NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

NDT&E International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ndteint

Development and validation for in situ asphalt mixture density

prediction models
Zhen Leng a,n, Imad L. Al-Qadi a, Samer Lahouar b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205N. Mathews Ave., MC-250, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
b
Department of Electronics, Institut Supérieur des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie de Sousse, Cité Taffala, Ibn Khaldoun, Sousse 4003, Tunisia

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: In situ asphalt mixture density is an important quality property of flexible pavements. A previous study
Received 15 November 2010 introduced the potential of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to estimate in situ asphalt mixture density
Received in revised form continuously, rapidly, and nondestructively. Three density prediction models were developed based on
10 March 2011
the relationship between the asphaltic mixture volumetric characteristics and the components’
Accepted 14 March 2011
dielectric constants. In this study, a full-scale test site was carefully designed and constructed for the
Available online 22 March 2011
model validation. Five different mixes were placed in the test site, and each was compacted at four
Keywords: density levels. Both GPR data and cores were collected from the test site to validate the performance of
Asphalt mixture the density models developed in the previous study. The validation results indicated that all three
Density
models provided reasonably accurate predictions with errors in the range of 2.2–2.8%, and the modified
Ground penetrating radar
Bottcher model (Al-Qadi, Lahouar and Leng (ALL) model) performed the best. In addition, the authors
Density prediction model
provided the appropriate algorithm for predicting in situ asphalt mixture density through a GPR survey.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In situ asphalt mixture density or its air void content is
critically important to flexible pavements because it is directly
related to structural capacity and service life. Density that is
either too high or too low can cause premature pavement failures,
which in turn result in considerable extra cost in maintenance
and rehabilitation. According to Robert et al. [1], the density of
dense-graded mixes should be controlled within a range of air
void content from 3% to 8% during their service life.
In current construction practice, this property is most com-
monly measured by using a nuclear density gauge, a device that
transmits and receives gamma radiation [2]. This nondestructive
method has several advantages, such as portability and providing
quick results. However, it can only provide results at discrete
testing locations, and special licenses are required for operators
because the gauge uses radioactive material.
To overcome the limitations of the traditional method and
develop a system capable of collecting an increased number of
density measurements, researchers have investigated new tech-
nologies, such as intelligent compaction [3], thermal imaging [4],
ground penetrating radar (GPR) [5–8], and an electromagnetic
(EM) density gauge [9]. Among these new technologies, GPR has
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zleng2@illinois.edu (Z. Leng).
the most potential because GPR surveys are nondestructive, rapid,
continuous, and can provide multiple types of pavement structure
information (such as layer thickness and substructure distresses)
in addition to density. However, the practice of using GPR to
predict in-place asphalt mixture density is still in a development
stage and its performance needs to be validated before it can be
used for this practical purpose.
To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of using GPR to
predict asphalt mixture density, the authors, in an earlier phase of
this study, developed three density models according to the EM
mixing theory [5]. These density models enable the prediction of
asphalt mixture density based on its bulk dielectric constant, a
material electric property, which can be measured by GPR, as well
as other material composition information. The main objective of
this research is to validate these models by using the data from a
custom-designed full-scale test site.
Within the test site, 20 sections were constructed to evaluate five
asphalt mixtures, each at four density levels. The GPR data collected
from the test site were used in conjunction with the density models
to predict the in-place asphalt mixture densities. The accuracy of
these predicted densities was validated by comparing the measured
densities of the field cores to the predicted values. Three models
were considered after being modified: namely complex refractive
index model, Rayleigh model, and Bottcher model. The authors
concluded that all three models provided reasonably accurate
predictions, but the modified Bottcher model (Al-Qadi, Lahouar
and Leng (ALL) model) performed the best. In addition, they

