See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269127831

Use of Ground Penetrating Radar for Accurate Concrete Thickness

Measurements

Conference Paper · September 2008

DOI: 10.1061/41002(328)67

CITATIONS READS
7 3,788

4 authors, including:

Ece Erdogmus George Morcous

Georgia Institute of Technology University of Nebraska at Lincoln
116 PUBLICATIONS   553 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   1,427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project View project

Precast Concrete Deck-to-Girder Connection using UHPC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ece Erdogmus on 11 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Use of Ground Penetrating Radar for Accurate Concrete Thickness
Measurements
Kenzi Meyer1, Ece Erdogmus2, George Morcous3, Mary Naughtin4,

Abstract
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is commonly used for locating abnormalities or as a
means of quality control in buildings and infrastructures. The objective of this project
is to accurately detect the thickness of concrete pavement sections and to minimize
the need for core samples using GPR. The project is sponsored by the Nebraska
Department of Roads and several project sites in Nebraska are utilized for case
studies. Through the use of the SIR-3000 GPR equipment and a 1500 MHz antenna,
several pavement sections are scanned, validation cores are taken, and accuracy is
evaluated. Laboratory and field experiments are also utilized to develop practical and
inexpensive means to increase the accuracy of the GPR scans and further the
confidence in the use of the system by professionals. Through the use of a strong
reflection material placed at the bottom of the pavement, the thickness of the
pavement may be determined accurately. With fewer core samples and a strong
ground reflection at the bottom of the concrete, the GPR data can be calibrated for
variances in concrete mixture, water content, and ground conditions. The study is
still ongoing; however, the preliminary results show that with the use of inexpensive
construction adjustments, such as use of a high reflection metal at the bottom of a
concrete section, an accurate thickness measurement can be gathered without as many
destructive core samples.

Introduction
The current method used for measuring the thickness of the concrete is limited and
destructive. To measure the thickness of concrete pavement Nebraska Department of
Roads (NDOR) adopts the ASTM C174 laboratory test method using drilled cores.
Pavement cores are extracted every 720 ft and taken to the lab to determine the
compliance of concrete construction with design specifications. A three-point
callipering device is used to make length measurement at the center of the specimen
and at eight additional points equally spaced along the circumference of the specimen
(ASTM 2006a). The average of the nine measurements expressed to the nearest 0.1”
is reported as the depth of the concrete core.

Although this procedure results in relatively accurate thickness measurements of

concrete pavement, it only provides local information as cores are extracted
approximately every 720 ft depending on the project importance. In addition, core
extraction is a destructive process that is time consuming, hazardous, and it disturbs

1
Undergraduate Research Assistant, Architectural Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2
Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering and AEI member, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
eerdogmus2@unl.edu (Corresponding author).
3
Assistant Professor of Construction Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
4
Undergraduate Research Assistant and AEI student member, Architectural Engineering, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln
traffic. Therefore, there is a need for a nondestructive alternative for pavement
thickness measurement that can provide continuous information along the pavement
section in a rapid and cost effective manner. Ground penetrating radar (GPR)
technology offers a solution to this need; however, as any other device, it has some
limitations that must be overcome. The objective of this study is to investigate the
feasibility of using GPR on a routine basis to measure the thickness of concrete
pavements. The study is still ongoing and two case studies are carried out so far. In
the first case study, ten sections of conventional concrete pavement are scanned and
cores are taken at the center of each section. The resulting scans are evaluated using
different dielectric constants, and resulting depths are compared to those from the
core samples. Second case study involves use of metallic rings at the bottom of the
concrete pavement, to provide a stronger reflection marking the depth of the section
and potentially increasing the accuracy of the measurements. After this case study,
the project team cast a study slab to provide a laboratory for several scans, and
several metal objects are placed at the bottom of the slab. The scans on this study slab
are ongoing. Once satisfactory results are gathered, these lab results will then be
applied to sections of highway in Nebraska in the spring of 2008, and it is anticipated
that the pavement thickness will be measured with minimal error.

Background
The GPR method involves the transmission of electromagnetic waves into the
material under investigation and as a result of scans from the surface; the changes in
the dielectric properties of materials can be identified. The reflections of these waves
at the interfaces and the corners of the objects within the material are analyzed to
determine the location (horizontal distance from a reference point) and depth (vertical
distance from the surface) of the detected interfaces and buried objects. GPR can also
be used to differentiate layers of material and to determine certain properties of the
materials. In order to accomplish this, additional site specific information is needed
such as direct depth measurements or relative permittivity of the material under
investigation.

