Bautista Daniel Jr.

Alberio (20RB923)

INSPECTION OF RETAINING WALLS USING

GROUND PENETRATION RADAR (GPR)

I. INTRODUCTION III. COMMON GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN

RETAINING WALLS
The use of Ground Penetrating Radars (GPRs) in
civil engineering is common and widespread nowadays Retaining walls are structures which support and
and there are various applications where GPRs are retain earth in order to prevent failure of sediments in the
established and utilized in the field of transportation places where stability of slope can not be assured by
infrastructure and investigations in their surrounding ground condition itself or by other slope protection works
geotechnical conditions. (Hugenschmidt and Kalogeropoulos, 2009). Table 1
Deterioration and distress of geotechnical shows the most common types and characteristics of
foundations are inevitable, and oftentimes, mechanisms of retaining walls. In the Philippine road network, a lot of
the geotechnical failure that are active under the surface retaining walls, which consist mainly of gravity type
cannot be assessed with high accuracy using only concrete retaining wall, block masonry wall, and gabion
traditional methods such as visual inspection, hammer wall have been constructed.
sounding, chain dragging, and not even by destructive However, a large number of structural
coring and test pits. deformation and failure on the retaining walls were visibly
For retaining walls, inspections should be and clearly observable. The most common problems in the
conducted to determine if the supporting geotechnical geotechnical condition of retaining walls are listed as
foundation could still carry out its functions of ensuring follows:
the said geo-structure stable and to decide whether the • Absence of or not enough geotechnical investigations
same geo-structure needs repair and maintenance or not. to obtain foundation information for the design of
In hilly regions, retaining walls along roads, motorways retaining walls — Some retaining walls rest on loose
and railway lines are numerous, and in some cases, the and soft ground that has insufficient bearing capacity
knowledge of the details of the construction of these walls to support the retaining structures.
is limited. If rehabilitation work becomes necessary, a • Absence of or less foundation works — Some
detailed knowledge of the construction is desirable for the retaining walls were placed on deposit layers without
improved planning of maintenance and repair of these foundation treatment, which is the main cause of
retaining walls (Hugenschmidt, 2009). retaining structure damage.
Because of the need to define acceptable • Absence of or not enough anti-proof sand treatment
conditions for its service, it was necessary to determine its (geotextile and filter material) behind the walls —
shape and stability as well as its foundation. Oftentimes, it This may cause flow out of backfilling materials,
is not possible to conduct traditional geotechnical tests due leading to soil subsidence behind the wall and
to the factors such as the extremely difficult conditions subsequent deformation and collapse of the retaining
preventing the execution of drilling near the wall or the wall.
inability to stop traffic in the adjacent transport structure • Absence of or insufficient drainage treatment — High
(Solla et al., 2021). However, it was possible to obtain the water pressure behind wall body was produced during
important data for the retaining wall design by using the and after heavy rainfall because of insufficient
GPR technique (Beben et al., 2012). drainage treatment, and deformed the retaining
This report provides an overview of the existing structures together with earth pressure.
literature on the usage of Ground Penetrating Radar These problems on the geotechnical condition of
method for the inspection of retaining walls. the soil supported by the retaining wall could be diagnosed
using the GPR (Hugenschmidt, 2010). A completed
II. REASON BEHIND CHOICE OF TOPIC inspection of retaining wall using GPR will be presented
Retaining walls are prevalently constructed in this report in accordance with the study conducted by
nowadays in the Philippines, whether it is a small Beben et al. in 2012. Fig. 1 shows the cross-section of the
retaining wall in a housing development, or a massive subject retaining wall and the adjacent two-way railway
concrete retaining wall on a national, secondary, or tracks on the right and mountain river on the left. The
tertiary highway. retaining wall secures a railway embankment on which
I find the subject of using a nondestructive test there are two railway lines. In the immediate vicinity of
such as Ground Penetrating Radar as an inspection method the wall is a mountain river (Fig. 2). The river floods at
to determine the need for repair or maintenance of least twice a year, causing damage to the retaining wall.
retaining walls very interesting, especially since the Above the railway embankment there is a natural ledge on
Philippine government is currently transitioning from which the international road to the Czech Republic border
destructive to nondestructive means of testing in the is located The live loads from this road also act on the
inspection of road infrastructure, geotechnical structures, retaining wall. The retaining wall was built in 1912. The
and other similar assets. load-bearing system of the wall constitutes a massive
stone structure (granite) on lime mortar. The thickness of
1
Table 1. Types and characteristics of retaining walls.
Type Shape Characteristics Technical Note

• Frequently used to prevent small • Mainly applicable for light earth

scale collapse at the foot of the pressure loads where the soil behind the
slope or to protect the slope. wall is dense or good soil sediment.
Block (Stone) • Structurally weak to resist the effects of
Masonry an earthquake.