0963-8695/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ndteint.2011.03.002
370 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375

ascertained the appropriate algorithm for predicting in situ asphalt To validate the performance of these density models,
mixture density using GPR. Al-Qadi et al. [5] collected GPR data from 0.6 m  0.6 m  7.5 cm
(2 ft  2 ft  3 in.) asphalt mixture slabs prepared in the lab. The
limestone aggregate and PG 64-22 asphalt binder were used in
the slabs, and the air void contents of the slabs were within the
2. Research background range of 9.9–16.4%. Their preliminary laboratory testing results
indicated that the GPR-measured dielectric constant can yield
The application of GPR is based on transmitting EM pulses into predicted asphalt mixture density when an appropriate model is
the ground and collecting reflected pulses from the interfaces used. However, they also found the following limitations in the
where there is dielectric contrast. GPR research in pavement laboratory testing:
engineering was initiated in the mid-1970s by the Federal High-
way Administration to investigate the feasibility of GPR in tunnel (1) The density levels of the slabs, which could be achieved in the
applications [10]. Since then, GPR applications for pavement lab using available compaction equipment were much lower
structure evaluation have been extended to a wide range of areas, than the field values, which are usually within the range of 4–
with the most common including the measurement of pavement 8% in terms of air void content.
layer thicknesses [11–16], detection of pavement distresses (2) Preparing the large laboratory testing slabs is very time and
[17,18], determination of depth and alignment of steel bars labor consuming.
[19,20], and estimation of density and air void content [5–8].
Attempts to use GPR to measure asphalt mixture density
started in the 1990s; however, its application in practice has Table 1
continued to be limited. Lytton [6] developed a computer pro- Variables and levels considered in the field testing.
gram to predict the density and water content of the various
layers within a multilayer system using conventional GPR. Variable Levels (number of levels)
Through an iterative process, this program calculates the con-
Mix type Surface mix and binder mix (2)
centrations of solids, liquids, and gases in the tested area to Aggregate type Limestone and granite (2)
provide composition information helpful in building and repair- Asphalt type PG 64-22 and PG 70-22 (2)
ing roadways. However, the technical details of this patented Asphalt content Optimum and optimum þ1% (2)
program are proprietary. Finnish researchers [7] concluded that Air void content 4%, 6%, 9%, and 12% (4)

an exponential relationship existed between the pavement sur-

face dielectric constant and void content based on statistical
analysis and used this relationship to predict asphalt mixture Table 2
air void content through a GPR survey. As previously mentioned, Mixes used in the testing site.
Al-Qadi et al. [5] very recently developed three density models
between the bulk specific gravity and dielectric constant of Mix # Mix type Asphalt type Asphalt content
asphalt mixture according to the EM mixing theory. These density
I Limestone surface mix PG64-22 Optimum
models were derived by applying the mass–volume relation of the II Granite surface mix PG70-22 Optimum
asphalt mixture to the EM mixing models, which relate the III Granite surface mix PG64-22 Optimum
dielectric constant of a mixture to the dielectric and volumetric IV Granite surface mix PG64-22 Optimumþ 1%
properties of its components [21]. As shown in Eqs. (1)–(3), these V Limestone binder mix PG64-22 Optimum

density models are developed based on three EM mixing models,

namely complex refractive index model (CRIM), Rayleigh model,
and Bottcher model, respectively. Ref. [21] provides the back-
ground of these three models and Ref. [5] provides the details of
the density model derivation. The modified Bottcher model is
referred to as ALL model in this study.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
eAC 1
Gmb ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
ðPb =Gb Þ eb þðð1Pb Þ=Gsb Þ es ð1=Gmm Þ

