Its like comparing a flat head screwdriver to a phillips screwdriver. They each have their place on the job site, but not all jobs can be completed properly while using just one or the other. My company does both, and we are the largest on the west coast that only does concrete inspection. I'll go by number to give my input. 1. Radar is real time, x-ray should be processed onsite in a mobile darkroom. If the inspection company doesn't have a mobile darkroom, they probably aren't accustomed to field work. 2. Correct, x-ray needs both sides of the concrete, radar only one. 3. False, radar has a hard time locating pvc. It can be detected, but no where near as easy as with x-ray. Also, radar has a hard time differentiating between materials. With x-ray, you can see the difference between metal conduit, pvc conduit, smurftube, rebar, and pt cable. 4. Yes, radar is safe, but so is x-ray. Electricians have a far more dangerous job. X-ray companies and field technicians are licensed by the state or federal level. 5. True, but again, it's an unfair comparison. We use x-ray on jobs that require the level of detail that gpr is not able to produce. 6. True for our company on a per location basis. In summary, the point I'm trying to make is you can't have a complete concrete inspection company without the use of both gpr and x-ray. I've never had to sub a gpr company on to any of my projects, but many of the local gpr companies have sub'd us in for x-ray. I would much rather do gpr on everything, the margins are much better, the equipment is much less expensive, we can do most of our work during daytime hours, and we wouldn't need the radioactive materials license, which can be a real pain in the rear at times. We currently have 6 gpr units , 3 Ir192 sources, and 1 Cobalt 60 source. Let me know if you have any questions. Jamie Davis Vice President Subsurface Imaging, Inc. 714-322-1721
Jamie Davis thanks so much fornthe input. I appreciate you adding some perspective to the video and continuing the discussion. Made a disclaimer in there that I know very little and I appreciate you clearing up some of the comparisons.
Jamie Davis, which method would you use to scan an older concrete structure you come across when digging on a new site which was not on any city records and you are not sure what is on the inside? Also would this method reveal information of there being anything critical inside this structure such as electrical cables or critical supply lines? Thanks
Pardon my ignorance, I'm new to this. But for the past several years, my dentist has switched from film to digital X-rays, making them real-time without having to develop films. I know it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I would be surprised if this technology hasn't also been applied to this type of X-ray imaging.
Great question. I did a video on this where I discuss 4 different ways. However, there are tools that are built for this application specifically such as cover meters.
Pls reply ..Main purpose : to identify even small plastic waste like plastic covers that are buried in soil which leads to depletion of soil .. I had an idea to use GPR and capacitive sensor but both failed to satisfy the above condition so Im searching ways to identify plastics waste like cover , toys .etc so we can extract it in any way. Is any other possible ways available ??
Pls reply ..Main purpose : to identify even small plastic waste like plastic covers that are buried in soil which leads to depletion of soil .. I had an idea to use GPR and capacitive sensor but both failed to satisfy the above condition so Im searching ways to identify plastics waste like cover , toys .etc so we can extract it in any way. Is any other possible ways available ??
Hi Daniel, Could you able to show us the GPR images when you are discussing about the topics you are on? This will give the audience much understanding of GPR technique.
x-ray can see the difference between things like rebar and PT cables because it does create an image. I would only suggest it in a very congested area where cables cannot be differentiated from rebar when using GPR and the difference must be known definitively.