• Supports the earth pressure by • Applicable on good ground foundations

Wall top its deadweight. because of great ground reaction.
Gravity Front • Inapplicable for pile foundations.
Backfill
Face Rear

Toe

• Supports the deadweight while • Applicable for widening the existing

being supported by the earth at road in mountainous terrain.
the rear or by the backfill. • Frequently used in places with land
Leaning and topographical constraints.

• Vertical wall resist the lateral • Applicable for pile foundations.

load or earth pressure. • Precast concrete is frequently used.
Face
Wall
• The weight of backfill over the
Cantilever heel slab can be used to support
the earth pressure.
Toe
Heel
Toe slab

Face • Vertical wall and bottom slab as • Construction of wall body and backfill
Wall slab is supported on three sides. is difficult.
Counter
Fort • Counterfort type is more • Applicable for pile foundations.
Counterfort beneficial than cantilever type
for higher walls.

the top part is ca. 0.90 m, while that of the bottom part is were no archival records of its geometry, previous
unknown. Generally, the retaining wall consists of two inspections, or design documentation or geotechnical
parts; first has a length of about 6.0 m and height of 4.0 m; subsoil studies. In order to establish a reliable strength and
second has a length of 135 m and its height is variable, stability of the retaining wall it was necessary to know the
that is, from 1.5 m (at the ends of the wall) to ca. 5.0 m (in conditions of its foundation. It was not possible to carry
the middle part) measured from the terrain level. The out traditional geotechnical tests. For this reason, the GPR
retaining wall in the plan has the shape of a gentle arc investigation was applied.
parallel to the railway track lines. Rock outcrops are
visible on the slope side and in the river (at the low river IV. INSPECTION USING GPR METHOD
level). These outcrops were useful for determination of the
bedrock courses. How the GPR method works
The technical condition of the retaining wall
aroused serious concerns and required immediate repair The GPR method involves the propagation of
works (mainly the second part of the wall). In the upper short EM pulses (t≤1 ns =10−9 s) in the medium that was
part of the wall, bulges and numerous gaps in the joints tested (Lai and Derobert, 2017). The pulses reflect
between the individual stones appeared. In the variations in the EM properties of the medium, including
predominant parts of the wall there were no joints since the magnetic permeability, electric conductivity, and
they have been washed away by water. A detailed dielectric permittivity. These changes are related to the
description of the destruction of the retaining wall and a presence of heterogeneities inside the medium, changes in
proposal for its reconstruction can be found in the paper the materials (such as shallow geological layers), or
written by Ukleja et al. in 2012. changes in the physical properties of the medium (e.g. in
Strengthening of the retaining wall due to the the water content). To correctly interpret the GPR results
poor technical condition was immediately required. There (radargrams) it is necessary to compare the emitted waves

2
 Fig. 1. Cross-sections of the retaining wall and the rock layers.

to the recorded waves. Differences between them depend investigations, in addition to reflections, the EM waves
on the EM properties of the medium. The velocity of the undergo diffractions from small in homogeneities and
wave is a characteristic and is highly dependent on these objects. Diffractions that can be identified as hyperbolas
EM properties. It also depends on the amplitude of the in the time section occur in two cases: when the dominant
reflected wave and its frequency. Reflection of the emitted wavelength in the GPR pulse is larger than the dimensions
energy (the EM wave) is due to intense changes of the of the diffractions' source, and when waves are diffracted
dielectric parameters. The reflection coefficient is strictly from sharp edges.
related to the dielectric constant of the given material Antenna
(element). This coefficient determines the part of the
TSi - transmitted signal Si
incident wave that is reflected. RSi - received signal Si
Fig. 3 shows the various paths of the signals T/R i = 1, 2, 3, …, n
transmitted (TS) and received (RS) from various layers
using a ground-coupled antenna. The first part (RS1) is the
signal reflected from the first expected surface (in this
case it will be probably the ballast), which is affected by
the dielectric properties and surface roughness and slope.
The second and third party (RS2 and RS3) are the portions
of the energy received from the next layers below the
ballast. The time difference measured between the
reflected pulses can be used in conjunction with the
dielectric properties of the surveyed layer to determine its
thickness. Of course it is an idealization of the GPR
measurement. In some cases, the EM waves can be
reflected from other objects found in the ballast or ground
layers. In certain common conditions during GPR Fig. 3. Paths of the EM waves in the GPR method.

