Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Concrete bridge deck condition assessment using IR Thermography and MARK

Ground Penetrating Radar technologies
Saleh Abu Dabousa,⁎, Salam Yaghib, Sabah Alkassc, Osama Moselhid
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
b
iTech Management Consultancy, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
c
College of Engineering, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
d
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current practice of bridge inspection relies heavily on visual inspection, which suffers from several
Bridge limitations, including the safety of the inspection team, the accuracy of subsurface defects detection, and
Inspection subjectivity. In visual inspection, data collection is time consuming and the collected data is typically
Infrared Thermography documented by completing standard inspection reports. These reports do not provide sufficient visualization
GPR
of locations and/or the extent of defects. Emerging combinations of non-destructive testing (NDT) technologies
ArcGIS
and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have the potential to circumvent some of these limitations. More
Condition assessment
research is still needed to assess the potential of these technologies to be applied in the field and to address the
challenges in deploying them. The challenges include data acquisition and processing, data interpretation to
identify the location and extent of defects, and the integration of results obtained from multiple technologies.
This research introduces an integrated method utilizing Infrared (IR) Thermography and Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) technologies to enhance the detection of concrete bridge defects. Integrating results can improve
confidence in defect detection and quantification, and as a result can enhance the reliability of the bridge
condition rating process. The integrated system is implemented in a case study of a concrete bridge deck in the
city of Laval, Quebec, Canada. The obtained results are compared to detailed and visual inspection results
conducted on the bridge before its demolition. The study analyzes potential, limitations, and challenges of using
the proposed integrated method. In addition, the study demonstrates the feasibility of integrating the collected
data in ArcGIS for enhanced visualization of the inspection results.

