John Nielsen 1 and D. F.
Griffin 2
Acoustic Emission of Plain Concrete
REFERENCE: Nielsen, John and Griffin, D. F., "Acoustic Emission
of Plain Concrete," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA,
Voi. 5, No. 6, Nov. 1977, pp. 476-483.
ABSTRACT: When a specimen of engineering material is subjected
to external loads, stress waves known as acoustic emissions are
induced. A unique characteristic of many engineering materials
that emit acoustical energy is that upon reloading the specimen does
not emit acoustical energy until the magnitude of loading exceeds
the prior maximum loading. This investigation was undertaken to
determine if this characteristic could be used to disclose the load-
ing history of plain portland cement concrete. The test results show
that the unique characteristic is very temporary and therefore cannot
be used to determine the prior maximum loading on a concrete
specimen. Within a matter of hours concrete subjected to loading
within its elastic limit recovers, and acoustical energy may again be
released by reloading.
KEY WORDS: acoustic properties, concretes, portland cements
The research reported herein was conducted to determine
if acoustic emission technology could be effectively used to reveal
the loading history of plain (no reinforcing steel) portland cement
concrete, that is, could detect previously applied stress levels.
This investigation, conducted at the Civil Engineering Research
Facility of the University of New Mexico under the sponsorship
of the Air Force Civil Engineering Center, was a direct outgrowth
of a study to determine the applicability of acoustic emission
techniques to civil engineering research [•].
When a specimen of engineering material is being strained
by an external load, the specimen may undergo plastic flow,
slippages of adjacent particles of matter (shear strains), crushing
of particulate matter, and microcracking. Such actions result
in the generation of stress waves that are usually, but not always,
in the inaudible range, and sophisticated instrumentation is
generally required to detect them. These stress waves are known
as acoustic emissions. Although acoustic emission terminology
has not been standardized, ASTM has published perhaps the
most generally accepted definitions [2].
A unique characteristic of many engineering materials that
emit acoustical energy is the Kaiser eftbct. According to Ref 2
(p. 337):
The Kaiser effect is the immediately irreversible characteristic of
acoustic emission phenomenon resulting from applied stress. If the
effect is present there is little or no acoustic emission until previously
applied stress levels are exceeded.
l Manager, Soils and Pavements Division, Civil Engineering Research
Facility, University of New Mexico, Campus Post Office, Albuquerque,
N. Mex. 87131.
2Consultant to the Civil Engineering Research Facility, 4425 West-
mont, Ventura, Calif. 93003. Member of ASTM.
476
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Concrete Specimens
Two concretes were used in this investigation. Concrete A had
a maximum aggregate particle size of 0.75 in. (1.90 cm) and a
water/cement ratio W / C of 0.549. Concrete B had a maximum
aggregate particle size of 0.375 in. (0.95 cm) and a W/C of 0.704.
Cylinders, 6 in. (15.24 cm) in diameter by 12 in. (30.48 cm) in
length, and beams, 6 in. (15.24 cm) in width and depth by 20 in.
(50.8 cm) in length, were cast from both Concrete A and Con-
crete B. In addition, eight cores from airfield pavements ranging
from 10 to 20 years of age were investigated.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation required to detect and record acoustic
emissions is aptly described in Refs 1 and 2. By means of an x-y-y
recorder and other appropriate instruments, acoustic emissions
can be related simultaneously to two of the following factors:
(1) loading on specimen, (2) strain in specimen, and (3) time.
In this investigation an acoustic emission transducer was attached
to a test specimen and connected to the following equipment:
(1) Dunegan/Endevco Model 3000 Series System
(a) acoustic emission preamplifier, Model 801-P
(b) totalizer (including filters), Model 301
(c) reset dock, Model 402
(d) audio amplifier, Model 702
(2) x-y-y recorder, Hewlett-Packard Model 7046A
If either strain or load is to be recorded, a load cell or extensometer
(or other strain gage), or both, on the specimen are connected
through signal conditioners to the x-y-y plotter.
Two different Dunegan/Endevco transducers were used in this
investigation: a Model S 9201 AB 73 with a certified calibration
range of 100 to 1000 kHz and a Model S 140 B. Although the
first transducer was considered to have a fiat frequency re-
sponse, the peak relative response was 200 kHz; the second
transducer had a resonant frequency of 160 kHz. Separate,
simultaneous plots of acoustic emission (as a function of load)
versus time were essentially similar for both transducers. Thus,
there were no significant differences in their performance. For
either transducer, the instrument settings given in Table 1 ap-
peared to be optimum for both Concrete A and Concrete B.
A transducer was at~xed to the surface of the concrete speci-
men to be tested by a thin film of General Electric Silicone
Dielectric Compound G-264 and plastic tape. According to C. A.
Tatro [2, pp. 84-99] acoustic emission technology deals with
dimensional changes and dimensional changes of 10 -12 in. (2.5
