IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and

Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Thin Film Dual Probe Heat Pulse (DPHP)
Experimental study of crack depth measurement Micro Heater Network for Soil Moisture
Content Estimation in Smart Agriculture
of concrete with ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) Almaw Ayele Aniley, Naveen Kumar S. K.,
Akshaya Kumar A. et al.

- Turbulent Structure in Supernova

To cite this article: Baehaki et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 673 012047 Remnants G46.80.3 and G39.20.3 from
THOR Polarimetry
Russell Shanahan, Jeroen M. Stil, Loren
Anderson et al.

- Open crack depth sizing by multi-speed

View the article online for updates and enhancements. continuous laser stimulated lock-in
thermography
C Boué and S Holé

This content was downloaded from IP address 158.62.16.243 on 15/11/2024 at 02:58

Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Experimental study of crack depth measurement of concrete

with ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)

Baehaki*, Andi M and Yohanes G R

Departement of Civil Engineering, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Cilegon,
Banten, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

Abstract. This research was conducted to know the effect of reinforcement and distance
tranducer effective in detecting the depth of concrete cracks. The test specimen used is a
15x15x60 cm3 concrete beam with a concrete quality of 19 MPa. The test material is made of
artificial cracks as depth as ± 2cm, ± 4cm, ± 6cm, and any fractured variation made 3 pieces of
speciment, in addition to the test object was given a reinforcement of Ø8 mm which is placed
horizontally in the center of the beam at a depth of 4 cm from the concrete surface. This testing
using indirect method with variations of tranducer distance of 3cm, 6cm, 9cm, and 12cm. The
study concluded that the accuracy of UPV testing results was influenced by reinforcement and
distance tranducer. Test speciment with an artificial crack depth of ± 2cm and ± 4cm have a
greater reading result with a relative error of 36.8% and 16.5%, while the test object with an
artificial crack depth of ± 6cm has a smaller reading result with a relative error ± 3.4%. In
addition, it obtained an effective tranducer distance of 12cm with an accuracy of 85.4%.

1. Introduction
Cracks in concrete are important information in identifying the strength of reinforced concrete
structures. The existence of concrete cracks, before steel reinforcement become yield is the best
structural failure mechanism in a reinforced concrete design because the failure is ductile (under
reinforcement). Cracks are an early warning of the structure, so the structure strength can be
immediately evaluated to determine the repair or reinforcement of the structure.
The measurement of crack depth can be conducted by Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (UPVT). The
principle of this UPV testing work is to transmit the ultrasonic waves from the transmitter to the
receiver through concrete material so that the wave is measured by the Read-Out PUNDIT unit
(Portable Unit Non Destructive Indicator Tester). Transmitter distance to the receiver is determined
before measurement, the ultrasonic wave velocity in concrete material can be calculated and can be
used to determine the depth of the crack.
The results of several crack depth measurements with UPVT give different results in the testing of
reinforced concrete of the same quality. This raises doubts about the results of measurements with
UPV.Therefore, this research needs to be done to determine the influence of steel reinforcement of
reinforced concrete and the effective distance of the tranducer in the measurement of concrete crack
depth.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

2. Literature Review
Roberto C A Pinto et al. 4 observed about use of ultrasound to estimate the depth of surface opening
cracks in concrete structures with the purpose of knowing and estimating the UPV method is the most
effective in estimating crack depth in concrete. The measurement in this study uses indirect methods
with 4 different data collection methods, namely the Bungey method, BS 1881 method, and 2 methods
made by the author (method A and Method B).

Figure 1. The measurement method used

The results of this study shows that the BS 1881 method has a correction value of less than 10%,
smaller than the 3 other methods used so this method is the most effective method.
This research to know the influence of the reinforcement of the crack depth is also conducted by
Herlambang 3 observed effect of distance of tranducer and reinforcement on measurement crack
depth of concrete using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV). The purpose of this research is to know the
difference in the results of cracking depth in concrete with deform and plain reinforcement with
concrete without reinforcement. The research uses a variation in the crack depth of 10 mm, 20 mm,
and 30 mm with testing using 3 variations of tranducer distance of 10 cm, 14 cm and 18 cm. Testing
using 3 beam samples measuring 15 x 15 x 60 cm for each variation in depth cracks. The test object
uses a basic reinforcement of Ø 10 mm and a dash Ø 6 mm. The results gained from the study showed
that the reading of crack depth in reinforced concrete and unreinforcement concrete had differences in
reading results.
Wibowo et al. 6 observed accuracy of crack depth measurements on reinforced concrete beams
using UPV with variations in the thickness of concrete covers with the aim to measure the accuracy of
the crack depth measurement Using Ultraviolet Pulse Velocity method on reinforced concrete with the
influence of thick difference of concrete cover. The study uses 15 reinforced concrete beams with 4
thick variations of concrete cover and 1 beam variation without reinforcement. Thickness variations of
blankets used are 2 cm, 3cm, 4cm, and 5 cm with 1 variation using 3 test speciment with dimensions
15 x 20 x 50 cm. test objects using longitudinal reinforcement (elongated) Ø 8mm and transversal
reinforcement (transverse) Ø 6 mm with crack depth Made of 8cm. The results of this study indicate
that there is a relative error in artificial crack depth measurements with UPV tests. The relative average
error on concrete with thicker concrete cover 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, and 5 cm in a row – also 6.80%;
6.63%; 5.48%; and 4.91%. In concrete without reinforcement has a relatively average error – an
average of 4.59%. The results of the analysis obtained that the larger the thickness value of the
concrete cover owned, the smaller the value of error relative to the reading of the crack depth.

