TECHNICAL

GUIDELINES
Prepared by the International Concrete Repair Institute January 2016

Guideline No. 210.1R–2016

Copyright ©2016 International Concrete Repair Institute

Guide for Verifying Field Performance of

Epoxy Injection of Concrete Cracks

LIAC CONSULTORES
 TECHNICAL
GUIDELINES
Prepared by the International Concrete Repair Institute January 2016

Guide for Verifying Field

Performance of Epoxy
Injection of Concrete Cracks
Guideline No. 210.1R-2016

Copyright © 2016 International Concrete Repair Institute

All rights reserved.
International Concrete Repair Institute
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite 252, St. Paul, MN 55114
Phone: 651-366-6095 Fax: 651-290-2266

LIAC CONSULTORES
Web: www.icri.org
E-mail: [email protected]
 About ICRI Guidelines Producers of this Guideline
The International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) was
founded to improve the durability of concrete repair ICRI Committee 210, Evaluation
and enhance its value for structure owners. The iden- Tanya Wattenburg Komas,* Chair
tification, development, and promotion of the most Dennis Wipf,* Co-Chair
promising methods and materials are primary vehicles David Rodler, Secretary
for accelerating advances in repair technology. Working Todd Allen
through a variety of forums, ICRI members have the
Eric L. Edelson
opportunity to address these issues and to directly
contribute to improving the practice of concrete repair. Kurt Heinrichs
Peter R. Kolf
A principal component of this effort is to make carefully Kevin A. Michols
selected information on important repair subjects Larry D. Olson*
readily accessible to decision makers. During the past Matthew Sherman*
several decades, much has been reported in the liter­ Tara Toren-Rudsill
ature on concrete repair methods and materials as they
Paul G. Tourney
have been developed and refined. Nevertheless, it has
been difficult to find critically reviewed information on
*
Primary authors of this revision
the state of the art condensed into easy-to-use formats.
Acknowledgments
To that end, ICRI guidelines are prepared by sanctioned The committee members thank Robert Trout for
task groups and approved by the ICRI Technical his contributions in the revision of this document.
Activities Committee. Each guideline is designed
to address a specific area of practice recognized as
essential to the achievement of durable repairs. All Synopsis
ICRI guideline documents are subject to continual This guide is intended to provide a recommended
review by the membership and may be revised as method of field evaluation of epoxy injection of
approved by the Technical Activities Committee. cracks in concrete. The guide presents an overview
of injection equipment, materials, and procedures.
It also provides recommended testing methods for
Technical Activities Committee evaluating the effectiveness of the injection resin,
Fred Goodwin, Chair equipment, process and final product, and provides
Jim McDonald, Secretary acceptance criteria for these items.
Frank Apicella This document is intended as a voluntary
Jorge Costa guideline for the owner, Design Professional, and
Brian Daley concrete repair contractor. It is not intended to
Andrew S. Fulkerson relieve the Design Professional of any responsi-
Pierre Hebert bility for the specification of concrete repair
Gabriel A. Jimenez methods, materials, or practices. While we
Ralph C. Jones believe the information contained herein will
Peter R. Kolf achieve quality results, the International Concrete
Kevin A. Michols Repair Institute must disclaim any liability or
Mark Nelson responsibility to those who may choose to rely
Lee Sizemore on all or any part of this guideline.
Aamer Syed
Keywords
Epoxy, injection, repair, verification

This document is intended as a voluntary guideline for the owner, design professional, and
concrete repair contractor. It is not intended to relieve the professional engineer or designer
of any responsibility for the specification of concrete repair methods, materials, or practices.
While we believe the information contained herein represents the proper means to achieve
quality results, the International Concrete Repair Institute must disclaim any liability or
responsi­bility to those who may choose to rely on all or any part of this guideline.

210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 Contents

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Methods................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Visual Observation of Injection Process........................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Materials Testing............................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.3 Removal and Evaluation of Cores from Epoxy-Injected Cracks in Concrete....................................................................... 6
3.4 NDT Methods for Quality Assurance of Epoxy Injection Repairs....................................................................................... 8
4.0 References.......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Referenced Standards................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Cited References............................................................................................................................................................ 12

