The disclosed technology relates generally to ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and, more specifically, to a technique for displaying GPR data.
GPR, or ground-penetrating RADAR (where RADAR is “RAdio Detection And Ranging), is a technology used to assess the composition and location of heterogeneous materials. GPR uses radio frequencies and is particularly useful in that it is both non-destructive and non-ionizing. In fact, GPR uses frequencies similar to a cellular phone, but at far lower power levels. Common applications include locating the precise position of rebar within a concrete wall/floor, identifying and locating buried objects underground, assessing the quality and uniformity of an asphalt or concrete highway surface, and detecting deterioration on bridge decks. In road surface applications, GPR is used, for example, to detect cracks, fissures, or contamination in any one of the chip seal, pavement layers, gravel base, and so forth. In many roadway applications, a resolution of features of the road surface of less than one inch (2.54 cm) is desired. Such systems may be mounted on vehicles, travelling over the surface while acquiring measurement data. GPR systems are disclosed in more detail in U.S. Pat. No. 5,499,029 to Bashforth, et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,715 to Lytton, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) antennas are built in different sizes for different uses. Smaller antennas are generally higher in frequency, have higher resolution for displaying finer details and are not able to penetrate as deep as lower frequency antennas. Larger antennas are generally lower in frequency, are able to penetrate deeper, but have a lower resolution, and so are not able to discriminate fine details. By performing a survey simultaneously with two antennas, a higher and a lower frequency model, the user is able to obtain the best of each antenna. The volume near the surface will have the best resolution, and the deeper volume will be viewed with the maximum range. Viewing the two separate pictures displayed can be difficult for the average user, even when viewed on the same monitor, as is the best practice currently known.
Therefore, when employing ground penetrating radar there is a need in the art to find a better way to present the shallow, fine details of high resolution with the deeper penetration information of low resolution.
Therefore, it is an object of the disclosed technology to stitch (join in a continuous and smooth output) together outputs from GPR measurements by blending, so as to remove any visible break in the image. In this manner, the best known view of the subsurface being surveyed is provided, allowing for easier and more informative viewing than known in the prior art.
In an embodiment of the disclosed technology, a visual output of data from a ground-penetrating radar is displayed on a visual medium. The display has a first exhibition of output from a higher frequency range antenna, a second exhibition of output from a lower frequency range antenna (compared to the other antenna; see definition in the “detailed description”), and a transition area between the first and second exhibition having merged data from the higher frequency antenna and the lower frequency antenna. The depth range of this transition zone may be varied based on optimal depth range of each antenna, such as manually by a viewer viewing the visual output, which may occur in real-time, that is, while operating the radar and viewing the visual output thereof. Or, the transition depth range and/or width of the transition region may be varied as part of post-processing. Post-processing, for purposes of this disclosure, is defined as a time after all data used to produce the visual output has been collected. Real-time processing is defined as processing as the data is received, but is merged before being displayed on the visual output.
The depth range of the transition region may be varied automatically, based on a detected amount of disjoined data per unit area in each output of each antenna, and/or based on a determined noise floor, and/or based on closeness of matching of data received from each antenna within a transition range. In this manner, the depth range is re-calculated as the scanning progresses. This may lead to having a non-linear transition region, which may include a different starting depth and/or ending depth of the transition region.
Still further, it should be understood that any number of antennas may be used, each having a different optimal frequency range, with a transition depth range exhibited in the visual output between exhibition from each antenna.
In a method of processing ground-penetrating radar measurements, one simultaneously transmits and receives a signal using at least two antennas, determines a depth range at which each received signal for each antenna is best (or “optimal”, as used in the detailed description), compared to received signals of other antennas, and displays a combined and continuous visual output of depth. The display has part of a visual output from each determined best depth range and at least one transition region comprising a transitioned output between two best depth ranges.
Further features of the device, described above, are also applicable to the method of use.
