Ancient Stone Bridge Surveying by Ground-Penetrating

Radar and Numerical Modeling Methods

Mercedes Solla1; Belén Riveiro2; Henrique Lorenzo3; and Julia Armesto4

Abstract: Bridges are considered necessary engineering structures because they connect separated lands to improve economic and social de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

velopment. In Spain, many of the bridges in service within the network of transport are masonry arch bridges built in ancient times. In addition to
their age, the stability of these remaining bridges is questionable because of the changing loading conditions; therefore, they require periodic
assessment of the condition state. Moreover, some of these bridges are considered a part of the cultural heritage of a region, so nondestructive
evaluation is required to preserve their historical character. In this work, a medieval stone bridge in the Galician territory of Spain was evaluated
using ground-penetrating radar, supported by a detailed geometric survey performed through a terrestrial laser scanner. The results revealed
unknown geometrical data and hidden characteristics, including the thickness of ring stones in the interior of the vault, as well as the presence
of ancient arches and restorations. To assist in the interpretation, finite-difference time-domain modeling was used, where realistic models were
built from the accurate geometry provided. The synthetic data obtained were compared with the field data, which allowed for the identification
of unknown structural details. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000497. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Nondestructive evaluation (NDE); Ground-penetrating radar (GPR); Laser scanning; Finite-difference, time-domain
(FDTD) modeling; Masonry arch bridges.

Introduction technique, while still allowing for preservation of their historical

Stone masonry construction was the dominant technique for cen-
turies during the Roman Era, and this represents the most common
typology built throughout history in Europe (Ural et al. 2008). There
are still a large number of these bridges in service within the trans-
port network. Many of these structures have experienced unknown
structural degradation because of increases in traffic load and intense
vibrations that are significantly higher than what was estimated for
their original design (Brencich and De Francesco 2004). Therefore,
these older bridges require special attention and ongoing diagnosis
of their changing structural integrity to help with their preservation
and conservation.
Ancient stone arch bridges usually represent the traditional ar-
chitectural heritage of a region (Ural et al. 2008), and they are often
listed as historical monuments, valued tourist attractions, or local
landmarks (Mabon 2002). Consequently, the use of nondestructive
testing (NDT) is recommended for their diagnosis to prevent po-
tential structural damage that can result from more invasive testing
1 cause of the existence of many reflections such as multiples, corner
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Materials Engineering, Applied Mechan-
ics and Construction, School of Industrial Engineering, Univ. of Vigo,
Torrecedeira 86, CP 36208 Vigo, Spain (corresponding author). E-mail:
merchisolla@uvigo.es
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Materials Engineering, Applied Mechan-
ics and Construction, School of Industrial Engineering, Univ. of Vigo,
Torrecedeira 86, CP 36208 Vigo, Spain. E-mail: belenriveiro@uvigo.es
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental
Engineering, School of Forestry Engineering, Univ. of Vigo, A Xunqueira
s/n., CP 36005 Pontevedra, Spain. E-mail: hlorenzo@uvigo.es
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental
Engineering, School of Mining Engineering, Univ. of Vigo, Rua Maxwell,
Lagoas-Marcosende, CP 36310 Vigo, Spain. E-mail: julia@uvigo.es
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 7, 2012; approved
on April 5, 2013; published online on April 8, 2013. Discussion period open
until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 19, No.
1, January 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2014/1-110–119/$25.00.
character (Melbourne et al. 2006). There are different NDT tech-
niques used in the evaluation of masonry arch bridges such as sonic/
ultrasonic, electromagnetic, and electrical methods, as well as in-
frared thermography (Clark et al. 2003; Colla et al. 2001), but each
method provides different information regarding the physical, mech-
anical, or electrical properties of the medium (Alampalli 2010).
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a quite commonly used NDT
method in bridge inspection that produces an overall internal image
and can provide a compromise between either high penetration
depth, high resolution, or some middle ground between both in
a relatively quick time (Flint et al. 1999). Mainly, this technique
has provided promising information about hidden geometry, bridge
foundations, ring stone thickness, relatively moist areas, and fill
conditions in stone masonry bridges (Lubowiecka et al. 2011; Orbán
and Gutermann 2009; Fernandes 2006). To date, however, there
are few published studies, probably because of the complexity of
various geometrical structures and the difficulty in interpreting the
resultant signals. In heterogeneous structures like stone bridges, the
analysis and interpretation of the GPR data can be complicated be-
reflections, and the diffractions from the heterogeneous backfill. For
such circumstances, numerical modeling has become a valuable
interpretational tool to more thoroughly understand the radar wave
propagation phenomena in which the finite-difference, time-domain
(FDTD) technique has evolved into one of the most advanced
modeling tools (Jol 2009). Nevertheless, although it is known that
FDTD can be an effective tool used to improve GPR signal inter-
pretations (Millard et al. 1998), few studies have been published to
date for the evaluation of masonry arch bridges, with some notable
exceptions (Solla et al. 2012; Diamanti et al. 2008).
This work presents the GPR evaluation of the medieval Monforte
Bridge. This is a sixteenth century masonry arch bridge in the
southeast of Galicia. The bridge has four semicircular or segmental
arches between a 7.0- and 11.0-m span, triangular buttresses, and
an upward arching profile, as shown in Fig. 1(a). This bridge was
selected because it is an ancient structure that provides contemporary,