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016
210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 1.0 Introduction the quality assurance and quality control methods
The primary purpose of this document is to described herein are also appropriate for evalu-
provide the contractor, licensed design profes- ating injection of cracks parallel to or at an angle
sional, and owner with guidelines to assist in the to the surface. These methods are also appropriate
development of performance specifications for for direct injection of cracks through ports placed
quality assurance and quality control of epoxy directly over the crack, or for applications where
injection work in cracks oriented primarily per- angled drilling is used to intersect the crack, and
pendicular to the concrete surface. This docu- where packers are used as the injection port. For
ment is not intended to be a guide to the gravity-fed epoxy repairs of concrete cracks, the
techniques and methodologies for selecting evaluation tests not specifically related to pressure
materials and performing the work. Generally, injection equipment are also applicable.
performance is measured according to whether This guide is intended to provide quality con-
the epoxy has adequately filled the crack and has trol and quality assurance methodology in the field
cured in place. In many instances, a significant to evaluate the performance of epoxy injection.
quantity of injection work may take place before Additional information on cracks and crack repair
the quality assurance testing is initiated. This is available in the following documents:
document includes process-control methods to • ACI RAP Bulletin 1, which provides a general
assess if satisfactory injection work is being overview of structural crack repair by epoxy
performed. It is assumed that the cause of the injection;
cracking has been identified and that epoxy injec- • ACI RAP Bulletin 2, which provides a general
tion has been properly selected as an appropriate overview of crack repair by gravity feed of
repair technique. The injection contractor is able resin into the cracks rather than pressure injec-
to control only the injection process; complete tion;
removal of all bond-inhibiting contaminants • ACI 224.1R, which provides detailed infor-
from within a crack may not be possible, so mation on causes, evaluation, and repair of
achieving satisfactory bond may be beyond the cracks in concrete structures; and
contractor’s control. • ACI 503.7, which is a specification for crack
If there is any doubt that epoxy injection will repair by epoxy injection.
achieve the intended results, a trial test program
should be conducted prior to implementing the
full project to determine whether the repair
2.0 Definitions
objectives can be attained using the materials ICRI provides a comprehensive list of definitions
and equipment proposed for the work. Repre- through an online resource, “ICRI Concrete
sentative trial sections in typical and worst-case Repair Terminology” (www.icri.org/GENERAL/
areas can be used to evaluate bonding, confirm repairterminology.aspx). Definitions provided
if adequate crack filling is possible, and obtain here complement that resource.
reference resin samples, known to be mixed Gravity Feed—A process of repairing concrete
properly for future comparison to additional test cracks in horizontal surfaces only, by applying
samples. A trial program can be especially useful low-viscosity epoxy to the surface of the crack
to determine the presence of bond-inhibiting and allowing the epoxy to flow down into the
contaminants or other bond-inhibiting conditions crack to fill the crack, using gravity alone and not
that are beyond the ability of the contractor to injecting the epoxy under pressure into the crack.
control. A quality assurance program should also
be evaluated during the trial phase. If results of
the trial work prove to be inadequate and cannot
3.0 Quality Assurance/
be improved, other repair methods need to be Quality Control Methods
explored. Only the materials and equipment There are numerous methods available to evaluate
proven to be successful in the trial test should be epoxy injection repairs. The quality assurance
used in conducting the work unless the contractor program is comprised of a number of techniques
can demonstrate equally satisfactory results with with the amount and extent of testing depending
alternate materials or equipment. on the degree of assurance required. Sections 3.1
Although this guide addresses epoxy injection and 3.2 discuss methods of quality control that are
of cracked concrete where the cracks are oriented conducted by observing the in-progress injection
primarily perpendicular to the concrete surface,

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 1
 work, or by testing samples made during injection crack by the injection resin.
work. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 address quality assur- Liquid epoxy, like all liquids, flows as a result
ance methods used to confirm performance of the of gravity and generally tends to seek the lowest
repair work, which involve removing concrete core level in a void, except as constrained by the cap-
samples after the work is completed or nondestruc- illary forces within the crack. Recognizing this
tive testing of completed repairs. tendency is important in determining if full pen-
etration has been achieved. Starting injection at
3.1 Visual Observation of Injection the lowest elevation in a crack and observing the
progression of epoxy resin from port to port at
Process successively higher elevation ports until the
Visual observation of the injection progress is used highest elevation port is reached provides a mea-
routinely during injection as a quality assurance/ sure of assurance that the crack has been filled. If
quality control tool. Useful information about both sides of the wall or member can be sealed,
the injection quality can be obtained from a injection should continue until the crack refuses
visual observation of the work. If the crack is to accept more material. This provides a level of
visible on both sides of the member, then reason- assurance that every void that can be filled is filled.
able assurance that the crack is full can be real- If, after the crack is first filled, the resin has gelled
ized by observation of the material exiting the and the highest elevation port will not accept
ports along the crack. However, if only one side additional injection resin, it is usually reasonable
of the member is visible, it is more difficult to to assume that the resin has not drained out of the
determine if adequate filling has been achieved. crack. However, it is always wise to attempt to
When injecting sequentially through ports along reinject the highest port before the resin has gelled.
the crack, observing flow from the adjacent port Resins with higher viscosities resist draining out
indicates that material is moving along the crack, of cracks. Low-viscosity liquid resins will stay in
but it does not necessarily ensure that the crack narrow cracks because of capillary forces.
has been completely filled. Figure 3-1 shows Resin flowing out of cracks, which were not
material being injected into the lower port and detected and hence not sealed (often beyond the
resin just beginning to flow out of the upper port. perceived end of the crack) is indication that the
Similarly, observing the material exiting adjacent crack has been filled to that point (Fig. 3-2).
ports can provide additional information about Manifold systems can inject several ports
whether contaminants are being flushed from the simultaneously or in sequence and/or be used to
provide pressure on multiple locations to push
resin into tight/deep cracks, or discontinuous
cracks (Fig. 3-3).
Criteria for evaluating the visual observations
of the injection process are shown in Table 3-1
and discussed further in Section 3.2.2.

