Combined GPR and ultrasonic tomography
measurements for the evaluation
of a new concrete pavement
A. Van der Wielen, M. Lybaert, C. Grégoire
Belgian Road Research Centre
Brussels, Belgium
a.vanderwielen@brrc.be
Abstract— Ground Penetrating Radar and Ultrasonic
Tomography are two nondestructive techniques that are
particularly well suited for the inspection of concrete pavements
using electromagnetic and ultrasonic sound waves, respectively.
In this study, both methods were used for the evaluation of a
newly laid concrete pavement. The positions of the dowels in the
transverse joints and the thickness of the pavement were
surveyed. Results showed that GPR was more efficient for dowel
positioning, while both devices could be used for thickness
estimation. With both methods the precision was higher when
calibration spots were available (mean relative error smaller than
2%), but the errors remained limited (<6%) when appropriate
nondestructive methods were used for speed estimation.
Keywords—GPR; road evaluation; ultrasonic tomography
I. INTRODUCTION
Quality control of new concrete pavements typically
requires destructive sampling in order to verify concrete
thickness and material strength. This sampling usually consists
of taking cores from the pavement at a set interval. This
practice is destructive, expensive and does not always
adequately characterize thickness variation in concrete
pavements [1].
Non-destructive testing (NDT) offers the ability to assess
the quality of new or existing pavements without causing any
damage to their structures. Because of the inherent non-
destructive nature of the tests, many data can be collected in
order to determine compliance with specifications in terms of
concrete quality, thickness, and the condition of defects [2, 3].
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Ultrasonic
Tomography are two nondestructive techniques that are
particularly well suited for the inspection of concrete
pavements. Using electromagnetic and ultrasonic sound waves,
respectively, the two methods implement the same principle:
they send waves from the surface into the structure and
measure the echoes reflected from different interfaces. Both
methods are capable of determining pavement thickness and
rebar positions [4].
Since the first GPR road surveys performed in the 70’s, the
use of this method as a road evaluation tool has gradually been
This study was conducted as part of the pre-normative research projects
Georadar and Ultoma, funded by the Belgian Bureau for Standardization
(NBN).
adopted by the road authorities of many countries. Recent years
have seen the appearance of new antennas with higher
frequencies and consequently increased resolution. Horn
antennas are well suited for pavement thickness estimation and
can perform fast measurements in traffic; while contact
antennas are required for locating rebars or cracks in concrete.
Depending on their frequency, GPR antennas are able to
distinguish each layer in the road structure, from the wearing
course to the base layer [5].
Ultrasonic tomography is an emerging NDT technique that
shows great promise for inspections of concrete structures.
Recently developed ultrasonic tomography devices have
proved capable of determining concrete pavement thickness
and reinforcement location with increased precision [4, 6]. The
technique can be used to assess several key characteristics of
new as well as existing concrete pavements, including the
position of reinforcement, the presence of large cracks or
impurities, and concrete homogeneity [7].
In this study, both methods were used for the evaluation of
a newly laid jointed plain concrete pavement (JCPC) with a
thickness of 20 cm. The first task was to survey the positions of
the dowels in the transverse joints, while the second was to
assess pavement thickness. To validate the thickness estimates
obtained with the two methods, a large number of thickness
measurements were made on reference spots with a
topographic total station, before and after concreting. The
precision of the thickness measurements by the two methods
was compared with and without considering a few of those
spots as calibration references.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Tested section and reference spots
The tested section is a 250 m long newly laid JPCP with
dowels in the transverse joints. The nominal pavement
thickness is 20 cm and the slab length is 5 m. The concrete
overlay was poured on top of an asphalt layer, onto which the
dowels were fixed before placing the concrete (Fig. 1, right).
Owing to adverse weather conditions on the day the concrete
was poured, differences in concrete properties (porosity,
compressive strength …) can be expected.

