ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 108-M31
Application of the Incremental Core-Drilling Method
to Determine In-Situ Stresses in Concrete
by Christopher Trautner, Michael McGinnis, and Stephen Pessiki
The incremental core-drilling method (ICDM) is a nondestructive
technique to assess in-situ stresses in concrete. These stresses may
be constant or vary through the thickness of the concrete member
under investigation. In this method, a core is drilled into a concrete
structure in discrete increments. The displacements that occur
locally around the perimeter of the core at each increment are
measured and related to the in-situ stresses. This paper presents
results from experimental tests in which simple concrete beams
were subjected to controlled loads and in-situ stresses measured
via ICDM were compared to known stress distributions.
Keywords: core test; displacement; nondestructive; stress.
INTRODUCTION
As the name suggests, the incremental core-drilling
method (ICDM) involves incrementally drilling a core into the
structural member under investigation. The displacements that
occur locally around the hole at each increment are correlated
to in-situ stresses by the use of influence function (IF)
coefficients.1 The displacements are measured by the use of
digital image correlation (DIC) technology.2 This paper
presents results from a series of experiments designed to
evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the ICDM. Tests
were conducted on eccentrically prestressed plain concrete
beams. The in-situ stress distribution measured via the ICDM
was compared to the theoretical stress distribution, which was
calculated from the strain measurements and load cell data.
The ICDM was found to measure the stress at the top fiber
of the beams to within 10% and the change in stress through
the depth of the member to within approximately 20%.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Reliable information about the in-situ state of stress in the
concrete of an existing structure can be critical to an
evaluation of that structure. Often, as in the case of a
structural member subjected to bending or eccentric
prestressing, the stresses in the member vary through the
depth of the member—that is, they vary as a function of
through-thickness position. Currently available methods of
investigating stresses in concrete structures are limited to
stresses that do not vary with depth.3-6 The ICDM has been
developed to be a general nondestructive technique for
investigating stresses in concrete structures.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYTICAL FORMULATION
If a core hole is drilled into concrete under stress, local
displacements called relieved displacements occur as the
stress around the core is redistributed. Several methods
have been developed to correlate these relieved
displacements to the stress in the concrete, but they are
limited to stresses that are constant with respect to
through-thickness position.3,5,6 For many problems of
290
TECHNICAL PAPER
interest (such as those involving bending or eccentric
prestressing), information about how the stresses vary
through the depth of the member is desirable. In the
ICDM, the in-situ stress distribution (as a function of
through-thickness position) is calculated from a series of
relieved displacements that occur around the hole as the
core is drilled in discrete, progressively deeper
increments. This correlation is possible through the use of the
IF method.1,7 In this method, radial and tangential
displacements measured on the surface of the object at a
fictitious “measurement circle” are correlated to in-situ
stresses by the use of IF matrixes. The IF matrixes are
calibrated using finite element models that reflect the
geometry of the core hole. Relieved displacements along the
measurement circle are considered to have a component due
to the mean P, deviatoric Q, and shear τxy components of the
in-situ stresses. Three measurements of relieved displacement
are enough to solve for the three components of in-situ stress
(if the stress is not a function of depth). If three measurements
of relieved displacement are taken as the core is drilled
incrementally, then the variation of stress with depth can also
be calculated. If the stress distribution is assumed to be linear,
this variation of stress through the depth is called the stress
gradient. The ICDM has been successfully illustrated on plain
concrete plate structures subject to various stress distributions
simulated with finite element techniques.1
The three displacements acquired at each increment can be
obtained anywhere along the measurement circle. It is
convenient, however, to acquire these displacements at
regularly spaced points. The choice of where to acquire these
displacements—the “measurement configuration”—
determines the mathematical correlation of displacements to
in-situ stresses. A number of measurement configurations
have been proposed for the ICDM.7 For this study, a
measurement configuration consisting of three pure radial
measurements D1, D2, and D3 was used. Each measurement
is taken 45 degrees apart, as shown in Fig. 1.
This configuration uses six radial displacements u
measured at θ = 0, 45, 90, 180, 225, and 270 degrees. The
displacements are normalized to the measurement circle
radius rm for ease of calculation and to minimize the number
of units that must be carried through the solution procedure.
The measurements for this configuration are
ua + ud ub + uc uc + uf
D1 = ----------------
- D2 = ---------------- D3 = --------------- (1)
rm rm rm
ACI Materials Journal, V. 108, No. 3, May-June 2011.
MS No. M-2010-047.R1 received February 15, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors’ closure, if any, will be published in the March-April
2012 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by December 1, 2011.
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011
ACI member Christopher Trautner is a Staff II—Structures at Simpson, Gumpertz,
and Heger in Waltham, MA. He received his BS in civil engineering and his MS in
structural engineering from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. His research interests
include the nondestructive testing of concrete structures, composite mechanics, and
the behavior and design of plate and shell structures.