1. Introduction 2028, an investment of $20.5 billion annually is needed, while only

Bridge infrastructure is vital to the functioning of economic
activities and a key to ensuring the social well-being of populations.
Bridges connect roadways and highways and facilitate everyday
mobility of people and goods over major obstacles such as water bodies
and congested intersections. Deteriorating bridge infrastructure has
become a social and economic concern in many countries in the world
because of the increased number of deteriorated bridges and the
significant drop in their physical condition. Deterioration of bridges is
due to aging, environmental and weather impacts, and increase in daily
traffic volume and truck weights. As of 2013, the average age of the
607,380 bridges in the United States was 42 years and one in nine of
these bridges are rated as structurally deficient. Approximately 210
million trips are taken daily across these deficient bridges in the 102
largest metropolitan regions. To eliminate bridge deficient backlog by
$12.8 billion is being spent [1]. In Canada, the National Highway
System (NHS) includes more than 8700 bridges and 60% of these are
more than 30 years old. Since 2007, almost 700 bridges on the NHS
have either been rebuilt or have undergone major rehabilitation.
Despite the government increased attention to the issue, aging bridge
infrastructure remains an issue as the number of bridges older than
50 years had increased from 870 to 1318 between 2006 and 2010.
Between 2005 and 2008, the total travel on the NHS increased by more
than 6%, while truck travel increased by approximately 9% [2]. It is
paramount to advance bridge inspection, maintenance and repair
programs to address the situation.
The Federal Highway Act in the United States established a
mandatory National Bridge Inspection program in 1968, which was
extended afterward to include all bridges on public roads. Two common
inspections were implemented as per the requirements of the act,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sabudabous@sharjah.ac.ae (S. Abu Dabous).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.006
Received 10 November 2015; Received in revised form 1 April 2017; Accepted 6 April 2017
Available online 14 April 2017
0926-5805/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Abu Dabous et al.
namely: 1) Routine Visual Inspection performed to assess functional
conditions and serviceability, and 2) In-Depth Inspection conducted to
inspect bridge elements from a close distance in order to identify
defects that are not detectable during the Routine Inspection [3]. To
perform bridge inspection, a team of inspectors visits the structure to
identify defects and distresses and to measure their extent. The
inspectors then prepare a report that includes condition ratings reflect-
ing the condition of each bridge element. The report typically includes
text descriptions of the detected defects and photos to document the
observations. The inspection process is subjective since the outcomes
rely heavily on the experience of the inspectors and on the conditions
under which the inspection process is completed. In a study to provide
measures for the overall accuracy and reliability of visual Routine and
In-Depth Inspections, the FHWA concluded that the In-Depth Visual
Inspection might not reveal deficiencies beyond those noted during the
Routine Inspection [4]. The study also concluded that the effectiveness
of the process relies on the overall thoroughness with which inspectors
completed the In-Depth tasks, time to complete inspection, structure
complexity and accessibility, tools used, and the number of annual
inspections completed [4]. Hence, deployment of technologies in bridge
inspection and data collection can enhance efficiency and reliability of
the bridge inspection process. Recent research effort aimed at auto-
mating the bridge inspection process. Zhu et al. [5] proposed a method
to inspect large-scale bridge columns using image-stitching techniques
that combine images of the different segments of a column into one
image. The method was primarily proposed for creating an automated
bridge condition assessment system. Callow et al. [6] proposed bridge
deterioration model based on hybrid optimization method to filter out
feasible condition ratings as an input for long-term prediction model-
ing. Adhikari et al. [7] developed an integrated crack quantification
method based on digital imaging to evaluate crack lengths and used
neural networks to predict the crack depth.
NDT procedures are useful for evaluating properties and character-
istics of materials and systems without causing damage. The NDT
technologies have been assessed and used in bridge condition assess-
ment. Recent developments in the field of NDT have reflected the need
for data management systems with the ability to integrate data from
several technologies and provide meaningful information to assist
bridge inspectors and decision makers [8]. The use of non-contact
and remote sensing technologies is relatively new in the field of bridge
inspection. Several NDT and remote sensing methods are considered for
implementation in bridge condition assessment, including Impact Echo
(IE), Infrared (IR) Thermography, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR),
LIDAR, and sounding (chain-drag) inspection. Specific studies evalu-
ated the potential and challenges of these technologies and concluded
that the technologies can be used to assess and monitor the condition of
bridge infrastructure and to improve the efficiency of the inspection,
repair, and maintenance efforts [9,10,11]. However, Oh et al. [12]
discussed that the above methods have been investigated mostly
through laboratory setups, but the practicality and field applicability
of these methods to actual in-service bridge elements cannot be easily
assessed because of environmental and weather-related factors. In
addition, Dinh et al. [13] argued that the GPR has only proven so far
to be indicators of potential damages. More studies are needed to
review the applicability and practicality of existing NDT technologies
and to make them more accepted in bridge inspection and condition
assessment practices. This paper introduces a method to integrate the IR
Thermography and the GPR technologies to rate bridge deck condition
and the paper discusses the implementation of the method on an actual
in-service bridge as a case study. Condition data collected from the case
study are embedded in ArcGIS as an enhanced storage and visualization
medium, especially since multiple layers of data need to be visualized
concurrently.
341
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
2. IR Thermography in bridge deck condition assessment
Any object with a temperature other than absolute zero
(− 273.15 °C or 0 K) radiates energy in form of visible radiation or IR
energy. Emitted IR energy with wavelengths between 2 and 15 μm is
invisible to human eye and requires thermal imaging technique to
detect it [14]. Thermal imaging converts thermal radiation pattern into
a visual image using special equipment known as IR camera. This
camera measures the intensity of energy being transmitted by an object
and records variations of the surface temperature as a thermal image.
The process of collecting and interpreting the data contained in the
thermal images is typically termed as IR Thermography. The IR
Thermography is available to engineers as a NDT technique for concrete
bridge inspection and evaluation. The basic principle behind using IR
Thermography in bridge inspection is based on analyzing the flow of
energy through an element being inspected to detect subsurface defects
and deterioration. The solar energy is the main heating source for
passive IR Thermography technique when applied to bridge structures.
ASTM D4788-03 [15] discusses the passive IR Thermography testing
standards for detecting delamination of the bridge deck. The standard
includes test method, environmental conditions, and equipment needed
to detect subsurface defects.
Washer et al. [16] discussed the application of IR Thermography to
detect bridge subsurface defects and differentiated between expected
results if the test is conducted during daytime or nighttime. The IR
Thermography mechanism to detect subsurface defects is based on heat
disruption inside the object under study. Delamination of concrete and
subsurface defects cause heat disruption inside the bridge element and
impact the warming up and the cooling of the element during daytime
and nighttime, respectively. During the daytime, the ambient tempera-
ture is typically high due to sunlight which increases the temperature of
the surface of the bridge deck. Delamination and internal fractures
resist heat transfer deeper into the subsurface. As a result, the parts of
the deck surface that lie above the delaminated areas warm up faster
and appear on the thermal image with higher thermal radiation. During
the night, the opposite happens. The surfaces above the delaminated
areas cool down faster and appear with lower radiation on the thermal
image. The difference in energy emitted during nighttime and daytime
for a bridge deck with subsurface delamination is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Advantages and limitations of the IR Thermography application in
bridge condition assessment are discussed in the literature [17,18]. The
main advantage is the ability to conduct the experiment and collect the
data with relatively low cost and easy to use the equipment. The passive
IR Thermography uses the solar energy as the heating source of the
bridge element which eliminates the need for external heat stimulus.
Limitations associated with utilizing the IR Thermography are mainly
related to interpreting the causes of the detected thermal variations on
the surface of the tested object. Factors such as dirt, moisture content,
oil spills, and staining can affect the thermal radiant emission of the
concrete surface. Also, environmental factors such as wind speed,
humidity, and ambient temperature can impact the experiment results.
Photographic images are taken at the same time and location as the IR
image. The main advantage of taking these images is to enable
identifying any surface conditions that potentially may impact the
thermal radiation emitted from the surface. For instance, in Fig. 2, some
surface moisture can be recognized on the regular image C which
caused thermal variances depicted by the thermal image D. As a result,
the thermal variances in image D are not related to subsurface defects.
Image A does not reflect any surface condition that impacts the thermal
radiation. Hence, the thermal radiation of image B is potentially caused
by the existence of subsurface defects in that area. Also, any irregular
environmental condition noted during the data collection process that
may impact the thermal radiation must be recorded and taken into
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 1. Intensity of energy emitted during day and night.
A B
Expected defect
Fig. 2. Images A and B show high thermal radiation due to potential defect and Images C and D show high thermal radiation due to surface conditions.
account while analyzing the collected data.
Due to the different conditions that impact the IR Thermography
especially when the process is applied to a real bridge structure under
the normal operating conditions, it is recommended to simultaneously
apply a second technique to assess the condition of the bridge. The GPR
is selected as the additional technique to assess the bridge element
conditions so the application of both technologies enhances the
confidence in the collected data and the obtained test results.
3. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
GPR is a well-developed, non-destructive technology that utilizes
high-frequency electromagnetic waves at the microwave frequency
range that can penetrate into an object and partially reflected back.
The reflected waves are collected and stored by the GPR. The GPR
system consists of three main units: the radar antenna, the control unit,
and the display unit. The control unit generates electromagnetic wave
pulses and transmits them through the antenna to the inspected object.
The transmitted waves penetrate through the object. A portion of the
waves is reflected back and the other portion continues penetrating
until the waves diminish. The reflected waves are received and
collected by the antenna and sent back to the control unit for processing
and storage. The collected data can be shown on the display unit [19].
GPR technology has been used in concrete and masonry bridge
elements inspection in general and mainly applied for bridge deck
342
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
C D
Dry area
condition assessment. To inspect a bridge deck, the GPR equipment is
used to transmit electromagnetic wave pulses to the deck and record the
reflections of the waves from the interfaces of the different layers of
material inside the deck. The waves are reflected due to the different
dielectric properties of the materials such as reinforcing rebars, air,
moisture, or any other anomalies such as delamination. The magnitude
of the reflections is controlled by a relative dielectric constant of each
material, which is the ratio of dielectric permittivity of the material
itself to the dielectric permittivity of the free space [20]. The GPR signal
interferes with a four-layer system of air, asphalt, concrete, and air,
producing three distinctive interlayer reflections. In addition, inter-
ference with the top and bottom layers of reinforcing steel reflects a
portion of the energy transmitted through the deck slab. The energy
reflected at various material interfaces is received by the GPR antenna
and produced as an output signal (A-scan). The output signal is
proportional to the amplitude of the reflected electromagnetic waves.
The process is repeated at a specific pulse frequency as the GPR
equipment is used to scan the deck along the survey paths. The output
of each scan is exported as a grayscale image, known as the GPR profile
or B-scan [12]. The GPR profile is analyzed to evaluate the subsurface
conditions of the bridge deck.
Interpreting the GPR data is the most critical step in the imple-
mentation of the GPR technology. Two main procedures can be used for
analyzing the GPR data: 1) numerical method (quantitative) and 2)
visual method (qualitative). Tarussov et al. [21] discussed and eval-
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 3. The proposed integrated bridge deck condition assessment method.
uated the two methods. The numerical method procedure typically
follows a standard test method specified by ASTM D6087-08 [22]. This
standard test describes two different GPR data processing methods that
employ reflection amplitudes. The first method calculates deterioration
based on the reflection amplitudes from the bridge deck bottom relative
to the reflection from the bridge deck surface. The second method
utilizes the relative reflection amplitudes from the top layer of
reinforcing steel to assess deterioration. The amplitude values are then
mapped together, and the variations among the values are used to
analyze the internal conditions of the inspected element. The results are
usually presented as a map of amplitude variations with colored
contour lines. On the other hand, the visual method is based on
performing a visual assessment of the GPR profiles by an analyst. The
analyst inspects the produced B-scans and identifies locations of signal
attenuation while analyzing possible factors that affect the pattern of
the profile. Tarussov et al. [21] reported that the numerical (quantita-
tive) procedure to analyze the GPR profile ignores important informa-
tion contained in the profile, including any visible anomaly, change in
reinforcing bar spacing, surface moisture, obstruction of the image
through an unimportant object, attenuation of image, and change in
slab thickness. Based on their research work and project experience,
they concluded that the visual analysis approach is more accurate for
mapping defects than numerical analysis. At the same time, it should be
recognized that the visual analysis depends on the experience and
343
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
judgment of the analyst, which can introduce subjectivity to the
process.
4. Integrated method for bridge deck condition assessment
The GPR and the IR Thermography techniques are typically applied
separately for bridge deck condition assessment [23]. As discussed each
technique has its own strengths and limitations. Combining capabilities
of both techniques in an integrated method can circumvent some of
these limitations. Limited work reported in the literature assessed the
potential of combining the technologies and validated the collected
results. Maser research [23,24] is among the limited attempts to
demonstrate how these technologies can be combined using a multi-
level survey approach. Maser [24] concluded that the combined IR and
GPR can maximize the capabilities of each method while compensating
for the limitations. However, the literature still lacks for studies that
elaborate on the design details of the integrated method, on the
environmental constraints, and on equipment and resources needed
to conduct the experiment. This paper discusses the details of an
integrated method that combines the IR and the GPR technologies to
enhance confidence in bridge deck defects identification and quantifi-
cation. Fig. 3 depicts the processes of the proposed integrated method.
The integrated method identifies locations and extent of defects using a
grid system. The system consists of square grids with a dimension of
S. Abu Dabous et al. Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354