(a) (b)
Fig 1. Before concreting, the dowels were laid out at the expected places of
the transverse joints (a) and fixed onto the underlying asphalt layer
(b)
Pavement thickness was assessed on 142 different spots
using a topographic total station (Leica iCON Robot 50) that
affords a precision of about 1 mm in estimating elevations.
This precision may be lower when the surface is very rough.
The accuracy of these measurements is, therefore, slightly
lower than the precision that can be achieved with traditional
coring, but the error in the estimated thickness should not be
greater than 2 mm. The surface elevation on each reference
spot was measured before and after concreting, which took
place in March 2016.
B. GPR
The GPR measurements were made three months after
concreting for the dowel positioning task and one month later
for the thickness estimation task. Two different GSSI antennas
were used for the measurements. The first was a 900 MHz
contact antenna placed on a survey cart moved at walking
speed. The second was a 2 GHz horn antenna mounted behind
a vehicle driven at low speed (± 10 km/h). With the first
antenna 200 traces were recorded per meter, while only 20
traces per metre were measured with the 2 GHz antenna.
The time window typically used in our surveys are 15 ns
for the 2 GHz antenna and 25 ns for the 900 MHz antenna [8].
However, the small depth of the surveyed features led us to use
a 15 ns time window with both frequencies for the concrete
thickness assessment. With this reduced time window, the
resolution of the signal registered with 512 points was
increased without decreasing the maximum measurement
speed.
With the horn antenna, the time zero used for the thickness
estimations is the time of reflection from the surface. Because
the antenna is placed 45 to 50 cm above the surface, the wave
path is almost vertical and the distance between antennas can
be neglected. For the 900 MHz contact antenna, the time zero
is evaluated using a calibration measurement performed in air.
With this method, the direct wave reception is not affected by
the direct wave travelling through the material surface or by the
multiple surface reflections. The time zero (time of emission) is
then calculated from the arrival time of the direct wave, by
subtracting the travel time in air from one antenna to the other
one (0.5 ns). In this case, the calculated time zero is situated
1.2 ns before the first apparent peak.
The speed of electromagnetic waves was estimated by three
different methods. The first method used 9 of the spots
surveyed with the topographic station as reference thickness
measurements to estimate the speed for the whole section. It
cannot be considered as fully nondestructive, as it requires
measurements to be performed before road construction. The
second method utilized the surface reflection amplitude
measured with the 2 GHz horn antenna to evaluate the speed.
Finally, the third speed estimation method used a migration
procedure with the 900 MHz contact measurements. The latter
two non-destructive procedures for speed estimation are
detailed in the next few paragraphs.
1) Speed estimation using the surface reflection coefficient
method
The surface reflection coefficient method, which is
applicable to measurements performed with horn antennas,
compares the amplitude of every measurement to a calibration
measurement performed on a perfect reflector (a metal plate of
sufficient dimensions) [9]. During the calibration, the antenna
is moved vertically so that the reflection is measured for all the
soil-surface distances. For each arrival time, the incident
amplitude, Acalib, is considered as the peak-to-peak amplitude
of the perfect reflection.
After the field measurement, the amplitude of the surface
reflection, A0, is estimated for each trace and compared to the
one measured on the metal plate for the same arrival time
(Acalib) (Fig. 2). The reflection coefficient, R0, is then obtained
by multiplying this quotient by -1, to account for the phase
change generated by the reflection from the metal.
(1)
From the surface reflection coefficient, R0, the dielectric
relative permittivity, ’r1, is calculated using (2) [9]:
(2)
The speed in the first layer, v1, is then calculated using (3)
[10]:
(3)
where c is the speed of light (i.e., 30 cm/ns).
3
x 10
4
2.5

