제지 공정 과정에서 슬러지를 소각할 때 생성되는 제지애쉬를 도로 하부 동공 보수 재료인 유동성 채움재의 재료로 재 활용 가능성에 대하여 실험적으로 평가하였다. 유동성 채움재는 플로우 값으로 대표되는 유동성, 압축강도 및 블리딩률 에 의해 평가됨에 따라 해당 특성에 대하여 시험 및 평가를 진행하였다. 제지애쉬의 화학적 성분이 강도 발현을 위한 시 멘트와 유사한 점에 기반하여 제지애쉬를 시멘트 중량비의 0~40% 범위에서 치환하여 페이스트 혼합물을 제작하였다. 이 후, 플로우 및 압축강도 시험을 수행하여 제지애쉬의 적정 치환 범위를 선정하였다. 이후, 시멘트-제지애쉬 페이스트 혼 합물에 잔골재 및 굵은 골재를 혼합하여 유동성 채움재(CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material) 혼합물을 배합하고 플로 우, 압축강도, 블리딩 시험을 실시하였다. 시험 결과 제지애쉬 치환율이 증가함에 따라 혼합물의 유동성 및 압축강도가 감소하였으며, 이는 제지애쉬의 높은 수분 흡수율에 의한 영향으로 판단된다. 혼합물의 적정 배합을 통하여 소정의 플로 우, 압축강도 및 블리딩률 기준을 만족할 수 있었으며, 이를 통해 제지애쉬의 유동성 채움재 활용 가능성을 확인하였다.

PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of 3D multichannel ground penetrating radar (GPR) equipment, which is mainly used for road cavity detection. The optimal signal analysis method was also proposed for 3D GPR data. METHODS: Four types of 3D GPR equipment were used to detect road cavities in a pilot road section in Seoul. The obtained GPR signals were evaluated in the time and frequency domain using raw data. In addition, various types of filters were applied to time domain (B-scan) data to examine the optimal signal processing. RESULTS: The time and frequency domain analysis of raw data showed that all the equipment produced reverse and strong signal reflections owing to the low dielectric permittivity of air in the cavity compared with neighbor materials. Also, the asymmetric parabolic curve was observed as well. The optimal signal processing method was determined to detect road cavities: zero-setting and background removal should be applied to all equipment. Bandpass filtering can be optionally applied to remove high-frequency noise or direct waves. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different specifications of GPR equipment in terms of signal generation and bandwidth, the GPR signals were appropriate in terms of zero-setting, noise level, and depth of investigation. Therefore, all the multichannel GPR devices evaluated were found to be suitable to detect road cavities located at depths of 1.0 and 1.5 m after the application of proper filtering process.

The Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR) is a typical non-destructive test equipment which is widely used in seeking a cavity or underground facility. Test results are generally expressed 2D monochrome or color images, distribution of the parabolic waveforms are used to determine the existence of cavity and facility. (Fig. 1) But, an analysis method of image may cause errors depending on the knowledge and experience of analyst. In this study, we analyzed the coefficient of correlation between A-Scan data of GPR to judge the existence of cavity located under the pavement layer. The correlation analysis was performed based on the assumption that the relationship of correlation between a number of A-Scan data passing through a non-cavity section is larger than a small number of A-Scan data passing through a cavity section, and relationship of correlation was visualized using Surfer Program. (Fig. 2) In addition, apart from the correlation analysis, we compared the Power spectrum of the A-scan data for the cavity section and non-cavity section. In other words, assuming that the size of the energy changes depending on the existence of the cavity, PSD (Power Spectrum Density) is obtained for all the B-Scan data, and the tendency of the energy size is confirmed using the 3D wireframe map of the Surfer program. (Fig. 3) As a result, the correlation coefficient shows a small tendency in the cavity section and the PSD shows a large tendency, which is intuitively recognized that the energy attenuation in the cavity section is smaller than other material. But, there are some ambiguous sections to judge the tendency clearly, this is estimated to be noise on the underground facility and it is necessary to take measure of mitigating this.

