International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)

ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.

ESTIMATION OF REBARRADIUS USING

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR
K Ambika Lakshmi1 BhaskarSangoju2Vasanthakumar3and Alfa Rahamath4
1
Student of M. Tech. in Computer Aided Structural Engineering, Reva University, Bangalore-560064
E-mail id:ambikalive@gmail.com, Contact number: 9480059710
2
Principal Scientist, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai-600113
E-mail id: bhaskar@serc.res.in, Contact number: 044 22549167
3
Project Assistant, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai-600113
E-mail id: vasanth.kumar1122@hotmail.com, Contact number: 8870305853
4
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Reva University, Bangalore-560064
E-mail id:alfarahamath@revainstitution.org, Contact number: 9591855301

Abstract-Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-
destructive method for detecting steel bars in reinforced
concrete structures. The objective of this study is to locate
the rebar and estimate its radius in reinforced concrete
(RC) structures. Studies have been carried out on concrete
slab specimen, which was casted with three different rebar
of diameter and cover depth. Radar-gram image has been
collected by using 2.6 GHz antenna and converted into
ASCII filewhich contain the amplitude values of reflected
signals. Energy equation model reported in literature is
being used in estimating the rebar radius. From the
limited study, it is observed that the estimated radius is
close to the actual and is within ±2.5%.
Keywords- non-destructive testing (NDT); ground
penetrating radar (GPR), radar-gram, scan length, rebar
radius;
I INTRODUCTION
NDT has been defined as the methods used to examine
objects, materials, or systems without impairing their future
usefulness, that is, inspect or measure the structure without
harm. In recent history NDT methods are considered as
modern tools for evaluating existing concrete structures with
regard to their strength and durability. NDT methods have
been drawing more attention, in the sense of reliability and
effectiveness. The importance of being able to test in situ has
been recognized, and this trend is increasing as compared to
traditional random sampling of concrete for material analysis
[1].
In recent years, various techniques such as impact echo, pulse
echo,thermography,ground penetrating radar(GPR) ,etc., are
gaining importance in the field of structural engineering for
determining the thickness and identification of defects. A
widely known non-destructive testing technique is ground
penetrating radar (GPR), by which it is possible to acquire non
visible information without causing damage to the
structure[2].
GPR is used for,
i. Estimation of the thickness elements from one
surface;
ii. Location of reinforcing bars and metallic ducts and
estimation of concrete depth ;
iii. Determination of most important feature
construction;
iv. Localization of moisture variations;
v. Localization and the dimension of voids ;
vi. Localization of cracks;
vii. Estimation of bar size[3]
GPR is a non-destructive method that emits a short pulse of
electromagnetic energy that will be radiated into the
subsurface. When this pulse strikes an interface between
layers of materials with different electrical properties, part of
the wave reflects back, and the remaining energy continues to
the next interface. GPR evaluates the reflection of
electromagnetic waves at the interface between two different
dielectric materials. The penetration of the waves into the
subsurface is a function of the media relative dielectric
constants (ε). If a material is dielectrically homogeneous, then
the wave reflections will indicate a single thick layer [4].
In concrete structures steel reinforcing bars are the most
common targets. Transverse rebar (i.e., rebar oriented
perpendicular to the survey line) produce clean and strong
hyperbolas. The reflection strength (amplitude) of a rebar
increases with rebar size, and it decreases with depth and/or
presence of corrosion. Rebar size can be estimated from
reflection strength on a comparative basis, but cannot be
accurately measured. In structures with two layers of rebar,

