International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Algorithm development for the application of

ground-penetrating radar on asphalt pavement
compaction monitoring

Pengcheng Shangguan, Imad Al-Qadi, Aaron Coenen & Shan Zhao

To cite this article: Pengcheng Shangguan, Imad Al-Qadi, Aaron Coenen & Shan Zhao (2016)
Algorithm development for the application of ground-penetrating radar on asphalt pavement
compaction monitoring, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 17:3, 189-200, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2014.973027

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.973027

Published online: 30 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 538

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2016
Vol. 17, No. 3, 189–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.973027

Algorithm development for the application of ground-penetrating radar on asphalt pavement

compaction monitoring
Pengcheng Shangguana*, Imad Al-Qadia,b1, Aaron Coenenb2 and Shan Zhaoa3
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL
61801, USA; bIllinois Center for Transportation, 1611 Titan Dr., Rantoul, IL 61866, USA
(Received 17 September 2014; accepted 28 September 2014)

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a promising non-destructive technique to be applied on monitoring the density change
during asphalt pavement compaction. The utmost challenge of this application is the unknown effect of surface moisture,
sprayed by the compactor during compaction, on GPR signals. To extract density information without the effect of surface
moisture, a correction algorithm based on reference scan approach was developed. To evaluate the performance of the
algorithm, a full-scale test site was constructed with compaction pass number from 0 to 10, and a large amount of GPR data
were collected from the pavement with different surface moisture contents. A total of 22 cores were extracted for validation
purposes. After applying the algorithm, it was found that the average density prediction error was reduced significantly.
By using correction algorithm together with the density model, the density of asphalt pavement was obtained with high
accuracy.
Keywords: ground-penetrating radar; GPR; compaction monitoring; moisture effect; asphalt pavement compaction; non-
destructive testing

1. Introduction However, both methods have limitations. Although the

During the construction of asphalt pavement, the asphalt
mixture is laid on a bound or unbound base by the paver.
The compactors then roll over the loose asphalt mat,
expelling the air voids from the asphalt mixture. Each
subsequent roller pass further reduces the air-void content.
Compaction is critical for achieving the desired density of
asphalt pavement. The quality of newly constructed
pavement depends largely on the quality of compaction.
Over-compaction and under-compaction should be
avoided because they both affect the performance of the
asphalt pavement.
To ensure successful compaction, it would be
beneficial to develop a tool to monitor the change of
asphalt pavement density after each roller pass. Because
compaction is a continuous operation, the tool should be
able to collect and interpret data continuously. Assuming
that such a tool exists, the operator of the compactor would
be able to view the density formation in real time and
adjust compaction parameters, such as vibration amplitude
and frequency, rolling speed, number of rolling passes,
sequence and timing of the rolling passes.
None of the current techniques can perform the
aforementioned functions. The laboratory measurement of
cores and density gauges, including nuclear and non-
nuclear density gauges, are two of the most commonly
used methods for assessing the quality of compaction.
coring method provides accurate information about
pavement density, it is destructive and only provides
information at discrete locations. Furthermore, samples
can be drilled only after compaction, which means that
density information cannot be obtained during compac-
tion. Nuclear or non-nuclear density gauges are non-
destructive; however, the gauges must be in contact with
the pavement surface, and data collection lasts several
seconds to minutes. Similar to the coring method, density
gauges provide information only at discrete locations and
are incapable of providing real-time information.
In addition, the nuclear density gauge uses radioactive
material and thus requires special licensing to transport
and operate, which entails increased operational costs.
Intelligent compaction, which refers to the compaction of
road materials, such as soil, aggregate base and asphalt
pavement using an in situ measurement system and
feedback control (Chang et al. 2011), is based on the
measurement of the stiffness of the pavement system
(Beainy et al. 2013). The measured stiffness is affected by
various factors, including the pavement temperature,
conditions of underlying layers, and amplitude and
frequency of the roller vibration (Chang et al. 2011).
Consequently, the increase in stiffness might be the result
of other factors, such as a reduction in temperature rather
than an increase in density.

