Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue on 4th International Technical Conference 2014, June (2015) 1 - 12

School of Engineering, Taylors University

CONCRETE DELAMINATIONS LOCATION AND ITS

SEVERITY DETECTION BY VISUAL INSPECTION AND
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR
A. M. SHAMSUDIN, S. F. SENIN, R. HAMID*, K. YUSUF
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor DE, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: roszilahhamid@gmail.com

Abstract
Concrete delamination is a problem commonly found in reinforced concrete
bridge deck and may cause severe damage to the structural component. The
need to access the severity of this defect is pertinent as the detachment of
the concrete cover from the rebar is invisible and only showing when
cracks and spalling had reached the top of asphalt layer. Most of the bridge
inspections on concrete delamination rely on human interpretation based on
visual inspection (VI). VI is a very subjective assessment and should be
conducted by highly trained bridge inspectors. It is also a time consuming
method. Alternatively, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is a rapid and nondestructive method to detect rebar delaminations within the bridge deck and
quantify this defect based on the reflection of electromagnetic waves by the
air void within the delamination. Therefore, VI and GPR method were
employed at a case study site to detect the location of the delamination and
to estimate the extent of its severity. Based on the VI result, the
delamination was detected in almost of deck area where 8.7 m and 9.5 m
length was observed at area A1 and A8, respectively. Meanwhile, through
GPR, delaminations were measured at 4 different areas (A1, A4, A7 and
A8) with coverage of 8.5 m, 5.2 m, 4.1 m and 6.4 m respectively. GPR had
confirmed the existence of delamination at A1 and A8 and further had
detected size of delaminated area at A4 and A7. The differences of
delamination extent detected by both methods are 2.3% at A1 and 32.6% at
A8. GPR has shown better capability in detecting size and location of
hidden delaminated area under asphalt layer of a bridge deck which is very
useful in maintenance decision.
Keywords: GPR, Visual inspection, Bridge inspection, Delamination, Location
and severity.

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 2

Nomenclatures
A1
A4
A7
A8
c
w

Area 1 on bridge deck

Area 4 on bridge deck
Area 7 on bridge deck
Area 8 on bridge deck
Speed of light in vacuum media, = 0.3 m/ns
Moisture content of concrete (kg/kg)

Greek Symbols
Dielectric value of media

Abbreviations
ABIM
GPR
PWD
VI

Annual Bridge Inspection Manual

Ground Penetrating Radar
Public Works Department
Visual inspection

1. Introduction
Delamination of concrete structures is a type of defect manifested by the
discontinuity of concrete surface as the result of widening fracture that extends
partly or completely through the member [1]. The growth of such defects on
high-performance structural component such as bridge deck structure is
inevitable as heavy traffic loads and harsh environment, i.e., climate changes
will accelerate the delamination growth [2]. Usually the defects were hidden in
the deck and not manifested on the surface until the significant deck cover
separate from substrate concrete, which impair the appearance and
serviceability problems [3]. Therefore, a precise routine assessment of the
delamination bridges condition is very important in order to maintain and
preserve the bridge appearance and structural serviceability.
As mentioned previously, concrete bridge is a high performance structure that
is frequently exposed to moist environment and repeated traffic loading of
vehicles. According to Shah and Chandra [4], the repeated traffic loading will
result in progressive microcracks on concrete surface. With the penetration of
rainwater inside the microcracks, steel bar will start to corrode as the steel surface
is attacked by moisture and oxygen. As rebar corrosion continues, the corrosion
products or rust can occupy several times than the original steel, resulting tensile
forces to develop in the concrete deck. Since concrete is relatively weak in
tension, internal cracks will develop and expose the steel surface to even more
moisture and oxygen. This situation will promote more accelerated corrosion
process surround the steel bar and causing the bond between steel bar and the
surround concrete breaks. Eventually, at the late stage, pieces of concrete break
away, forming large scale spalls in the concrete and huge potholes are easily
visualized and located by the bridge inspector. Therefore, a need on accessing the
delamination problem at an early stage is required before huge potholes started to
formed on the bridge deck surface.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

A.M. Shamsudin et al.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is one example of a method that has

potential to detect delamination in bridge deck structure. Wielen et al. [5], and
Wang et al. [6] have shown the capability of GPR on detecting the location of
embedded cracks inside a bridge deck and its length estimation. On the other
hand, visual inspection method is limited only on concrete surface observation
that is rated based on subjective scale provided by bridge authorities.
In this paper, a comparison study by both method was conducted at an aging
bridge located in Kuala Lipis, Pahang, Malaysia. Inspection works were done in
order to determine the location and the length of delaminations by both methods.

