2012 14th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

June 4-8, 2012, Shanghai, China @ ISBN 978-1-4673-2663-6

GPR as a crack detection tool for asphalt pavements

possibilities and limitations
N. AHMAD*, M. WISTUBA and H. LORENZL
ISBS Braunschweig Pavement Engineering Centre, Technische Universität Braunschweig
Corresponding author: noor.ahmad@tu-bs.de

Abstract — Cracking in asphalt pavement is a distresses often samples per scan resolution enough in case of crack detection?
requiring urgent measures. GPR has been proved by numerous Such questions are investigated in this study.
scientists as a fast and reliable asphalt pavement characterization
tool. Whether GPR can be applied as a crack detection tool is a II. TEST DESCRIPTION
question to be answered. To find out the influencing parameters, The details of pavement, equipment and software are
e.g., crack fill, atmospheric condition, etc., GPR surveys were provided in following sections.
carried out on asphalt test pavements. Multiple techniques were
used for data processing. Possibilities and limitations are A. Asphalt test pavement details
documented. A pavement section named “Holzweg” was chosen for the
GPR tests. Holzweg is an asphalt pavement, located in
Keywords: GPR, crack fill, asphalt pavement, survey. Cremlingen, Germany (Fig. 1). The pavement is mostly used
by agricultural vehicles, thus traffic volume is low. Different
I. OVERVIEW crack widths can be found on this test section. Slag is used in
Cracks in asphalt pavement usually lead to water pavement which is residue material from steel industries, rich
penetration in underneath layers thus causes weakening of in iron. The Holzweg is 20 years old; no major repairs have
supporting layers. Moreover, if water in crack freezes and been carried out on this section.
melts again, the crack transforms into pot-hole, also reducing
the driving comfort and traffic safety [9]. A 50 m pavement section was selected for GPR testing.
The distance between cracks was measured with the help of
Visual crack detection is not practical because of complex measuring tape and a “rolling distance measuring wheel”. The
crack’s structure, safety and hinder to traffic flow. The use of survey path was fixed on pavement by marking. Each time the
current crack detection methods in asphalt pavement such as GPR survey was carried out on the same position.
(destructive) pavement coring, (non-destructive) video
surveying, infrared technology, etc. is limited [1, 5, 6]. The
limitations of above stated methods are time-consuming, cost,
penetration ability into pavement, etc. [2].
Advantages of GPR such as rapid surveying, economical,
and accuracy have been proven by many scientists in history
[2, 6, 7]. GPR has been effectively deployed in the past for
bridges and pavement characterization [7, 8]. GPR has been
used by some scientists for crack detection and crack
monitoring [2, 4, 8].
The main barrier for crack detection by GPR is the
heterogeneous nature of asphalt. Bitumen (hydrocarbon),
aggregates (lime stone, slag, etc.), sand and fines are used for
asphalt pavements materials.
In this study, GPR use for crack detection in asphalt
pavements is verified. The target is to detect cracks of 5 mm or
greater width. Focus was to find out the impact of optimum
frequency, optimum survey samples scan resolution,
temperature effects, crack width limitations, crack fill effects,
moisture content and possibilities of crack dimensions
detection on crack detection with GPR in asphalt pavements.
Figure 1. Location of Holzweg, 38162 Cremlingen, Germany (red arrow
Some scientists believe that going for samples scan resolution indictes direction of survey).
more than 256 does not improve GPR results [10]. Are 256

978-1-4673-2663-6/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

551
 Holzweg pavement structure consists of wearing-course (2
cm) and binder-course (6 cm), as shown in Fig. 2.
The slag material has been used together with crushed
gravel aggregate (German: Kieselsplitt) in binder-course (Fig.
2). Due to iron slag, the dielectric constant of binder-course
was higher than normal asphalt pavement layers.

Figure 2. Pavement layers profile with crack dimensions and slag.

Eight different cracks of different width and geometry were
selected for the GPR survey. The location and dimensions of
cracks are provided in Fig. 3. The small red dotted arrows are
indicating the position of survey profile.
Figure 4. Holzweg cracks (55 m) width variation with temperature, (top)
cracks width on 8 November, 2011(8ᵒ C) and, (bottom) cracks width on 26
January, 2012 (-12ᵒ C).
Further details of cracks are provided in Table 1.

