1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 14, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 14 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of three ground‐penetrating radar case studies applied to indoor, bridge deck, and pier construction types in Turkey. In these studies, 270‐MHz and 1600‐MHz anten‐nas were employed to determine the ability limits for construction materials and diagnostic problems associated with the materials. In addition, the importance of the selected survey direction was tested during measurement. Analysing the significance of the migration technique during the data processing stage was another important goal of these case studies. The first case study analyses the indoor applications (e.g., house, villa, and fabric) of ground‐penetrating radar and aims to identify possible cracks, structural defects, and corrosion damage. The second case applies ground‐penetrating radar to a bridge deck. The third case investigates pier construction by establishing the layout of the construction materials. Identifying possible defects, including structural problems within the pier structure, was another goal. These case studies provide interesting results in terms of physically characterizing the concrete structure and the locations of rebar and slab conditions; the work also reveals the moisture and corrosion effects inside the construction materials on indoor, bridge and pier applications of ground‐penetrating radar.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
2015-06-01
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlaniA.M., AboutalebiM. and KilicG.2013. Applications of ground penetrating radar (GPR) in bridge deck monitoring and assessment. Journal of Applied Geophysics97, 45–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AlaniA.M., AboutalebiM. and KilicG.2014. Integrated health assessment strategy using NDT for reinforced concrete bridges. NDT&E International61, 80–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AlongiA.J., ClemenaG.G. and CadyP.D.1993. Condition evaluation of concrete bridges relative to reinforcement corrosion. Vol. 3: Method of Evaluating the Condition of Asphalt‐Covered Decks, Rep. SHRP‐S‐325. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. AnnanA.P.2003. Ground Penetrating Radar Principles, Procedures & Application. Wiley, Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. AnnanA.P.2005. Ground penetrating radar. In: Near Surface Geophysics (ed. D.K.Buttler ), SEG.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. AnnanA.P.2009. Electromagnetic principles of ground penetrating radar. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BarnesC.L. and TrottierJ.F.2004. Effectiveness of ground penetrating radar in predicting deck repair quantities. Journal of Infrastructure Systems10, 69–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BarnesC.L. and TrottierJ.F.2009. Phenomena and conditions in bridge decks that confound ground‐penetrating radar. Data Analysis Transport Research Record1795, 57–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BarnesC.L., TrottierJ.F. and Forgeron D. 2010. Improved concrete bridge deck evaluation using GPR by accounting for signal depth‐amplitude effects. NDT&E International41, 427–433.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. BenedettoA.2010. Water content evaluation in unsaturated soil using GPR signal analysis in the frequency domain. Journal of Applied Geophysics71(1), 26‐35.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. BenedettoA.2013. Three dimensional approach for tracking cracks in bridges using GPR. Journal of Applied Geophysics97, 37–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. BenedettoA., ManacordaG., SimiA. and TostiF.2012. Perspectives in bridges inspection using GPR. Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation27(3), 239‐251.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. BenedettoA. and PensaS.2006. Indirect diagnosis of pavement structural damages using surface GPR reflection techniques. Journal of Applied Geophysics62(2), 107‐123.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. CafforioC., PratiC. and RoccaF.1991. SAR data focussing using seismic migration techniques. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing27, 194–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. CassidyN.J.2009. Electrical and magnetic properties of rocks, soils and fluids. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ChenH.L.R., HalabeU.B., SamiZ. and BhandarkarV.1994. Impulse radar reflection waveforms of simulated reinforced concrete bridge decks. Materials Evaluation52, 1388–1392.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ChungT., CarterC.R., MasliwecT. and ManningD.G.1992. Impulse radar evaluation of asphalt‐covered bridge decks. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems28, 125–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ConyersL.B. and GoodmanD.1997. Ground‐Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Sage Publications, California, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. DanielsD.J.2009. Antennas. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GarciazJ‐L. and PerrinJ‐L.2002. Application du radar géophysique à l’évaluation des variations de permittivité et de résistivité de surface des matériaux: conception d’une antenne spécifique et traitement de données. Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées239, 65–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. GazdagJ.1978. Wave equation migration with the phase‐shift method. Geophysics43, 1342–1351.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GoodmanD., PiroS., NishimuraY., SchneiderK., HongoH., HigashiN. et al. 2009. GPR archaeometry. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. HalabeU.B.1990. Condition assessment of reinforced concrete structures using electromagnetic waves. PhD thesis. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. HalabeU.B., MaserK.R. and KauselE.A.1993a. Condition assessment of reinforced concrete structures using electromagnetic waves. ACI Materials Journal92, 511–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. HalabeU.B., SotoodehniaA., MaserK.R. and KauselE.A.1993b. Modeling of the electromagnetic properties of concrete. ACI Materials Journal90, 552–563.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. HalabeU.B., ChennH., BhandarkarV. and SamiZ.1997. Detection of sub‐surface anomalies in concrete bridge decks using ground penetrating radar. ACI Materials Journal94, 396–408.