ðeAC eb Þ=ðeAC þ 2eb Þð1eb Þ=ð1 þ 2eb Þ

Gmb ¼ ð2Þ
ðes eb Þ=ðes þ2eb Þð1Pb Þ=Gsb ð1eb Þ=ð1 þ2eb Þð1=Gmm Þ

ðeAC eb Þ=ð3eAC Þð1eb Þ=ð1 þ 2eAC Þ

Gmb ¼ ð3Þ
ðes eb Þ=ðes þ2eAC Þð1Pb Þ=Gsb ð1eb Þ=ð1 þ 2eAC Þð1=Gmm Þ

where, Gmb is the bulk specific gravity of asphalt mixture, Gmm is

the maximum specific gravity of asphalt mixture, Gsb is the bulk
specific gravity of aggregate, Pb is the binder content, Gb is the
specific gravity of binder, eAC is the dielectric constant of asphalt
mixture, eb is the dielectric constant of binder, and es is the
dielectric constant of aggregate. Note that in these equations, the
specific gravity of a material is equal to the density of the material
divided by the density of water at 4 1C (1 g/cm3), and therefore is
numerically the same as the density of the material in g/cm3.
Specific gravity will be used in this paper to describe a material’s
density, because this density index is commonly used in pave-
ment engineering. Fig. 1. Asphalt mixture overlay construction layout.
 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375 371

(3) Some edge effects existed in the lab-collected GPR data due to
the GPR signal reflecting from the surrounding material of the
testing slab.
(4) Only one type of mix was evaluated.

Therefore, for this new phase of research, a full-scale test site

composed of different mixes with different densities was care-
fully designed and constructed to provide better-quality GPR data
for the model validation.

3. Test site design and construction

The density models developed in the prior study are based on

Fig. 2. Location of steel sheet in each section.
Fig. 3. 2 GHz air-coupled GPR system.
the fact that the bulk dielectric constant of a mixture is dependent
on the dielectric and volumetric properties of its components. The
components of an asphalt mixture under dry condition include
asphalt binder, aggregate, and air. When designing the test site,
the following variables were considered: mix type, aggregate
type, asphalt type, asphalt content, and air void content
(Table 1). Based on these candidate variables, three basic mix
designs commonly used in construction practice were selected:
one limestone surface mix, one granite surface mix, and one
limestone binder mix. To evaluate the effect of asphalt type, a
fourth mix was added by changing the binder of the granite
surface mix from PG 64-22 to PG 70-22. To evaluate the effect of
asphalt binder content on GPR data, a fifth mix was added that
increased the asphalt content of the granite surface mix by 1%.
Therefore, in total, five mixes, as shown in Table 2, were used at
the test site. Each of these mixes was compacted in different
sections at four density levels: 4%, 6%, 9%, and 12% in terms
of target air void content. A nuclear gauge was used during

Table 3
Back-calculated aggregate dielectric constants of each mix.

Core # eAC Parameters with known values Back-calculated es

Gmb Pb Gb Gsb Gmm eb Modified CRIM Modified Rayleigh model ALL model

a
I-1 5.77 2.298 6.0 1.015 2.603 2.481 3 6.4 7.0 6.8
II-1 4.99 2.355 5.4 1.015 2.641 2.528 3 5.3 5.8 5.7
III-1 5.25 2.333 5.4 1.015 2.641 2.501 3 5.8 6.2 6.1
IV-1 5.00 2.315 6.4 1.015 2.641 2.468 3 5.5 5.9 5.8
V-1 5.73 2.323 5.1 1.015 2.607 2.505 3 6.3 6.8 6.6

a
The roman number represents the lane number and the arabic number represents the section number.

Table 4
Gmb prediction errors of each model.