Fig. 4. The inspected area of the bridge deck for the case study (left) and preparing the infrared camera for data collection (right).

(1 × 1) meter for the IR Thermography data collection and longitudinal

lines at a spacing of 0.3 m between the passes needed to develop the GPR
profile. To apply the method, the grid system consisting of the squares and
the longitudinal lines needs to be marked on the surface of the bridge
deck, and then the data collection procedures can start. To collect the data,
state-of-the-art equipment are applied in this research. The GPR equip-
ment used was SIR-3000 control unit with a 1600 MHz antenna (Model
5100B), manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems Inc., and the
thermal IR camera was FLIR ThermaCAM P60 with a built-in 24° lens.
The visual analysis is used to study the thermal images and the GPR
profiles and to extract the needed information related to the location and
extent of subsurface deterioration. The extracted information is used to
develop the condition maps drawings using AutoCAD. The condition maps
are combined to estimate the quantity of subsurface defects identified by
both technologies. The integrated results are used to rate the condition of
the bridge deck. Finally, the AutoCAD drawings for the condition maps
and the integrated results are input into ArcGIS software to enhance
visualization of the inspection results. Visualizing the results with ArcGIS
can give a full-scale representation of the condition of the inspected area.
This visualization can assist in recognizing defects over structurally critical
locations of the bridge element and can help in monitoring the propaga-
tion of these defects through subsequent inspections. Implementation
details of the proposed integrated method and its potential and limitations
are discussed throughout the following case study.