GPR utilizes the propagation of short pulse radar waves (pulse duration less than 1
ns) through the layers of materials under investigation. Figure 1 shows a radar signal
that is emitted via an antenna into a structure composed of three different materials.
Signals are reflected at the interfaces between the material layers. Reflected signals
are received by the same antenna to present one scan or trace. Several scans are taken
at different locations on the investigated structure and their data are recorded in the
storage device of the central unit. These data are then processed and displayed on a
monitor for further analysis (manual or automatic interpretation). Analyzed GPR data
can reveal significant information about the materials within the structure and their
condition.
 Figure 1: GPR Principals

From the electromagnetic standpoint, materials can be categorized as metallic or

dielectric. Metallic materials have high conductivity and attenuate electromagnetic
waves to a great extent resulting in shallow penetration, while dielectric materials
have low conductivity and attenuate electromagnetic waves to a limited extent
resulting in deep penetration. The relative dielectric constant of a particular material
(ε sometimes called relative permittivity) is the ratio of permittivity of the material to
r,
-12
permittivity of vacuum (ε = 8.854 x 10 F/m). Although the transition from metallic
0
to dielectric is gradual, this relative permittivity is used to indicate the nature of the
material (high value for metallic and low value for dielectric). Table 1 lists the
relative permittivity of different materials at an electromagnetic frequency of 1 GHz.

Table 1: Relative permittivity of different material at a frequency of 1 GHz

Material Relative Permittivity
Air 1
Dry Masonry 3-5
Moist Masonry 5-26
Dry Concrete 5-8
Moist Concrete 8-16
Asphalt 3-5
Granite 5-7
Basalt 8
PVC 3
Dry clay/ dry sands 4-8
Wet sands/wet clay 16-32
Ice 3-5
Water 81

The propagation velocity (υ) of a transmitted radar signal through a material is a

function of its relative permittivity (ε ) and relative magnetic permeability (m ), as
r r
well as the speed of sound (c) as follows:
c
v [1]
 r mr
In low-loss materials, as most of the dielectric materials, the relative magnetic
permeability (m ) can be assumed to be unity. Therefore, if the relative permittivity of
r
the material under investigation is known, the propagation velocity can be calculated
using Equation 1. The propagation velocity of the waves within specific materials is
then used to determine the thickness of each material layer using the two-way travel
time recorded by the GPR antenna. The difference in time between the reflected
signals at the top and bottom interfaces of the layer times the velocity gives the
distance traveled by the wave, i.e. the thickness of the layer. It should be noted that
relative permittivity of a material is frequency-dependent and is influenced by several
parameters, such as the temperature, moisture, and salt content of the material. These
parameters have to be considered through calibration before calculating the velocity
in order to obtain accurate thickness measurements.

When the incident signal meets the interface between two materials with different
dielectric constants, part of the incident energy is reflected, while the other part is
transmitted. The amount of reflected and transmitted energy is determined by the
reflection and transmission coefficients (R and T) respectively. These coefficients are
dependent on the relative impedance of the two materials (z , z ), which are
r1 r2
functions of the dielectric constant of the materials (ε , ε ). These coefficients are
r1 r2
calculated as follows:
z r1  z r 2
R [2]
z r1  z r 2
T 1  R [3]
m0
zr  [4]
 0 r
-7
where, m = 4π * 10 H/m, is the magnetic permeability of free space.
o

As can be deduced from equations 2, 3, and 4, the smaller the difference in the
dielectric constant of the two materials, the smaller the reflection coefficient and the
larger the transmission coefficient. This means that the change of amplitude of the
energy (i.e. attenuation) reflected from the interface between two materials is a good
indicator of the properties of these materials. As the incident energy continues to
penetrate other materials and meets successive interfaces, other reflections are sent
back to the antenna and recorded over time to generate the waveform. Measuring the
time and amplitude of reflections (peaks or valleys) in the waveform facilitates the
determination of layer thicknesses, depth of buried objects, and changes in material
properties (Eq. 1, 2, 3, and 4), which are the basic purposes of using the GPR
technology.