TABLE I. CRACK PROPERTIES OF HOLZWEG

Width Width Crack

Distance
No summer winter depth Crack fill
[m]
[cm] [cm] [cm]
Grave, sand,
1 0.44 2.50 2.54 8
clay
2 6.91 0.40 0.52 5 Sand, clay
Gravel, clay,
3 16.29 2.00 2.20 8
bio
4 22.35 1.00 1.20 8 Sand, clay

5 29.89 1.50 2.10 7 Sand, clay

Gravel, sand,
6 36.82 2.10 2.40 8
clay, bio
7 42.62 1.20 1.50 8 Sand, clay

8 45.96 1.00 1.400 7 Sand, clay

Figure 3. Cracks details and location on Holzweg.

Note: Figure not per scale
Average width of cracks was taken for the ease. The
crack’s width has been increasing from summer to winter. This
is because of dry state of bio material in crack and contraction
of asphalt pavement. In Fig. 4, a location at 55 m horizontal
distance from start point is given. It can be seen (Fig. 4, top and
bottom) that not only the crack width is increasing, but some
new cracks are also introduced in pavement. Fig. 4 (top) is
taken in summer when the bio material in crack was still green
and temperature was 8ᵒ C. The cracks were then continuously
monitored together with cracks on Holzweg test track (0 to 50
meter from starting point) to see the crack width variation vs.
temperature. In Fig. 4 (bottom), taken at -12ᵒ C, not only an
increase in crack width can be noted, but some new cracks are
also visible. In this research, the impact of temperature and
crack width regarding survey timings is also verified.
B. GPR System
In this research, GPR system “Aladdin” from IDS is used.
The system has a two GHz central frequency (Fig. 5). It has
dual-polarised antennas. The system was used with standard
trolley from IDS.
C. Software
Following software were used for data analysing in this
research.
1) GRED-3D
The above stated software is from IDS, Italy. This software
is used because of its capabilities to analyse 2-D and 3-D data.
2) REFLEXW
REFLEXW version 6.0.5 is used for the GPR data
analyzing. The reason this software was used is the flexibility
of data analysis. The GPR data shown in this research has been
analysed by REFLEXW unless otherwise stated.

552

Figure 5. Average trace spectrum of Aladdin system (GRED-3D)
D. Processing Steps
All the GPR profiles in this article are processed through
Dewow, Background removal, Static correction and Linear
gain, respectively.
III. GPR TESTS
Holzweg had a number of different types of cracks with
different properties in a section of 50 m (Table 1). All the
cracks were irregular in structure. This has an impact on GPR
surveys as the detection gets difficult. The use of slag material
in pavement made it a challenge for GPR to detect cracks.
Figure 6. Grades assigned to crack detection quality on Holzweg
553
To compare the quality of crack detection and different
parameters for crack detection, grades from 0 to 5 were
assigned to the cracks in GPR profiles. These grades were
based on the precision and quality of easy to detect in GPR
profiles. Where, 0 means not at all detected (cannot be seen in
GPR graphs) by GPR and 5 means clearly detected and are
visible in GPR survey profile. For example, grades 2, 3 and 4
are shown in Fig. 6. The survey profile belongs to Holzweg
where, three pavement cracks 36.95, 42.78 and 46.10 m
distance (Fig. 3, Table 1) respectively were detected by GPR.
The red circles in Fig. 6 are indicating the above mentioned
three cracks in GPR diagram. Crack in GPR diagram, assigned
grade 4 (Fig. 6) is visible and clearer than a crack graded as 2
(Fig. 6).
A. Survey Timing Effect
The timing of survey is important in regard to temperature
change. Due to warm temperature, in case of presence of crack-
fill material, the moisture content of crack-fill decreases and
vice versa. Moisture content of crack fill was calculated for
most of cracks (where possible, excluding narrow cracks)
according to German standard [3]. The moisture content, of
crack 0.44, 16.29 and 36.82 m distance was 12.45, 08.76, 15.56
(%) in summer (16ᵒ C) and 16.43, 13.26, 16.44 (%) in winter (-
4ᵒ C), respectively. Thus, it can be assumed that the dielectric
constant value of crack-fill decrease in hot weather.
The rate of increase in crack-fill dielectric constant value
depends on situation to situation. More amount of crack-fill in
wider cracks and presence of clay, bio material, etc. increase
the crack-fill dielectric constant in cold climate.
 The pavement dielectric constant value was 2.14 as In Fig. 8, for example, a survey on Holzweg with 1048
calculated in summer (16ᵒ C). The pavement dielectric Samples per scan resolution is shown. Crack No 1 and 2 (Table
constant value was again calculated in winter (-12ᵒ C) which 1) are detected and marked with red circles. The crack’s
used to be 3.0. Thus, pavement dielectric constant value and hyperbolas are clear in Fig. 8 and can be easily marked.
crack-fill, both are increasing in winter and decreasing in
summer (increasing rate and ratio unknown), we will see the
effect of this dielectric constant variation on crack detection.
GPR surveys were conducted in different atmospheric
condition on Holzweg to know the effect of temperature and
moisture constant. The temperature during the survey was 16ᵒ
C, 4ᵒ C, -6ᵒ C and -12ᵒ C. The surveys were conducted with 2
GHz central frequency, 512 samples resolutions, and 4 mm
scan distance between horizontal profiles with 32 ns time
sweep. The results are provided in Fig. 7. As one can see, crack
detection quality increases with increase in temperature. Most
cracks were detected during 16ᵒ C survey. The 4ᵒ C survey
results are also acceptable as compared to -6ᵒ C and -12ᵒ C
survey results. Some cracks were even not detected during -12ᵒ
C survey. Thus, cold weather, specially freezing temperatures
are not recommended for crack detection survey with GPR.