5. Case study

The integrated method proposed in this paper is implemented on a

case study of a concrete bridge located in Laval, Quebec, Canada. The
scope of the study was a 77 m2 section of the bridge deck. The section
was inspected using both IR Thermography and GPR technologies. A
detailed inspection using hammer sounding and visual inspection was
Fig. 5. Designed data collection schemes for IR images and GPR scan.
conducted on the same section of the bridge. Fig. 4 shows a satellite
image of the bridge structure in Google Earth and identifies the selected
section for the case study as a blue rectangle. That figure also includes a
photo taken during the calibration process of the infrared camera in while the asphalt overlay was still in place, as the GPR results are not
preparation for data collection. affected by the existence of an asphalt overlay. A visual inspection to
The selected section dimensions are 7 m wide and 11 m long. The identify the visible surface defects was completed on the selected
asphalt overlay was removed from the inspected area so that the IR section. Then, a detailed inspection using hammer sounding was
Thermography data collection could be performed on the concrete slab conducted to identify locations and quantify the extent of internal
of the bridge deck. The GPR data collection process was completed delamination. The results obtained from the IR and GPR testing thus

344
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 6. Thermograph map with marked areas.
Fig. 7. B-scan image of the second pass of the GPR test.
can be compared with the results of the visual and the hammer
sounding inspections. The grid system was applied to the study area.
It was divided into a grid of square areas of 1 m × 1 m, identifying a
total of 77 squares. Another longitudinal scheme of 24 passes at 0.3 m
spacing for the GPR scans was marked, as shown in Fig. 5. The circles in
the figure refer to the location of each thermal image taken and the
345
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
longitudinal lines refer to the GPR passes completed on the bridge deck.
5.1. IR Thermography results
Each square of the 77 squares on the grid was assigned an ID number
and the four edges of each of the squares were marked on the inspected
area. One thermal image was taken to cover the area defined by each square
on the grid, creating a total of 77 images. The thermograph map was built
by joining the edges of the collected images on their corresponding locations
as per the designed grid system and the ID numbers. Defining these areas
facilitated the process of importing the created thermograph map into
ArcGIS and enabled the coordinates to be defined. The bridge was closed for
traffic during data collection. Thermal IR images were collected in June
2014. The grid system required about 45 min to be specified on the selected
test area. The first IR image was taken at 10:49 AM. Sunrise on the data
collection day was at 5:05 AM. The test's timing was based on the ASTM
D4788-03 [15] recommendation for an optimum starting time within 4–6 h
after sunrise. Taking the IR thermal images and the regular photographs of
the test area required approximately 1 h. Data processing was performed
using special software called “FLIR Tools” provided by the IR camera's
vendor. The temperature range of each thermal image was set up to be
automatically adjusted by the camera so that the range could be calibrated
using the software. The software calibration is important to precisely
identify areas with higher thermal radiation that potentially correspond to
subsurface delamination. A thermal infrared map was formed by integrating
the 77 images. The map was created using Keynote software on a Mac OS
10.9.3, and then imported into AutoCAD.
Under optimal conditions, the ASTM D4788-03 standards consider
areas with a temperature difference in the range of ± 0.5 °C compared
to the surrounding areas to be delaminated. A processing method was
applied to analyze the collected field data and to identify delaminated
areas. This method is based on saving the IR images as Graphics
Interchange (.GIF) format. Using the .GIF format makes it possible to
zoom into the images and to highlight pixels with a specific colour. As
Air/Asphalt
Interface
Concrete Rebar
Interface
delaminated areas appear with a higher temperature, pixels with a
colour reflecting a higher temperature than that of the surrounding
areas can be highlighted to identify the bright areas on the thermal IR
image. The threshold values were subjectively selected on a case-by-
case basis for the different images and the different locations of the
tested area. This subjective selection step was deemed necessary mainly
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 8. Potential delamination locations as indicated by the visual analysis.
because of the various temperature ranges between the IR images taken
over the data collection periods from the different locations on the grid
and because of the different surface conditions over the tested area.
Fig. 6 shows the developed thermograph map with areas of high
thermal radiation identified, indicating potential subsurface defects at
these locations.
5.2. GPR results
The designed GPR longitudinal scheme was marked on the deck
surface. This scheme consists of lines that define the paths for the GPR
scans. The GPR device was fixed on a pushcart 0.13 m (5 in.) above the
surface of the deck. The scans were performed by pushing the cart over
the bridge deck over the designated 24 paths at walking speed of
approximately 1.6 km per hour. The first and last paths of the tested
area were marked at 0.46 m (1.5 ft) from each of the deck longitudinal
edges, and the internal paths were marked at 0.3 m (1 ft) spacing from
the adjacent paths, producing three scans per 0.91 m. The GPR data
collection process took approximately 1 h. The collected GPR data was
exported into an image format using RADAN software to produce B-
scan images. The visual method was then applied to review the
produced images and to interpret the results. High signal attenuation
locations were identified, reflecting the locations of potential defects.
Fig. 7 shows a sample of an analyzed B-scan image representing the
GPR data collected during the second pass of the test. At the vertical
scale, the zero is the GPR antenna level and the 13 cm (5 in.) is the level
of the asphalt surface. The thickness of the asphalt layer is around 5 cm
(2 in.), laid over the 38 cm (15 in.) thickness reinforced concrete deck.
346
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
The main reinforcing steel is at the level of 30 cm (12 in.) of this
vertical scale. The red rectangles in the figure indicate the results of the
image visual analysis. The high signal attenuation at the level of the
reinforcing steel occurred from 43.9 m (144 ft) to 45.7 m (150 ft), and
from 52.7 m (173 ft) to 53.9 m (177 ft), identifying the potential
delamination on these segments of the longitudinal GPR pass. The
process of defining locations of high signal attenuation was repeated for
each of the 24 passes by inspecting all the profiles and identifying
locations of potential delamination.
The locations of the expected defects were drawn in AutoCAD as
lines. Each line corresponds to the start and the end of the GPR scan
where the signal was attenuated, reflecting the potential existence of
subsurface delamination. Fig. 8 presents an AutoCAD drawing with the
results of the 24 passes of the GPR scans. The total time needed to
analyze the GPR profiles and prepare the AutoCAD drawings was close
to 7 h. The visual analysis required slightly more than 5 h.
The numerical analysis of the GPR data was also performed to
compare this technique results with the results obtained from the visual
analysis. The numerical technique is based on detecting anomalies
through analyzing the amplitude of the GPR reflection at different
interfaces within the subsurface. Subsurface moisture, steel corrosion
and concrete delamination affect the amplitude of the GPR reflections.
Therefore, potential of deterioration can be detected by analyzing the
variation of the reflection amplitudes obtained from the signal attenua-
tion at the level of the reinforcing steel. RADAN software was used to
export the amplitude data files. The scan files were uploaded to the
software and the coordinate of each scan starting point and the length
of the scan line were specified. The amplitude analysis option was
selected and the output file was designated. Once the “Calculate”
button was clicked, the software performed the analysis and produced
the output file. The recorded results include the location of the different
points as x and y coordinates and the depth-corrected amplitude in
decibel. The produced data was used to develop a contour map of the
reflection amplitudes versus the spatial location of the bridge deck
tested area. Each level of the reflection amplitude is represented with
one colour so the different colours indicate the different levels of the
signal attenuation at the level of the reinforcing steel as shown in Fig. 9.
In this map, the lower the reflection amplitude value, the higher the
chance of reinforcing steel corrosion.
The results of the visual and numerical analysis are superimposed to
highlight potential deterioration detected by both techniques as shown
in Fig. 10. Areas with low reflection amplitude values in this figure
represent high possibility of including steel corrosion contamination.
The concrete delamination is triggered by the corrosion of steel. This is
due to the fact that corrosion of reinforcing steel is typically associated
with an increase in its volume. The increase in volume induces internal
stresses on the concrete and causes the internal concrete delamination.
A subjective threshold value of −4 dB is selected for this pilot study to
indicate the areas with extended corrosion of reinforcing steel that can
have high potential of concrete delamination.
Based on the numerical analysis results and using the threshold
value of −4 dB, Fig. 11 identifies areas with potential delamination.
The figure also shows areas detected by the visual analysis technique. It
can be noted that the visual analysis has detected more than 90% of the
areas that have low amplitude value and eliminated areas where signal
attenuation is due to other factors. The numerical analysis and the
development of the related figures required around 4 h.
5.3. Integrated results
The maps of the IR and GPR results are superimposed and any
resulting non-coinciding areas eliminated. The final coinciding areas
are selected to identify potential delamination locations, and maps of
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 9. Contour map of the reflection amplitudes at the level of the reinforcing steel obtained by the numerical analysis.
these defects are drawn in AutoCAD. Fig. 12A shows the IR Thermo-