110 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

 Fig. 1. Monforte Bridge: (a) general view from the upstream side; (b) breakwater built at the left margin from upstream (images by Mercedes Solla)
strategic road access to the city. Therefore, the structure is supporting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
traffic loads much heavier than in former times, and diagnosis is
required to ensure its stability and durability. Moreover, Alvarado
et al. (1989) have referenced the probable existence of two additional
arches within the structure, indicating modifications have been made
to the original structure that are no longer externally visible. It is
expected that these two nonvisible arches remain enclosed within the
breakwater built in the nineteenth century at the left margin from
upstream [Fig. 1(b)]. Accordingly, the main purpose was to analyze
the potential of GPR in obtaining previously unknown, inner details
that can be valuable information for developing future conservation
and strengthening techniques. This work also included the use of
FDTD modeling for an exhaustive interpretation of the field GPR data.
What is more, to obtain a rigorous comparison between both field and
synthetic data, the key input for the computation of FDTD modeling
was a raster image containing a geometric description of the
structural elements to simulate. A higher accuracy and spatial res-
olution (pixel size) in the image used for the radar simulation will
provide more realistic results. In that sense, some previous works
(Solla et al. 2011) presented orthoimages as suitable and accurate
sources of information for FDTD. Terrestrial photogrammetry and
laser scanning are the two geomatic methods most commonly used for
the creation of metric images of built-up structures. Particularly,
terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) has offered an important development
in the last decade because of the huge amount of geometric data it can
collect automatically. This technique was demonstrated to be very
useful as surveying methods, with millimeter accuracy, in civil
engineering applications as demonstrated by González-Jorge et al.
(2011) and Lindenbergh et al. (2009).
Methodology
This work aims toward evaluation of a masonry arch bridge structure
by conducting a NDT of its interior using GPR. The approach also
included the use of advanced FDTD modeling by creating simu-
lations to make the signal more meaningful and to improve the in-
terpretation of the field GPR data. By using the precise geometry
provided by a laser scanning survey of the structure, more realistic
synthetic models were built to get the best approximations compared
with the field data.
GPR Survey
Data were collected with a RAMAC/GPR system (Malå Geoscience,
Järfälla, Sweden) using shielded antennas with center frequencies
of 250 and 500 MHz, respectively. These two antenna center fre-
quencies were selected to achieve both resolution and penetration needs
for analyzing both the backfill and the bridge foundations. Two parallel
longitudinal profiles were collected, in opposite directions along the
pathway of the bridge (longitudinal lines along the pathway of the bridge
in Fig. 2), with each antenna. Data were acquired using the common
offset (CO) mode with the antenna polarization perpendicular to the
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 111
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119
data collection direction. By using the CO mode, the technician
moves the transmitting and receiving antennas over the ground along
a specific direction with a constant distance between them. The
distance between the profiles was set to 1 m. For the 250-MHz data,
the trace-distance interval and the total time window were equal to 2
cm and 200 ns, respectively, and were defined by 515 samples per
trace. For the 500-MHz data, the trace-distance interval and the total
time window were equal to 2 cm and 100 ns, respectively, this ti-
me defined by 678 samples per trace. The survey was conducted
using the antenna mounted on a survey cart with an encoder-based
wheel serving as a distance measurement instrument (DMI) to
measure the profile lengths, as well as to control the 2-cm spatial
sampling, or trace-distance interval, along each GPR profile.
ReflexW 5.6 software (Sandmeier 2007) was used to process the
data, applying the following sequence: time-zero correction, temporal
filtering (dewow), gain application (gain function with linear and
exponential part), spatial filtering (subtracting average), and a band-
pass (butterworth) filter. The objective was to correct the down-
shifting of the radar section caused by the air-ground interface and to
amplify the received signal, as well as to remove both low- and high-
frequency noise in the vertical (temporal) and horizontal (spatial)
directions. In addition, corrections were applied for topography and
the tilt of the antenna to improve the accuracy in imaging subsurface
features because the bridge has an upward-arching profile [Fig. 1(a)].
The elevation variations of the GPR profiles were obtained from the
laser scanning data. Without performing these static corrections, the
perceived locations of subsurface features are incorrectly positioned
within each GPR profile, and the resultant shapes of features are
distorted. Table 1 shows the processing sequences applied and the
parameters used for the filters.
Laser Scanning Approach
For the geometric reconstruction of Monforte Bridge, a long-range
terrestrial laser scanner (Riegl, Horn, Austria) was used. Model
LMS Z-390i, whose technical specifications can be seen at Riveiro
et al. (2011), was used because it has a range of measurement between
1.5 and 400 m in optimal illumination conditions, which ensured the
measurement of the bridge geometry from riverbanks. This instrument
has a nominal accuracy (1s) of 0.6 cm and average repeatability of 0.4
cm at a range of 50 m, which can be improved if the measured points
are fitted to surfaces (Gordon and Lichti 2007). By mounting a cali-
brated camera on the top of the laser scanner, red/green/blue (RGB)
information could be added to each point. When the instrument was
stationed in the field, the first task was the camera mounting cali-
bration. By means of this operation, the external orientation of the
camera (position and orientation) was obtained relative to the scanner
coordinate system.
The restricted access to the structure forced the design of an opti-
mized network of scanner stations. This network was formed by seven
different scanner positions (Fig. 2) to ensure that the complete surface
of the bridge was recorded. Fig. 3 shows a summary of the detailed
scans performed to cover the whole bridge surface. Additionally, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Plan view of the test site showing the seven different scanner positions used to cover the whole structure; in addition, the two parallel
longitudinal GPR profiles acquired, in opposite directions, along the pathway of the bridge (images by Belén Riveiro)