The trace is the time-history record (measured in

nanoseconds for GPR waves) of a tiny piece (in the spatial
sense) of a pulse of`EM energy that travels from the
transmit antenna and ends up at the receive antenna. If a
portion of the wave front encounters an object with a
permittivity different from that of the surrounding material
(host media), then that portion changes direction by a
process that is called scattering. Scattering at the interface
between an object and the host material is of four main
types: (1) specular reflection scattering, (2) diffraction
scattering, (3) resonant scattering, and (4) refraction
scattering.
The penetration depth and vertical and horizontal
resolution are the main limitations of GPR applications.
Fig. 2. The general side view of the tested terrain and retaining wall. Penetration depth is defined as the depth achieved when

3
the amplitude has been attenuated by a factor e−1. It MOD because the expected layers were situated at
indicates the capability of the GPR signal to penetrate the shallow depths.
studied medium. It depends mainly on the attenuation Prior to testing, the velocity of EM wave
factor and on EM wave changes. The horizontal resolution propagation in the analyzed medium should be
indicates the capability of the GPR system to detect two determined. This may be done experimentally. The time
different elements in the direction of the antenna of EM wave propagation through an element of known
movement. From a practical point of view, it is seen as thickness (measured with an accuracy of 72 cm) should be
two different anomalies in the GPR record. It depends on estimated. This study should be carried out on known soil
the antenna frequency, the penetration depth, and the EM layers. Based on the EM wave transit time, the velocity of
properties of the tested medium. In turn, the vertical wave propagation in the tested medium can be calculated.
resolution is so-called resolution in time, defined as the Velocity calibration of the EM wave propagation was
capability of the antenna to detect two horizontal conducted in two ways. The first way consisted in the
discontinuities as separate anomalies. This parameter also time measurement of the EM wave propagation through
depends on the wave velocity and its length. An EM wave the known ground type and thickness (1.0 m). The ground
velocity is a function of its frequency, the speed of light in from the research terrain was used for this calibration test.
free space, and the host medium's relative dielectric Considering that GPR tests of the retaining wall were also
permittivity, relative magnetic permeability, and electrical planned, a wall fragment of known thickness (0.40 m) was
conductivity. selected and the GPR calibration test was done as in the
first case. From the above calibration tests, three EM
Used GPR Systems and Scope of Tests wave propagation velocities for the subject retaining wall.
These are 0.10, 0.12, and 0.13 m/ns. Having the above
In the sample retaining wall inspection that will selected EM wave velocities, the second method of
be presented in this report, RIS Hi-MOD was used in the calibration was related with legibility analysis of the GPR
non-destructive field test. The GPR system was made by maps in the preliminary tests. So, in this study, the wave
Ingegneria Dei Sistemi (IDS) from Pisa, Italy and had propagation velocity assumed is 0.13 m/ns for the
different operating frequencies. The GPR used during the retaining wall (made of granite). This value have been
geophysical tests consist of the following elements: confirmed by the IDS.
• “Fast Wave” control unit with EM pulse frequency of The retaining wall was examined using three
400 kHz; scans (Wall_L1 – Wall_L3) as shown in Fig. 4. Scanning
• a shielded antenna with a dual operation frequency of of the wall was performed at a height of about 1.00 m
200/ 600 MHz (RIS Hi-MOD); that is, during one from the terrain level. Moreover, scanning of the river
passage of the GPR it has the opportunity to perform bank (right on the edge of the wall) was also conducted.
two scans with different frequencies; and an antenna The scan “Bank_L1” began at the end of the scan
with a frequency of 80 MHz (RIS ONE); “Wall_L2” and ran in the opposite direction. The scan
• antenna's handle with a distance measurement wheel; “Bank_L2” constituted its continuation. The scans
• computer with data collection software; and “Wall_L3” and “Bank_L3” were performed on the west
side of the retaining wall.
• accumulator and necessary linking cables.
Scanning of the retaining wall and the river bank
The retaining wall was tested using the RIS Hi-

Fig. 4. Arrangement of the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) scans.