320
 International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)
ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.
visibility of the second layer depends on the bar spacing in the
first layer and on the amount of attenuation and scattering in
the concrete. A steel pipe (conduit, for instance) looks exactly
the same as a steel rebar of the same diameter [5].
Radar does not directly measure the diameter of a rebar, cable
or conduit. Due to the signal wavelength, any object under 2"
in diameter is a “dot” with no visible size. A larger target
produces a stronger reflection. Under some special conditions,
it is able to estimate the target diameter from the reflection
strength (at least as small, medium or large) [5]. Many
researchers reported about the applicability of GPR techniques
for the thickness measurement, mapping of reinforcement,
locating tendon ducts, moisture distributions, etc. [6-8].
In the present study, efforts have been made to locate the rebar
and estimate the rebar radius in the laboratory on reinforced
concrete (RC) slab specimens withknown parameters.
II LITERATURE REVIEW
For studying the hyperbolic signatures different researchers
adopted various methodologies for estimating the rebar radius
/ diameter.
Vincent Utsiet al.[9] suggested that GPR can also be used to
estimate rebar diameters. The results of GPRmax3D
simulations for two center frequencies of GPRs applied to a
range of rebar sizes at different depths.But a number of
practical problems were encountered during the processing of
the data. One of these occurs when the rebar spacing is closer
than 200mm. Another problem was the influence of adjacent
rebar in the direction of travel interfering with the cross
polarization measurement.
G. Windsor et al. [10] applied generalized Hough transform
method to the measure the diameters of buried cylindrical
pipes by Ground Penetration Radar (GPR).
M.R. Shaw et al. [11]used a neural network approach to
automate and facilitate the post-processing of ground
penetrating radar results. The radar data is reduced to a
simplified data set by using an edge detection routine. Signal
reflections from reinforcing bars displaying a hyperbolic
image format are detected using a multi-layer perception
(MLP) network with a single hidden layer containing 8 nodes
to recognize a simplified hyperbolic shape.
Runtao Zhan et al. [12] compared the difference of discrete
wavelet Transform (DWT) and stationary wavelet transform
(SWT) and prepared the contour map of SWT detail
coefficients, then found out SWT is an effective method to
measure the diameter of steel bar.
Xian-Qi He et al. [13] developed direct least-square method
and was specially adopted for a hyperbolic conic section, it
can adequately deal with noisy data having missing points and
is completely efficient.
321
M. B. Alhasanatet al. [14]presented a new algorithm to extract
the diameter of a buried utility from a GPR image depending
on its hyperbolic shape.It was concluded that the values of
„D’and „T’can be determined from the GPR software or
through a simple program using Excel software, whereby
interpreters then by using the values of `X' and `T' as inputs to
obtain the required information on the diameter of the buried
object.
Chang et al.[15] proposed a methodology in which radii to be
detected through GPR radar-gram, resulting in a more accurate
estimation of depth and radius of rebar. Physical and
theoretical modelling and experimental results of buried
reinforcing steel bar were obtained and studied using
measurements of radar gram data. It was concluded that the
developed method allows reinforcing steel of radii to be
quantitatively detected through GPR radar gram, resulting in a
more accurate estimation of the power reflectivity of the
surrounding concrete and of the depth of the bars, in addition
to the radius estimation. The results indicate that, this method
is capable of estimating the radius to within 7% of the actual
size, which validates the method.
III DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT AND
METHODOLOGY OF GPR
A. GPR Equipment
GSSI structure scan mini HR with 2.6 GHz was used.Here
GPR consist of data acquisition system with processing
software .GPR generally consist of operation-unit along with a
computer (usually a handy laptop) and the antenna(s). The
computer has software for the operation of the radar. There is
generally separate software for collection and processing of
the data. Typical instrumentation for GPR includes the
following main components: an antenna unit, a control unit, a
display device, and a storage device [16]
GPR can collect data up to 256 scans per second. The antenna
used to determine data quality, range resolutions and
maximum depth of penetrations. Antenna (transmitter and
receiver) is most sensitive to metal targets that are parallel to
scanning directions. The details are shown in Figure 1.1.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)
ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.

Figure 1.1 Structure Scan TM Mini HR (2.6 GHz)

B. Methodology of GPR testing

The GPR scanning technique has been proposed to predict the
reinforcement details of slab specimen. Study is carried out by
using Structure Scan TM Mini HR of 2.6 GHz antenna, which
can collect both 2D and 3D scan data.Depth of scanning was
Figure 1.3 Slab specimen of dimension 0.5x1.5x1.5m
given as 40cm, dielectric constant of material is given as 6.25
and scan density was given as 8 scans/unit (cm) for detecting
Line scan data is collected on above concrete slab specimen.
reinforcements in slab specimen.
The collected data(raw radar gram) is opened in RADAN 7
software and is further processed by adjusting the gain values
GPR Raw data of radar gram and color values forbetterment of radar-gram which is shown
in Figure 1.4. The peak of the hyperbola represents the rebar
position [7].
Data processing by RADAN 7