Many different types of GPR and post-processing techniques have been researched to
accurately measure the depth of concrete. Al-Qadi et. al. (2001) successfully
measured the thickness of flexible pavement using two GPR systems simultaneously,
air-coupled and ground-coupled, collected at 16 kph and 1 scan per 110 mm. Cores
were then taken to verify the data, and the average error was only 6.7%. By using
GPR and PAVLAYER software, Maser (1996) measured as-built conditions of
pavement with a +/- 7.5% accuracy when compared to core samples. Mesher et al.
(1995) used a GPR system called “Road Radar” to measure pavement thickness on
three sites. The systems consisted of a 2.5 GHz antenna and semi automated software
for processing large sets of data and was self calibrating. An average R2 value greater
than .9 for all three sites was found by using linear regression statistical analysis.
Louzili’s optimization involves calculating the reflected frequency spectrum using
the thickness and dielectric constants. When this method was applied on three
pavement sections of known layer thickness, the error was less than 3.6%.

In contrast to the above studies, the goal of this project is to develop practical
strategies that the state departments of roads can adopt in routine construction and
quality control procedures to accurately monitor the thickness of pavements.

Case Studies
Two case studies are carried out within the scope of this project to date. These studies
and the respective findings are explained in this section.

Case Study 1

The first case study involved scans on a section of highway outside of Hooper,
Nebraska, which were collected on September 14, 2007. A 1500 MHz antenna was
used with the SIR 3000 system using the concrete scan mode. Ten stations were
scanned where cores had been previously taken and measured by NDOR. The scans
were taken directly over the core location and were approximately 20 feet long, 10
feet before and 10 feet after the core sample location. SIR 3000 was set to 200 scans
per second, which correlates to 60 scans per linear foot.

The standard dielectric for dry concrete is between 5 and 8, and for moist concrete it
is between 8 and 16, as can be seen in Table 1. Therefore, the concrete under
investigation can be assigned a dielectric within this range, and the final dielectric
value can be selected through calibrations with the core testing results. Based on the
GPR scans, two possible reflections are noted that could account for the bottom of the
concrete slab as shown in Figures 2 and 3. These different possibilities for the bottom
of the concrete change the dielectric substantially.

Scan shown in Figure 2 is around the core test station 322 + 43, which provides a
depth of 10.2 inches. To achieve this depth at the layer of high reflection shown in
Figure 2, a dielectric of 23 must be used, which is outside the known limits of moist-
concrete dielectrics. Scan shown in Figure 3 is around the core test station 325 + 98,
and points out a dielectric of 16. This scan not only estimates a better dielectric for
concrete, but also has better clarity in the resulting scans in the sense that the filled
concrete is visible in the form of a disturbance or change of material. The rest of the
core locations, depth of each core and the corresponding dielectrics found from GPR
results can be found in Table 2.
 Bottom of Concrete Reflection

Figure 2: Scan at Station 322 + 43

Bottom of Concrete Reflection

NDOR Core

Figure 3: Scan at Station 330 + 80

The standard dielectric for concrete is between 8 and 16, therefore all of the
dielectrics determined from these scans are in the moist-concrete range. This is
expected as the concrete was younger than 28 days old at the time of scanning.
Moreover, the week before the scans, over an inch of rain had fallen on this area.

The general conclusion from Case Study 1 is such that, due to similar dielectric
values of wet concrete and subsurface material (such as highly compacted soil), the
scans show weak signal reflections and the interpretation of the results is difficult.
The use of a metal piece at the bottom of the concrete would produce a strong, unique
reflection, which can be easily identified and more reliable measurements of depth
and dielectric will be possible. This idea is pursued in Case Study 2.
 Table 2: Summary of Results in Case Study 1
Station Core Depth (in.) Dielectric Comments
dielectric determined using very bottom reflection
322 + 43 10.2 23 Figure 2
325 + 98 14.1 14
326 + 40 11.6 24 poor bottom reflection
dielectric determined using higher possible bottom reflection
327 + 20 11.0 19
328 + 99 10.7 15
330 + 80 10.6 16 Figure 3
330 +57 10.9 15 poor bottom reflection
328 + 17 10.7 14
324 + 70 10.9 13
325 + 12 11.4 13
AVERAGE 16.6 Indicates very moist concrete

Case Study 2
For the second Case Study, two metal rings were placed in two different locations on
Highway 34 before the concrete was laid and their locations were recorded. On
September 21, 2007, two grid scans are collected. Grid scans consist of multiple
scans evenly spaced across a section of concrete as shown in Figure 4. All of the
scans can then be compiled together in RADAN (post-processing software for GPR)
to produce a 3D scan of the section. By compiling the scans to 3D, more information
is provided, resulting in easier data analysis and more accurate findings.