graphy map results where areas of high thermal radiation are identified
in red over the inspected part of the bridge deck. The area in purple
indicates extensive deterioration of the deck surface, to the degree that
reinforcing steel is exposed and appears in the IR images. This defective
area is included by default in the map. Fig. 12B is a map of the GPR
results. The locations of high signal attenuations indicating potential
defects are extracted from each GPR profile and reflected as a blue line
representing their potential locations. Fig. 12C is a map of the non-
coinciding areas detected by only one of the two technologies, and
Fig. 12D shows the coinciding areas reflecting the potential defects
detected by both IR Thermography and GPR. Overlapping areas and
areas in close proximity of 0.5 m or less are identified as being detected
by both technologies. The two technologies identify defect locations
using indirect measures; one uses thermal radiation intensity and the
other is based on reflected energy pulses. The slight differences in
detecting the location of the same defective areas are attributed to the
subjective judgments by the analysts when interpreting data collected
from both experiments.
347
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
To compare the integrated IR and the GPR results with another
testing method, the same test area of the bridge was inspected by an
experienced inspector. The green areas in Fig. 13 show the subsurface
defect locations collected through a detailed inspection survey using
hammer sounding test completed by an experienced inspector. The
inspector detected potential delamination locations by tapping on the
deck surface and identifying areas where a dull or hollow sound was
detected. In addition, the inspector carried out a visual inspection
survey of the same area to identify and allocate surface deterioration
features such as spalling and cracking. These surface features, identified
after the removal of the asphalt overlay, are indicated in gray as shown
in Fig. 13. This Figure demonstrates that surface areas above the
locations of subsurface delamination do not necessarily have visible
surface deterioration and the surface areas with visible deterioration
may not have internal delamination directly underneath them.
The defect locations identified by the hammer sounding test are
superimposed on the results of the integrated method as shown in
Fig. 14. The collected results indicate that the defective areas identified
by the GPR or the IR individually coincide with the areas identified by
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 10. Results obtained from both the quantitative and the qualitative analysis techniques.
the hammer sounding test in specific locations, while in other locations
the individual technologies identified areas that are not detected by the
hammer sounding. The results of the GPR and IR as standalone
techniques (Fig. 12A and B) coincides with areas identified by the
detailed hammer sounding by around 85% and 75%, respectively.
However, the main drawback of using each technique individually is
identifying areas that may not include subsurface deterioration. The
proposed method in this paper focuses on areas detected by both
technologies simultaneously and recognizes them as areas with higher
potential for subsurface delamination. It is evident that the IR and the
GPR integration can maximize the capabilities of each technology while
compensating for their limitations [24].
Table 1 summarizes the calculated total and reduced areas of defects
detected by the IR, and the GPR, the detailed hammer sounding test,
and the visual inspection. The table also includes the percentage of the
defective area compared to the whole area of the inspected bridge.
The IR results in Table 1 refer to the delaminated areas identified in
the thermograph map given in Fig. 12A, while the reduced IR results
refer to areas of defects identified after eliminating the non-coinciding
areas that were not identified by both the IR and the GPR. Areas
detected by both technologies are shown in Fig. 12D. The GPR results
refer to the total areas of defects detected in the GPR map, shown in
348
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
Fig. 12B. The reduced GPR results refer to the areas of defects detected
by the GPR after eliminating non-coinciding results and clustered into
best-fit splines areas, shown in Fig. 15B. The hammer sounding results
refer to areas of subsurface delamination detected by this method and
the visual inspection results are the surface defects identified visually
on the surface of the deck.
5.4. Condition rating
The condition rating of a bridge element is typically assigned based
on the total defective quantity of the element. According to Colorado
Department of Transportation [25], concrete decks and slabs can be
rated based on the percentage of defective areas, as shown in Table 2.
The total defective area detected by the proposed integrated method is
used to develop the condition rating of the bridge deck as per the
guidelines provided in Table 2. Table 3 shows the condition rating for
the analyzed segment of the bridge deck assessed selected based on the
percentage of defects identified by the integrated method and the
detailed hammer sounding.
The integrated method suggests that the defective area ranges
between 12% and 16.2% of the inspected area. Both the integrated
method and the detailed hammer sounding produced an overall condi-
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 11. Potential delaminated areas detected by both the quantitative and the qualitative analysis techniques.
tion rating of four for the inspected area, which corresponds to the
second worst case a bridge deck can attain. Compared to the detailed
inspection, the reduced GPR and the reduced IR Thermography identi-
fied 0.9% and 5.1% more defective areas, respectively. The proposed
integrated method can provide acceptable results comparable to the
traditional inspection practice and do so more efficiently, i.e. it can be
performed in less time. The proposed method requires data collection to
be completed on-site and then analyzed later in an office, while
traditional inspection requires inspectors to assess the situation on-site
and add their judgments to the report during the inspection. Data
collection with the aid of NDT technologies can be robust if completed
following a strict procedure and produce consistent results reflecting the
actual subsurface condition of a bridge deck. Ultimately, applying the
integrated method will reduce the time needed to complete the inspec-
tion, which can enhance the safety of the inspection team by minimizing
potential accidents that inspectors may encounter during the inspection
exercise and lead to more consistent results. Prior to the case study, this
bridge was designated for demolition based on previous reports and
studies completed by the Ministry of Transportation. The reports
indicated that the bridge was in poor condition and it was inadvisable
to keep it in service. The bridge was demolished two weeks after
completing the data collection for this case study.
349
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
5.5. Discussion of results
The IR Thermography detects shallow delamination, while the GPR
indirectly detects possible delamination in the area of high attenuation.
The GPR is more efficient in identifying areas with high moisture and
chlorides, reflecting the corrosive environment. The IR Thermography
is a sensitive process and can be impacted by several surface-related
factors such as dirt, moisture content, oil spills, and staining that affect
the thermal radiant emission of the concrete and thus the IR thermal
images. In addition, the IR Thermography test results could be affected
by several environmental factors, including wind speed, humidity,
weather, and ambient temperature. The GPR and IR Thermography
results indicated the possible existence of delamination in around 25%
and 17% of the examined area, respectively. The hammer sounding test
detected delamination in 11% of the same area. The IR and the GPR
individually identified additional areas beyond the delaminated areas
identified by the hammer sounding test. This is mainly due to the above
factors affecting the results collected by each technique. The signifi-
cance of combining the results of the two technologies is to enhance
confidence in the identified areas indicating the possible existence of
delamination. The reduced areas identified by both technologies were
16.2 and 12% for the GPR and the IR, respectively. The integrated
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 12. Maps of defects in AutoCAD: A) IR results, B) GPR results, C) eliminated parts, and D) integrated method results.
system results are comparable to the hammer sounding test results due
to eliminating the areas identified by one technique but do not
correspond to subsurface delamination.
Analysis of the case study identified specific limitations associated
with the proposed integrated method. The method eliminates any area
that is not detected by both technologies. Eliminated areas require more
investigation to confirm that they are free of delamination. Additional
evaluation methods such as coring, half-cell potential, chloride analysis
or other analysis techniques are required to detect potential steel
corrosion and delamination locations to compare to the locations
detected by the proposed integrated method. Applying the proposed
method to additional cases will help to statically validate its accuracy.
The study followed standard ASTM procedure for IR Thermography and
other procedures from the literature to conduct the tests and to analyze
the collected data. The ASTM D4788–03 standard procedure for passive
350
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
IR Thermography testing requires optimal environmental conditions to
allow for the precise identification of delaminated areas. These condi-
tions include clean and unspoiled surfaces that have been dried for at
least 24 h prior to testing [15]. In this study, the effort was made to
conduct the IR Thermography test within these recommended optimal
conditions. Based on the completed data collection experience, it is
realized that these optimal conditions are difficult to fully attain when
the test procedures are applied to a real life case study. The IR
Thermography test was completed after removing the asphalt overlay.
An initial test was conducted when the asphalt overlay was in place.
However, the test failed and the collected images did not detect any
thermal variation, and so the IR Thermography test then conducted
after removing the asphalt overlay. Hence, the proposed method
application is limited to concrete bridge decks without asphalt wearing
surfaces. In addition, the applied passive IR Thermography technique
S. Abu Dabous et al. Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354

