COMPARISON OF NEUTRON NON DESTRUCTIVE METHOD AND CONVENTIONAL CHEMICAL METHOD FOR CHLORIDE MEASUREMENT IN CONCRETE

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorAmde, Amde Men_US
dc.contributor.advisorLivingston, Richarden_US
dc.contributor.authorSridhar, Preethien_US
dc.contributor.departmentCivil Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.publisherDigital Repository at the University of Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.publisherUniversity of Maryland (College Park, Md.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-01T05:35:05Z
dc.date.available2019-10-01T05:35:05Z
dc.date.issued2019en_US
dc.description.abstractThe presence of chloride in concrete is a critical issue raising concerns in the construction industry as they promote corrosion of the steel reinforcements, drastically reducing the strength of the structure. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of a neutron-based nondestructive testing method, Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis (PGAA) against the destructive wet chemistry method ASTM C-1152 currently used to determine the chloride concentration in concrete. Two modes of PGAA operation were tested. One was to use PGAA with a slit collimator to measure the chlorides at 2 mm thick cross-section in intact samples. The other was a direct comparison with C-1152 to analyze powdered concrete samples. Concrete was prepared in four batches, in which three batches had added chloride -at nominally 0.2%, 0.1%, 0.01% by weight of cement and the fourth (control) batch has zero added. The PGAA analysis was done at the Cold Neutron PGAA station at NIST and the C1152 testing was done at the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) laboratory. The intact samples were scanned at three different vertical positions. The PGAA method is capable of detecting Cl at levels corresponding to the corrosion threshold of 0.1-0.2% Cl by weight of cement. The minimum detectable limit for PGAA is below 0.02% Cl by weight of cement and approaches the Cl background contributed by the raw materials, in this case, the cement. The PGAA- measured chlorides concentrations showed excellent linearity after correction for the chloride content in the concrete raw materials, mainly the cement. For the powdered samples, the C1152 and PGAA results were in very good agreement. However, the PGAA data showed much less scatter with an uncertainty as low as 0.3%. The findings of this study indicate that PGAA is a feasible replacement for the C1152 method and since it can be done on intact specimens, it avoids the time-consuming steps of crushing, sieving and nitric acid extraction and can be more cost-effective.en_US
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.13016/i4z9-e28h
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/25104
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledCivil engineeringen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledMaterials Scienceen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledC1152en_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledChlorideen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledCorrosionen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledIntacten_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledPGAAen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledPowdereden_US
dc.titleCOMPARISON OF NEUTRON NON DESTRUCTIVE METHOD AND CONVENTIONAL CHEMICAL METHOD FOR CHLORIDE MEASUREMENT IN CONCRETEen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Sridhar_umd_0117N_20113.pdf
Size:
2.48 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

UMD Theses and Dissertations
Civil & Environmental Engineering Theses and Dissertations