Michael McGinnis is an Assistant Professor of civil engineering at the University of

Texas, Tyler, TX. He received his BS and MS in civil engineering from the University
of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, and his PhD in structural engineering from Lehigh
University. His research interests include the nondestructive evaluation of structures,
structural fire behavior, fire dynamics, and applied mechanics.

Stephen Pessiki, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering and Department

Chair for the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Lehigh University.
He received his BS in civil engineering from Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, and
his MS and PhD in civil engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. His research
interests include the nondestructive evaluation of materials and structures, fire effects
on structures, earthquake engineering, and innovative building systems.
Fig. 1—Measurement configuration.
This configuration was used successfully by McGinnis4
for use in nonincremental core-drilling experiments. with an assumed linear variation of stress through depth. The
The displacements D1, D2, and D3 are correlated to in-situ stresses in this study were assumed to have a linear distribu-
mean, deviatoric, and shear stresses (which are a function of tion and the number of increments used was variable, as
normalized through-thickness position h) by the use of discussed in the following.
Eq. (2), (3), and (4), respectively. The coefficient matrix B relates radial displacements to
deviatoric and shear stresses and is similarly defined
1- ( D1 + D3 )
P ( h ) = ------ (2)
2A 1 T –1 T
-------- = ( [ M B ] [ M B ] ) [ M B ] (8)
[B]
1- ( D3 – D1 )
Q ( h ) = ------ (3)
2B where MB is the deviatoric/shear stress-radial displacement
calibration matrix defined by Eq. (9) and (10).
1
τ xy ( h ) = ------- ( D1 – 2D2 + D3 ) (4)
2B

The calibration coefficient matrixes A and B are calculated

from the IF matrixes α and β proposed by Trautner et al.1 (9)
The coefficient matrix A relates radial displacements to
mean stress P(h) and is defined as n m
β
1
∑ ∑ ------------------
k+l+c–2
mB r, c = ----- kl
-h cos ( 2θ ) (10)
Ec l+c–1 r
1 - = ( [ M ] T [ M ] ) –1 [ M ] T
-------
k = 1l = 1
A A A (5)
[A]
The entries in Matrix MB include a sinusoidal term not
where MA is the mean stress-radial displacement calibration found in Eq. (7). The reason for this is that deviatoric and
matrix defined by Eq. (6) and (7) shear stresses produce relieved radial displacements that
vary along the measurement circle with the cosine of
twice the angle from the origin θ. The size of Matrix MB
must be the same as Matrix MA. The special case of 1 x 1
(6) MA and MB matrixes implies a constant-stress assumption
and a single drilled increment, corresponding to the
nonincremental core-drilling method performed by
McGinnis.4 A complete derivation of the relationships
n m
1 α shown in Eq. (2) through (10) is available.7,8
∑ ∑ ------------------
kl k+l+c–2
mA r, c = ----- -h (7)
Ec l+c–1 r
k = 1l = 1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Specimen design
where k, l, and c are the indexes for the rows and columns of A total of nine tests were conducted on three experimental
the dimensionless IF matrix α and the column of the calibration specimens. Each specimen was a plain concrete beam
matrix MA, respectively. The size of MA is related to the approximately 488 cm (192 in.) in length. The stress in the
problem under investigation. The number of rows R in this beams was controlled by post-tensioning bars within the
matrix corresponds to the number of increments the core beams. Research has indicated that different IF matrixes may
hole is drilled in. The number of columns C corresponds to be needed for the accurate investigation of concrete members
the degree of the assumed in-situ stress function expansion with different thicknesses.8 To evaluate this phenomenon and
(1 = constant stress with depth, 2 = linear stress variation determine the necessity for different IF matrixes, two beam
with depth, and so on). For example, a 3 x 2 MA matrix would configurations with different thicknesses were tested, as
be appropriate for a core that was drilled in three increments shown in Fig. 2.