Comparative
2 calibration trace

1.5

1
0.5

Measured trace
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 5
Time
10 15
Fig. 2 Comparison of a measured trace to the calibration file trace
exhibiting the same surface reflection time
 In (3), the incidence of the waves on the surface is receiving pair time-of-flight measurements. The shear waves
assimilated to 90°. This is valid with horn antennas, because are emitted and received simultaneously by channels of
the distance between the receiving and the emitting antennas multiple transducers, allowing plane wave front propagation in
can be neglected in comparison with the ground-antenna the medium.
distance. This method will not be applicable if properties are
subject to a gradient (for example, if the material is drying) or The ultrasonic tomography device MIRATM used in this
if the layer thickness is too small compared to the wavelength. study (Fig. 4) consists of a linear array of 48 sending and
receiving transducers arranged in 12 channels of 4 transducers
2) Speed estimation using the migration procedure operating in a multi-static nature (Fig. 4 (a)). Each channel of 4
transducers sequentially emits 50 kHz shear wave pulses, while
Migration is a radar processing technique by which all the
the other channels receive the reflections from internal
energy of the hyperbolas in the signal is focused at their tops. If
interfaces. This allows 66 separate transmitting and receiving
the correct wave speed is selected by the user, the rebars will
transducer pair time-of-flight measurements per scan
appear as points in the profile instead of hyperbolas.
(Fig. 4 (b)). The data is then automatically analysed using the
This method is useful for data visualization, but can also be Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique (SAFT). The result is
used to obtain an estimate of speed in the investigated material: a visual representation of the cross section (B-scan) below the
the material speed is that for which the migration procedure scanned area [13, 14].
makes it possible to concentrate all the energy of the
An example of B-scan taken on the test section is shown in
hyperbolas into their summits. This method does not require
Fig. 4 (c). At a depth of approximately 180 mm a green oblong
any specific calibration measurement, but is only efficient
reflection is visible, which reflects the interface between the
when the surveyed structure contains local targets that generate
concrete pavement and the underlying asphalt layer. To obtain
hyperbolas.
the thickness of the concrete pavement, the Z-coordinate with
Different speeds can be tested for the measured profiles, the highest amplitude along this reflection is determined. At a
with a trial and error method until an optimum is found. The depth of 270 mm a second red-green oblong reflection is
precision of estimation is about 0.3 cm/ns, which is rather low visible, which reflects the interface between the underlying
in comparison with other methods. asphalt layer and the base layer.
In the evaluation of the concrete road, the migration results The measurements were performed 6 and 12 weeks after
(Fig. 3) showed that the speed ranged between concreting. In each measurement campaign, the velocity of the
8.00 and 8.35 cm/ns. With higher and lower speeds the ultrasonic waves was automatically estimated by the device.
migration procedure generated residual up and down The velocity was then estimated from the propagation time
hyperbolas. between the known positions of the modules and extrapolated
to the half-space underneath. In the first campaign, a set of
C. Ultrasonic tomography measurements was also performed using a speed calibrated on
Just like radar with electromagnetic waves, ultrasonic a few reference spots.
methods use the propagation of acoustic waves to characterize
the properties and assess the quality of materials. Ultrasonic
sound waves are sent into the material, where they are reflected
at each interface between materials of different acoustic
impedance. Dry point contact (DCP) transducers produce an
oscillating force over a small contact zone (< 2-mm point
source), enabling shear waves to be transferred by dry contact
to the tested medium [11]. With this type of transducer,
measurements can be performed without the need for a
coupling liquid or a specific surface preparation.
The propagation of elastic waves through concrete may be
affected by heterogeneities in the material, such as aggregates,
pores and cracks [12]. To mitigate their effect an array of
transducers is used, which allows multiple transmitting and