*Corresponding author. Email: shanggu1@illinois.edu

q 2014 Taylor & Francis
2
190 P. Shangguan et al.
The ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-
destructive testing (NDT) tool based on sending and
receiving electromagnetic (EM) waves. It has been applied
on assessment of transportation infrastructure including
pavements (Lahouar et al. 2002, Al-Qadi et al. 2003, 2005,
2010, Loulizi et al. 2003, Al-Qadi and Lahouar 2004a,
2004b, 2005a, Lahouar and Al-Qadi 2008, Shangguan
et al. 2013, 2014, Shangguan and Al-Qadi 2014), bridges
(Barnes and Trottier 2000, Hugenschmidt 2002, Al-Qadi
and Lahouar 2005b, Belli et al. 2007, Wang et al. 2011)
and railroads (Al-Qadi et al. 2008, Al-Qadi, Xie, et al.
2010, Shangguan et al. 2012, 2014, Al-Qadi and
Shangguan 2013). In pavement engineering, GPR has
been successfully applied to estimate pavement thickness
(Lahouar et al. 2002, Al-Qadi et al. 2003, 2005, Loulizi
et al. 2003, Al-Qadi and Lahouar 2004a, 2004b, 2005a,
2005b, Lahouar and Al-Qadi 2008), locate anomalies
beneath the pavement surface (Chen and Scullion 2008,
Ni and Cheng 2012) and estimate asphalt pavement
density (Al-Qadi et al. 2010, Leng et al. 2011, 2012,
Shangguan et al. 2014). One of the advantages of using air-
coupled GPR is the continuous collection of data at
highway speed without destructing pavement or disturbing
traffic flow (Al-Qadi et al. 2003, 2005, 2010, Al-Qadi and
Lahouar 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, Leng et al. 2011). Previous
research has indicated that GPR is a promising technique
for compaction monitoring during the construction of
asphalt pavement (Leng et al. 2012, Shangguan et al.
2013). GPR can be potentially mounted on the compactor
and monitor the density continuously and in real time.
However, although asphalt pavement density can be
measured using GPR, the technique is only applied after
construction when the asphalt pavement is dry. Few
researchers have used GPR to monitor the density of
asphalt pavement during compaction because of the
challenge of the unknown effect of surface moisture on
GPR signals (Shangguan et al. 2013). During compaction,
the compactor sprays water on the drum to prevent the
asphalt particles from sticking to the compactor’s roller.
The water remaining on the pavement surface influences
the GPR signal and increases the amplitude of the
reflection pulse at the pavement surface. The density
calculation is based on the amplitude of the reflection
pulse so the existence of the surface moisture could result
in over-estimated asphalt pavement density.
Therefore, to apply GPR on compaction monitoring,
algorithms should be developed to process and interpret
the GPR data collected from asphalt pavement during
compaction and to obtain density information after each
roller pass. To address the utmost challenge, which is to
eliminate the effect of surface moisture on GPR signals,
this paper focuses on the development of the algorithms to
‘correct’ the GPR signal collected from the wet pavement
surface in order to resemble the signal collected from dry
pavement.
2. Background on applications of GPR on
compaction monitoring
In this study, only air-coupled GPR system was used
because it does not require surface contact with the
pavement and can be potentially mounted on compactors
for continuous measurement. In the application of density
measurement using GPR, the dielectric constant is first
obtained based on the surface reflection amplitude in the
GPR signal. Density model can then be applied to translate
dielectric constant value to the density value. During
compaction, both the density increase and the increase of
surface moisture content can result in an increase in the
surface reflection amplitude in the time domain.
To eliminate the effect of the variation of the surface
moisture content while keeping the effect of density
change, the fundamental difference between these two
effects was found (Shangguan and Al-Qadi 2014).
2.1. Dielectric constant
The most important material property in GPR applications
is relative permittivity, or the dielectric constant. The
dielectric constant of asphalt mixture can be calculated
using GPR signal based on Equation (1):
 2
Ap þ Ao
1AC ¼ ; ð1Þ
Ap 2 Ao
where 1AC is the dielectric constant of the asphalt mixture
in the surface layer, Ao is the amplitude of surface
reflection in GPR signal and Ap is the amplitude of the
incident signal. Ap is measured by placing a copper plate
under the antenna because copper reflects the GPR signal
perfectly and will therefore reflect the GPR wave energy
back to the receiving antenna.
2.2. Density model
The density estimation model is based on EM mixing
theories. Al-Qadi et al. (2010) compared three EM mixing
models, the complex refractive index (CRIM) model, the
Rayleigh mixing model and the Böttcher mixing model.
The same authors developed the Al-Qadi Lahouar Leng
(ALL) model to estimate the bulk specific gravity of the
asphalt mixture from its dielectric constant (Leng 2011,
Leng et al. 2011, 2012):
1AC 21b
31AC 22:31b 2 121b
Gmb ¼    b þ21AC   ;
 122:31
1s 21b
1s 22:31b þ21AC
12Pb
Gse 2 122:31121b
b þ21AC
1
Gmm
ð2Þ
where Gmb and Gmm are the bulk and maximum specific
gravities, respectively, of the asphalt mixture, Gse is the
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 3
191