Fig. 3-1: Injection showing port-to-port epoxy Fig. 3-2: Injection showing epoxy resin travel beyond
resin travel the cap seal

2 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 3.2 Materials Testing
Quality assurance tests conducted either in the
laboratory or the field determine, with varying
degrees of accuracy, if the contractor has properly
proportioned and mixed the injection resin.

3.2.1 Laboratory Tests

Physical and chemical tests can be used to deter-
mine if an epoxy resin has been properly propor-
tioned and mixed. The most common physical
test method is the compressive strength test,
ASTM D695 (Fig. 3-4), and the most common
chemical test is ASTM E2160.
ASTM D695 can be used to detect discrepan-
cies in the epoxy resin that will be indicated by Fig. 3-3: Injection using a manifold system
changes in the compressive strength as measured
by the test. Samples of the epoxy resin are obtained
either from the mixing head discharge port or from
batched epoxy resin. The samples are then prepared
and tested in accordance with ASTM D695.
A tensile test (ASTM D638) can also be per-
formed, but it is used less frequently in the field
because the tensile test specimens, cast between
glass plates, are more difficult to fabricate in the
field. Also, the test results are much more sensi-
tive to minor flaws in the test specimens. Other
physical properties that can be tested and com-
pared to published values include hardness, vis- Fig. 3-4: Compressive strength test (ASTM D695/
cosity, and density. D695M)
The ASTM E2160 method measures the exo-
thermic heat of reaction by differential scanning
calorimetry. The test involves comparing the test
result of a given sample against that of a sample
known to be completely cured. The test can be
used for quality control to confirm that resin
samples have fully cured and that the field material
matched the submittal.
Chemical tests such as infrared spectroscopy
can also be used to obtain spectra of laboratory,
or field samples to verify that the material deliv-
ered and mixed on site was the same as the
intended material provided in the submittal.
Not every project justifies laboratory testing
because the time and expense of the testing may
exceed the requirements of the project. Critical
structural applications usually demand definitive
tests and the specifying authority must decide for
each project whether quantitative tests are justi-
fied. When required, strength tests are conducted
at least once when a specific injection machine
is first used on the job or during the trial test
program. The frequency of the subsequent testing
should consider the history of the equipment and Fig. 3-5: Tensile strength test (ASTM D638/
the contractor’s experience and prior success rate. D638M)

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 3
 Criteria for evaluating laboratory testing of rate test, a visual review of the prepared mate-
samples taken during the injection process are rial and injection equipment, a ratio test, and
shown in Table 3-1. a pressure test.
3.2.2.1.1 Gel Time Test and Visual Review of Prepared
3.2.2 Field Tests Material
3.2.2.1 Testing the Mixed Resin The gel time test described in ASTM C881/
Qualitative epoxy resin tests can provide valu- C881M can be used to confirm that the injected
able information when timely results are essen- resin will harden. This test procedure may be
tial. Qualitative tests have an advantage over modified to accelerate the cure by elevating test
quantitative tests because faster results are temperatures. This modification will substan-
obtained, reducing the amount of potentially tially reduce the time required to obtain test
defective epoxy resin injected. If, during the results. However, tests done at different tem-
work, the results indicate noncompliance, the peratures cannot be directly compared, as the
work should be stopped to identify and correct properties will change. Any comparison between
any problems prior to continuing the work. test samples must be done with materials dis-
Samples are labeled to record the location and pensed at similar temperatures.
time when the epoxy resin sample was col- The important information from this test is
lected and are retained for the specifying whether the material will gel—not necessarily
authority. Qualitative tests include a cure (gel) how long and at what temperature. The elevated