7.5 cm/ns 8 cm/ns 8.35 cm/ns 9 cm/ns

Fig. 4 (a) MIRATM device; (b) paths of the 66 simultaneous measurements
Fig. 3 Speed estimation using the migration technique with 900 MHz GPR performed per scan and (c) example of B-scan measured on the test
data section
 TABLE I. RADAR WAVE SPEEDS CALCULATED WITH THE DIFFERENT METHODS
III. RESULTS
Total
Radar, 2 GHz Radar, 900 MHz
station
A. Dowel position assessment Speed Speed Speed
Speed
Dowel positions were assessed with the 900 MHz contact Reference estimated estimation estimated
estimation
spot Thickness Time on based on Time on
GPR antenna, 6 weeks after concreting. The measurements position (cm) (ns) reference surface (ns) reference
based on
migration
were performed along the joints as well as in longitudinal (m) spots reflection spots
(cm/ns)
profiles along the whole section (one in each direction). The (cm/ns) (cm/ns) (cm/ns)
whole measurement campaign took less than 100 minutes. 0.00 21.2 Noisy signal – bottom of 5.82 7.74 8.2 ±0.3
26.66 22.2 slab not visible 5.77 8.13 8.2 ±0.3
The GPR measurements revealed that in 20 out of the 50
joints dowels had been moved during concreting, dragging 105.34 20.8 5.33 7.80 10.14 5.68 7.80 8.2 ±0.3
them away from the transverse joints (Fig. 5). For those joints, 121.52 22.5 4.88 9.22 10.37 5.79 8.20 8.2 ±0.3
the effectiveness of the dowels in preventing vertical
movements of the concrete slabs will be reduced or non- 136.94 20.5 4.88 8.40 10.57 5.51 7.94 8.2 ±0.3
existent. This demonstrates the importance for road owners to 147.41 20.5 5.18 7.91 10.32 5.51 7.94 8.2 ±0.3
include nondestructive tests in their road quality assessment 158.49 22.8 5.45 8.36 10.16 6.04 7.96 8.2 ±0.3
procedures.
172.36 22.3 5.33 8.36 9.64 5.93 7.95 8.2 ±0.3
The dowels were also successfully detected by ultrasonic
187.80 22.9 5.42 8.45 10.41 5.89 8.19 8.2 ±0.3
tomography, but the fact that continuous measurements are not
possible with this method made it less efficient for this kind of Average 8.36 10.23 7.98 8.2 ±0.3
application. Standard
0.46 0.30 0.16
deviation
B. Thickness estimation
The average speed calculated on the reference spots is
Thicknesses were estimated with the ultrasonic tomograph
8.36 cm/ns for the 2 GHz antenna and 7.98 cm/ns for the 900
and with both radar antennas. For the first meters, the 2 GHz
MHz antenna. The speed difference between the antennas is
signal was very noisy (probably owing to the presence of
due to the smaller reflection time measured with the 2 GHz
antennas in the neighborhood) and the bottom of the slab was
antenna. This time difference could be caused by an error in the
not visible on the profile.
time zero estimation or by a different wavelet shape, which is
1) Speed estimation with GPR likely to slightly modify the reflection time of the first peak.
Further studies should show whether these differences are
The speeds estimated with both radar antennas and all the
systematic and can, therefore, be corrected. When thicknesses
methods described in Section II.B are compared in Table I. For
are estimated with the same antenna as on the reference spots,
speed estimations on reference spots, the time picked on the
errors should nevertheless remain limited. The standard
radargram for the interface corresponding to the bottom of the
deviation measured with the 2 GHz antenna is higher, is
layer was used in the calculation, together with the thickness
attributed to the noise observed in the profile.
measured with the total station. For the contact antenna, the
distance between antennas (7.6 cm) was considered in The average surface speed calculated from surface
