furthe Copyrighted

No

American Concrete Institute ACI 506.6T-17 repoductin materil

Always advancing
TechNote or licensd
networking Roishen
is
to

Visual Shotcrete Core Quality Evaluation

Keywords: cores; encapsulation; visual evaluation; reinforcing bars; voids.
LDistrbued avendr-Mulo
permitd.
on

During shotcrete construction, owners, architects, engineers, and contractors want to verify the quality of
shotcrete being placed. Shotcrete cores are normally extracted from shotcrete sample panels or when needed
from as-placed shotcrete for evaluation of shotcrete quality (ACI 506.4R). In addition to the routine tests such
2Techstr 03-8
by

for
as compressive strength or other material quality tests required by project specification, visual examination
of shotcrete cores by an experienced licensed design professional (LDP) is an important tool for evaluation of
shotcrete quality.
L C,
wumi. licens'
use
The contractor should demonstrate that shotcrete material can be placed in a manner that accomplishes
intimate contact between the shotcrete and the reinforcing steel to accomplish the design requirements of the
project. Visual examination can reveal imperfections, including voids, sand lenses, delaminations, and degree
techsr.
।

8
3
only-

of reinforcing steel encapsulation. Visual evaluation of core quality will be dependent on the LDP’s experience
and knowledge. Visual evaluation is intended to detect quality issues on the surface of the core and should be
—
conducted on a group of no less than three cores not dependent on a single core that may not be representa¬
tive of the entire area sampled (ACI 506.4R).

To provide guidance for visual evaluation of cores, Table 1 lists quantitative criteria for each category of
core quality an LDP can refer to during the core evaluation. This TechNote should be considered a reference
document by the LDP to provide a reasonable evaluation of shotcrete quality. These are intended to be general
guidelines, and the LDP’s professional judgment should be used to ascertain the demonstrated quality of the
cores. Whether the demonstrated quality is adequate for the intended purpose of the in-place shotcrete is the
subject of ACI 506. 4R.

Visual core evaluation is not an exact science; it requires professional judgment from the LDP. This visual
evaluation process should employ Table 1 and a written description in this document to provide guidance.
When needed, other aspects linked to the placement of shotcrete may be helpful for evaluating overall quality
of shotcrete placement (for example, the inspection of the back of the shotcrete panel for rebound or overspray
entrapment or other visible imperfections not necessarily found on the surface of the cores).

There are four categories of visual evaluation of core quality. Each category of quality is clearly discussed
and quantified in Table 1 based on two criteria. It is important to understand that each category is not only a
function of the imperfections found, but also intimately linked to the complexity of the reinforcement layout.
Factors including size of the reinforcement, spacing, laps, layers, reinforcement location within a cross section,
and other types of placement obstacles may affect the performance of shotcrete placement.

Categories are as follows:

a) Very Good — In a lightly reinforced structure, cores show few local imperfections and complete encap¬
sulation of the reinforcement. As reinforcement complexity increases, localized imperfections (which are not
repeated in the same core) behind the reinforcement may be found with void areas not more than 25 percent of
the area of the largest-diameter reinforcement considered or with bonded encapsulation exceeding 90 percent
of the circumference of the reinforcement. There should not be any sand lenses or delamination. Scattered voids
up to 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) diameter should be ignored.

b) Good — In a lightly reinforced structure, cores show small local imperfections. As reinforcement complexity
increases, localized imperfections (which are not repeated in the same core) behind the reinforcement may be
found with void areas not more than 30 percent of area of the largest-diameter reinforcement considered or with
bonded encapsulation exceeding 80 percent of the circumference of the reinforcement.

1
 further Copyrlg'tM
No

2 VISUAL SHOTCRETE CORE QUALITY EVALUATION (ACI 506.6T-17)

The longest linear dimension of exposed voids created by sand lenses and delamination (excluding any voids repoductin
touching the reinforcing bar) should be less than 10 percent of the longest dimension of the observed specimen.
Scattered voids up to 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) diameter should be ignored.
or
ILSOTeo
c) Satisfactory— Imperfections appear on a regular basis in the samples with large localized imperfections
present. As reinforcement complexity increases, localized imperfections without repetition behind the rein¬
networking WU iM
is
to

forcement may be found with void areas not more than 35 percent of area of the largest-diameter reinforce¬
ment considered or with bonded encapsulation exceeding 70 percent of the circumference of the reinforcement.
The longest linear dimension of exposed voids created by sand lenses and delamination (excluding any voids
permit d.
touching the reinforcing bar) should be less than 20 percent of the longest dimension of the observed specimen.
rtuno
Scattered voids up to 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) diameter should be ignored.