2. Methodology
2.1. Visual inspection (VI)
This study focused on the bridge deck component evaluation that was carried out
by inspecting bridge deck based on the Annually Bridge Inspection manual. The
bridge has been closed for replacement works due to its critical conditions. The
visual inspection method was done according to the Annual Bridge Inspection
Manual (ABIM) [7] by Public Works Department (PWD) Malaysia. The bridge
deck was evaluated by visually inspecting the bridge deck component
delamination defect. The characterisation of severity is given in Table 1 to
categories the delamination severity in this study.
Table 1. Severity of delamination on concrete bridge deck structure [7].
Severity

Description

No defect

No visible delaminated area

Light

Delaminated area measuring < 150mm in any direction

Medium

Delaminated area measuring 150mm - 300 mm in any direction

Severe

Delaminated area measuring 300mm - 600 mm in any direction

Very severe

Delaminated area measuring > 600mm in any direction

2.2. Ground penetrating radar (GPR)

The plan view of the surveyed bridge deck slab in this study is shown in Fig. 1.
Before the GPR data collection is performed on the deck by scanning the antenna,
the deck width is divided into eight equal areas as depicted in Fig. 1. The width of
each slab areas is marked on the deck surface and recorded for the purpose of
GPR analysis. The surface condition of the deck should be free from any water to
ensure no influence of water on the GPR signals.
The GPR system consist of 1.6 GHz antenna, mounted on a lightweight and
highly manoeuvrable wheel cart and a controller unit to record the scanned data.
The data collection is performed for each of the slab areas by pushing the GPR
system in the direction shown in Fig. 1. As the GPR system is pushed along the
bridge deck, electromagnetic wave will be transmitted by the antenna and
propagates inside the bride deck and reflected to the receiver antenna once
encountered layer of different electrical impedance.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 4

Fig. 1. Eight equal areas division bridge deck slabs (Plan view).
After the GPR scan performed for each of the slab areas, the scanned data is
analysed to determine the defect area. The location of the delamination on the
bridge deck is identified by analysing the hyperbolic feature on the radargram
produced by scanning GPR on the bridge deck surface for initial fracture position
as shown in Fig. 2. The initial fracture position is identified by identifying the
presence of a horizontal band layer; which is characterised by three colours in the
following sequence; dark-white-dark layer as shown in Fig. 2. The migration
algorithm will be applied on the selected initial fracture position using Radan 7
software to obtain the dielectric value of the selected point, .
Using Eq. (1), the electromagnetic wave velocity, v, of the medium, is
computed and conclusion can be made on the defect condition, whether the defect
is filled up with air or water. The defect with wave velocity value closer to 0.3
m/ns, then it is assumed to have filled with air, whereas for defect which is filled
with water will have the value of almost close to 0.03 m/ns. Table 2 shows the
typical medium that will be encountered in concrete scanning by GPR and its
dielectric constant, , or the wave velocity, v. The procedure is then repeated and
stopped until the computed wave velocity of the potential delamination area is not
either closer to 0.3 m/ns nor 0.03 m/ns. The estimated length of the delamination
can be computed by subtracting the final fracture position with the initial fracture
position analysed by the procedure.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

=

A.M. Shamsudin et al.

(1)



where is the computed dielectric value of the medium, v is the electromagnetic

wave velocity from radiogram analyzed by Radan 7 (m/ns) and c is the speed of
light in vacuum medium (0.3 m/ns).

Horizontal band layer (black-white-black layer)

Fig. 2. A hyperbolic feature is selected at a fracture point on GPR radargram.
Table 2. Dielectric constant or wave velocity for typical medium.
Dielectric constant, Wave velocity, v (m/ns) Medium
1
0.3
Air
81
0.03
Water
In this study, the bridge deck is divided into eight equal areas and the above
procedure is applied on each of the areas in order to detect the delaminations
position and its severity.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Description of the case study bridge
This case study applied on a deteriorated bridge having length 12.45 m and width
5.5 m consisted of single deck slab and 17 beams. The deteriorated bridge deck
was inspected using VI and GPR methods. The GPR methods of the badly
deteriorated bridge deck allowed the validation of the VI method. The inspected
bridge deck area were divided into eigth areas which named A1 to A8 as shown in
Fig. 1. The bridge deck condition were evaluated based on surface defect, crack
of concrete, delamination, spalling, corrosion of reinforcement and water leakage.

3.2. Visual inspection

Based on the visual inspection observation, two obvious delaminations with finite
length were detected on area 1 and area 8 of the bridge grid. The length of
delaminations on area 1 and 8 are estimated at 8.7 m and 9.5 m respectively and

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 6

the condition rating of the delaminated area was very severe. Furthermore, at area
4 and 7 (A4 and A7), there were repetitive potholes formation on the asphalt
surface which was an indication of the presence of delamination on the deck
where have given a medium rating. The condition rating of the detected
delamination area is shown in Fig. 3.