x 10-~3 mm) are easily recognizable thresholds. Such changes
 NIELSEN AND GRIFFIN ON ACOUSTIC EMISSION
TABLE 1--Optimum instrument settings for both Concrete A and
Concrete B:
Instrument Setting
Acoutic emission in rate/memory
mode
Gain, dB 91 (including 40 in the preamplifier)
Filter bandwidth, kHz 100 to 300
Multiplier 10 (1 for pavement cores)
Reset dock, s t investigators.
Plotter
Time (x-axis), s/in. (s/ram) so (2)
Acoustic emissions (yl-axis),
V/in. (V/mm) 0.5 (0.02)
Load on specimen ~v2-axis),
mV/in. (mV/mm) 50 (2) [10 (0.4) for pavement cores]
are six orders of magnitude below the sensitivity threshold of a
resistance strain gage, Because of the extremely sensitive nature
of the pickup system, noise attributable to any of the following
sources might be detected:
(1) slippage of transducer on surface of specimen (caused by
differential tension in tape on either side of transducer);
(2) crushing of granules of material at load-testing machine
head/specimen interface (seating noise);
(3) capping material on ends of concrete cylinders;
(4) relative movement of transducer and concrete surface
resulting from strain in the concrete specimen;
(5) relative movement of specimen at areas of contact with
testing machine resulting from strain in the specimen; and
(6) electrical, electronic, and other spurious energy waves in
the vicinity of the transducer.
Potential slippage problems were minimized by physically ad-
justing the transducer to its most stable position after the tape
was applied. Seating noise was compensated for by applying
an initial seating load of approximately 10% of the maximum
load to be applied. In load/release/load-increase cycles, the
load was released only to the seating load and not to zero. This
procedure virtually eliminated the seating noise. The capping
compound employed was a quick-setting, sulfur-based com-
pound known as Cylcap®. By comparing the acoustic emissions
from a specimen with lapped ends and those from a similar
specimen with thin caps of Cylcap, it was concluded that the
caps would not disguise the results. After reviewing the results
of many tests, it was concluded that if there were acoustic emis-
sions attributable to (1) and (4) above, they were not of sufficient
magnitude to mask the emissions attributable to strain in the
specimen. Electrical interference was a problem on one occasion
when broadcasting from a local radio station was picked up by
the transducer. Thin blotter paper was ultimately selected as a
bearing material between the concrete specimen and the testing
of jig supports. This material was found to be very effective in
minimizing the abrasive effects at the testing machine head/
specimen interface.
Test Criteria
The criteria for determining whether or not testing conditions
were satisfactory were these: (1) that the totalizer revealed no
counting at any time with the transducer supported in air and
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
477
the gain set as low as possible, and (2) that there were no emis-
sions during load/release/load-increase at the seating load (ex-
cept the initial seating load).
Literature Review
The results of this investigation may be more easily accepted
and understood with reference to the pertinent findings of other
Wells [3] performed some acoustic emission experiments on
3-in. (7.62-cm) and 4-in. (10.16-cm) cubical specimens of port-
land cement mortar (cement/sand/water) and on specimens of
concrete containing various aggregates with a maximum particle
size of 3/s in. (0.95 cm). He concluded:
Although numerous results have been obtained they are not com-
parable with each other. However, in some eases, there does seem
to be a tendency for a pattern to emerge where a number of small
cubes have been tested. The tendency shows that, in some cubes,
noise emission starts somewhere over 50 percent ultimate strength
and increases as the failure load is approached.
Rusch [4] reported the results of acoustic emission measure-
ments on a concrete prism capped with a thin layer of gypsum.
He made the following observations:
1. On repeated load/release/load-increase cycles, appreciable
noise (acoustic emission) was renewed only when the formerly
attained stress maximum was exceeded.
2. Above 70 to 85% of failure load, noises were produced
before the previous maximum load was reached.
3. There was considerable noise in the vicinity of the failure
load and noise continued during the unloading process.
Schickert [5] attempted to relate acoustic emission techniques
to the fracture of concrete cubes. He concluded:
The method has been effectively applied to analyze the develop-
ment of fracture of concrete cubes. However, test results show quite
a big variation.
Goodman [6] conducted some experiments on the acoustic
activity of cylindrical rock samples [2.75 in. (6.98 cm) in dia-
meter by 5 in. (12.70 cm) in length] in axial compression. The
type of rock included Berea sandstone, Boise sandstone, and
medium-grained quartz diorite. As rock is a major and integral
part of concrete, the results are noteworthy. Goodman reported:
During its first compression, a rock generates subaudible noise
at all stress levels; however. . . . there is a minimum in the audio
pulse rate at stress levels from about 40 to 80 percent of the crushing
strength. If the stress is never carried past the point of acceleration
in the rock-noise rate, then in second and later cycles of loading,