effective specific gravity of the aggregate, Pb is the
binder content, 1b, 1s and 1AC are the dielectric constant of
the binder, the aggregate and the asphalt mixture,
respectively.
The parameters in the ALL model can be obtained
before construction of the asphalt pavement, except for the
dielectric constant of aggregate 1s, which is obtained either
from the back calculation of core data or from a database.
By applying the ALL model, the density estimated using
GPR is more accurate for asphalt pavement than the
density estimated using the nuclear density gauge for
asphalt pavement without slags (Leng 2011, Leng et al.
2012).
2.3. Frequency-selective effect
Previous studies (Shangguan et al. 2013, Shangguan and
Al-Qadi 2014) have revealed the fundamental difference
between the effect of density variation and the effect of
surface moisture content variation on GPR surface
reflection pulse. Figure 1(a) shows the simulated GPR
reflection pulses using finite-difference time-domain
(FDTD) method in frequency domain. Figure 1(b) shows
a magnified part of Figure 1(a) for better visibility. When
the dielectric constant value increased as a result of the
increase in asphalt pavement density, the amplitude of
GPR signal increased in frequency domain. It should be
pointed out that the increase of amplitude in the frequency
domain occurred over the entire frequency range, which
means that the whole frequency components were
sensitive to the increase of asphalt pavement density.
This finding was verified by experimental results, as shown
in Figure 1(c), (d) (Shangguan and Al-Qadi 2014).
Figure 2 shows the change of GPR reflection pulse in
frequency domain when the surface moisture content
changes. As shown in Figure 2(a), (b), when the moisture
content increased, which resulted in the increase of the
dielectric constant and conductivity of the wet surface
asphalt mixture, higher frequency components increased
more than lower frequency components. This was the
major difference between the change of signal when
moisture content varied and the change of signal when
pavement density varied. And this ‘frequency-selective’
effect shown in the simulation study was verified by
experimental GPR data, as shown in Figure 2(c), (d)
(Shangguan and Al-Qadi 2014).

Figure 1. Frequency spectrum of surface reflection on pavement with five different dielectric constant values: (a) whole spectrum of
simulation data; (b) magnified partial spectrum of simulation data; (c) whole spectrum of real data; (d) magnified partial spectrum of real
data.
4
192 P. Shangguan et al.

Figure 2. Frequency spectrum of surface reflection data on pavement with eight different surface moisture contents: (a) whole spectrum
of simulation data; (b) magnified partial spectrum of simulation data; (c) whole spectrum of real data; (d) magnified partial spectrum of
real data.