Figure 9. Crack detection quality with 256 samples per scan on Holzweg;
crack 1 and 2 (Table 1) (0.44 mm distance between horizontal scans)

In Fig. 9, a GPR survey with 256 samples per scan

resolution is shown. The survey was carried out on Holzweg
for the detection of crack 1 and 2 (Table 1). With 256 samples
per scan resolution (Fig. 9), it is hard to see the hyperbolas
without having information in advance about crack location.
On Holzweg, crack detection with different samples per
scan resolution was carried out keeping distance between
horizontal scans constant, i.e. 0.44 mm. The surveys were
carried out during different atmospheric temperatures (Fig. 7).
In Fig. 10, average of four GPR surveys with different
samples per scan resolution on Holzweg for crack detection is
Figure 7. Effect of temperature on crack detection given. The crack width in Fig. 10 is taken as average crack
width in winter (Table 1).
B. Samples per Scan Resolution Effect
Different GPR samples per scan resolution were used
during surveys in order to find out the effect on crack
detection. Samples per scan resolution of 128, 256, 384, 512
and 1024 were verified for crack detection. The GPR survey
with higher samples per scan resolution such as, 1048 survey
needed more time i.e. survey speed was slow. On the other
hand, GPR survey with low samples per scan resolution such
as 128 was fast. Thus, more time is needed in case of GPR
survey with higher samples per scan resolution.

Figure 10. GPR scan resolution vs. crack detection quality

In Fig. 10, the crack detection quality increases with

Figure 8. Crack detection quality with 1048 samples per scan on Holzweg
(0.44 mm distance between horizontal scans)
increase in samples per scan resolution. Samples per scan
resolution of 1048 nearly detect all cracks with good quality.
Samples per scan resolution of 512 and 384 also detected all
cracks with acceptable grade. The samples per scan resolution
of 256 and 128 missed some cracks (0.5 cm width) and the
quality of crack detection was also poor.
Comparing samples per scan resolution of 1048 and 512,
based on time factor, GPR surveys with 1048 samples per scan
resolution were possible with 0.55 m/s speed (average) without
ere missing data. On the other hand, for GPR surveys with 512
samples per scan resolution, a speed of 0.98 m/s (average) was

