Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

9.

COMPARATIVE TEST - PART II: "COVERMETERS"

C. Andrade (1), M. Alexander (2), M. Basheer (3), H. Beushausen(2), L. Fernndez Luco (1),
M. Fischli (4), A. F. Gonalves (5), F. Jacobs (6), R. Neves (7), J. Podvoiskis (8), R. Polder(9),
M. Romer (10) and R. Torrent (11)
(1) Instituto Eduardo Torroja de Ciencias de la Construccin, Serrano Galvache 4, 28033
Madrid, Spain
(2) Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town, Private Bag Rondebosch,
7701 Cape Town, South Africa
(3) School of Civil Engineering, Queens University Belfast, BT7 1NN, Belfast, Northern
Ireland, United Kingdom
(4) Proceq S.A., Ringstrasse 2, Postfach 336, CH-8603 Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
(5) LNEC (National Laboratory of Civil Engineering), Avenida do Brasil 101, P-1799-066
Lisboa, Portugal
(6) TFB (Technical Research and Consulting for Cement and Concrete), CH-5103 Wildegg,
Switzerland
(7) Escola Superior de Tecnologia do Barreiro, Instituto Politcnico de Setbal, Rua Stinville,
n.14, Parque Empresarial do Barreiro - Quimiparque 2830 - 144 Barreiro, Portugal
(8) Elcometer Instruments Ltd, Edge Lane, Manchester M43 6BU, United Kingdom
(9) TNO Building and Construction Research, P.O.Box 49, NL-2600 AA Delft, The
Netherlands
(10) EMPA (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research),
Ueberlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
(11) Holcim Group Support Ltd., Im Schachen, CH-5113 Holderbank, Switzerland

9.1

Objective of the Comparative Test, Part II

Cover depth has an important effect on the processes that lead to the corrosion of the steel
in concrete. The object of Part II of the Comparative Test was to determine the suitability of
some commercial covermeters to assess the cover depth to reinforcement, in a completely
non-destructive manner, applying them under different environmental conditions

187

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

(Temperature and Relative Humidity) and for different steel bar arrangements, embedded in
concretes of two different w/c ratios.
A condensed version of this report has already been published [9.1].
9.2 Experiment Design
Two groups of cover depths were included: normal cover, in the range 25-35 mm and deep
cover, in the range 70-80 mm. The latter, less common, represents situations where long
service lives are required in very aggressive environments.
Four slabs (0,3 x 0,9 x 0,12 m) with conventional reinforcement bars were cast, according
to the detailing shown in Fig. 9.1. Nominal covers (in mm) of each bar are shown in brackets
and the distances from the left edge of the slab to the centre of the bar (in mm) are indicated
below each nominal cover.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

16
12
(30)
60

(35)
140

(25)
205

(70)
(80)
(70)
(80)
(30)
305
405
505
640
780
Fig. 9.1 - Layout of slabs M, R, S and T

(25)
855

Table 9.1 shows the actual covers and distances from the left edge for slabs M, R, S and T,
as provided by EMPA by direct measuring on the saw-cut slabs.
As can be seen from the arrangement shown in Fig. 9.1, some of the situations might be
very demanding for the instruments, in particular, 12 mm-diameter bars and deep cover (70
and 80 mm). Moreover, for some instruments, the length of the bars (proximity of the
measurement to the bar endings) might cause some additional problems.

188

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Table 9.1: Actual cover and position of the bars, in mm

Position

slab M
cover thickness
distance from edge
free spacing

30
58

34
138
68

25
205
55

70
306
89

81
404
86

71
506
88

81
638
116

32
778
124

26
856
62

slab R
cover thickness
distance from edge
free spacing

29
61

35
140
67

24
208
56

69
307
87

80
405
86

72
510
91

80
640
114

34
784
128

28
855
55

slab S
cover thickness
distance from edge
free spacing

31
59

36
140
69

26
208
56

68
304
84

80
406
90

72
510
90

80
638
112

32
782
128

27
858
60

slab T
cover thickness
distance from edge
free spacing

30
57

34
136
67

24
205
57

69
302
85

81
407
93

73
498
77

83
630
116

29
777
131

24
855
62

Table 9.2 gives the w/c ratios used for the different slabs, as well as the test conditions
(Temperature and Moisture). Further details about the curing and storage of the slabs can be
found in Annex A.
Table 9.2: Test conditions for Slabs M, R, S and T
w/c

