Ground Penetrating Radar

Multi-modal Adaptive Land Mine Detection Using
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) and

Electro-Magnetic Induction (EMI)

METAL
PLASTIC
DARPA-ARO
MURI
Jay A. Marble and Andrew E. Yagle
Outline
1. Application Overview
1.1 Data Collection
1.2 Metal and Plastic Landmines
2. Sensor Phenomenology
2.1 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
2.2 Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)
2.3 Overview of Approach
3. Metal Landmine Detection
3.1 GPR Signature Features
3.2 EMI Signature Features
4. Plastic Landmine Detection
4.1 Plastic Landmine Detection Difficulty
4.2 Hyperbola Flattening Transform
4.3 GPR Signature of Plastic Landmines
4.4 Metal Firing Pin Detection
5. Adapting to Changes in Environment
6. Current Progress
Bandwidth:
500MHz - 2GHz
Depth Resolution:
Free Space - 10cm (4)
Soil (c
r
=3) - 5.7cm (2.3)
1.1 Data Collection
GPR Facts
EMI Facts
Sampling:
Along Track: 5cm
Cross Track: 17.5cm
Swath: 2.8m
Sampling:
Along Track: 5cm (2)
Cross Track: 15cm (6)
Swath: 3.0m
Operating: 75 Hz
Frequency

EMI
Coils
GPR
Antennae
USArmy Mine Hunter / Killer System
Database:
11000m
2
1.1 Data Collection
Type: M-15
Metal Casing
Burial Depth: 3
Width: 13
Height: 5.9
M-21
Metal Casing
Burial Depth: 1
Width: 13
Height: 8.1
Type: TM-62M
Metal Casing
Burial Depth: 2
Width: 13
Height: 5.9
Metal Landmines
1.2 Metal Mines
Database Contains: 70 metal cased mines buried from 0 to 3 (Shallow).
93 metal cased mines buried from 3 to 6 (Deep).
Type: VS1.6
Plastic Casing
Burial Depth: 6
Width: 8.6
Height: 3.5
Type: TMA-4
Plastic Casing
Burial Depth: 2
Width: 11
Height: 4.3
Type: TM-62P
Plastic Casing
Burial Depth: 2
Width: 13
Height: 5.9
Type: VS2.2
Plastic Casing
Burial Depth: 1
Width: 9 (.23m)
Height: 4.5 (.115m)
Type: M-19
Plastic
Width: 0.33m
Height: 3.5

Plastic Landmines
1.2 Plastic Mines
Database
Contains:
156 Shallow
265 Deep
NOT LANDMINES
LANDMINES
How to discriminate between landmines
and other objects using GPR and EMI ?
GOAL: To determine presence vs. absence of land mines vs. other metal objects
USING: Both GPR and EMI data (multi-modal detection algorithm)

Outline
1.1 Data Collection
6. Current Progress
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Tx Rx
Antenna
Module
Target
Layer 2
Air
...
f
1
f
2
f
N
f
3

Sampled
Frequencies
Depth
Profile
Fourier
Transform
Target
Transmit
Pulse
Ground
Interface
Pulse
Launch
Sample
Time
Transmitted Frequencies
f
1

f
2

f
N

2.1 GPR Phenomenology
Continuous, Stepped
Frequency Radar
500MHz 1.5GHz
128 Frequency Steps
h
d
[m]
( ) ( )
kh j d j d
RCS
R T
e e e T T
d h
G G
E
2 2 2
21 12
2
2
2
0
4
4

(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
| o
o
t
t
( )
kh j
R T
R
e R
h
G G
E E
2
12
2
2
2
0
4
4

(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t
t
(echo from air-ground interface)
(echo from buried target)
G
T
Gain of transmit antenna
G
R
Gain of receive antenna
E
R
Electric field strength at the receiver
E
0
Transmitted Electric field strength.
h Height of antenna above ground
d Depth of target below the surface
Wavelength in Free Space
o
RCS
Target Radar Cross Section

