1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is widely used in subsurface investigations for extracting the position and the route followed by the utility, an issue that gains more and more importance when considering the cost related to trench damage and disruptions. However, it has been noted that various targets of GPR surveys, especially linear and elongated targets, have polarization‐dependent scattering characteristics. This implies that the visibility of a subsurface scatterer in the acquired data depends on the used antenna configuration and its orientation with respect to the feature to be imaged.

Furthermore, wave attributes could be modified by the surrounding soil anisotropy and heterogeneity degree. As the GPR antennas are composed of directional dipoles, any changes in the propagation plane of the returning wave affects the recording of GPR data.

This work presents an approach based on a combination of mutually orthogonal GPR 3D data volumes through which polarization issues can be overcome, ensuring target detection even when the position and material are adverse. The strategy is evaluated through two field examples: in homogeneous soil this technique fully recovers the polarization mismatch, providing results that are closely similar to the ones that would be obtained with the optimal configuration; in heterogeneous environments it overcomes the wavelet alteration, depolarization included, strongly enhancing the signal to noise ratio and improving target reconstruction.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
2014-06-01
2024-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AcheroyM.2007. Mine action: status of sensor technology for close‐in and remote detection of anti‐personnel mines. Near Surface Geophysics5, 43–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ArconeS.A., PeapplesP.R. and LiuL.2003. Propagation of a ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) pulse in a thin‐surface waveguide. Geophysics68, 1922–2933.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BalanisC.A.1989. Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics, 1st ed.New York: Wiley & Sons, 1989.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BeresM., HuggenbergerP., GreenA.G. and HorstmeyerH.1999. Using two‐ and three‐dimensional georadar methods to characterize glacio‐fluvial architecture. Sedimentary Geology129, 1–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BernsteinR., OristaglioM., MillerD.E. and HaldorsenJ.2000. Imaging radar maps underground objects in 3‐D. IEEE Computer Application in Power13, 20–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BindaL., ZanziL., LualdiM. and CondoleoP.2004. The use of georadar to assess damage to a masonry Bell Tower in Cremona Italy. NDT&E International38, 171–179.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BirkenR., MillerD.E., BurnsM., AlbatsP., CasadonteR., DemingR.et al. 2002. Efficient large scale underground utility mapping with a multi‐channel ground penetrating imaging radar system. Proceeding of SPIE 4758, 9th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, 186.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BliokhK.Yu. and StepanovskiiYu.P.2003. On the change in electromagnetic wave polarization in a smooth one‐dimensionally inhomogeneous medium. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics97, 479—484.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BönigerU. and TronickeJ.2012. Subsurface Utility Extraction and Characterization: Combining GPR Symmetry and Polarization Attributes. IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing50, 736–746.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. BonomoN., OsellaA. and RattoN.2013. GPR investigations at an Inca‐Spanish site in Argentina. Near Surface Geophysics11, 449–456.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. BradfordJ.H.2007. Frequency‐Dependent Attenuation Analysis of Ground‐Penetrating Radar Data. Geophysics72, J7–J16.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. CassidyN.J.2008. Frequency‐dependent attenuation and velocity characteristics of nano‐to‐micro scale, lossy, magnetite‐rich materials. Near Surface Geophysics6, 341–354.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. CatapanoI., AffinitoA., GennarelliG., Di MaioF., LoperteA. and SoldovieriF.2013. Full‐three‐dimensional imaging via ground penetrating radar: assessment in controlled conditions and on field for archaeological prospecting. Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing, 2013
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ChenC.C., HigginsM.B., O’NeillK. and DetschR.2001. Ultrawide‐bandwidth fully‐polarimetric ground penetrating radar classification of subsurface unexploded ordnance. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing39, 1221–1230.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. ColeK.S. and ColeR.H., 1941. Dispersion and absorption in Dielectrics. Journal of Chemical Physics9, 341–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. CostelloS.B., ChapmanD.N., RogersC.D.F. and MetjeN.2007. Underground asset location and condition assessment technologies. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology22, 524–542.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DanielsD.J.2004. Ground Penetrating Radar, 2nd edn.Peter Peregrinus Ltd., London, U.K.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. DanielsJ.J., WielopolskiL., RadzeviciusS. and BooksharJ.2003. 3D GPR Polarization Analysis for Imaging Complex Objects. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problem, 585–597.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. DonohueS., GavinK. and TolooiyanA.2011. Geophysical and geotechnical assessment of a railway embankment failure. Near Surface Geophysics9, 33–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GiannopoulosA. and DiamantiN.2008. Numerical modeling of ground penetrating radar response from rough subsurface interfaces. Near Surface Geophysics6, 357–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. HugenschmidtJ., KasaC. and KatoH.2011. GPR for the Inspection of Industrial Railway Tracks. Near Surface 2011, 17th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Leicester, United Kingdom.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. JeongH.S., AbrahamD.M. and LewJ.J.2004. Evaluation of an Emerging Market in Subsurface Utility Engineering. Journal of Construction Engineering Management130, 225–234.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KnightR.2001. Ground penetrating radar for environmental applications. Annual Review of Earth and Planet Science29, 229–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LambotS., Van den BoschI., StockbroeckxB., DruytsP., VancloosterM. and SlobE.2005. Frequency dependence of the soil electromagnetic properties derived from ground penetrating radar signal inversion. Subsurface Sensing Technology and Application6, 73–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LampeB. and HolligerK.2003. Effects of fractal fluctuations in topographic relief, permittivity and conductivity on ground‐penetrating radar antenna radiation. Geophysics68, 1934–1944.