Temperature
(C)

Moisture
condition

Slab M

0.55

20

Normal

Slab R

0.55

10

Normal

Slab S

0.40

20

Normal

Slab T

0.55

20

Moist

A further slab P, with similar testing conditions as for slab M, had special reinforcement
detailing to test the capability of the instruments to assess the cover depth under more
complex conditions.
These conditions were included to simulate different situations: bars too close (heavy
reinforcement), coupling of bars in different situations (horizontal, vertical), and the effect of
a mesh pattern. They all represent special situations and therefore are more challenging to the
instruments.
The distribution of the reinforcement for slab P was as sketched in Fig. 9.2. The nominal
cover (in mm) is indicated in brackets, while the distances from the left edge to the centre of
the bar (in mm) are indicated below each nominal cover

189

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Suggested symbols

(30) (30)
107 157

(53)
258

00

(60)
84 / 404

00

(30)
507

(30)
550

(35)
564

(35)
662

(35)
755

Fig. 9.2 - Layout of Slab P

In the first round of measurements (Case A), no information was given to the participants
regarding position or cover depth of the bars.
In the second round (Case B) the participants were told that the bars had 12 mm or 16 mm
diameter, but not where they were nor their cover depths.
In the third round (Case C) the participants were told the approximate location of the bars
and their respective diameters but not their cover depths.
For the scope of this TC, the interest focuses on verifying the compliance of new
construction with performance-based specifications. Normally, the steel bar diameter and
approximate position will be known, and so case C is the most representative of the real
situation. Therefore, this report is concerned essentially with the analysis of the results for
case C.
After the results obtained by all participants were distributed for corrections, EMPA
personnel saw-cut the slabs and measured directly the actual cover of the bars.

190

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

9.3

Testing Instruments Applied

Only commercial covermeters were evaluated, using standard heads, suitable for common
(shallow) covers.
Table 9.3 shows the covermeters used and the Institute or company that performed the
tests. It must be mentioned that covermeter Hilti FS10 was used by two different participants;
only the results from TNO are considered because the Hilti representative could not perform
all the tests.
Table 9.3: List of equipment used
Institute or Company

Instruments used

TNO

HILTI FS10

HILTI

HILTI FS10

ELCOMETER
INSTRUMENTS Ltd.

PROTOVALE CM 52
PROTOVALE CM9

PROCEQ

PROFO 5

LNEC

PROFO 4

The assessments with Protovale instruments were made jointly by two persons, while in
the other cases, only one user operated the instruments.
9.4

Results Obtained

Large sheets of white paper, covering the entire surface of the slab, were provided for the
participants to record the results: position, diameter and cover of the bars; they remain at
EMPA, as back-up documents. From these sheets, the information was transcribed into tables,
which were sent to the participants for confirmation / correction.
After receiving a few corrections, the data were grouped by testing condition (M, R, S and
T) and testing equipment. These data, presented in Tables C.1 to C.5 of Annex C, are the
basis for the analysis of the results.
As mentioned before, three levels of previous knowledge were considered for each set of
data, ranging from A (location, diameter and cover were unknown for cover determination) to
C (only the cover was unknown).
Tables C.1 to C.5 show the recorded data as summarized from paper sheets. These values
include the corrections suggested by the participants, before the actual cover was disclosed to
them.
The results for cover assessment are expressed in mm. Measurement not performed are
reported as N.m. (not measured) and were excluded from the analysis.
Cases of uncertain measurements, where the cover depth was not reported, are identified as
U.r. (uncertain reading). These cases are included in the qualitative evaluation as non

