1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 11, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 11 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Recently, the use of ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) arrays with a large number of antenna elements in a fixed configuration has become more common. The investment needed for these systems is significant. In order to reduce the recording time in the field, an alternative is the use of several single GPR antennas in parallel (a ‘modular system’). Although this does not match the fast acquisition of detailed data sets by means of multi‐channel arrays, a system consisting in single antennas can gradually be expanded and investment can be spread over time. This paper presents a 2D and a full‐resolution 3D survey, conducted with a modular GPR instrument. A characteristic of these systems is that the cross‐line separation between transmitter‐receiver pairs is larger than the sampling distance prescribed by the Nyquist theorem. As a consequence, for 3D data collection, profiles have to be acquired between previously recorded ones, which requires high positioning accuracy. A completely identical response for different single GPR antennas is difficult to achieve. For the system tested, on less favourable soils this resulted in striping in the horizontal slices. Several methods (3D frequency‐wavenumber filtering, eigenimage filtering, mean profile filtering and filtering based on discrete wavelet transform, discrete ridgelet transform and linear Radon transform) were applied to two data sets exhibiting different kinds of linear noise and their capability to suppress artefacts was assessed. Although overall a reduction of the stripe patterns was achieved, mostly it was impossible to fully eliminate the noise in the time‐slices without low‐pass filtering in the cross‐line direction. For the 2D data, low‐pass filtering caused loss of some of the archaeological response and therefore was not applied. Mean profile filtering allowed the most reliable characterization of the archaeological structures.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2013 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
2013-01-01
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AnnanA.P.2009. Electromagnetic principles of ground penetrating radar. In: Ground Penetrating Radar Theory and Applications (ed. H.M.Jol ), pp. 3–40. Elsevier, Amsterdam‐Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AnnanA.P. and DavisJ.L.1992. Design and development of a digital ground penetrating radar system. In: Ground Penetrating Radar (ed. J.A.Pilon ), pp. 15–23. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 90–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AverbuchA., CoifmanR.R., DonohoD.L., IsraeliM., ShkolniskyY. and SedelnikovI.2008. A framework for discrete integral transformations II – The 2D discrete Radon transform.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing30, 785–803.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BeylkinG.1987. Discrete Radon Transform.IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing35, 162–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BoenigerU. and TronickeJ.2010. On the potential of kinematic GPR surveying using a self‐tracking total station: Evaluating system crosstalk and latency.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing48, 3792–3798.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CagnoliB. and UlrychT.J.2001. Singular value decomposition and wavy reflections in ground‐penetrating radar images of base surge deposits.Journal of Applied Geophysics48, 175–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ChangS.G., YuB. and VetterliM.2000. Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing9, 1532–1546.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Di RenzoF.2005. Nef sud: Étude des salles B‐C‐E. In: Rapport intermédiaire de fouilles programmées sur le site de Mariana (ed. P.Pergola ), pp. 36–58. Service Régional de l'archéologie, Ajaccio.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DonohoD.L. and JohnstoneI.M.1995. Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage.Journal of the American Statistical Association90, 1200–1224.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ErnenweinE.G. and KvammeK.L.2008. Data processing issues in large‐area GPR surveys: Correcting trace misalignments, edge discontinuities and striping.Archaeological Prospection15, 133–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FadiliM.J. and StarckJ.L.2009. Curvelets and ridgelets. In: Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science (ed. R.A.Meyers ), pp. 1718–1738. Springer, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. FranceseR.G., FinziE. and MorelliG.2009. 3‐D high‐resolution multichannel radar investigation of a Roman village in Northern Italy.Journal of Applied Geophysics67, 44–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FreireS.L.M. and UlrychT.J.1988. Application of singular value decomposition to vertical seismic profiling.Geophysics53, 778–785.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GerbrandsJ.J.1981. On the relationships between SVD, KLT and PCA.Pattern Recognition14, 375–381.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GerlitzK., KnollM.D., CrossG.M., LuzitanoR.D. and KnightR.1993. Processing ground penetrating radar data to improve resolution of near‐surface targets.Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, pp. 561–574.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. GrasmueckM. and ViggianoD.2007. Integration of ground‐penetrating radar and laser positioning sensors for real‐time 3‐D data fusion.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing45, 130–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. GülünayN., BenjaminN. and MagesanM.2006. Acquisition footprint suppression on 3D land surveys.First Break24(2), 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. HillS., ShultzM. and BrewerJ.1999. Acquisition footprint and fold‐of‐stack plots.The Leading Edge18(6), 686–695.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. HugenschmidtJ. and KalogeropoulosA.2009. The inspection of retaining walls using GPR.Journal of Applied Geophysics67, 335–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KaragülA., CrawfordR., SindenJ. and AliS.2004. Recent advances in 3D land processing: Examples from the Pakistan Badin area.First Break22(9), 37–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KimJ., ChoS. and YiM.2007. Removal of ringing noise in GPR data by signal processing.Geosciences Journal11, 75–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LeckebuschJ.2005. Use of antenna arrays for GPR surveying in archaeology.Near Surface Geophysics3(2), 111–115. doi: 10.3997/18730604.2005006
