This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]

On: 13 March 2015, At: 08:51

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Concrete bridge deck condition assessment with

automated multisensor techniques
a a a a
Dryver Huston , Jianhong Cui , Dylan Burns & David Hurley
a
School of Engineering, University of Vermont , Burlington, VT, 05405, USA
Published online: 02 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Dryver Huston , Jianhong Cui , Dylan Burns & David Hurley (2011) Concrete bridge deck condition
assessment with automated multisensor techniques, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management,
Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 7:7-8, 613-623, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2010.501542

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.501542

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 7, Nos. 7–8, July–August 2011, 613–623

Concrete bridge deck condition assessment with automated multisensor techniques

Dryver Huston*, Jianhong Cui, Dylan Burns and David Hurley
School of Engineering, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
(Received 26 May 2009; accepted 11 March 2010; published online 2 September 2010)

Early and accurate detection, location and assessment of damage in reinforced concrete bridge decks may be
beneficial in the scheduling and performance of maintenance and rehabilitation activities. This article presents
the results of a multiple sensor study of the condition of the reinforced concrete deck of the Van Buren Road
Bridge in Dumfries, VA. The tests compared the following five different methods: (1) visual inspection and
photographic recording; (2) half-cell electrochemical potential; (3) impulse type multipoint scanning ground
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

penetrating radar; (4) chain drag and (5) impact echo. The bridge was tested on two separate occasions. The
results of the tests were that each instrument nominally performed and collected data as expected, but that the
condition assessments did not necessarily agree. The data are registered, overlaid and compared. The potential
for developing automated multisensor systems that fuse data for efficient and effective bridge deck measurements
is discussed.
Keywords: bridge deck; multisensor; fusion; radar; ultrasound; half-cell; condition

1. Introduction concrete and delaminations. The information derived

Concrete bridge decks are high-performance structural
elements. Most decks are designed to withstand many
decades of harsh environments and heavy loading.
Since replacement is expensive, it is desirable to use
nondestructive methods to detect, locate and assess the
presence of damage as part of an overall cost-effective
maintenance strategy. Cracking, delamination, reinfor-
cing bar corrosion and bulk concrete degradation are
the common types of damage. Interactions between the
various damage types can accelerate damage growth.
There is a potential advantage to using early detection
and a means of reducing lifetime maintenance costs.
Since much of the important damage forms and grows
at subsurface locations, it is difficult to use visual
inspection as the sole means of assessment. An
important technical question is the effective nondes-
tructive measurement of subsurface conditions.
2. Background of different methods
Bridge deck condition assessment typically involves a
visual inspection that is possibly combined with
reports of distress from motorists and/or historical
records. The visual survey identifies surface conditions
and defects, such as spalling, patching, surface cracks
and potholes. A visual survey does not reveal subsur-
face deterioration such as rebar corrosion, punky
from visual inspection can be used to determine what is
needed to conduct further testing. If warranted, the
next steps may be to use non-destructive instruments
to assess subsurface conditions.
A variety of different non-destructive technologies
are available to assess bridge deck condition. These
include electromagnetic methods, such as ground
penetrating radar (GPR), elastic wave methods such
as impulse echo and chain drag, visual inspection and
electrochemical potential techniques including half-cell
corrosion potential measurements. Each of these
methods has strengths and limitations. The following
discussion describes the underlying principles of some
of these techniques and the results of field tests that
were aimed at comparing the various methods.
2.1. Visual inspection
Visual inspection is the most commonly used inspec-
tion method. Visual inspectors typically use only a few
basic instruments, such as flash light, hammer,
measuring tape, straight edge, markers, camera, etc.
Since visual inspection uses humans as the primary
sensing instruments, there are many important human
factor issues to consider when conducting and inter-
preting the results of visual inspections (Moore et al.
2001).