I would like to enter this conversation and state the clear facts of the matter as a Licensed CEDO since 2011 ( Certified Exposure device operator) in Canada and 12 years of experience as a GPR tech in this field also working with new Digital panel and tube x-ray systems. Comparing GPR scan results in concrete vs x-ray process is like comparing a sketch artist with the police coming up with a render of a suspect off verbal description alone vs the victim having a boldface photo of the suspect on their cell phone. They can not be compared fairly as they offer different information for the client and in the case of GPR, you're also in a sense putting all your faith in the artist's/technician's ability to translate the raw data and mark detections accurately during inspections. Whereas an x-ray makes a burned 2-dimensional photo showing everything in detail there's no debate or room for false readings when performed properly. What's seen in the x-ray is 100% without a doubt present in the concrete slabbing. As Jamie had mentioned the most common industrial isotopes for inspection are Ir-192 and Co-60 however even at their highest output curie range usually around 120 when freshly loaded into an exposure device will only penetrate so much concrete clearly and it takes a long time...… Ir-192 will normally max out around 12" in thickness of concrete but still provide clear results of everything in the slab generally taking up to 30 mins per location exposure time. Co-60 also will provide clear shots generally up to 24" thickness reliably but it takes a long time. Running at 60 curies I personally sat on a 23" thick shot that was 8 hours of exposure time. What people need to understand is this technology isn't truly an X-ray process. These two isotopes are gamma isotopes and their intended primary use is for the steel and welding inspection fields. The gamma inspection process is used to verify industrial code standards on welding and is what most people do with these isotopes in the field on non-destructive testing. They have simply been also used by some companies to offer concrete inspections as well. Both these processes do require the film to be processed either on-site or off-site in a dark room. This process is done with actual pieces of film being provided to the client so they refer to the final product as an x-ray commonly like a trade brand name but this process is done with gamma radiation isotopes. I worked with a company in The greater Vancouver area that had actually obtained some of the newest and first-ever in Canada industrial true X-ray tube accelerators. Nova advanced imaging. This process is, in fact, closer to a medical particle accelerator and puts out a much stronger punch than any gamma system available and images come out sharp. It too has a maximum penetration limit of 14" of concrete but it works with new digital software and panels meaning no film is required. The tube shoots thru 14" of concrete in 3 mins and produces a real-life, real-time on-site digital photo on a computer software in 1 min rendering time. Dark rooms are now a thing of the past. Your only limits are being the digital panel only captures 14" x 14" of space per X-ray and the thickness limit of 14" of thickness for the system. There is also a need to access the slab from both sides. The safety factor is also very well controlled as most inspections are simply performed at night-time when no one's around to potentially come into a radiation zone. Also unlike gamma sources where it can take a long time the shot itself is limited to 3 mins. Making it not possible for someone to absorb a relevant dose of concern even when standing in close proximity to the source for a whole 3 min duration. Someone would have to stay in critical proximity to the device for serval exposure windows to be at risk. As mentioned x-ray makes a burned 2-dimensional photo showing everything it's capable of creating that contrast and showing PT cables, rebar, conduit, and tech cables, in the slab water line all in detail and properly identifiable. However, we always perform GPR inspections to gain the information you cant obtain from an x-ray... such as determining the top and bottom reinforcements depths in the slab and noting its true detected location in the slab to avoid possible deflection that might occur in capturing the x-ray image. I always stress to the client's x-ray provides true identification of what's in the slabbing and GPR provides all the depth and direction information engineers want in relation to that image. you would be amazed how accurate a GPR scan can become for placing objects when following an image of an x-ray knowing exactly what detections are present and how they are traveling.
Hey, I just had an idea on what you can do on this subject. It will cost you a little bit of money, but you never know, you might be able to come up with a partnership with someone to do it with you. I think you should do a video of GPR and x-ray, being used on the exact same area and then compare the results and the project as a whole. As I say, you may have to hire an x-ray technician to do the scan for you. But you never know, you might be able to come up with a partnership with him, maybe offering him advertisement during the video, or something like that.
Hey Ben. It is a good idea. I would love to do some other experiments as well. I think that kind of content would be really helpful for a lot of people.
Haven't used x-rays so have no knowledge about this, but would like to state this much that due to the fact x-rays have very high frequency, it will have very high resolution which can never be achieved by GPR. Hence, theoretically x-rays should able to locate small objects which will not show up in GPR. Moreover, x-rays will be able to determine the size and shape of embedded objects much more precisely than GPR.
Use together provides excellent results. We have already used x-rays in situations where we needed to determine the loss of section of the reinforcement. First we located the armor and with GPR nd then we did the x-ray.
Is concrete imaging x-ray different than the x-ray you get done on your body? Is so, then I would have to imagine that X-ray could find more than ferrous metals.. I'm definitely interested in learning more about this.
