Mock-up wall for non-destructive testing and evaluation of thick

reinforced concrete structures in nuclear power plants

F. Al-Neshawy(1), T. Ojala(1), M. Ferreira(2), J. Puttonen(1)
1) Aalto University School of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Finland
2) VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

Abstract

The reinforced concrete structures in nuclear power plants (NPP) are deteriorated due to
aging and environmental stressors during the lifetime of the power plant. To assess
construction quality and the long-term performance of reinforced concrete structures,
different non-destructive testing (NDT) and evaluation (NDE) methods are used. Some
of the challenges for assessing the performance of these structures are that (i) the
assessment could be performed only during the annual overhauls when testing is time-
limited, (ii) the accuracy and reliability of the available NDT testing devices, (iii)
uncertainty of the international uniformity of the methods used for NDT tests, and (iv)
the creditability of results and analyses.
To increase the reliability of condition evaluation, a mock-up wall representing a NPP
containment concrete wall is constructed for the critical investigation of NDT&E
methods and techniques. The mock-up wall contains simulated defects, which are
representing typical defects in concrete structures such as dimensional errors, finishing
errors, honeycombing, cracking, delamination due to structure stresses or deterioration
mechanisms, embedded foreign objects in the concrete, voids adjacent to liner, and
voids in grouted tendon ducts for the post-tensioned structures.
This paper introduces modern NDT techniques that are suitable for assessing the
condition of the mock-up wall under the real environmental conditions.
The mock-up wall for NPP thick-walled reinforced concrete structures will enable the
assessment of NDT&E methods and experts experience, and provides an important and
very much need education environment for NDE experts.

Keywords: NDE, concrete, thick-walled, defects, deterioration, reinforcement.

1. Introduction
Non-destructive testing of concrete structures provides information about the condition
of the structure including its components and materials. With modern NDT techniques,
we are able to investigate relatively small details or to scan large surface areas to map
reinforcing and cable ducts. For example acoustic techniques make it possible to
describe the concrete structure and its mechanical properties. By combining NDT
techniques, we obtain a comprehensive picture of the internal structure of the wall and
the condition of large volumes of reinforced concrete in its undisturbed state. [1]
The aim of this paper is discuss the use of available modern NDT methods for
measuring the performance of thick-walled concrete structure. The objectives of the
investigation were to test a thick-walled concrete mock-up with NDT techniques in
order to:
a) identify embedded simulated defects

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

 b) investigate the possibilities of combining NDT techniques for thick-walled
concrete structure
The NDT methods applied were Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) (only for the concrete
exposed surface), concrete cover meter, ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer.
The investigation is a part of the research project "Non-destructive examination of NPP
primary circuit components and concrete infrastructure (WANDA)". WANDA is a
cooperation project between VTT and Aalto University and is funded by SAFIR 2018
(The Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear. Power Plant Safety 2015 – 2018).

2. Description of the thick-walled mock-up

2.1 Concrete mix design

The mix design of the used concrete for building the wall is presented in the Table 1.
The compressive strength class of C40/50 was used the concrete. Furthermore, Plus
cement (CEM II/B-M42.5N) was used as a binder. The consistency class for the
concrete was S3 class (100 – 150 mm) and a Sola-Parmix polycarbosilane-based
superplasticizer [2] was used to achieve the target workability of the concrete. Two
types of aggregates were used: (i) 0/8 mm (sand) with moisture content of 2.5% and
absorbed water content of 0.4% and (II) 8/16 mm (gravel) with moisture content of
0.1% and absorbed water content of 0.4%. The measured air content of the fresh air
content was 1.5%. The mixing time of the 2.5 m³ concrete patch was 90 seconds.
Table 1. Mix design of concrete used in TVO thick-wall mock-up.

Amount Volume
Ingredient
(kg/m³) (dm³/m³)
Cement 427 138
Cold water 165 165
Flushing water 2 2
Water
Extra water 4 4
Aggregate moisture 19 19 (*)
0/8p sand 1028 398
8/16 gravel 733 275
Sola-Parmix (superplasticizer) 3 2
Air content 15
Total 2378 1000
*) aggregate moisture is part of the aggregates

2.2 Size and dimensions of thick-walled concrete mock-up

The thick-walled concrete mock-up represent a segment of the safety structure of the
NPP reactor. The total height of the wall is 3.2 m. The wall is divided into two parts:
1) The lower part is a concrete block with 1.0 m height, 1.9 m width and average
thickness of 2.55 m (max. is 3.2 m and min. is 1.9 m)
2) The upper part is two walls with height of 2.2 m and average thickness of 0.65
m. The upper part of the wall includes the open part, which represent the space
for the pipes of the primary circuit.

