1887
Special Issue: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Numerical Modelling Research and Practice
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Abstract

Determining ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) velocity has always been a critical problem. The GPR velocity estimation method based on common midpoint (CMP) data has been widely used because of its simplicity. However, we found that in sediment investigation and soil assessment, transversal heterogeneity is universal, which violates the basic assumption of velocity estimation through CMP data. Due to the rapid change of underground media and the limitation of the scope of some surveying areas, the CMP survey line will inevitably be selected in the area where the velocity changes laterally, making it difficult to obtain accurate velocity. To address this problem, we propose a velocity correction method. First, we determined the characteristics of CMP data and the corresponding velocity spectra acquired in transversely heterogeneous media through numerical simulations. Subsequently, we found that the simulated CMP data could determine the location of changes in the underground medium, and that the velocity obtained from the semblance analysis could be corrected according to the location where the medium changes laterally. We then used models wherein the thickness, relative permittivity and proportion of abnormal parts varied independently or simultaneously to verify the proposed velocity correction method. The results show that our method can control the GPR velocity error within 3.44%, and the precision is about 0.002 m/ns. Finally, we conducted a sediment investigation experiment on a channel bar in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River. We determined the interface at which the sediment changed transversely and obtained the corresponding electromagnetic velocity using the proposed method. This study provides a reliable method for determining the GPR velocity in transversal heterogeneous media, which is of great significance for various practical applications.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12278
2024-04-23
2024-05-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angelis, D., Warren, C., Diamanti, N., Martin, J. & Annan, A.P. (2022) The effects of receiver arrangement on velocity analysis with multi‐concurrent receiver GPR data. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(5), 519–530.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedetto, A. (2013) A three dimensional approach for tracking cracks in bridges using GPR. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 97, 37–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Booth, A.D., Clark, R. & Murray, T. (2010) Semblance response to a ground‐penetrating radar wavelet and resulting errors in velocity analysis. Near Surface Geophysics, 8(3), 235–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, J., Nichols, J., Steinbronn, L. & Bradford, J. (2009) Improved GPR interpretation through resolution of lateral velocity heterogeneity: example from an archaeological site investigation. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68(1), 3–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cui, F., Li, S. & Wang, L. (2018) The accurate estimation of GPR migration velocity and comparison of imaging methods. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 159, 573–585.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson, D.B. (2010) Computational electromagnetics for RF and microwave engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dix, C.H. (1955) Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics, 20(1), 68–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dou, Q., Wei, L., Magee, D.R. & Cohn, A.G. (2017) Real‐time hyperbola recognition and fitting in GPR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(1), 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Forte, E., Dossi, M., Pipan, M. & Colucci, R.R. (2014) Velocity analysis from common offset GPR data inversion: theory and application to synthetic and real data. Geophysical Journal International, 197(3), 1471–1483.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Forte, E. & Pipan, M. (2017) Review of multi‐offset GPR applications: data acquisition, processing and analysis. Signal processing, 132, 210–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Forte, E., Santin, I., Ponti, S., Colucci, R.R., Gutgesell, P. & Guglielmin, M. (2021) New insights in glaciers characterization by differential diagnosis integrating GPR and remote sensing techniques: a case study for the Eastern Gran Zebrù glacier (Central Alps). Remote Sensing of Environment, 267, 112715.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Giannopoulos, A. (2005) Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax. Construction and Building Materials, 19, 755–762.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamann, G., Tronicke, J., Steelman, C.M. & Endres, A.L. (2013) Spectral velocity analysis for the determination of ground‐wave velocities and their uncertainties in multi‐offset GPR data. Near Surface Geophysics, 11, 167–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacob, R.W. & Hermance, J.F. (2004) Assessing the precision of GPR velocity and vertical two‐way travel time estimates. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 9(3), 143–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacob, R.W. & Urban, T.M. (2016) Ground‐penetrating radar velocity determination and precision estimates using common‐midpoint (CMP) collection with hand‐picking, semblance analysis and cross‐correlation analysis: a case study and tutorial for archaeologists. Archaeometry, 58(6), 987–1002.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jacob, R.W., Trop, J.M. & Kochel, R.C. (2018) Assessing ground penetrating radar's ability to image subsurface characteristics of icy debris fans in Alaska and New Zealand. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23(4), 423–436.