Core # Core Gmb Core air void (%) eAC Modified CRIM Modified Rayleigh model ALL model

a
Gmb Error (%) Gmb Error (%) Gmb Error (%)

I-2 2.297 7.4 5.83 2.319 0.9 2.315 0.8 2.266 1.3
I-3 2.211 10.9 5.49 2.200 0.5 2.214 0.1 2.222 0.5
I-4 2.136 13.9 5.28 2.128 0.4 2.152 0.7 2.221 4.0
II-2 2.357 6.7 5.08 2.393 1.5 2.389 1.3 2.381 1.0
II-3 2.297 9.1 4.91 2.321 1.0 2.325 1.2 2.331 1.5
II-4 2.217 12.3 4.40 2.095 5.5 2.121 4.4 2.154 2.8
III-2 2.265 9.4 5.11 2.278 0.6 2.285 0.9 2.295 1.3
III-3 2.232 10.8 4.95 2.214 0.8 2.229 0.1 2.249 0.7
III-4 2.166 13.4 4.23 1.907 11.9 1.948 10.1 1.993 8.0
IV-2 2.252 8.8 4.72 2.196 2.5 2.209 1.9 2.228 1.1
IV-3 2.234 9.5 4.87 2.258 1.1 2.265 1.4 2.274 1.8
IV-4 2.184 11.5 4.59 2.139 2.1 2.157 1.2 2.183 0.1
V-2 2.304 8.0 5.83 2.358 2.3 2.352 2.1 2.345 1.8
V-3 2.277 9.1 5.74 2.329 2.3 2.328 2.2 2.327 2.2
V-4 2.205 12.0 4.60 1.910 13.4 1.959 11.2 2.013 8.7
Average prediction error (%) 3.1 2.6 2.5

a
Error is calculated by dividing the difference between the predicted Gmb and core Gmb by the core Gmb.
372 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375

construction to monitor and verify the in situ density of each test
section.
The test site was constructed on a large parking lot originally
surfaced with asphalt. As illustrated in Fig. 1, five lanes, with four
sections each, were constructed. Mix I–Mix IV were used in Lane
I–Lane IV, respectively. AV and h in Fig. 1 represent the target air
void content and layer thickness, respectively. Thus, the four
sections of each lane were constructed with the same mix at the
same target thickness of 63 mm (2.5 in.) but with the different
target air void contents as stated above. Each section is 3.6 m
(12 ft) wide and 3.3 m (11 ft) long. A 3.9 m (13 ft) long transition
section was placed between any two adjacent sections in each
lane, so that the compactor can stop and start compaction there to
achieve more uniform compactions in the test sections. To receive
a clear GPR signal reflection at the bottom of the asphalt mixture
surface, a 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) thick steel plate was embedded under
the overlay in each section (Fig. 2). However, it should be noted
that these plates were placed for validating the research results
only and they are not required for GPR data collection and
dielectric constant estimation in practice.
4. Data collection and model validation
After the test site was constructed, a 2 GHz air-coupled van-
mounted GPR system, as shown in Fig. 3, was used to conduct GPR
surveys over each test lane. A distance measuring instrument
(DMI) was placed on the van wheel to synchronize the GPR data
with the survey distance. The survey speed was approximately
32 km/h (20 mph), and the data were collected at a rate of 1 scan
per 25.4 mm (1 scan per in.). The survey line location is shown
in Fig. 2.
Fig. 4. Laboratory measurement of Gmb. (a) SSD method, and (b) Corelok method.
After the GPR data was collected, the following equation
was used to obtain the bulk dielectric constant profile of each
test lane [22]:
 