0 0
2
c e = k
(Propagation Constant
Above the ground)
*This model is for the antenna directly
above the buried object.
2
1
2 2
2
1 1
2
1
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
e c
o
c e o
2
1
2 2
2
1 1
2
1
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
e c
o
c e |
r
r
R
c
c
1
1
1
1
12
+
=
r
T
c +
=
1
2
21
r
T
c
1
1
2
12
+
=
r
c c e | ~
Slightly-
Conducting
Media
Approximation
-
Along Track [m]
D
e
p
t
h

[
i
n
c
h
e
s
]

-0.5 0 0.5 1
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
Synthetic Aperture
Antenna
Pattern
Data collected in time and space.
-
Along Track [m]
D
e
p
t
h

[
i
n
c
h
e
s
]

-0.5 0 0.5 1
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
Simulated Data
(x-t domain)
-
Earths
Surface
x
z
(0,0.5)
x
z
Point Target
(0,6)
-
Unimaged Signature
Metal Casing
Height: 6
Width: 13
Depth: 6

TM-62M Landmine
X
Z
TM-62M at 6
2.2 EMI Phenomenology
A i r
G r o u n d
P r i m a r y
M a g n e t i c
F i e l d
Buried
Sphere
Current
Source
Electronics
& Sampler
Data
Storage
I
V +
_
EMI Wire Coil
I
V +
_
EMI Wire Coil
Simplified EMI
System Concept

Air
Ground
Source

Secondary
Magnetic
Field
Source H-field
Incident Field at Object Metal Object Reaction
du ru J e
u m
z y x H
h d
u
z
) (
2
) , , (
0
) (
0
2 1
3
0
0
2 1

t

=
}
+
=
du ru J e
u m
z y x H
h d
u
r
) (
2
) , , (
1
) (
0
2 1
2
1 0
0
2 1

=
}
+
=
) (
1 1 1 1
2 2
1
o e c e j u =
) (
2 2 2 2
2 2
2
o e c e j u =

Air
Ground
Source
Source H-field
(x,y,-d)
(x,y,h)
) , , ( ) , , , ( 2
0
3
s s s z s s z
z y x H a P a m o e t =
) , , ( ) , , , ( 2
0
3
s s s r s s r
z y x H a P a m o e t =
)) sinh( ) cosh( ) (sinh( )) cosh( ) (sinh(
)) sinh( ) cosh( ) (sinh( )) cosh( ) (sinh( 2
) , , , (
2
0
2
0
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o e
+
+ +
=
s
s
s s
a P
) (
s s
i a o e o =
Metal Object Reaction

Secondary
Magnetic
Field
p
r
p
z
du ru J e
u m
z y x H
h z
u
z
zz
) (
2
) , , (
0
) (
0
2 1
3
2 1

t

=
}
+
=
du ru J e
u m
z y x H
h z
u
r
rz
) (
2
) , , (
1
) (
0
2 1
2
1
2 1

=
}
+
=
* Model assumes a solid spherical target.
z zz z x xz x
p H H p H H v
0 0
+ =

Induced
Magnetic
Sources
p
x
p
z
* Model no longer assumes a solid spherical target.
H
0x
Horizontal magnetic field at the center of the
target produced by the source magnetic dipole.

H
xz
Vertical magnetic field at the receive coil produced
by the horizontal induced magnetic dipole.

H
0z
Vertical magnetic field at the center of the target
produced by the source magnetic dipole.

H
zz
Vertical magnetic field at the receive coil produced
by the vertical induced magnetic dipole.
(
z
x
p
p
Target
Magnetic
Polarizability
Vector
EMI Spatial
Signature
C
o
i
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

(
A
c
r
o
s
s

T
r
a
c
k
)

Along Track
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Depth: 1
Depth: 3
EMI Spatial
Signature
Screener
Stage
Feature
Extraction
Stage
Discriminant
Stage
Feature
Vector

2.3 Overview of
Approach
Screener: Points-of-Interest (POI) are detected and reported. This stage must
be fast and must detect all landmines, but can have false-alarms.
Discriminant: Combines object features into a test statistic.
Features: Aspects of the detected objects are characterized in a vector
of feature values.
POI
2.3 Overview of Approach:
Screener Stage
Point-of-
Interest
List
Feature Extraction
Index X Location Y Location
1 291456.6558 4227053.1692
2 291382.6225 4227053.3659
3 291354.7422 4227052.5429
.
.
.
N 291309.1396 4227060.2448
GPR Features
Depth
Width
Height
RCS

