0% found this document useful (0 votes)
43 views28 pages

Al-Quadi Paper

This document evaluates the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to measure the thicknesses of layers in flexible pavements. GPR works well in some situations but not others due to limitations like low dielectric contrasts between layers, material losses from moisture, and thin layers being below the GPR's resolution. The document presents analysis of GPR data collected from different pavement sites that demonstrates GPR can accurately measure layer thicknesses of newly constructed pavements using simple data collection, but may require specialized analysis for in-service or complex multi-layer pavements.

Uploaded by

Vidhi Vyas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
43 views28 pages

Al-Quadi Paper

This document evaluates the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to measure the thicknesses of layers in flexible pavements. GPR works well in some situations but not others due to limitations like low dielectric contrasts between layers, material losses from moisture, and thin layers being below the GPR's resolution. The document presents analysis of GPR data collected from different pavement sites that demonstrates GPR can accurately measure layer thicknesses of newly constructed pavements using simple data collection, but may require specialized analysis for in-service or complex multi-layer pavements.

Uploaded by

Vidhi Vyas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 28

Use of GPR for Thickness Measurement and

Quality Control of Flexible Pavements

Imad L. Al-Qadi1 and Samer Lahouar2

Abstract

This paper evaluates the performance of ground penetrating radar


(GPR) in estimating the layer thicknesses of flexible pavements. The
findings presented are based on field data collected from the Virginia
Smart Road’s pavement test facility, from a newly built section of a state
highway (Route 288, Virginia), and from a section of an in-service
interstate highway (I-81). The GPR data collected from the Virginia
Smart Road were successfully used to evaluate the physical GPR
detection limitations and to evaluate accuracy of GPR for flexible
pavement layer thickness determination. The data analysis was
facilitated by a complete knowledge of the different structures and
compositions of the various sections of the road, and by copper plates
(perfect electromagnetic reflectors) that were embedded at the different
layer interfaces during the construction of the pavement.
Based on the collected data, it was found that current GPR analysis
approach fails to detect layer interfaces in some circumstances because
of physical limitations (such as low dielectric constant contrast between
the layers combined with relatively high material loss or the presence of
thin layers, compared to the GPR resolution, within the surveyed
pavement system). However, GPR is a feasible nondestructive tool for
estimating the layer thicknesses of HMA layers, provided that the
appropriate data analysis technique for the type of surveyed pavement is
used. For newly constructed pavements, GPR can be successfully used
as a quality control/quality assurance tool using simple data acquisition
techniques. However, for in-service pavements or pavements composed
of multiple thin layers, special data analysis techniques should be applied
to achieve reasonable thickness accuracy.

Key Words: Flexible Pavement, GPR, Thickness Measurements

Introduction

Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) is an application of


electromagnetic (EM) energy to detect and estimate the range of objects.
In the early 1900s, the principle of radar was found to be applicable for
1
The Charles E. Via Jr. Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2Senior Research
Associate, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
The oral presentation was made b y Professor Al-Qadi
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

detecting airborne objects. The principle consists of transmitting EM


waves and receiving the reflected signals from any object in the path of
the beam. During the Second World War, rapid development of radar
technology took place for its use in the military. It was later discovered
that different objects interfere differently with EM energy. The main
material properties that have an adverse effect on electric and magnetic
fields that constitute the EM wave are electric permittivity, conductivity,
and magnetic permeability. It was also discovered that EM waves travel
in free space with a constant speed comparable to the speed of light.
With these discoveries, radar was used to detect airplanes, ships, and
clouds.
In 1926, Hulsenberg used the same principle to detect buried objects;
it was the first application in which EM waves were intentionally
transmitted through solids. In 1929, ground penetrating radar (GPR)
surveys were performed in Austria to sound the depth of glaciers.
Ground penetrating radar technology was forgotten until the late 1950s
when a U.S. Air Force plane’s radar system read through ice over
Greenland—thus misreading the altitude and crashing into the ice while
trying to land. This event spurred research into the radar’s ability to see
into the subsurface, especially for ice sounding, mapping subsoil
properties, and locating water tables. In late 1960s, some advances in
radar technology were made through NASA lunar investigations when a
GPR system was built and flown to the moon to characterize the
electrical properties of its surface. During the Vietnam War, the U.S.
Army developed a radar system called “Combat Radar” for locating
mines, tunnels, and bunkers. Through further research, this radar system
led to the development of other ground probing radar systems used to
identify and profile subsurface geological features. Since the 1970s,
GPR has been used in many applications, including locating sewer lines
and buried cables, measuring the thickness of sea ice, profiling the
bottom of lakes and rivers, and nondestructive testing of civil structures.
Similar to any EM device, GPR uses antennas to transmit and
receive EM waves. Depending on the way antennas are deployed, GPR
systems are classified as air-coupled or ground-coupled systems. In air-
coupled systems, the antennas are typically 150 to 500 mm above the
surface. In ground-coupled systems, the antennas are in full contact with
the ground. Four GPR system types have been used to evaluate civil
infrastructure: frequency modulation, synthetic-pulse, stepped frequency,
and pulsed (or impulse) (1). In the frequency modulation, the
transmitted signal has a frequency sweep between two preset limits. The
reflected signal is then mixed with the transmitted one and results in a
different frequency depending on the time delay. In the synthetic-pulse,
the transmitted wave frequency varies, and the amplitude and phase of
the reflected wave are analyzed at each frequency. In the stepped
Use of GPR

frequency, the transmitted signal can be of any shape and can have any
desired frequency, which will allow for a better penetration and
recognition of some detailed features. However, the data acquisition rate
is very limited. A pulsed system transmits a short time domain EM pulse
at a well-defined pulse repetition frequency and then records the pulses
reflected from the various layer interfaces.
The pulsed systems are the most used and are the most commercially
available because of their ease of use. The principle of the impulse
systems is based on transmitting an EM pulse and analyzing the reflected
pulses from the layer interfaces where there is a contrast in the dielectric
properties. Figure 1 shows the major components of a pulsed radar
system. A sequence of trigger pulses is generated in the control unit by
the radar circuitry. These trigger pulses are sent through the control
cable to the antenna, where each trigger pulse is transformed into a
bipolar transmit pulse. These transmitted pulses encounter different
materials in the subsurface with different dielectric properties. At the
layer interfaces, the incident pulses are reflected back to the surface,
where they are collected by the receiving antenna and are then sent to the
control unit for processing and display.