1 þ Ao =Ap 2
eAC ¼ ð4Þ
1Ao =Ap
where, Ap is the amplitude of the incident GPR wave obtained by
collecting data over a copper plate placed on the surface of the
pavement; and Ao is the amplitude of the surface reflection. Eq.
(4) indicates that a larger surface reflection amplitude corre-
sponds to a higher dielectric constant of the asphalt mixture.
To employ the density models, as shown in Eqs. (1)–(3), to
predict the bulk specific gravity of asphalt mixture, the values of
all the parameters in the models must be known in addition to
the mixture’s dielectric constant. For each of the developed
models, the values of five parameters can be either obtained from
the mix design (Pb, Gsb, Gmm) or considered as a constant (Gb, eb),
as shown in Table 3. However, the value of es depends on the
aggregate type and may not be considered as a constant even
when the aggregate type is known. Therefore, a 150-mm-diamter
(6-in.-diameter) core was extracted over the steel plate from
Section 1 of each lane, and its lab-measured bulk specific gravity
measured according to the saturated surface dry (SSD) method
[23] and GPR-measured dielectric constant using Eq. (4) were
utilized to back-calculate the value of es. Table 3 shows the back-
calculated values of es of each mix when different models were
used. It is worth noting that the value of es back-calculated by the
modified Rayleigh and ALL models are within a close range, and
the value of es by the modified CRIM is the smallest for each mix.
After the values of es were obtained, the three models were
applied to predict the Gmb profile of each test lane. The accuracy of
the predicted Gmb was validated by comparing the measured Gmb
of the cores extracted over the steel plates from Sections 2–4 to
their GPR-predicted values. Table 4 shows the predicted Gmb and
prediction errors of each core for the three specific gravity
models. All three models provided reasonably accurate Gmb
predictions. The average prediction errors of the models
presented in Eqs. (1)–(3) are 3.1%, 2.6%, and 2.5%, respectively.
Table 4 shows that the prediction errors for Section 4 materials
are generally larger than those for Sections 2 and 3. This is
partially due to the test method used to measure Gmb in the lab,
which is the SSD method, as shown in Fig. 4a. This method is the
most commonly used method for laboratory Gmb measurement. It
approximates the bulk volume of a compacted asphalt specimen
(in g/cm3) as the difference between the SSD weight and the
submerged weight of the specimen. However, as the SSD weight
is determined after wiping the sample dry using a damp towel
right after it is taken out from the water bath, when the air void
content of the sample is high, water can easily infiltrate into the
internal air void of the sample and also rapidly drain from the
sample, resulting in large variation and error. According to
AASHTO T-166, the SSD method should not be used for open

Table 5
Gmb prediction errors of Section 4 cores using two laboratory test methods.

Core # SSD Gmb Corelok Gmb Modified CRIM error (%) Modified Rayleigh error (%) ALL error (%)

SSD Corelok SSD Corelok SSD Corelok

I-4 2.136 2.131 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.0 4.0 4.2

II-4 2.217 2.203 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.7 2.8 2.2
III-4 2.166 2.141 11.9 10.9 10.1 9.0 8.0 6.9
IV-4 2.184 2.175 2.1 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.4
V-4 2.205 2.149 13.4 11.1 11.2 8.9 8.7 6.3
Average error of Section 4 (%) 6.7 5.7 5.5 4.7 4.7 4.0
Average error of all sections (%) 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.2
 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375 373

bituminous material, which is defined as the mixtures with air associated with the inaccurately measured Gmb in the lab. There-
void content larger than 10% by AASHTO T-269. As the air void fore, the Corelok automatic vacuum sealing method (Fig. 4b),
contents of the cores obtained from Section 4 are between which is more accurate in measuring the Gmb of large-void
11% and 14%, the main cause of the prediction error could be specimens, was applied to measure the Gmb of the cores from
Section 4. Table 5 shows the prediction errors for Section 4 cores
when the Corelok method was used. Compared to the SSD
6 method, the Corelok method provided smaller Gmb values, and
Modified CRIM
the prediction errors of the Section 4 cores were significantly
Average Prediction Error (%)

Modified Rayleigh Model

5 reduced. However, the prediction errors in Section 4 are still
ALL Model larger than those in Sections 2 and 3. When the Corelok method
4 was used for testing the Section 4 cores, the average prediction
errors of the modified CRIM, modified Rayleigh model, and ALL
3 model have been decreased to 2.8%, 2.4%, and 2.2%, respectively.
Such small prediction errors validated that the developed density
2 models were effective in predicting the in-place asphalt mixture
density.
1 To examine how different models performed for each indivi-
dual mix, the average prediction errors of each model for each
0 mix were calculated and plotted in Fig. 5. The ALL model provided
I II III IV V the lowest error for all mixes except Mix I. Therefore, among the
Mix # three density models evaluated in this study, the ALL model
exhibited the best performance. From Fig. 5, it can also be seen
Fig. 5. Average prediction error of each model for each mix. that Mix V, which is the only binder mix evaluated in this study,

