Comparison of Bridge Deck Analysis Techniques Using Manual and Automated Methods

Current bridge deck condition assessments using ground penetrating radar (GPR) usually has an experienced consultant collect and manually post-process substructure layering information from B-scans. However, very recently, state agencies have shown significant interest in using GPR on a more regular basis and are seeking guidance to do so. The risk of a subjective analysis is the misdiagnosis of the deck condition leading to either unnecessary repairs, or overlooked damaged areas. In order to demonstrate that these data collection and postprocessing procedures can be minimally subjective, this paper compares those processes completed by two individuals. Additionally, this paper compares the results of manual and automated post-processing procedures to show that additional tools are available to help implement the use of this technology. Two individuals collected data separately, using ground coupled GPR systems with different frequency antennas from a reinforced concrete validation slab at Rutgers University, which included individually selecting system parameters. Later, those individuals post-processed and analyzed both data sets to uncover damage at the top rebar level (corrosion). The visual results are displayed in plan-view color contour plots. In order to understand the subjectivity of the manual post-processing and interpretation steps, and the ability of newly developed automated algorithms for these processes, the contour plots have been qualitatively compared and clearly demonstrate significant agreement.

References

 1. Dinh, K., Tarek Zayed, Sami Moufti, Ahmad Shami, Ahmad Jabri, Mona Abouhamad, and Thikra Dawood, Clustering-based Threshold Model for Condition Assessment of Concrete Bridge Decks using Ground Penetrating Radar , Transportation Research Record: No. 2522, Journal of the Transportation Research Board,  Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board, 2015.

2. Dinh, K., Nenad Gucunksi, Jinyoung Kim, and Trung Duong, Understanding Depth-Amplitude Effects in Assessment of GPR Data from Concrete Bridge Decks , Volume 83, NDT&E Journal , Amsterdam, The Netherkabds, Elsevier, 2016.

3. Gucunski, N., Seong-Hoon, Kee, Hung, La, Basily Basily, and Alie Maher, Delamination and Concrete Quality Assessment of Concrete Bridge Decks Using a Fully Autonomous RABIT Platform , Volume 2: Number 1, International Journal of Structural Monitoring and Maintenance , Daejeon, Korea, Techno-Press, Ltd., 2015.

4. Martino, N., Ralf Birken, Ken Maser, and Ming Wang, Quantifying Bridge Deck Corrosion Using Ground Penetrating Radar,  Volume 27: Issue 2, Research in Nondestructive Evaluation , Columbus, OH, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, 2016.

5. Martino, N., and Ken Maser, “Comparison of air -coupled GPR data analysis results determined by multiple analysts.” Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures/NDE 2016 , Las Vegas, NV, SPIE, 2016.

6. Maser, K., Even Guarino, and Nicole Martino, “Comparison of Ground -Coupled and Air-Launched Ground Penetrating Radar Methods for Bridge Deck Condition Evaluation.” Proceedings of the NDE/NDT for Structural Materials Technology for Highways and Bridges,  Washington, DC, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, 2014.

7. Martino, N., Ken Maser, and Ralf Birken, “Adapting a Ground Coupled GPR Threshold Model for Use with Air Coupled GPR Systems.” Proceedings of the International Symposium Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering,  Berlin, Germany, 2015.

Metrics
Usage Shares
Total Views
40 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
40
0 PDF Downloads
0
0 Facebook Shares
Total Usage
40