Transceiver Control Unit

Antenna Display and Storage

Figure 1. Main components of a pulsed GPR System

Ground penetrating radar technology has been used for the past 20
years for a variety of applications to assess pavement performance (2-6).
Yet the main issue after all these years remains: “How well does GPR
work and under what conditions?” Results show that GPR works well
for some situations but is not an appropriate tool for other situations. It
is not currently used on a routine basis by the U.S. Departments of
Transportation primarily because of the difficulties encountered in data
interpretation, as well as the expenses involved in conducting GPR
surveys. While it is expected that there will be a growing interest and
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

demand for GPR surveys, a number of limitations exist that are related
mainly to interpreting the results of GPR testing:
• The images obtained from the reflected signals are not
photographs of the features that are beneath the surface being
investigated. The images show the amplitude of the radar-
reflected signals from the interfaces with different dielectric
properties. These amplitudes are plotted in colors using user-
defined color codes. Therefore, a considerable amount of
experience and operator skill may be required to interpret sub-
surface radar results correctly.
• Extensive amount of data.
• Determination of the exact location of a reflecting feature
beneath the surface relies upon a prior knowledge of the
dielectric properties of the material.
• Change of the dielectric constant with depth mainly because of
the presence of moisture.
• Losses in the pavement materials especially with the presence of
moisture or conducting subgrade soils.
• Reflections from thin layers may overlap depending on the GPR
system resolution.

This paper explores the feasibility and necessary conditions for using
GPR as a nondestructive technique to assess flexible pavements. The
paper also presents the analysis of GPR data collected from different
flexible pavement systems.

GPR System Description

The GPR system used in this research was a SIR-10B control unit
that could be connected to air-coupled and ground-coupled antennas. An
air-coupled antenna was used in the first phase of this study. The
antenna was composed of a pair of separate horn antennae (one serves as
a transmitter and the other as a receiver) with a frequency bandwidth of 1
GHz, which corresponds to a pulse width of 1 nanosecond. As depicted
in Figure 2, the antenna was mounted behind the survey van with the
control unit set inside. To precisely locate the collected GPR data
longitudinally on the road, a high-resolution distance-measuring
instrument (DMI) connected to the survey-vehicle wheel was used to
control the trigger pulses generated by the GPR system and, therefore, to
control the spatial GPR data acquisition frequency. In this case, data
were collected as a function of distance (i.e., n scans every meter) and,
thus, was independent of the survey speed.
Use of GPR

Figure 2. GPR survey van and air-coupled antenna.

The Virginia Smart Road

The Virginia Smart Road, located in Montgomery County, Virginia,


USA, will consist of a 9.6 km connector highway between State Route
460 in Blacksburg and Interstate 81. The first 3.2 km, already
constructed, serves as a controlled test facility (7). The test bed facility
is designed with two travel lanes, each 3.6 m wide, with a 3.0 m wide
shoulder on each side of the road. The pavement research facility
consists of two types of pavements: flexible pavements and continuously
reinforced concrete (CRCP). The flexible pavement part, which is
heavily instrumented, includes 12 different flexible pavement designs of
approximately 100 m in length each (sections A to L), as shown in Table
1. Six different layers were used in the flexible pavement sections (all
designations are in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation specifications):
• Wearing surface: Seven types of wearing surface were used:
SM-9.5A, SM-9.5A with high laboratory compaction, SM-9.5D,
SM-9.5E, SM-12.5D, SMA-12.5 (Stone Mastic Asphalt), and
OGFC (open-graded friction course).
• Intermediate hot-mix-asphalt (HMA) layer: BM-25.0 with
different thicknesses. Three sections include a 50-mm layer of
SM-9.5A (a wearing surface mix) below the BM-25.0.
• Open Graded Drainage Layer (OGDL): Out of the 12 sections,
three sections were built without OGDL. Seven sections were
treated with asphalt cement, and two were treated with Portland
cement. The thickness of this layer was kept constant at 75 mm.
• Cement Stabilized Subbase: A 21-A cement-stabilized layer was
used in ten sections at a thickness of 150 mm.
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

• Aggregate Subbase: A 21-B aggregate subbase layer was used in


all sections at different thicknesses.

Table 1. Virginia Smart Road Flexible Pavement Designs

HMA Unbound
OGDL CTA
Sec. WS BM-25.0 SM-9.5A (mm) Aggregate
(mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
A 38 150 - 75^ 150 175
B 38 150 - 75^ 150 175/ GT
C 38 150 - 75^ 150 175/ GT
D 38 150 - 75^ 150 175/ GT
E 38 225 - - 150 75/ GT
F 38 150 - - 150 150
G 38 100 50 - 150 150/ GT
H 38 100 50 75^ 150 75
I 38* 100/RM 50 75^ 150 75
J 38 225 - 75^/MB - 150
K 38 225/SR - 75+ - 150
L 38 150/RM - 75+ 150 75
* High laboratory compaction ^ Asphalt treated + Portland cement
treated WS: Wearing surface; SR: Stress Relief Geosynthetic; GT:
Woven Geotextile/Separator; RM: Reinforcing Steel Netting; MB:
Moisture Barrier

To calibrate GPR systems and to better interpret collected GPR data,


35 copper plates were placed at different layer interfaces throughout the
Virginia Smart Road pavement sections (8). Thirty one (31) of these
copper plates were placed at the layer interfaces of the flexible pavement
sections, and four plates were placed underneath the concrete slab in the
CRCP section. The copper plates serve as a reflecting material, thus
allowing for accurate determination of the layers’ dielectric constant.
Another benefit of the copper plates is to indicate where the interface
between each two layers occurs. The copper plates (914×1219×0.7mm)
were placed at several locations in all tested sections. The exact
locations of the plates were surveyed in the field prior to their
installation. Figure 3 shows the copper plate placed in section B under
the 21B layer.
Use of GPR

