Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.03375 v1 pith:SO6PI2LA submitted 2024-01-07 eess.SP

Real-Time Asphalt Pavement Layer Thickness Prediction Using Ground-Penetrating Radar Based on a Modified Extended Common Mid-Point (XCMP) Approach

classification eess.SP
keywords methodxcmpthicknessdielectricmodifiedpavementpredictionasphalt
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The conventional surface reflection method has been widely used to measure the asphalt pavement layer dielectric constant using ground-penetrating radar (GPR). This method may be inaccurate for in-service pavement thickness estimation with dielectric constant variation through the depth, which could be addressed using the extended common mid-point method (XCMP) with air-coupled GPR antennas. However, the factors affecting the XCMP method on thickness prediction accuracy haven't been studied. Manual acquisition of key factors is required, which hinders its real-time applications. This study investigates the affecting factors and develops a modified XCMP method to allow automatic thickness prediction of in-service asphalt pavement with non-uniform dielectric properties through depth. A sensitivity analysis was performed, necessitating the accurate estimation of time of flights (TOFs) from antenna pairs. A modified XCMP method based on edge detection was proposed to allow real-time TOFs estimation, then dielectric constant and thickness predictions. Field tests using a multi-channel GPR system were performed for validation. Both the surface reflection and XCMP setups were conducted. Results show that the modified XCMP method is recommended with a mean prediction error of 1.86%, which is more accurate than the surface reflection method (5.73%).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.