Top Banner
Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey Rappaport 2011
74

Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Jan 02, 2016

Download

Documents

Alexia Baldwin
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Subsurface Imaging with Ground

Penetrating Radar

Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS

Dept. Elect. and Comp. EngineeringNortheastern University

April 2011

© Carey Rappaport 2011

Page 2: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Propagation Characteristics in Real Soil

•Concepts of dielectric constant, electrical conductivity•Velocity, attenuation, dispersion, reflection and refraction at interfaces•Moisture and density dependence •Nonmetallic target scattering in lossy media•Rough surface effects

Page 3: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Wave and Helmholtz Equation:Lossy Media (Soil, Water, Tissue)

The electric field for a wave traveling in linear, homogeneous, non-dispersive, and lossy medium is given by:

2E - E/ t - 2E/ t2 = 0

2E + k2E=0

k = [00 ’(1 - j tan)] = - j

For time harmonic wave, the Helmholtz Equation remains:

= conductivity (S/m), ranging from ~ 0 to 107

But the dispersion relation is modified by :

tan = / ( ’0)

With Loss Tangent defined by:

Page 4: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

00 '

1'

jjk

Slightly lossy medium

1' 0

Very lossy medium 1' 0

'2/

2/'/

0

0

c/'

' 0

2/

v /, 2 ,Velocity

Impedance00 '1

1

'=

j

Propagation (Wave) Number

/2depthskin

Electromagnetic Waves in Lossy Media

00 '21

'

jSlightly lossy

medium

2

(1 j)Very lossy medium

'

tan10

j

Page 5: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

ftjxfjfj eetxE 2)]()([),(

Frequency f (1 MHz – 10 GHz)

Dielectric constant ’ (1 – 25)

Electrical conductivity (0.0001— 1)

Wave Number, k (meters-1)

Propagation in Soil is Frequency Dependent

Page 6: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Exact derivation of Wave Numbers in Lossy Media

xx E

z

E 22

2

zyx EEEUUkz

Uor ,or ,,02

2

2

tan1''

2

2

000

22 jc

jk

Starting from scalar Helmholtz Eqn.

where the complex wave number is:

'2

222

c

02

2

2

c

Separate into real and imaginary components (k = – j )

21

2

0

1'

12

'

c

21

2

0

1'

12

'

c

Solve for the quadratic equations for and

Page 7: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic transformation of ratios of amplitudes or powers. A power ratio R corresponds to r = 10log10R (dB). An amplitude ratio R corresponds to 20log10R (dB).

1/10 power 10log10(1/10) = -10 dB. 1/2 power 10log10(1/2) = -3 dB.

1/10 amplitude 20log10(1/10) = -20 dB. 1/2 amplitude 20log10(1/2) = -6 dB.

An intensity attenuation by a factor exp(-a) is equivalent to -4.3a dB .

The decibel changes multiplication into additionWhen a wave is transmitted through a cascade of two media resulting in intensity reduction by factors R1 and R2, the overall reduction is a factor R = R1R2.The change in dB units is r = r1+ r2.If the rate of attenuation of a medium is a dB/m, a distance z (m), corresponds to

attenuation of az (dB).

Decibel Scale

Courtesy of B. Saleh, BU

Page 8: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Logarithms Without Calculators

• Log 10 = 1.0• Log 1 = 0• Log 2 ~ 0.3 • Log 5 = Log 10/2 = Log 10 – Log 2 = 0.7 • Log 3 ~ Log 101/2 = ½ Log 10 = 0.5-• Log 4 = Log 22 = 2 Log 2 = 0.6• Log 6 = Log (2 X 3) = Log 2 + Log 3 = 0.8• Log 8 = Log 23 = 3 Log 2 = 0.9

Log10 e = 1/ Loge 10 = 1/2.302

Page 9: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Penetration Depth v. Frequency for Various

Dielectric MaterialsPenetration Depth d10

= Distance for the power to drop by a factor of 10 (—10 dB)

(19%) (26%)

Page 10: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Wavelengths for Various Dielectric Materials

Wavelength:

= 2/

Page 11: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Fields for Different Soil Types

0 5 10 15 20-1

0

1

0 5 10 15 20-1

0

1

0 5 10 15 20-1

0

1

0 5 10 15 20-1

0

1

0 5 10 15 20-1

0

1

Distance (cm)

Dry Sand

YPG

Saturated Sand

A.P. Hill

Bosnian (Alicia); 25% moisture

f =2.5 GHz

Page 12: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Exercise: Microwave Penetration in Soil

Determine the loss in dB for a wave at 300 GHz penetrating 1.0 mm into uniform soil and then reflecting back out for a) Yuma and b) AP Hill Soil

Hint: Extrapolate the loss curves from previous slide.