Figure 3. Copper Plate Under 21-B Layer in Section B

GPR Detection Limitations

As mentioned earlier, 31 copper plates were embedded into the


Virginia Smart Road at the different layer interfaces of the 12 flexible
pavement sections during construction. It is important to note that
because of its high conductivity (5.7×107 Siemens/m), copper is
considered a perfect EM reflecting material whose GPR signature could
be easily separated from the normal pavement response. Thus, the
embedded copper plates serve as a good indicator of the exact locations
of the pavement interface reflections.
To study the GPR detection limitations, the data collected with the
air-coupled antenna from section A were examined. As indicated in
Table 1 section A is composed of the following layers: wearing surface
(WS), HMA base layer (BM-25.0), asphalt-treated open-graded drainage
layer (OGDL), cement-stabilized limestone base layer (21-A), limestone
aggregate base layer (21-B), and subgrade layer. Figure 4 shows a scope
view of a single GPR scan, and Figure 5 illustrates a linescan view of a
group of scans collected over the same section. A linescan view
represents a set of along-track scans stacked together vertically. The
amplitude of each scan is quantitized and coded into a solid color.
Therefore, the x-axis in this figure represents the scan number, which is
proportional to the surveyed distance, and the y-axis represents the
reflection time that can be converted to depth, knowing the dielectric
properties of each layer. The amplitude to color transformation function
used to obtain FIGURE 4 is given at the right side of the figure. In order
to enhance low reflections, a nonlinear transformation function was used.
As can be seen in Figure 4, only two reflected pulses are visible: the
surface reflection and the HMA/base interface reflection. In Figure 5,
five strong reflections can be distinguished. These reflections
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

correspond to the five copper plates placed at the wearing surface/BM-


25.0, BM-25.0/OGDL, OGDL/21-A, 21-A/21-B, and 21-B/subgrade
interfaces, respectively.
It is clear from Figures 4 and 5 that the 21-B/subgrade and 21-A/21-
B interfaces are not detectable under normal conditions (i.e., without
copper plates). This lack of visibility is due to the low contrast between
the dielectric properties of the subgrade, 21-B, and 21-A layers since
they were constructed using the same type of limestone material (which
has a dielectric constant, εr, of approximately 8). The low contrast in
dielectric constant results in a low amplitude reflected signal, which is
further attenuated by material loss. The effect of material loss on the
reflected signal can be further shown in Figure 5, where the reflected
signal from the deeper copper plates is found to have a lower amplitude
(darker color) than the reflected signal from the shallower plates. In
contrast to the base layers, the OGDL/21-A interface (reflection 3 in
FIGURE 4 is easily detectable, even in the absence of a copper plate at
the interface, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. This is due to the
relatively high contrast between the dielectric constants of HMA (εr
approximately 4) and cement-stabilized limestone aggregate (εr
approximately 8). The high contrast between the dielectric constants
results in a high amplitude reflected signal.

12000
10000
Surface Reflection
8000
HMA/Base Reflection
6000
HMA Base
Amplitude

4000
2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (ns)

Figure 4. Scope View of GPR Scan Collected Over Section A


Use of GPR

Surface Reflection
5
4
3
Spurious Reflection
2 OGDL/21-A Reflection
1
FIGURE 4 Linescan view showing the Reflections
Multiple copper plate reflections at the
(1) 21-B/ Subgrade, (2) 21-A/21-B, from
(3) OGDL/21-A,
copper plates (4) BM-
25.0/OGDL, and (5) WS/BM-25.0 interfaces
Figure 5. Linescan View Showing the Copper Plate Reflections at the
(1) 2-B/Subgrade,(2) 21-A/21-B, (3) OGDL/21-A, (4) BM-25.0/OGDL
and (5) WS/BM-25.0 Interfaces

According to the design of the pavement section studied, the HMA


layer is composed of a wearing surface, an HMA base layer (BM-25.0),
and an asphalt-treated drainage layer (OGDL). However, in Figures 4
and 5 it is not obvious where the reflections from the interfaces between
these layers occur. In fact, a close examination of FIGURE 4 shows a
longitudinal reflection within the HMA layers that does not correspond
to any copper plate reflection depth (the reflection is between reflections
4 and 5 in FIGURE 4, which correspond to the copper plate reflections).
This spurious reflection is because of the overlap between the reflections
from the pavement surface, wearing surface/BM-25.0 interface, and BM-
25.0/OGDL interface. In this case, the reflections within the HMA layer
are masked by the stronger reflections in their vicinity (surface
reflection) rather than by the GPR receiver noise. Consequently, these
three HMA layers would be considered as one homogeneous layer when
attempting to estimate the layer thicknesses from GPR data.

Layer Thickness Estimation from GPR Data

As was mentioned above, the principle of the GPR system used in


this study (impulse radar) is based on sending an EM pulse through an
antenna to the pavement surface and then recording the reflected pulses
from the internal interfaces, where there is a contrast in the dielectric
properties, as depicted in Figure 5. The time difference measured
between the reflected pulses (i.e., t1or t )2 can be used in conjunction with
the dielectric properties of the surveyed layer to determine its thickness.
The thickness of the ith layer could be computed according to Equation (1):
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

cti
di =
2 ε r ,i
(1)
where:
di is the thickness of the ith layer,
ti is the EM wave two-way travel time through the ith layer as
shown in Figure 6,
c is the speed of light in free space: c = 3×108 m/s,
εr,i is the dielectric constant of the ith layer.

Tx/Rx

A0

HMA, d1, εr,1 t1

A1

Base, d2, εr,2 t2

A2
Time

Subgrade, εr,3

Figure 6. Typical GPR Reflections from a Flexible Pavement System

In general, the thickness of any pavement layer can be estimated


based on equation (1). Assuming that the two-way travel time ti can be
measured accurately from the GPR reflected signal, as pictured in Figure
6 the dielectric constant εr,i would be the only unknown remaining in
equation (1). The dielectric constant εr,1 of the first (top) layer (HMA
layer) can be estimated non-destructively from the GPR-collected signal,
based on equation (2) derived in (9).
2
 A0 
1+ 
Ap
εr ,1 =  
 (2)
A0
 1 − 
 Ap 
where:
εr,1 is the dielectric constant of the top layer,
Use of GPR

A0 is the amplitude of the surface reflection as shown in Figure 5,


AP is the amplitude of the reflected signal collected over a flat
metal plate placed on the pavement surface. This calibration
measurement is usually conducted either at the beginning or the end
of each GPR survey.

