4.3 Article

Analysis of the GPR signal for moisture detection: application to heritage buildings

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2022.2139652

Keywords

Buildings; cultural heritage; GPR; moisture detection; non-destructive evaluation; signal attributes

Funding

  1. Xunta de Galicia GAIN -through the project ENDITi [ED431F 2021/08]
  2. MCIN/AEI [RYC2019-026604-I]
  3. ESF Investing in your future
  4. Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICIN) of the Spanish government [PID2020-117374RB-I00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article summarizes different signal analysis techniques used to detect moisture from ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. Four case studies are included, providing descriptions of the problems, results, methodologies, and limitations and advantages.
Moisture is one of the main causes of degradation of heritage buildings. Early detection of zones affected by moisture is crucial information for preservation and maintenance of those structures. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is an effective survey method to assess damage in civil engineering and structures. Several methodologies involving this technique have been applied to determine the extension of damping in concrete, stone, and brick structures. This article summarizes the different signal analysis techniques generally used to detect moisture from GPR data. Four different case studies are included, covering different types of buildings. The case studies include the description of the problem, the results, the methodology (data acquisition, survey parameters, and processing), and the limits and advantages. Comparing the different studies, the limitations and advantages are associated with each type of problem and a final discussion describes other non-destructive testing techniques, numerical simulations and methodologies that could provide more reliable understanding when combined with GPR data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available