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LehmannF., BoernerD., HolligerK. and GreenA.2000. Multicomponent georadar data: Some important implications for data acquisition and processing. Geophysics65, 1542–1552.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LualdiM.2011. True 3D Acquisition using GPR over small areas: A cost effective solution. Proceeding of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environ. Problems, SAGEEP, 541–550.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LualdiM. and ZanziL.2005. Testing a safe acquisition procedure for an effective application of GPR to security operations. Proceeding of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environ. Problems, SAGEEP, 613–623.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. LualdiM., ZanziL. and BindaL.2003. Acquisition and processing requirements for high quality 3D reconstructions from GPR investigations. Proceeding of the International Symposium Non Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering NDT‐CE.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. LualdiM., ZanziL. and SosioG.2006. A 3D GPR survey methodology for archeological applications. 11th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar9.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. LualdiM., ZanziL., CianoM., MarchesiniP. and CarsanaM.2006. PSG (Pad System for Georadar), a new positioning system to perform 3D georadar investigations for utility mapping. 24th No‐Dig International Conference and Exhibition, Australasian Society for Trenchless Technology, 514–520.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. MarcakH. and GolebiowskiT.2008. Changes of GPR spectra due to the presence of hydrocarbon contamination in the ground. Acta Geophysica56, 485–504.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McMahonW., BurtwellM.H. and EvansM.2005. Minimizing street works disruption: the real costs of street works to the utility industry and society. UKWIR report 05/WM/12/8. UK Water Industrial Research, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. PramuditaA.A., KurniawanA., SuksmonoA.B. and LestariA.A.2009. Effect of antenna dimensions on the antenna footprint in ground penetrating radar applications. Microwaves, Antenna & Propagation, IET 3, 1271–1278.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. RadzeviciusS.J. and DanielsJ.J.2000. Ground penetrating radar polarization and scattering from cylinders. Journal of Applied Geophysics45, 111–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. RenauJ., CheoP.K. and CooperH.G.1967. Depolarization of Linearly Polarized EM Waves Backscattered from Rough Metals and Inhomogeneous Dielectrics. Journal of Optical Society of America57, 459–461.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. RobertsR., CistD. and KathageA.2009. Full‐resolution GPR imaging applied to utility surveying: insights from multi‐polarization data obtained over a test pit. IWAGPR 2009, Granada, Spain, 126–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. RobertsR.L. and DanielsJ.J.1996. Analysis of GPR polarization phenomena. Journal of Environmental Engineering Geophysics1, 139–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. SaintenoyA., FriedtJ.‐M., BoothA.D., TolleF., BernardE., LafflyD.et al. 2013. Deriving ice thickness, glacier volume and bedrock morphology of Austre Lovénbreen (Svalbard) using GPR. Near Surface Geophysics11, 253–261.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. SassenD.S. and EverettM.E.2009. 3D polarimetrie GPR coherency attributes and fullwaveform inversion of transmission data for characterizing fractured rock. Geophysics74, J23–J34.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. SatoM., HamadaY., FengX., KongF.‐N., ZengZ. and FangG.2004. GPR using an array antenna for landmine detection. Near Surface Geophysics2, 7–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. SénéchalG., RoussetD. and GaffetS.2013. Ground‐penetrating radar investigation inside a karstified limestone reservoir. Near Surface Geophysics11, 283–291.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. SenaA.R., StoffaP.L and SenM.K.2005. Migration of Ground Penetrating Radar in heterogeneous and dispersive media. New strategies for European remote sensing. Proceedings of the 24th Symposium of the European Association of Remote Sensing Laboratories, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. SeolS.J., YokotaT., MitsuhataY., KwonH.‐S. and UchidaT.2007. Application of ground‐penetrating radar in detecting water leakage from artificial sandy ground. Near Surface Geophysics5, 301–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. SimiA., ManacordaG., MiniatiM., BraccialiS. and BuonaccorsiA.2010. Underground asset mapping with dual‐frequency dual‐polarized GPR massive array. 13th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR 2010), 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. StreichR. and Van der KrukJ.2007. Accurate Imaging of Multicomponent GPR Data Based on Exact Radiation Patterns. IEEE Transactions Geoscience and Remote Sensing45, 93–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. ThomasA.M., RogersC.D.F., ChapmanD.N., MetjeN. and CastleJ.2009. Stakeholder needs for ground penetrating radar utility location. Journal of Applied Geophysics67, 345–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Van DamR.L.2002. Iron oxides as a cause of GPR reflections. Geophysics67, 536–545.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Van der KrukJ.2006. Properties of Surface Waveguide derived from Inversion of Fundamental and Higher Mode Dispersive GPR Data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing44, 2908–2915.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Van der KrukJ., WapenaarC.P.A., FokkemaJ.T. and Van den BergP.M.2003. Three‐dimensional imaging of multicomponent ground penetrating radar data. Geophysics68, 1241–1254.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Van GestelJ.P. and StoffaP.L.2001. Application of Alford rotation to ground‐penetrating radar data. Geophysics66, 1781–1792.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. VillelaA. and RomoJ.M.2013. Invariant properties and rotation transformations of the GPR scattering matrix. Journal of Applied Geophysics90, 71–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. WunderlichT. and RabbelW.2013. Absorption and frequency shift of GPR signals in sandy and silty soils: empirical relations between quality factor Q, complex permittivity and clay and water contents. Near Surface Geophysics11, 117–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. YilmazO.2001. Seismic Data Analysis, 2nd ed.Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, US.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. ZanziL., LualdiM., BraunH.M., BorischW. and TriltzschG.2002. An ultra high frequency radar sensor for humanitarian demining tested on different scenarios in 3D imaging mode. 9th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, 240–245.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
Loading
Utilities detection through the sum of orthogonal polarization in 3D georadar surveys
Near Surface Geophysics 13, 73 (2015); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014036
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