The dielectric constant of the second layer εr,2 is calculated using


Equation (3).
2
  2 
  A0  A1 
1−  A  + Ap 
= ε r ,1  
p  
εr ,2 (3)
  
2 
 1 −  A0  − A1 
  Ap  Ap 
   
where:
εr,2 is the dielectric constant of the second layer,
A1 is the amplitude of the reflection obtained at the interface
between the first and second layers as shown in Figure 5.

Similarly, for the third layer the dielectric constant εr,3 is found
according to equation (4).
2
  A 2 A1 A2 
1−  0  + γ +
 A  1
Ap Ap 
εr ,3 = εr , 2   p 
 (4)
2
 A  A1 A2 
 1 −   + γ1
0
− 
  Ap  Ap Ap 
  
where:
εr,3 is the dielectric constant of the third layer,
A2 is the amplitude of the reflection obtained at the interface
between the second and third layers as shown in Figure 5.
γ1 is the reflection coefficient at the interface between the first
and second layers (9) and is given by Equation (5).

ε r ,1 − ε r , 2
γ1 = (5)
ε r ,1 + ε r , 2
The same process can be repeated iteratively to compute the
dielectric constant of the nth layer using Equation (6).
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

2
  A  2 n−2 Ai An−1 
1−  0  + γ
 A  ∑
+
Ap 
i
 p  i =1 Ap
ε r ,n = εr ,n-1  2
 (6)
  A  n −2 Ai An−1 
 1 −   + ∑ γi
0
− 
  Ap  Ap Ap 
   i =1

where the reflection coefficient γi (9) is given by Equation (7).


εr ,i − εr ,i +1
γi = (7)
εr ,i + εr ,i +1

It should be noted that in the above formulation, the pavement layers


are assumed to be homogeneous and to be composed of lossless material.
Therefore, the dielectric constant of each layer is assumed to be constant
in the sense that it does not vary within the layer thickness.

Thin HMA Layer Effects on GPR Thickness Estimation Results


Thin layers are typically found in in-service flexible pavements,
where thin overlays have been added over time as part of rehabilitation
projects. As mentioned previously, the existence of thin layers within a
pavement system has considerable effects on the layer thickness results
reported by GPR (10). In fact, the overlap of the pulses reflected from
the interfaces of thin layers makes their detection within the GPR
reflected signal cumbersome, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. If these
layers are ignored during the GPR data analysis phase (i.e., if multiple
layers with different dielectric properties were considered as a single
homogeneous layer), the dielectric constants estimated by equations (3)
through (7) would be incorrect. Moreover, since the dielectric constant
of any layer depends on the dielectric constants of all the layers above it,
errors in the estimation of the top layer dielectric constant would result in
erroneous dielectric constants for all the layers underneath.
In order to study the effects of thin layers on GPR thickness
estimation, GPR scans were collected with the air-coupled antenna over
a flexible pavement section (Section A) at the Virginia Smart Road.
These scans were then analyzed to estimate the layer thickness. The total
thickness of the considered pavement section’s HMA layer was 263 mm,
divided as follows: 38 mm wearing surface (WS), 150 mm HMA base
(BM-25.0), and 75 mm asphalt-treated drainage layer (OGDL). After the
construction of the Virginia Smart Road was completed, direct
measurements on cores and the analysis of the copper plate location
survey data showed that the as-built HMA thickness differed from the
design thickness by a maximum of 6 percent. This flexible pavement
Use of GPR

section was a good candidate for testing the effects of thin layers on GPR
thickness estimation performance because the pavement was more than
two years old and the layers had different densities—thus resulting in
different dielectric constants. For example, among the three layers, the
OGDL layer had the highest air-voids and lowest asphalt content.
As shown in Figure 4, it is difficult to find the reflection locations of
the individual layers that compose the HMA layer. This problem is
caused, on one hand, by the overlap between the reflected pulses from
the WS/BM-25.0 interface and the pavement surface and, on the other
hand, by the reflected pulses from the BM-25.0/OGDL interface and the
OGDL/base interface. Therefore, using the traditional thickness
estimation technique from GPR data would yield the total thickness of
HMA instead of the thicknesses of the individual layers. The total
thickness of the HMA layer found from GPR data along the test section
is presented in Figure 7. For comparison purposes, the HMA design
thickness for the same section is also shown in the figure. According to
Figure 7, GPR results tend to overestimate the design HMA thickness by
approximately 30 to 80 mm, which represents 10 to 30 percent of the
total design thickness. Based on comparison of the GPR results to
thicknesses measured directly on cores taken from the test section, the
HMA thickness overestimation is only 11 percent. This overestimation
is mainly caused by the following:
• The assumption that the three HMA layers have the same
dielectric constant even though they have different compositions.
• The dielectric constant computation technique, which is based on
the amplitude of the surface reflection, as given by equation (2).
In fact, because of the overlap between the surface reflection and
the reflection at the WS/BM-25.0 interface, the measured
amplitude of the surface reflection would be greater or less than
the real reflection amplitude. In other words, because of the
different peak polarities of the transmitted GPR pulses (positive
peak surrounded by two negative peaks), the superposition of the
two adjacent reflections might have an additive or a subtractive
effect, which will either increase or decrease the measured
surface reflection amplitude.

To counteract the thickness error problem caused by thin layers, the


individual HMA layers in the GPR reflected signal should be resolved
using a signal processing technique known as deconvolution (10).
Ideally, deconvolution would “remove” the effect of the GPR incident
signal from the GPR reflected signal, resulting in the reflectivity function
of the pavement system. Since the reflectivity function is composed of
narrower pulses than the original reflected signal, separating the interface
reflections would be easier, even if the considered layers are thin. After
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

finding the exact reflection locations, equations (2) to (7) can be used to
iteratively estimate the dielectric constants of the different layers. Then,
Distance (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