Rating :
very severe
Rating :
very severe

Rating :
Medium

Fig. 3. Two obvious delaminations and its element rating.

Based on Fig. 4, severe cover spalling on deck soffit and accompanied by the
exposed rebar with reduced cross sections may reduce the flexural capacity of the
bridge deck. This existence of moisture can be observed as the "damp spot"
located at the deck and a corrosion agent that induced rebar corrosion inside the
bridge deck.

Exposed rebar

Fig. 4. The possible cause of the delamination on the bridge deck.

3.3. Bridge deck defects rating

The inspected surface and bridge deck condition using visual inspection are
evaluated based on the ABIM condition system rating [7] and the results shown in
Table 3. The condition rating system are a numerical system where a number
from 1 to 5 is assigned to each component of the structure based on the observed

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

A.M. Shamsudin et al.

material defects and the resulting effect on the ability of the component to
perform its function in the structural system.
Table 3. Defects condition rating on the bridge deck.
Type of defect
Surface cracks
Delamination

Steel corrosion
Water leakage
Concrete spalling

Condition of defect

Obvious longitudinal cracks on the

bridge surface and underneath deck
Suspected delamination defect in the
bridge deck as indicated by cracks on
the bridge surface and exposed of
rebar
Obvious rust stains formed on
underneath the bridge deck
Damp spots observed underneath the
bridge deck and beam
Mild severe concrete spalling
observed

Defect's
rating
5
4

4
2
1

From the rating shown in Table 3, it is found that the cracks formed on the
bridge surface is heavy and critically damaged, that need immediate repair or
rehabilitation work. The suspected cause of the surface crack, the steel corrosion
and concrete delamination, were given the rating of 4. According to ABIM [7],
this rating is correspond to critical damage that require a detailed inspection to
determine whether any rehabilitation works are required. The water leakages and
concrete spalling observation were found not to be so critical.

3.4. GPR scanning results

Several hyperbolic features on selected locations on bridge deck areas at area 1, 4,
7 and 8 (A, A4, A7, A8) was analysed by Radan 7 software after GPR scanning
was conducted to obtain its dielectric constant and wave velocity. Figures 5 to 7
show the example of GPR scanning on three selected locations for area A4 on the
bridge deck. The delamination locations in Figs. 5 to 7 was selected based on the
horizontal band feature which is characterised by black-white-black layer as
shown in red oval shape. Table 4 lists the dielectric constants and its corresponding
wave velocity on area 1,4,7 and 8 (A1,A4,A7,A8) of the bridge deck.

Area

A1
A4
A7
A8

Table 4. Properties of delamination defects by GPR.

Delamination
Conclusion on
Dielectric
Wave velocity
(location
depth
defect
Constant
1,2,3)
(m)
(location
(m/ns)
1,2,3)
1.8,1.69,1
0.2,0.2,0.3
0.18
AD
11.6,11.6,11.6 0.09,0.09,0.09
0.18
WD
1.11, 1.63
0.28,0.24
0.025
AD
11.6,11.6,11.6 0.09,0.09,0.09
0.14-0.18
WD
AD = air-delamination type , WD =water-filled delamination type

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 8

GPR had detected 4 delaminations in 4 different areas of the bridge which is

on area A1, A4, A7 and A8 with the length of delaminations are 8.5 m, 5.2 m, 4.1
m and 6.4 m respectively. Based on Table 2, the type of delamination detected by
GPR can be concluded based on the dielectric constant values. Air-filled
delaminations can be possibly concluded at area A1 and A7 as the dielectric
constant on those part are almost close to 1.

Horizontal band layer (black-white-black layer)

Fig. 5. Hyperbolic curve at location 1 on area 4 of the bridge deck.

Horizontal band layer (black-white-black layer)

Fig. 6. Hyperbolic curve at location 2 on area 4 of the bridge deck.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

A.M. Shamsudin et al.