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011 291

 Fig. 2—Specimen details.
One Type A and two Type B specimens were fabricated.
Local failure of the concrete at the ends of the specimens was
prevented by a reinforcing bar cage made of six bent No. 13
(No. 4) reinforcing bar hoops tied together. No other
structural reinforcement was provided, as the adjustment
that must be made for steel reinforcement near the coring
location is outside the scope of this study.4 A 56 mm (2 1/4 in.)
conduit fastened at the end forms and tied to two transverse
No. 19 (No. 6) bars was used to accommodate the 36 mm
(1 3/8 in.) deformed post-tensioning bars. The two sets of
conduit in the Type A specimen allowed repositioning of the
post-tensioning bars so that different load eccentricities (and
therefore different in-situ stresses) could be applied. The
nominal post-tensioning eccentricities e are shown in Fig. 2.
The size of the conduit relative to the bars, however, allowed
for significant variation in the actual eccentricity of the bars.
The actual eccentricity of the post-tensioning was measured
during testing. Three tests were conducted on each
specimen. The core holes were drilled at the centerline of
each beam at 137 cm (54 in.) from the ends and at the center
of each beam. Previous research by McGinnis4 has indicated
that 137 cm (54 in.) is adequate spacing to prevent end
effects from affecting the test results.
Fabrication, curing, and loading
A plywood platform covered with a layer of plastic was
constructed as a base for each of the three forms. Each
plywood form was then built on a second layer of plastic to
ensure that each beam was free to shorten as the prestress
force was applied. Specimens were cast using a concrete
292
mixture with a water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.41 and a 28-day
design strength of 45 MPa (6500 psi). The tops of the
specimens were screeded flat using the top of the forms as a
guide and then given a smooth steel-trowel finish.
Previous research on core-drilling methods9,10 has shown
that differential shrinkage stresses and local swelling of the
concrete around the core hole due to drilling water can
produce displacements that are not related to the in-situ
stresses. These additional displacements are related to water
movement in the concrete and therefore only occur in
concrete that is not saturated when the core is drilled. To
simplify the scope of this study, the specimens were kept
fully saturated during curing and testing so that no
differential shrinkage stresses would develop and water from
the drilling operation would not induce local swelling
around the core hole. In a practical application of the ICDM,
a correction would need to be made to account for
displacements due to core-drilling water effects and to
account for increased local stiffness due to reinforcement.
McGinnis4 and McGinnis and Pessiki10 have presented
methods by which such corrections can be made in the core-
drilling method.
Approximately 4 hours after the concrete was finished, the
specimens were covered with a layer of wet burlap and
covered in plastic. The specimens were rewetted twice per
day by using a soaker-type hose on top of each specimen.
After 2 days, the forms were removed. A layer of burlap was
placed to cover each specimen, which was then wrapped
completely in the second layer of plastic that had been placed
below the forms. This arrangement provided an essentially
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011
watertight enclosure in which the specimens were wet-cured.
Approximately twice per day, the specimens were watered
using a soaker hose placed inside each wrapping. This
procedure ensured that the concrete was kept saturated for
the entire curing period. Concrete cylinders cast during the
pour were wet-cured inside a similarly constructed enclosure
and watered with the same frequency as the specimens. The
specimens were wet-cured in this manner for 12 days.
Immediately prior to testing, the burlap and plastic were
removed, but the specimens were kept wet by spraying water
directly on the top of each beam.
Load was applied to the specimens using a pair of
through-hole 1100 kN (250 kip) hydraulic actuators, as
shown in Fig. 3. Post-tensioning nuts and 150 x 250 x 38 mm
(6 x 10 x 1.5 in.) bearing plates were used as specified by the
post-tensioning bar manufacturer. Doubled bearing plates Fig. 3—Jacking and load cell arrangement.
were used at the surface of the specimen to provide a uniform
distribution of bearing stress.

Instrumentation
Instrumentation of the specimens included only two parts:
load cells and digital image correlation (DIC) patterning.
Two 980 kN (220 kip) load cells were incorporated into the
load paths of each jack during each test, as shown in Fig. 3.
The load cells were calibrated at 10.0 V excitation using a
2670 kN (600 kip) capacity universal mechanical testing
machine and a voltmeter. During testing, the signal for both
load cells was run through a strain gauge conditioner and
logged using a data logger. Data were recorded at 1 Hz. The
relatively fast sampling rate allowed the load in the beam to
be accurately tracked during the course of each test, which
was done to ensure that the load in the beam did not change
during the course of the test due to the “softening” that occurs
as part of the beam cross section—the core—is removed.
DIC is a general-purpose, nondestructive technique for
measuring deformations and displacements that occur on the
surface of structures. For this study, the ARAMIS2 suite of
DIC software was used. DIC is essentially a comparison of
stereo digital pictures taken of a subject before and after a
loading event. The surface of the subject must have a
stochastic black and white pattern, which can be applied Fig. 4—DIC pattern application. (Note: 1 mm is approximately
using a white coat of spray paint followed by a “spluttered” 0.039 in.)
coat of black spray paint.3 The DIC system discretizes the
images taken into a number of facets that contain some black drilled. Relieved displacements that occur at each increment
and some white pixels. Through trigonometric principals, can be found by comparing the image taken at that increment
ray tracing, and pattern matching, movement of the facets to the image taken before the coring procedure is started.
are directly translated into three-dimensional (3-D) Although the ICDM can be carried out with more
coordinate measurements.2 By comparing pairs of images conventional displacement measurement techniques, DIC
from before and after a loading event, displacements on the provides nearly full-field displacement measurement that
surface of an object can be obtained. Rigid body motion adds to the accuracy of the technique and does not require
(either from the movement of the specimen or movement of mounting of instrumentation in the core area that could be
the camera between subsequent images) can be quantified damaged during the coring procedure.
and removed. DIC was successfully used to acquire DIC was also used to measure the strain on the top surface
displacement and strain data in a similar experimental program.3 of the specimens during loading. The DIC pattern was
During this program, the sensitivity of the DIC system was applied to the top of each specimen at the core hole locations
estimated to be approximately 5 μm (3.94 × 10–5 in.) for immediately prior to testing, as shown in Fig. 4. Although
out-of-plane displacements with better sensitivity for the DIC system is capable of internally computing strain
in-plane displacements. over small gauge lengths, a larger gauge length was used in
In this study, DIC was used as the primary measurement this study. Longitudinal displacements were acquired along
tool for the experimental procedure—that is, it was used to two transverse sections (each 50 mm [1.97 in.] away from
measure the displacements that occur locally around the core the midspan of the beam). The displacements along each
hole, which are used in the ICDM to calculate the in-situ section were averaged, and the difference between the two
stresses. This is accomplished by taking images before the average displacements was divided by the gauge length to
coring procedure is started and after each increment is give the top-fiber strain. Additionally, images were taken of

