1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

For imaging ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) data, three of the most important parameters are the wave speed, polarization and amplitude of the propagating electromagnetic wave‐field. Choosing an appropriate forward model that incorporates these three parameters is a critical aspect of imaging. Also, the height of the antennae above the surface influences the scattered field significantly and should be taken into account. As the height of the antennae above the surface is increased, the widths of the antenna patterns decrease, resulting in decreasing horizontal spatial bandwidths of the scattered electric fields. Imaging is carried out in the horizontal wavenumber domain using the spatial bandwidths of the scattered data. Decreased spatial resolution is obtained for increasing heights. The far‐field expressions do not account for geometrical spreading in air above the surface, resulting in anomalously low image amplitudes for elevated antennae. Experimental data measured with 900 MHz antennae also show reductions in spatial bandwidth as the height of the source and receiver antennae is increased. For heights and , similar spatial bandwidths as predicted by the synthetic results are obtained. For , this reduction in bandwidth is not as strong as predicted by the synthetic results, primarily because of limitations of the far‐field expressions. For stability reasons, the imaging could only be carried out using the limited bandwidth for the forward far‐field model. Images of a spherical metal sphere for measurements at and were almost identical, whereas those at were similar to those at low heights. In one direction, a higher spatial resolution was observed for the antennae with zero height and decreasing spatial resolution for increasing height. In the other direction, the difference in spatial resolution was not very obvious.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2004 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
2003-12-01
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. EnghetaN., PapasC.H. and ElachiC.1982. Radiation patterns of interfacial dipole antennae. Radio Science17, 1557–1566.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. GroenenboomJ. and YarovoyA.2002. Data processing and imaging in GPR system dedicated for landmine detection. Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications: An International Journal3, 387–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. HansenT.B. and JohansenP.M.. 2000. Inversion scheme for ground penetrating radar that takes into account the planar air‐soil interface. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing38, 496–506.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. HansenT.B. and MeinckeP.2002. Scattering from a buried circular cylinder illuminated by a three‐dimensional source. Radio Science37(2), 4‐14‐24.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. van der KrukJ.2001. Three‐dimensional imaging of multi‐component ground penetrating radar data. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology. http://borneo.mp.tudelft.nl/~jvdkruk
     [Google Scholar]
  6. van der KrukJ.2003. Combination of co‐ and cross‐pole 3D ground penetrating radar measurements.65th EAGE Conference, Stavanger, Norway, Extended Abstracts, F08.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. van der KrukJ., WapenaarC.P.A., FokkemaJ.T. and van den BergP.M.2003a. Improved three‐dimensional reconstruction technique for multi‐component ground penetrating radar.Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications: An International Journal4, 61–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. van der KrukJ., WapenaarC.P.A., FokkemaJ.T. and van den BergP.M.2003b. Three‐dimensional imaging of multicomponent ground‐penetrating radar data.Geophysics68, 1241–1254.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. LeatC.J.1999. Modelling and design of GPR antennae. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. SlobE.C. and FokkemaJ.T.2002. Interfacial dipoles and radiated energy. Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications3, 347–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. SlobE.C., GroenenboomJ. and FokkemaJ.T.2003. Automated acquisition and Processing of 3D GPR data for object detection and characterization. Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications: An International Journal4, 5–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. SmithG.S.1984. Directive properties of antennae for transmission into a material half‐space. IEEE Transactions on Antennae and Propagation32, 232–246.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
Loading
Three‐dimensional GPR imaging in the horizontal wavenumber domain for different heights of source and receiver antennae
Near Surface Geophysics 2, 25 (2004); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003013
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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