50 Total HMA Design

100

150
Depth (mm)

200

250

300

350

400

Figure 7. HMA Thickness Found from GPR Data When Considering


All HMA Layers as a Single Homogeneous Layer

equation (1) can be used to find the thicknesses of the individual layers.
It should be noted that applying deconvolution to the reflected GPR
signals usually produces an output signal with an increased noise level.
Because a high noise level generally makes it more difficult to detect
reflected pulses, the probability of missing some interfaces might be high
in this case. The effects of the additive noise can be reduced
considerably by passing the reflected GPR signal through appropriate
digital filters during a preprocessing phase. Furthermore, for the
deconvolution operation to succeed, the coupling pulse, usually inherent
in air-coupled GPR data, should be removed by performing a template
matching followed by a subtraction operation of the coupling pulse
shape. The coupling pulse is collected during the GPR survey by
pointing the antennas towards the sky.
Figure 86 shows the HMA thicknesses of the WS, BM-25.0, and
OGDL layers found from the same GPR data as before but after applying
deconvolution and using the aforementioned thickness estimation
technique. For comparison purposes, the figure also shows the design
thicknesses for each layer. According to the figure, the thicknesses
estimated by GPR are very comparable to the design thicknesses.
Moreover, when comparing the GPR estimated thicknesses to the
thicknesses measured directly on cores, as shown in Table 2, an average
thickness error of 21.1 percent is found for the WS layer, 0.6 percent for
Use of GPR

the BM-25.0 layer, 1.0 percent for the OGDL layer, and 3.7 percent for
the overall HMA layer. These results show the improvement made in the
thickness estimation accuracy when the pavement’s individual HMA
layers were considered instead of being assumed as a single layer.

Thickness Estimation using Modified CMP Method


The common midpoint (CMP) technique (also known as common-
depth point, CDP) is often used in seismic tests as a stacking technique to
improve the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of an ensemble of seismic
observations generated by a set of sources and recorded by another set of
receivers (11). This technique is also useful in estimating the velocity of
seismic waves as they travel through earth. Similarly, it can be used to
estimate the velocity of EM waves in a material and, therefore, to find

the dielectric constant of that material according to the following


equation derived in (9):
2
c
εr =   (8)
v
where ε r is the dielectric constant of the medium, c is the speed of light
and v is the speed of the EM waves in the studied medium.

Distance (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

50

100

150
Depth (mm)

200

250

300

350 WS BM-25.0 OGDL Design

400

Figure 8. HMA Thicknesses Estimated from GPR Data When


Considering The Individual Layers

Figure 9
7 illustrates a simple configuration that can be used to estimate
the velocity v in a layer, simultaneously using monostatic (collocated
transmitter and receiver) and bistatic (separate transmitter and receiver)
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

ground-coupled GPR systems. As can be seen in Figure 7 the monostatic


system is centered between the transmitter and receiver of the bistatic
system, which are separated by a known distance x. It can be assumed,
using EM reflection laws, that on average, the signals collected by both
systems are coming from the same point P at the bottom interface of the
layer. Therefore, the following equations can be derived using Figure 9 7:

Table 2. Comparison Between Design HMA Thicknesses, Core


Thicknesses, and GPR Thicknesses

WS BM-25.0 OGDL Total


Design (mm) 38 150 75 263
Core (mm) 50 168 64 282
GPR (mm) 40 169 63 272
Error (%) -21.1 0.6 -1.0 -3.7

vt1 = 2h (9)
2
 x
vt 2 = 2 h 2 +   (10)
 2
where h is the thickness of the layer, t1 and t2 are the two-way travel
times of the monostatic and bistatic systems, respectively, and x is the
distance between the transmitter and receiver of the bistatic system.

x
T T/R R
t1
HMA t2 h
εr1

P
Figure 9. Common Midpoint Geometry using Ground-Coupled
Monostatic and Bistatic Systems

Combining equations (9) and (10) by eliminating the unknown h and


solving for v results in the following relation:

c x
v= = (11)
εr t − t12
2
2
Use of GPR

Finally, the thickness h can be determined according to Equation (9).


It should be noted here that because v (or equivalently the dielectric
constant of the layer) was determined from the reflections at the bottom
of the layer, it represents an average value of the velocity of the EM
waves that accounts for any inhomogeneities in the medium. This result
is more accurate than that found by equation (2), which is due to the top
reflection only.
To implement the CMP method, two antennas should be used
simultaneously with the GPR system (12). The SIR-10B GPR control
unit used in this study allows data acquisition through two different
channels simultaneously. In this case, both a bistatic air-coupled system
and a monostatic ground-coupled system were used, with a system
connected to each channel. The air-coupled system is composed of a
pair of separate horn antennas (one serves as a transmitter and the other
as a receiver) working at a center frequency of 1 GHz. The ground-
coupled system is comprised of a single antenna (operating as transmitter
and receiver) working at a center frequency of 900 MHz. While
collecting data, both antenna systems were mounted behind the survey
van as shown in Figure 8. Therefore, the CMP method should be
changed to account for the air-coupled antenna. The modified CMP
configuration is depicted in FIGURE 9.
From FIGURE 9, it is clear that equation (11) holds when replacing x
by x1, which is the distance between the incidence point and the
reflection point of the air-coupled system on the air/HMA interface. In
this case, the two-way travel time t2 is measured across the HMA layer
only (between the reflection from the surface and the HMA/base
interface). The distance x1 is unknown because the dielectric constant of
HMA ε r1, the incidence angle θ i, and the transmission angle θ t, are
unknown.
The angles θ i and θ t are related according to Snell’s law of
refraction for non-magnetic media (9):
ε r0 sin θ i = ε r1 sin θ t (12)

where ε r0 is the dielectric constant of air (ε r0 = 1).


Using the geometry in FIGURE 9, the following relations can be
found:
2h0 tan θ i + x1 = x0 (13)
x1 x
tan θ t = = 1 (14)
2h1 vt1
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

where x0 is the distance between the air-coupled transmitter and receiver,


h0 is the antenna elevation with respect to ground and h1 is the HMA
layer thickness. The right-hand part of equation (14) is found using
equation (9).

