News
Statistics
| Number of Journals | 34 |
| Number of Issues | 1,306 |
| Number of Articles | 9,427 |
| Article View | 9,188,656 |
| PDF Download | 5,620,946 |
Analysis of Ground Penetrating Radar Method in Detecting Subsurface Targets Based on Simulating Electromagnetic Waves | ||
| علوم و فناوریهای پدافند نوین | ||
| Article 5, Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 36, May 2019, Pages 159-168 PDF (1.49 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| Authors | ||
| V. maleki1; S. Khazaei* 2; K. Alimohammadi2 | ||
| 1دانشگاه تهران | ||
| 2Imam Hussain University | ||
| Receive Date: 28 April 2018, Revise Date: 08 July 2018, Accept Date: 14 October 2018 | ||
| Abstract | ||
| In this study, the feasibilityof using the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) method to detect and locate subsurface utilities in various conditions has been investigated. To do this end, the performance of radar waves in detecting different material types in environmental conditions with different electrical conductivity has been studied. The GPR's performance criterion in this study is the resolution of the reflected waves in using radar systems with different central frequencies. The results indicate that the central frequency has a great influence on the size of the target with proper imaging. Moreover, the simulation results show that for central frequencies of 50, 250, 500 MHz, 1 GHz and 2 GHz, targets with sizes 125, 25, 6 and 3 cm cannot be detected, respectively. Estimated results on resolution are related to the radar wave propagation velocity in the media severely. Also, the estimated resolution values are valid for a medium with a wave propagation velocity equal to 0.15 m/ns (For example, alluvium with moderate grains or dry sand). Simulation results on martial type based on relative electromagnetic permittivity (Ɛ), sub-layer conductivity (δ) and layers thickness (D), show that the electrical conductivity had a higher effect on the GPR results with respect to the other parameters and layers with an electrical conductivity of less than 0.1 ohm-meter strongly weaken the amplitude of the transmitted wave and made it difficult to identify the target. Results show that with changing the central frequency in the GPR system, transmitted and reflected radar waves have different frequency content and pulse width in both frequency and time domain. As it is presented in the paper, short pulse width in time domain led to a broad band in frequency domain. Simulation results on substance type which is simulated by relative electromagnetic permittivity (Æ) parameter show that high relative permittivity led to receiving a reflected signal with high frequency content in frequency domain and recording strong amplitude in time domain. The simulation results show that soil conductivity attenuated electromagnetic waves severely. Based on simulated data for a target located in 1 m depth and a GPR system with dominant frequency equal to 500 MHz media with electrical resistivity more than 20 ohm.m does not affect the signal quality in radar waves. However, decreasing electrical resistivity by less than 2 ohm.m caused lack of penetration and without receiving any reflection from the target. The simulation results concluded that, using a GPR system in normal condition such as soil with 100 ohm.m, target and media relative permittivity respectively equal to 80 and 4 and target depth located in effective depth, reflected electromagnetic waves are recorded in different resolution. As results for 50, 250 500 and 2000 MHz central frequency 125, 25, 6 and 3 cm resolution is calculated respectively. Estimated results on resolution is related to radar wave propagation velocity in the media severely. Estimated resolution are valid wave propagation velocity equal to 0.15 m/ns. In the second part oof this study 2D simulation is performed. 2D simulation conducted for four different conditions. In all conditions 3 layers and 3 target is simulated. Ground penetrating radar data is simulated based on central frequency 50 MHz. Finally, 2D simulation, synthetic cross-sections indicated that high conductivity of soils cause the less penetration and low-resolution results. In addition, attenuation parameter investigations show that value of high attenuation in silt and clay soils by two and four cause the very low-resolution data in ground penetrating radar method. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Ground penetrating radar; GPR; relative permittivity; soil conductivity; resolution; simulation | ||