calculating layer thickness. The speeds estimated with the reflection is equal to 10.23 cm/ns. This is significantly higher
totally nondestructive methods (surface reflection coefficients than the speeds calculated for the reference spots and is clearly
with the 2 GHz antenna and migration with the 900 MHz wrong, as it would lead to a 20 % overestimation of total
antenna) are also shown. thicknesses. This speed overestimation could be due to the fact
that the concrete was still relatively new when the
measurements were made. Moisture content at that time was
possibly still higher inside the layer than at the surface of the
concrete. Nevertheless, those variations show the errors that
can be induced when speed is estimated from surface
reflections only.
The speed estimated by migration also lacks precision (the
variation interval is about 0.6 cm/ns), but is compatible with
the speeds estimated on the calibration spots. This suggests that
when rebars are present speed estimation by migration may be
more reliable than surface reflection analysis, in a fully
nondestructive survey.
2) Speed estimation with ultrasonic tomography
Ultrasonic tomography measurements can be performed in
Fig. 5 Comparison of 900 MHz GPR profiles measured on joints with a fully nondestructive way, using surface wave speed, or on the
correct or incorrect final positions of the dowels basis of calibration measurements on spots with known
thicknesses. Both methods were used during the first TABLE II. SPEED ESTIMATION WITH THE ULTRASONIC TOMOGRAPH
measurement campaign (7th June), whereas only the automatic
surface speed was estimated during the second one (17th July). Date 7th June 17th July
The measured values are summarized in Table II. Speed determination
Calib. Speed Auto. speed Auto. speed
method
The calibration speed was determined after measurements
on three carefully selected spots where the thickness was Speed (m/s) 2,600 2,693 2,695
known from total station measurements. The mean speed for Standard deviation
those measurements was 2,600 m/s. The mean automatic speed (m/s)
46 55 58
showed little variation between both campaigns, but was
significantly higher than the calibration speed. TABLE III. MEAN AND MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE ERRORS COMMITED WITH EACH
METHOD
3) Thickness estimation
Thicknesses were estimated from the GPR data, using the Ultrasonic tomograph GPR
speeds calculated on the reference spots for each antenna:
7th 17th 900 900 2 GHz
8.35 cm/ns for the 2 GHz antenna and 8.00 cm/ns for the 900 7th June
June July MHz
2 GHz
MHz Surface
MHz antenna. The results are represented in Fig. 6. Calib. Calib.
Auto. Auto. Calib. Migr. refl.
speed speed
speed speed speed speed speed
Many more spots were surveyed with the GPR than with 2,693 2,695
2,600 8.00 8.35 8.20 10.20
the total station. Owing to surrounding noise, no 2 GHz Speed
m/s
± 55 ± 58
cm/ns cm/ns cm/ns cm/ns
thickness estimation is available for the first 60 meters and the m/s m/s
data measured over the rest of the section exhibit much Mean abs.
3.90 6.57 3.52 4.05 7.28 4.70 61.90
variability. The use of the non-destructive speed estimations error (mm)
would lead to a 25 % thickness overestimation with the surface Max. abs.
8.0 24.0 8.0 17.9 25.0 13.6 82.8
reflection coefficients. With the migration procedure, error (mm)
depending on the selected speed the error can be as high as 5%. Relative
1.8% 3.1% 1.6% 1.9% 3.4% 2.2% 28.7%
error
Table III and Fig. 7 compare the thickness estimations with
Standard
the two non-destructive methods to the thicknesses measured deviation 2.40 5.08 2.35 3.19 5.91 3.19 11.37
with the total station. (mm)