EMI Features
Magnetic Dipole Moments
Decay Rates

Extracted EMI Chip
EMI Data
4227052.5429 291354.7422
POI List
EMI Data
Extracted GPR Cube
To
Discriminant
Function
Feature Vector
T
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c

Discriminant Function
The QPD can be thought of as
a mapping. The feature vector
(x
1
,x
2
) is mapped into a statistic
s based on the training of the
coefficients (c
1
,c
2,
c
3
,c
4
,c
5
,c
6
).
The feature values are scalar
numbers describing object:
X1 - Feature Value 1
(Like: object diameter)
X2 Feature Value 2
(Like: object depth)
Output
Statistic
Quadratic Polynomial Discriminant Function
(Shown here for 2 features.)
Outline
1.1 Data Collection
6. Current Progress
EMI
Simple
Threshold
O-k
Imaging
(Size/Depth)
EMI
Polarization
Vector
& Decay
Rate
Detection
List
GPR Data
Discriminant
Function
EMI Data
Y/N
Proposed Architecture for Metal Landmine Detection
Feature Extractor
3. Metal Mines:
Algorithm
POI Detector
Adaptive Environmental
Parameter Estimation
Azimuth
FFT
After Azimuth FFT
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
30
40
50
60
70
80
After 2D Phase Compensation
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
30
40
50
60
70
80
(Kx,Kz) Domain after Stolt Interpolation
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Focused Image
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
2D
Phase
Comp
Stolt
Interp
2D
FFT
After Azimuth FFT
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
30
40
50
60
70
80
After 2D Phase Compensation
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
30
40
50
60
70
80
(Kx,Kz) Domain after Stolt Interpolation
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mechanics of
Wavenumber
Migration
3. Wavenumber
Migration Imaging
Place in
O-k
Format
2D
Phase
Comp.
Stolt
Interp.
2D
FFT
Hyperbolic
Point
Target
Focused
Point
Target
R(k
x
,O) D(k
x
,k
z
) R(k
x
,O)F(k
x,
,O)
Metal Case
Height: 6
Width: 13
Depth: 6

TM-62M Landmine
Depth and Azimuth Resolution

c
r
c
r

d

variation median inches
Air 1 1 3.94
Dry Sand 4-6 5 1.76
Wet Sand 10-30 20 0.88
Dry Clay 2-5 3 2.27
Wet Clay 15-40 27 0.76

B
c
r
d
2
/ c
=
O
~
0
2
/
f
c
r
a
c
3.1 GPR Signature

B = 1.5GHz
f
0
= 1.25GHz
O = 60
Unimaged Signature
D
e
p
t
h

[
I
n
c
h
e
s
]

Along Track [Inches]
Signature before imaging
is dominated by the
standard hyperbola.

Depth can be determined
if data is properly
calibrated. Size requires
imaging to estimate.

Convexity of signatures
is determined by the
speed of propagation
in the medium.
3.1 GPR Signature
Image
D
e
p
t
h

[
I
n
c
h
e
s
]

Imaged signature shows
reflections from the top
and bottom of the
landmine.

Length of the object can now
be estimated from the
length of the top and
bottom reflections.

Height of the object can be
estimated from the distance
between the two reflections.

Depth has been calibrated
during the imaging process.

3.1 GPR Signature
Image
D
e
p
t
h

[
I
n
c
h
e
s
]

Bottom
Reflection
Top
Reflection
6
13
Estimated Depth and Size

Depth: 5.7
Length: 11.3
Height: 6.8

Ground Truth

Depth: 6
Length: 13
Height: 6

3 =
r
c
(Dry Clay)
About 3 res. cells across target in depth.
3.1 GPR Signature
Objects Reported
Bottom
Object
Top
Object
D
e
p
t
h

[
I
n
c
h
e
s
]

2
3
1
4
Four objects are identified
by setting a threshold and
clustering connected pixels.