Table 1. Data Processing (ReflexW) Applied to GPR Data Acquired with scene, control points could be detected for the registration of
the 250- and 500-MHz Antennas different scans and also for the mounting and calibration of the
Step 250-MHz details 500-MHz details camera (if needed).
• High-resolution scan of control points: This high-resolution scan of
1 Time-zero correction Time-zero correction control points is obtained using the previous, lower-resolution scan
2 Dewow filtering Dewow filtering where the position of control points was detected. These control
3 Gain function (linear 1.44 Gain function (linear 1.73 points were manufactured of reflective material that scatters the
and exponential 1.44) and exponential 1.44) laser radiation clearer than the surrounding points. These targets
4 Subtracting average Subtracting average were easily identified in the point cloud because of the amplitude of
(100 average traces) (200 average traces) the laser echo (intensity). Once identified, a forced scan of each
5 Band-pass Butterworth Band-pass Butterworth point was created using the maximum resolution of the instrument,
(low cutoff: 120 MHz; (low cutoff: 260 MHz; so the center of gravity of the target was accurately identified by
upper cutoff: 350 MHz) upper cutoff: 600 MHz) digital image processing for the subsequent matching.
6 Static corrections Static corrections • Color acquisition: Because RGB was needed for the construc-
(velocity 5 0:11 m=ns) (velocity 5 0:11 m=ns tion of orthoimages, a calibration of camera position had to be
performed. This was done through a spatial resection (Luhmann
2006) that practically consists of identifying at least four control
geometric basis for the subsequent FDTD simulation would be the points in both scan [three-dimensional (3D) space] and photog-
planar orthoimages of bridge walls, so it was carefully checked that raphy [two-dimensional (2D) space] for the computation of the
hidden areas or shadows did not appear for the final model in these coordinate transformation. After calibration, images were taken
masonry walls. of the bridge, adjusting illumination conditions until a homoge-
The data acquisition from each station consisted of the following neous panorama of the bridge structure for the subsequent pro-
steps: duction of orthoimages was obtained.
• Overview scan: One that collects points of the whole field of view • Detailed scan: Finally, a point cloud of the bridge was collected
of the scanner with the minimum resolution. In this first scanned with the resolutions obtained as shown in Fig. 3.

112 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Detailed scans to complete survey of Monforte Bridge with size of point cloud, time of scanning, and angular resolution (images by Belén
Riveiro)

The postprocessing of data started with the alignment of different

scanner positions in a common coordinate system. From each sta-
tion, the instrument collects data in a coordinate system centered in
the scanner so each point cloud belongs to a different coordinate
system. Because of the control points precisely measured from each
station (minimum of four common targets), it is possible to compute
a 3D conformal transformation (Luhmann 2006) between each point
cloud and the global point cloud.
Once the global point cloud is mounted, noisy points were de-
leted from the model. First, a manual cleaning was performed to
delete all those points not belonging to the structure of interest.
Then, automatic filters had to be applied to homogenize the density
of the point cloud. Because the geometric input data for the FDTD
modeling are the orthoimages, the point cloud model had to be
converted into a model of surfaces by means of a 2:5D triangulation
(Rebay 1993). Because of the errors in the alignment of scans,
a double surface effect in the overlapped areas of walls may occur.
To avoid the influence of this error in the triangulation, a 2:5D raster
filter was applied that generates a unique 2:5D rasterized point cloud
of the given source data. Fig. 4. Three-dimensional realistic model of the (a) Monforte Bridge;
After triangulation, the model was textured with the RGB in- (b) orthoimages produced for the FDTD modeling (images by Belén
formation recorded by the digital camera so the 3D realistic model of Riveiro)
the bridge could be created [Fig. 4(a)]. To transfer this geometric