*Corresponding author. Email: dryver.huston@uvm.edu

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2010.501542
http://www.informaworld.com
 614 D. Huston et al.
2.2. Half-cell method
The half-cell method is an electrochemical technique
that identifies the presence of active corrosion pro-
cesses (AASHTO 2003, Johnsen et al. 2003). A half-cell
meter detects and measures the amount of electro-
chemical activity in a path between two points on a
structure. Since chloride-induced corrosion is a com-
mon form of electrochemical activity in reinforced
concrete, half-cell measurements can be an effective
indicator of underlying corrosion activity. The half-cell
technique with reinforced concrete typically attaches a
copper electrode to steel reinforcing bars and presses a
porous wet Cu/CuSO4 electrode to the concrete
surface. This arrangement sets up a half-cell that
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015
indicates the level of corrosion activity by the
difference in oxidation–reduction potentials of iron
and copper ions (Scannell et al. 1996, Gu and
Beaudoin 1997, Fontana and Greene 1978, ASTM
1999). If the half-cell potential is less than 70.35 V,
then there is a 90% probability of the corrosion being
active. If the half-cell potential is in the range of 70.2
to 0 V, there is a 90% probability of no active
corrosion being present. If the half-cell potential is
positive, no reliable conclusions can be drawn from the
measurement (Khossrow 1986). A standard technique
is to map corrosion activity across a structural surface,
by taking half-cell measurements measure at multiple
points across a structure.
2.3. Ground penetrating radar
GPR systems use electromagnetic radiation at micro-
waves frequencies (nominally in the range from
100 MHz to 3 GHz, with occasional applications at
higher frequencies) to ascertain the properties of
subsurface features (Alongi et al. 1982, Maser and
Kim Roddis 1990, Barnes and Trottier 2000, Cardi-
mona et al. 2000, Huston et al. 2000, Romero and
Clark 2004). A property of radar microwaves is that
they travel through dielectric materials. Microwave
propagation characteristics, in particular velocity and
attenuation, vary depending on the properties of the
dielectric material and the wavelength. Concrete is a
dielectric material that allows transmission of radar
waves, while incurring only modest levels of losses.
Equipment that transmits and receives precisely con-
trolled microwave pulses, i.e. radar systems, can
observe changes in the velocity of propagation at
interfaces between different materials, as well as bulk
material scattering and absorption properties. GPR
technical development has been largely motivated by
the needs for geological and geotechnical investiga-
tions. GPR systems that are specialised for concrete
materials in civil infrastructure tend to require higher
operating frequencies and have appeared relatively
recently. Advances in microwave technology GPR
has eased the difficulties and costs associated with
generating, measuring and analysing the high-fre-
quency microwaves necessary for shallow depth
investigations.
The HERMES/PERES II is a GPR system,
consisting of hardware specifically designed for con-
crete bridge deck inspection and material investigation
using synthetic aperture radar techniques, Figure 1
(Johansson and Mast 1994, Davidson and Chase 1999,
Scott et al. 2001). It is an integrated system consisting
of a motion control hardware, an antenna and radar
system, a calibration and signal conditioning system
and a signal processor. A portable electric generator
(1000 W) provides the power for the entire system. The
system rides on four sets of black, hard rubber wheels.
Individual stepper motors drive the wheels and the
overall A-frame along the lane of interest. The height
of the antenna can be adjusted before data collection
using the height adjustment rails or a fine adjustment
that mounts the antenna to the motion control rail.
The system collects data with a raster process. The
antenna traverses along the rail from the left side of the
cart to the right side of the cart and the radar collects
data at precisely controlled position intervals that can
be set as small as 1 cm. After the antenna reaches the
right side of the cart, the wheels move the cart forward
at an interval as small as 1 cm. Then, the antenna
moves from the right side of the cart back to the left
side of the cart again while it collects data at the
defined interval. This cycle repeats until a specified
area has been covered. The raster-based GPR data
collection enables the application of synthetic aperture,
i.e. migration, reconstructions of subsurface features.
Figure 1. PERES II system on Carter Creek Bridge,
Dumfries, VA, USA, October 2006.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
2.4. Elastic wave methods
2.4.1. Chain drag method
Chain drag testing is one of the most common elastic
wave methods of non-invasive delamination detection
in concrete bridge decks (ASTM 2007). The method is
to drag steel chains across the concrete bridge deck
while listening to the audible response. Often a T-bar
arrangement allows for the easy manual actuation
back and forth of several chains simultaneously over
the concrete surface. Sweeping chains over a healthy
solid section of concrete with no delaminations or
voids causes the technician to hear an audible ringing
sound. Sweeping the chains across a delamination-
laden section of concrete produces a distinctive dull
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015
hollow sound. By using this method a technician can
sweep the entire bridge deck and mark out the areas
containing delaminations.
The chain drag technique has the advantages of
being easy and inexpensive, and requires only moder-
