisture. However, since their effects are primarily limited to the surface, this imperfection have minimal impact on the structural performance of the structure.
F.2 Surface Defects—WrinklingWrinkling appears as creases or folds on the surface of the FRP composites, often occurring at corners and curves of the structure. It is caused by improper installation practices. The safety of the structure is compromised only if they result in insufficient surface contact of the FRP composites with the substrate.
F.3 Surface Defects—ScratchesScratches represent marks or wounds on the surface of the FRPs and can occur at any point during the installation and service life of the structure. They become detrimental when they evolve into full-depth cracks.
F.4 Surface Defects—DiscolorationDiscoloration manifests as stains on the FRP composites and is primarily induced by exposure to UV rays, heat, chemicals, fire, excessive strain, subsurface defects, voids, and moisture penetration. These stains serve as indicators of composite degradation, frequently preceding the occurrence of cracks and embrittlement.
F.5 Surface Defects—Fiber ExposureImproper handling and installation of FRP composites results in exposed fibers of FRP composites. These exposed fibers serve as entry points for moisture and contamination into the composite, leading to the deterioration of its properties.
F.6 Voids in FRPVoids are cavities that exist at the fiber–matrix interface, formed as a result of entrapped air within the layers of the composites. They can also occur due to the overlapping of fabrics during fabrication or installation. They cand lead to a reduction in their laminar shear strength.
F.7 DebondingDebonding within FRP composites refers to the separation at the interface between the two components of the composite: the fiber and the matrix. This separation is primarily triggered by the presence of surface moisture on the fibers. The consequences of debonding encompass a loss of composite action.
F.8 Delamination in FRP LayersDelamination in FRP involves the separation at the interface between the layers. It is frequently induced by factors such as moisture, foreign object contamination, and trapped air between the FRP layers. The repercussions are significant and can result in a substantial reduction in the material’s shear transfer capacity.
F.9 CracksCracks in FRP composites primarily occur parallel to fiber layers due to factors like trapped air, uneven resin distribution, and exposure to impact and service loads. Failure risk increases as cracks deepen and widen under sustained or dynamic loading.
F.10 Impact
Damage in FRP		Impact damage can happen from both slow-moving and fast-moving objects. Slow-moving objects may harm the internal structure, while fast-moving ones cause severe surface damage. Regardless, impact damage harms the system’s structural integrity.
Table 2. Bond defects (I-FA: FRP–adhesive interface; A: adhesive; I-AC: adhesive–concrete interface).
Table 2. Bond defects (I-FA: FRP–adhesive interface; A: adhesive; I-AC: adhesive–concrete interface).
DefectsDescription
I-FA.1 FRP–Adhesive DebondingFRP–adhesive debonding between laminates can occur due to factors such as the use of an inappropriate adhesive, improper mixing, poor adhesive application, or insufficient curing of the adhesive. These factors can lead to a weakened bond between the FRP layers, reducing the effectiveness of the composite material.
A.1 Voids in
Adhesive		Voids are areas where FRP composites lack contact with the concrete substrate. They result from trapped air, contaminants in the resin, or substrate irregularities, and can sometimes resemble “bubbles.” Voids create stress concentrations, weakening the bond strength of the FRP application.
I-AC.1 Adhesive–Concrete
Debonding		Debonding is the separation of externally applied FRP from the concrete substrate, often due to factors like high loads, improper installation, inadequate resin curing, or surface moisture. Excessive debonding can lead to brittle concrete fracture, as the composite loses its ability to transfer stresses to the substrate.
Table 3. Defects in concrete (C: concrete; I-CS: concrete–steel rebar interface).
Table 3. Defects in concrete (C: concrete; I-CS: concrete–steel rebar interface).
DefectsDescription
C.1 Cracks in
Concrete		Obscured cracks in the concrete substrate, hidden beneath the externally applied FRP, result from various factors such as shrinkage, thermal stresses, chemical exposure, and more. They can lead to structural failure by allowing corrosive chemicals to attack steel reinforcement and weaken the bond between FRP and concrete.
C.2 Voids in
Concrete		Concrete voids, unrelated to external FRP application, stem from inadequate design and construction practices during casting. Causes include improper vibration, concrete quality issues, rebar congestion, consolidation problems, and irregular aggregates. These voids lead to gradual structural deterioration.