Equation (4)

6
5.5
Dielectric Constant

5
4.5
4
Sect. 1 Transition Sect. 2 Transition Sect. 3 Transition Sect. 4
3.5 Zone Zone Zone

3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
Using the core from Sect. 1 Equation (3)
to find εs = 6.1

2.5
Bulk Specific Gravity

2.3

2.1

1.9 Sect. 1 Transition Sect. 2 Transition Sect. 3 Transition Sect. 4

Zone Zone Zone
1.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
Fig. 6. An example of Gmb profile prediction for Lane III using the ALL model. (a) GPR survey, (b) GPR raw data, (c) eAC profile, and (d) Gmb profile.
374 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375
showed the largest prediction errors. It is expected that the
aggregate particle distribution of the binder mix is not as uniform
as that of the surface mix. The effects of other variables, such as
asphalt type, aggregate type, and asphalt content, on the predic-
tion error are currently under investigation and will be published
when they are available.
5. Testing algorithm development
As discussed above, the dielectric constant of an asphalt
mixture measured by GPR and the appropriate density model
can be used together to predict the in situ asphalt mixture
density. To assist pavement engineers in using GPR to measure
the in situ asphalt mixture density in practice, the authors
recommend the following data collection and analysis algorithm:
(1) Conduct a GPR survey using an appropriate antenna system.
For asphalt pavement, the 1 or 2 GHz air-coupled GPR system
is recommended.
(2) Calculate the dielectric constant profile of the surveyed
pavement using Eq. (4).
(3) Extract at least one core from the pavement and measure its
bulk specific gravity in the lab. Use the lab-measured bulk
specific gravity and the GPR-predicted dielectric constant to
back-calculate the value of es. Note that there is only one
unknown, es, in the specific gravity models. So theoretically,
the data of one core will be sufficient to solve the value of es.
However, to obtain a more reliable value of es, two or three
cores are recommended in the field and the average value of
es should be used.
(4) Predict the bulk specific gravity profile of the asphalt pave-
ment using an appropriate density model. Based on the
outcome of this study, the ALL model is recommended.
To illustrate how the above algorithm works, the process of
predicting the Gmb profile of Lane III in the test site using the ALL
model is shown in Fig. 6 as an example.
6. Summary
A five-lane full-scale test site was constructed and GPR data
were collected to validate the performance of the density models
developed in an earlier study. The following points summarize
the findings of this research:
 In general, all the three models provided reasonably accurate
predictions of the asphalt mixture density when one calibra-
tion core was used. The average prediction errors of the three
models are within the range of 2.2–2.8%.
 Among the three models, the ALL model performed the best for
the test site data.
 Model validation results showed that the prediction errors
were relatively small in Sections 2 and 3 (air void content
between 6.7% and 10.9%) but large in Section 4 (air void
content between 11.5% and 13.9%). This indicates that the
density prediction models may provide higher errors when the
air void content is extremely large.
 Mix type affects the prediction accuracy of the density models.
The binder mix exhibited larger prediction error than
the surface mixes due to its relative non-uniform aggregate
particle distribution.
 The algorithm proposed as a result of this study could be used
in practice to predict the in-place asphalt mixture density
profile. However, its effectiveness still needs to be validated by
additional in-service pavement data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the input of Al Larkin
of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This publication is
based on the preliminary results of an FAA project, Non-Destruc-
tive Testing and Evaluation (NDTE) Technologies for Airport
Pavement Acceptance and Quality Assurance Activities. The FAA
project is conducted in cooperation with the Center of Excellence
for Airport Technology (CEAT) and the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. The contents of this study reflect the views of
the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of