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 113

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

 model to the subsequent FDTD modeling, orthoimages of main
planes of the structure were produced. In particular, because of the
configuration of GPR surveying of the bridge, orthoimages of both
upstream and downstream walls were created as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Synthetic Models and Simulations
The precise geometry [2D orthoimage; Fig. 4(b)] provided by laser
scanning was the input to elaborate on the FDTD modeling. The
purpose was to design realistic, large-scale, synthetic GPR models to
assist in the interpretation of the processed field data. However,
simulating large-scale and realistic models requires high-performance
computing to obtain results in a reasonable time. The need to discretize
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the volume of the problem space and the staircase approximation of
curved interfaces to the real boundary result in excessive computer
memory requirements and large execution times (Giannopoulos
2005). Thus, the synthetic models were created using a parallelized
version, based on a hybrid message passing interface (MPI) and
open multiprocessing (OpenMP) parallel programming, of GprMax,
which is an electromagnetic wave simulator for GPR using the
FDTD method (Giannopoulos 2006). Using a mixed model of
parallelization, where different traces are computed at different
nodes of a cluster, a significant reduction in computational time is
achieved. The FDTD algorithm was previously developed using the
MATLAB programming language. This approach encompasses the
geometry of the structures in fine detail.
The synthetic models were built with a small spatial step (grid
cell size in the x- and y-directions), and the excitation was a Gaussian
pulse of the same center frequencies used in field acquisition to get
the best approximation compared with the field data. The trace-
distance interval and the total time were also defined in accordance
with the real data. After simulation, the synthetic data were exported
and provided by GprMax to ReflexW, and then filtered using a similar
processing sequence to that used for the field data (Table 1).
Fig. 5. Example of velocity determination by adapting a diffraction hyperbola to each half part (left and right) of the first arch reflection from the left
hand downstream; the distance in the x-direction for each radargram is in accordance with the position of the arch in the entire GPR profile (starting from
the left margin upstream) (images by Belén Riveiro)
114 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119
For simulations, the electromagnetic properties were determined
to characterize the propagation media from the acquired field GPR
data. The metric information provided by laser scanning allowed for
calculation of radar wave velocities for granitic masonry in different
zones of the structure. Knowledge of the most appropriate radar
wave velocity allows for a more complete interpretation of the field
data. Velocity was determined by adapting a diffraction hyperbola
(Sandmeier 2007) to the hyperbolic reflection produced by the arch-
air interface (Fig. 5). The arch span geometry provided by laser
scanning to define the hyperbolic shape to fit was used. Nevertheless,
some of the reflections generated from the arch-air interface present
an asymmetric shape on each side of the keystone, so the average
velocity was determined by adapting a hyperbolic shape to each half
of the reflection, resulting in two different signal velocities as shown
in Fig. 5.
The obtained radar wave velocity allowed both the dielectric
constant (ɛr ) and the dielectric conductivity (s) in the media to be
determined. By considering a nonconducting material, the dielectric
constant was calculated from
 2
c
ɛr ¼ v (1)
where v 5 propagation velocity; and c 5 free-space velocity
(30 cm=ns).
To calculate the conductivity, it was assumed that the dielectric
loss tangent of materials (tan d) was unity, where s is the dielectric
conductivity of the medium, vð2pf Þ is the angular frequency, and
ɛðɛ 0 ɛ r Þ is the effective dielectric constant
s
tan d ¼ vɛ ¼ 1 (2)
However, the conductivity obtained holds that tan d 5 1, and granite
is a nonconductive medium, for which the low-loss condition
 supports that tan d  1. Reynolds (1997) has reported that the
maximum dielectric conductivity in medium can be obtained when
multiplying the conductivity value estimated from the assumption
tan d 5 1 by 0.05. The maximum value thus determined allows
considering the approximation tan d  1 with no appreciable error.
Results and Discussion
Field GPR Data
Meaningful results were obtained that provided information from
civil-structural, historical, and archaeological points of view. By
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
higher than the upper medium. In this sense, the dielectric constant
for river water is 81, whereas the dielectric constant for air is 1. In
addition, the reflection produced by an existing ground elevation
under the fourth arch (Fig. 6, R7) from the right margin upstream
[Fig. 1(a)] was observed. This interpretation agrees with the reality,
and the reflection caused by the air-ground interface was a few
nanoseconds before the reflection from the air-water interface oc-
cupying one-half of the space. The data also showed the corner
reflections (Fig. 6, R8) generated from the perpendicular interfaces
between the top of the vault and the water level (Martinaud et al.
2004).
From the interpretation of the processed radargrams, it was possible
to detect and map the remains of performed restorations of the bridges,