Air-
coupled
Ground-
coupled

Figure 10. Survey Van with Both Antenna Systems

x0
T R
Air
εr0=1
h0
θi x1
T/R
t1
HMA θt h1
FIGURE 9 Modified common midpoint geometry using a gr
εr1 t2

P
Figure 11. Modified Common Midpoint Geometry Using a Ground
Coupled Monostatic System and an Air-Coupled Bistatic System

Combining Equations (11) and (14), and solving for θ t gives:


t 22 − t12
tan θ t = (15)
t1
Use of GPR

Finally, combining Equations (11), (12), and (13) yields the


following relation, which only has θ i as unknown:
sin θ t
2h0 tan θ i + c t 22 − t12 = x0 (16)
sin θ i
In summary, to estimate the dielectric constant of the HMA layer
using the modified CMP technique, the following simple algorithm
should be used:
• Estimate the reflection times t1 and t2 corresponding to the two-way
travel times in the HMA layer obtained by the ground-coupled and
air-coupled systems, respectively.
• Calculate the transmission angle θ t using equation (15).
• Solve equation (16) numerically to find the angle of incidence θ i.
• Use equation (12) to find the dielectric constant of the HMA layer ε r1.
• Use equation (1) to estimate the HMA layer thickness based on the
reflection time t1 found by the ground-coupled system and the
dielectric constant ε r1 of step 4.

It should be noted that to avoid interference between the two


antenna systems during the survey, the ground-coupled antenna should
not be placed directly underneath the air-coupled, as implied by FIGURE
9. Instead, it has to be placed at a distance d (a minimum of 1 m) in front
of it (Figure 8). Thus, the scans collected by the air-coupled antenna at a
specified point are delayed with respect to those collected by the ground-
coupled antenna by a number of scans corresponding to d.
To validate the aforementioned GPR data analysis technique, GPR
data collected over a section of Interstate I-81 were used. The tested
section was built between 1963 and 1965 within the counties of Roanoke
and Botetourt in the Southwestern portion of Virginia, located between
milepost 137 and milepost 154. The survey was done in both
northbound and southbound directions, with two lanes per direction. The
evaluated section totals 26 km of centerline roadway and presently
carries up to 66,500 vehicles per day with approximately 40 percent
truck traffic. The pavement structure throughout the section is
predominately flexible with only 6 km centerline roadway being rigid.
The original pavement design of the flexible sections consisted of a 150
mm aggregate subbase material, a 190 mm HMA base, a 30 mm HMA
intermediate course, and a 20 mm HMA wearing surface. The original
design for the rigid section consisted of a 150 mm aggregate subbase, a
50 mm limestone screenings-leveling course (6.3 mm size), and 228 mm
of wire mesh reinforced jointed concrete pavement.
The main purpose of the GPR survey was to evaluate the feasibility
of using GPR to determine the HMA thickness of the existing pavement
system, using limited prior structural information. The HMA thickness
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

determination involved the flexible pavement and the overlay on the


reinforced concrete sections. A secondary purpose was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the GPR in locating areas of high moisture in the
pavement.
The two GPR systems described earlier were used. Both units were
mounted behind the survey van (Figure 8) and data were collected
simultaneously. The survey speed was around 16 km/h, imposed by the
use of the ground-coupled antenna. The GPR scan rate was set to 40
scans per second. With a speed of 16 km/h, this results in approximately
a scan every 110 mm.
Because of the huge amount of data collected during this survey
(around 2 Gbyte), an automated system for data analysis was developed.
This system works on a scan-by-scan basis to determine the HMA
thickness at a spatial resolution of 110 mm, using the CMP method
explained earlier.
The data analysis algorithm works as follows. First, it starts by
selecting a scan obtained by the ground-coupled antenna and the relative
scan obtained by the air-coupled antenna, taking into account the number
of scans corresponding to the distance d between the two antenna
systems. Next, it detects the reflections of interest from both scans:
namely, the surface reflections and the HMA/base reflections. For the
air-coupled scan, a reflection inherent to the system (the background
reflection) is also detected. This reflection corresponds to the coupling
between transmitter and receiver and thus it is useful for computing the
antenna elevation, h0, which may change because of vertical antenna
bouncing. The elevation h0 is computed using equation (1) by taking ε r
equal to 1 (dielectric constant of air) and ∆ t the time difference between
the background reflection and the surface reflection.
Based on the reflection locations found, the two-way travel times t1
and t2 are computed. Then using the modified CMP algorithm presented
in the previous section, the dielectric constant of the HMA is calculated.
Subsequently, based on equation (1), the HMA layer thickness is
estimated at the location corresponding to the processed scan.
To verify the accuracy of the data analysis method used, stationary
measurements collected near core (extracted for material properties tests)
locations were used to estimate the HMA thickness at those areas. The
results for the set of collected cores are presented in Table 3. According
to these results, the thickness error ranges from 1 to 15 percent with a
mean error of 6.8 percent. These errors are attributed mainly to the
inaccurate localization of the surface reflection from the ground-coupled
antenna, as it is usually overlapped with the coupling pulse. Moreover,
because the distance between the bistatic antennas is not large enough,
the difference between t1 and t2 is sometimes near the sampling period of
the GPR, which introduces more errors when estimating ε r and therefore
Use of GPR

the thickness. These problems are currently being investigated to find


the best antenna configuration that maximizes the difference between t1
and t2 while maintaining the same level of the reflected EM energy. The
thickness errors could also be attributed to the position where data were
collected, since the stationary GPR scanning was not performed exactly
over the core locations.
The survey revealed the repaired and defected areas as well as the
HMA thickness over the entire surveyed section. Samples of the results
found from this study are presented in Figures 12 and 13.
Figure 10 illustrates HMA thickness in the northbound passing lane
from milepost 145 to milepost 146, with the x-axis origin set at milepost
145. This figure shows a regular HMA thickness with a mean value
around 280 mm.
Figure 11 depicts the HMA overlay thickness on a concrete section
in the southbound passing lane from milepost 153 to milepost 152, with
the x-axis origin set at milepost 153. The HMA overlay is approximately
100 mm thick, but it has some areas of full depth repair with irregular
thickness varying from 250 to 320 mm.