fewer subaudible pulses are detected. These occur repetitively at
certain levels of stress during both loading and unloading. On the
other hand, should loading be carried appreciably beyond the point
of accelerated rock-noise activity, then the number of bursts of sonic
energy remains high and, in fact, may increase in second and later
load cycles.
Goodman further noted that the recovery of noise-generating
capacity was established for all specimens and that the rest
period between tests required for recovery of 25% of the activity
of the initial tests was 2 h for each of the two types of sandstone
and 9 h for the quartz diorite.
In general, the literature dealing with acoustic emissions sug-
gests that the Kaiser effect in engineering materials is perma-
nent. In other words, once a material specimen has been loaded
478
to a certain stress level, it will never again generate noise at any
lesser stress level. However, one notable exception has been
pointed out by Jan et al [7]. They discovered that during tensile
deformation lead/tin binary alloys of different compositions do
not exhibit the Kaiser effect and the pattern of observed acoustic
emissions does not reveal the magnitude of previous loadings.
Isono et al [8] performed some pressure tests on steel pipe.
One specimen left at rest for 34 days at temperatures ranging
from 5 to 15°(2 showed slight recovery of the Kaiser effect; one
specimen at rest for 59 days at temperatures ranging f~om 10 to
20°C showed complete recovery. Isono et al also reported on
some research by others: Nielsen et al [9] found that the Kaiser
effect is recovered a little in some of the testing of model pressure
vessels, and Kirby and Bently [10] reported that there exists no
recovery of the Kaiser effect in mild steel vessels when the vessels
are pressurized 9 to 18 times during five weeks.
The word immediately in the definition of the Kaiser effect in
Ref 2 means that a time factor is frequently involved and implies
that as a function of time, some, if not all, materials recover the
Kaiser effect. Clement Tatro, an author of" two articles in Ref 2,
further verified the fact that the Kaiser effect is generally tem-
porary. 3 He stated that some aluminums can recover within a
few minutes and that the presence or absence of oxides does not
influence this recovery unless the coating of oxide is relatively
heavy. Pertinent documentation concerning the time duration of
the Kaiser effect does not appear to be readily available.
After this research was completed, a paper by McCabe et al
[11] came to the attention of the authors. Their paper contends
that the Kaiser effect is valid in concrete. The present study indi-
cates that the Kaiser effect sometimes does not occur. It does
appear only for immediate reloading. The effect recovers with
rest periods and a repeatable Kaiser effect is then revealed. If the
Kaiser effect were permanent, it could not be observed on a given
specimen subjected to repeated identical loading cycles.
r~
L~
"c
.J
0 100 200
Time, s
FIG. 1--Acoustic emissions during step loading to failure without complete disintegra-
tion of Concrete A.
3 Personal communication.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
Test Results
After approximately SO concrete specimens were tested, the re-
sults in general appeared to be inconsistent. For example, some
specimens did not exhibit the Kaiser effect; although others did,
it was discovered that, upon retesting as a function of time, the
Kaiser effect was temporary rather than permanent.
Acoustic emissions were detected in all of the concrete speci-
mens tested, regardless of type of loading. Stronger and more
positive emissions were found during the axial compression tests
than during either splitting tensile or flexural tests. This might
be attributed to the greater stress that could be induced in the
compression mode.
One beam was subjected to 13 000 cycles of loading between
500 to 5000 lb (226 and 2268 kg); one cylinder was subjected to
13 000 cycles of loading between 500 to 17 500 lb (226 and 7938
kg). When the Kaiser effect was tested for, it was impossible to
detect the previous maximum load that had been applied.
The field cores were probably never subjected to stresses in
excess of 300 psi (2.1 MPa). Of the eight cores tested, only one
specimen showed initial acoustic emissions at a higher stress level
[480 psi (3.3 MPa)]; all the other cores exhibited initial acoustic
activity at 48 psi (331 kPa) or less. (This latter value is not con-
sidered realistic for the airfields represented by the field cores.)
Furthermore, all the cores exhibited the Kaiser effect upon
immediate reloading, but after rest periods ranging from 20 min
to 20 h acoustic activity again occurred when the specimens were
reloaded; thus, the Kaiser effect was not permanent.
Figures 1 through 5 show the results of significance for the
laboratory concrete in this investigation. These are sample results
from the testing of approximately 70 specimens. They clearly
show that the Kaiser effect cannot be relied upon as an indicator
of previous loading history of plain concrete.
Figure 1 shows the results obtained for a Concrete A specimen.
In the lower stages of loading, acoustic emissions do not occur
10,000
9,000
B,O00
7,000
5,000 3
5,000
4,000
3,000 o
.~,000
000
300
~ 0 500
V i s i b l e Crack
6OO
i n Concrete
NIELSEN AND GRIFFIN ON ACOUSTIC EMISSION 479