observing the 250-, 250-, and 500-MHz data obtained [Figs. 6(a–c),
respectively], it was possible to detect the hyperbolic reflections
produced by the arch-air interfaces for all four arches (Fig. 6, R1–
R4). Furthermore, two more hyperbolic reflections were identified
(Fig. 6, R5) at the beginning of the radargram (left), which may
correspond to the two nonvisible arches hidden by the construction
of a breakwater at the left margin (from upstream side) of the original
structure, as reported in the literature (Alvarado et al. 1989). Reflec-
tions produced at the air-water interfaces were also identified (Fig. 6,
R6) by the shift of the signal polarity. The change or inversion in
polarity occurs when the dielectric constant of the lower medium is
such as the reconstruction of the pathway [shallowest continuous line
in Fig. 6(b)]. More than a superficial restoration, it was observed that
this bridge could be emptied and later refilled using different backfill
than the original one. The white line in Fig. 6(b) indicates the reflection
generated at the interface between both original and new backfills,
which is a consequence of the high dielectric contrast between the
different materials used.
The 500-MHz data showed a relatively homogeneous area es-
pecially over the second and fourth arches of the bridge (Fig. 6, R2
and R4, respectively). This homogeneous area might be indicating
the arch ring thickness. This is interesting information because the

Fig. 6. Processed (a) 250-, (b) 250-, and (c) 500-MHz field GPR data showing the interpretation of the main reflectors identified (summarizing, R1–R5
are arches, R6–R7 correspond to the air-water and air-ground interfaces, respectively, and R8 represents corner reflections); radargrams are shown from
the upstream side

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 115

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

 thickness of the ring stones is a geometric parameter that is crucial
for providing the stability of these structures (Brencich and De
Francesco 2004). Fig. 7(a) illustrates the 500-MHz data for the
second arch in detail, where the fill-stone interface and its corre-
sponding shift of the signal polarity may not be clearly appreciated
because of the confluence of many unwanted reflections. The ex-
istence of nonhomogenous backfill over the arch and some irreg-
ularities in the fill-stone interface, such as the usual internal irregular
geometry of ring stones and a probable ring separation (presence of
voids), produce these complex reflections (Solla et al. 2012). Despite
the usual external uniform surface of ring stones, the ring stones used
to build the arch ring are all of different sizes and dimensions within
the structure as they provide a better structural reinforcement. Fig. 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was detected in the form of hyperbolic reflections [Figs. 6(c), R10,
and 7(b)].
The two nonvisible arches detected are not actually part of the bridge
structure, but they are integrated in the access road to the bridge sup-
porting higher traffic loads and intense vibrations. These may act
much like approach ramps abutting modern bridge decks, which more
effectively and gradually transfer load from mobile roadway traffic onto
the bridge itself. Therefore, it is interesting to know if these hidden
arches are emptied or filled to provide information to engineers and
others on aspects of their design, functionality, safety, and stability. The
acquired field data were observed in detail (Fig. 8), which allowed
analysis of the polarity of the signal to be registered at the arch-air
interfaces. Observing the traces collected over the keystones of the

(R9) shows the reflection from the springer stone, which is produced hidden arches [Fig. 8(a)], the polarity of the signal did not show in-
by its usual larger size in relation to the other ring stones composing version because the reflection produced at the interfaces showed similar
the arch ring. In addition, a probable separation between ring stones polarity as the one produced by the direct signal at the air-ground

Fig. 7. Processed 500-MHz field GPR data in detail from the radargram in Fig. 6(c) showing (a) the homogenous area (arch ring thickness) over the
second arch from the right hand [Fig. 6(c), R2]; (b) the hyperbolic reflections by separation of the ring stones observed in the arch-air interface of the forth
arch [Fig. 6(c), R4]; the distance in the x-direction for each radargram is in accordance with the position of the arches in the entire radargram (Fig. 6)

Fig. 8. Field data (250 MHz) in detail from the radargram in Fig. 6(a): (a) hidden arches [Fig. 6(a), R5]; (b) first and second arches of the visible structure
from the left margin upstream [Fig. 6(a), R4 and R3, respectively]; reflections identified are the arch-air and air-water interfaces (R1 and R2, re-
spectively) and the corner reflections (R3); the distance in the x-direction for each radargram is in accordance with the position of the arches in the entire
radargram (Fig. 6); the traces at the right of the radargrams show the polarity of the signal for both direct signal (up) and arch-air (low) reflections