d) Poor—Imperfections are found throughout the samples or areas of the sample and show a high complexity
of imperfections. As reinforcement complexity increases, localized imperfections without repetition behind the
Distrbued
by
m

reinforcement may be found with void areas more than 35 percent of area of the largest-diameter reinforcement
considered or with bonded encapsulation of less than 70 percent of the circumference of the reinforcement.
The longest linear dimension of exposed voids created by sand lenses and delamination (excluding any voids
Techstr ucetsb
LLC,
inr

touching the reinforcing bar) represents more than 20 percent of the longest dimension of the observed.

wu.techsri
=
use
inuy.
Shotcrete core quality evaluation table
Table 1 is primarily based on the degree of encapsulation of the reinforcing steel, and secondarily on the size
and location of voids. Cores are categorized as outlined in Table 1. The intent is that for a specific core evalua¬
tion, both Criteria a and b should be satisfied. The LDP may modify quality assurance procedures or criteria as
needed based on project-specific needs. Sketches combining both Criteria a and b in Table 1 are presented in
Fig. 1

—
Table 1 Core evaluation category
Criteria Very good Good Satisfactory Poor
Encapsulation of reinforcing steel as a percentage of
Less than or
the circumference of the reinforcement (any individual Greater than Greater than Greater than
H.? equal to 70
reinforcement cross section or total of all reinforcements in 90 percent 80 percent 70 percent
percent
the core)*

Less than 25
Greater or
Maximum size1 of any void touching the reinforcement, as a Less than 30 Less than 35
b percentage of the cross section of that reinforcement percent percent percent
equal to 35
percent
'When reinforcements are not centered in the core, an attempt should be made to determine the approximate length of the reinforcement’s
edge contact with shotcrete.
’Measured as approximate area of any voids touching the reinforcing steel on the cylindrical surface of the core.
Notes: Sand lenses should be measured as voids. Occasional scattered voids up to 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) diameter should be ignored.

References
ACI Committee 506, 1994, “Guide for the Evaluation of Shotcrete (ACI 506.4R-94),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 12 pp.

American Concrete Institute - Copyrighted © Material - www.concrete.org

 further Copyrighted
No

VISUAL SHOTCRETE CORE QUALITY EVALUATION (ACI 506.6T-17)

>90% 90% limit 90% - 80% 80% limit -

80% 70% 70% limit <70% repoductin materil
Good Satisfactory Poor
or
licensd
Very Good
networking Roishen
is
to

LDistrbued avendr-Mulo
permit d.
on
by

203-
Techstr for
LLC,
licens '
w.techsrom use
only.

—
Fig. 1 Visual representation of Criteria (a and b) of Table 1. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm)

American Concrete Institute - Copyrighted © Material - www.concrete.org aci "

 No

4 VISUAL SHOTCRETE CORE QUALITY EVALUATION (ACI 506.6T-17) further

repoductin
or
Reported by ACI Committee 506
networking
Is
Marc Jolin, Chair James A. Ragland, Secretary

Jon B. Ardahl Ryan E. Poole Consulting Members

permit d.
Lars F. Balck
Michael Ballou
Louis-Samuel Bolduc
Simon Reny
Raymond C. Schallom III
W. L. Snow Sr.
Jean-Francois Dufour
Richard A. Kaden
Dudley R. Morgan
Distrbued
by

Chris D. Breeds
Wern-Ping Nick Chen
Scott R. Cumming
Jason P. South
Lawrence J. Totten
Marcus H. von der Hofen
H. Celik Ozyildirim
Harvey W. Parker
Philip T. Seabrook
Techstr
LLC,
William T. Drakeley Jr. Curtis White George Yoggy wu .
Charles S. Hanskat
Warren L. Harrison
Thomas Hennings
Peter T. Yen
Ezgi Yurdakul techsr t
.com.
Lihe Zhang
Mark R. Lukkarila Chris M. Zynda
Jeffrey L. Novak

American Concrete Institute - Copyrighted © Material - www.concrete.org