ately skilled test personnel. The only equipment needed
is the chain, some marking chalk and the technician.
The disadvantages include the need for testing bare
concrete and not being workable on decks with an
asphalt overlay, being slow so that traffic needs to be
stopped on the portions being inspected, noise and
vibration from the traffic in nearby lanes affecting the
technician’s interpretation during the chain drag, and
the subjective nature of the interpretation.
2.4.2. Impact echo
The impact echo (IE) method uses a mechanical impact
to excite and launch high-frequency elastic waves into
the concrete bridge deck. The interaction of elastic
waves with subsurface features serves as a means of
subsurface evaluation. IE devices use both an impact
source and receiver sensors that pick up the dominant
frequency of the resonances, the first-order symme-
trical (S1) mode Lamb wave, along with surface waves.
Some of these devices can measure both surface wave
speeds to indicate elastic modulus and bottom surface
reflection reverberations to determine the slab thick-
ness and the presence of delaminations from a single
impact.
The portable seismic property analyser (PSPA) is
an IE device variant designed for the non-destructive
evaluation of concrete bridge decks and pavements,
Figure 2 (Nazarian et al. 1997, Gucunski 2000). The
PSPA is an offspring of the seismic pavement analyser
for the sole purpose of assessing the top few inches of
the concrete pavement or bridge deck. The PSPA
measures the power spectra of surface accelerations
due to elastic waves propagating down through and
reflecting off of the surface of the pavement. The PSPA
615
Figure 2. Portable seismic property analyser.
also measures the speed of surface waves. Relatively
straightforward processing of these measurements
provides data for quality assurance/quality control,
detects voids beneath the concrete pavement slab,
detects the extent and degree of bridge deck delamina-
tion, estimates elastic modulus of concrete material
and determines pavement and deck thickness.
3. Laboratory and field testing
A series of laboratory and field tests were conducted to
assess the ability of the various sensors to assess
subsurface bridge deck conditions and to assess the
degree of agreement between the sensors.
3.1. Laboratory testing
Previous work by Scott et al. (2001) showed that the
HERMES/PERES GPR could detect flat delamina-
tions simulated by Styrofoam inserts in laboratory
specimens. In an effort to establish the viability of
measuring more realistic no-flat delaminations, a series
of tests were conducted using a concrete slab that
consisted of two mating parts with a non-uniform
convex–concave interface. Placing the two mating
sections on top of each other created a very small
non-planar air gap. The results appear in Figure 3.
These results qualitatively confirm that the PERES
system can detect non-planar delaminations in the
laboratory.
3.2. Field testing
3.2.1. Bridge information
The Van Buren Road Bridge is located in Dumfries,
VA, over the Quantico Creek, with 0.26-rad skew. It
has three spans and was built around 1960. The overall
length of the bridge is about 55.7 m with the width of
 616
7.67 m. Each of the three spans is approximately 18 m
in length and simply supported. The width of deck is
6.1 m from curb to curb and is 175 mm thick. The
average daily traffic on the Van Buren Road Bridge is
minimal, less than 10 cars per day.
Figures 4 and 5 show the delaminations which were
obtained using the chain drag method. The delami-
nated areas are marked with white chalk/blue lines.
Figure 5 was created by taking the measurements from
the chalk-marked road surface (as shown in Figure 4)
and mapping out the delaminated areas. (Note:
Figures 4 and 5 are not the same dimensions; Figure
4 only shows 2.5 m of the width of the road, whereas
Figure 5 shows over 5 m of the width.)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015
3.2.2. Result of visual inspection
By visual inspection, the bridge decks were checked
from multiple views, such as the surface, the deck
bottom, the pillars, the supporting I-beams, etc. A
high-resolution digital camera was used to acquire
surface images of the bridge deck – the images were
taken from an elevated position of approximately 3 m
above the surface of the bridge deck. Figure 4 shows a
surface picture of first span of northbound spans of
Figure 3. (a) Test slab with air gap; (b) PERES data processed using LLNL software; (c) 3D PERS data shown using Slicer
DicerÓ software.
Figure 4. Surface picture of the first span of Van Buren Bridge, Dumfries, VA (dimensions in metres).
D. Huston et al.
Van Buren Bridge, Dumfries, VA. This picture was
created by stitching multiple camera images together.
The figure also shows chalk marks indicating the
presence of subsurface delaminations detected by the
chain drag method and shown in Figure 5.
3.2.3. Result of the half-cell method
Drilling a small hole into the concrete bridge deck and
attaching a wire to the rebar mesh layer provided the
necessary electrical continuity for the half-cell mea-
surements. Pressing the electrode onto the surface of
the concrete completed the connection. The potential
voltage difference is read and noted for each point on a
305 mm (1 foot) pitch grid. The half-cell results appear
in Figure 6. The readings indicate that much of the
deck may be the subject of subsurface rebar corrosion.
3.2.4. Result of HERMES/PERES II GPR
The HERMES/PERES II system collected data along
a 1.5 m wide swath that tracked the length of the
bridge deck. Post-processing the raw data with custom
software provided by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) led to the construction of 3D
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 617
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