Figure 4: First grid scan

The first grid scan was a 2 ft x 2 ft grid made with 4 inch spacing. The bottom of the
concrete was detected at 10 inches deep as indicated by the solid lines shown on the
radar scans in Figure 5 and 6. The rectangles in Figure 5 and 6 indicate the metal ring
reflections in the Y and X directions, respectively. The metal ring underneath the
concrete was detected at a different horizontal location than expected, as shown in
Figure 4. To verify that nothing was in the center of the concrete a core was taken and
no object was found.
 Figure 5: Y-scan

Figure 6: X-scan

The second grid scan was around the second metal ring previously placed under the
pavement, and was also a 2 ft x 2 ft grid; however, this time a denser grid spacing of
inch was used. The metal ring was also found in a different location than expected as
shown in Figure 7. A metal detector was then used to verify the horizontal location of
the metal ring as indicated by GPR. The bottom of the concrete was detected at 10.5
inches deep as shown in Figures 9 and 10 by the solid line. The rectangles in the
radar scans (Figures 8 and 9) indicate the metal ring reflections in the X and Y
directions, respectively.

Figure 7: Second grid scan Figure 8: X-scans

 Figure 9: Y-scans

While the reflections from the metal object provide easier determination of the depth
of the concrete pavements, the metal rings used in this first trial moved significantly
resulting in substantial loss of time, thus reducing the efficiency of the methodology.
As a result, the authors suggest use of a larger and linear metal object, or an object
that can be secured to the base material. The benefit of a linear material would
provide the additional benefit of only scanning in one direction, and reduce the time
for setup and scans.

Concluding Remarks
With the goals of studying the feasibility and accuracy of GPR use in the detection of
concrete sections, the project team carried out two case studies.

The first study proves the difficulty of accurate depth determination, especially soon
after the construction stage as the curing concrete can have a range of dielectric
values, which in turn mean a range of thicknesses. While the relatively poorer results
of GPR in curing concrete is expected, a methodology to overcome this limitation is
needed because soon-after-construction is when NDOR needs to perform quality
control on the contractors’ work.

The second study utilizes a high reflection object at the bottom of the concrete
pavement. This study proves the increased accuracy of depth detection; however, the
choice of the metal object must be further optimized. After the two case studies, the
project members designed a test slab with various metal objects buried at the base of
the concrete with known horizontal locations. As the project continues, scans will be
gathered from this test slab and feasibility of each metal device will be studied
considering the following parameters: ease of scan setup, detection of accurate
pavement depth and cost of the metal object used.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Nebraska Department of
Roads for the financial and technical support provided throughout the project.
 References
Al-Qadi, Imad; Lahouar, Samer. “Ground Penetrating Radar: State of the Practice for
Pavement Assessment.” Materials Evaluation. Vol 42 (7) 2004: pages 755-
763.

ASTM (2006a) “Standard Test Method for Determining the Thickness of Bound
Pavement Layers Using Short-Pulse Radar”, American Society for Testing and
Materials D4748-06

Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI) (2006). Ground Penetrating Radar Training
Notes. Austin, TX.

Loulizi, Amara; Al-Qadi, Imad; Lahouar, Samer. “Optimization of Ground

Penetrating Radar Data to Predict Layer Thicknesses in Flexible Pavements.”
Journal of Transportation Engineering Jan/Feb 2003: pages 93-99.

Maser, K. R (1996) “Condition Assessment of Transportation Infrastructure Using

Ground-Penetrating Radar”, ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 2, No.
2, pp. 94-101

Mesher, D. E.,Dawley, C. B., Davis, J. L., and Rossiter, J. R. (1995). "Evaluation of

new ground penetrating radar technology to quantify pavement structures."
Transportation Research Record 1505, July, 17-26.

View publication stats