Fig. 14. Defects location map: Red and purple areas from IR, blue lines from GPR, and
green from the detailed hammer sounding test. (For interpretation of the references to
Fig. 13. Defects location map showing locations of surface defects detected by visual
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
inspection in gray and locations of subsurface defects detected by hammer sounding test
in green. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1
required solar energy as the main heating source. The IR Thermography Estimated defective areas.
test was applied to the top surface of the bridge deck during the
Map Full map area Defective area % defective
daytime and technique was not assessed for direct application to the
bottom of the slab. IR results 77.11 m 2
13.22 m 2
17.1%
The accuracy of the GPR test results depends on the analysis method Reduced IR results 77.11 m2 12.52 m2 16.2%
GPR results 77.11 m2 19.32 m2 25.1%
used to interpret the collected B-scan images. In the proposed method
Reduced GPR results 77.11 m2 9.24 m2 12.0%
and the case study, the visual analysis is used. The visual analysis main Hammer sounding (delamination) 77.11 m2 8.54 m2 11.1%
limitation is linked to the subjectivity in the analyst judgments while Visual inspection (surface 77.11 m2 13.59 m2 17.6%
identifying locations and extent of defects. The GPR test results may features)
also be affected by specific factors related to the data collection process, IR results matching the hammer 77.11 m2 6.41 m2 8.31%
sounding
such as variation of the pavement thickness, or rebar arrangements and 2 2
GPR results matching the hammer 77.11 m 7.26 m 9.42%
spacing. Furthermore, moisture or debris could absorb some of the sounding
electric pulses generated by the radar because of their dielectric
properties. These factors can affect interpretation the visual of the B-
scans data, and so other techniques such as digital imaging should be ment, analysis, storage, retrieval, display and update of geographic
considered when analyzing the collected data. Despite the limitations information. The system is developed and maintained by ESRI
identified when applying the test procedures to a real bridge structure (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.). The GIS is a collection
and the other limitations related to data analysis, the integrated IR of maps, globes, and computer models along with tools for data
Thermography and GPR technologies can be considered to identify retrieving and analysis. A GIS map is made of layers that contain
locations of subsurface delamination and estimate the extent of different types of features and information. Features in GIS have
delamination with acceptable accuracy. The optical nature of IR different properties including surfaces, sizes, numeric values and
Thermography and the use of electromagnetic energy pulses in the locations [26]. The ArcGIS is an integrated collection of the GIS
GPR enable the timely and efficient scanning of large concrete bridge software products developed to deliver scalable and comprehensive
decks. GIS platform supporting single or multiple users. Bridge inspection can
be enhanced by introducing ArcGIS software for data storage, analysis
6. ArcGIS for data storage and analysis and inspection results visualization and reporting since the system has
advanced capabilities to create and share interactive visual maps. For
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a system for the manage- bridge condition assessment, layers can be designed to store and