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jiang, B., Cheng, J., Li, P. & Fan, T. (2023) Using BHR to detect coal seam interface in coal mine. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 209, 104894.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaufmann, M.S., Klotzsche, A., Vereecken, H. & Van Der Kruk, J. (2020) Simultaneous multichannel multi‐offset ground‐penetrating radar measurements for soil characterization. Vadose Zone Journal, 19(1), e20017.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lei, W., Hou, F., Xi, J., Tan, Q., Xu, M., Jiang, X. et al. (2019) Automatic hyperbola detection and fitting in GPR B‐scan image. Automation in Construction, 106, 102839.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leong, Z.X. & Zhu, T. (2021) Direct velocity inversion of ground penetrating radar data using GPRNet. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2020JB021047.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, C. & Zhang, J. (2021) Velocity analysis using separated diffractions for lunar penetrating radar obtained by Yutu‐2 rover. Remote Sensing, 13, 1387.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Y., Zhao, Z., Xu, W., Liu, Z. & Wang, X. (2019) An effective FDTD model for GPR to detect the material of hard objects buried in tillage soil layer. Soil & Tillage Research, 195, 104353.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, H., Takahashi, K. & Sato, M. (2014) Measurement of dielectric permittivity and thickness of snow and ice on a brackish lagoon using GPR. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7, 820–827.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Luo, T.X.H., Lai, W.W.L. & Giannopoulos, A. (2020) Forward modelling on GPR responses of subsurface air voids. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 103, 103521.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mihai, A.E., Gerea, A.G., Curioni, G., Atkins, P. & Hayati, F. (2019) Direct measurements of tree root relative permittivity for the aid of GPR forward models and site surveys. Near Surface Geophysics, 17, 299–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Neidell, N.S. & Taner, M.T. (1971) Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics, 36(3), 482–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Özkap, K., Pekşen, E., Kaplanvural, I. & Çaka, D. (2020) 3D scanner technology implementation to numerical modeling of GPR. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 179, 104086.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Panda, S.L., Maiti, S. & Sahoo, U.K. (2022) Subsurface propagation velocity estimation methods in ground‐penetrating radar: a review. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 10(4), 70–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rønning, J.S. (2023) Finetuning ground penetrating radar velocity analysis from hyperbola fitting using migration. Near Surface Geophysics, 21(3), 171–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shakas, A., Maurer, H., Giertzuch, P.L., Hertrich, M., Giardini, D., Serbeto, F. et al. (2020) Permeability enhancement from a hydraulic stimulation imaged with ground penetrating radar. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL088783.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sokolov, K., Fedorova, L. & Fedorov, M. (2020) Prospecting and evaluation of underground massive ice by ground‐penetrating radar. Geosciences, 10, 274.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Soldovieri, F., Hugenschmidt, J., Persico, R. & Leone, G. (2007) A linear inverse scattering algorithm for realistic GPR applications. Near Surface Geophysics, 5, 29–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Steelman, C.M. & Endres, A.L. (2012) Assessing vertical soil moisture dynamics using multi‐frequency GPR common‐midpoint soundings. Journal of Hydrology, 436–437, 51–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tamura, L.N., Almeida, R.P., Galeazzi, C.P., Freitas, B.T., Ianniruberto, M. & Prado, A.H. (2019) Upper‐bar deposits in large Amazon rivers: occurrence, morphology and internal structure. Sedimentary Geology, 387, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Temlioglu, E. & Erer, I. (2022) A novel convolutional autoencoder‐based clutter removal method for buried threat detection in ground‐penetrating radar. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 5103313.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Warren, C., Giannopoulos, A. & Giannakis, I. (2016) gprMax: open source software to simulate electromagnetic wave propagation for ground penetrating radar. Computer Physics Communications, 209, 163–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, M., Fang, H., Wang, F., Wang, Y., Du, X. & Lei, J. (2021) First‐order symplectic Euler method for ground penetrating radar forward simulations in dispersive medium. Construction and Building Materials, 299, 123904.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yi, L., Zou, L., Takahashi, K. & Sato, M. (2018) High‐resolution velocity analysis method using the ℓ‐1 norm regularized least‐squares method for pavement inspection. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11(3), 1005–1015.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Yilmaz, O. (2001) Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion and interpretation of seismic data, 2nd edition. Tulsa, OK: SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhao, W., Forte, E. & Pipan, M. (2016) Texture attribute analysis of GPR data for archaeological prospection. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173, 2737–2751.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhou, X., Chen, H. & Li, J. (2018) An automatic GPR B‐scan image interpreting model. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 56(6), 3398–3412.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12278
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12278
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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