Figure 5. Field result of chain-drag method of the first span of Van Buren Bridge, Dumfries, VA (dimensions in metres).

Figure 6. Half-cell condition assessment of the first span of Van Buren Bridge (dimensions in meters). The white, ‘good’ areas,
represent the less negative measurements from the half cell, lower probability of corrosion. The black, ‘serious’ areas, represent
the more negative measurements from the half cell, higher probability of corrosion, as per ASTM C 876-09 (ASTM 2009).

volumetric subsurface images. Figure 7 shows a slice of
the PERES image of the first span of Van Buren
Bridge nominally at a depth equal to that of the first
rebar layer.
3.2.5. Result of chain drag method
Visual inspection, chain drag and hammer tap
techniques provided a manual inspection of the bridge
deck. The first pass was a visual inspection. Next was
for the inspector to use the chain drag technique to find
locations with delaminations. Those areas producing
the hollow sound characteristic of delaminations were
marked with a chalk. As a follow-up, the inspector
used the hammer tap method to get a more accurate
sounding of the delaminations, which were also
marked with a chalk. The locations of these markings
relative to a deck location registration grid were
recorded and assembled into the mapping of the
chain-drag-predicted delaminations as shown in
Figure 5.
3.2.6. Result of impact echo method
The IE testing used the same deck location registration
grid system as the half-cell method. At each node the
data are collected, analysed and then assembled into
the condition rating image shown in Figure 8.
 618 D. Huston et al.

Figure 7. HERMES/PERES II data from the top rebar layer on the first span of Van Buren Bridge, Dumfries, VA (The darker
areas are weak reflectors and for the most part generally indicate the areas of concern in the concrete deck; delaminations,
deteriorated rebar. The bright areas are strong reflectors, and generally indicate areas of good concrete; solid rebar, but in a few
cases this could represent a strong surface reflection such as a pothole.) (dimensions in metres).
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

Figure 8. IE condition assessment results of the first span of Van Buren Bridge, Dumfries, VA (dimensions in metres).

4. Data comparison and correlation

4.1. Data comparison
The four different methods – half-cell, IE, chain-drag
and PERES – collected data from four overlapping,
but different, areas of the bridge deck. Direct
comparison and combination of the datasets require
aligning and cropping to the same common testing
area. The common part of the bridge is the north
span, and has dimensions of 1.8 m (6 feet) wide by
16 m (52 feet) long. All of the four different images
from the common testing area of the bridge deck
were registered together for comparison. Figure 9
shows the combined image of common testing area
of the bridge deck. Included in Figure 9 is the
amplitude of the surface GPR reflection. This surface
reflection correlates with the bulk dielectric constant
of the concrete, which can indicate the condition of Figure 9. Condition assessments from the various sensors
the concrete including moisture content (Laurens for the same bridge deck area – darker shades indicate poor
et al. 2005). conditions.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 619

Table 1. Point-by-point data vectors for testing methods (660,000 6 5).

Chain drag IE Half-cell PERES PERES top surface

1 1 0.3647 0.242 0.7149 0.2483
2 1 0.3647 0.242 0.7149 0.2489
3 1 0.3647 0.242 0.7106 0.3892
4 1 0.3647 0.242 0.0168 0.3888
5 1 0.3647 0.242 0.7188 0.3793
6 1 0.3647 0.242 0.7148 0.4235
7 1 0.1016 0.242 0.7128 0.3817
8 1 0 0.242 0.7225 0.6106
9 1 0 0.242 0.7224 0.4248
10 1 0 0.242 0.7224 0.6099
... ... ... ... ... ...
660,000 1 0.6353 0.5505 0.9996 1

Note: ‘‘. . .’’ indicates similar data for rows 11 to 659,999.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