Transformation the digital numeric code

Calculation of scan length

Determining the radius of rebar

Figure 1.2 Flowchart showing sequence of steps

To demonstrate the methodology (Figure 1.2), GPR data has

been collected on specially cast concrete specimens using 2.6
GHz frequency antenna. The specimen is a slab of dimension
1.5m×1.5m×0.5m the details is shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.4 Radar-gram data of concrete slab

specimen1.5m×1.5m×0.5m

322
 International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)
ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.
From the radar-gram image the depth (H) value is estimated
by using RADAN 7 software, which is done by applying time
zero correction which is shown in Figure 1.5.Here the
determined H value is nothing but the reinforcement clear
cover or the exact depth at which the rebar is placed which is
approximately 16cm as shown in Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5Time zero correction
Using migration tool available in RADAN 7 the velocity value
and relative dielectric constant (ϵ) is obtained from
specifichyperbola which is shown in figure 1.6.The ghost
hyperbola (black in color) is overlapped over the existing
hyperbola in the radar-gram, the relative dielectric constant
value and the velocity value is displayed on the screen [5]. In a
similar way for other diameter rods also the migration analysis
is carried out.
323
Figure1.6Migration analysis for 25mm diameter rod
After migration analysis, the obtained dielectric constant value
is noted down which is used for further calculation. The
processed RADAN file is converted into ASCII using the file
converter RTOAW (RADAN to ASCII) provided by GSSI.
RTOAW converts the radar-gram file into ASCII format
whichconsists of the amplitude values of reflected signals.
From the amplitude values the number of scans is
obtained.The scan length is calculated by number of
scans/scan density, which will be helpful in calculating the
radius by using the equations given below.
Following equations (1) and (2) have been used in estimating
the rebar radius.
𝐸 𝜆 𝐻
= + (1)
2 4 ∈+1
𝐿−𝐸
𝑅= (2)
2𝜋
For estimating rebar radius, the energy radius (E) and scan
length (L) are needed.E depends on the wavelength of the
penetrating radiation and the vertical position of the rebar (H)
i.e. depth which is given in Equation (1).
For calculating E value by using the Equation (1) &(2) the
wavelength value is needed which can be calculated by using
c = ϑλ where c is the speed of light in air whose value is c=30
cm/ns and the value of ϑ = 2.6GHz so the λ value be 11.54
cm.Since the value of c and ϑ is constant in this case, while
calculating energy radius the value λ is taken as 11.54 for all
trials.
For relative dielectric constant ∈=8.4 and H=15.9cm for
25mm diameter rod (figure 1.7)
 International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)
ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.
16mm 16.01 15.98 21.0 7.90mm -1.25
𝐸 11.54 15.9
= + 20mm 16.07 15.98 22.5 10.23mm 2.3
2 4 8.4 + 1
25mm 16.02 15.90 24.0 12.70mm 1.6
E=16.14cm

The procedure to obtain scan length (in terms of scans) from
hyperbola profile is rather difficult,since the starting and end
points of hyperbola are not clearly seen in radar-gram.To
calculate scan length,the radar-gram image (analog) is
convertedin to ASCII (digital/numeric) form to get the
corresponding digital signal (numerical values)amplitudes.
The variations of numerical encoded values have been traced
by using suitable conditional format (highlighting the
amplitudes of below average). From this, the start point and
end point of hyperbola is fixed based on the shape of the
numerical encoded values (hyperbola profile) and variations in
the magnitudes of amplitudes. It is observed that there is a
significant variationat the metal-concrete interface.By dividing
the scan length (in terms of number of scans) with scan
density (in this case, it is 8scans/unit), one can get the scan
length, L.
V CONCLUSION
 Ground penetrating radar (GPR) can be used to
identifythe location of rebar,spacing between rebarin
reinforced concrete structural elements.
 Rebar radius has been estimated in the laboratory cast
specimens and the %error in estimation is within
±2.5%.
 Further studies are needed to estimate the rebar
radius in closely spaced and multi-layer
specimens/concrete structures.
 One can also adopt different procedure to estimate
the radius by fitting a curve equation to the
hyperbolic data set which can be related to the
geometric and parametric properties of hyperbola.