2
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

3. Summary of Design Equations from Standars

PUNDIT (Portable Non-destructive Digital Indicated Tester Unit) or UPV (Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity)
is a device that uses ultrasonic waves to determine uniformity, concrete quality, concrete density and
crack depth. Factors that influence wave propagation include the maximum diameter of the aggregate,
compressive strength, age of the specimen, humidity of the test specimen, temperature of the
specimen, steel reinforcement, and uniformity. Some of the rules are reference: ASTM C597-02, EN
12504-04. In general, the UPV testing equation is based on ASTM C597 1:
𝐿
𝑉=𝑇 (1)

Where;
V = Pulse velocity (m/s)
L = Distance between Transducer with receiver (m)
T = Travel time (s)

The concrete crack depth estimation uses the Indirect Method method which is used to measure
the wave propagation time from the transmitter to the receiver on a surface area where time passes the
crack line. To determine the crack depth of the concrete, 2 (two) wave propagation measurements were
carried out. The first is the transmitter and receiver placed across one surface with the same distance
from the surface crack line, that is distance X1, and then at distance X2. Illustration of measurements
as shown below :

The crack depth (c) can be calculated by the following equation:

1 𝑋22 𝑇22−𝑋12 𝑇22

𝑐 = 2√ (2)
𝑇2 −𝑇1

Where:
X1 : distance between tranducer at first masurement
X2 : distance between tranducer at second masurement
t1 : wave propagation time at first observation
t2 : wave propagation time at second observation

T T1 R1 R2
2

c
X1,t1
X2,t2

Figure 2. illustration of concrete crack measurement

If at the first measurement the distance between the crack position and the transmitter is b, and the
distance between the receiver and the crack position is also b in the opposite direction, then X1 = 2b.
Next, if the measurement of the distance between the crack position and the transmitter is 2b, and the
distance between the receiver and the crack position is also 2b in the opposite direction, then X2 = 4b.
Then the measurement illustration can be described as:

3
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Equation (2) above becomes:

4𝑡1 2 −𝑡2 2
𝑐 = 𝑏√ (3)
𝑡2 2 −𝑡1 2

4. Ekperimental Program

4.1 Test specimens

The specimens used in this study were beam-shaped specimens with dimensional of 15x15x60 cm and
concrete quality of 19 MPa. The specimens were given artificial cracks with variations in crack depth
of ± 2 cm, ± 4 cm, ± 6 cm, and each variation of cracks was made 3 pieces of specimens, in addition to
the specimens were given Ø8 mm reinforcement placed transversely in the middle of the beam at
depth 4 cm from the concrete surface. For more details, the concrete specimens to be made are shows
in Figure 3 and Table 1.

Table 1. Quantity of Specimen

Size Crack depth Tranducer Distance (b)

No Specimen Quantity
(cm x cm x cm) (cm) (cm)
1 B 19.2 ±2 3
2 B 19.4 15 x 15 x 60 ±4 3, 6, 9 & 12 3
3 B 19.6 ±6 3

4.2. Test setup

This test Set up is adapted to the standard UPV testing standards, using the PUNDIT tool. Estimation
of concrete crack depth measurement measured by Indirect method. The method used to measure the
time of wave propagation from the transmitter to the receiver is on one surface area where time passes
through the crack line. To find out the depth of the crack, 2 (two) wave propagation measurements
were carried out. The first, the transmitter and reciver are placed across one surface with the same
distance from the surface crack line, that is at distance b. Second, the transmitter and receiver are
removed as 2b Illustration of measurements as in the following image.

Note:
1. Read out PUNDIT
2. Connector
T Transmitter
R Receiver
h Crack Depth
h Transducer Distance

Figure 3. Concrete Crack Depth Testing scheme

4
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Figure 4. Top view testing for distance "b"

Figure 5. Top view testing for distance "2b"

Figure 6. Position of measurement point

5. Test Results
The test results for all specimens are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, these results shows differences in
the depth reading of the measurement results (H measure) against artificial cracks (H artificial) for
each of the speciment. These results are stated in error relative to the artificial crack's depth value.

Table 2. Summary of test result for the crack depth 2 cm

H H
Tranducer distance T1 T2 Error relative
Specimens Measurement Artificial
b (cm) (µs) (µs) (%)
(cm) (cm)
3 22.77 36.63 2.50 25.00
6 36.00 66.40 2.95 47.50
B 19.2.01 2.00
9 53.20 102.00 3.03 51.67
12 81.07 158.10 3.13 56.67

5
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Specimens Tranducer distance T1 T2 H H Error relative

b (cm) (µs) (µs) Measurement Artificial (%)
3 34.67 53.60 3.20
(cm) (cm) 60.00
6 45.90 84.05 3.22 61.06
B 19.2.02 2.00
9 57.70 111.50 2.77 38.33
12 85.30 166.60 2.83 41.67
3 28.17 45.73 2.67 33.33
6 40.60 76.30 2.67 33.65
B 19.2.03 2.00
9 56.20 109.83 2.10 5.00
12 68.43 135.60 1.78 11.21

Table 3. Summary of test result for the crack depth 4 cm

H H
Tranducer distance T1 Error relative
Specimens T2 (µs) Measurement Artificial
b (cm) (µs) (%)
(cm) (cm)
3 28.97 38.80 5.00 25.00
6 42.67 72.03 4.70 17.50
B 19.4.01 4.00
9 51.67 95.57 4.35 8.71
12 81.80 157.77 3.87 3.33
3 31.27 40.63 5.57 39.17
6 38.77 66.73 4.40 10.00
B 19.4.02 4.00
9 53.47 99.40 4.23 5.83
12 73.07 141.27 3.73 6.67
3 32.17 41.23 5.70 42.50
6 37.40 61.60 5.17 29.17
B 19.4.03 4.00
9 56.47 103.30 4.63 15.83
12 71.37 136.50 4.23 5.83

6. Discussion of Test Results

6.1. Effect of reinforcement on crack depth measurements
Reinforcement is placed across in the middle of the beam that has been given artificial cracks.
Reinforcement provided has a different effect for each crack depth. The reinforcement given gives
different influences to each depth of crack. Test results in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 are the
average value of the cracked depth of the 3 samples of concrete beams with 3 laying points as in
Figure 6 for each variation of the tranducer distance which is then sought by the percentage of the
value difference The largest, smallest and average crack depth of the difference. The position of
artificialcrack depth based on three conditions i.e. the depth of crack is above the reinforcement, the
depth of the crack is right in the position of the reinforcement and the depth of the crack that passes
through the reinforcement. More details can be seen in the Figure 7 to 9 below.

6
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Figure 7. Position of crack depth to reinforcement for artificial crack depth 2 cm.

Figure 8. Position of crack depth to Figure 9. Position of crack depth to

reinforcement for artificial crack depth 4 cm. reinforcement for artificial crack depth 6 cm.

This test is to find out how cracking depth measurement results when cracks are not going through
the reinforcement, the cracks reach the position of the reinforcement and the cracks that pass through
the reinforcement. The crack depth test for artificial crack depth is used in 3 concrete beam specimen,
here are the results of the crack depth testing shown in the table and graphs below.

Tabel 4. The effect of Reinforcement on Crack Depth Measurement for artificial cracks depth 2 cm
Crack Depth (H)
Tranducer distance b H H Error
Specimens Correction value
(cm) Measurement Artificial relative
(cm) (cm) (%)
3 2.789 2 39.4 0.717
6 2.942 2 47.1 0.680
B.192
9 2.633 2 31.7 0.759
12 2.581 2 29.0 0.775
Average 2,736 2 36.8 0,733
Standar Deviation 4,3

Effect of reinforcement on the measurement of

crack depth to artificial crack depth of 2 cm
HH
Buatan
Artificial(cm)
(cm)
7
Crack Depth (cm)

HH
Pembacaan (cm)
Measurement (cm)
6
5 y = -0,0155x + 2,4846
4 R² = 0,6121
3
2
1
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Tranducer distance (cm)
Figure 10. Graph of Reinforcement Effect on Crack Depth Readings for artificial Crack Depths 2
cm.