In an embodiment of the disclosed technology, a visual output of data from a ground-penetrating radar is displayed on a visual medium. The display has a first exhibition of output from a higher frequency range antenna, a second exhibition of output from a lower frequency range antenna (compared to the other antenna; see definition in the “detailed description”), and a transition area between the first and second exhibition having merged data from the lower frequency antenna and the higher frequency antenna. The depth range of the transition area may be varied based on optimal depth range of each antenna, such as manually by a viewer viewing the visual output, which may occur in real-time, that is, while operating the radar and viewing the visual output thereof. Or, the transition depth range and/or width of the transition region may be varied as part of post-processing.
Thus, for example, GPR is often used in the range/band of 300 to 900 Mhz. A “higher” frequency antenna would be optimized (defined as producing the most precise resulting measurements, compared to other antennas used in conjunction to produce a graphical output) at the highest of the frequencies, in this example, at 900 Mhz and in the vicinity thereof (such as covering 10%, 25%, or 50% of the band, from the top). A “lower” frequency antenna would be optimized (defined, again, as producing the most precise resulting measurements, compared to other antennas used in conjunction to produce a graphical output), at the lowest of the frequencies. In this example, the lower frequency antenna would be optimized (produce a better result) at 300 Mhz and in the vicinity thereof. Similarly, a plurality of antennas, being used simultaneously or one after another, may be used to measure in other bands such as between 900 Mhz to 3000 Mhz for concrete, 10 Mhz to 400 Mhz for geological surveys, or 400 to 5000 Mhz in the transportation industry. In one embodiment, the disclosed technology is limited to impulse-type antennas.
Referring back to
When using these two antennas together, the maximum depth of the first antenna and the minimum depth of the second antenna may be averaged, or a preferred transition range may be specified. The user may simply select an antenna profile to use, from a pre-populated list of antennas associated with various antennas. Such a pre-populated list may further be modified based on usage—that is, the transition point previously selected by a user. Similarly, this method or combination thereof may be employed when using three or more antennas. Between each exhibition of data received by way of an antenna, is a transition region showing a merger of data from two graph regions, one for each of two antennas.
While the above methods of determining the transition threshold depth are manual or semi-automated, fully automated techniques are also employed in embodiments of the disclosed technology. A first method involves determining a noise floor for all but the lowest frequency band antenna. In signal theory (and by way of definition, for purposes of this embodiment), the noise floor is the measure of the signal created from the sum of all the noise sources and unwanted signals within a measurement system, where noise is defined as any signal other than the one being monitored and the noise floor is the deepest measured point where noise is within an acceptable range to adequately view the desired data. If the dominant noise is generated within the measuring equipment then this is an example of an instrumentation noise floor, as opposed to a physical noise floor. In
Another method of automatically determining where a transition depth is, and further, transition area where data from two graphs is merged together, involves detecting an amount of disjoined data per unit area in each output of each antenna. This may be determined by viewing the output from a single antenna, converting the plot of the data to digital data, and determining the number of pixels which are a) not adjacent to another other pixel, and b) adjacent to only one other pixel, and c) determining the density of pixels within a square, rectangle, or circle around a lone pixel or pixel, such as with a diameter or length of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 20 pixels. The disjoined data, in a pixel unit area, or density thereof, may be compared to the graphical output in the same region from another antenna. Thus, when viewing
Another method of determining transition position and range is overlap in measurements between output from two antennas. This, in turn, determines which portions (e.g. 106 and 136) of the outputs are used in the merged display. For example, a statistical sampling or comparison may be taken at regular intervals between two antennas, such as for example every 0.5 meters, 1 meter, or 2 meters in depth. If the output is exceedingly different (defined as more than 25% different) one may conclude (manually or automatically) that one is measuring at a depth which is optimal for only one antenna. However, if the output is exceedingly similar (defined as more than 90% identical or statistically similar where statistically similar is defined as within 2 pixels of each other, then one may conclude that this is a potentially optimal depth for two antennas. Since the matching is close, or closest, this depth may be used as a center of a transition region, such as region 185 as the merged data will roughly overlap, resulting in a smooth picture.
