1887
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Ground penetrating radar is a popular approach to detect defects in tunnel lining. However, the interpretation is usually based on the original image, which is very different from the real shape of the lining defects. Full waveform inversion and reverse time migration are helpful to solve this problem. Full waveform inversion can invert the relative permittivity distribution and reverse time migration can migrate reflection events to their proper locations. Traditional full waveform inversion method is only applicable to cross‐hole ground penetrating radar data or surface multi‐offset ground penetrating radar data. We propose an improved full waveform inversion method which offers satisfactory inversion result for surface common‐offset radar. The forward modelled waveform and the objective function curve show that our new full waveform inversion method is much more accurate than traditional full waveform inversion for common‐offset radar. Traditional reverse time migration has weaker amplitude with increasing depth; we use an energy matrix to improve the imaging effect. Moreover, our reverse time migration is based on the relative permittivity distribution obtained from full waveform inversion, which provides more accurate imaging result. Through several numerical and engineering examples, we discuss the application of both methods in tunnel lining inspection. The results show that for tunnel lining without rebars, the combined methods can give satisfactory imaging results. But the image quality deteriorates rapidly when dealing with rebars.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12032
2019-02-26
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BerkhoutA.J.2015. Review paper: an outlook on the future of seismic imaging, part iii: joint migration inversion. Geophysical Prospecting62, 950–971.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ChattopadhyayS. and McmechanG.A.2008. Imaging conditions for prestack reverse‐time migration. Geophysics73, S81–S89.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ChaurisH., DonnoD. and CalandraH.2012. Velocity estimation with the normalized integration method. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating EUROPEC 2012, Extended Abstracts. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20148721
  4. DavisA.G., LimM.K. and PetersenC.G.2005. Rapid and economical evaluation of concrete tunnel linings with impulse response and impulse radar non‐destructive methods. NDT & E International38, 181–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1989. Ground‐penetrating radar for high‐resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophysical Prospecting37, 531–551.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ErnstJ.R., GreenA.G., MaurerH. and HolligerK.2007. Application of a new 2d time‐domain full‐waveform inversion scheme to crosshole radar data. Geophysics72, J53–J64.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. FengD., ChenC. and YuK.2011. Signal enhancement and complex signal analysis of GPR based on Hilbert‐Huang transform. In: Electrical Power Systems and Computers, Vol. 99 (ed. X.Wan ), pp. 375–384. Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LavouéF., BrossierR., MétivierL., GaramboisS. and Virieux. J. (2014). Two‐dimensional permittivity and conductivity imaging by full waveform inversion of multioffset GPR data: a frequency‐domain quasi‐Newton approach. Geophysical Journal International, 197, 248–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LeuschenC.J. and PlumbR.G.2001. A matched filter based reverse‐time migration algorithm for ground‐penetrating radar data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing39, 929–936.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LiC., LiM.J., ZhaoY.G., LiuH., WanZ., XuJ.C., et al. 2011. Layer recognition and thickness evaluation of tunnel lining based on ground penetrating radar measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics73, 45–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LiY., LiS.C., XuL., LiuL.B., LinC.J., ZhangF.K., et al. 2016. Forward simulation of ground penetrating radar and its application to detection of tunnel lining defects. Rock and Soil Mechanics37, 3627–3634. (in Chinese.)
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LiuS., MengX. and FuL.2016. Source wavelet independent time‐domain full waveform inversion (FWI) of cross‐hole radar data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Beijing, China, Extended Abstract, 7485–7488.
  13. MelesG.A., KrukJ.V.D., GreenhalghS.A., ErnstJ.R., MaurerH. and GreenA.G.2010. A new vector waveform inversion algorithm for simultaneous updating of conductivity and permittivity parameters from combination crosshole/borehole‐to‐surface gpr data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience & Remote Sensing48, 3391–3407.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. NilotE., FengX., ZhangY., ZhangM., DongZ., ZhouH. and ZhangX.2018. Multiparameter Full‐waveform inversion of on‐ground GPR using Memoryless quasi‐Newton (MLQN) method. 17th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR),Rapperswil, Switzerland, 1–4.
  15. ParkinsonG., BergerK.C. and ÉkesC.2008. Ground penetrating radar evaluation of concrete tunnel linings. 12th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Birmingham, UK, June 2008.
  16. PrattR.G., ShinC. and HickG.J.2010. Gauss–newton and full newton methods in frequency–space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society133, 341–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. RatcliffeA., PriviteraA., ConroyG., VinjeV., BertrandA. and LyngnesB.2014. Enhanced imaging with high‐resolution full‐waveform inversion and reverse time migration: a north sea obc case study. Leading Edge33, 986–992.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SunD., JiaoK., ChengX. and VighD.2015. Compensating for source and receiver ghost effects in full waveform inversion and reverse time migration for marine streamer data. Geophysical Journal International201, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. TarantolaA.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49, 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. VanA., WielenD., CourardL. and NguyenF.2011. Detection of defects in concrete with ground penetrating radar. ESPSC 2011 European Symposium on Polymers in Sustainable Construction, Warsaw, Poland, 221–225.
  21. VuksanovicB.2015. GPR image decomposition using two dimensional singular spectrum analysis. International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, Zagreb, Croatia, October 2015, 288–293.
  22. ZhangZ., HuangL. and LinY.2012. A wave‐energy‐based precondition approach to full‐waveform inversion in the time domain. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1–5.
  23. ZhouH., SatoM., TakenakaT. and LiG.2007. Reconstruction from antenna‐transformed radar data using a time‐domain reconstruction method. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience & Remote Sensing45, 689–696.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12032
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12032
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error