Hey Dan, Ok, bro, you know I love you and everything you do, so I hope I can be honest with you and you don't get offended by this. But dude, the image quality of this video is terrible. Come on, I thought in 2017 you were going to step it up a notch. I think it is time to jump on Amazon and buy some lighting. These days they are cheaper than ever. And yes I know it hasn't affected the contecnt of the video, and yes 'Content is King'. But I think it will just help for all those that haven't found you yet and come across you for the first time. Ok, now that I have said that, lets get back to the actual video. Don't you just love people that say they have used something once and it didn't work so they will never use it again, lol. I hear it all the time with GPR when I am out on site locating utilities and I can't find, say a water pipe, and I tell the client, "it must be a plastic pipeline, so let me go back to the car and I will get the GPR out and see if I can find it", and they are like "nah don't worry about it, we had a guy come out a few years ago and tried to find something with GPR and it didn;t work, so don't bother." In Australia, I have not found anyone at ALL, that can offer X-ray. Many companies say they do it, but it turns out they just offer GPR and call it x-ray, as customers have no idea. If you do know anyone over here that does offer it, can you let me know as I would like to get them out on a couple jobs I have issues with? Or at least get a price from them for now. Jamie has already brought up a similar point to what I was going to say. In my research of it all, I would say that your number 3 point, that GPR is more accurate is incorrect and I'd say X-ray would be more accurate. But again, I have never used one, this is just from what I can tell from my research. I'd also assume that you should be able to tell the size of rebar easier, than you can with GPR, but again, I have not seen it in action. Regards Ben
Point well taken brother. Got nothing but love for you too! And really you are right. I'll check out some equipment. For the long term it will no doubt help for folks just discovering my stuff. I actually did this one in an office building I started working in...it seems like the lighting is actually better in my home. But I have been considering some lighting and maybe a camera. To your other point, folks are lucky that GPR doesn't have feelings. The amount of times that GPR gets put down, when it really was the technician or the site conditions is really awful. If it were a human it would go home crying most days. It really baffles me how easily some technicians get off the hook and blame the equipment. Also, it would be great to have the comparison to see who really wins the #3 point. Another issue that someone put in the blog comments was experience. What kind of experience does someone need to process film? What does that even entail? Is it digital now? WE NEED AN X-RAY PERSON IN THIS THREAD!! Thanks again for the comments and never feel bad giving it to me straight. I love truth.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Its like comparing a flat head screwdriver to a phillips screwdriver. They each have their place on the job site, but not all jobs can be completed properly while using just one or the other. My company does both, and we are the largest on the west coast that only does concrete inspection. I'll go by number to give my input. 1. Radar is real time, x-ray should be processed onsite in a mobile darkroom. If the inspection company doesn't have a mobile darkroom, they probably aren't accustomed to field work.
2. Correct, x-ray needs both sides of the concrete, radar only one. 3. False, radar has a hard time locating pvc. It can be detected, but no where near as easy as with x-ray. Also, radar has a hard time differentiating between materials. With x-ray, you can see the difference between metal conduit, pvc conduit, smurftube, rebar, and pt cable. 4. Yes, radar is safe, but so is x-ray. Electricians have a far more dangerous job. X-ray companies and field technicians are licensed by the state or federal level. 5. True, but again, it's an unfair comparison. We use x-ray on jobs that require the level of detail that gpr is not able to produce. 6. True for our company on a per location basis.
In summary, the point I'm trying to make is you can't have a complete concrete inspection company without the use of both gpr and x-ray. I've never had to sub a gpr company on to any of my projects, but many of the local gpr companies have sub'd us in for x-ray. I would much rather do gpr on everything, the margins are much better, the equipment is much less expensive, we can do most of our work during daytime hours, and we wouldn't need the radioactive materials license, which can be a real pain in the rear at times. We currently have 6 gpr units , 3 Ir192 sources, and 1 Cobalt 60 source. Let me know if you have any questions.
Jamie Davis
Vice President
Subsurface Imaging, Inc.
714-322-1721
Jamie Davis thanks so much fornthe input. I appreciate you adding some perspective to the video and continuing the discussion. Made a disclaimer in there that I know very little and I appreciate you clearing up some of the comparisons.
Jamie Davis, which method would you use to scan an older concrete structure you come across when digging on a new site which was not on any city records and you are not sure what is on the inside? Also would this method reveal information of there being anything critical inside this structure such as electrical cables or critical supply lines? Thanks
Pardon my ignorance, I'm new to this. But for the past several years, my dentist has switched from film to digital X-rays, making them real-time without having to develop films. I know it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I would be surprised if this technology hasn't also been applied to this type of X-ray imaging.
Can we know the diameter of steel bar after casting concrete by using this machine?
Great question. I did a video on this where I discuss 4 different ways. However, there are tools that are built for this application specifically such as cover meters.
pls reply,Is there any methods to identify buries thin plastic waste like covers?