C.3 Delamination/Spalling in ConcreteDelamination is caused by the relatively weaker nature of concrete compared to the adhesive and FRP materials. It occurs when high stresses in the FRP material pull the concrete apart, typically near cracks or the ends of the FRP system where stress buildup is significant. Delamination failures are sudden and brittle, posing a serious structural risk.
I-CS.1 Cover
Separation		Cover separation differs from delamination and occurs deeper within the concrete, extending to the cover distance of internal reinforcement. This separation happens as cracks near the internal reinforcement propagate horizontally due to high stresses from external FRP. Like delamination, it is a sudden, brittle failure.
I-CS.2 Corrosion
in Steel
Reinforcement		External FRP strengthening is typically applied to steel-reinforced concrete elements. Although it can reduce the corrosion rate of steel reinforcement, it does not completely stop it. As a result, corrosion continues over time, and it is essential to monitor corrosion activity in concrete elements even after applying strengthening measures.
I-CS.3 Concrete Reinforcement DebondingDue to environmental and load factors, the bond may gradually weaken over time, resulting in bond failure of the steel-reinforced concrete element. Debonding might compromise the structure integrity and tensile resistance, making it susceptible to more damage.
Table 4. Source of damage and defects in FRP applications [15].
Table 4. Source of damage and defects in FRP applications [15].
Fabrication and
Workmanship		Design FactorsEnvironmental
Factors		Mechanical
Factors
  • Manufacturing
  • Transportation
  • Storage
  • Handling
  • Installation
  • Unreasonable Design/Lack of Specification and Code
  • Calculation/Design Errors
  • Inadequate Installation/Construction Details (Constructability)
  • Improper Composite Choice
  • Water Exposure
  • Saline Exposure
  • Alkaline Exposure
  • UV Exposure
  • Elevated Temperature Exposure
  • Freeze–thaw Cycles Exposure
  • Fatigue
  • Creep Rupture
  • Shrinkage
  • Impact
  • Service Loads
Table 5. Applicability of NDT methods for EB-FRP concrete elements in the available literature [89].
Table 5. Applicability of NDT methods for EB-FRP concrete elements in the available literature [89].
NDT Methodi. Surface Anomalies *ii. FRP
Composite		iii. Bond Defectsiv. Cracks in Concretev. Voids in Concretevi. Concrete Delaminationvii. Rebar Defects
Tap testing (TT)-12%6%0%0%0%0%
Impact echo testing (IE)-5%5%15%20%20%10%
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and
microwave testing (MW)		-7%17%12%30%42%70%
Ultrasonic testing (UT) and phased array ultrasonic testing (PAU)-27%16%37%15%9%10%
Infrared thermography testing (IR)-26%38%8%9%5%0%
Acoustic emission testing (AE)-4%5%0%0%0%0%
Laser testing method (LT)-7%11%0%0%0%0%
Radiography testing (RT)-12%2%5%9%1%0%
Impulse response testing (IRT)-0%0%20%17%23%5%
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL)-0%0%3%0%0%5%
* Visual inspection (VT) can be used for qualitative and quantitative detection of almost all surface anomalies.
Table 6. Effectiveness of selective NDT methods for inspection of EB-FRP concrete elements.
Table 6. Effectiveness of selective NDT methods for inspection of EB-FRP concrete elements.
SlabParameters 1Selected NDTs
GPRPAUVTTTIR
M’Internal TargetsNDD 2---
External
defects/damage		Debonding or DelaminationNDLD 3LD 1DD
Q’Internal TargetsNDD 2---
External
defects/damage		Debonding or DelaminationNDLD 3LD 1DD
Note: D = Detectable; LD = Limited Detectability; ND = Not Detectable. 1 Limited detection (LD) is based on the size of defect/damage. 2 Concrete delamination is detectable as long as the external applied fabric is sound. 3 Qualitatively detectable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ortiz, J.D.; Dolati, S.S.K.; Malla, P.; Mehrabi, A.; Nanni, A. Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer. Buildings 2024, 14, 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010246

AMA Style

Ortiz JD, Dolati SSK, Malla P, Mehrabi A, Nanni A. Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer. Buildings. 2024; 14(1):246. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010246

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ortiz, Jesús D., Seyed Saman Khedmatgozar Dolati, Pranit Malla, Armin Mehrabi, and Antonio Nanni. 2024. "Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer" Buildings 14, no. 1: 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010246

APA Style

Ortiz, J. D., Dolati, S. S. K., Malla, P., Mehrabi, A., & Nanni, A. (2024). Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Damage Detection in Concrete Elements with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer. Buildings, 14(1), 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010246

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop