Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
ASME STP-NU-069-2014 — Analysis of Selected NDE Methodologies for the Assessment of Cracking in Concrete Containments
🏗️ ASME STP-NU-069-2014 is a technical report authored by an EPRI team (Maria Guimaraes, David B. Scott, Paul Weeks, Randall Manley, James Wall) and sponsored by ASME Nuclear Codes & Standards and ASME ST-LLC. As the current nuclear fleet enters long-term operation (LTO), aging and cracking of concrete containment structures are receiving increasing attention. ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL currently provides in-service inspection requirements based on visual examination of accessible surfaces, with no specific guidance for assessing the internal condition of the concrete. This report is exploratory research into whether existing nondestructive examination (NDE) technology can provide the reliability required to assess delaminations and cracking inside concrete containments.
💡 This project supports an action item of the ASME Section XI Working Group Containment to evaluate examination requirements for determining the internal condition of concrete. Its results provide a technical foundation for future code development of in-service inspection methodologies, and leverage synergies with EPRI’s concrete inspection and aging initiative.
1. Objective and Scope 📌
The core objective is to test NDE techniques and tools for performing detailed assessments of the structural integrity of concrete containment structures. Three parameters are evaluated:
- Depth of flaw detection — how deep a defect each method can reliably detect;
- Operator dependence — how consistent results are across different operators;
- Ease of deployment — how practical each technique is to apply, including automation.
The primary defects of interest are delaminations and cracking. Owing to the limited scope of the project, only three techniques were evaluated: impact-echo, impulse response, and shear wave tomography; further work can address additional techniques.
⚠️ It should be clear that this report is exploratory: it examines the reliable applicability of available NDE technology and provides the foundation for further industry and ASME code interactions, rather than directly delivering acceptance criteria for field inspection. Applications should always be judged against the specific geometry, reinforcement, and service conditions of the containment.
2. The Three NDE Techniques and Technical Requirements 🔬
Impact-Echo: described in ASTM C1383, ACI 228, and ICRI Guideline No. 210.4. Stress waves are introduced into the concrete by an impact, and the response is measured by an adjacent receiving displacement transducer. When the stress wave encounters an internal interface (crack, delamination) or the bottom boundary, it reflects, and the defect depth is identified through frequency-domain analysis. The method is mature for detecting delaminations in plate-like members, with straightforward signal processing.
Shear Wave Tomography: shear waves are received by multi-channel arrays and a cross-section of the defect is reconstructed, producing C-scan slices at different depths. This provides both the planar distribution and depth information of delaminated areas, offering strong spatial resolution at the cost of more complex data acquisition and processing.
Impulse Response: the structure is excited by an impulse hammer and its low-frequency dynamic response (stiffness, damping) is measured to evaluate the overall condition and local stiffness anomalies of the concrete. It is well suited to rapid large-area screening, though its ability to locate individual small defects is limited.
| Technique | Physical Principle | Flaw Depth Detection | Operator Dependence | Automated Deployment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impact-Echo | Impact stress wave, frequency-domain analysis | Good; locates delamination depth | Low; results fairly consistent | Easy; air-coupled sensors and crawler robots available |
| Shear Wave Tomography | Shear-wave multi-channel reconstruction | Strong; multi-depth C-scan slices | Medium; operator differences must be controlled | Medium; requires array scanning equipment |
| Impulse Response | Low-frequency dynamic response (stiffness/damping) | Moderate; best for broad screening | Higher; interpretation depends on experience | Easy; suits rapid surveys |
💡 The three methods have distinct roles: impulse response “screens first to find hot spots,” impact-echo provides “focused depth measurement,” and shear wave tomography delivers “precise location and imaging.” Field inspection programs commonly combine them in a screen-confirm-image hierarchy.