2
The size and dimension of the thick walled concrete structure mock-up is represented in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Shape and dimensions of the cast in place thick walled concrete mock-up

2.3 Simulated concrete problems

Generally, different mechanisms and phenomena may damage the concrete. Common
causes of concrete problems during the use of the structure can be classified as:
 Defects: design, materials, construction
 Damage: overload, fire, impact, chemical spill
 Deterioration: metal corrosion, erosion, freeze/thaw, sulfate attacks, time-
depended changes in concrete chemistry
When a new concrete structure is taken into service there may occur damage that is
attributable to unsatisfactory construction practice. The defect may have an immediate
effect on the structural integrity, such as air voids in concrete structure. Poor
construction usually leads to reduced durability, which will manifest itself in later years.
The service life of the structure may be reduced or extensive maintenance may be
required as a result of deterioration of materials, usually reinforcement steel corrosion
or concrete deterioration by aggressive chemicals [3]. The most common problems of
reinforced concrete structures are:
 delamination and cracks
 degradation of mild steel can occur as a result of corrosion, irradiation, elevated
temperature, or fatigue effects
 post-tensioning systems are susceptible to the same degradation mechanisms as
mild steel plus time-depended loss of prestressing force, primarily due to tendon
relaxation, and concrete creep and shrinkage
 honeycomb and embedded items (construction defects)
 voids adjacent to liner and voids in grouted tendon ducts.

3
The simulated embedded defects based on the work of Wimsatt et. al. (2012) [4] were
planned to the concrete mock-up. The simulated defects were representing defects that
could have occurred during the construction process or caused by the degradation of
the concrete with time. As represented in Table 2 and Figure 2, types of simulated
defects embedded in the thick-walled concrete mock-up were:
 delamination - imitated by using 0.05-mm plastic sheets and 0.25-mm cloth
squares
 air-filled voids constructed by inserting foam squares 13 mm thick in vacuum-
sealed plastic bags.
 water-filled voids constructed by placing water-filled bags within vacuum-
sealed plastic bags and carefully padding the defect with concrete
 cracks and honeycombing constructed by placing a 50*200*200 mm Expanded
polystyrene insulation (EPS) pieces in the concrete

Table 2. List of the simulated defects in the thick walled concrete mock-up.

Defect type Defect code Description

Delamination occurs in reinforced concrete
Delm1
structures subject to reinforcement corrosion
Delamination
Delm2 (0,2 mm plastic sheets, fixed in place)
Delm3
Hon01 Honeycomb
Hon02
Honeycomb (Expanded polystyrene insulation (EPS)
Hon03
50*200*200 mm, fixed in vertical direction)
Hon04
Construction CD01 Construction defects
defects CD02 (Wooden pieces, fixed into the reinforcement)
AFV01 Air-filled voids
Empty air
voids (An empty 0.5 L bottle, fixed into the
AFV02
reinforcement)
WFV01 Water-filled voids
Water-filled
air voids (A water-filled 0.5 L bottle, fixed into the
WFV02
reinforcement)

Figure 2. Examples of the simulated defects embedded in the thick-walled concrete mock-up.

4
3. Testing results and data analysis
3.1 Compressive strength

For evaluation of the in-place compressive strength of the thick-walled mock-up, two
testing methods were used: i) the rebound hammer method for measuring the surface
hardness of the concrete as NDT testing technique and ii) testing of drilled concrete
sample as a destructive testing technique. The rebound hammer test was performed over
13 points in different location on the wall. Three measurements were carried out at
every point. The test results of the rebound hammer test are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Test results of the surface hardness of the concrete using rebound hammer.
Rebound hammer readings Compressive strength, (MPa) Average compressive
Point strength,
01 02 03 01 02 03
(MPa)
1 45 40 41 49 40 42 44
2 40 47 48 40 52 57 50
3 46 48 48 52 57 57 55
4 42 42 49 42 42 57 47
5 41 42 46 41 42 51 45
6 42 40 46 42 40 51 44
7 40 40 47 40 40 53 44
8 40 40 43 40 40 46 42
9 40 45 45 40 50 50 47
10 41 40 47 41 40 40 40
11 44 40 45 48 40 50 46
12 42 48 44 42 57 44 48
13 39 42 46 39 42 51 44
Average compressive strength, (MPa) 46