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011 293

Fig. 5—Core numbering scheme.
the side of each specimen so that the average axial strain in
the beam could be measured directly.
TESTING PROCEDURE
Specimen testing
Each core hole was given a testing number according to
the scheme shown in Fig. 5. Each beam was given an
identification number according to the core numbers—that
is, Beam 123 was the beam that had cores 1, 2, and 3 drilled
in it. Beam 789 was the Type A specimen. Beams 456 and
123 were Type B specimens. Testing on Beam 789 was
conducted first, followed by Beams 456 and 123. Each test
was carried out according to the procedure shown in Fig. 6.
DIC images were captured between each increment for a
total of three to eight images per test.
After positioning the jacking hardware, the jacks were
exercised to approximately 25% of the test load to ensure
proper functioning of the system and to work out slack
between the jacks and the post-tensioning hardware.
Sampling of the load via the two load cells was taken
continuously throughout the entire procedure. Then, the
jacks were bled to ensure that no load was applied and
Stage 0 images were taken of both the top of the beam and
the sides. The Stage 0 images provide the baseline from
which the strain in the top fiber of the beam was determined.
To ensure that these images were of adequate quality and
that the DIC was functioning normally, another image was
taken a fraction of a second after Stage 0. This image was not
used for further processing, however, and was discarded,
except for establishing a noise floor.
After the first set of images was taken, the jacks were
energized to full testing load. No effort was made to control
the position of the post-tensioning bars within the conduit.
Once the testing load was reached, a needle valve in the
hydraulic system was closed to ensure that the load remained
constant throughout the test. Stage 1 images, taken at this
point on both the sides and the top of the beam at midspan,
allowed for strain measurements in the “loaded” condition.
Stage 1 images also provided the reference from which
relieved displacements are measured.
At this point, the ICDM procedure began. The coring drill
was affixed to the top of the beam via a suction mount, which
was used so that the drill could be quickly attached and
released from the specimen to allow coring and then DIC
294
Fig. 6—Testing procedure flowchart.
image acquisition. The bit used had an outside diameter of
150 mm (6 in.) and a blade thickness of approximately 5 mm
(0.20 in), which were the parameters used in the calibration
of the IF matrixes α and β.1 The bit was marked with 25 mm
(1 in.) increments along its length using a paint marker. The
approximate depth of the core holes was controlled by
aligning the marks on the bit with the top of the beam during
drilling. Between three and eight increments of varying
depth were drilled for each core. After the drill was removed
between each increment, the depth of the core hole was
measured in three places by inserting a metal ruler. The
average of the three measurements was recorded as the depth
of the increment, as shown in Table 1. Following coring of
every increment, the coring water and debris were washed
away by rinsing the surface with clean water and then wiping
the surface dry. This was done gently, as any peeling of the
pattern could induce error to the displacement measurements.
Despite multiple cycles of washing and drying, no
degradation of the DIC pattern was observed.
Following coring of the first increment and after the
surface was rinsed and dried, Stage 2 images were taken.
These images were then compared to the Stage 1 images
(loaded condition) to determine the relieved displacements.
After the images were taken, the procedure was repeated
until the core could be removed. A total of N coring
increments were taken for each hole, leading to a total of (N
+ 1) image stages for each test. The entire procedure was
then repeated for the other holes on each beam. To ensure
that the coring of multiple holes did not appreciably change
the load state of the beam during coring, the output from the
load cells was continuously recorded. The total change in
load was less than 3 kN (0.7 kip) during any coring
procedure and the load for each test was taken as the average
of the start and end values.
This procedure was followed exactly for Beams 123 and
456. Beam 789 involved a slight variation. Before Core 8
was drilled, the post-tensioning bars were put into the
alternate (lower) post-tensioning ducts and reloaded. The
procedure for the Stage 0 images was repeated for this core
alone. The lower conduit was below the neutral axis, so there
was less compression at the top of the beam in this test
compared to the other cores drilled in this beam.
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011
Table 1—Average measured increment depths zr
Measured core-hole depths zr , mm
Core number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Total load PTOT, kN 1223 1220 1219 1015 1012 1010 1187 1229 1186
Increment number
1 24.3 26.5 15.3 24.3 23.8 23.3 24.9 23.3 22.8
2 53.4 49.2 27.0 51.3 50.3 76.7 51.3 54.0 49.2
3 73.0 76.2 48.7 75.1 73.0 156.1 74.1 74.1 74.6
4 101.6 102.7 75.7 97.9 101.1 — 101.6 101.6 101.6
5 130.2 126.5 101.6 124.9 123.8 — 132.8 127.0 129.6
6 155.6 158.8 124.4 156.6 158.8 — 155.0 150.3 149.2
7 — — 156.6 — — — 235.0 228.1 229.7
8 — — — — — — 311.2 311.2 311.2
Notes: 1 mm is approximately 0.039 in.; 1 kN is approximately 0.225 kip; bold indicates value of hmax for each test; shaded increments were not used in calculations.