3. Research approach of the dielectric constant value of asphalt mixture, 1AC,

The application of asphalt pavement compaction moni- and the bulk specific gravity of asphalt mixture, Gmb. Thus,
toring using GPR follows the procedure outlined in a correction algorithm should be applied to correct the
signal collected from wet pavement to resemble the signal
Figure 3. First, GPR data are collected from wet asphalt
collected from dry pavement. The density model could
pavement during compaction. The water spayed by the
then be applied to obtain the pavement density.
compactor remains on the asphalt pavement surface,
yielding an increased amplitude of surface reflection in
GPR data. Based on Equations (1) and (2), the direct use of
4. Laboratory experiments
the surface reflection amplitude results in over-estimations
To develop the correction algorithm, laboratory exper-
iments were conducted. A new asphalt pavement site was
GPR Data on Wet designed and constructed. The test site is a single-lane
Pavement asphalt pavement. To simulate the scenario of achieving
different densities at different roller pass number during
Correction compaction, the lane was divided into 11 segments and
Algorithm each segment had a different number of roller passes.
As shown in Figure 4(a), each segment had a length of
GPR Data on Dry 4.6 m and a width of 1.22 m. The transition segment in the
Pavement middle was for the compactor to turn off the lane and was
not used for GPR testing. The number shown on each
Density Model
segment in Figure 4(a) is the number of roller passes. For
example, 0 means that the segment consists of loose mix
Density of without any roller pass, and 10 means that the segment was
Pavement compacted with 10 roller passes. The compactor followed
the compaction pattern shown in Figure 4(b). The dash
Figure 3. Outline of the application of asphalt pavement lines with arrows show the path and direction of the
compaction monitoring using GPR. compactor for each pass during the construction.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 5
193