Table 3-1—Test Methods and Acceptance Standards for Two-Component Epoxy Injection Operations
Test Acceptability Standard
Visual Observation of Injection Resin and Process Injection proceeds in the proper sequence.
Injection resin flows from adjacent ports with no air inclusions.
Injection continued until refusal.
Injection resin exiting ports is clear without streaks or discoloration from contaminates.
Laboratory Tests of Resin Compressive strength of resin is equal to or greater than that specified and that given on the product
data sheets, and is consistent with prior tests on the trial areas and other injection areas.
Infrared spectroscopy indicates that the material matches that submitted.
Differential scanning calorimetry indicates that the material is fully cured and matches that shown in
the submittal.
Gel Time Test Measured quantity gels within ±10% of standard that has been established for same quantity, at the
same temperature, prior to commencement of work.
Visual No streaks are present in the material and it appears homogenous.
Color compares closely to standard.
Ratio Measurements:
Machine-mixed epoxy resin Measured ratio should be within 5% of nominal mixture ratio unless otherwise specified by
manufacturer.
Batch-mixed epoxy resin Per manufacturer’s recommendation.
Prepackaged tubes Per manufacturer’s recommendation.
Pressure Test Less than 5 psi (0.034 MPa) drop in 3 minutes in either line when stalled at 80% or higher of maximum
possible discharge pressure, not to exceed 200 psi (1.38 MPa).
Coring Cracks filled 90% minimum unless otherwise specified.
Splitting tensile strength should be established at the beginning of the project; past testing has shown
test results of 80 to at least 90% of that of uncracked concrete are achievable.
Fracture through parent concrete away from repair. No shiny or glassy surfaces at bond line indicating a
compromised glue line, and incomplete filling.

4 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 temperature cure test will identify gross errors slowly, tests can be conducted on a time rather
in proportioning or mixing, but it will not assure than a length basis. In this case, a test every 1 to
that the resin will necessarily cure to its expected 2 hours may be appropriate.
physical properties at ambient temperature, or Additional samples of mixed resin exiting
that it is at the correct ratio or properly mixed. from adjacent ports may be collected while the
It is important to recognize that a resin can gel injection process is underway. This is a true
but never fully cure because of improper ratio or sample of what is being injected under the job
mixing. However, the gel test provides a quick conditions and pressures. This method also
field verification that the resin is at least margin- allows the inspector to observe any contaminants
ally on ratio and mixed. that may be flushed out with the resin.
By using a clear container in the modified Criteria for evaluating the gel time test and
gel time test, a visual review of the prepared visual review of samples taken during the injec-
material can be made (refer to Fig. 3-6). The tion process are shown in Table 3-1.
sample is checked for improper mixing, as
evidenced by the presence of streaks, and for
3.2.2.2 Testing the Two-Component
improper proportioning, as evidenced by a dif-
Injection Equipment
As summarized in Table 3-1 and discussed in the
ference in color between it and the standard
following, there are several field tests that can
sample. Prior to initiating the work, a standard
be performed during two-component injection
sample of each batch of resin to be used should
equipment operations. It is extremely important
be established by thoroughly hand mixing 3 oz.
that two-component injection equipment be
(85 g) in the correct ratio. The container should
checked frequently to confirm that it is producing
be clear and typical of that which will be used
properly mixed material that is of the proper ratio
for all sample testing for the project. The color
(refer to Fig. 3-7).
of the epoxy resin, the time to gel, and the
ambient temperature (or temperature of the 3.2.2.2.1 Ratio Test
resin if it is different from the ambient) should The ratio test is conducted by disconnecting
be noted. The standard samples are marked and the mixing fixture, immediately collecting
retained for color comparison with other sam- each component, and then comparing the ratio
ples obtained during the work. of the collected components to the desired ratio.
Gel time tests should be conducted at least The component mixing ratios for materials
once during the first 50 ft (15 m) of crack and to be pressure injected are typically specified
thereafter for every 100 ft (30 m) of crack by volume, and the ratio test can be conducted
injected. Alternatively, if the work is proceeding by collecting the specimens in transparent

Fig. 3-6: Gel time test (ASTM C881/C881M) Fig. 3-7: Volumetric ratio test for two-component equipment

