United States Department of Transportation
i
Feasibility of Using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for Pavements, Utilities, and Bridges
-
2006-08-31
[PDF-6.82 MB]
Details:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Edition:Final Report June 1, 2005 – August 31, 2006
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:The objective of the project was to evaluate the feasibility and benefit of using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for the evaluation of pavements, bridges, and utilities. The evaluation was carried out through a literature review, a survey of SDDOT personnel, a survey of the use of GPR by other state agencies, a series of demonstration projects, a cost/benefit analysis, and a utilization plan. The literature review and surveys indicated that the most common and effective transportation applications of GPR are for pavement thickness and bridge deck condition evaluations. The demonstration projects focused on these two applications, and on geotechnical applications for fault detection and evaluation of subgrade moisture content. The bridge deck evaluation showed that the GPR technology worked well for determining corrosion-induced delamination in overlaid decks with slab-on-girder construction, but was less effective on one-way slab bridges. The pavement evaluations, conducted on two AC and one PCC section, demonstrated the ability to accurately measure and plot pavement layer thickness. The subgrade moisture evaluation showed good correlation between GPR and boring data, and demonstrated the ability of GPR to map out variations of subgrade moisture content. The fault evaluation did not produce positive results, due to the attenuation caused by the high clay content in South Dakota soil. A cost-benefit analysis has been conducted for different scenarios shows benefit/cost ratios range from 1.98 for the bare deck delamination evaluation (GPR vs. sounding) to 113 for thickness quality assurance of new pavement. The analysis also shows the tradeoffs between using outside consultants vs. doing the work in-house. A utilization and equipment plan recommends that SDDOT initially use consultants for the lower volumes of startup work, and then move into owning and operating equipment and analyzing data when then volume increase warrants the additional investment.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