116 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

 interface (first and second arrows, respectively, in Traces 1 and 2). As
seen in Solla et al. (2010), this lack of polarity inversion indicates that
these arches are emptied or filled by using a filling with lower dielectric
constant than the material used to fill the main structure. Moreover,
to ratify this hypothesis, the signals registered over the hidden arches
were compared [Fig. 8(a)] with those obtained over the visible arches
[Fig. 8(b)]. The behavior of the signals was similar, and their polarities
did not indicate inversion [Fig. 8(b)]. Therefore, it was concluded that
the two nonvisible arches identified by GPR remain most probably
emptied into the access road to the main structure of the bridge.
However, this might be a difficult conclusion to support without using
some other means to determine whether the arches are empty or void
spaces. It could then be interesting to ratify interpretation by other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods or other minor destructive
techniques such as localized coring.
Integration of Laser Scanning and Simulations
Advanced FDTD modeling was used to analyze the potential of the
GPR to identify the arch ring thickness, which is one parameter
influencing the stability of the arch.
The synthetic models were built by considering the electro-
magnetic properties for granitic masonry calculated from the field
data. The purpose was to get the best approximation to reality for this
dielectric estimate. This was done through the laser scanning data by
comparing the known distances in both the point cloud and the radar
signal. Through this operation, the radar wave velocity could be
calibrated. Because of the radar data being gained in 2D space, the
3D model was simplified into the 2D representations corresponding
to the main planes of the bridge, that is, the orthoimages. Fig. 4(b)
shows the orthoimages of both the upstream and downstream walls
of the bridge, where the main geometric parameters that define
bridge geometry can easily be measured. Through these images, the
geometry of the arch rings could be defined, and subsequently, the
radar wave velocity was estimated by the procedure of the diffraction
hyperbola, explained previously in the section methodology (Fig. 5).
The radar wave velocity was estimated in different zones of the
bridge, which ranged from 7:35 to13:0 cm=ns (Table 2). The typical
velocity reported in the literature (Pérez-Gracia 2001) for dry gra-
nitic masonry is approximately 12:0e13:5 cm=ns. However, the
velocities estimated for this bridge were lower, which is likely
a consequence of heterogeneities in the masonry (such as differences
in composition and density) in addition to the probable presence of
Table 2. Radar Wave Velocity (n), Dielectric Constant (ɛ r ), and Dielectric
Conductivity (s) Values Calculated from the GPR Field Data
Medium n ðcm=nsÞ ɛr s ðmS=mÞ
Arch 1
Right 7.35 16.70 23.20
Left 9.90 9.20 12.80
Arch 2
Right 9.50 10.00 13.90
Left 13.00 5.30 7.40
Arch 3
Right 11.00 7.40 10.30
Left 10.70 7.90 11.00
Arch 4
Right 11.25 7.10 9.90
Left 10.55 8.10 11.30
Note: For calculations, both right and left parts of the reflection at the arch-
air interfaces were considered. Arches are numbered from the right margin at
the upstream side in Fig. 1(a).
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 117
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119
moist zones in the stonework (because water significantly slows
GPR signal propagation velocity). Pérez-Gracia (2001) also reported
lower values of 7:5e11:5 cm=ns for wet granitic masonry. The
lowest value (7:35 cm=ns) was obtained for the right side of the first
arch [Fig. 1(a)]. The bridge structure ends immediately after this
arch, and the velocity determined can indicate the existence of more
compact backfill or modern materials such as concrete in this part of
the structure. The velocity determined by Pérez-Gracia (2001) for
concrete ranged from 5:5 to 12:0 cm=ns. On the other hand, Table 2
shows that the dielectric constant and dielectric conductivity were
estimated for each corresponding calculated velocity. For this work,
the dielectric conductivity was determined assuming the central
frequency of 500 MHz.
Furthermore, these synthetic models were constructed from the
contour of the arch ring defined by the orthoimages. For that purpose,
the images had to be reprocessed before they were introduced into the
algorithm for FDTD modeling. This operation consisted of classifying
the materials presented in the image according to the different hy-
potheses of simulation. As a result, an image was obtained that was
formed by different objects (defined by pure colors). The model was
created with a very small spatial step equal to 2 cm, and the excitation
was a Gaussian pulse of 500-MHz center frequency. The trace step
and the total time window were 5 cm and 120 ns, respectively, and the
entire model was defined by 451 traces. Following this approach, the
model defined the arch ring geometry in fine detail. The electro-
magnetic properties assumed for granite stone and fill media were
those obtained from the field data (Table 2).
Synthetic GPR Data and Comparison with Field
GPR Data
Observing the synthetic data obtained [Fig. 9(a)], the fill-stone in-
terface was not clearly identified [Fig. 9(a), R1] because of the amount
of reflections generated at this interface by multiple sources such as
a probable ring separation, the usual irregular geometry of the ring
stones in the interior of the structure, and the existence of non-
homogeneous fill material over the arch. A regular interface [Fig. 9(b)]
was simulated to ratify this hypothesis, and the synthetic data easily
showed the fill-stone interface and its consequent shift in the polarity
of the signal compared with the direct signal. This inversion in polarity
was not clearly observed when the interface was simulated like ir-
regular geometry ring stones [Fig. 9(a)], where the confluence of many
diffractions [see the trace in Fig. 9(a)] made the inversion difficult to
appreciate. As observed in the field data [Fig. 7(b)], the hyperbolic
reflections produced by the separation between ring stones at the
intrados surface [inner curve of the arch; Fig. 9(a), R4] was also
identified. The springing of the arch on each side is nonvisible behind
the cutwaters [Fig. 1(a)], but, observing the field data, a reflection most
probably caused by the largest size of the springer stone in relation
with the other ring stones composing the arch was identified [Fig. 6(c),
R9]. To verify this, a larger springer stone [Fig. 9(a)] was simulated,
and the reflection obtained [Fig. 9(a), R3] was similar to that observed
in the field data. This information is useful for engineers because the
use of a larger springer stone provides additional reinforcement to the
arch.
The most appropriate recognition of the complex pattern of
reflections generated at the arch-stone interface caused by the ir-
regular shape of the ring stones allows for the detection of inner
structural damage such as delaminations and arch ring separation.
As seen in Fig. 10, additional simulations were built to analyze how
the GPR can identify an arch ring separation in both regular and
irregular interfaces. Observing synthetic radargrams obtained in Fig.
10, the hyperbolic reflection produced by the existence of the
simulated cavity were identified in both cases [Figs. 10(a and b)].
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. FDTD modeling to analyze the detection of the arch ring thickness, where (a) irregular and (b) regular interfaces were simulated; the usual
largest size of the springer stone was also simulated