Figure 4. Laboratory experiments: (a) plan view with different pass number; (b) compaction pattern to achieve different roller pass for
each segment; (c) grid system on each segment; (d) grid system marked on the pavement; (e) setup of GPR antenna during data collection;
(f) spaying water using an air-compressed sprayer; (g) moisturised area under the GPR antenna.
6
194 P. Shangguan et al.
To simulate the variation of surface moisture content
during compaction, different amounts of water was
sprayed on the pavement before the GPR data collection.
Because it took the pavement at least 1 day to dry after
spraying water and it was important to return the GPR
antenna to the same location on different days for
collecting data when different amounts of water were
sprayed, a grid system for location reference was created
on the pavement, as shown in Figure 4(c), (d), and laser
pointers were installed on the GPR antenna to help align
the antenna during data collection. The GPR test setup is
shown in Figure 4(e). As shown in Figure 4(f), (g), water
was sprayed using a sprayer powered by an air compressor
on a 0.59 m £ 1.08 m area, which was large enough to
cover the footprint of the GPR wave.
5. Data processing
As shown in Figure 3, a correction algorithm needs to
be developed to process the GPR data and generate
density results. A reference scan approach was developed
as the correction algorithm. In this section, the reference
scan approach is illustrated using an example followed by
the evaluation of the performance of the algorithm
containing reference scan approach using the laboratory
GPR data.
5.1. An example of reference scan approach
The development of reference scan approach is based on
the frequency-selective effect. In frequency domain, when
the density of asphalt pavement increases, the amplitude of
the spectrum of the GPR surface reflection pulse increases
but the distribution of the spectrum remains the same. If a
reference signal from dry pavement is known, the
distribution of the frequency spectrum corresponding to
dry pavement with any densities is known. When the
surface moisture content exists, the amplitude of the low
frequency component remains the same as the signal
collected from dry pavement. So, a signal collected from
wet pavement can be corrected to the signal from dry
pavement by knowing the distribution of the frequency
spectrum from the reference scan signal and amplitude at a
low frequency point.
An example is used to explain the reference scan
approach. Figure 5(a) depicts the GPR signal collected on
section 6 grid 4C. In this study, GPR data were collected
only on grid 4C and grid 11C on each section. So, section 6
grid 4C is written as ‘S6G4’ hereafter. This applies to other
locations. In Figure 5(a), the solid-line curve is the GPR
scan on dry pavement. The dash-line curve is the GPR scan
on wet pavement after spraying 150 ml water. Figure 5(b)
shows the surface reflection pulses. It can be seen clearly
that the amplitude of the pulse increased after spraying the
water. The maximum amplitude was 1.9653 £ 104 for the
GPR signal on dry pavement and 2.0138 £ 104 for
the signal on wet pavement. The increase of the amplitude
as a result of the addition of surface moisture was 2.47%.
The frequency spectrum of the surface reflection shown in
Figure 5(c) was obtained by applying Fourier transform on
the time domain signal. In frequency domain, the
frequency-selective effect was observed: the increase of
amplitude occurred mainly over the high frequency range,
whereas the lower frequency components hardly changed.
The next step was to choose a reference GPR scan. The
GPR scan after the final compaction was used as the
reference scan. In real construction, the reference scan can
be obtained on a well-compacted test pad. Figure 5(d)
shows the reference scan collected from the location
of S10G4, which had 10 roller passes. Figure 5(e) shows
the surface reflection pulse of the reference scan, and
Figure 5(f) shows the frequency spectrum of the surface
reflection pulse of the reference scan.
Figure 6(a) shows a comparison of frequency
spectrums of GPR surface reflection pulses from dry
pavement, wet pavement and reference scan. A correction
factor was calculated by comparing the amplitudes of
signal collected from wet pavement and the reference scan
at a low frequency point; 1.1 GHz was used as the
frequency point for calculating the correction factor. The
amplitude at 1.1 GHz was 1041.5 for reference scan and
1096.2 for the signal from wet pavement. So, the
correction factor was 1096.2/1041.5 ¼ 1.0525.
By multiplying the correction factor with the reference
scan in frequency domain, the signal was obtained after
correction in frequency domain, as shown in Figure 6(a).
The signal after correction was very close to the signal
collected from dry pavement, as shown in Figure 6(b). The
time domain signal was obtained using inverse Fourier
transform, as shown in Figure 6(c), (d). The amplitude
after correction was 1.9594 £ 104, which is very close to
the signal collected from dry pavement. The error was
reduced from 2.47% to 0.3%, indicating the effectiveness
of the correction algorithm.
5.2. Effect of correction algorithm on amplitude of
surface reflection in GPR signal
On the test site shown in Figure 4, GPR data on 22
locations with four different moisture conditions (i.e. dry,
100 ml water, 150 ml water and 200 ml water) were
collected. The same procedure of reference scan approach
was applied to correct each signal collected from wet
pavement to resemble the signal collected from dry
pavement. The performance of the algorithm on the 22
locations is discussed hereafter.
Figure 7(a) shows the change in reflection amplitude
when 100 ml water was sprayed. After spraying water, the
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 1957

Figure 5. Illustration of reference scan approach: (a) original dry and wet signals in time domain on S6G4; (b) surface reflection pulses
in time domain on S6G4; (c) frequency spectrum of surface reflection pulse on S6G4; (d) reference GPR scan from S10G4 under dry
condition; (e) surface reflection pulse of reference scan in time domain; (f) frequency spectrum of surface reflection pulse.

amplitude of the GPR surface reflection increased
compared to the amplitude of GPR surface reflection
when the pavement was dry. The average percentage of
amplitudes on wet pavement over amplitudes on dry
pavement was 101.89% with an increase of 1.89%. After
the application of the correction algorithm, the average
percentage of amplitudes on wet pavement over
amplitudes on dry pavement was 99.61%. As shown in
Figure 7(b), the average error was 1.89% before correction
algorithm and was 0.96% after correction. Most errors
decreased except for the errors at locations of S2G11,
S3G4, S3G11 and S4G4, where the correction algorithms
‘over-corrected’ the amplitude. This could be caused by a
few reasons such as the difference of frequency
distributions of reference scan and the GPR signal
collected from dry pavement, the noise from hardware
and the environment noise. Overall, the correction
algorithm resulted in a good performance as it successfully
eliminated the effect of the surface moisture on most
locations when 100 ml water was sprayed.
The performance of the correction algorithm when
150 ml water was sprayed is shown in Figure 7(c), (d). The
average error of the surface reflection amplitude was
2.91% before the correction algorithm. After the
application of correction algorithm, the error decreased
to 1.27%. Except for the errors at locations of S3G11 and
8
196 P. Shangguan et al.