Table 3. Correlation between Core Thickness and GPR Thickness


Core # Core Location* Core GPR Error (%)
Thickness Thickness
(mm) (mm)
1n 7.00 337 322 4.3
2n 9.00 311 303 2.6
3n 11.00 368 350 5.0
4n 12.90 343 322 6.1
5n 14.00 330 359 8.7
6n 15.50 298 274 8.2
7n 16.45 279 310 11.0
8s 16.00 305 313 2.7
9s 15.40 267 308 15.5
11s 15.22 267 296 11.0
14s 14.95 286 283 1.0
17s 14.68 292 303 3.7
21s 10.64 375 345 7.9
22s 7.00 356 331 6.9
Mean Error (%) 6.8
*
Core Location in county milepost
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

Distance (m)
0 282 536 784 1024 1269 1499
0

100

200
Thickness (mm)

300

400 Bridge

500

600

Figure 12. HMA thickness, I-81 North, passing lane from milepost 145
(0 m) to milepost 146

Distance (m)
0 233 469 689 912 1153 1378
0

100

200
Thickness (mm)

300

400
Full depth repair
500

600

Figure 13. HMA thickness, I-81 South, passing lane from milepost
153 (0 m) to milepost 152

Thickness Estimation of New HMA Layers


When the surveyed pavement system is composed of relatively thick
layers, the GPR reflected pulses would have a minor to a non-existent
overlap. This condition makes detecting the layer interface reflection
Use of GPR

easier than in the case of thin layers. Furthermore, it guarantees that the
detected layers are homogeneous, thus reducing thickness-measurement
errors caused by dielectric constant variations within the layer. For rigid
pavements, the condition of thick layers is usually verified for both the
concrete slab and the supporting base layer. In contrast, for flexible
pavements, the HMA layers are usually composed of at least one thin
layer, which is the wearing surface or any newly placed overlay.
Therefore, the thick layers condition is generally not applicable for
flexible pavements. However, in the case of newly built and non-aged
flexible pavements, the HMA layers could be considered as a relatively
single homogeneous thick layer, especially when they are composed of
the same aggregate type (13).
To validate flexible pavement layer thickness estimation using GPR,
different GPR surveys were conducted in a quality control-quality
assurance (QC/QA) study of a newly-built, three-lane pavement section
of Route 288 in Richmond, Virginia (14). The pavement system was
composed of three HMA layers (HMA base, HMA intermediate 1, and
HMA intermediate 2), with a total thickness of 240 mm and a 150-mm
aggregate base layer. In order to ensure that the HMA layers were
relatively homogeneous for the GPR survey, the GPR measurements
were conducted on the HMA pavement layers just a few hours after they
were placed.
Figure 12 shows a comparison between the GPR estimated
thicknesses, calculated using the data analysis technique presented in
equations (1) through (7), and the design thicknesses for part of the test
section of Route 288. The layer thicknesses were estimated from GPR
data collected over the different layers just a few hours after their
construction. As shown in Figure 12, the GPR estimated thicknesses are
very comparable to the design thicknesses. To verify the accuracy of the
GPR data analysis, stationary GPR measurements were collected at
specific locations where some cores were taken for density and material
property tests. The cores were also used to directly measure the HMA
layer thicknesses and to compare them to the thicknesses estimated by
GPR.
Figure 13 depicts the correlation between the layer thicknesses
estimated by GPR and the thicknesses measured directly from cores for
the three HMA layers. This figure shows that the layer thicknesses
found by both techniques are very comparable (data points congregated
around the line of equality). Actually, the average error between GPR
thickness and core thickness for all three HMA layers was 2.9 percent.
This error is similar to the error found when measuring layer thicknesses
directly on cores (13).
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

Distance (m)
40 45 50 55 60
0

50 HMA
Base
100
HMA Design
150 Base Design
Thickness (mm)

200

250

300

350

400

450

Figure 14. Comparison between GPR Estimated Thicknesses and


Design Thicknesses for the HMA and Base Layers of Route 288

280
260 HMA Base
HMA Intermediate 1 Avg. Error = 2.16%
240
HMA Intermediate 2
GPR Thickness (mm)

220
200
180
Avg. Error = 2.90%
160
140
120
Avg. Error = 3.71%
100
80
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Core Thickness (mm)

Figure 15. Comparison between GPR Estimated HMA Thicknesses


and Core Thicknesses
Use of GPR

Conclusions

The basic theoretical steps typically used for analyzing ground


penetrating radar (GPR) data and the simplifying assumptions behind
them are presented. Field data were used to illustrate the physical
limitations that should be expected when using GPR technology to
estimate flexible pavement thicknesses. In addition, the data were used
to evaluate the performance of GPR in estimating layer thicknesses for
different cases. In particular, it was shown that when the surveyed
pavement is composed of “thick” layers (relative to the incident GPR
pulse width), GPR data yield acceptable thickness results. On the other
hand, if the pavement is composed of “thin” layers, the GPR thickness
accuracy degrades considerably. This study found that signal processing
techniques, such as deconvolution, can be successfully applied to the
GPR reflected signal to enhance its quality prior to estimating the layer
thicknesses. Alternatively, two GPR systems could be used
simultaneously to estimate the pavement thickness via a modified
common midpoint technique (CMP). In addition, GPR has been
successfully used as a quality control tool for measuring the thickness of
new flexible pavements during construction.

Recommendations

To overcome the current limitations of GPR when applied for


pavement thickness measurements, it is recommended that the
appropriate GPR data analysis technique is used based on the
investigated pavement structure. When using appropriate data analysis
approaches, GPR may be implemented for use as quality control tool for
constructing new pavements and as an assessment tool for rehabilitation
projects. The type of GPR system and the suitable data analysis
technique to be used depend on the application and the level of accuracy
needed in the project. For example, to measure the thickness of HMA
layers in a network level, an air-coupled system is recommended with a
survey performed at a speed of 90 km/h. However, on a project level,
air-coupled and ground-coupled GPR systems may be used
simultaneously to achieve more accurate results. Because of the ground-
coupled system, the survey speed may be reduced to 25 km/h in that
case.
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