554
required. The time taken by GPR surveys with 1048 GPR
samples per scan resolution is almost doubled as compared to
512 samples per scan resolution GPR surveys. Therefore,
based on results in Fig. 10, a GPR survey of 512 samples per
scan resolution is recommended for crack detection.
C. Pavement Construction Material Effect
Asphalt pavements are composed of Bitumen (binder),
aggregates, sand and fine material. In case of aggregates,
verities of materials are used. Some aggregate types are Lime
stone, Igneous, Sedimentary, etc. The use of slag in pavements
is also common. To see the impact of such high dielectric
constant aggregate on crack detection, surveys were conducted
on Holzweg and then compared to a pavement where no slag
was used. For this reason, we selected equal width cracks on
another test section called Beethovenstraße, Braunschweig.
GPR survey with 1048 samples per scan resolution were
performed with 32 ns sweep time and 4 mm scan distance
between longitudinal scan profiles on both test tracks. Both
survey profiles were equally processed. The results are
provided in Fig. 11, 12.
Figure 11. GPR survey on Holzweg (1048 scan resolution)
Figure 12. GPR survey on Beethovenstraße (1048 scan resolution)
In Fig. 11, the GPR survey profile is showed which is taken
during survey on Holzweg. Crack 5 (Table 1) was detected and
is marked by red circle. The crack detection is satisfactory, but
the scattered waves are masking the results. There are almost
similar hyperbolas which can mislead. Without having
information about crack location in advance, it will be hard to
detect the crack in GPR profile.
A crack of similar properties was selected on
Beethovenstraße for the comparison of crack shown in Fig. 11.
Antenna configuration was kept same as were during survey on
Holzweg. The processing steps were also the same (Section 2-
D). The crack detection on Beethovenstraße (Fig. 12) is clearer
555
as compared to crack in Fig. 11. There are no or less GPR
wave reflections. Thus, without having advance information
about the crack location, crack can possibly be judged.
Therefore, the pavement materials have an impact on crack
detection with GPR. Thus pavement construction materials
measures must be considered before applying GPR as a crack
detection tool on asphalt pavements.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
From this study, it can be concluded that although crack
detection with GPR in asphalt pavement is possible, it has
some limitations. The temperature during the survey is an
important limitation. GPR survey must preferably be conducted
in warm weather, especially above freezing point. The higher
the dielectric value contrast between pavement and crack-fill,
the better makes crack detection by GPR. Samples per scan
resolution higher than 512 is time-consuming although crack
detection quality is better. Moreover, pavement construction
materials influences crack detection possibility. Thus, extra
measures must be taken.
REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad, N., Crack detection in road pavements by means of radiometry.
(work in progress) PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig.
[2] Ahmad, N., Lorenzl, H., and Wistuba, M. 2011. Crack detection in
asphalt pavements, how useful is GPR? 6th Int. Workshop on Advanced
Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR), June 22-24, 2011, Aachen,
Germany.
[3] Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1998. Baugrund, Untersuchung von
Bodenproben, Wassergehalt (DIN 18121-1), Teil 1: Bestimmung durch
Ofentrocknung, Beuth Verlag, Berlin.
[4] Diamanti, N., Giannopoulos, A., Redman, D., 2010. A Study of GPR
Vertical Crack Responses in Pavement Using Field Data and Numerical
Modelling. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp
/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05550224. Last accessed November, 2010.
[5] Grönniger, J., Wistuba, M., 2009. Non destructive testing of bonding
defects of asphalt surfacing on bridge decks by means of thermography.
MAIREPAV6, 6th Int. Conf. on maintanace and rehabilitation of
pavements and technological control, Vol. II, pp. 927-934, 8-10 July,
2009, Torino, Italy.
[6] Hugenschmidt, J., Partl, M.N., Witte, H. de., 1998. GPR inspection of a
mountain motorway in Switzerland. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 40,
p95-104.
[7] Morey, R.M., 1998. Ground Penetrating Radar for Evaluating
Subsurface Conditions for Transportation Facilities, Synthesis of
Highway Practice 255, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p1-46.
[8] Orlando, L., 2012. Instability analysis of the Villa Arianna site at
Castellammare di Stabia (Naples), Near Surface Geophysics, Vol 10,
No. 1, February 2012, pp. 89-100
[9] Ranalli, D., Scozzafava, M., Tallini, M., and Colagrande, S., 2007. GPR
signal attenuation vs. depth on damaged flexible road pavements.
Available:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4278894&tag=1.
Last accessed November, 2010.
[10] Saarenketo, T. & Scullion, T., 2000. Road Evaluation with Ground
Penetrating Radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 43. p119–138.
[11] Utsi, V., 2010. How many points per scan? 13th International
Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), 21-25 June 2010,
Lecce, Italy.