Figure 6. GPR surface reflection of dry scan, wet scan, reference scan and the scan after correction: (a) whole spectrum in frequency
domain; (b) magnified partial of the spectrum in frequency domain; (c) whole signal in time domain; (d) magnified partial of the signal in
time domain.

S8G11, which slightly increased after applying the
correction algorithm, most errors decreased.
The performance of the correction algorithm when
200 ml water was sprayed is shown in Figure 7(e), (f). The
average error decreased from 5.93% to 1.44%. All errors
decreased after the correction algorithm was applied.
5.3. Effect of correction algorithm on density
estimation results
After the application of the correction algorithm on the
GPR data collected from wet pavement, the dielectric
constant value could be obtained using Equation (1) and
the density of the asphalt pavement could be calculated
using the ALL model shown in Equation (2). Twenty-two
cores were extracted from the test site, and densities were
measured in the laboratory using CoreLoc method (ASTM
2011). CoreLoc method is considered to have higher
accuracy in measuring the densities of cores with high air
void contents (Buchanan and White 2005). In this study,
the cores extracted from less-compacted locations had
high air void; thus, CoreLoc method was adopted. The
Gmm value given by the contractor was 2.468. The
laboratory-measured Gmm value was 2.462, which was
used in ALL model. The dielectric constant of the
aggregate 1s was 7.305. This value was obtained by back-
calculation using a core extracted from the location of
S10G11.Other values of the parameters used in ALL
model were also known: the value of Gse was 2.694 and the
value of Pb value was 5.7%. The density values obtained
from GPR data and from cores are plotted in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 8(a), (b), the densities obtained
from GPR on dry pavement and densities obtained from
cores are close, except for locations of S0G4 and S0G11.
The errors were larger because ALL model was developed
mainly for well-compacted asphalt pavement. The
inaccuracies at roller passes of 0, 1 and 2 were not
problematic though because in most asphalt pavement
constructions, the roller passes exceeded three and the
initial densities of the asphalt mixture after the placement
of paver were not of great interest as they could not affect
the total number of roller passes. The average error of Gmb
values of the 22 locations was 1.5%. If the data were
considered after two passes only (sections 0, 1 and 2 were
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 1979

Figure 7. Performance of the correction algorithm: (a) percentage of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying 100 ml water over
the amplitude when pavement is dry – before and after correction algorithm; (b) error of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying
100 ml water – before and after correction algorithm; (c) percentage of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying 150 ml water over
the amplitude when pavement is dry – before and after correction algorithm; (d) error of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying
150 ml water – before and after correction algorithm; (e) percentage of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying 200 ml water over
the amplitude when pavement is dry – before and after correction algorithm; (f) error of the surface reflection amplitude after spraying
200 ml water – before and after correction algorithm.

excluded), the average Gmb error was 0.8%. As shown in
Figure 8(b), the average difference between air void
contents obtained from GPR and those obtained from
cores was 0.7% for sections after two roller passes.
As shown in Figure 8(c), (d), when 100 ml water was
sprayed, the average error of Gmb estimation for all the 22
locations was 2.4% without the correction algorithm,
which was higher than the average Gmb estimation error on
dry pavement. This was mainly caused by the additional
source of error introduced by surface moisture. After the
application of the correction algorithm, the average error
dropped to 1.6%. When only the sections after two roller
passes were considered, the average error of Gmb
estimation dropped from 1.4% to 0.9% and the average
difference of air void content dropped from 1.3% to 0.8%.
When 150 ml water was sprayed, the density results
obtained from GPR and from cores were shown in Figure 8
(e), (f). The application of the correction algorithm
reduced the average Gmb estimation error after two roller
passes from 2.4% to 0.9%. The average difference of air
10
198 P. Shangguan et al.