For 25mm diameter rod NOTATIONS

Number of scans=193 E = long dimension radius of the energy footprint
Scan length, L=193/8=24.125cm λ = wavelength of the radar energy
H = depth from the surface to the reflection surface
From the values of L and E using the equation (1) and (2), the ϵ = average relative dielectric permittivity of the
value of radius has been estimated as: material for the depth (H)
r = radius of rebar
𝐿−𝐸 L = length of scan
𝑟=
2𝜋
For 25mm diameter rod ACKNOWLEDGMENT

24.125 − 16.14 First author would like to thank the Director CSIR-SERC for
𝑟= giving the opportunity to carry out the project work at CSIR-
2𝜋 SERC, Chennai.
𝑟 = 1.27𝑐𝑚 REFERENCES

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The radius of the rebar estimated using the above procedure
for different diameter rods is presented in Table 1 and the
difference in estimation of rebar radius is ±2.5%. Further
studies have to be carried out to estimate the rebar radius on
concrete structural elements with multiple rebars by
considering the effect of spacing of rebars, interference effect ,
etc.
[1].Akhtar, Saleem. "Review of Nondestructive Testing Methods for
Condition Monitoring of Concrete Structures." Journal of construction
engineering(2013)
[2].Malhotra, V. M. "Surface Hardness Methods, Handbook on Non-
destructive Testing of Concrete." CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2004).
[3].Barrile, Vincenzo, and RaffaelePucinotti. "Application of radar technology
to reinforced concrete structures: a case study." NDT & E International 38,
no. 7 (2005): 596-604.
[4].Gehrig, Michael D., Derek V. Morris, and John T. Bryant. "Ground
penetrating radar for concrete evaluation studies." Technical Presentation
Paper for Performance Foundation Association (2004): 197-200.

[5].“GSSIHandbook for RADAR Inspection of concrete”, Geophysical

Survey Systems, Inc.Salem, New Hampshire, USA, August 2006.
Table 1.1Results showing different parameters and radius of
rebar [6].Bhaskar, S, and K. Ramanjaneyulu. "ESTIMATION OF REBAR
Rebar E(cm) H(cm) L(cm) Rebar % error DIAMETER IN CONCRETE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS USING
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR."NDE2015, Hyderabad November 26-
Diameter Radius 28, 2015.

324
 International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer Science & Electronics (IJETCSE)
ISSN: 0976-1353 Volume 22 Issue 2 – MAY 2016.
[7].Bhaskar, S., P. Srinivasan, and A. Chellappan“Condition assessment of 30
years old overhead RCC reservoir.” In Proc. National Seminar on Non-
Destructive Evaluation,pp.83-89,2006.

[8].Sbartaï, Z. M., S. Laurens, J. Rhazi, J. P. Balayssac, and G. Arliguie.

"Using radar direct wave for concrete condition assessment: Correlation with
electrical resistivity." Journal of applied geophysics 62, no. 4 (2007): 361-
374.2

[9].Utsi, Vincent, and Erika Utsi. "Measurement of reinforcement bar depths

and diameters in concrete."In Ground Penetrating Radar, 2004.GPR 2004.
Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on, pp. 659-662. IEEE,
2004

[10].Windsor, Colin G., Lorenzo Capineri, and P. Falorni. "The estimation of

buried pipe diameters by generalized hough transform of radar data."
InProceedings Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS),
pp. 22-26. 2005.

[11].Shaw, M. R., S. G. Millard, T. C. K. Molyneaux, M. J. Taylor, and J. H.

Bungey. "Location of steel reinforcement in concrete using ground
penetrating radar and neural networks." NDT & E International 38, no. 3
(2005): 203-212.

[12].Zhan, Runtao, and HuicaiXie. "GPR measurement of the diameter of

steel bars in concrete specimens based on the stationary wavelet
transform."Insight-Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring 51, no.
3 (2009): 151-155.

[13].He, Xian-Qi, Zi-Qiang Zhu, Qun-Yi Liu, and Guang-Yin Lu. "Review of
GPR rebar detection." In PIERS Proceedings, pp. 804-813. 2009.

[14].Alhasanat, M. B., and WMA Wan Hussin. "A New Algorithm to

Estimate the Size of an Underground Utility via Specific Antenna." PIERS
Proceedings, Marrakesh, MOROCCO (2011).

[15].Chang, Che Way, Chen Hua Lin, and Hung Sheng Lien. "Measurement
radius of reinforcing steel bar in concrete using digital image
GPR." Construction and Building Materials 23, no. 2 (2009): 1057-1063.

[16].http://www.geophysical.com/antennas.htm

325