000

JO0

~o
)00
.:r
)00

)00

100 8

}00

}00
g
cL
100

)00

0 IV0 ZOO ~00 400 500 600

Time, s

FIG. 2--Acoustic emission versus load for saturated immature Concrete B.

:::: - lO0
!
- 300
Lc~

• 700 ~,
n

:::.: 500

~v i :ii!:

._J

::::;: 300 ,~

;::::: 200

50 lO0 150 200 250 300 350

Time, s

FIG. 3--Emission activity of beam specimen subjected to 13 000 cycles of

load from 500 to 17 500 lb (227 to 7938 kg) before acoustic emission testing.

until the previous load is reached and the Kaiser effect is clearly
demonstrated; however, in the upper stages of loading, emissions
occur long before the previous load is reached. In addition, there
are emissions during unloading at 225 s. This specimen was
loaded to its ultimate strength; however, it did not shatter and
the load was reduced before the specimen came apart. The very
intense emissions during this period are quite evident between
375 and 425 s.
Figure 2 shows typical low-intensity emissions for saturated
immature (three months old) Concrete B specimens. Generally,
concrete removed from the fog room and stored in the very low
relative humidity of the open air showed stronger and more in-
tense emissions. Unfortunately, there was no control on the mois-
ture content of the specimens removed from the fog room; there-
fore, it was not possible to relate emission intensity directly to the
state of wetness or dryness or to age.
Figure 3 presents the results of an acoustic emission test on
concrete subjected to cyclic loading. The test specimen was sub-
jected to 13 000 cycles of load between 500 and 17 500 lb (226
and 7938 kg) applied at a rate of 35 cycles/min. Forty minutes