3. Validation: Mockups with Embedded Flaws and Real Structures 📊
To validate the techniques under realistic conditions, the project built concrete mockups with embedded flaws — two prefabricated panels sandwiched together and placed within the concrete to simulate delamination/layering defects. Field tests were also performed on real structures including the Crystal River containment and the Davis Besse shield building. Key findings:
- Shear wave tomography successfully imaged the delaminated area at Crystal River; C-scan slices displayed defect distribution at depths of 7, 20, 31, and 37 cm, and a comparison of two operators’ results showed that operator dependence needs to be managed;
- Impact-echo identified defect depth by recognizing characteristic frequency peaks; responses at known defect depths were stable (frequency-domain signals shown in the report);
- Impulse response completed large-area testing on the Crystal River containment wall and the Davis Besse shield building, identifying regions of stiffness anomaly.
| Scenario | Shear Wave Tomography | Impact-Echo | Impulse Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mockup with embedded flaws | Clear multi-depth imaging of delamination | Frequency peaks correspond to flaw depth | Identifies overall stiffness anomalies |
| Real containment / shield wall | Delaminated area imaged (Crystal River) | Point verification of flaw depth | Rapid large-area screening (Crystal River, Davis Besse) |
| Automation potential | Medium; needs array equipment | Air-coupled sensor + local positioning + concrete crawler demonstrated | Simple; suited to vehicle/handheld surveys |
⚠️ From an engineering standpoint, NDE results for internal concrete flaws depend strongly on surface condition, reinforcement layout, and moisture content. Surfaces should be cleaned, rebar drawings recorded, and baseline measurements taken on nominally defect-free areas before interpreting anomalous signals.
4. Engineering Practice Essentials 🛠️
- 🔍 Method combination strategy: use impulse response for large-area screening, impact-echo for point confirmation of depth, and shear wave tomography for imaging the flaw morphology — a “survey–confirm–image” three-tier examination.
- 🔧 Operator qualification: interpretation of shear wave tomography and impulse response is experience-sensitive; standardized procedures and dual review reduce operator dependence.
- 📊 Automation exploration: the report demonstrates automated inspection with an air-coupled impact-echo sensor, a local positioning system, and a concrete crawler (used on a dam), an approach that can greatly improve coverage efficiency and personnel safety for containment inspection.
- 📋 Code interface: the report supports future additions to ASME Section XI Subsection IWL for assessing internal concrete condition, providing owners and regulators with a technical basis for planning LTO concrete inspection strategies.
🚨 Note that visual examination of accessible surfaces cannot reveal internal delaminations, which together with rebar corrosion and cracking are the main long-term aging hazards for containments. It is recommended to establish a baseline with combined NDE methods on severely aged containments and to track it continuously within the life-management program.
5. Frequently Asked Questions ❓
❓ Q: Why is internal NDE of concrete needed?
A: ASME Section XI Subsection IWL currently requires only visual examination of accessible surfaces, which cannot assess the internal condition of concrete. As units enter LTO, internal delaminations, rebar corrosion, and cracking must be identified by NDE to support detailed containment integrity assessment.
A: ASME Section XI Subsection IWL currently requires only visual examination of accessible surfaces, which cannot assess the internal condition of concrete. As units enter LTO, internal delaminations, rebar corrosion, and cracking must be identified by NDE to support detailed containment integrity assessment.
❓ Q: What is the difference between impact-echo and impulse response?
A: Impact-echo uses the reflection of impact-generated stress waves with frequency-domain analysis to determine flaw depth accurately — suited to focused inspection. Impulse response uses the low-frequency dynamic response to hammer excitation to reflect global stiffness and integrity — suited to rapid large-area screening.
A: Impact-echo uses the reflection of impact-generated stress waves with frequency-domain analysis to determine flaw depth accurately — suited to focused inspection. Impulse response uses the low-frequency dynamic response to hammer excitation to reflect global stiffness and integrity — suited to rapid large-area screening.
❓ Q: Can these techniques be used directly for periodic in-service inspection of containments?
A: This report is exploratory and validates the reliability potential of the techniques; it does not yet constitute formalized in-service inspection requirements. Pilot validation on the specific structure and agreement with regulators on acceptance criteria are needed before routine application.
A: This report is exploratory and validates the reliability potential of the techniques; it does not yet constitute formalized in-service inspection requirements. Pilot validation on the specific structure and agreement with regulators on acceptance criteria are needed before routine application.
❓ Q: Why is operator dependence an important parameter?
A: The reproducibility of NDE results determines the credibility of inspection data. If different operators reach significantly different conclusions on the same flaw, safety decisions cannot be supported — which is why the report explicitly compared results from different operators.
A: The reproducibility of NDE results determines the credibility of inspection data. If different operators reach significantly different conclusions on the same flaw, safety decisions cannot be supported — which is why the report explicitly compared results from different operators.