Concrete characterization
The three beams were placed from a single batch of
concrete. To characterize the concrete mixture, two types of
concrete tests were performed. The first type consisted of
standard 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) compressive cylinder tests
in accordance with ASTM C39. The second type consisted of
compressive tests on the cored cylinders themselves. This
series of tests was done for three distinct reasons:
1. To ensure that the concrete attained a reasonable
strength (>30 MPa [4.3 ksi]) prior to testing;
2. To determine the modulus of elasticity Ec of the
concrete via the ACI 318-08 simplified equation Ec =
4730√fc′; and
3. To determine whether the concrete strength and
modulus of elasticity changed appreciably during the course
of testing.
Items 2 and 3 were particularly important, as the concrete
beams were relatively young at testing and the accuracy of
the ICDM is directly dependent on the accuracy of the in-situ
Ec.1 If the elastic modulus changed during the course of
testing, a different Ec would have to be used in the solution
of the ICDM equations for each of the three beams.
Each of the three beams was associated with four concrete
compression tests: two cylinder tests and two core tests. One
core of every beam was preserved as a record of the DIC
pattern. The concrete cylinders were cast at the same time as
the beams and were kept in an identical curing environment.
The two cylinders were tested prior to each beam test. The
cylinders were removed from the moist curing environment
approximately 1.5 hours prior to the start of coring, wiped
dry, and capped using a sulfur-based capping compound.
The cylinders were tested at approximately the same time as
the first cores were taken, approximately 1 to 2 hours after
the capping compound set. The two cores were removed
from the specimen as soon as the ICDM was complete.
These cores were wiped dry and capped within 2 hours.
Testing of the cores occurred 3 to 4 hours after they were
removed. For each test, testing of all cylinder and core
specimens was accomplished in a 6-hour window, which
was deemed acceptable in terms of changes in concrete
parameters from the beginning to end of this window.
The testing procedure for both the cores and the cylinders
followed ASTM C39. As expected, the core and cylinder
specimens exhibited different behaviors when tested. The
cylinders exhibited a stiffer response and a higher ultimate
load. The load-displacement response was also more linear
in the middle range of loading for the cylinder tests. The
Fig. 7—Stresses in loaded specimens.
modulus computed by the core tests and that computed by
the cylinder tests, however, agreed to within approximately
10%. Because the cylinder tests were both more consistent in
their behavior, and because the ACI 318-08 equation is
designed for use with cylinders with a 2:1 height:diameter
ratio, the average Ec calculated from the cylinder tests
(30,175 MPa [4376.51 ksi]) was used as the “result” of the
compression testing. The variable Ec found in this manner
was verified by a comparison with the Ec found by
comparing the load/average axial strain data taken from the
sides of each of the specimens. The variable Ec found via
cylinder testing did not change appreciably over the 3 days
of beam testing.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Applied stresses
The cross-sectional area Ab, the weak-axis moment of
inertia Iyy, and the distance from the centroid to the extreme
fibers c were calculated from the measurements of each
beam. Then, the modulus of elasticity from the cylinder tests
Ec, the strain in the top fiber at each coring location ε1, and
the total load in the beam PTOT (taken as the sum of the load
reported by the two load cells) were used to solve Eq. (11),
(12), and (13) for the stress in the top of the beam σ1, the
stress in the bottom of the beam σ2, and the average
eccentricity of the post-tensioning bars e, as shown in Fig. 7.
σ1 = ε1 Ec (11)
P TOT P TOT ec b
σ 1 = – -----------
- – -------------------- (12)
Ab I yy

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011 295

 Fig. 8—Displacement fields for last increment of Core 5.

