PSI - Issue 78

Irene Matteini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 992–999

999

Fig. 8.a) Cover map generated with GPR Insights. Areas in red represent low cover areas, versus the blue area which show a deeper cover. b) Deterioration map generated with GPR Insights. 3. Conclusions As part of this study, several bridge decks are currently under evaluation using this integrated approach, demonstrating the practical benefits of applying MCGPR techniques to infrastructure monitoring. The main objective of this research is to develop a robust methodology and demonstrate that MCGPR is a reliable and effective tool for bridge deck maintenance and monitoring. This includes performing periodic MCGPR surveys and comparing data over time to detect evolving deterioration patterns, confirm early signs of structural distress, and inform timely maintenance decisions. By establishing a repeatable process and validating the consistency of results, the study aims to support the integration of MCGPR into routine infrastructure assessment programs. Acknowledgements The authors extend their gratitude to Bogdan Nistor and Alex Novo at Proceq Screening Eagle, Eng. Carlo Doimo of Anas Piemonte, for their valuable support and collaboration. References 1. Gkoumas, K., Marques Dos Santos, F.L., van Balen, M., Tsakalidis, A., Ortega Hortelano, A., Grosso, M., et al., 2019. Research and innovation in bridge maintenance, inspection and monitoring: A European perspective based on the Transport Research and Innovation Monitoring and Information System (TRIMIS). Publications Office of the European Union, Report No.: EUR 29650 EN. 2. FIEC, 2023. Bridges: Tackling the maintenance deficit in Europe. Construction Europe, Mar – Apr 2023. Published by FIEC. 3. Barnes, C.L., Trottier, J.F., Forgeron, D., 2008. Improved concrete bridge deck evaluation using GPR by accounting for signal depth – amplitude effects. NDT&E International, 41(5), pp. 427 – 433. 4. Boldrin, P., Fornasari, G., Rizzo, E., 2024. Review of ground penetrating radar applications for bridge infrastructures. NDT, 2, pp. 53 – 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ndt2010004 5. Benedetto, L.A., Pajewski, L., 2015. Civil engineering applications of ground-penetrating radar. In: Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Springer International, New York, NY. 6. Goodman D, Novo A, Morelli G, Piro S, Kutrubes D, Lorenzo H. Advances in GPR imaging with multi‐channel radar systems from engineering to archaeology. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.4133/1.3614128. 7. Lombardi, F., Griffiths, H.D., Lualdi, M., 2016. The influence of spatial sampling in GPR surveys for the detection of landmines and IEDs. In: 2016 European Radar Conference (EuRAD) , London, UK, pp. 322 – 325. 8. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, 2019. Linee guida per la classificazione e gestione del rischio, la valutazione della sicurezza ed il monitoraggio dei ponti esistenti. 9. Tronca, G., Tsalicoalou, I., Lehner, S., Catanzariti, G., 2018. Comparison of pulsed and stepped frequency continuous wave (SFCW) GPR systems. In: 2018 17th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) , Rapperswil, Switzerland, pp. 1 – 4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGPR.2018.8441654 . 10. ASTM International, 2022. ASTM D6087-22: Standard Test Method for Evaluating Asphalt-Covered Concrete Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.