Figure 8. Densities obtained from cores and GPR data: (a) Gmb values – dry condition; (b) air void values – dry condition; (c) Gmb
values – 100 ml water; (d) air void values – 100 ml water; (e) Gmb values – 150 ml water; (f) air void values – 150 ml water; (g) Gmb
values – 200 ml water; (h) air void values – 200 ml water.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
void content estimation after two roller passes was reduced
from 2.2% to 0.9%.
The density results obtained from GPR and from cores
when 200 ml water was sprayed are shown in Figure 8(g),
(h). At the locations of S6G4 and S8G11, the air void
contents before the correction algorithm were less than 0
because of the elevated Gmb values due to the larger
reflection amplitudes. When plotting Figure 8(h), the
values of air void content were plotted as 0. When
calculating the average error, the data at these two
locations were excluded. The average Gmb estimation error
dropped from 5.6% to 0.9% after two roller passes. The
average difference of air void content estimation dropped
from 5.2% to 0.9% after two roller passes.
Overall, the application of the correction algorithm
successfully eliminated the effect of surface moisture, and
density information was successfully extracted. The
density values obtained from GPR data after applying
the correction algorithm were reasonably accurate.
6. Summary and conclusions
In this study, a correction algorithm was developed using a
‘reference scan approach’ to ‘correct’ the GPR signal
collected from ‘wet’ asphalt pavement to ‘resemble’ a
GPR signal collected from ‘dry’ asphalt pavement. The
correction algorithm was applied on the GPR data
collected from asphalt pavement with different densities
and different surface moisture contents. It was found that
the algorithm successfully eliminated the effect of surface
moisture on the surface reflection amplitude in GPR data
with high accuracy. A total of 22 cores were taken from a
controlled test site, and their densities were measured in
the laboratory. The density results collected from the GPR
data were compared with the density results from the
cores. It was found that the density estimation had
improved accuracy after the application of the correction
algorithm, indicating the effectiveness of the correction
algorithm. In future, further field validation and testing
demonstration using GPR system will be conducted to
further improve the algorithms.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Jim
Meister for his assistance in collecting GPR data. The contents of
this paper reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for
the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. This paper
does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
Notes
1. Email: alqadi@illinois.edu
2. Email: arcoenen@illinois.edu
3. Email: szhao28@illinois.edu
11
199
References
Al-Qadi, I.L. and Lahouar, S., 2004a. Use of GPR for thickness
measurement and quality control of flexible pavements.
Asphalt Paving Technology: Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, 73,
501– 528.
Al-Qadi, I.L. and Lahouar, S., 2004b. Ground penetrating radar:
state of the practice for pavement assessment. Materials
Evaluation, 62 (7), 759– 763.
Al-Qadi, I.L. and Lahouar, S., 2005a. Measuring layer
thicknesses with GPR – theory to practice. Construction
and Building Materials, 19 (10), 763– 772.
Al-Qadi, I.L. and Lahouar, S., 2005b. Measuring rebar cover
depth in rigid pavements with ground-penetrating radar.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, 1907, 80 – 85.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 2005. Accuracy of ground-penetrating radar
for estimating rigid and flexible pavement layer thicknesses.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, 1940, 69 – 78.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Lahouar, S., and Loulizi, A., 2003. Successful
application of ground-penetrating radar for quality assur-
ance-quality control of new pavements. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1861, 86 –97.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 2010. In-place hot-mix asphalt density
estimation using ground-penetrating radar. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2152, 19 –27.
Al-Qadi, I.L. and Shangguan, P., 2013. Texture retrieval
approach for interpreting GPR data to quantify railroad