191

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

success (see Section 9.5.1), but they were not included in the estimation of accuracy and
precision (see Section 9.5.2.).
LNEC (PROFO 4) used a small head (spot reading) and a big head (depth reading); and
they are informed as S/D in Tables 4. When both values were reported, they correspond to
spot/depth readings. In such cases, the value considered for the analysis is the spot reading
(the first one).
9.5

Analysis of the Results

The analysis of the results is restricted to Case C, i.e. the assessment of the cover depth
when there is knowledge of the diameter and of the approximate location of the bars.
Nevertheless, to consider the effect of lack of knowledge on the location and diameter of
the bars (Cases B and A), a separate analysis is presented at the end of this chapter.
Three levels of analysis are performed: shallow, deep (cover depth > 40 mm) and global
(i.e. all measurements).

te

te

te

te

Two sets of values resulted from the tests:

tr= real cover depth (mm), measured directly on the saw-cut slabs by EMPA
te= estimated cover depth (mm), reported by the different participants
The error d = te - tr is calculated for each bar at the centre of the slab.
9.5.1 Successful assessments
An assessment was considered successful when:
a) a value was reported and
b) the d value did not exceed 10 % of the actual cover, rounded to the next integer
value, which is more demanding than the tolerances stipulated by the fib Model Code
1990 and the ACI 318-02 ( 10 mm). In addition, the same relative error means the
same relative change in the duration of the incubation/initiation period (assuming it
progresses proportional to the square root of time).

192

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Fig. 9.3 shows the percentage of successful assessments for slabs M, R, S and T for
Shallow and Global covers.

Case C - Shallow cover

Case C - All covers
Case C - Deep covers
100
90

% of success

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

HILTI PS10
(TN0)

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.3: Percent of success in the assessment of cover to reinforcement

9.5.2

Assessment of Accuracy and Precision

A measure of the bias of the NDT estimates is given by the mean value of d: the closer to
zero the mean value of d, the higher the accuracy of the measurements.
A measure of the variability of the NDT estimates is given by the mean quadratic error E,
calculated as:
E = ((d)2 /n)1/2 where n is the number of measurements considered
The closer E is to zero, the higher the Precision of the measurements.
Bias and variability of all slabs are indicated in Figs. 9.4 to 9.8.
In the calculation of bias and variability, all the reported values were considered. Some
users might have taken a very conservative approach, thus discarding unstable readings, while
others, with a more risky approach, have reported some approximate value, thus increasing
their bias and variability. For this reason, the proportion of reported values is included for
each case (e.g. 8/9 means eight values reported out of a possible nine).

193

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

BIAS

SLAB M, CASE C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6

8/9
HILTI FS10
(TN0)

9/9
PROTOVALE
CM52

9/9
PROTOVALE
CM9

VARIABILITY

8/9
PROFO 5
(Proceq)

9/9
PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.4 Bias and variability for Slab M

BIAS

SLAB R, CASE C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6

8/9
HILTI FS10
(TN0)

9/9

9/9

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

VARIABILITY

8/9
PROFO 5
(Proceq)

Fig. 9.5 Bias and variability for Slab R

194

9/9
PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

SLAB S, CASE C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6

BIAS
VARIABILITY

8/9
HILTI FS10
(TN0)

9/9

8/9

9/9

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

9/9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.6 Bias and variability for Slab S

BIAS

SLAB T, CASE C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6

VARIABILITY

8/9
HILTI FS10
(TN0)

9/9

9/9

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

8/9
PROFO 5
(Proceq)

Fig. 9.7 Bias and variability for Slab T

195

9/9
PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

SLAB P, CASE C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6

BIAS
VARIABILITY

9/9

HILTI FS10
(TN0)

9/9

9/9

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

9/9

9/9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.8 Bias and variability for Slab P