Page 13: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Extrapolated Penetration Depths at 300 GHz (Terahertz

range)Return signal power (in dB) from a radar source incident on a metallic target buried a depth D in lossy

soil: -20 D/d

Soil Type d=Penetration DepthRadar Return (dB) (D = 1 mm)

Yuma PG 55.7 cm -0.036

Dry Sand 4.57 cm -0.44

Wet Sand 0.31 cm -6.5

Bosnian soil 54.3 m -368

A P Hill 40.0 m -500

Page 14: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Wire on Flat Ground:Bosnian Soil 26% Moisture

E-field parallel to wire

H-field parallel to wire

Difference

Page 15: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Wire on Rough Ground:Bosnian Soil 26% Moisture

(Ez) no wire

E-field parallel to wire (Ez)

Page 16: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Modeling Soil Media for Electromagnetic Wave

Propagation

• Type of models• Simulated wave response

Page 17: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Summary of Dielectric Mixing Models Source: Kansas Geological

Survey, 2001Category Method Types Advantages Disadvantages References

Phenomeno-logical

Relate frequency dependent behavior to characteristic relaxation times.

Cole-Cole; Debye, Lorentz

- Component properties/geometry relationships unnecessary

- Dependent on frequency-specific parameters.

Powers, 1997; Ulaby 1986; Wang, 1980.

Volumetric Relate bulk dielectric properties of a mixture to the dielectric properties of its constituents.

ComplexRefractive Index (CRI); Arithmetic average; Harmonic average; Lichetenecker-Rother;

- Volumetric data relatively easy to obtain.

- Do not account for micro-geometry of components,-Do not account for electrochemical interaction between components.

Alharthi 1987; Birchak 1974; Knoll, 1996; Lange, 1983; Lichtenecker 1931; Roth 1990; Wharton 1980.

Empirical and Semi-empirical

Mathematical relationship between dielectric and other measurable properties.

Logarithmic; Polynomial.

- Easy to develop quantitative relationships,-Able to handle complex materials in models.

- No physical justification for the relationship,-Valid only for the specific data used to develop the relation may not be applicable to other data sets.

Dobson 1985; Olhoeft 1975; Topp 1980; Wang 1980.

Effective medium

Compute dielectric properties by successive substitutions.

Bruggeman-Hanai-Sen (BHS)

- Accurate for known geometries.

- Cumbersome to implement,- Must choose number of inputs, initial material, and order and shape of replacement material.

Sen 1981; Ulaby 1986.

Page 18: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Fourier Transform

dftfjfYty

dttfjtyfY

)2exp()()(

)2exp()()(

t f

t 1/t

• Short pulse in time transforms into broadband frequency signal

• Long pulse in time transforms into narrow frequency signal

Page 19: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Temporal Dispersion

• Pulses in time are composed of many frequencies (Fourier relationship)

• Most real material has frequency-dependent dielectric parameters

00 /' j• If material has constant loss, it is strongly dispersive

• Each frequency component travels at a different velocity and with a different decay rate

• Amplitude of each frequency component lessens by a different amount with distance

)()()( ED )(*)()( tEttD

• Because of dispersion, multiplication in frequency domain becomes temporal convolution in the time domain

Page 20: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Dispersion of a Pulse 3 Fourier Components of Pulse at t0

• Each component travels at a different velocity (dispersion)

• Amplitude of component lessens in time (loss)

Same components at t>t0

Page 21: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Modeling Dispersion for Easy Transformation to Time

Domain

v

N

p p

p

j

A

100 1

'

N=2

Standard (2nd Order) Debye Model: simple form for complex permittivity, easily transformed to time domain differential equation

N

p p

p

j

A

12200

0

'