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
480 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

I0,000

I ~ : -' ! '""9,000
I0( I ...... '
8;000

7,000
~o
m
8c :: " ll!~.Yt[! I~: ~/_ i ~ '
6,000
c~

u
c~
17,
6(_~_ . . . . . i [Ii_L~
iiill lI'lll!
/ :
!........
~~.-j6,,
5,000

4,000
.....
r- - ~ _/IIII |IiIlll ~ '
4 i II',I|l II I .~_ +.....:.~3,000
......
+- i ....il II !I l l] III I " ~, i +
' / ~l/lllB I:' . . . .' . . i -~~ 2,000
'<......
,.L_J
~ ~'-
-
M/LLJ ll'll,~ ] I i.:~_~,000
I M:Iil. III~1~ i
;~ ~ I:i ,l"¢tt::itJ I"11 ,+-, ' I i o
0 1O0 200 300 400 500 600
a Time, s

120 I0,000

9,000
100
B,O00

7,000
v~ 80
Ailu(tic Emissions i
6,000
i i .
L~ 60 5,000
.T.
4,000
40
3,000

20
1,000

3
l O0 200 300 400 500 600
b Time, s

120~ : i:::~: 0,000

J J
-+.-- ,000
lOC
- ,ooo

[ ,ooo .~

F ,ooo ==
. ~ 8

60 ,000 o

r~ ,ooo
4 4( i .~

,00o

i.~'; ,ooo

l O0 200 300 400 500 600

Time, s

F I G . 4--Recovery of Kaiser effect in Concrete A specimen, a 6-in. (15.24-cm) diameter

by 12-in. (30.48wm) long cylinder; (a) step loading showing Kaiser effect at first loading,"
(b) recovery of Kaiser effect after 68-h rest; and (c) recovery of Kaiser effect after second
rest of 95 h.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
NIELSEN AND GRIFFIN ON ACOUSTIC EMISSION 481

I0,000

g,O00

B,O00

l,O00

6,000

60 5,000

g ,,ooo
"~ 4.0
3,000

2,000
20
I 000

Q
iO 200 250 300 350 400 450
a
Time, s

120
~ lO,O00

lO0
~ 9,000

~ 8,ooo

c~
BO ~ °.ooo
7,000

60

.a
4C

¢u
u.
~ 3,000

2,000

2C
.°°

0 50 lO0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

b Time, s

FIG. 5--Acoustic emission versus load as a function o f time for a 6-in. (15,24-cm) wide and deep by
20-in. (50.80-cm) long concrete beam; (a) initial load and resulting acoustic emission activity, and (b)
emission activity for same beam after 18-h rest.

elapsed between the time the specimen was removed from the
MTS machine and the initial reloading shown in Fig. 3. Note
that acoustic emission activity occurs well before the previous
maximum load of 17 500 lb (7938 kg) is reached.
Figure 4 shows the initial step loading and unloading of a
Concrete A specimen together with the recovery of the Kaiser
effect after 68 h of rest and after an additional rest period of
95h,
Figure 5 shows the typical acoustic emission pattern related to
load as a function of time for a beam; these results are similar to
those for a cylinder but the magnitude is much lower. The maxi-
mum load applied was 600C lb (2722 kg) (Fig. 5a); yet, emission
activity is indicated at load levels below this value (Fig. 5b). Data
of this type serve to further indicate that the Kaiser effect is
temporary in concrete; that is, given a rest period the specimens
will again generate noise when tested.
Figure 6 shows results of an axial compression test on an alumi-
num cylinder (6061-T6). It may be noted in Fig. 6a that the
Kaiser effect is immediately repeatable; however, the intensity of
the acoustic emissions is generally reduced. There is little or no