This is the abstract section. One paragraph only Road cavities recently in urban are causing collapse of road surface layer due to loss of support bearing capacity. Detecting road cavities with ground penetrating radar(GPR) test, then excavation and backfill are performed in the anticipated cavity area. However sometimes detecting errors are occurred because of the complexity of the GPR test result analysis or interval space between larger gravels. So before unnecessary excavation, verification for detect the cavities results should be needed. The purpose of this study suggest deflection method by the light weight deflectometer(LWD) as a verification way of GPR test results and as a tracking investigation method continuously at the sites having small size cavity. LWD devices has more advantages than larger NDT because FWD has difficulties in a traffic control and entrance of narrow-back road. In this study, LWD tests were conducted on the pavement sections with and without road cavity detected by GPR tests and after excavating the area, the cavity sizes were measured. LWD test results can be applied to verify a subsurface cavity by comparing maximum deflection and deflection ratio between cavity area and non cavity area at the loading center. The higher deflection and lower modulus was measured at cavity sections. Based on the results of the comparative analysis, It is found that deflection method has a possibility of complementary for detecting road cavity. Also cavity size prediction equation was attempted to propose through deflection ratio using a database. Compared with another validation data, the proposed prediction equation is more suitable for detecting cavity existence than size estimation because the average error rate is larger. As a results of the analysis with depth ratio as a factor, it is necessary to improve the cavity size prediction through the normalization using the parameter of road properties.

PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate different types of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) testing for characterizing the road cavity detection. The impulse and step-frequency-type GPR tests were conducted on a full-scale testbed with an artificial void installation. After analyzing the response signals of GPR tests for detecting the road cavity, the characteristics of each GPR response was evaluated for a suitable selection of GPR tests. METHODS: Two different types of GPR tests were performed to estimate the limitation and accuracy for detecting the cavities underneath the asphalt pavement. The GPR signal responses were obtained from the testbed with different cavity sizes and depths. The detection limitation was identified by a signal penetration depth at a given cavity for impulse and step-frequency-type GPR testing. The unique signal characteristics was also observed at cavity sections. RESULTS: The impulse-type GPR detected the 500-mm length of cavity at a depth of 1.0 m, and the step-frequency-type GPR detected the cavity up to 1.5 m. This indicates that the detection capacity of the step-frequency type is better than the impulse type. The step-frequency GPR testing also can reflect the howling phenomena that can more accurately determine the cavity. CONCLUSIONS : It is found from this study that the step-frequency GPR testing is more suitable for the road cavity detection of asphalt pavement. The use of step-frequency GPR testing shows a distinct image at the cavity occurrences.

PURPOSES : The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential risk level of road cave-ins due to subsurface cavities based on the deflection basin measured with falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests. METHODS: Ground penetrating radar (GPR) tests were conducted to detect road cavities. Then FWD tests were conducted on 13 pavement test sections with and without a cavity. FWD deflections and a deflection ratio was used to evaluate the effect of geometry of the cavity and pavement for road cave-in potentials. RESULTS: FWD deflection of cavity sections measured at 60 cm or a closer offset distance to a loading center were 50% greater than more robust sections. The average deflection ratio of the cavity sections to robust sections were 1.78 for high risk level cavities, 1.51 for medium risk level cavities, and 1.16 for low risk level cavities. The relative remaining service life of pavement with a cavity evaluated with an surface curvature index (SCI) was 8.1% for the high level, 21.8% for the medium level, and 89.8% compared to pavement without a cavity. CONCLUSIONS : FWD tests can be applied to detect a subsurface cavity by comparing FWD deflections with and without a cavity measured at 60 cm or a closer offset distance to loading center. In addition, the relative remaining service life of cavity sections based on the SCI can used to evaluate road cave-in potentials.

For the evaluation of the road cavity, GPR method is usually used widely. But the technique of image process is very difficult and confused owing to the similar signals. In this study, the deflection analysis is proposed for the supplement method of the GPR.