Can you give more contacts than That
Pls reply ..Main purpose : to identify even small plastic waste like plastic covers that are buried in soil which leads to depletion of soil .. I had an idea to use GPR and capacitive sensor but both failed to satisfy the above condition so Im searching ways to identify plastics waste like cover , toys .etc so we can extract it in any way. Is any other possible ways available ??
Pls reply ..Main purpose : to identify even small plastic waste like plastic covers that are buried in soil which leads to depletion of soil .. I had an idea to use GPR and capacitive sensor but both failed to satisfy the above condition so Im searching ways to identify plastics waste like cover , toys .etc so we can extract it in any way. Is any other possible ways available ??
Hi Daniel, Could you able to show us the GPR images when you are discussing about the topics you are on? This will give the audience much understanding of GPR technique.
x-ray can see the difference between things like rebar and PT cables because it does create an image. I would only suggest it in a very congested area where cables cannot be differentiated from rebar when using GPR and the difference must be known definitively.
Hi Jamie! Thanks for the response. This is exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate you helping balance out the perspective.
I would like to enter this conversation and state the clear facts of the matter as a Licensed CEDO since 2011 ( Certified Exposure device operator) in Canada and 12 years of experience as a GPR tech in this field also working with new Digital panel and tube x-ray systems.
Comparing GPR scan results in concrete vs x-ray process is like comparing a sketch artist with the police coming up with a render of a suspect off verbal description alone vs the victim having a boldface photo of the suspect on their cell phone. They can not be compared fairly as they offer different information for the client and in the case of GPR, you're also in a sense putting all your faith in the artist's/technician's ability to translate the raw data and mark detections accurately during inspections. Whereas an x-ray makes a burned 2-dimensional photo showing everything in detail there's no debate or room for false readings when performed properly. What's seen in the x-ray is 100% without a doubt present in the concrete slabbing.
As Jamie had mentioned the most common industrial isotopes for inspection are Ir-192 and Co-60 however even at their highest output curie range usually around 120 when freshly loaded into an exposure device will only penetrate so much concrete clearly and it takes a long time...… Ir-192 will normally max out around 12" in thickness of concrete but still provide clear results of everything in the slab generally taking up to 30 mins per location exposure time. Co-60 also will provide clear shots generally up to 24" thickness reliably but it takes a long time. Running at 60 curies I personally sat on a 23" thick shot that was 8 hours of exposure time. What people need to understand is this technology isn't truly an X-ray process.
These two isotopes are gamma isotopes and their intended primary use is for the steel and welding inspection fields. The gamma inspection process is used to verify industrial code standards on welding and is what most people do with these isotopes in the field on non-destructive testing. They have simply been also used by some companies to offer concrete inspections as well. Both these processes do require the film to be processed either on-site or off-site in a dark room. This process is done with actual pieces of film being provided to the client so they refer to the final product as an x-ray commonly like a trade brand name but this process is done with gamma radiation isotopes.
I worked with a company in The greater Vancouver area that had actually obtained some of the newest and first-ever in Canada industrial true X-ray tube accelerators. Nova advanced imaging. This process is, in fact, closer to a medical particle accelerator and puts out a much stronger punch than any gamma system available and images come out sharp.
It too has a maximum penetration limit of 14" of concrete but it works with new digital software and panels meaning no film is required. The tube shoots thru 14" of concrete in 3 mins and produces a real-life, real-time on-site digital photo on a computer software in 1 min rendering time. Dark rooms are now a thing of the past. Your only limits are being the digital panel only captures 14" x 14" of space per X-ray and the thickness limit of 14" of thickness for the system. There is also a need to access the slab from both sides. The safety factor is also very well controlled as most inspections are simply performed at night-time when no one's around to potentially come into a radiation zone. Also unlike gamma sources where it can take a long time the shot itself is limited to 3 mins. Making it not possible for someone to absorb a relevant dose of concern even when standing in close proximity to the source for a whole 3 min duration. Someone would have to stay in critical proximity to the device for serval exposure windows to be at risk.