Table 2—Summary of applied stresses solution procedure. In this study, hmax is equivalent to
Top-fiber Bottom-fiber Calculated Stress gradient, approximately 150 mm (6 in.). The exact value for hmax for
Core stress, MPa stress, MPa eccentricity e, mm MPa/hmax each test can be seen in Table 1.
1 –14.05 –3.74 16.2 6.87
2 –15.04 –2.73 19.3 8.21 Acquired displacements
3 –16.08 –1.66 28.3 9.61
Displacements were acquired on a measurement circle of
radius rm = 100 mm (3.94 in.) using the DIC system. The
4 –10.22 –4.54 10.7 3.79
DIC system reports displacements on the measurement
5 –9.74 –4.97 9.1 3.18
circle in x- and y-coordinate directions at irregularly
6 –10.18 –4.53 10.7 3.77 spaced intervals (where facet measurements overlap with
7 –8.87 –0.10 50.8 2.92 the measurement circle). To make the displacement data
8 –4.53 –4.76 –1.3 –0.08 usable for the ICDM, these displacements were linearly
9 –8.83 –0.12 50.4 2.90 interpolated to 1-degree increments and converted to radial
Notes: 1 mm is approximately 0.039 in.; 1 MPa is approximately 0.145 ksi. u and tangential v components by a trigonometric
transformation. The measurement configuration that was
introduced previously is then “rotated” by 1-degree
P TOT P TOT ec b increments to take advantage of the full set of acquired
σ 2 = – -----------
- + -------------------- (13) radial displacements. For this measurement configuration,
Ab I yy
a total of 180 rotations are possible, and the in-situ mean,
deviatoric, and shear stresses are calculated via Eq. (2), (3),
The top- and bottom-fiber stresses σ1 and σ2 were then and (4) at each rotation step. Cartesian stresses in the
used to calculate the vertical stress gradient at each coring coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 8, are calculated by
location (the value that is directly computed by the ICDM). combining the mean, deviatoric, and shear stress
The applied stresses are summarized in Table 2. components appropriately by the use of Mohr’s circle. The
The eccentricities in the table are within the range of final calculated in-situ stresses σXX, σYY, and τXY are taken
eccentricities that are possible, depending on the position as the average of the 180 transformed stress values.
of the bars within the conduit. The vertical stress gradient The general pattern of displacements measured via DIC
is expressed in units of MPa/hmax , where hmax is the was consistent with the expected behavior of the core—as
maximum normalized core depth used in the ICDM the core is drilled, the area around the core compresses in the