2

Lorentz Model: 2nd order when N = 1

01

100 1

'

jj

A

For 2202 / and A

[Cole-Cole Model is more accurate, not easily converted to time domain]

js

1

''' 00

Page 22: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

1002222 '00

AjEjD pp 22

Lorentz

Conversion of Dispersion Models to Time Domain

110001010 1'11 jAjjjEjjD

Replace by D/E and multiply through by denominator

tj

Convert to time domain with

Et

EA

t

E

t

D

t

D

0011002

2

102

2

1 ''

Debye

tj

Convert to time domain with

EAt

E

t

ED

t

D

t

Dpp 1

2002

2

02

2

2

00''2'2

Page 23: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Modeling Dispersion for Easy Transformation to Time

Domain

Since Z-1 transforms to unit time delay, application to FDTD is simple

)()()(

)()(

ZEZZJ

ZEZD Av

)3()2()()(

)2

3()

2(

)()(

3210

1

ttEbttEbttEbtEb

ttJa

ttJ

tEtD Av

Z-Transform model keeps real permittivity constant, and

matches conductivity to measured values in terms of Z-1 [4 Zero Model]

’ = Constant, Z = e jt11

33

22

1102/1

1

Za

ZbZbZbbZ

Page 24: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Frequency (MHz)0 500 1000

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Frequency (MHz)

0 500 100010

-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

RappaportDebyedata

2.5%

5%

10%

2.5%

5%

10%

Dielectric Constant and Conductivity for Puerto Rican Clay Loam (1.2 g/cc)

Page 25: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Log Frequency

(1/m

)

7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

Log Frequency

- (

1/m

)

RappaportDebyedata

2.5%

5%

10%

2.5%

5%

10%

Real and Imaginary Wave Number for Puerto Rican Clay Loam (1.2g/cc)

Page 26: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Wave Propagation Variation as a Function of Clay Loam Moisture

Page 27: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Transverse Position (cm)

De

pth

(cm

)

Transmitter Receiver

Non-Metallic Mine

60 80 100 120 140 160 180

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

Rough Surface Test Geometry

Page 28: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Time (ps)

Re

lativ

e A

mp

litud

eNon-Metallic Mine Scattered Field 10

cm Deep - Smooth Surface

------- Air Dry Sand Non-Dispersive Loam 20% moistureDispersive Loam 20% moisture

++++++ooooooxxxxxx

Page 29: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Time (ps)

Re

lativ

e A

mp

litud

eNon-Metallic Mine Scattered Field

(about 10 cm burial) - Rough Surface

------- Air Dry Sand Non-Dispersive Loam 20% moistureDispersive Loam 20% moisture

++++++ooooooxxxxxx

Page 30: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Re

lativ

e A

mp

litud

e

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Time (ps)

Re

lativ

e A

mp

litud

e

Non-Dispersive Loam 20% moistureDispersive Loam 20% moisture

Non-Metallic Mine Scattered Field 10 cm depth a) Flat Surface, b) Rough Surface

Page 31: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

80 cm

Square Target

Air

Soil d

11.28 cm

20 cm

60 cm

Circular Target

Air

Soil d

10 cm

20 cm

60 cm10 cm

80 cm

Sandy soil: s = 2.5, s = 0.01Target: m = 2.9, m = 0.004

Shape Determination of Buried Non-Metallic Targets, Multiple Single-Frequency

Observations

Page 32: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Different Buried Test Target Shapes

Heig

ht

(cm

)

Horizontal Position (cm)

-10 -5 0 5 10

-15

-10

-5

0Square

-20-10 -5 0 5 10

-15

-10

-5

0Circle

-20-10 -5 0 5 10

-15

-10

-5

0Diamond

-20

Blob

-10 -5 0 5 10

-15

-10

-5

0

-20-10 -5 0 5 10

-15

-10

-5

0Star

-20

Page 33: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Scattered Field - Real Part

500 MHz, depth = 5 cm

Horizontal Position (cm)

Heig

ht

(cm

)

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Circle

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Diamond

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Square

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Star

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20Blob

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Page 34: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Scattered Field - Real Part

1000 MHz, depth = 5 cm

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Horizontal Position (cm)

Heig

ht

(cm

)

Square

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20Circle

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20Diamond

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Star

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20Blob

-40 -20 0 20 40-60

-40

-20

0

20

Page 35: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Horizontal Position (cm)