In-place drilled core sample were prepared as a direct method for determining the
density and the compressive strength of the concrete. The test results of the density and
the compressive strength for the drilled samples are represented in Table 4.
Table 4. Density and compressive strength of the drilled core samples.
Weight Weight Hardened Compressive
in air underwater concrete density strength,
Specimen (kg) (kg) (kg/m³) (MPa)
100 x 100 mm
Cored cylinder
1 2,4 1,437 2492 64

2 2,435 1,416 2390 44

3 2,438 1,438 2438 52

Average 2440 53

The results show that the average compressive strength measured by Rebound Hammer
is 46 MPa, which fits to the target compressive strength of the concrete mix (C40/50).
The compressive strength of the drilled specimens (D/L = 100/100 = 1) was higher than
the target compressive strength of the concrete mix, the reason could be the testing

5
condition of the drilled specimens. Drilled samples stored on condition chamber with
relative humidity of 45±2% and temperature of 20±2°C.

3.2. Reinforcement location

Two NDT methods were used for measuring the concrete cover depth for one side of
the wall: i) the concrete cover meter and ii) the Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR).
Location of the measurements is represented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Area of the concrete wall where the cover thickness was determined. GPR lines were
marked with white arrows.
As shown in Figure 3, the concrete cover depth was measured using a concrete cover
meter in two lines and six measurements were performed per line. The concrete meter
results are presented in Table 5. The minimum value of concrete cover was 24 mm and
the maximum value was 40 mm
Table 5. Concrete cover meter measurement locations and results. (The X and Y coordinates are
approximated)
Line 1 Line 2
Coordinates Cover depth Coordinates Cover depth
X Y (mm) X Y (mm)
0.10 1.85 30 0.10 1.70 40
0.45 1.85 25 0.45 1.70 24
0.70 1.85 40 0.70 1.70 40
0.90 1.85 25 0.90 1.70 30
1.10 1.85 40 1.10 1.70 40
1.30 1.85 25 1.30 1.70 25

GPR was also used to locate the reinforcements in the concrete wall. The transmitted
radar pulse is reflected from the reinforcement steel and the measured travel time of the
reflected pulse is used to estimate the depth of the reinforcement steel inside the
concrete wall. The area where the concrete cover meter was applied was also measured
with the GPR (Figure 3). The studied area was covered with GPR lines with
approximately 20 cm line spacing in two opposite directions.

6
The GPR data image was processed with the band-pass filter and the time zero
correction has been applied. The travel time of reinforcement reflections were picked
and saved for further calculations. Examples of the pick marks are shown with crosses
in Figure 4. The travel time of each reflector was then turned into depth by assuming the
velocity in concrete to be 0.1 m/ns. Estimated concrete cover thicknesses are listed in
Table 6. The minimum values of the concrete cover are 25–27 mm. The coordinate
information are only estimated based on the measuring wheel data and some calibration
measurements on the study site as the original study plan did not include exactly
locating the reinforcements.

Figure 4. Example of the interpreted reinforcements are marked with red in the GPR image.

Table 6. Results of GPR concrete cover thicknesses measurements.

Line 1 Line 3
Two-way Cover Two-way Cover
Coordinates Coordinates
travel time depth travel time depth
X Y (ns) (mm) X Y (ns) (mm)
0.10 1.85 0.95 47 0.45 1.70 0.53 27
0.30 1.85 0.93 47 0.70 1.70 1.02 51
0.45 1.85 0.52 26 0.90 1.70 0.67 34
0.70 1.85 1.14 57 1.10 1.70 1.10 55
0.90 1.85 0.61 31 1.30 1.70 0.66 33
1.10 1.85 1.01 50 1.50 1.70 1.30 65
1.30 1.85 0.60 30 1.60 1.70 0.64 32

The concrete cover depth over the reinforcement varies from 35 mm to 50 mm. The
minimum cover depth measured be concrete cover meter was 24 mm and the maximum
was 40 mm, which fit the design concrete cover depth of the wall. Using GPR method
for measuring the concrete cover depth showed higher values at some points on the
wall. The standard distribution of the concrete cover depth measured by GPR is shown
in Figure 5. The results show that the average concrete cover depth is 39 mm with
standard deviation of 10 mm.