351
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 15. Best fit GPR areas A) GPR linear results B) GPR areas results with best-fit splines.
Table 2
Condition state based on defective area (Colorado Department of Transportation [25]).
Condition state Case description
1 No spalls, delamination, or temporary patches on top surface
2 Combined areas of defects is 2% or less
3 Combined areas of defects is more than 2% or less than 10%
4 Combined areas of defects is more than 10% or less than 25%
5 Combined areas of defects is more than 25%
Table 3
Condition rating.
Test type % area defective Condition rating
Reduced IR Thermography 16.2% 4 The effectiveness of bridge visual inspection relies on the overall
Reduced GPR 12% 4 thoroughness with which inspectors can complete the inspection tasks,
Hammer sounding (delamination) 11.1% 4
retrieve bridge information and inspection results, including a layer for
the bridge geographic location, a layer for the results of each NDT
technology and a layer for visual and detailed inspection results. The
system can be used to illustrate information in visual representation
including the collected data and the inspection results by displaying one
layer of interest or a combination of layers simultaneously. In addition,
single or multiple users can use the system to retrieve and visualize the
inspection results and data and updates can stream into the system
continuously.
The case study data and the analysis results were input into the
ArcGIS. The inspected area was geo-referenced in ArcGIS by importing
the coordinates of the boundaries of the area from Google Earth. Eight
layers were used in ArcGIS. The first and the second layers are the base
layers, which represent the both the bridge structure and the inspected
part of the bridge deck. Fig. 16 shows these two layers. The second
352
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
layer displayed on the left side of the figure represents the inspected
part of the bridge, where the asphalt layer was removed. This map was
produced by combining all the photographic taken images taken while
performing the IR Thermography test. The rest of the layers are
superimposed over these two layers.
The third, fourth, and fifth layers are the GPR results map, the IR
results map, and the detailed inspection results, respectively. Any of the
layers can be deselected to focus on the details of one or two layers if
required. Fig. 17 shows the maps of the integrated system, formed by
selecting the GPR and the IR maps and deselecting the detailed hammer
sounding test results and Fig. 18 displays the maps of the integrated
system with the detailed hammer sounding test results.
7. Summary and conclusion
the time allowed to complete the inspection, inspector's familiarity with
the access equipment, the inspected structure's complexity, and the
overall accessibility. NDT and noncontact technologies have the
potential to be used to monitor the condition of bridge infrastructure
and to improve the efficiency of the traditional inspection process. The
current research demonstrates an integrated method combining the IR
Thermography and GPR results to improve the identification and
quantification of subsurface delamination of bridge decks. The pro-
posed method was implemented in a case study of a bridge in the city of
Laval in Canada to evaluate its potential and to identify the limitations.
An infrared camera was used to identify temperature variations in the
inspected bridge deck, and GPR high signal attenuation was used to
develop the GPR profiles. The collected results were integrated to
identify coinciding areas detected by both technologies. A bridge
inspector completed a visual inspection and hammer sounding tests
over the same area examined by the integrated method. The results
were comparable and the integrated method produced consistent
condition rating with the condition rating produced based on the
S. Abu Dabous et al. Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354

Fig. 16. ArcGIS snapshot — bridge map.

Fig. 17. ArcGIS snapshot — integrated system.

inspector assessment. The data collected using the above technologies
were generated in a map format using AutoCAD to identify the defects'
locations and extent. The produced maps were imported into ArcGIS
and demonstrated in layers for an improved representation and
visualization of the bridge inspection results.
The present study confirms earlier findings regarding the potential
of the NDT and noncontact technologies in the areas of bridge
inspection and condition rating and contributes additional evidence
that suggests the integration of multiple technologies can enhance the
accuracy and reliability of the collected data, mainly in indicating the
subsurface delamination of concrete bridge decks. The results clearly
indicate the potential benefits of integrating IR and GPR in bridge
inspection, an advance that could eliminate the limitations of tradi-
tional bridge inspection practices related mainly to the uneven thor-
oughness of the inspection exercise and the subjectivity of inspectors'
assessments. Some specific limitations related to the deployment of the
above technologies were recognized while conducting the tests proce-
dures on a real structure and upon analyzing the obtained results. The
NDT methods are ideal within a controlled environment. It is difficult to
attain fully optimal conditions when applying NDT to a real structure in
an open environment. Data interpretation requires experience with and
understanding of the technologies. The proposed method requires
further validation under different environmental and test conditions.
More studies are needed to further validate the potential of the
integration of IR and GPR under different conditions with several cases.
Finally, research and development in automating the production and

