Defining the Deterioration Process Through Ground Penetrating Radar

The work described in this paper seeks to further the understanding between ground penetrating radar (GPR) measurements and the different stages of bridge deck deterioration. This goal has been accomplished by evaluating slabs cast in a controlled environment and sections of in-service bridge decks. Seventeen fabricated slabs, previously exposed to an accelerated corrosion process over an extended period of time, were evaluated using half-cell potential (HCP) and GPR measurement methods. Another slab subjected to a similar accelerated corrosion process was tested continuously over a period of nine months. Both experiments in which slabs were subjected to accelerated corrosion indicate correlations between average half-cell potentials and GPR rebar reflection amplitudes. The 17 laboratory slabs show a correlation between HCP and GPR at a single point in time, while the continuously tested slab shows this correlation throughout the deterioration process.

1. Arndt, R., F. Jalinoos, J. Cui and D. Huston. “Periodic NDE for Bridge Maintenance,” University of Vermont. 2010. 2. Barnes, C.L., J. Trottier and D. Forgeron. “Improved concrete bridge deck evaluation using GPR by accounting for signal depth-amplitude effects,” NDT&E International 41: 427– 433. 2008. 3. Barnes, C.L. and J. Trottier. “Effectiveness of Ground Penetrating Radar in Predicting Deck Repair Quantities,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems 10.2 (2004):69-76, ASCE. 4. Barnes, C.L. and J. Trottier. “Ground-Penetrating Radar for Network-Level Concrete Deck Repair Management,” Journal of Transportation Engineering: 257-262. 2000. 5. Gucunski, N. and S. Nazarian. “Material Characterization and Condition Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks by Complementary NDE Technologies,” Proceedings of Structures Congress, Gaylord Palms Convention Center, Orlando, FL. ASCE. 429-39. 2010. 6. Gucunski, N., R. Feldmann, F. Romero, S. Kruschwitz, A. Abu-Hawash and M. Dunn. “Multimodal Condition Assessment of Bridge Decks by NDE and Its Validation,” Proceedings of the 2009 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 2009. 1-18. 7. Hugenschmidt, J. and R. Loser. “Detection of Chlorides and Moisture in Concrete Structures with Ground Penetrating Radar,” Materials and Structures 41.4 (2008): 785-92. 8. Maser, K.R. and W.M. Kim Roddis. “Principles of Thermography and Radar for Bridge Deck Assessment,” Journal of Transportation Engineering 116.5 (1990): 583-601. ASCE. 9. Maser, K.R., N. Martino, J. Doughty and R. Birken, “Understanding and detecting bridge deck deterioration using ground penetrating radar,” Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, #12-1765, January 2012, Washington, D.C. 10. Parrillo, R., R. Roberts and A. Haggan. “Bridge Deck Condition Assessment Using Ground Penetrating Radar”. Proc. of European Conference of Non-Destructive Testing, Berlin, Germany. Vol. 11. No.11.2006. 1-12. 11. Time-Resolved Microwave Thermoreflectometry for Corrosion Detection in Concrete. Rep. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2011. 12. Yehia, S., O. Abudayyeh, I. Abdel-Qader and A. Zalt. “Ground-Penetrating Radar, Chain Drag, and Ground Truth: Correlation of Bridge Deck Assessment Data.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.2044, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 39-50.
Usage Shares
Total Views
11 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
0 PDF Downloads
0 Facebook Shares
Total Usage