Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Electronics, Institut Superieur des Sciences Appliquees et de Technologie de Sousse, Cite Taffala, Ibn Khaldoun, Sousse 4003, Tunisia
b
Microelectronic and Instrumentation Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences of Monastir, Tunisia
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N Mathews MC 250, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Received 13 March 2007; received in revised form 7 September 2007; accepted 10 September 2007
Available online 19 September 2007
Abstract
One of the problems encountered in the nondestructive testing of pavements with ground penetrating radar (GPR) is the detection of
multiple-layer reections within the GPR return. Detecting reections is especially problematic when the pavement layers are thin with
respect to the probing pulse width, in which case overlapping between the reected pulses occurs, causing the weak reections to be
masked by the stronger reections in their vicinity. In this study, the problem is solved by iteratively detecting the strong reections
present within the GPR signal using either a threshold or a matched lter detector. The detected pulses are then used in a reection model
to synthesize a signal similar to the measured GPR signal in the least-squares sense. The synthesized signal is then subtracted from the
measured signal to reveal the masked weak reections, which are later detected iteratively using the same method. This technique was
successfully applied to eld GPR data collected from an experimental pavement site: the Virginia Smart Road.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ground penetrating radar; Multiple layers; Detection; Pavement; Matched lter detector; Threshold detector; Least-squares tting
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. GPR system description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Interface reection detection and time-delay estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Threshold detector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. MF detector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. Performance comparison between the detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Experimental results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Virginia Smart Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Field results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Accuracy estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. Least-squares tting of GPR data to a theoretical reection model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
70
70
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
78
79
79
79
80
Corresponding author. Department of Electronics, Institut Superieur des Sciences Appliquees et de Technologie de Sousse, Cite Taffala, Ibn
Khaldoun, Sousse 4003, Tunisia.
E-mail address: Samer.Lahouar@issatso.rnu.tn (S. Lahouar).
0963-8695/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ndteint.2007.09.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
70
1. Introduction
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) [1] is designed
specically to penetrate the ground surface and to look
into the subsurface to locate inhomogeneities within the
investigated dielectric medium. It is currently used in many
areas as a nondestructive investigation tool:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
71
Amplitude
Tx/Rx
Air, d0
t0
t1
HMA, d1
t2
Base, d2
Time
Subgrade
j0
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
72
Layer 1
r1=4
d1=40mm
Layer 2
r2=5
d2=150mm
2
Surface reflection
4
Layer 4
Layer 5
r3=4
r4=9
r5=11
d3=75mm
d4=150mm
d5=
Overlap
Time (ns)
Layer 3
6
Layer 3/4 reflection
10
Layer 4/5 reflection
12
0
14
Incident
Fig. 3. (a) Typical exible pavement structure of ve layers. (b) Corresponding GPR reected signal (incident GPR pulse is shown in the bottom-right
corner).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
73
(2)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
74
12000
Detections
10000
Envelope
Original Signal
8000
Amplitude
6000
Threshold
4000
2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
0
10
12
14
Time (ns)
Fig. 4. Typical detections obtained after applying an envelope detector followed by a threshold detector.