As mentioned x-ray makes a burned 2-dimensional photo showing everything it's capable of creating that contrast and showing PT cables, rebar, conduit, and tech cables, in the slab water line all in detail and properly identifiable. However, we always perform GPR inspections to gain the information you cant obtain from an x-ray... such as determining the top and bottom reinforcements depths in the slab and noting its true detected location in the slab to avoid possible deflection that might occur in capturing the x-ray image. I always stress to the client's x-ray provides true identification of what's in the slabbing and GPR provides all the depth and direction information engineers want in relation to that image. you would be amazed how accurate a GPR scan can become for placing objects when following an image of an x-ray knowing exactly what detections are present and how they are traveling.
Thanks so much for adding to the discussion. You definitely gave much more depth. Much appreciated!
Hey, I just had an idea on what you can do on this subject.
It will cost you a little bit of money, but you never know, you might be able to come up with a partnership with someone to do it with you.
I think you should do a video of GPR and x-ray, being used on the exact same area and then compare the results and the project as a whole.
As I say, you may have to hire an x-ray technician to do the scan for you. But you never know, you might be able to come up with a partnership with him, maybe offering him advertisement during the video, or something like that.
Hey Ben. It is a good idea. I would love to do some other experiments as well. I think that kind of content would be really helpful for a lot of people.
Haven't used x-rays so have no knowledge about this, but would like to state this much that due to the fact x-rays have very high frequency, it will have very high resolution which can never be achieved by GPR. Hence, theoretically x-rays should able to locate small objects which will not show up in GPR. Moreover, x-rays will be able to determine the size and shape of embedded objects much more precisely than GPR.
Thanks so much for the comment Hasan. Appreciate you building on the video and adding some useful information to the conversation.
Use together provides excellent results. We have already used x-rays in situations where we needed to determine the loss of section of the reinforcement. First we located the armor and with GPR nd then we did the x-ray.
Is concrete imaging x-ray different than the x-ray you get done on your body? Is so, then I would have to imagine that X-ray could find more than ferrous metals.. I'm definitely interested in learning more about this.
Mr. Professor, I would love to have a book translated into Turkish.
X-ray identifies ferrous & non ferrous objects
Thanks for the info
Hey Dan,
Ok, bro, you know I love you and everything you do, so I hope I can be honest with you and you don't get offended by this.
But dude, the image quality of this video is terrible.
Come on, I thought in 2017 you were going to step it up a notch.
I think it is time to jump on Amazon and buy some lighting. These days they are cheaper than ever.
And yes I know it hasn't affected the contecnt of the video, and yes 'Content is King'. But I think it will just help for all those that haven't found you yet and come across you for the first time.
Ok, now that I have said that, lets get back to the actual video.
Don't you just love people that say they have used something once and it didn't work so they will never use it again, lol.
I hear it all the time with GPR when I am out on site locating utilities and I can't find, say a water pipe, and I tell the client, "it must be a plastic pipeline, so let me go back to the car and I will get the GPR out and see if I can find it", and they are like "nah don't worry about it, we had a guy come out a few years ago and tried to find something with GPR and it didn;t work, so don't bother."
In Australia, I have not found anyone at ALL, that can offer X-ray. Many companies say they do it, but it turns out they just offer GPR and call it x-ray, as customers have no idea.
If you do know anyone over here that does offer it, can you let me know as I would like to get them out on a couple jobs I have issues with? Or at least get a price from them for now.
Jamie has already brought up a similar point to what I was going to say. In my research of it all, I would say that your number 3 point, that GPR is more accurate is incorrect and I'd say X-ray would be more accurate.
But again, I have never used one, this is just from what I can tell from my research.
I'd also assume that you should be able to tell the size of rebar easier, than you can with GPR, but again, I have not seen it in action.
Regards
Ben
Point well taken brother. Got nothing but love for you too! And really you are right. I'll check out some equipment. For the long term it will no doubt help for folks just discovering my stuff. I actually did this one in an office building I started working in...it seems like the lighting is actually better in my home. But I have been considering some lighting and maybe a camera.
To your other point, folks are lucky that GPR doesn't have feelings. The amount of times that GPR gets put down, when it really was the technician or the site conditions is really awful. If it were a human it would go home crying most days. It really baffles me how easily some technicians get off the hook and blame the equipment. Also, it would be great to have the comparison to see who really wins the #3 point. Another issue that someone put in the blog comments was experience. What kind of experience does someone need to process film? What does that even entail? Is it digital now?
WE NEED AN X-RAY PERSON IN THIS THREAD!!
Thanks again for the comments and never feel bad giving it to me straight. I love truth.