4
allowed the wall thickness and the foundation level, profiling. Besides, taking into account the terrain
respectively, to be determined. These data are extremely conditions and the availability of the tested area, it was
important for the analysis of the retaining wall stability. not possible to apply the antenna with a frequency of 80
The GPR results were processed using GRED 3D MHz.
Utilities software and using the proper filters and signal Fig. 5a and b presents the radargrams for the
gains. All GPR results were processed by the following longitudinal scan “Bank_L1” which were carried out
filters: using two frequencies, 200 and 600 MHz, respectively.
• Move start time: a filter moving all scanning results to The length of this scan was about 30 m and it was situated
zero level. in the middle part of the retaining wall. In these
• Background removal: a filter removing the radargrams, two layers are visible. The first layer is
unnecessary background (disturbances) in the form of noticed fragmentally at the beginning and end of the
horizontal lines. profile (starting at a depth of 0.20 m and ending at 0.60
• Vertical bandpass filter (TD): a sliding filter for m). There may be wooden beams whose fragments were
selected frequencies (for the 80 MHz antenna: from found in the open pits. The second layer is clearly
50 to 150 MHz; for the 200 MHz antenna: from 100 descending from the beginning of the profile at a depth of
to 300 MHz; and for the 600 MHz antenna: from 400 about 0.7–1.4 m in the middle part of the profile. The
to 800 MHz). second layer is probably a layer of the bedrock below the
• Linear gain: improving the quality of the displayed retaining wall. Other scans, “Bank_L2” and “Bank_L3”,
results. present similar results. The open pits made near the base
of the wall confirmed the results obtained using the GPR
• Smoothed gain: improving the radargram sharpness.
testing.
In order to obtain the wall thickness, scanning of
GPR results and analysis
the retaining wall at a height of approximately 1.0 m from
Due to the expected layers at shallow depths, the the level of the terrain was also conducted. The RIS Hi-
GPR RIS HiMOD equipped with the antenna with dual MOD GPR was used in this test. Fig. 6 shows the
operating frequencies of 200/600 MHz was used for radargram illustrating the thickness of the retaining wall
testing the river bank. Determination of the bedrock depth which was made using the antenna with a frequency of
occurring near the river was the main aim of the GPR 600 MHz. It can be seen that the thickness of the retaining

a Anomaly*

Bedrock layer
Depth (m)

Note:
* - Anomalies constitute the EM signal reflections from internal objects

Length (m)

b Bedrock layer Anomaly*

Depth (m)

Length (m)
Fig. 5. GPR maps for the longitudinal scan “Bank_L1” obtained using the antenna with frequencies of: (a) 200 MHz and (b) 600 MHz.
5
 Depth (m)

Wall length (m)

Fig. 6. The radargram of the retaining wall (longitudinal profile “Wall_L1”) obtained using the antenna with a frequency of 600 MHz.