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. HoltF.B. and EalesJ.W.1997. Nondestructive evaluation of pavements. Concrete International9, 41–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. HubbardS.S., ZhangJ., MonteiroPJ.M., PetersonJ.E. and RubinY2003. Experimental detection of reinforcing bar corrosion using nondestructive geophysical techniques. ACI Materials Journal100, 107–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. HugenschmidtJ., KalogeropoulosA., SoldovieriF. and PriscoG.2010. Processing strategies for high‐resolution GPR concrete inspections. NDT&E International43, 334–342.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. KoppenjanS.2009. Ground penetrating radar systems and design. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. LaiW.L., KindT. and WiggenhauserH.2011. Using ground penetrating radar and time‐frequency analysis to characterize construction materials. NDT&E International44, 111–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. LaurensS.2001. Aptitude de la technique radar à la caractérisation du béton d’enrobage; Aide au diagnostic de la corrosion des armatures. Ph.D. thesis. Sherbrooke University.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. LaurensS., BalayssacJ.P., RhaziJ. and ArliguieG.2002. Influence of concrete moisture upon radar waveform. Materials and Structures35(248), 198‐203.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. MaserK.R.1989. New Technology for Bridge Deck Assessment, Phase I Report, Rep. No. FHWA‐NETC‐89‐01. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Transportation Studies, Federal Highways Administration, McLean, VA.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. MoreyR.M.1998. Ground Penetrating Radar for Evaluating Subsurface Conditions for Transportation Facilities, Synth. of Highway Practice 255, NCHRP. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. MunsonJr.D.C., O’BrienJ.D. and JenkinsW.K.1983. A tomographic formulation of spotlight‐mode synthetic aperture radar. Proceedings of the IEEE17, 917–925.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. NevilleA.M. and BrooksJ.J.1987. Concrete Technology. Longman Scientific & Technical, England.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. OlhoeftG.R.1998. Electrical, magnetic and geometric properties that determine ground penetrating radar performance. 7th International Conference on Ground‐penetrating Radar, 177–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. ÖzdemirC., DemirciS., YigitE. and KavakA.2007. A hyperbolic summation method to focus B‐scan ground penetrating radar images: An experimental study with a stepped frequency system. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters49, 671–676.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. ÖzdemirC., DemirciS., YigitE. and YilmazB.2014. A review on migration methods in B‐scan ground penetrating radar imaging. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2014, 16.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. RhaziJ., DousO. and LaurensS.2007. A new application of the GPR technique to reinforced concrete bridge decks. Proceedings of the 4th Middle East NDT Conference and Exhibition, Kingdom of Bahrain.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. RobertA.1998. Dielectric permittivity of concrete between 50 Mhz and 1 Ghz and GPR measurements for building materials evaluation. Journal of Applied Geophysics40, 89–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. SaarenketoT.1992. Ground penetrating radar applications in road design and construction in Finnish Lapland. Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper15, 161–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. SaarenketoT.2006. Electrical properties of road materials and subgrade soils and the use of ground penetrating radar in traffic infrastructure surveys. PhD Thesis. University of Oulu.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. SaarenketoT.2009. NDT transportation. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SaarenketoT. and ScullionT.1994. Ground Penetrating Radar Applications on Roads and Highways, Research Report 1923‐2F. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. SaarenketoT. and ScullionT.2000. Road evaluation with ground penetrating radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics43, 119–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. SbartaiZ.M., LaurensS., BalayssacJ.P., ArliguieG. and BallivyG.2006. Ability of the direct wave of radar ground‐coupled antenna for NDT of concrete structures. NDT&E International39, 400–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. SchneiderW.A.1978. Integral formulation for migration in two and three dimensions. Geophysics43, 49–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. ScullionT., LauC. and ChenY.1994. Implementation of the Texas Ground Penetrating Radar System, Res. Rep. 1233‐1. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. ShariA., MillardS.G. and BungeyJ.H.1997. Coupling effects on GPR surveys. In British Journal of NDT, International Conference on Non‐Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering: NDT‐CE ‘97, pp. 247–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. SoldovieriF., PersicoP., UtsiE. and UtsiV.2006. The application of inverse scattering techniques with ground penetrating radar to the problem of rebar location in concrete. NDT&E International39, 602–607.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. StoltR.H.1978. Migration by Fourier transform. Geophysics43, 23–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. UtsiV. and UtsiE.2004. Measurement of reinforcement bar depths and diameters in concrete. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Van DamR.L., HendrickxJ.M.H., CassidyN.J., NorthR.E., DoganM. and BorchersB.2013. Effects of magnetite on high‐frequency ground‐penetrating radar. Geophysics78, H1–H11.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. ViriyametanontK., LaurensaS., KlyszaG., BalayssacaJ.P. and ArliguieaG.2008. Radar survey of concrete elements: Effect of concrete properties on propagation velocity and time zero. NDT&E International41, 198–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. YilmazO.2001. Seismic data analysis. In: SEG Series: Investigations in Geophysics, no. 10 (ed. S.MDherty ).
     [Google Scholar]
  58. YigitE., DemirciS., ÖzdemirC. and KavakA.2007. A synthetic aperture radar‐based focusing algorithm for B‐scan ground penetrating radar imagery. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters49, 2534–2540.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
Loading
Applications of the GPR Technique to indoor, bridge deck and pier structures: case studies in Turkey
Near Surface Geophysics 14, 156 (2016); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015040
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error