7
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

The result above is the Test average of 3 specimen for each tranducer distance variation. The
results showed that the results of cracking depth measurement had greater results than the depth of
artificial cracks due to the influence of reinforcement. Figure 10 shows that the result of a crack depth
measurement is above the artificial crack depth. Average relative error – the average for a 2 cm crack
depth test is 36.8% with a relatively biggest error of 47.1% and the smallest 29%. The regression value
for the reinforcement effect of the 2 cm artificialcrack depth reading is y =-0, 0155x + 2.4846 with a
value of R2 = 0.6121.

Tabel 5. The effect of Reinforcement on Crack Depth Measurement for depth of artificial cracks 4 cm
Crack Depth (H)
H H Error
Specimens Tranducer distance b (cm) Correction value
Measurement Artificial Relative
(cm) (cm) (%)
3 5.411 4 35.3 0.739
6 4.756 4 18.9 0.841
B.194
9 4.411 4 10.3 0.907
12 3.944 4 1.4 1.014
Average 4,631 4 16,5 0,875
Standar Deviation 11,5

The average test of the 3 specimen described in Table 5 has an average percentage of the realtive
error of 16.46% with a percentage of the largest relative error of 35.3% and the percentage of the
smallest realistic error of 1.4%. The results showed that the depth of measurement of cracks that
reached the reinforcement has a greater result than the depth of artificial cracks due to the influence of
the reinforcement. The regression value obtained is y =-0.0791 x + 4.9083 with a value of R² = 0.2902.
The factors that lead to the value of the test result greater than the depth of artificial crack are the wave
speed at the reinforcement faster than the wave velocity in concrete 2. Reinforcement causes the
transmitted wave velocity to be greater so that the results of crack depth readings show greater results.

Effect of reinforcement on the measurement of crack

depth to artificial crack depth of 4 cm

7
Crack Depth (cm)

5
3 H Artificial
H Buatan(cm) (cm)
y = -0.0791x + 4.9083
1 R² = 0,2902 H Measurement
Pembacaan (cm)
(cm)
-1 0 3 6 9 12 15
Tranducer distance (cm)

Figure 11. Effect of Reinforcement Graph on crack depth readings for Artificial Crack Depth 4 cm.

8
 Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Tabel 6. Effect of Reinforcement on Crack Depth Measurement for 6 cm depth of artificial cracks
Crack Depth (H)
Tranducer distance b H H Error
Specimens Correction value
(cm) Measurement Artificial relative
(cm) (cm) (%)
3 5.858 6 2.369 1.024
6 5.644 6 5.926 1.063
B.196
9 5.722 6 4.630 1.049
12 5.963 6 0.620 1.006
Average 5,797 6 3,4 1.035
Standar Deviation 2,1

The results of the test above indicate that the reading of the crack depth that passes through the
reinforcement has a lesser outcome than artificial crack depth due to the influence of the
reinforcement. The average percentage of the realistic error is 3.339% with the largest relative error
percentage of 5.92% and a percentage of the smallest relative error 0.62%. The regression value for
the reinforcement influence of the crack depth reading for a crack depth of 6 cm is y = 0.0056 x +
5,865 with a value of R² = 0.4074. The factors resulting in the value of the test result smaller than the
artificial crack's depth are the ultrasonic waves emitted by the Transmitter directly routed to the
Receiver after the ultrasonic waves reach the reinforcement so that the wave Ultrasonic does not reach
the base of artificial cracks i.e. at 6 cm depth.

Effect of reinforcement on the measurement of crack

depth to artificial crack depth of 6 cm
7
Crack Depth (cm)

6
5 y = 0.0056x + 5.865
4 R² = 0.4074
3 HHBuatan
Artificial(cm)
(cm)
2
1 HHPembacaan
Measurement (cm)
(cm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Tranducer distance (cm)

Figure 12. Graph of Effect of Reinforcement on Crack Depth Measurement for Artificial Crack Depth
6 cm

6.2. Effective tranducer distance

Testing to determine the tranducer distance is effective using 4 distance variations between Tranducer
(b) as described in Figure 13-16, namely 3, 6, 9 and 12 cm. Each variation of the tranducer distance
used will be tested on 3 concrete beam samples for Each variation in depth of crack with 3 tranducer
placement point as in Figure 6 which then sought the percentage value difference in the largest crack
depth value, smallest and average percentage difference.