the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policies of the CEAT or FAA. The research was
conducted at the Advanced Transportation Research and Engi-
neering Laboratory (ATREL) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. This paper does not constitute a standard, specifica-
tion, or regulation.
References
[1] Robert FL, Kandhal PS, Brown ER, Lee DY, Kennedy TW. Hot mix asphalt
materials, mixture design, and construction. National Asphalt Paving Asso-
ciation Education Foundation, Lanham, MD; 1996.
[2] /http://training.ce.washington.edu/WSDOT/S.
[3] Commuri S, Lemon B. Intelligent asphalt compaction analyzer. Report sub-
mitted to the Federal Highway Administration; 2007.
[4] Sebesta S, Scullion T. Application of infrared imaging and ground-penetrating
radar to detect segregation in hot-mix asphalt overlays. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2003;1861:
37–43.
[5] Al-Qadi IL, Leng Z, Lahouar S, Baek J. In-place hot-mix asphalt density
estimation using ground-penetrating radar. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2010;2152:19–27.
[6] Lytton RL. System identification and analysis of subsurface radar signals, US
Patent no. 5384715, Houston, TX: Texas A&M University, Licensed to Lyric
Technologies, Inc.; 1995.
[7] Saarenketo T. Using ground penetrating radar and dielectric probe measure-
ments in pavement density quality control. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1997;1575:34–41.
[8] Silvast M. Air void content measurement using GPR technology at Helsinki–
Vantaa airport: runway no. 3, Survey Report, Roadscanners; 2001.
[9] Smith BC, Diefenderfer BK. Comparison of nuclear and nonnuclear pavement
density testing devices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2008;2081:121–9.
[10] Black K, Kopac P. The application of ground-penetrating radar in highway
engineering. Public Roads 1992;56:96–103.
[11] Lahouar S, Al-Qadi IL, Loulizi A, Clark TM, Lee DT. Approach to determining
in situ dielectric constant of pavements: development and implementation at
Interstate 81 in Virginia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2002;1806:81–7.
[12] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S, Loulizi A. Successful application of GPR for quality
assurance/quality control of new pavements. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2003;1861:86–97.
[13] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S, Jiang K, McGhee KK, Mokarem D. Accuracy of ground-
penetrating radar for estimating rigid and flexible pavement layer thick-
nesses. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2005;1940:69–78.
[14] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S. Measuring layer thicknesses with GPR—theory to
practice. Construction and Building Materials 2005;19:763–72.
[15] Maser KR, Holland TJ, Roberts R, Popovics J. NDE Methods for quality
assurance of new pavement thickness. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering 2006;7:1–10.
[16] Loizos A, Plati C. Accuracy of pavement thicknesses estimation using different
ground penetrating radar analysis approaches. NDT and E International
2007;40:147–57.
[17] Saarenketo T, Scullion T. Ground penetrating radar applications on roads and
highways, Research Report, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station,
TX; 1994.
[18] Chen D, Scullion T. Detecting subsurface voids using ground-coupled pene-
trating radar. Geotechnical Testing Journal 2008;31:217–24.
[19] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S. Measuring rebar cover depth in rigid pavements with
ground-penetrating radar. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2005;1907:81–5.
 Z. Leng et al. / NDT&E International 44 (2011) 369–375 375

[20] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, vol. 7, Section 3, Part 2: HD29/94
Structural Assessment Methods, Ground Radar, Department of Transport,
London, UK; 2001 [chapter 6].
[21] Sihvola A. Self-consistency aspects of dielectric mixing theories. IEEE Trans-
actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1989;27:403–15.
[22] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S, Loulizi A. In situ measurements of hot-mix asphalt
dielectric properties. NDT & E International Journal 2001;34:427–34.
[23] Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing. Washington, DC: American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials. 29th ed; 2009.