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 5
 graduated containers to measure the dispensed 3.2.2.2.2 Pressure Test
volume. Measurement of the quantity of each In addition to the ratio test, a pressure test is
component can be conducted more accurately advisable for two-component equipment. When
by collecting the specimens, measuring the used to inject very narrow cracks, injection
mass of the collected specimens, and calcu- pumps can stall at high pressures with no flow
lating the volume using the density of the occurring. These high pressures can cause
component as supplied by the manufacturer. internal leakage within the metering devices in
The same methods can be used for materials the pumps. To test for this leakage, close each
with mixing ratios specified by weight, except discharge line at a point beyond the pressure
that the masses of the components are calcu- gauges and bring the pump system pressure in
lated from the measured volumes using the each discharge line to at least 80% of the max-
density. Density is typically reported on imum discharge pressure of which the pump is
manufacturer’s MSDS or Technical Product capable, but not more than 200 psi (1.38 MPa)
Data Sheets. (refer to Fig. 3-8). Observe the pressure in each
Specimens should be obtained at the begin- line for 3 minutes. If the pressure falls by more
ning of every shift, after any repairs or adjust- than 5 psi (0.034 MPa) in either line, there is
ments are made to the equipment, and any time internal leakage and the ratio of the two compo-
during a shift when other tests indicate less-than- nents may not be within the required acceptance
optimal results. standard when the pump is operating at high
The ratio test is conducted under two condi- discharge pressures. If the injection equipment
tions: (a) with each component flowing freely is not designed and manufactured to accommo-
with no external restrictions; and (b) with the date this type of testing, the contractor should
flow of each component externally restricted to provide the inspector with a copy of the opera-
simulate the pressure conditions that exist when tor’s manual or a written statement from the
the resin is being forced into a crack. The flow manufacturer. The manual should contain the
restriction is achieved by disconnecting the steps recommended to assure and confirm ratio
mixing chamber and attaching a valve to the end accuracy under high-pressure, low-flow condi-
of each fluid line. With the pump operating, each tions. The inspector should review these steps
valve is adjusted until the pressure, as measured with the contractor, and if possible, observe them
by a pressure gauge in each line, is equal to the when they are carried out.
other line, and is at least 80% of the maximum Whenever performing injection at pressures
possible operating pressure of the machine (refer above 50 psi (0.345 MPa), the pressure test
to Fig. 3-8). should be performed whenever ratio tests are
Criteria for evaluating the ratio test of samples performed. Criteria for evaluating the ratio test
taken during the injection process are shown in of samples taken during the injection process are
Table 3-1. shown in Table 3-1.

3.3 Removal and Evaluation of

-
Cores from Epoxy-Injected Cracks in
Concrete
Epoxy injection quality can be assessed by
removing and testing cores drilled from injected
areas to determine as-injected characteristics
and physical properties. Core samples are
extracted by wet or dry core drilling using a
diamond-tipped bit. Prior to coring, locate and
avoid any embedded reinforcement, prestressing
or post-tensioning tendons, or conduit at the
designated core locations. Scanning the concrete
surface with a reinforcement locating instrument
such as a cover meter or ground-penetrating
radar systems (2-D and 3-D scan options) can
reduce the potential for cutting embedded rein-
Fig. 3-8: Ratio and pressure test schematic forcement that could result in reduction of

6 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 structural integrity of the concrete member. If considered adequate if 90% of the crack is filled
embedded items are encountered during coring, with epoxy resin, as viewed from the exposed
the coring operation should be stopped and the length of the crack on the sides of the core
inspector, owner, and the licensed design profes- (Webster et al. 1990).
sional notified. Because many epoxies are naturally fluores-
The minimum core diameter required for cent under ultraviolet illumination, it is often
laboratory (physical) tests is dictated by the test helpful to examine the cores and the core hole
method. ASTM C42 requires a minimum core walls using a “black light” ultraviolet light source
diameter twice the nominal maximum size of the to highlight the presence of the injection resin.
coarse aggregate in the concrete, but recom- Figure 3-10 shows cores under natural and ultra-
mends three times the nominal maximum coarse violet light. Crack widths in these photos vary
aggregate size for both compressive and splitting from approximately 0.002 to 0.025 in. (0.050 to
tensile tests. If the core is to be used for a splitting 0.064 mm). A fluorescent tracer dye can also be
tensile strength test along the filled crack, the added to one of the epoxy components to facili-
core must have a diameter large enough (typi- tate this testing.
cally 3 to 4 in. [76 to 102 mm] in diameter) such A physical test is required to establish the
that the crack path (which is not always perpen- strength of the cured epoxy resin and bond
dicular to the concrete surface and thus not strength achieved on both sides of the crack. A
always parallel to the direction of coring) simple field test is to manually apply a sharp
remains within the body of the core over its full blow with a hammer to the side of the core con-
depth. Smaller-diameter cores of 1 to 2 in. (25 to taining the repaired crack. A failure along the
50 mm) are adequate when a visual check is bond line between the epoxy and the concrete is
being conducted. The advantage of small diam- an indication that further testing is required.
eter cores is that they are easier to repair and do Another method, which is conducted in a labora-
less damage to the structure. When practical, the tory, is a splitting tension test as described in
cores should be drilled to slightly beyond the full ASTM C496/C496M.
depth of the repaired crack. With the splitting tension test, an attempt
Usually one to two cores taken at random should be made to create tension perpendicular
locations for every 100 ft (30 m) of injection to the crack plane (refer to Fig. 3-11). In the
is adequate. The specifying authority may splitting tension test, orienting the core on the
increase or decrease the number and frequency testing machine platens so that the bond line is
of core samples consistent with the nature of generally vertically aligned under the loading
the work and the degree of quality assurance platens produces tensile stress at the interface.
required. All requirements for verification An average splitting tension strength of 90% of
cores should be clearly defined in the project that of uncracked concrete has been achieved
specifications. Cores are usually examined to (Webster and Kukacka 1988; Webster et al.
confirm penetration and apparent set of the 1990). Given the inherent variability in tensile
epoxy resin (refer to Fig. 3-9). Although 100% test results, attention should be given to
penetration is desired, generally, penetration is obtaining a sufficient sampling for determina-

