Void detection beneath reinforced concrete sections: The practical application of ground-penetrating radar and ultrasonic techniques

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and ultrasonic ‘pulse echo’ techniques are well-established methods for the imaging, investigation and analysis of steel reinforced concrete structures and are important civil engineering survey tools. GPR is, arguably, the more widely-used technique as it is suitable for a greater range of problem scenarios (i.e., from rebar mapping to moisture content determination). Ultrasonic techniques are traditionally associated with the engineering-based, non-destructive testing of concrete structures and their integrity analyses (e.g., flaw detection, shear/longitudinal velocity determination, etc). However, when used in an appropriate manner, both techniques can be considered complementary and provide a unique way of imaging the sub-surface that is suited to a range of geotechnical problems. In this paper, we present a comparative study between mid-to-high frequency GPR (450 MHz and 900 MHz) and array-based, shear wave, pulse-echo ultrasonic surveys using proprietary instruments and conventional GPR data processing and visualisation techniques. Our focus is the practical detection of sub-metre scale voids located under steel reinforced concrete sections in realistic survey conditions (e.g., a capped, relict mine shaft or vent). Representative two-dimensional (2D) sections are presented for both methods illustrating the similarities/differences in signal response and the temporal–spatial target resolutions achieved with each technique. The use of three-dimensional data volumes and time slices (or ‘C-scans’) for advanced interpretation is also demonstrated, which although common in GPR applications is under-utilised as a technique in general ultrasonic surveys. The results show that ultrasonic methods can perform as well as GPR for this specific investigation scenario and that they have the potential of overcoming some of the inherent limitations of GPR investigations (i.e., the need for careful antenna frequency selection and survey design in order to image through the rebar meshes). More importantly, we show that standard GPR data collection, processing and visualisation techniques can be used with both types of data without users needing to change existing operational protocols or survey criteria.

► First published comparison of 3D GPR and ultrasonics for voids under concrete. ► Ultrasonics and GPR show comparable performances. ► Ultrasonics capable of overcoming imaging limitations of GPR for rebars. ► 3D timeslicing of ultrasonics shown to perform well with standard processing.