2020
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001566
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ground Penetrating Radar Data Processing for Concrete Bridge Deck Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The lower bound value, -6 dB in Fig. 10a, is also close to a threshold value of -5.3 dB previously reported by the authors [18]. These values are also in agreement with the chloride concentration measurement results in Table 1.…”
Section: Threshold Valuessupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The lower bound value, -6 dB in Fig. 10a, is also close to a threshold value of -5.3 dB previously reported by the authors [18]. These values are also in agreement with the chloride concentration measurement results in Table 1.…”
Section: Threshold Valuessupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The positions of the GPR scans were recorded using a rover RTK GPS device mounted on a survey cart. GPR signals were processed using the previously described algorithm developed by the authors [18]. After migration, the longitudinal resolution of the GPR scans was equal to the rebar spacing, which is 12.5 cm in the traffic lane and 25 cm in the shoulder.…”
Section: Ground-penetrating Radar Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other approaches have also been used, with Dinh et al [ 25 ] using the average direct coupling wave as the reference amplitude. According to Pashoutani et al [ 71 ], the use of a constant value of a reference amplitude does not take into account the contribution of concrete surface quality to the signal amplitude, even to the normalized amplitude. Therefore, a normalization procedure was proposed in which each signal amplitude is normalized to its own direct coupling amplitude.…”
Section: Corrosion Monitoring Using Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these studies, the correction was performed at the two-way travel time level. A more accurate correction could be performed if the linear function is determined using the real reinforcement depth instead of the two-way travel time [ 71 ]. This procedure requires the determination of the real velocities of the signal.…”
Section: Corrosion Monitoring Using Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning
confidence: 99%