4.2. Data correlation Table 2. Block-by-block data vectors for testing methods
An initial examination of the data indicated that there (264 6 5).
was some overlap between the condition ratings Chain PERES
provided by each sensor. For quantitative correlations, drag IE Half-cell PERES top surface
the data for each of the four test methods were all
1 1 0.2331 0.2896 0.3655 0.0698
aligned to the same 618 mm (2 foot) pitch deck 2 0.6525 0.0034 0.3262 0.1946 0.3333
location registration grid. This grid was originally 3 0 0 0.1811 0.1062 0.5712
laid out for the IE testing. The choice of this grid was 4 0.6085 0.0177 0.2277 0.2537 0.5062
based largely on the practical consideration that it was 5 1 0.3557 0.4456 0.412 0.4412
6 1 0.7528 0.3248 0.3659 0.0559
marked off in chalk and was used as a basis for 7 0.9826 0.383 0.1919 0.1642 0.3516
locating the subsequent tests and it was the coarsest 8 0.7121 0.0432 0.2387 0.1831 0.4865
grid for any of the test methods. The common testing 9 0.3338 0 0.1479 0.2517 0.4174
area for all four methods was a 16 6 2 m2 (52 by 6 10 0.7394 0.105 0.3067 0.22 0.4382
... ... ... ... ... ...
foot) area of the north span of Van Buren Bridge. 264 1 0.6353 0.4734 0.7442 0.4725
The first step in the process was to map raw data
into values for a point-by-point comparison and an Note: ‘‘. . .’’ indicates similar data for rows 11 to 263.
average block-by-block comparison. Aligning and
registering all of the data to the same initial start from the test methods. The data were then arranged
point and cropping the sets to be of equal size enabled into five vectors of equal size, 660,000 by 1, for a pixel-
a point-by-point comparison. For the block-by-block by-pixel comparison. Each of the 660,000 values in
comparison with a coarser spatial resolution, the data each vector represented the value for each of the pixels
were separated into 50 by 50 pixel blocks. The average of the images (Table 1). Separately, a block-by-block
pixel intensity was taken for each block. This was done comparison was calculated as well. Blocks were 50 by
for all the datasets and the values were compared. For 50 pixels in size, they were then arranged into five
the PERES, the data were taken at the top rebar mesh vectors of equal size, 264 by 1 (Table 2). This
layer (so as to be consistent with the half cell data). The organisational format facilitates statistical correlation
half-cell data were arranged in a fashion similar to that analyses.
of the IE. The original half-cell data were taken at each Table 3 is the variance–covariance matrix calcu-
node of the test grid. For the chain drag method the lated from the columns of Table 1 using the formula
percentage of predicted delamination that lay in each
of the blocks was recorded. 1 X N  
sij ¼ ðxik  xi Þ xjk  xj ð1Þ
Initially, all of the different test methods had their N  2 k¼1
own unique scales associated with them. For all four of
these test methods, once the data had been organised, sij is variance or covariance of columns i and j in
they were all normalised with a linear transformation Table 1. N is the number of rows (660,000). xij is an
to a 0–1 scale so that an easy comparison can be made. individual data point. xi is the mean average of column
The PERES testing had two datasets associated with it; i. Similarly, Table 4 is the variance–covariance matrix
one at the top surface level and the other at the first calculated from the columns of Table 2. Table 5 is the
rebar mesh level. This made for five different datasets correlation matrix formed from the columns of Table 1
 620 D. Huston et al.

Table 3. Point-by-point variance–covariance matrix for testing methods.

Chain drag IE Half-cell PERES PERES top surface

Chain drag 0.212 0.0303 0.0009 0.0098 70.0138
IE 0.0303 0.0924 0.005 0.0028 0.0011
Half-cell 0.0009 0.005 0.0209 0.0006 0.0001
PERES 0.0098 0.0028 0.0006 0.0421 70.0126
PERES top surface 70.0138 0.0011 0.0001 70.0126 0.0974

Table 4. Block-by-block variance–covariance matrix for testing methods.

Chain drag IE Half-cell PERES PERES top surface

Chain drag 0.1552 0.0292 0.0011 0.0098 70.0122
IE 0.0292 0.0757 0.005 0.0028 0.0012
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

Half-cell 0.0011 0.005 0.015 0.0002 0.0007

PERES 0.0098 0.0028 0.0002 0.008 70.008
PERES top surface 70.0122 0.0012 0.0007 70.008 0.0323

Table 5. Point-by-point correlation matrix for testing methods.