Inte

nsi

ty

-40 -20 0 20 400

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

1000 MHz, depth = 5cm

square

circle

diamond

star

blob

-40 -20 0 20 400.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

500 MHz, depth = 5cm

square

circle

diamond

star

blob

Surface Field - Magnitude

Page 36: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Horizontal Position (cm)

-0.08-0.06-0.04-0.0200.020.04

Circle, r = 5.64 cm

Sandy Soil = 2.5, = 0.01freq = 500 MHz depth = 5 cm-20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60-40

20

-20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

7.5 x 13.3 cm20

-40 -20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

5 x 20 cm20

-40 -20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

2.5 x 40 cm

-40

20

-20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

13.3 x 7.5 cm20

-40 -20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

20 x 5 cm20

-40 -20 0 20 40

0

-20

-40

-60

40 x 2.5 cm

-40

20

-20 0 20 40

0-20

-40

-60

10 x 10 cm20

-40

Heig

ht

(cm

)

Scattered Field - Aspect Ratio Dependence

Page 37: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Distinguishing Shapes of 3D Buried Objects under Rough Surfaces:

Geometry

Point Source

Rough Surface

Mine

10 cm

4 cm

5 cm

10 cm

Soil

Page 38: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Total Ex Field from an x-Directed Point Source, with a Buried Non-Metallic Square

Target

Page 39: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Total Ex Field from x-Directed Point Source, with a Buried Non-Metallic Square Target

(back view)

Page 40: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Comparison of Total Ex Field for Buried Non-Metallic Square and Circular

Targets

Page 41: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Comparison of Scattered Ex Field for Buried Non-Metallic Square and Circular

Targets

Page 42: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Soil Packing Affects Greatly Scattering: 3D FDFD with Short

Cylindrical Target

Relative Height 30

TNT in 26% moist Bosnian soil at 960 MHz

Page 43: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Transverse Position (cm)

Non-Metallic Target

Soil

Air

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Dep

th (

cm)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Surface Scattering Clutter Increases with Frequency. Example: 4 GPR Freq., PRCL 10%

moisture, 1.4 g/cc

Page 44: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Mine scattered field: smooth surface

Scattered field: rough surface with mine

Scattered field: rough surface only

Mine scattered field: rough surface

Display Format for each of Four Frequencies

Page 45: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

480 MHz

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: smooth surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface with mine

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface only

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: rough surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Page 46: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

960 MHz

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: smooth surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface with mine

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface only

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: rough surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2A

mp

litud

e Relative to In

ciden

tA

mp

litud

e Relative to In

ciden

t

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Page 47: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

1920 MHz

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: smooth surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface with mine

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface only

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: rough surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1A

mp

litud

e Relative to In

ciden

tA

mp

litud

e Relative to In

ciden

t

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Page 48: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

3840 MHz

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: smooth surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.05

0

0.05

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface with mine

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.05

0

0.05

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Scattered field: rough surface only

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.05

0

0.05

Transverse Position (cm)

Dep

th (

cm)

Mine scattered field: rough surface

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

-0.05

0

0.05

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Am

plitu

de R

elative to Incid

ent

Page 49: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

30o

Modulated Gaussian Pulse Plane Wave

AirAir

SoilSoil

Short Pulse GPR Interaction with Rough,

Dispersive Ground / Mine

Page 50: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

From MineFacts, version 1.2, National Ground Intelligence Center

PMN-1A Non-Metallic AP Mine Geometry

Page 51: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Air

Soil

Snapshot of Total Time Domain E-Field (with Target)

Page 52: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Soil

Air

Snapshot of Background Time Domain E-Field

Page 53: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Soil

Air

Mine

Snapshot of Scattered Time Domain E-Field (Mine Only)

Page 54: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Rough Ground (cm)Rough Ground (cm)

Hei

gh

tH

eig

ht (c

m)

(cm

)

0-12

12

0

--

--24 24-48 48

Transmitter

Receiver

Effect of Rough Ground of Bistatic GPR Signals

0 100 200 300

-0.5

0

0.5

Time Step (Time Step (t = 20ps)t = 20ps)Sig

nal

Am

pli

tud

eS

ign

al A

mp

litu

de 0.5

-0.5

0.0

0.0 100 200 300

Mean Height variationMean Height variation hh= 6cm= 6cm

Correlation distance Correlation distance between surface between surface peakspeaks l lcc= 15cm= 15cm