Fig. 3-10: Cores showing epoxy penetration (second

Fig. 3-9: Cores showing epoxy penetration and fourth images shown under ultraviolet illumination)

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 7
 tion of splitting tensile strength before and after methods apply to epoxy injection quality assur-
repairs. Fracture through the parent concrete ance: ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), impact
away from the injected crack also indicates echo (IE), and spectral analysis of surface waves
satisfactory performance. The presence of shiny (SASW). Of these methods, UPV has an
or glassy areas on a face of hard cured epoxy approved test standard (ASTM C597) for basic
resin, exposed by the test fracture, indicates that ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements and IE
the glassy or shiny area cured while exposed to has an approved test standard (ASTM C1383)
air. This condition indicates that the epoxy resin for determining thickness of plates. SASW does
was in contact with only one face of the crack not have an approved ASTM test standard but is
during cure and an effective bond was not documented and discussed in ACI 228.2R (as
achieved at that location because the crack was are UPV and IE as well). Therefore, the use of
not full. these NDT methods for the purposes of quality
assurance in crack repairs is not addressed
directly by their respective test standards but is
addressed in more specialized publications as
further described in the following. Sonic NDT
methods give an indication of the relative degree
of crack filling. They do not determine cure or
bond strength of the epoxy resin. ACI 228.2R
contains more detailed information regarding
these and other test methods.
NDT methods are generally used for structures
where large areas must be tested or when other
quality assurance techniques cannot be used or are
Fig. 3-11: Splitting tensile test (ASTM C496/C496M) inadequate. The major advantages of the NDT
methods are that, unlike core sampling, no addi-
When assessing cores subjected to splitting tional damage is done to the structure, and a close
tensile testing, care must be taken to distinguish grid of data points can be tested.
between failure within the epoxy resin itself and NDT methods require skilled technicians and
bond failure between the concrete and the epoxy. engineers to conduct the tests and interpret
If the crack is full of epoxy resin of the proper results, and can be relatively expensive for
ratio, which has been well mixed, rejecting smaller projects. It is also generally recom-
repairs because of poor bond may be inappro- mended that all NDT methods be performed both
priate. The ability to obtain bond may not be before and after injection, so that the effective-
achievable due to the presence of contaminants ness of the injection can be evaluated. All non-
or other bond-inhibiting conditions beyond the destructive testing investigations should be
ability of the contractor to control. A trial pilot accompanied by some limited coring to verify
test program may be considered in advance of test results at specific locations.
starting the injection work, and may include
flushing of the crack with water or other chemi- 3.4.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
cals. To compare the strengths of the repaired The UPV test involves sending a wave energy
specimen to sound concrete, additional com- pulse through the concrete from a transmitter
panion cores may be obtained in uncracked to a receiver. The pulse is generated by an
concrete adjacent to the repairs. electrical impulse, and the instrument also
Criteria for evaluating cores removed from the records the time required for the pulse to travel
concrete after injection are shown in Table 3-1. from the source to the receiver (refer to
Fig. 3-12). The UPV test can be performed from
3.4 NDT Methods for Quality two opposite surfaces (direct test) as illustrated
Assurance of Epoxy Injection Repairs in Fig. 3-12: two non-opposite faces (semi-
direct test), or the surface of the concrete (indi-
Nondestructive testing (NDT) using sonic and rect test). Typically, only the direct and
ultrasonic methods may be appropriate in some semi-direct UPV tests are useful for a qualita-
circumstances for testing epoxy injection repairs. tive assessment of an injected crack repair. If
ICRI 210.4 provides guidance on these and other the repair at the surface of the concrete is of
NDT methods. Presently, three sonic NDT interest, the indirect (surface) UPV test may