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 (PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Downloaded/printed by
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Compressive Load, kips (1 kip = 453.6 kg) Compressive Load, kips (1 kip = 453.6 kg)
o ~ ~
o ~ ~
o oo
=.
E~ g ~
~.~
~Dt~ v
~.
Acoustic Emissions, Counts/s Acoustic Emissions, Counts/s
~ompressive Load, kips (1 kip = 453.6 kg) Compressive Load, kips (1 kip = 453.6 kg)
o
~
._~
~Ng "
~-.~
a~
i
Acoustic Emissions, Counts/s Acoustic Emtsst0ns, C0unts/s
IOIIVNTVA3 (]NV 9N11831 .-IO 7 V N E I r l O P ~SIT
NIELSEN AND GRIFFIN ON ACOUSTIC EMISSION
further recovery after a rest period of 1.5 h (Fig. 6b) nor after a
further rest period of 3.25 h (Fig. 6c). Figure 6d shows almost
complete recovery after an additional rest period of 19.25 h.
Conclusion
As a result of this study, it was concluded that the Kaiser
effect is not a reliable indicator of the loading history for plain
concrete.
References
[1] Bickle, L. W. and Smiel, A. J., "Applicability of Acoustic-Emission
Techniques to Civil Engineering Research," Report AFWL-TR-74-
299, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.
Mex., June 1975,
[2] Acoustic Emission, STP 505, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1972.
[3] Wells, D., "An Acoustic Apparatus to Record Emissions from Con-
crete Under Strain," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 12,
May 1970, pp. 80-88.
[4] Rusch, V. H., "Physikalisehe Fragen der Betonprufung," Zement-
Kalk-Gips, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. 1959, pp. 1-9. Note: There is a
Cement and Concrete Association Library Translation (No. 80) and
a translation by M. Corbin available at Portland Cement Associa-
Library, Skokie, Ill.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Dec 26 21:07:44 EST 2011
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
483
[5] Schickert, G., "Acoustic Emission Technique Applied to Tests
with Concrete Cubes," in Nouveaux D~v~loppements darts l'Essai
Non-D6structif des Mat@riaux Non-Mbtalliques, Vol. 11, Beton-
Nouvelles M~thodes, R~sonance, Ultrasons, Institut Recherche Du
Batiment, INCERC, Bucharest, 1974.
[6] Goodman, R. B., "Subaudible Noise During Compression of Rocks,"
Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 74, Pt. 1, April 1963,
pp. 487-490.
[71 Jan, C. S., Pond, R. B., Sr., and Green, R. E., Jr., "Acoustic
Emission During Deformation of Lead-Tin Alloys," Contract No.
F44620-71-C-0062, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Arling-
ton, Va., Dec. 1974.
[8] Isono, E., Udagawa, T., and Ogasawara, M., "Recovery of the
Kaiser Effect," presented at U.S./Japan Joint Symposium on
Acoustic Emission, Tokyo, July 1972. (English summary and paper
in Japanese with necessary figures and tables received by letter from
E. Isono, dated 2t Oct. 1975. Available upon request from the
authors.)
[9] Nielsen, A., Latham, F. G., and Kirby, N., "Acoustic Emission
from Steel Pressure Vessels," Report 1983(c), United Kingdom
Atomic Energy Authority, Risley, England, April 1970.
[10] Kirby, H. and Bently, P. G., " A Note on Acoustic Emission Mea-
surements at REML," paper for International Atomic Energy
Agency, Nov.-Dec. 1971, as cited in RefS.
[11] McCabe, W., Koerner, R. M., and Loed, A. E., Jr., "Acoustic
Emission Behavior of Concrete Laboratory Specimens," ACI
Journal, Vol. 73, No. 7, July 1976, pp. 367-371.