Page 55: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Rough Ground Clutter Signal

Characterization

• Signals from rough ground vary considerably– Pulse shape depends on roughness and TR

position – Peak depends on particular TR position– Overall amplitude varies

• Monte Carlo simulation can model following relevant features– 2D FDTD model– Real measured impulse GPR excitation and

dispersive soil– 500 different rough surface realizations

Page 56: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Monte Carlo Analysis

• Run many simulations • Vary each run

– Change geometry– Change signal

• Compute statistics– Mean values – Standard deviations

• Conclude “typical” behavior– Determine likelihood of given test

• Set threshold and count number of occurrences of detection or false alarm --> ROC curve

Page 57: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Computational GeometryComputational Geometry

Z = 0

Z = 28cm

TransmitterTransmitter ReceiverReceiver24.5 cm

L = 294 cm

soilsoil minemine

Z = depth

Page 58: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Impulse Ground Impulse Ground Penetrating Radar Penetrating Radar

SpecificationsSpecifications

0 100 200 300

-4

-2

0

2

4

-4

-2

0

2

4

Time Step (Time Step (t=20ps)t=20ps)

Rel

ativ

e A

mp

litu

de

Rel

ativ

e A

mp

litu

de

Page 59: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Original Signal Averages Obscure Mine Signal

MineNo Mine

500 computed signals

Page 60: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Raw Signals

Cross-correlatewith reference

Shifting

Scaling

Shift and scale raw signals andtake average

Subtract shifted and scaled average from each raw signal

Compute different velocity in soil, shiftto line up the targetfeature

Physics-based Signal Processing flowchart

Page 61: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

MineNo Mine

Ground Clutter Signal Removal

Page 62: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Realigning Signals to Presumed Mine Position

No Mine Mine

Page 63: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Average Mine Scattered Signals

h=3cm

h=1cm

lc=10cm lc=3cm

Page 64: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

ROC Curves for Mismatched Target Depths

hh= 1cm = 1cm llcc= 10cm= 10cm

Trail depth=8.5cmTrail depth=8.5cm

test depth= 2.4cmtest depth= 2.4cm 3.6cm3.6cm 4.8cm4.8cm 6.1cm6.1cm 8.5cm8.5cm 9.8cm9.8cm

8.5

9.8

2.46.1

3.6

4.8

Page 65: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Water movement in a vertical column of a medium is described by the

advection-dispersion equation in the z-direction, as:

Where: = moisture contentz = depth [L] D = dispersion coefficient of water [L/t2]K = hydraulic conductivity [ L/t]t = time [t]

)())((

Kdz

d

dz

dD

dz

d

dt

d

Soil Moisture Change with Wetting

Page 66: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Moisture ProfileKsat = 0.2 cm/min

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Depth into Soil (cm)

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

0.1 Minute

1 Minute

2 Minutes

3 Minutes

4 Minutes

Time Response Due to Saturating Soil Surface

Page 67: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Ground Surface

Source

Non-Metallic Target

Air

Soil with Varying Moisture Content

Testing geometry

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Rough Surface with Buried Non Metallic Mine and Point Source

Geometry

Page 68: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Planar Ground Surface, 5% Uniform Moisture

Page 69: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Planar Ground Surface, 20% Uniform Moisture

Page 70: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Planar Ground Surface, 5 - 20% Moisture Profile

Page 71: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Rough Ground Surface, 5% Uniform Moisture

Page 72: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Rough Ground Surface, 20% Uniform Moisture

Page 73: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Rough Ground Surface, 5 - 20% Moisture Profile

Page 74: Subsurface Imaging with Ground Penetrating Radar Carey M. Rappaport CenSSIS Dept. Elect. and Comp. Engineering Northeastern University April 2011 © Carey.

Summary

• Realistic soil media complicates the sensing of subsurface objects– Loss affects penetration depth and makes surface

clutter more dominant– Rough interfaces produce additive uncertain

clutter and distort transmitted signals– Moisture variations cause huge propagation

differences

• Small contrast differences makes detection/ imaging more challenging

• Shapes of underground dielectric object are hard to distinguish

• Multistatic wideband GPR can provide much more information than monostatic