7
 Figure 5. Using of the GPR method for concrete cover measurement.
3.3. Detection of the simulated defect and concrete surface condition

The visual interpretation of GPR data lines was carried out. The GPR signal attenuation
was observed to be quite substantial, especially with the 1.6 GHz GPR system, and
penetration depths were less than approximately 20 cm. The penetration depth was
probably decreased because of densely located reinforcements and concrete
electromagnetic properties. However, in few locations of processed GPR lines very
weak reflections could be seen which might be related to the simulated construction
defects. For example, water (WFV02), air-filled (AFV02) bottles and the
Honeycombing defect (HON1) were detected, as presented in Figure 6, but their visual
interpretation was very challenging.

Water (WFV02) and air-filled (AFV02) bottles Honeycombing defect (HON1)

Figure 6. Examples of the simulated defects detected by GPR.

The used of the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity device to investigate the condition of the
concrete surface and the internal cracks or air voids of concrete failed because the
device malfunctioned (battery problem). The reason could also be the low operating
temperature during the measurement (the outdoors temperature was around 0°C). Some
cracks were visually observed on the surface of the mock-up as shown in Figure 7. The

8
reason for these cracks could be the formwork or early shrinkage of the concrete
surface.

Figure 7. Examples of the visually observed surface crack on mock-up wall surface.

4. Conclusions
The investigation included the following steps: (i) selecting some common defects due
to construction and cumulative degradation of the concrete with time, (ii) embedding of
simulated defects inside the thick-walled concrete structure and (iii) using modern NDT
testing methods for detecting the simulated defects. The representative defects of
construction process were honeycombing, air filled voids and water filled voids. The
representative cumulative ageing defects of the wall were cracks and delamination of
concrete. The NDT techniques used in the investigation were Ground Penetrating Radar
(GPR), Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV), rebound hammer and concrete cover meter.
The results of the investigation show the importance of the combination of different
NDT techniques to justify the detection of the embedded items in the wall and
characterizing the properties of the concrete. For some malfunctions and limitations of
the NDT devices used, the research team was not able to detect some of the simulated
defects in the wall.
The results of the investigation showed that the compressive strength of the concrete
measured by Rebound Hammer fits to the target compressive strength of the concrete
mix, while the compressive strength results of drilled samples is higher. The concrete
cover depth values measures by both concrete cover meter and GPR are in the range of
the target cover depth of the wall.
The investigation was useful for the future research as a practical way of inducing
simulated defects into concrete structures, planning the use of NDT techniques and
considering the limitations of each methods.
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Timo Kukkola, Chief engineer, Civil Engineering,
TVO Oy for his support in building the thick-walled concrete mock-up and
implementing of the NDT investigation.

References
[1]. Lim, A., (2012). Detailed Non-Destructive Bridge Inspection Guidelines -
Concrete and Steel Bridges. MAIN ROADS Western Australia. Doc: No.
6706-02-2241 – Issue Date 27-07-2012.

9
[2]. Finnsementti, (2013). Chemical admixtures for concrete - Sola-Parmix.
Available online at: http://www.finnsementti.fi/fsproductdb/files/sola-
parmix_1_09062015_121453.pdf [accessed on 26.01.2018]
[3]. Soudki, K.A. Concrete Problems and Repair Techniques. Waterloo, Ontario,
Department of Civil Engineering. Available online at:
https://concretequality.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/concrete-problems-and-
repair-technique.pdf [accessed on 26.01.2018]
[4]. Wimsatt, Andrew et. al. (2012) Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations,
Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within Tunnel Linings. Available
online at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2prepubR06GReport.pdf
[accessed on 26.01.2018]
[5]. Helal, J., Sofi, M., Mendis. P., (2015). Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete: A
Review of Methods. Special Issue: Electronic Journal of Structural
Engineering 14(1) 2015. eJSE International. Available online at:
http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/2015-1/2015-1-9.pdf [accessed on
26.01.2018]
[6]. Iiro Honkanen, (2017). Creating an opening in safety classified reinforced
concrete wall of nuclear power plant. Master thesis, Civil Engineering
Department, Aalto University School of Engineering. Available online at:
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/26735 [accessed on 26.01.2018]

10