Chain drag IE Half-cell PERES PERES top surface

Chain drag 1 0.2164 0.0142 0.1033 70.0962
IE 0.2164 1 0.1138 0.0446 0.0119
Half-cell 0.0142 0.1138 1 0.0187 0.0022
PERES 0.1033 0.0446 0.0187 1 70.1968
PERES top surface 70.0962 0.0119 0.0022 70.1968 1

Table 6. Block-by-block correlation matrix for testing methods.

Chain drag IE Half-cell PERES PERES top surface

Chain drag 1 0.2694 0.0223 0.2794 70.1728
IE 0.2694 1 0.1499 0.1135 0.0234
Half-cell 0.0223 0.1499 1 0.016 0.0328
PERES 0.2794 0.1135 0.016 1 70.4978
PERES top surface 70.1728 0.0234 0.0328 70.4978 1

Figure 10. Mean value of data for all techniques, black ¼ detected damage/defect.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 621
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015

Figure 11. Standard deviation of dataset, black ¼ good agreement between sensors.

Figure 12. Variance-weighted damage – black areas indicate where sensors agree that deck is damaged. White areas indicate
lack of agreement and/or lack of damage.

as a normalisation of the variance–covariance matrix
using the formula
sij
rij ¼  1=2
sii sij
rij is the correlation of columns i and j in Table 1.
Similarly, Table 6 is the correlation matrix for the data
vectors in Table 2.
The correlation matrix shows that for this
particular deck section, the across-deck correlation
between the channels was relatively weak, even
though some patterns seemed to be visible. In an
effort to tease out some of the patterns a point-by-
point comparison of the data was implemented.
Figure 10 shows the mean value of the combined
condition estimates in both a raw linear mapping
onto a 0–255 gray scale and a histogram-based
contrast-adjusted format to improve visual clarity
ð2Þ (Russ 1999). Figure 11 shows the amount of
agreement of the various sensors by calculating the
variance of the combined condition estimates at each
point. This figure is also plotted in raw and contrast-
adjusted formats. The positions with a large amount
of agreement had a low variance and appear in a
darker shade. Figure 12 is an attempt at combining
the mean value of the multisensory information, as in
Figure 10, with the degree of confidence in the
information as shown by the variances in Figure 11.
Figure 12 plots areas that have a combined mean
value that is indicative of damage and a small
variance that is indicative of agreement among the
 622 D. Huston et al.
sensors as dark values. Areas with a combined mean
that indicates minimal damage or a high variance that
indicates lack of agreement between the sensors
appear as white values.
5. Conclusions
A visual comparison of the aligned images from the
four different testing methods indicates that the degree
of agreement between the different sensors is not
consistently strong across the deck. There are some
regions where specific features, such as surface defects,
such as potholes and large cracks, appear in most of
the signals.
By combining these different methods it may be
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015
possible to get a superior assessment of the condition
of the bridge deck (Hall et al. 2004). What one method
misses could be picked up by the others and the
location of areas of concern are greatly reinforced
when they are located by all methods. Combining data
from the different sensors for condition assessments
must account for the degree of agreement and
disagreement between the sensors. When the sensors
agree, such as the darker regions in Figure 11 where
the variance is low, there may be high confidence in
the conclusions. A future direction in this research
would be to combine a physical understanding of the
correlation between subsurface defects and the read-
ings on the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) images
from the different sensors with the degree of confidence
or belief in the reading (Schafer 1981, Sentz and
Ferson 2002). A weak return signal on a GPR image
may be due to many factors including scattering off
delaminations, or the absorption of electromagnetic
waves by corrosion by-products, chlorides or punky
concrete. Each of these types of damage may produce
different signals on the other NDE instrument types. A
delamination, which is not caused by rebar corrosion
processes, may test as being a region of good condition
with a half-cell, but appear to be defective in a GPR or
IE test.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the US Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Turner–Fairbanks High-
way Research Center (TFHRC) Nondestructive Evaluation
Validation Center under contract DTFH61-06-H-00008. F.
Jalinoos, S. K. Lee and Brian Story assisted with the data
collection. Nenad Gucunski and Ali Maher of Rutgers
University also assisted with data collection and processing.