In step 520, the quality of the received signals is compared based on the signal at various depth ranges. As described above, this may be accomplished manually (by viewing the output), but semi-automated mechanisms (such as based on inputted or detected information about each antenna), or by fully automated mechanisms (such as by determining a noise floor and/or determining dis-joined or erroneous pixel density). As such, optimal depth ranges for each antenna are determined in step 530, and then a transition depth range is determined in step 540. The transition depth range is the starting and ending depth where graphically outputted data is merged (based off of) output from two antennas, one being shown at a shallower depth than the transition depth range, and one being shown at a deeper depth than the transition depth range. The transition depth range thus includes output from two different antennas, merged together. The number of transition depth ranges is equal to the number of antennas used to produce the graphical output minus one.
Referring to steps 530 and 540, in an example where three antennas are used, a first antenna may be determined to have an optimal depth range of 0 to 2 meters. A second, from 2 to 10 meters. A third, from 10 to 20 meters. A transition range between each of these depths be set by any one of, or a combination of, pre-setting or selecting a depth range, making such a determination based on aesthetic overlap of the graphs, optimizing for as much unmerged depth ranges as possible, and/or where noise and artifacts are most prominent for both antennas bordering the transition depth range). An example where a first transition depth range is 2 meters and a second transition depth range is 10 meters, then output, as follows, would be displayed, in step 550:
Referring again to step 550, a graphical output is displayed with merged output of optimal depth ranges and transition ranges. Then, in step 565, a user may decide to modify the transition size or position based on detected parameters, such as, based on viewing the output and deciding to adjust same with a slider. Or, in step 560, the transition size or position may be modified based on detected parameters, such as described above, based on determined dis-joined data and so forth.
It should be understood that the radar data may be acquired by two antennas which are co-located, or by two physically connected antennas which are not co-located (that is, they are located at two different places but combine electrically or through post-processing to arrive at a better received signal for a particular position). Multiple antennas may also be moved over a target area, at different times such as sequentially within a short time span, so long as the data received overlaps within an acceptable tolerance level at a particular depth range, so that a transition range for the display may be determined by one of the methods described herein-above.
While the disclosed technology has been taught with specific reference to the above embodiments, a person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that changes can be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and the scope of the disclosed technology. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only illustrative and not restrictive. All changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope. Combinations of any of the methods, systems, and devices described hereinabove are also contemplated and within the scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5325095 | Vadnais et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5499029 | Bashforth et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5502686 | Dory et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5835053 | Davis | Nov 1998 | A |
5835054 | Warhus et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5912639 | Beckner | Jun 1999 | A |
5952954 | Beckner | Sep 1999 | A |
6082466 | Gudat | Jul 2000 | A |
6091354 | Beckner et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6094157 | Cowdrick | Jul 2000 | A |
6154167 | Annan et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6308787 | Alft | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6445334 | Bradley et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6496136 | Mucciardi | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496137 | Johansson | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501413 | Annan et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6603422 | Wright | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6617996 | Johansson et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6664914 | Longstaff et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6700526 | Witten | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6741201 | De Jongth et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6771206 | Berthelier et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6833795 | Johnson et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6940446 | Cist | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7034740 | Witten | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7167124 | Annan et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7218267 | Weil | May 2007 | B1 |
7528762 | Cerwin | May 2009 | B2 |
7586433 | Johansson et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7612704 | Ryerson et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7675454 | Lavedas et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7820960 | Troxler | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7893862 | Holly et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7928360 | Troxler | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8011248 | Troxler | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8040272 | Clodfelter et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8071937 | Troxler | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8112242 | Troxler | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8884807 | Johansson et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8896480 | Wilson et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
20050078028 | Cist | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20060038710 | Staszewski et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20080079723 | Hanson et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20120029911 | Noh et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120194550 | Osterhout et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20140015710 | Jin | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140022117 | Cist | Jan 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2687867 | Jan 2014 | EP |
03021967 | Mar 2003 | WO |
2010014859 | Feb 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Vladimir Razevig et al., “Comparison of different methods for reconstruction of microwave holograms recorded by the subsurface radar”, Ground Penetrating Radar, 2012 14th International Conference on, Jun. 4, 2012, pp. 331-335, IEEE, Shanghai. |
Vogt D, The effect of conductive borehole water on borehole radar, Ground Penetrating Radar, 2004, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on, Jun. 21, 2004, pp. 217-220, IEEE, Delft, The Netherlands. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140022117 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61672902 | Jul 2012 | US |