Fig. 10. FDTD modeling to analyze how the GPR can detect ring stone separation in both (a) irregular and (b) regular interfaces; circles indicate the
hyperbolic reflections produced for each case

The reflection is even distinguished for the case of an irregular shape
at the extrados of the arch ring [Fig. 9(a)].
Conclusions
In this work, the medieval bridge of Monforte, in the northwest of
Spain, is evaluated by using NDT to protect the historical character
of the structure. For surveying, GPR was used with central fre-
quencies of 500 and 250 MHz. The processed GPR data have
revealed valuable information that was previously unknown, such as
hidden structural details and evidence of restoration tasks. The ex-
istence of two hidden arches was identified in the left margin (from
upstream) under the access road to the bridge. The analysis of the
radar wave revealed that these nonvisible arches remain emptied
inside the structure. Moreover, the higher resolution provided by the
500-MHz antenna allowed the identification of the potential thick-
ness of the arch ring in the inner part of the structure. The velocity of
propagation of the radar wave was determined in different zones of
the bridge to range from 7.35 to 13.0 cm/ns. The lowest values in
velocity obtained here potentially delineate the presence of moist
areas in the stonework. The diffraction hyperbola procedure was
used to determine velocities in which, for a more appropriate esti-
mation, the hyperbolic shapes to fit were the arch span geometries
provided by accurate laser scanning data.
The laser scanning survey provided complete information about
the geometric characteristics of the masonry structure. After post-
processing of the laser data, not only was accurate geometry obtained,
but textural information improved the quality of the geometric model.
In fact, based on the textured model, orthoimages were produced for its
subsequent integration in a process of radar response simulation
(FDTD). Accurate geometry also provides better static and angular