296 ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011

direction of the load and bows outward in the direction
normal to the load. The largest displacements measured were
approximately 70 μm (2.76 × 10–3 in.). Displacements
measured in the last increment of Core 5 are shown in Fig. 8.
The pattern of the displacements shown is typical for all the
cores. The displacement data showed significant random
variation (noise), as shown in the plot of the acquired radial
displacements in Fig. 9. The displacement data acquired
showed generally more noise than displacements acquired
by McGinnis et al.3 This may have been the result of a lower-
quality DIC pattern that contained relatively few, very small,
black speckles. The DIC software2 used features numerical
relaxation routines to smooth noisy data. These were not
employed, however, because the in-situ stresses were
calculated as the average of 180 separate stress calculations.
This effectively used the full set of relieved displacement
data. Random variation observed in the displacement data is
filtered out by this averaging process.
Calculated stresses
The cores in this study were generally drilled in more
increments than would be practical for a field investigation
using the ICDM. Because the stress distribution in the beams
of this study was assumed to be linear, displacement data
from at least two increments were needed; however, there
are over 20 different combinations of increments that could
be used. A parametric study of accuracy was conducted
Fig. 9—Typical radial displacement pattern.
Fig. 10—Calculated and applied stresses (Core 5).
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011
using the displacement data from Core 5. The results of this
study (summarized in Table 3) showed that the results of the
analysis were relatively insensitive to the increments chosen.
The two-increment combinations highlighted showed
significantly different results than the average of the other
combinations used. Although a two-increment combination
has the highest potential for accuracy,1 the use of a two-
increment combination is most sensitive to errors in
displacement measurement because the solution of Eq. (1),
(2), and (3) is determinate. The use of three or more
increments produces an overdetermined set of equations and
is therefore less sensitive to noise in the displacement data.
Therefore, for each of the cores taken in this study, a solution
was found using a three-, four-, five-, and six-increment
pattern and then averaged.
The stresses calculated via the ICDM for each of the
180 measurement configuration rotations is shown in Fig. 10
for Core 5. Although they reflect the noise apparent in the
displacement data, the calculated stresses are generally
clustered around the applied stress—that is, the average of
the calculated stresses appears relatively accurate. This
pattern was observed for each of the cores taken. The
average magnitude of σYY was small (generally 10% or less
of the average value of σXX), indicating that the measures
taken to eliminate displacements due to differential
shrinkage and core-drilling water were effective.9,10 The
average magnitude of τXY was also generally 10% or less of
the average value of σXX, indicating an accurate
measurement of in-plane shear.
Table 4 summarizes the calculated and applied stresses for
each of the nine cores taken as part of this study. The Stage 1
image for Core 6 was mistakenly overwritten, so the
measurement of relieved displacements and the calculation of
in-situ stresses was not possible. The error in the top-fiber
stress was taken as the absolute difference between the applied
and measured top-fiber stress divided by the applied top-fiber
stress. The total average error for the top-fiber stress was taken
as the average of the percent error for each test. In each of the
tests performed, the measured top-fiber stress was less than
the applied top-fiber stress. The cause of this systematic error
is unknown, although this type of error is consistent with
underestimation of the in-situ elastic modulus.
The accuracy of the measured stress gradient was
generally lower than that of the top-fiber stress. The
numerical value of the stress gradients was relatively small,
however, in the specimens tested (essentially 0 for Test 8).
297
Table 3—Parametric study of accuracy versus increment choice
Top fiber σxx, Top fiber σyy, Top fiber τxy,
Increments used MPa MPa MPa σxx gradient, MPa/hmax σyy gradient, MPa/hmax τxy gradient, MPa/hmax
1-6 –17.78 0.63 1.01 3.68 0.69 –0.15
2-6 –9.69 0.41 0.44 2.87 –1.11 –0.04
3-6 –8.31 0.33 0.30 2.75 –1.40 –0.01
4-6 –7.90 0.29 0.24 2.72 –1.48 0.00
2-5 –10.21 –0.33 0.97 8.59 4.52 1.65
3-5 –3.99 0.87 1.04 –5.98 –4.32 1.77
1-2-6 –10.27 0.36 0.34 2.81 0.06 0.05
1-3-6 –8.67 1.46 0.24 2.88 –1.12 0.02
1-4-6 –8.97 0.73 0.18 2.84 –1.27 0.03
2-5-6 –9.19 0.81 0.12 2.72 –1.34 0.02
1-2-4-6 –9.18 0.64 0.18 2.89 –1.24 0.03
1-2-5-6 –9.45 0.66 0.09 2.91 –1.29 0.05
1-2-3-4-6 –9.11 0.79 0.16 2.81 –1.32 0.04
2-3-4-5-6 –8.71 0.69 0.13 2.71 –1.35 0.04
1-2-3-4-5-6 –9.28 0.92 0.13 2.84 –1.17 0.06
Average –9.38 0.62 0.37 2.67 –0.88 0.24
Average –9.06 0.67 0.21 2.81 –1.17 0.02
(shaded values omitted)
Applied –9.74 0.00 0.00 3.18 0.00 0.00
Difference, % 7.0 — — 11.5 — —
Note: 1 MPa is approximately 0.145 ksi.

Table 4—Summary of calculated and applied stresses

Applied top-fiber Measured top-fiber Applied gradient, Measured gradient,
Core stress σ1, MPa stress σ1, MPa Error, % MPa/hmax MPa/hmax Error, MPa/hmax
1 –14.05 –12.43 11.5 6.87 7.55 0.67
2 –15.04 –13.90 7.5 8.21 10.16 1.95
3 –16.08 –15.29 4.9 9.61 11.17 1.56
4 –10.22 –9.08 11.2 3.79 2.90 0.88
5 –9.74 –9.06 6.9 3.18 2.81 0.36
6* — — — — — —
7 –8.87 –8.28 6.6 2.92 2.01 0.91
8 –4.53 –3.66 19.2 –0.08 –1.86 1.79
9 –8.83 –7.76 12.2 2.90 2.83 0.08
Average 10.0 4.68 4.70 1.03
Top fiber Gradient
Total average error 10.0 21.8
*
Omitted from averages.
Note: 1 MPa is approximately 0.145 ksi.

The total average error in the stress gradient (taken as the
average error divided by the average applied stress gradient)
is approximately 22%. The average applied gradient and the
average measured gradient, however, agree to within 1%.
This suggests that the measured stress gradient in a single
test would be expected to be accurate to within
approximately 22% but that the average of multiple tests
would be significantly more accurate.
The highest accuracy was observed for the core with the
highest top-fiber stress and highest gradient (Core 3), and the
lowest accuracy was observed for the core with the lowest
top-fiber stress and lowest gradient (Core 8). This suggests
that the magnitude of the relieved displacements may be
important to the accuracy of the technique. No significant
difference in accuracy was observed between the Type A
and Type B specimens tested.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study sought to investigate the reliability and
accuracy of the ICDM on full-scale concrete specimens.
Three simple post-tensioned beams were built and tested. A
total of nine cores was taken, each with a different stress
profile. From the preceding work, the following conclusions
are drawn:
1. The ICDM can be reliably used to measure the in-situ
stress distribution in plain concrete. The measurement of
top-fiber stress is accurate to within approximately 10% and
the measurement of the variation of stress through depth is
accurate to within approximately 22%.
2. The accuracy of the technique is not affected by the
depth of the increments that are used in the solution
procedure. The solution procedure is less sensitive to noise