(6)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
d(t)
yMF(t)
Travel time tj
ymaxMF
Amplitude
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Iteration 5
100
200
300
400
500
Time (samples)
75
A more appropriate method for comparing the performance of the detectors when applied to eld GPR data is to
use the square error ratio (SER), dened as follows:
"
#,
M1
M1
X
X
2
SER
yr t yrs t
yr t2 ,
(8)
t0
t0
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
76
Table 1
Pavement designs used at the Virginia Smart Road
Section
Wearing surface
(mm)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
150
150
150
150
225
150
100
100
100
225
244
150
50
50
50
OGDLa (mm)
21-Ab Aggregate
(mm)
21-B Aggregate
(mm)
75
75
75
75
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
175
175
175
175
75
150
150
75
75
150
150
75
75
75
75
75
75
150
(9)
Table 2
Sections used for detector performance evaluation
Sections
Comments
A, B, C, D, J,
L
F
G
H
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
2.3
4.4
2.2
4.3
1.2
3.4
1.0
3.2
1E-14
1E-12
1E-10
1E-08
Pf
1E-06
1E-04
1E-02
1.7
1E-16
2.2
4.2
2.0
4.0
1.8
3.8
1.6
3.6
1.4
1E-14
1E-12
1E-10
3.2
1E-08
Pf
SER (%)
1.0
1E-16
3.4
SER (MF)
SER (Threshold)
N (MF)
N (Threshold)
1.2
1E-06
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1E-16
1E-04
1E-02
3.0
1E+00
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1E-16
1E-14
1E-12
1E-12
1E-10
1E-08
Pf
1E-06
1E-10
1E-08
Pf
1E-06
4.0
1E-04
3.8
1E-02 1E+00
1E-04
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
1E+00
SER (MF)
SER (Threshold)
N (MF)
N (Threshold)
1E-14
1E-12
1E-10
1E-02
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
1E+00
SER (MF)
SER (Threshold)
N (MF)
N (Threshold)
1E-14
4.1
3.9
1.8
4.4
SER (MF)
SER (Threshold)
N (MF)
N (Threshold)
2.0
1.9
3.0
1E+00
2.4
4.2
2.1
1E-04
1E-08
Pf
1E-06
1E-02
3.6
4.0
3.8
1.4
0.8
1E-16
SER (%)
4.5
1.6
2.4
SER (%)
1.8
4.2
SER (%)
SER (MF)
SER (Threshold)
N (MF)
N (Threshold)
SER (%)
2.0
77
Fig. 6. Comparison between the performance of the threshold and the matched lter detectors: (a) 3, (b) 4 thick layers, (c) 3, (d) 4 and (e) 5 thin layers.
Fig. 6ac respectively, show that the MF detector outperforms the threshold detector. In fact, in all three cases, the
SER that results from the MF detector is lower than the
one resulting from the threshold detector for all probabilities of false alarm. At the same time, the number of
detected layers is higher than the real number of layers (i.e.,
three or four) for both detectors for high probabilities of
false alarm, but it converges to the real number of layers
for lower probabilities of false alarm. Thus, when the
probability of false alarm Pf is suitably selected, the
reections detected by the MF would be better approximations of the real reections than those detected by the
threshold detector. The relatively large difference in the
SER of the two detectors is a good indicator that some of
the interface reections detected by the threshold detector
do not correspond to real reections, even though the
number of detected layers is almost equal for the low
probabilities of false alarm.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
78
GPR Signal
Generated Signal
Detected Peaks
Section A, SER = 0.9%
Amplitude
10
Time (ns)
12
14
16
18
20
Fig. 7. Reected GPR signals, detected pulses, and generated signals for the ve different pavement sections.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
Table 3
Accuracy estimation of the multiple reections detection compared to the
single detection
Core #
A1
A2
A3
A4
B2
D1
D2
E1
E2
F1
F2
F3
G1
G2
H2
J1
J2
Error (%)
Core
Single
Multiple
Single
Multiple
282
273
266
268
283
276
265
292
285
211
210
206
195
204
286
286
355
313
276
259
252
322
315
301
317
302
247
247
239
209
214
302
330
405
272
276
259
252
266
271
255
298
283
211
211
204
193
202
270
292
367
10.9
1.1
2.8
5.9
13.9
14.3
13.4
8.6
5.8
16.9
17.4
16.2
7.2
4.9
5.7
15.3
14.2
3.7
1.1
2.8
5.9
5.9
1.7
3.9
2.1
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
5.5
2.0
3.5
10.2
2.5
79
5. Conclusion
A technique to automatically detect all detectable
reections, including masked weak reections, within
GPR signals was presented. In particular, it was shown
that, depending on the thicknesses and the number of
layers composing a pavement system, different types of
detectors should be used to locate the interface reections
in the GPR signal. Specically, if most of the pavement
layers are thick, a MF detector would be the optimal
detector to use. However, if multiple thin layers are part of
the pavement system, a threshold detector should be used.
For detection purposes, the pavement layers are considered
thin or thick by comparison to the GPR pulse width. To
detect the reections from all the layers in the pavement
system, the detector should be applied iteratively. After
each iteration, the time-delays of the detected pulses are
used to generate a signal comparable to the GPR signal in
the least-squares sense. The synthesized signal is then
subtracted from the measured GPR signal to expose the
weak reections initially masked by the stronger reections
in their vicinity. Experimental results on eld data using
both detectors showed promising results. In fact, by
comparing the GPR results to thicknesses measured
directly on cores an average absolute thickness error of
2.5% was found when all reections were detected. This
error increased to 10.2% when only the strong reections
were considered in the analysis.