353
S. Abu Dabous et al.
Fig. 18. ArcGIS snapshot — integrated system and detailed hammer sounding results.
the analysis of the thermal maps and the GPR profiles would be
significant advances in the area of bridge condition rating.
References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card for America's Infrastructure.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org, (2013).
[2] Transport Canada, Transportation in Canada 2011 — Comprehensive Review,
Ministry of Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa, Canada, 2011https://
www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/policy/Transportation_in_Canada_2011.pdf.
[3] B.A. Graybeal, B.M. Phares, D.D. Rolander, M. Moore, G. Washer, Visual inspection
of highway bridges, J. Nondestruct. Eval. 21 (3) (2003) 67–83, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1022508121821.
[4] M. Moore, B.M. Phares, B. Graybeal, D. Rolander, G. Washer, Reliability of visual
inspection for highway bridges, vol. I: final report, FHWA-RD-01-020, 2001.
[5] Z. Zhu, S. German, I. Brilakis, Detection of large-scale concrete columns for
automated bridge inspection, Autom. Constr. 19 (8) (2010) 1047–1055, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.07.016.
[6] D. Callow, J. Lee, M. Blumenstein, H. Guan, Y.C. Loo, Development of hybrid
optimisation method for artificial intelligence based bridge deterioration mod-
el—feasibility study, Autom. Constr. 31 (2013) 83–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2012.11.016.
[7] R.S. Adhikari, O. Moselhi, A. Bagchi, Image-based retrieval of concrete crack
properties for bridge inspection, Autom. Constr. 39 (2014) 180–194, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.06.011.
[8] K. Vaghefi, T. Ahlborn, D. Harris, C. Brooks, Combined imaging technologies for
concrete bridge deck condition assessment, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (4) (2013)
04014102, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000465.
[9] K. Vaghefi, R. Oats, D. Harris, T. Ahlborn, C. Brooks, K.A. Endsley, et al., Evaluation
of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment,
J. Bridg. Eng. 17 (6) (2012) 886–895, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-
5592.0000303.
[10] T. Ahlborn, R. Shuchman, L. Sutter, C. Brooks, D. Harris, J. Burns, et al., An
Evaluation of Commercially Available Remote Sensors for Assessing Highway
Bridge Condition, Michigan Tech., 2010.
[11] O. Abudayyeh, I. Abdel-Qader, S. Nabulsi, J. Weber, Using non-destructive
technologies and methods in bridge management systems, J. Urban Technol. 11 (1)
(2004) 63–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1063073042000341989.
[12] T. Oh, S.H. Kee, R. Arndt, J. Popovics, J. Zhu, Comparison of NDT methods for
assessment of a concrete bridge deck, J. Eng. Mech. 139 (3) (2012) 305–314,
354
Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 340–354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000441.
[13] K. Dinh, T. Zayed, F. Romero, A. Tarussov, Method for analyzing time-series GPR
data of concrete bridge decks, J. Bridg. Eng. 20 (6) (2014) 04014086, , http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000679.
[14] C.A. Balaras, A.A. Argiriou, Infrared thermography for building diagnostics, Energy
Build. 34 (2) (2002) 171–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)
00105-0.
[15] ASTM, D4788-03, Standard Test Method for Detecting Delaminations in Bridge
Decks Using Infrared Thermography, American Society for Testing and Materials,
2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D4788-03.
[16] G. Washer, N. Bolleni, R. Fenwick, Thermographic imaging of subsurface dete-
rioration in concrete bridges, Trans. Res. Rec. 2201 (1) (2010) 27–33, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3141/2201-04.
[17] M.R. Clark, D.M. McCann, M.C. Forde, Application of infrared thermography to the
non-destructive testing of concrete and masonry bridges, NDT & E Int. 36 (4) (2003)
265–275, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00060-9.
[18] K. Vaghefi, H. Silva, D. Harris, T. Ahlborn, Application of Thermal IR imagery for
concrete bridge inspection, PCI National Bridge Conference, Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2011.
[19] N. Gucunski, A. Maher, H. Ghasemi, Condition assessment of concrete bridge decks
using a fully autonomous robotic NDE platform, Bridge Struct. Assess. Des. Constr. 9
(23) (2013) 123–130, http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BRS-130058.
[20] C.L. Barnes, J.F. Trottier, Ground-penetrating radar for network-level concrete deck
repair management, J. Transp. Eng. 126 (3) (2000) 257–262, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2000)126:3(257).
[21] A. Tarussov, M. Vandry, A. De La Haza, Condition assessment of concrete structures
using a new analysis method: ground-penetrating radar computer-assisted visual
interpretation, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 1246–1254, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.05.026.
[22] ASTM, D6087-08, Standard Test Method for Evaluating Asphalt-covered Concrete
Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 2008.
[23] K.R. Maser, Integration of ground penetrating radar and infrared thermography for
bridge deck condition testing, Mater. Eval. 66 (11) (2008).
[24] K.R. Maser, Integration of ground penetrating radar and infrared thermography for
bridge deck condition evaluation, Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering
Conference, Nantes, France, June 30th–July 3rd, 2009.
[25] Colorado Department of Transportation, Pontis Inspection Coding Guide. https://
www.codot.gov/library/bridge/inspection-code-guide/pontis.pdf/view, (1998).
[26] T. Ormsby, Getting to Know ArcGIS Desktop: Basics of ArcView, ArcEditor, and
ArcInfo, second ed., ESRI Inc., California, 2004.