118 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119

 corrections for field GPR data processing, analysis, and interpretation.
As the orthoimages become more accurate, more realistic simulations
can be performed and, consequently, the better the interpretation of
GPR data. Each sequential improvement in one process helps provide
better data for the next. Additionally, the accurate geometric model
results proved to be very useful for the calibration of the radar wave
behavior through the constitutive materials of the bridge under study.
Simulating the structure in fine detail results in excessive com-
putational requirements, but the mixed model of parallelization
used here has proven to provide valuable additional information in a
reasonable amount of time. Some simulations were made to evaluate
the potential of the GPR to define the arch ring thickness. The
knowledge of this dimensional parameter is essential for analyzing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stability of the arch. However, a complex pattern of reflections usually
occurs in the interface between the filling and the extrados surface
(outer curve of the arch), mainly because of the irregular shape of the
ring stones. Simulations demonstrated that regular interfaces and
subsequent arch ring thickness are better identified than irregularly
shaped interfaces. For simulation, the model was elaborated from the
contour of the arch ring delineated from the laser scanning data. The
most realistic scenario for modeling provided a better understanding
of the scattering or diffraction events produced at the interface, which
allowed for the detection of other potential structural damage such as
arch ring separation (or presence of voids).
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Sci-
ence and Innovation (Grant No. BIA2009–08012) and the Spanish
Center for Technological and Industrial Development (Grant No.
IDI–20101770).
References
Alampalli, S. (2010). “Special issue on bridge inspection and evaluation.”
J. Bridge Eng., 15(4), 349–351.
Alvarado, S., Durán, M., and Nárdiz, C. (1989). Puentes históricos de
Galicia, Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos,
Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Spain (in Spanish).
Brencich, A., and De Francesco, U. (2004). “Assessment of multispan ma-
sonry arch bridges. I: Simplified approach.” J. Bridge Eng., 9(6), 582–590.
Clark, M. R., McCann, D. M., and Forde, M. C. (2003). “Application of
infrared thermography to non-destructive testing of concrete and ma-
sonry bridges.” NDT Int., 36(4), 265–275.
Colla, C., McCann, D. M., and Forde, M. (2001). “Radar testing of a ma-
sonry composite structure with sand and water backfill.” J. Bridge Eng.,
6(4), 262–270.
Diamanti, N., Giannopoulos, A., and Forde, M. C. (2008). “Numerical
modelling and experimental verification of GPR to investigate ring
separation in brick masonry arch bridges.” NDT Int., 41(5), 354–363.
Fernandes, F. (2006). “Evaluation of two novel NDT techniques: Micro-
drilling of clay bricks and ground penetrating radar in masonry.” Ph.D.
thesis, Minho Univ., Guimarães, Portugal.
Flint, R. C., Jackson, P. D., and McCann, D. M. (1999). “Geophysical
imaging inside masonry structures.” NDT Int., 32(8), 469–479.
Giannopoulos, A. (2005). “Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax.”
Construct. Build. Mater., 19(10), 755–762.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 119
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 110-119
Giannopoulos, A. (2006). “GprMax2D/3D: Electromagnetic simulator for
ground probing radar.” Æhttp://www.gprmax.orgæ (Apr. 25, 2012).
González-Jorge, H., Riveiro, B., Armesto, J., and Arias, P. (2011).
“Standard artifact for the geometric verification of terrestrial laser
scanning systems.” Opt. Laser Technol., 43(7), 1249–1256.
Gordon, S. J., and Lichti, D. D. (2007). “Modeling terrestrial laser scanner
data for precise structural deformation measurement.” J. Surv. Eng.,
133(2), 72–80.
Jol, H. M. (2009). Ground penetrating radar: Theory and applications,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Lindenbergh, R., Uchanski, L., Bucksch, A., and van Gosliga, R. (2009).
“Structural monitoring of tunnels using terrestrial laser scanning.” Rep.
Geodesy, 2(87), 231–239.
Lubowiecka, I., Arias, P., Riveiro, B., and Solla, M. (2011). “Multidisci-
plinary approach to the assessment of historic structures based on the
case of a masonry bridge in Galicia (Spain).” Comp. Struct., 89(17–18),
1615–1627.
Luhmann, T. (2006). Close range photogrammetry: Principles, methods
and applications, Wiley, Dunbeath, U.K.
Mabon, L. (2002). “Assessment, strengthening and preservation of masonry
structures for continued use in today’s infrastructure.” Rep. 86, In-
ternational Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 448–459.
Martinaud, M., Frappa, M., and Chapoulie, R. (2004). “GPR signal for the
understanding of the shape and filling of man-made underground ma-
sonry.” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft,
Netherlands, 439–442.
MATLAB [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
Melbourne, C., McKibbins, L. D., Sawar, N., and Sicilia-Gaillard, C. (2006).
Masonry arch bridges: Condition appraisal and remedial treatment,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London.
Millard, S. G., Shaw, M. R., Giannopoulos, A., and Soutsos, M. N. (1998).
“Modeling of subsurface pulsed radar for nondestructive testing of
structures.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10(3), 188–196.
Orbán, Z., and Gutermann, M. (2009). “Assessment of masonry arch
railway bridges using nondestructive in-situ testing methods.” Eng.
Struct., 31(10), 2287–2298.
Pérez-Gracia, V. (2001). “Radar de Subsuelo. Evaluación para aplicaciones
en arqueología y en patrimonio artistico.” Ph.D. thesis, Polytechnic
Univ. of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain (in Spanish).
Rebay, S. (1993). “Efficient unstructured mesh generation by means of
Delaunay triangulation and Bowyer-Watson algorithm.” J. Comput.
Phys., 106(1), 125–138.
Reynolds, J. M. (1997). An introduction to applied and environmental
geophysics, Wiley, London.
Riveiro, B., Morer, P., Arias, P., and de Arteaga, I. (2011). “Terrestrial
laser scanning and limit analysis of masonry arch bridges.” Construct.
Build. Mater., 25(4), 1726–1735.
Sandmeier, K. J. (2007). ReflexW manual v.6.1, Sandmeier Scientific
Software, Æhttp://www.sandmeier-geo.de/download.htmlæ (Jul. 6, 2012).
Solla, M., Lorenzo, H., Novo, A., and Caamaño, J. C. (2012). “Structural
analysis of the Roman Bibei bridge (Spain) based on GPR data and
numerical modelling.” Autom. Construct., 22, 334–339.
Solla, M., Lorenzo, H., Novo, A., and Rial, F. I. (2010). “Ground-penetrating
radar assessment of the medieval arch bridge of San Anton, Galicia,
Spain.” Archaeol. Prospect., 17(4), 223–232.
Solla, M., Lorenzo, H., Riveiro, B., and Rial, F. I. (2011). “Non-destructive
methodologies in the assessment of the masonry arch bridge of Traba,
Spain.” Eng. Fail. Anal., 18(3), 828–835.
Ural, A., Oruç, Ş., Dogangün, A., and Ískender Tuluk, Ö. (2008). “Turkish
historical arch bridges and their deteriorations and failures.” Eng. Fail.
Anal., 15(1–2), 43–53.