Acknowledgments
This research is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. 9457978.
Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reect the views of the National
Science Foundation. The assistance of Amara Loulizi,
Thomas Freeman, and William Hobbs in this work is
greatly appreciated.
(10)
i0
If the number of layers N are assumed known and the two-way travel times ti are estimated from the measured GPR
signal yr(t), then the only model parameters that need to be estimated are the reection amplitudes An.
The sum of squares of the error between the measured GPR signal yr(t) and the signal computed from the model given by
(10) is calculated as follows:
"
! #2
N
1
n
X
X
X
yr t
An x t
ti
:
(11)
I
t
n0
i0
To achieve a minimum mean-square error (MSE) between the measured and modeled GPR signals, the sum of squared
errors given by (11) should be minimized with respect to all the model parameters An. Thus, the partial derivatives of I with
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
80
n0
i0
i0
for k 0; . . . ; N 1.
(12)
for k 0; . . . ; N 1.
(13)
i0
Eq. (13) could be expanded in the form of a set of equations according to:
P
xt t0 tN1 xt t0
yr txt t0
t
t
t
P
P
P
A0 xt t0 xt t0 t1 AN1 xt t0 tN1 xt t0 t1
yr txt t0 t1
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
A0
x2 t t0 AN1
..
.
>
>
>
>
>
P
P
P 2
>
>
>
yr txt t0 tN1
: A0 xt t0 xt t0 tN1 AN1 x t t0 tN1
t
(14)
MA Y,
where
A A0
"
Y
A1
AN1
yr txt t0
(16)
yr txt t0 t1
T
#T
yr txt t0 t1 tN1
(17)
x2 t t0
6
P
6
xt t0 xt t0 t1
6
6
t
M6
6
..
6
.
6
4P
xt t0 xt t0 tN1
xt t0 t1 xt t0
P 2
x t t0 t1
P
t
..
.
P
xt t0 t1 xt t0 tN1
t
..
.
xt t0 tN1 xt t0
7
xt t0 tN1 xt t0 t1 7
7
7
7.
7
..
7
.
7
P 2
5
x t t0 tN1
t
(18)
Thus the model parameters An that ensure a minimum MSE between the measured GPR signal yr(t) and the theoretical
signal yrs(t) could be determined according to:
A M1 Y.
References
[1] Daniels DJ. Surface-penetrating radar. London, UK: The Institution
of Electrical Engineers; 1996.
[2] Maser KR. Measurement of as-built conditions using ground
penetrating radar. In: Structural materials technology: an NDT
conference, 1996. p. 617.
[3] Loizosa A, Plati C. Accuracy of pavement thicknesses estimation
using different ground penetrating radar analysis approaches,
NDT&E International 40. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. p. 14757.
[4] Al-Qadi IL, Lahouar S, Loulizi A. Successful application of groundpenetrating radar for quality assurance-quality control of new
pavements. In: Transportation research record no. 1861, construction, 2003. p. 8697.
(19)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lahouar, I.L. Al-Qadi / NDT&E International 41 (2008) 6981
[10] Li J, Wu R. An efcient algorithm for time delay estimation. IEEE
Trans Signal Process 1998;46(8):22315.
[11] Ehrenberg JE, Ewart TE, Morris RD. Signal-processing techniques
for resolving individual pulses in a multipath signal. J Acoust Soc Am
1978;63(6):18615.
[12] McDonough RN, Whalen AD. Detection of signals in noise. 2nd ed.
New York: Academic Press; 1995.
[13] Kurtz JL, Fisher JW, Skau G, Armaghani J, Moxley JG. Advances in
ground penetrating radar for road surface measurements. Radar
Sensor Technol II, SPIE 1997;3066:1121.
[14] Lahouar S. Development of data analysis algorithms for interpretation of ground penetrating radar data. PhD dissertation, Blacksburg,
VA: Department of Electrical Engineering, Virginia Tech, 2003.
81