In order to conclude whether the water is a medium inside the detected

delaminations in area A4 and A8, the dielectric constants in a deteriorated
concrete has to be estimated based on moisture content. According to Senin
and Hamid [8], the maximum of water content in high water-to-cement-ratio
concrete is within the range 10.2% to 12% of the dry weight of the sample. An
estimate of dielectric constant of concrete due to moisture content, w, is given by
Han et al. [9] and shown in Eq. (2);
 = 
  


(2)

Horizontal band layer (black-white-black layer)

Fig. 7. Hyperbolic curve at location 3 on area 4 of the bridge deck.
Adopting the moisture content of the bridge deck concrete as 12% of
moisture content, the estimated dielectric constant is equal to 12.24, which is
closed to the provided dielectric constant shown in Table 4 for area A4 and
A8. It was concluded that the delaminations at area A4 and A8 were filled
with water.
The severity of the detected delaminations were evaluated based on the
severity scales given by Table 1. Table 5 shows that all of the delaminations
were evaluated as "very severe" as the all delamination lengths were
exceeding 0.6 meter.
Table 5. Delamination severity of the GPR results.
Area

Delamination length (m)

Severity

A1

8.5

Very severe

A4

5.2

Very severe

A7

4.1

Very severe

A8

6.4

Very severe

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 10

3.5. Comparison between the visual inspection and ground

penetrating radar
A comparison was made between both methods of accessing the detection
capabilities on each area of the bridge. Based on Table 6 and Fig. 8, it
is suggested that GPR has the ability to detect the location and size of
the delaminated area more accurate, located at area A1, A4, A7 and A8
having length 8.5 m, 5.2 m, 4.1 m and 6.4 m, respectively. Meanwhile, VI
method was only able to detect size of the delaminated area at A1 (8.7 m) and
A8 (9.5 m). The percentage of difference on delaminations extend by both
methods was 2.3 % at location A1 and 32.6 % at location A8. This
observation suggests that GPR showed its superior detection capability over
VI method as its ability to detect another two hidden delamination features on
the bridge deck.
GPR was able to detect more hidden delaminations features than visual
inspection as the method characterising the delamination based on the
electromagnetic wave reflection on air or water that trapped within the
delamination gap.

Fig. 8. Result of the delaminations detected using both methods.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

11

A.M. Shamsudin et al.

Table 6. Size and rating of the detected delamination area.

Visual inspection

GPR method

Area
of the
bridge

Presence of
visible
delamination
indicator

A1

Yes

8.7

Very
Severe

8.5

A4

Yes

ND

Medium

5.2

A7

Yes

ND

Medium

4.1

A8

Yes

9.5

Very
Severe

6.4

Length
(m)

Rating

Length
(m)

Rating
Very
Severe
Very
Severe
Very
Severe
Very
Severe

ND Not Detected

4. Conclusions
GPR and VI methods have been used to detect the location and length of
delaminations on the bridge deck. Both methods showed good agreement on
locating the delamination on the bridge, however, the visual inspection method
was not able to detect the size of delaminations on area area A4 and A7. GPR is
able to detect the size of hidden and early delamination location that cannot be
observe by visual inspection possibly created by the corrosion of rebar. The
difference on the delamination length detected by both method are 2.3% at area
A1 and 32.6% at area A8. GPR method is recommended to supplement theVI
method in detection of delamination occurred in bridge deck as sometimes the
delamination is not visible by the VI method.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for providing
the financial support through projects GUP-2013-017 and DLP-2013-033.

References
1.
2.

3.

4.

REAM (2003). A Guide to bridge inspection. Road Engineering Association

of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Huston, D.; Cui J.; Burns D.; and Hurely, D. (2011). Concrete bridge deck
condition assessment with automated multisensor techniques, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 7(8), 613-623.
Xing, S.; Halling, M.W.; and Barr, P.J. (2012). Delamination detection of
reinforced concrete decks using modal identification. Journal of Sensors,
Volume 2012, Article ID 156583, 1-17.
Shah, S.P.; and Chandra, S. (1970). Fracture of concrete subjected to cylic
and sustained loading. ACI Journal, 67(10), 816-827.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015

Concrete Delaminations Location and Its Severity Detection by Visual . . . . 12

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

Wielen, A.V.D.; Nguyen, F.; and Courard, L. (2010). Nondestructive

detection of delaminations in concrete bridge decks. 13th International
Conference on GPR, Lecce, 1-5.
Wang, Z.W.; Zhou, M.; Slabaugh, G.G.; Zhai, J.; and Fang, T. (2011).
Automatic detection of bridge deck condition from ground penetrating radar
images. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 8(3),
633- 640.
PWD. (2003). Annual bridge inspection manual. Bridge Unit, Roads Branch,
Public Work Departement Malaysia.
Senin, S.F.; and Hamid, R. (2014). Effect of moisture and chloride content on
Ground Penetrating Radar normalized amplitude ratio of concrete slab.
International Technical Conference, Seoul, South Korea.
Han, J.B.; and Yang, J. (2011). Application of radar technology on concrete
water content testing. Advanced Materials Research, 250-253, 3103-3106.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 6/2015