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

Abstract

Abstract

As the transmitter and receiver (Tx and Rx, respectively) are located in close proximity during a typical ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) survey, the powerful signal generated by the Tx and which is then recorded by the Rx at various time delays, can be saturated at early times (i.e., this is the direct wave (DW) signal reaching the Rx). This often causes the masking of shallow targets, complicating data interpretation. In this study, our aim is to examine the spatial distribution of the electromagnetic signals around the Tx, attempting to locate areas where the DW becomes minimum, whereas the signal strength from subsurface targets (i.e., reflected wave – RW) remains ideally unchanged. The position of these local minima in the DW signal could give rise to advantageous Tx–Rx configurations, where clear reflections from subsurface targets lying at shallow depths can be obtained with the least possible involvement of the DW. To perform such a study, we carried out static field measurements over a flat lying reflector as well as numerical simulations in a reflection, common‐offset mode around a transmitting antenna. In the field, we also collected wide‐angle reflection–refraction data to determine the GPR wave velocity in the uppermost layer. GPR signals were recorded by the Rx around the Tx in three concentric circles of various radii (i.e., varying the Tx/Rx separation), using a specific angular step and varying the Tx/Rx polarization each time. The synthetic data were produced using a three‐dimensional finite‐difference time‐domain modelling tool. Field and numerically simulated data were analysed and compared to study the behaviour of both the DW and RW events around the Tx when changing the Tx/Rx distance, their respective angular position, as well as their relative polarization/orientation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12292
2024-04-23
2024-05-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/22/2/nsg12292.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12292&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Angelis, D., Warren, C., Diamanti, N., Martin, J., & Annan, A.P. (2022) Development of a workflow for processing ground‐penetrating radar data from multiconcurrent receivers. Geophysics, 87(4), WB9–WB18.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Annan, A.P. (2005) Ground‐penetrating radar. In Near‐surface geophysics. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 357–438.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Annan, A.P. & Cosway, S.W. (1992) Ground penetrating radar survey design. 5th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. Utrecht, the Netherlands, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. p. cp‐210‐00020.
  4. Babcock, E.L., Annan, A.P. & Bradford, J.H. (2016) Cable effects in ground‐penetrating radar data and implications for quantitative amplitude measurements. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics, 21(3), 99–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, G.S., Jordan, T.E. & Pardy, J. (2007) An introduction to ground penetrating radar (GPR). In: BakerG.S. & JolH.M. (Eds.) Stratigraphic analyses using GPR (Special Papers 432). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, pp. 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Born, M. & Wolf, E. (1964) Principles of optics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bradford, J.H. & Deeds, J.C. (2006) Ground‐penetrating radar theory and application of thin‐bed offset‐dependent reflectivity. Geophysics, 71(3), K47–K57.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Diamanti, N. & Annan, A.P. (2013) Characterizing the energy distribution around GPR antennas. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 99, 83–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Diamanti, N., Elliott, E.J., Jackson, S.R. & Annan, A.P. (2018) The WARR machine: system design, implementation and data. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23(4), 469–487.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Diamanti, N., Annan, A.P. & Vargemezis, G. (2022) Phantom subsurface targets in ground‐penetrating radar data. Geophysics, 87(4), WB31–WB40.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Giannopoulos, A. & Diamanti, N. (2008) Numerical modelling of ground‐penetrating radar response from rough subsurface interfaces. Near Surface Geophysics, 6(6), 357–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Grote, K., Anger, C., Kelly, B., Hubbard, S.S. & Rubin, Y. (2010) Characterization of soil water content variability and soil texture using GPR groundwave techniques. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics, 15(3), 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hadjicosti, K., Sydoruk, O., Maier, S.A. & Shamonina, E. (2015) Surface polaritons in magnetic metamaterials from perspective of effective‐medium and circuit models. Journal of Applied Physics, 117, 163910.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Huisman, J.A., Hubbard, S.S., Redman, J.D. & Annan, A.P. (2003) Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar. Vadose Zone Journal, 2, 476–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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, e20017.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Klenk, P.T.P. (2012) Developing ground‐penetrating radar for quantitative soil hydrology. Doctoral dissertation, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Heidelberg.
  17. Millard, S.G., Shaari, A., & Bungey, J.H. (2002) Field pattern characteristics of GPR antennas. NDT & E International, 35(7), 473–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pinel, N., Le Bastard, C. & Bourlier, C. (2020) Modeling of EM wave coherent scattering from a rough multilayered medium with the scalar Kirchhoff approximation for GPR applications. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 58(3), 1654–1664.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Roberts, R.L. & Daniels, J.J. (1996) Analysis of GPR polarization phenomena. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 1, 139–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Taflove, A. & Hagness, S.C. (2010) Computational electrodynamics: the finite‐difference time‐domain method. Norwood, MA: Artech House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tsoflias, G.P., van Gestel, J.‐P., Stoffa, P.L., Blankenship, D.D. & Sen, M. (2004) Vertical fracture detection by exploiting the polarization properties of ground‐penetrating radar signals. Geophysics, 69, 803–810.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. van der Kruk, J., Diamanti, N., Giannopoulos, A. & Vereecken, H. (2012) Inversion of dispersive GPR pulse propagation in waveguides with heterogeneities and rough and dipping interfaces. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 81, 88–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Yee, K.S. (1966) Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell's equations in iso‐tropic media. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 14, 302–307.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Yelf, R. (2004) Where is true time zero?10th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar 2004 (GPR2004), vol. 1. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 279–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Zadhoush, H. & Giannopoulos, A. (2022) Optimizing GPR time‐zero adjustment and two‐way travel time wavelet measurements using a realistic three‐dimensional numerical model. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(2), 115–226.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12292
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12292
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): data acquisition; finite‐difference; GPR; ground‐penetrating radar; modelling

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