Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) are physically complementary non-destructive evaluation methods for reinforced concrete, yet their integrated diagnostic use has been limited by the absence of controlled, ground-truth-validated calibration of the joint-signature space. This paper presents a laboratory calibration programme in which a single C30/37 reinforced concrete beam (3000 mm × 300 mm × 200 mm, three T12 bars at 35 mm cover, CEM I 42. 5N, w/c = 0. 50) was sequentially conditioned through four controlled deterioration states—intact reference (Model A), water-filled saw-cut crack (Model B), full saturation by seven-day top-surface ponding (Model C), and chloride-induced active corrosion (Model D). Seven RES2DINV inverted ERT sections at three electrode spacings (a = 7, 15, and 30 mm) and three 800 MHz GPR profiles were acquired across the four known ground-truth conditions. The intact-reference resistivity ρ0 = 558 Ω·m (full-section median of the mlab dataset at a = 7 mm) and GPR-calibrated velocity v = 0. 095 ± 0. 008 m/ns (from hyperbola fitting at 35 mm rebar cover) establish the absolute baselines. The four conditions produce systematically distinct joint signatures: Model A exhibits uniform high resistivity with clean rebar hyperbolae and no anomalous reflections; Model B produces a localised ERT low-ρ anomaly (ρₘin = 1. 46 Ω·m) co-located with a negative-polarity (R = −0. 68) GPR crack-mouth reflection confirming water-fill; Model C produces pervasive low-ρ with a smooth depth gradient and 50–65% GPR amplitude attenuation (−6. 0 to −9. 1 dB) ; Model D produces the same bulk GPR signatures as Model C but with a critically different ERT spatial texture—a heterogeneous near-surface layer above a sharp boundary at z ≈ 40 mm with depth-preferential low-ρ concentrated at rebar level. This depth-preferential signature, quantified here by a reproducible Depth-Preferential Index (DPI), is the primary ERT-only diagnostic criterion distinguishing active corrosion from pervasive saturation. For the Model C versus Model D distinction, the GPR response is non-discriminating; this high-risk distinction is resolved exclusively by the ERT depth-preferential criterion. The calibration demonstrates that GPR and ERT are physically non-redundant in the strict sense: neither method alone can unambiguously discriminate all four states, but their combination yields correct classification within the controlled laboratory conditions and subject to the stated qualification conditions. The corrosion state was confirmed at the regime level (chloride above the depassivation threshold, under accelerated polarisation) but was not quantified electrochemically, so the depth-preferential signature is interpreted as an indirect spatial proxy for active corrosion rather than a measurement of corrosion rate. Seven failure modes are quantitatively characterised and embedded in the framework as a priori qualification conditions. The calibrated reference values (ρ0, A0, Stage 2 thresholds, depth-preferential criterion) are specific to the laboratory mix and curing history and require local Stage 1 recalibration for field application.
Obaida et al. (Sat,) studied this question.