Fig. 6 Thicknesses calculated from the GPR data with reference points

GPR Ultrasonic tomograph

240 240
GPR 900 MHz Ultrasonic tomography y = 0.94x + 10.62
y = 0.7662x + 51.805
7 June - (Automatic speed) R² = 0.88
(8 cm/ns) R² = 0.5075 230
230
GPR 2 GHz Ultrasonic tomography
(8.36 cm/ns) 220
7 June - (Calibrated speed)
220
Ultrasonic tomography
17 July - (Automatic speed)
Estimated 210 Estimated 210
thickness thickness
(mm) 200 (mm) 200
y = 0.95x + 8.56 y = 0.95x + 4.43
y = 0.7482x + 51.728
R² = 0.92 R² = 0.78
190 R² = 0.8312 190

180 180

170 170
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Thickness measured with the topographic total station (mm) Thickness measured with the topographic total station (mm)
Fig. 7 Comparison of the thicknesses measured with the GPR antennas and with the tomograph to the measurements performed with the total station.
 The ultrasonic tomographic measurements performed on
July 17 yielded the best results, with a mean absolute error of
3.52 mm and a maximum error of 8.00 mm. These
measurements were based on automatic velocity estimation by
the device. However, measurements performed on other
concrete pavements have shown that this velocity estimation is
not always reliable; calibration on at least one core sample is,
therefore, always needed. Within the group of GPR results,
measurements made with the 900 MHz antenna on the
calibration spots show the highest accuracy. Using the
migration speed with the 900 MHz data seems to be the best
alternative to calibration on core samples.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Both methods are suitable for the evaluation of concrete
pavements.
For dowel detection over a whole road section, GPR
performs very well. Systematic use after road construction
could help road owners to assess the quality of the works upon
completion and, where appropriate, to impose financial
penalties if the quality of the completed road fails to meet the
requirements.
For thickness estimation, the best results were obtained
with the ultrasonic tomograph with calibrated speed (1.8% of
relative error), followed by the 900 MHz GPR measurements
with calibrated speed (1.9%). This demonstrates the need for at
least one calibration measurement to validate the estimation for
this type of pavement when newly constructed.
When used in a fully non-destructive mode, the ultrasonic
tomograph performs very variably. In this study it performed
better on older than on more recent concrete (with 1.6% and
3.1% of relative error, respectively). Nevertheless, the error
remained smaller than that obtained using surface reflection
with radar (28.7%). These results proved disappointing when
compared to other measurement campaigns [15]. The error
committed with a speed deduced from migration results was
rather small (2.2%). However, owing to the low precision and
relative subjectivity of the speed estimation this method should
be considered only when no calibration spots are available.
If the structure is not reinforced and fully nondestructive
testing is required, combining GPR and ultrasonic
measurements will enhance the precision of measurement
while taking advantage of both the higher precision of
ultrasonic tomography and the high measurement speed of
GPR.
For both methods, it should be emphasized that the quality
of the results will be highly dependent on the experience and
interpretation skills of the operator.
V. REFERENCES
[1] M. Vancura, L. Khazanovich, and R. Barnes, “Concrete Pavement
Thickness Variation Assessment with Cores and Nondestructive
Testing Measurements,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, no. 2347, pp. 61–68, 2013.
[2] C. Maierhofer, H.-W. Reinhardt, and G. Dobmann (Eds.), Non-
destructive evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Cambridge:
Woodhead Pub, 2010.
[3] S. R. Sharp and C. Ozyildirim, “Nondestructive Measurements Using
Mechanical Waves in Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Jan. 2014.
[4] L. Edwards and Q. Mason, “Evaluation of nondestructive methods for
determining pavement thickness,” DTIC Document, Jan. 2011.
[5] J. Hugenschmidt, Geophysics and non-destructive testing for transport
infrastructure, with special emphasis on ground penetrating radar.
Zürich: ETH, 2010.
[6] K. Hoegh, L. Khazanovich, and H. Yu, “Ultrasonic tomography for
evaluation of concrete pavements,” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 2232, pp. 85–94,
2011.
[7] K. Schabowicz, “Modern acoustic techniques for testing concrete
structures accessible from one side only,” Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1149–1159, 2015.
[8] C. Grégoire, A. van der Wielen, C. van Geem, and J.-P. Drevet,
Methodologies for the use of gound-penetrating radar in pavement
condition surveys: Belgian Road Research Centre (BRRC), 2016.
[9] I. L. AL-Qadi and S. Lahouar, “Measuring layer thicknesses with GPR
– Theory to practice,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 19, no.
10, pp. 763–772, 2005.
[10] A. P. Annan, “11. Ground-Penetrating Radar,” in Investigations in
geophysics, vol. 13, Near-surface geophysics, D. K. Butler, Ed., Tulsa,
Okla.: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2005, pp. 357–438.
[11] A. Beeldens, P. de Winne, K. Hoegh, and M. Lybaert, “Ultrasonic
tomography as non destructive measuring technique for concrete
pavement evaluation,” in 12th International Symposium on concrete
roads 2014, Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1–13.
[12] F. Schubert and B. Köhler, “Ten lectures on impact-echo,” Journal of
Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 27, no. 1-3, pp. 5–21, 2008.
[13] Germann Instruments, MIRA guidebook. [Online] Available:
https://www.google.be/search?q=MIRA+guidebook&hl=fr&authuser=
0&gws_rd=ssl. Accessed on: Dec. 14 2016.
[14] K. Hoegh, L. Khazanovich, B. J. Worel, H. T. Yu, and P. R. Engineer,
“Subsurface Joint Deterioration Detection: A MnROAD Blind Test
Comparison of Ultrasound Array Technology with Conventional
Nondestructive Methods,” 2013.
[15] C. Grégoire, A. van der Wielen, and C. van Geem, Eds., Determination
of velocities with radar in road layers. 2015 8th International Workshop
on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR), 2015.