Fig. 9.9 shows the consolidated values of bias and variability for slabs M, R, S and T. The
consolidated bias is the average of the bias for the four slabs. The consolidated variability is
the square root of the average of the E2 of the four slabs.
ALL SLABS, CASE C
8

Bias (Average)
Variability (Average)

[mm]

4
2
0
-2
-4

HILTI FS10
(TN0)

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.9 Consolidated Bias and variability for Slabs M, R, S and T

196

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

9.5.3 Influence of test condition (slabs M, R, S and T)

The influence of test condition (M, R, S and T) on the variability of the NDT assessment of
the cover depth for each instrument is shown in Fig. 9.10. In most cases, the influence of
temperature, moisture and w/c ratio on the assessment of the cover depth was negligible,
except in one case, for which no explanation could be found (HILTI FS-10).
10

Slab M
Slab R
Slab S
Slab T

Variability (mm)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
HILTI FS10
(TN0)

PROTOVALE
CM52

PROTOVALE
CM9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.10 Variability for all slabs, Case C

9.5.4 Comments on the results for Case C
Three aspects of the measurements are commented on: success rate, bias and variability.
Fig 9.3 shows that for covers below 40 mm, all the testing equipment had 100 % success in
assessing the cover depth within the adopted tolerances. When all covers are considered, the
degree of success varied with the instruments, with some of them achieving over 94 %
success rates.
Regarding Bias, as shown in Fig. 9.9, the average bias of all measurements is between 1
and 4 mm. These biases might eventually be corrected by an internal adjustment of the
instrument or by proper calibration procedures.
Regarding Variability, Fig. 9.9, it ranges from about 2 mm to 7 mm.
Taking into account the three aspects considered, the results obtained with the instruments
Protovale CM 52, Protovale CM 9 and Profometer 5 are superior to the other two.
9.5.5 Comparison between Cases A, B and C (effect of previous knowledge)
Fig. 9.11 shows the effect of previous knowledge on the percentage of successful
assessments of the cover depth for shallow covers, while Fig. 9.12 illustrates the same effect
for deep cover depths.

197

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

Case C
Case B
Case A

100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

HILTI PS10
(TN0)

PROTOVALE PROTOVALE
CM52
CM9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.11 Effect of previous knowledge on % success for shallow covers

Case C
Case B
Case A

100
90
80

% of success

% of success

80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

HILTI FS10 PROTOVALE PROTOVALE

(TN0)
CM52
CM9

PROFO 5
(Proceq)

PROFO 4
(LNEC)

Fig. 9.12 Effect of previous knowledge on % success for deep covers

198

Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Penetrability and Thickness of the Concrete Cover

RILEM TC 189-NEC: State-of-the-Art Report May 2007

The effect of lack of information on the actual bar diameter is greater for thicker covers,
while it is not so important for shallow covers. When some difficulties arise, the skills of the
operator come into consideration.
9.6

Conclusions

The Comparative Test proved that all the instruments are capable to measure with 100 %
success the depth of the concrete cover within an accuracy of 10 %, under the following
conditions:
The nominal diameter of the bars are known
The cover depth is below 40 mm.
For deep covers (cover depth above 65 mm), three instruments are still capable of
measuring with more than 80 % success the depth of the concrete cover within an accuracy of
10 %.
The accuracy of the instruments to assess the cover depth decreases with increasing covers
and with lack of information about diameter of the bars.
Even in situations where the arrangement of the bars is more complex, four out of five
instruments showed 100 % success in assessing the concrete cover, once the nominal bar
diameter was known.
In general, the accuracy of the assessment was not strongly affected by the temperature and
moisture conditions under which the measurements were made, nor by the w/c ratio of the
concrete.
Three instruments presented very good accuracy (bias below 1 mm) and precision
(variability around 2 mm).
.

REFERENCES
[9.1] Fernndez Luco, L., RILEM TC 189-NEC "Non-destructive evaluation of the concrete cover":
Comparative test - Part II: Comparative test of Covermeters, Materials and Structures (38),
284, Dec. 2005, pp. 907 - 911.

199