| References | ||
|
[1] Annan, A. P.; Davis, J. L.; Gendzwill, D. “Radar Sounding in Potash Mines: Saskatchewan, Canada”; Geophys. 1988, 53, 1556-1564.## [2] Unterberger, R. R. “Radar Propagation in Rock Salt”; Geophys Prosp. 1978, 26, 312-328.## [3] Lucius, J. E.; Olhoeft, G. R. “Geophysical Investigations of Heterogeneity and Scale at Princeton, Minnesota, Management Systems Evaluation Area”; USGS Report, 1996, 581–589.## [4] Godio, A.; Guo, T. “Characterisation of Sandy Soil with Georadar Measurements”; J. Tech. Environ. Geol. 1998, 4, 17–27.## [5] Reppert, P. M.; Morgan, F. D.; Toks¨oz M. N. “Dielectric Constant Determination using Ground-Penetrating Radar Reflection Coefficients”; J. Appl. Geophys. 2000, 43, 189–197.## [6] Cook, J. C. “Radar Transparencies of Mine and Tunnel Rocks”; Geophys. 1975, 40, 865–885.## [7] Sen, P. N.; Scala, C.; Cohen, M. H. “A Self-Similar Model for Sedimentary Rocks with Application to the Dielectric Constant of Fused Glass Beads”; Geophys. 1981, 46, 781–795.## [8] Feng, S.; Sen, P. N. “Geometrical Model of Conductive and Dielectric Properties of Partially Saturated Rocks”; J. Appl. Phys. 1985, 58, 3236–3243.## [9] Olhoeft, G. R.; Capron, D. E. “Laboratory Measurements of the Radio-Frequency Electrical and Magnetic Properties of Soils from Near Yuma, Arizona”; USGS Report, 1993, 93-701.## [10] Zhuravlev, A. V.; Ivashov, S. I.; Razevig, V. V.; Vasiliev, I. A.; Türk, A. S.; Kizilay, A. “Holographic Subsurface Imaging Radar for Applications in Civil Engineering”; IET. Int. Radar Conference, Xi'an, China, 2013, 231-242## [11] Ivashov, S.; Razevig, V.; Zhuravlev, A.; Chizh, M.; Bechtel, T.; Capineri L.; Inagaki, M. “MW Holographic Imaging System for Detection of Hidden Dinosaur Tracks”; 38th PIERS in St Petersburg, Russia, 2017, 3241–3246.## [12] Vizheh, M. M. “Processing and Interpretation of Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Comparision with Geoelectric Data”; MSc. Thesis, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, 2009.## [13] Hosseini, M. “Processing and Interpretation of Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Comparision with Magnetic Data”; MSc. Thesis, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, 2009.## [14] Mazinani, A. “Study of Asphalt Thickness in Shahrood University, Using GPR Method”; Master Thesis, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, 2010.## [15] Ovaisi, M. “Study of Fracture Zone in Sarab Ghanbar Lake, in South of Kermanshah, using Ground Penetrating Radar Method”; Iranian Journal of Geophysics 2007, 1, 81-89.## [16] Rohani, A. K. “Processing and Interpretation of Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Data for Detection of Cavities, Investigation of Bedding and Grain Sizes and Also Estimation of Clay Content in Shallow Subsurface Sediments”; Earth and Space Physics 2013, 38, 155-173.## [17] Saif, M.; Mohammadzadeh, M. M.; Mirzaei, S. “Detection of Underground Targets Based on the Aeromagnetic Data using the Analytic Signal and Euler Deconvolution and 3D Inversion Methods”; Adv. Defence Sci. & Technol. 2018, 9, 359-368.## [18] Annan, A. P.; Cosway, S. W. “Ground Penetrating Radar Survey Design”; Proc. of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1992, 26-29.## [19] Berkhout, A. J. “Seismic Resolution: Resolving Power of Acoustical Echo Techniques”; Geophysical Press: Amsterdam, 1984.## [20] Moller, I.; Anthony D. “A GPR Study of Sedimentary Structures within a Transgressive Coastal Barrier along the Danish North Sea Coast in: Bristow, C. S., Jol, H.M. (Eds.), Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments”; Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 2003, 211, 55– 65.## [21] Knapp, R. W. “Fresnel Zones in the Light of Broadband Data”; Geophys. 1991, 56, 354 -359.## [22] Annan, A. P. “Ground Penetrating Radar Workshop Notes”; Sensors & Software Inc. workshop Denver 1992, 23-31.## [23] Annan, A. P.; Davis, J. L.; Johnston, G. B. “Maximizing 3D GPR Image Resolution: A Simple Approach: Proceedings of the High Resolution Geophysics Workshop”; Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar 1997, 154–167.## [24] Annan, A. P.; Redman, J. D.; Pilon, J. A.; Gilson, E. W.; Johnston, G. B. “Crosshole GPR for Engineering and Environmental Applications. Proceedings of the High Resolution”; Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar 1997, 90–98.## | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,966 PDF Download: 711 |
||