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LeckebuschJ.2011. Comparison of a stepped‐frequency continuous wave and a pulsed GPR system.Archaeological Prospection18, 15–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LinesL.R. and TreitelS.1984. Tutorial: A review of least‐squares inversion and its application to geophysical problems.Geophysical Prospecting32, 159–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LinfordN., LinfordP., MartinL. and PayneA.2010. Stepped frequency ground‐penetrating radar survey with a multi‐element array antenna: Results from field application on archaeological sites.Archaeological Prospection17, 187–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LinfordN., LinfordP., PayneA., DavidA. and MartinL.2011. Stonehenge: Recent results from a ground‐penetrating radar survey of the monument. In: 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Izmir 19–24 September 2011 (eds M.G.Drahor and M.A.Berge ), pp. 86–89. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MarfurtK.J., ScheetR.M., SharpJ.A. and HarperM.G.1998. Suppression of the acquisition footprint for seismic sequence attribute mapping.Geophysics63, 1024–1035.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MisitiM., MisitiY., OppenheimG. and PoggiJ.2009. Matlab Wavelet Toolbox 4 User's Guide. The MathWorks Inc., Natick.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MüllerM.2008. Die städtebauliche Entwicklung von der Coloniagründung bis zur Spätantike. In: Colonia Ulpia Traiana. Xanten und sein Umland in römischer Zeit (eds M.Müller , H‐J.Schalles and N.Zieling ), pp. 269–275. Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. NovoA., LorenzoH., RialF.I. and SollaM.2010. Three‐dimensional ground‐penetrating radar strategies over an indoor archaeological site: Convent of Santo Domingo (Lugo, Spain).Archaeological Prospection17, 213–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. NuzzoL.2003. Coherent noise attenuation in GPR data by linear and parabolic Radon transform techniques.Annals of Geophysics46, 533–547.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. NuzzoL.2005. Identification and removal of above‐ground spurious signals in GPR archaeological prospecting.Archaeological Prospection12, 93–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. NuzzoL. and QuartaT.2004. Improvement in GPR coherent noise attenuation using τ‐p and wavelet transforms.Geophysics69, 789–802.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. OimoenM.J.2000. An effective filter for removal of production artefacts in U.S. Geological Survey 7.5‐minute digital elevation models.14th International Conference on Applied Geologic Remote Sensing, Las Vegas 6–8 November 2000, pp. 311–319.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. PerrinS., DuflosE., VanheegheP. and BibautA.2004. Multisensor fusion in the frame of evidence theory for landmines detection.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews34, 485–498.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. RadzeviciusS.J., GuyE.D. and DanielsJ.J.2000. Pitfalls in GPR data interpretation: Differentiating stratigraphy and buried objects from periodic antenna and target effects.Geophysical Research Letters27, 3393–3396.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SalaJ. and LinfordN.2012. Processing stepped frequency continuous wave GPR systems to obtain maximum value from archaeological data sets.Near Surface Geophysics10(1), 3–10. doi: 10.3997/18730604.2011046
     [Google Scholar]
  38. SerenS., LoeckerK., HinterleitnerA., NeubauerW. and LadstätterS.2011. Ephesos revisited: A decade of geophysical prospection on different field conditions in Ephesos, Turkey. In: 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Izmir 19–24 September 2011 (eds M.G.Drahor and M.A.Berge ), pp. 90–92. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sensors & Software2010. Spidar user's guide. Sensors & Software Inc., Mississauga.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. SoubarasR.2002. Attenuation of acquisition footprint for non‐orthogonal 3D geometries.EAGE 64th Conference & Exhibition, Florence, 27–30 May 2002, C‐09.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. StempfhuberW., SchnaedelbachK. and MaurerW.2000. Genaue Positionierung von bewegten Objekten met zielverfolgenden Tachymetern.13th International Course on Engineering Surveying, pp. 144–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. StrangG.2006. Linear Algebra and its Applications. 4th Edition. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. StreichR., van der KrukJ. and GreenA.G.2006. Three‐dimensional multicomponent georadar imaging of sedimentary structures.Near Surface Geophysics4(1), 39–48. doi: 10.3997/1873‐0604.2005030
     [Google Scholar]
  44. TjoraS., EideE. and LundheimL.2004. Evaluation of methods for ground bounce removal in GPR utility mapping. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft, 21–24 June 2004 (eds E.C.Slob , A.G.Yarovoy and K.B.Rhebergen ), pp. 379–382. Delft University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. TrinksI., JohanssonB., GustafssonJ., EmilssonJ., FriborgJ., GustafssonC. et al. 2010. Efficient, large‐scale archaeological prospection using a true three‐dimensional ground‐penetrating radar array system.Archaeological Prospection17, 175–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. TurnerG.1990. Aliasing in the tau‐p transform and the removal of spatially coherent noise.Geophysics55, 1496–1503.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. UtsiE.2010. GPR as an imaging device: Some problems and possible solutions.13th International Conference on Ground‐Penetrating Radar (GPR). doi: 10.1109/ICGPR.2010.5550136
     [Google Scholar]
  48. VerdonckL. and VermeulenF.2011. 3‐D GPR survey with a modular system: reducing positioning inaccuracies and linear noise. In: 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Izmir 19–24 September 2011 (eds M.G.Drahor and M.A.Berge ), pp. 204–212. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. VerdonckL., VermeulenF., CorsiC. and DocterR.2012. Ground‐penetrating radar survey at the Roman town of Mariana (Corsica), complemented with fluxgate gradiometer data and old and recent excavation results.Near Surface Geophysics10(1), 35–45. doi: 10.3997/1873‐0604.2011034
     [Google Scholar]
  50. YilmazÖ.2001. Seismic data analysis.Processing, inversion and interpretation of seismic data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
Loading
2D and 3D ground‐penetrating radar surveys with a modular system: data processing strategies and results from archaeological field tests
Near Surface Geophysics 11, 239 (2013); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013007
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