References
AASHTO, 2003. AASHTO manual for condition evaluation of
bridges 1994. 2nd ed. [with revision through 2002].
Washington, DC: American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials.
ASTM, 2009. C 876-09 standard test method for corrosion
potentials of uncoated reinforcing steel in concrete. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM, 2007. D4580-03(2007) standard practice for measur-
ing delaminations in concrete bridge decks by sounding.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Alongi, A.V., et al., 1982. Concrete evaluation by radar
theoretical analysis. Transportation research board re-
cord, 853, 31–37, N 853.
Barnes, C.L. and Trottier, J.F., 2000. Effectiveness of ground
penetrating radar for preparing pre-tender deterioration
estimates on asphalt covered reinforced concrete bridge
decks. In: S. Allampalli, ed. Structural materials technol-
ogy IV. Lancaster: Technomic Press, 69–76.
Cardimona, S., et al., 2000. Investigation of bridgedecks
utilizing ground penetrating radar. International confer-
ence on the application of geophysical technology to
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of trans-
port facilities. St. Louis, MO, 1-10. Available from:
http://utc.mst.edu/documents/bridgedecks.pdf [Accessed
8 July 2010].
Davidson, N.C. and Chase, S.B., 1999. Initial testing of
advanced ground penetrating radar technology for the
inspection of bridge decks – the HERMES and PERES
bridge inspectors. In: S.B. Chase, ed. SPIE proceedings
vol. 3587, nondestructive evaluation of bridges and high-
ways III. Bellingham, WA: Plenum, 180–185.
Fontana M.G. and Greene N.D., 1978. Corrosion engineer-
ing, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gu, P. and Beaudoin, J.J., 1997. Dielectric behavior of
hardened cementitious materials. Advances in Cement
Research, 9 (33), 1-8.
Gucunski, N., 2000. Bridge deck evaluation using portable
seismic pavement analyser (PSPA). Final Report,
FHWA NJ 2000–05 CAIT26, New Jersey Department
of Transportation, Trenton, NJ, USA.
Hall, D.L. and McMullen, S.A.H., 2004. Mathematical
techniques in multisensor data fusion. Cambridge: Artech
House, Inc.
Huston, D.R., et al., 2000. GIMA ground penetrating radar
system for infrastructure health monitoring. Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 43, 139–146.
Johansson, E.M. and Mast, J.E., 1994. Three-dimensional
ground-penetrating radar imaging using synthetic aper-
ture time-domain focusing. In: S.S. Udpa and H.C. Han,
eds. SPIE proceedings Vol. 2275, advanced microwave and
millimeter-wave detectors. Bellingham, WA: Plenum,
205–214.
Johnsen, T.H., Geiker, M.R., and Faber, M.H., 2003.
Quantifying condition indicators for concrete structures.
Concrete International, 25 (12), 49–56.
Khossrow, B., 1986. Evaluation of half-cell corrosion detec-
tion test for concrete bridge decks. Washington, DC:
Washington State Department of Transportation, WA-
RD 95.1.
Laurens, S., et al., 2005. Non-destructive evaluation of
concrete moisture by GPR: experimental study and direct
modeling. Materials and Structures, 38, 827–832.
Maser, K.R. and Kim Roddis, W.M., 1990. Principles of
thermography and radar for bridge deck assessment.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 116 (5), 583–601.
Moore, M., et al., 2001. Reliability of visual inspection for
highway bridges, Vol. 1. FHWA-RD-01-120. Washing-
ton, DC: FHWA.
Nazarian, S., Baker, M.R., and Crain, K., 1997. Movable
seismic pavement analyzer. US Patent 5,614,670.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 623

Romero, F.A. and Clark, T.M., 2004. Ground penetrating
radar assessment comparing construction design specifi-
cations to contractor performance for thickness of hot-
mix asphalt pavement. In: Proceedings of structural
materials technology VI, an NDT Conference, American
Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH,
USA.
Russ, J.C., 1999. The image processing handbook. 3rd ed.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Scannell, W.T., Sohanghpurwala, A.A., and Islam, M., 1996.
Assessment of physical condition of concrete bridge
components. Washington, DC: FHWA – SHRP
Showcase.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:52 13 March 2015
Schafer, G., 1981. Constructive probability. Synthese, 48,
1–60.
Sentz, K. and Ferson, S., 2002. Combination of evidence in
Dempster–Shafer theory. Technical Report, SAND
2002–0835. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National
Laboratories.
Scott, M., Rezaizadeh, A., and Moore, M., 2001.
Phenomenology study of HERMES ground penetrating
radar technology for detection and identification of
common bridge deck features. FHWA-RD-01-090.
Washington, DC: USDOT Federal Highway
Administration.