8 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
 also be useful, but it only penetrates the near- 1 day after injection shows a normal-velocity
surface concrete. When testing is done before compression wave arrival at 111 µs with good
and after injection, the UPV test provides a
qualitative indication of whether a crack is Electronically generated pulse by
filled, partially filled, or comparatively unfilled. piezoelectric ceramic source
Example UPV results are presented in Fig. 3-13
and 3-14 for a semi-direct (diagonal) test across
a 0.003 in. (0.076 mm) wide hairline crack in
a 12 in. (305 mm) thick concrete beam both
before injection and for the same location 1 day
after epoxy injection. As shown in Fig. 3-13,
the signal seen before injection is weak and
slow, with a delayed signal arrival at about
180 uSec (µs microseconds) for a velocity of
8333 ft/s (2540 m/s), and with signal amplitude Fig. 3-12: Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
of about 10 to 20 millivolts (mV). In Fig. 3-14, method—Compression wave blocked/delayed
a UPV signal collected through the same crack by unfilled crack

Fig. 3-13: Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)—Example result across crack before epoxy injection

Fig. 3-14: Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)—Example result across crack after epoxy injection

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 9
 amplitude and a fast, good-quality concrete et al. 1990).
velocity of 13,513 ft/s (4119 m/s) with a signal
amplitude of 30 mV. As seen clearly in the
3.4.2 Impact Echo
In the IE test, the surface is impacted by
figures, successfully filled cracks have faster
mechanical means with a small impactor that
velocities and higher amplitude signals than
produces stress waves, as shown in Fig. 3-15.
unfilled cracks.
Once the traveling waves encounter a discon-
Recent research and work involving cross-
tinuity oriented primarily perpendicular to
medium tomography to analyze arrival times of
sub-perpen­dicular to their direction of propaga-
multiple tests crossing the injected area in mul-
tion, a portion of the wave energy reflects back
tiple directions can produce two-dimensional and
to the test surface. Unfilled or partially filled
three-dimensional images of the wave velocity
cracks would be an example of such a discon-
in the concrete, termed a velocity tomogram
tinuity if they are sufficiently oriented, so as to
(Sack et al. 2006). Such ultrasonic and sonic
create a reflection of the signal. The reflected
velocity tomograms can be used to show slow-
stress wave energy, or echo, is monitored by a
velocity zones of the cracking damage before
receiver placed on the concrete surface.
injecting and an improved, faster-velocity tomo-
Because both the impact source and receiver
gram after successful injection. Many direct,
are placed on the concrete surface, only one
angled tests, and crossing test paths around the
surface needs to be accessible for testing of a
injected area are typically required for tomog-
concrete element, unlike the UPV method. Like
raphy, and access to at least two sides of the
UPV, IE used in this manner can only be used
concrete element is required. An average pulse
to qualitatively assess the effectiveness of
velocity increase of 20 to 45% compared to
epoxy injection. Example IE results from a
cracked concrete prior to injection has been
well-filled epoxy-injected crack and a partially
achieved (Webster and Kukacka 1988; Webster
filled crack are presented in Fig. 3-16. The well-
filled crack is considered to be well filled based
on the single thickness echo at 6.3 in. (160 mm)
from the backside of the web (right plot in
Fig.  3-16). In comparison, the partially filled
crack produces multiple resonant echoes and a
lower frequency or greater apparent thickness
(left plot in Fig. 3-16) (Promboon et al. 2002).
A variant IE method, using a system of two
transducers with one on either side of the
crack, can be effective in determining the
depths of surface-opening near-perpendicular
cracks in concrete elements. IE cannot be used
to assess whether an individual crack is only
Fig. 3-15: Example of IE test with compression wave partially filled in this case. The IE method is
blocked or delayed by unfilled crack

Fig. 3-16: Example of IE test results on a filled (right) and partially filled (left) crack (After Promboon
et al. 2002)

