Evaluation and comparison of different detection technologies on simulated voids near buried pipes

Abstract

Erosion voids near buried pipes may reduce the service lives of buried infrastructure assets and present a concern to municipalities as they are difficult to detect accurately and effectively. Various technologies exist to detect erosion voids but limited testing has been performed to evaluate their effectiveness. In order to evaluate and compare different existing erosion void detection technologies, a blind experiment (i.e., without operators having prior information about void locations and geometries) was conducted. Two kinds of pipes were used for the evaluation: a corrugated steel pipe and a reinforced concrete pipe. A total of five artificial voids were made near the pipes. Four commercially available void detection technologies were evaluated: (i) conventional Backscatter Computed Tomography (BCT), (ii) handheld BCT, (iii) Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and (iv) Pipe Penetrating Radar (PPR). Additionally, Infrared Thermography (IRT) was also employed by the authors although this was not a blind study. Each technology and the data provided by that technology are presented. Based on the results, Handheld BCT and IRT were recommended for initial detection of the voids near corrugated steel pipes. To obtain higher accuracy and geometry detail, conventional BCT and PPR were suggested for the corrugated steel pipe and concrete pipe, respectively. GPR was able to detect a large void simulated between the two test pipes.