References

1. J. H. Bungey, and S. G. Millard, “Radar Inspection of Structures”, Proceedings of


the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures & Buildings, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 173-
186, May 1993.
2. S. S. Smith, and T. Scullion, “Development of Ground Penetrating Radar Equipment
for Detecting Pavement Condition for Preventive Maintenance”, Final Report
Strategic Highway Research Program SHRP-672, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, USA, 177pp, 1993.
3. I. L. Al-Qadi, “Using Microwave Measurements to Detect Moisture in Hot-Mix
Asphalt”, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, ASTM, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 45-
50, 1992.
4. E. Rmeili, and T. Scullion, “Detecting Stripping in Asphalt Concrete Layers Using
Ground Penetrating Radar”, Paper No. 97-0508, Presented at the Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, 1997.
5. I. L. Al-Qadi, T. L. Brandon, and S. A. Bhutta, “Geosynthetic Stabilized Flexible
Pavements”, Geosynthetics 97, Long Beach, CA, pp. 647-662, 1997.
6. A. Loulizi, I. L. Al-Qadi, S. Bhutta, and G. W. Flintsch, “Evaluation of
Geosynthetics for Separation in Pavements”, In Transportation Research Record No.
1687, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements, pp. 104-111, 1999.
7. I. L. Al-Qadi, W. M. Nassar, A. Loulizi, G. W. Flintsch, and T. Freeman, “Flexible
Pavement Instrumentation at the Virginia Smart Road”, Transportation Research
Board 79th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 001275, Washington, D.C., January 2000.
8. I. L. Al-Qadi, S. Lahouar, and A. Loulizi, “GPR Calibration Facility”, In T. Uomoto
(Ed.), Nondestructive Testing in Civil Engineering 2000, Tokyo, Elsevier Health
Sciences, pp. 509-518, April, 2000.
9. C. A. Balanis, “Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics”, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1989.
10. I. L. Al-Qadi, and S. Lahouar, “Measuring Layer Thicknesses with GPR – Theory to
practice”, In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Structures Faults
and Repair (in a CD), M. C. Forde, Ed., London, UK, July 1-3, 2003.
11. W. A. Schneider, “The Common Depth Point Stack”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.
72, No. 10, pp. 1238-1254, 1984.
12. S. Lahouar, I. L. Al-Qadi, A. Loulizi, C. M. Trenton, and D. T. Lee, “Approach to
Determining In-Situ Dielectric Constant of Pavements: Development and
Implementation at Interstate 81”, In Transportation Research Record No 1806,
Assessing and Evaluating Pavements, pp. 81-87, 2002, (in Press).
13. I. L. Al-Qadi, S. Lahouar, and A. Loulizi, “Successful Application of GPR for
Quality Assurance/Quality Control of New Pavements”, The 82nd Transportation
Research Board, Paper No. 03-3512, Washington, D.C., January 12-16, 2003.
14. APAC-Virginia, Inc. (2001), Route288.com (VA 288), Retrieved July 17, 2002,
from http://www.route288.com.
Use of GPR

Discussion

PROFESSOR MARTIN VAN DE VEN – You said it is very difficult to


detect and measure thin surfacings. If I have a material like an open-
graded friction course with high void content, are the electrical properties
then such that you really can work with those layers or do you have
experience with that?

PROFESSOR IMAD AL-QADI – The thickness accuracy of thin hot-


mix asphalt wearing surfaces was not as good as other layers due to
signal overlapping. We conducted GPR testing surveys on friction
course layers regularly at the Smart Road. The detection of a friction
course layer is easier than other hot-mix asphalt wearing surfaces
because the dielectric properties of composite materials such as hot-mix
asphalt, is a function of the volume fraction of each component. Hence,
the dielectric constant for the friction course is expected to be less than a
Superpave or dense-graded hot-mix asphalt due to the high air void in the
friction course, which has a dielectric constant of 1. If the dielectric
constant of a typical wearing surface is 4 and the same materials are used
to produce a friction course that has 20% air void, then the expected
dielectric constant of the friction course may drop as low as 3. This will
manifest the interface between the friction course and the hot-mix asphalt
layer below better.

PROFESSOR GERHARD KENNEPOHL – Just a practical question.


This equipment you are using, is it commercially available or is it a
prototype?

PROF. AL-QADI – The antennas we are using are commercially


available. I will not promote any manufacturers here; but the particular
one I use poses the advantage of accessing the collected data. However,
the software that we are using is completely developed by us. The most
important part of any GPR survey, is the correct interpretation of the
collected signal. Otherwise it will be operator dependent. The analyzed
signal may be used to detect layers and discontinuities using appropriate
numerical analysis approaches.

PROFESSOR WILLIAM BUTTLAR – Great work. You said that the


water with its low dielectric constant would pose a problem for the near-
surface layers in obtaining the right thickness estimate. But could that
also be used as an advantage to find water? Can you see water at
interfaces? Do you find the ground water table? Can you detect air
voids?
Al-Qadi, Lahouar

PROF. AL-QADI – First of all, the interaction between electromagnetic


waves and water is exceptional, when compared to other materials.
Here, I would just like to mention a little story pertaining to this issue as
I answer this question. In the early 1950’s, there was an airplane that
was trying to land in Greenland, and at that time there was a mountain
that was heavily and completely covered by snow. The plane radar
couldn’t distinguish the snow mountain and was able to see through it
because the snow dielectric constant is very low and similar to that of the
air. The plane ultimately crashed into the snow-mountain and a tragedy
occurred. The reason for sharing this story here is to emphasize the fact
that water is very unique when it comes to the dielectric constant. When
it is free, the dielectric constant is very high and may reach 81; however,
when it is in ice form or bounded, the dielectric constant can be a little
more than 1, which is the dielectric constant for air; because the water is
structured and not easy to move. For example, when you are placing
food in your microwave, you need to have some water in it in order to
heat it quickly. Water is very “lossy” and converts the electromagnetic
energy into heat through friction. By the way, in the radar system, the
power used is very low, and in the range of 10s mlWatt. The effect of
water is more important when dealing with concrete rather than in
asphalt. The water is usually bound in concrete because of surface
tension and that would reduce its polarization when exposed to
electromagnetic waves. Thus, no significant change in the dielectric
constant occurs due to the presence of bound water; so, its detection
becomes a challenge. However, if the water is free, which is the case
mainly in hot-mix asphalt; it can be detected very easily. In response to
the first question of the effect of water presence on the surface, the film
of that water will dissipate most of the electromagnetic waves energy and
hence, the penetration will be significantly less. If the electromagnetic
waves penetrate the pavement, and there are spots that have high
moisture content, the electromagnetic wave penetration of these spots
will be less; but the dielectric constant will increase at that location,
making it easier to detect. Some people tend to suggest the ability of
detecting stripping with radar. However, in my opinion, they are
detecting the moisture that is present there rather than the stripping.

You might also like