wall is about 1.0 m. Moreover a number of free spaces analysing all longitudinal radargrams, it was also
(loss of stones) can be noticed in the wall structure. Other observed that these reflections were caused by the
scans confirmed the results obtained concerning the anchors installed in the retaining wall during previous
retaining wall thickness. repair works.
After analyzing the GPR results, the additional Several samples of the ground which were used
open pits were made in the immediate vicinity of the as backfill between the embankment slope and the
retaining wall, situated so as to correspond to the retaining wall were collected and subjected to laboratory
longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) scans of the GPR. analysis. It was found that the backfill constitutes a fine
Additionally, an inventory of the lines of rock outcrops in rock rubble of shale with low moisture content and an
the region of the retaining wall from both the slope side internal friction angle of 451. Weathered shale turning
and the river was conducted. As a result of the tests into the bedrock of shale was noticed below the backfill.
conducted using the GPR technique, the following were These parameters served as the basic data for the project
established: of strengthening the retaining wall.
• Shapes of the retaining wall was determined. Its
thickness at the height of 1.0 m from terrain level is V. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF GPR
about 1.0 m. Additionally, heterogeneities of the Summarized in Table 2 are the advantages and
retaining wall structure were found. the drawbacks of the GPR inspection method of retaining
• Several anomalies in the length of the retaining wall walls.
were noted, that is, reflections of the signal from
internal elements behind the retaining wall. After
VI. CONCLUSION
Table 2. Advantages and Limitations of Ground Penetrating Radar. RIS Hi-MOD (200/600 MHz) and RIS ONE (80
as Inspection Method for Retaining Walls. MHz) GPRs were used in the non-destructive field tests.
Advantages Limitations Based on the results obtained the following general
conclusions can be drawn:
Self-contained, quiet operation Data may be contaminated by
noise (multiple reflections and
• The applied GPR measurements proved to be
echoes) effective and made it possible to determine the
thickness of the retaining wall, the location level of
Color map visuals available in Obstructions can reduce GPR
the bedrock course under the wall, and the bedrock
varying depth slices scan extents
outline behind the wall. Additionally, a few anomalies
Provides a permanent record GPR data collection takes time and heterogeneities of the wall were found. Difficult
and post processing of GPR data terrain conditions prevented the execution of complex
can be time intensive geological-engineering testing in the traditional
manner, for example using drilling.
Detecting environmental and Data interpretation is technician • The GPR method makes it possible to obtain the
natural structures such as sink- dependent – human error is a required data for geotechnical purposes as well as for
holes, soil structures, water ta- factor
civil engineering (technical condition assessment and
bles, salt water infiltration,
determination of geometrical parameters). The proper
ground water channels among
others
selection of the EM wave velocities is one of the
important tasks of GPR testing. It mainly concerns
Gathers detailed information on Does not work well in areas tests of multi-layered structures as in this case. The
the subsurface which can then saturated with water such as clay
EM wave velocities defined at the outset of this test
be georeferenced -based soils
proved to be correct and made it possible to obtain
2D/3D models can be derived Requires more intensive training results with a reasonable accuracy.
from collected data

6
• Because maintenance and safety inspections are the
requirements of railway infrastructure (carrying
managerial and economic consequences), the GPR
method seems to be a good alternative to traditional
inspection techniques.

VIII. REFERENCE
1) Beben, Damian & Anigacz, Wojciech & Ukleja, Janusz.
(2013). Diagnosis of bedrock course and retaining wall
using GPR. NDT & E International. 59. 77–85.
10.1016/j.ndteint.2013.05.006.
2) Bishop, I. & Koor, Nicholas. (2000). Integrated
geophysical and geotechnical investigations of old
masonry retaining walls in Hong Kong. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. 33.
335-349. 10.1144/qjegh.33.4.335.
3) Brutus, O., & Tauber, G. (2009). Guide to Asset
Management of Earth Retaining Structures. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program.
4) Eschenasy, Dan. (2015). Periodic Inspection of
Retaining Walls. Structure Magazine.
5) Gostomski, R. (2017, August 16). GPR in the
Construction Industry as an Investigative NDT
technique. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/
gpr-construction-industry-investigative-ndt-technique-
rom-gostomski
6) Hugenschmidt, Johannes. (2010). Inspection of
concrete retaining walls using ground penetrating radar
(GPR): A case study. 10.1533/9781845699604.3.533.
7) Hugenschmidt, Johannes & Kalogeropoulos, Alexis.
(2009). The inspection of retaining walls using GPR. J.
Appl. Geophys.. 67. 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2008.09.001.
8) Lai, Wallace W.L. & Dérobert, Xavier & Annan, Peter.
(2017). A review of Ground Penetrating Radar
application in civil engineering: A 30-year journey from
Locating and Testing to Imaging and Diagnosis. NDT
& E International. 96. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2017.04.002.
9) Solla, Mercedes & Perez-Gracia, Vega & Fontul,
Simona. (2021). A Review of GPR Application on
Transport Infrastructures: Troubleshooting and Best
Practices. Remote Sensing. 13. 672. 10.3390/
rs13040672.
10) Tosti, Fabio & Ferrante, Chiara. (2020). Using Ground
Penetrating Radar Methods to Investigate Reinforced
Concrete Structures. Surveys in Geophysics. 41. 1-46.
10.1007/s10712-019-09565-5.