10 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
effective up to depths on the order of at least 3 ft (0.9
m).
3.4.3 Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves
The SASW test has been used on structures and pave-
ments following initial applications for seismic shear
wave velocity measurements on soil sites (Sack et al.
2006). This method is illustrated in Fig. 3-17 and is
useful in assessing successful epoxy injection of cracks
in concrete. This method is particularly effective for
testing across near-perpendicular cracks to compare the
condition of the member before and after the injection
repair. An example result is presented in Fig. 3-18 for
a test across an unfilled crack in a 6 in. (152 mm) thick
I-beam web wall. The was also tested with the IE method
(Fig. 3-16) that shows comparatively slow surface wave
velocities of 3000 to 4000 ft/s for wavelengths from
Fig. 3-17: Example of SASW signal blocked or delayed
0.1 to 0.5 ft (30 to 152 mm), indicating the presence of
by unfilled crack
an unfilled crack. By comparison, an SASW
test result across a filled crack is presented
in Fig. 3-19, which shows surface wave
velocities of 7000 to 8000 ft/s (2100 to
2400  m/s) across the epoxy-filled crack,
which are typical velocities for “sound”
concrete. The SASW method is based upon
measuring surface wave propagation in
layered elastic media. Measurement of the
surface wave velocity with the SASW
method allows calculation of the estimated
compression wave velocity of the material
at various depths between transducers
mounted on the surface. The compression
wave velocity is related to Young’s Mod-
ulus, and therefore the relative condition of
the concrete at various depths between the
receivers can be evaluated. Repeated tests
Fig. 3-18: Example of SASW test result across an unfilled crack
at various locations can assess the condition
versus location throughout the structure at
various depths.
Like IE, the SASW method re­­­­quires
access to only one side of a structure. The
SASW test is only effective in measuring the
overall average condition of the member,
based on stiffness and lateral wave propaga-
tion. It cannot be used to determine the
epoxy fill depths of a particular crack unless
there is only one crack between the pair of
receivers, in which case the velo­c ity
increases beyond the depth of the open,
unfilled crack depth. If SASW  tests are
closely spaced (6 in. [152 mm]), a simple
su rface wave velocit y tomog ram, or
velocity image, of the variation of velocity
versus wavelength (depth) into the concrete
can be obtained. Fig. 3-19: Example of SASW test result across a filled crack

LIAC CONSULTORES
GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS 210.1R–2016 - 11
 4.0 References These publications may be obtained from
these organizations:
4.1 Referenced Standards
The standards and reports listed below were the American Concrete Institute
latest editions at the time this document was 38800 Country Club Dr.
prepared. Because these documents are revised Farmington Hills, MI 48331
frequently, the reader is advised to contact the www.concrete.org
proper sponsoring group if it is desired to refer ASTM International
to the latest version. 100 Barr Harbor Dr.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) West Conshohocken, PA 19428
ACI 224.1R, “Causes, Evaluation, and Repair www.astm.org
of Cracks in Concrete Structures” International Concrete Repair Institute
ACI 228.2R, “Nondestructive Test Methods 1000 Westgate Drive, Suite 252
for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures” St. Paul, MN 55114
ACI 503.7, “Specification for Crack Repair Phone: 651-366-6095
by Epoxy Injection” www.icri.org
ACI RAP Bulletin 1, “Structural Crack Repair
by Epoxy Injection” 4.2 Cited References
ACI RAP Bulletin 2, “Crack Repair by
Promboon, Y.; Olson, L.D.; and Lund, J.,
Gravity Feed with Resin”
2002, “Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)
ASTM International Methods for Quality Assurance of Epoxy Injec-
C42/C42M, Standard Test Method for tion Crack Repairs,” Concrete Repair Bulletin,
Obtaining and Testing of Drilled Cores and V. 15, No. 1, Jan./Feb., pp. 12-16.
Sawed Beams of Concrete Sack, D.; Olson, L.; and Yarbrough, H., 2006,
C496/C496M, Standard Test Method for “Concrete Spillway and Dam Inspection using
Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Con- Nondestructive Techniques,” HydroVision 2006
crete Specimens Conference Proceedings.
C597, Standard Test Method for Pulse Webster, R.P., and Kukacka, L.E., 1998,
Velocity through Concrete “Technical Report REMR-CS-11,” U.S. Army
C881/C881M, Standard Specification for Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Jan., http://
Epoxy Adhesive-Base Bonding Systems for wri.usace.army.mil/remr/technical_reports/con-
Concrete crete/REMR-CS-11.pdf. (last accessed July 25,
C1383, Standard Test Method for Measuring 2015)
the P-Wave Speed and the Thickness of Concrete Webster, R.P.; Kukacka, L.E.; and Elling, D.,
Plates Using the Impact-Echo Method 1990, “Technical Report REMR-CS-30,” U.S.
D638, Standard Test Method for Tensile Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC,
Properties of Plastics Sept., http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
D695, Standard Test Method for Compressive a229429.pdf. (last accessed July 25, 2015)
Properties of Rigid Plastics
E2105, Standard Practice for General Tech-
niques of Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
Coupled With Infrared Analysis (TGA/IR)
E2160, Standard Test Method for Heat of
Reaction of Thermally Reactive Materials by
Differential Scanning Calorimetry
International Concrete Repair Institute
(ICRI)
ICRI Technical Guideline 210.4, “Guide for
Nondestructive Evaluation Methods for Condi-
tion Assessment, Repair, and Performance
Monitoring of Concrete Structures”

12 - 210.1R–2016
LIAC CONSULTORES GUIDE FOR VERIFYING FIELD PERFORMANCE OF EPOXY INJECTION OF CONCRETE CRACKS
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite 252
St. Paul, MN 55114
Phone: 651-366-6095
Fax: 651-290-2266
Website: www.icri.org

LIAC CONSULTORES
E-mail: [email protected]