ballast fouling. Presented at European Geosciences Union
General Assembly, Vienna, Austria.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Xie, W., and Roberts, R., 2008. Scattering analysis
of ground-penetrating radar data to quantify railroad ballast
contamination. NDT & E International, 41 (6), 441– 447.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Xie, W., and Roberts, R., 2010. Optimization of
antenna configuration in multiple-frequency ground pene-
trating radar system for railroad substructure assessment.
NDT & E International, 43 (1), 20 – 28.
ASTM, 2011. ASTM D6752/D6752M – 11: standard test method
for bulk specific gravity and density of compacted bituminous
mixtures using automatic vacuum sealing method. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Barnes, C.L. and Trottier, J.-F., 2000. Ground-penetrating radar
for network-level concrete deck repair management. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 126 (3), 257– 262.
Beainy, F., et al., 2013. Viscoelastic-plastic model of asphalt-
roller interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics,
13 (5), 581– 594.
Belli, K., Wadia-Fascetti, S., and Rappaport, C., 2007. Model
based evaluation of bridge decks using ground penetrating
radar. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
23 (1), 3 – 16.
Buchanan, M.S. and White, T.D., 2005. Hot mix asphalt mix
design evaluation using the corelok vacuum-sealing device.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 17 (2), 137– 142.
Chang, G., et al., 2011. Accelerated implementation of intelligent
compaction technology for embankment subgrade soils,
aggregate base, and asphalt pavement materials. Washing-
ton, D.C: Federal Highway Administration.
Chen, D.H. and Scullion, T., 2008. Detecting subsurface voids
using ground-coupled penetrating radar. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 31 (3), 217– 224.
12
200 P. Shangguan et al.
Hugenschmidt, J., 2002. Concrete bridge inspection with a
mobile GPR system. Construction & Building Materials,
16 (3), 147.
Lahouar, S. and Al-Qadi, I.L., 2008. Automatic detection of
multiple pavement layers from GPR data. NDT & E
International, 41 (2), 69 – 81.
Lahouar, S., et al., 2002. Approach to determining in situ
dielectric constant of pavements: development and
implementation at interstate 81 in Virginia. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1806, 81 – 87.
Leng, Z., 2011. Prediction of in-situ asphalt mixture density
using ground penetrating radar: theoretical development
and field verification. Doctoral Dissertation, ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Leng, Z., Al-Qadi, I.L., and Lahouar, S., 2011. Development and
validation for in situ asphalt mixture density prediction
models. NDT & E International, 44 (4), 369– 375.
Leng, Z., et al., 2012. Field application of ground-penetrating
radar for measurement of asphalt mixture density-case study
of Illinois route 72 overlay. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2304,
133– 141.
Loulizi, A., Al-Qadi, I.L., and Lahouar, S., 2003. Optimization of
ground-penetrating radar data to predict layer thicknesses in
flexible pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
129 (1), 93 – 99.
Ni, J.C. and Cheng, W.-C., 2012. Trial grouting under rigid
pavement: a case history in magong airport, Penghu. Journal
of Testing and Evaluation, 40 (1), 107– 118.
Shangguan, P. and Al-Qadi, I.L., 2014. Calibration of FDTD
simulation of GPR signal for asphalt pavement compaction
monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, 53 (4).
Shangguan, P., Al-Qadi, I.L., and Lahouar, S., 2014. Pattern
recognition algorithms for density estimation of asphalt
pavement during compaction: A simulation study. Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 107, 8 – 15.
Shangguan, P., Al-Qadi, I.L., and Leng, Z., 2012. Development
of wavelet technique to interpret ground-penetrating radar
data for quantifying railroad ballast conditions. Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2289, 95 – 102.
Shangguan, P., et al., 2013. Innovative approach for asphalt
pavement compaction monitoring using ground penetrating
radar. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2425, 79 – 87.
Wang, Z.W., et al, 2011. Automatic detection of bridge deck
condition from ground penetrating radar images. IEEE
Transactions on Automation Science & Engineering, 8 (3),
633– 640.