9
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Figure 13. The position of the transducer for the Figure 14. position of the transducer for the
value of b is 3 cm value of b is 6 cm

Figure 15. position of the transducer for the Figure 16. position of the transducer for the
value of b is 9 cm value of b is 12 cm

Tabel 7. Effect of Distance Variation on Crack Depth Measurement for artificial crack depth 2 cm
Tranducer H Average of Error
H Error Relative
distance b Specimens Measure Relative
Artificial(cm) (%)
(cm) (cm) (%)
B192.01 2.500 25.00
3 B192.02 3.200 2 60.00 39,44
B192.03 2.667 33.33
B192.01 2.950 47.50
6 B192.02 3.221 2 61.06 47,08
B192.03 2.654 32.69
B192.01 3.033 51.67
9 B192.02 2.767 2 38.33 31,67
B192.03 2.100 5.00
B192.01 3.133 56.67
12 B192.02 2.833 2 41.67 29,04
B192.03 1.7758 11.21

10
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

Tabel 8. Effect of Distance Variation on Crack Depth Measurement for artificial crack depth 4 cm
Tranducer H Average of Error
H Error Relative
distance b Specimens Measure Relative
Artificial(cm) (%)
(cm) (cm) (%)
B194.01 4,967 24,17
3 B194.02 5,567 4 39,17 35,28
B194.03 5,700 42,50
B194.01 4,700 17,50
6 B194.02 4,400 4 10,00 18,89
B194.03 5,167 29,17
B 194.01 4,367 9,17
9 B194.02 4,233 4 5,83 10,28
B194.03 4,633 15,83
B194.01 3,867 3,33
12 B194.02 3,733 4 6,67 1,39
B194.03 4,233 5,83

Tabel 9. Effect of Distance Variation on Crack Depth Measurement for artificial crack depth 6 cm
Tranducer H Average of Error
H Error Relative
distance b Specimens Measure Relative
Artificial(cm) (%)
(cm) (cm) (%)
B196.01 6.140 2.338
3 B196.02 5.867 6 2.222 2.369
B196.03 5.567 7.222
B196.01 5.367 10.556
6 B196.02 5.800 6 3.333 5.926
B196.03 5.767 3.889
B196.01 5.933 1.111
9 B196.02 5.667 6 5.556 4.630
B196.03 5.567 7.222
B196.01 5.874 2.103
12 B196.02 6.137 6 2.279 0.623
B196.03 5.877 2.046

Table 7-9 shows that the tranducer distance is most effective and gives the readings closest to the
depth of artificial crack that is at a distance of 12 cm with a relative percentage of average error of
14.6% or has an accuracy rate of 85.4%. The closer the Tranducer distance results in readings with a
smaller level of accuracy. This result is approaching the provisions of BS 1881 2 and Pundit Lab
Operating Instruction 5 that the distance tranducer effective to get the optimum test result is 15 cm.

7. Conclusion
The study concluded that the accuracy of the UPV testing results was influenced by reinforcement and
distance tranducer. The specimen with an artificial crack depth of ± 2 cm and ± 4 cm have a greater
reading result with a relative error of 36.8% and 16.5%, while the test object with an artificial crack

11
Broad Exposure to Science and Technology 2019 (BEST2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 673 (2019) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/012047

depth of ± 6 cm has a smaller reading result with an error ± 3.4% relative. In addition, it obtained an
effective tranducer distance of 12 cm with a accuracy of 85.4%.

Acknowledgments
The Data on this paper is the result of the research of Civil Engineering Department of Sultan Ageng
Tirtayasa University, with the funds of LPPM UNTIRTA, Serang, Banten. The implementation in the
laboratory of Civil Engineering department, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Cilegon. For that,
thank the two institutions for the support that this empirical fact can be revealed.

References
[1] ASTM C 597 1999 Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards (United States: West Conshohocken)
[2] BS 1881 Part 203 1986 Recommendations for Measurement of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Through Concrete (London: British Standars Inst)
[3] Herlambang F S, Evin Y S 2017 Pengaruh Jarak Tranducer dan Tulangan pada Pengukuran
Kedalaman Retak Beton Menggunakan Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) (Proceeding
Sentrinov Vol 3) p TS 162 – TS 172
[4] Pinto R C A, Medeiros A, Padaratz I J, Andrade P B 2010 Use of Ultrasound to Estimate Depth
of Surface Opening Cracks in Concrete Structure. (Brazil: Civil Engginering Departemen,
Federal University of Santa Catarina).
[5] Proceq 2017 Pundit Lab Operating Instruction (Switzerland: Proceq)
[6] Wibowo A, Suseno H, Hasyim M H, Martin R, Remayanti N C, and Ardian P K 2017 Crack
Dept Measurement of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using UPV (Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil, Vol.
8, No.1) p 41-46

12