298 ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011

in the displacement data if displacement data from three or R = number of rows in calibration matrix; number of increments
more increments are used. used in calculation procedure
r = row index for calibration matrix
3. The accuracy of the technique is approximately the
rm = radius of measurement circle
same, regardless of the thickness of the specimen under u = measured radial displacement
investigation. Finite element simulations8 suggested that v = measured tangential displacement
different IFs would be needed for different-sized specimens. zr = increment depth
Further work and a larger number of tests are needed to α = dimensionless radial equibiaxial IF matrix
determine whether statistical accuracy of the technique is β = dimensionless radial deviatoric/shear IF matrix
improved using IFs tailored to the geometry of the object ε1 = strain in top fiber of beam
under investigation. θ = rotation measured from x-axis
σ1 = stress in top fiber of beam
4. Accuracy appears to be higher where measured relieved σ2 = stress in bottom fiber of beam
displacements are larger (that is, the magnitude of in-situ σxx = normal stress in direction of beam longitudinal axis
stresses is larger). Further work is needed to determine the σyy = normal stress in direction of beam transverse axis
implication of this observation. τxy = shear stress
5. The quality of the DIC patterning influences the amount
of noise present in the displacement data. REFERENCES
1. Trautner, C.; McGinnis, M. J.; and Pessiki, S., “Analytical and
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerical Development of the Incremental Core-Drilling Method of Non-
This research was supported by the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Destructive Determination of In-Situ Stresses in Concrete Structures,”
Technology Alliance, the Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute, and the Journal of Strain Analysis, V. 45, No. 8, 2010, pp. 647-658.
Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) at 2. GOM International AG, ARAMIS User’s Manual, Bremgarterstrasse
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. The support of these organizations is 89B CH-8967, Widen, Switzerland, 2007.
gratefully acknowledged. 3. McGinnis, M. J.; Pessiki, S.; and Turker, H., “Application of 3D
Digital Image Correlation to the Core-Drilling Method,” Experimental
Mechanics, V. 45, No. 4, 2005, pp. 359-367.
NOTATION 4. McGinnis, M. J., “Experimental and Numerical Development of the
A = mean stress/radial displacement coefficient matrix
Ab = cross-sectional area of beam Core-Drilling Method for the Nondestructive Evaluation of In-Situ Stresses
B = deviatoric/shear stress-radial displacement coefficient matrix in Concrete Structures,” PhD dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,
C = number of columns in calibration matrix; degree of highest PA, 2006, 366 pp.
term included in stress function expansion 5. Buchner, S. H., “Full-Scale Testing of Prestressed Concrete
c = column index for the calibration matrix = 1...C Structures,” doctoral thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK,
cb = measured distance from cross-section centroid to extreme fiber 1989, 303 pp.
D1, D2, D3 = radial displacement measurements 6. Mehrkar-Asl, S., “Concrete Stress Relief Coring: Theory and
Ec = modulus of elasticity of plain concrete Practice,” Proceedings of the FIP First Symposium on Post-Tensioned
e = average eccentricity of post-tensioning bars Concrete Structures, London, UK, 1996, pp. 569-576.
hmax = nondimensional maximum core hole depth 7. Turker, H., and Pessiki, S., “Theoretical Development of the Core-
hr = nondimensional core hole depth (zr/rm) Drilling Method for Nondestructive Evaluation of Stresses in Concrete
Iyy = weak axis moment of inertia of beam Structures,” Report No. 03-07, Center for Advanced Technology for Large
k = row index for dimensionless IF matrix = 1…n Structural Systems, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 2003, 300 pp.
l = column index for dimensionless IF matrix = 1…m 8. Trautner, C., “Development of the Incremental Core Drilling Method
MA = mean stress/radial displacement calibration matrix for Nondestructive Investigation of Stresses in Concrete Structures,”
MB = deviatoric/shear stress-radial displacement calibration matrix master’s thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 2008, 342 pp.
m = number of columns in IF matrix 9. McGinnis, M. J., and Pessiki, S., “Differential Shrinkage Effects in
N = number of coring increments taken during drilling procedure the Core-Drilling Method,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 59, No. 3,
n = number of rows in IF matrix 2007, pp. 155-164.
P(h) = mean stress (as function of nondimensional depth) 10. McGinnis, M. J., and Pessiki, S., “Water-Induced Swelling
PTOT = total post-tensioning force applied to beam Displacements in Core Drilling Method,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 104,
Q(h) = deviatoric stress (as function of nondimensional depth) No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp. 13-22.

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2011 299