Objects 1 and 2 are clearly
above the ground and can
be eliminated.

Objects 3 and 4 are the top
and bottom reflections.

3.1 GPR Signature
6.8
Objects Reported
D
e
p
t
h

[
I
n
c
h
e
s
]

10.8
12.5
Length is estimated by
averaging the lengths
of the two reflections.
(Est. Length: 11.3)

Height is the distance
between the two
reflections.
(Est. Height: 6.8)

Depth is the distance from
the ground surface (0)
to the top reflection.
(Est. Depth: 5.7)

5.7
3.1 GPR Signature
Repeatability Study
Ten Signatures
Before Imaging
3.1 GPR Signature
Repeatability Study
Ten Signatures
After Imaging
3.1 GPR Signature
3.1 GPR Signature
Repeatability Study
Ten Signatures
Binarized
Length
[inches]
Height
[inches]
Number
1 12 6.8 6.7
2 11.3 6.8 5.6
3 11.3 6.8 5.6
4 18 6.8 5.6
5 14 6.8 6.7
6 11.3 5.7 6.7
7 10.7 5.7 6.7
8 9.3 6.8 6.7
9 11.3 5.7 6.7
10 10.7 6.8 6.7
Note:
Depth
Sample
Spacing: 1.1
Depth
[inches]
Ground Truth:
Depth: 6
Length: 13
Height: 6
3.1 GPR Signature
Repeatability
Study
Magnetic
Polarizability
n p H v + =
| | v H H H
p
p
T T
y
x
1

=
(
| | n
p
p
H H H H v
z
x
zz z xz x
+
(
=
0 0
(signal model)
(N Samples)
(Least Squares Estimator)
z zz z x xz x
p H H p H H v
0 0
+ =
To compute the H matrix, we must
know the depth of the target.
3.2 EMI Signature
(
z
x
p
p
GPR (Radar) gives depth information

EMI (Dipole models) give H matrix values

Combining these: Multi-modal detection

Synergy: Each helps the other work better
3.2 EMI Signature

Induced
Magnetic
Sources
p
x
p
z
0 . 669
=
x
p
5 . 324
=
z
p
3.2 EMI Signature
3.2 EMI Signature
Iron
Sphere
Aluminum
Plate
No Target Present
time
Amps
Target Present
Decay Rate Discriminant
3.2 EMI Signature
Aluminum Objects
Iron Objects
Time [ms]
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
N
n
n
n
e A t r
q
=
=
1
) (
Sum of Decaying
Exponentials (Prony):
N=2 is usually enough
Decay Rate Features:
1
A
2
A
1
q
2
q
3. Metal Mines Summary
1
A
2
A
1
q
2
q
x
p
z
p
Magnetic Polarizability:
EMI Features
Depth Length
Height
GPR Features
O-k Imaging Features:
Other Features:
RCS
o
Outline
1.1 Data Collection
6. Current Progress
HFT
Detection
Algorithm
O-k
Imaging
(Size/Depth)
EMI
(Firing Pin)
Detection
List
GPR Data
Discriminant
Function
EMI Data
Y/N
POI Detector
Proposed Architecture for Plastic Landmine Detection
Feature Extractor
4. Plastic Mines:
Algorithm
Adaptive Environmental
Parameter Estimation
4.1 Plastic Mine Detection
GPR Standard Detection Statistic Standard Deviation Over Depth Bins
The standard detection approach is to create the plan view image
below by taking a standard deviation over depth.

Using this statistic there are many false alarms, but most mines
are detected. Deeply buried plastic mines, however, are often missed.
3x10
-3
34 Deeply Buried VS1.6 Mines
VS1.6 Max Pixel Histogram
3x10
-3
34 Deeply Buried VS1.6 Mines
VS1.6 Max Pixel Histogram
3x10
- 3
PDF Estimated from Histogram
3x10
- 4
3x10
- 4
3x10
- 3
Background Statistics
PDF Estimated from Histogram
3x10
- 4
3x10
- 4
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

Probability of False Alarm
ROC Curve
Deeply Buried VS1.6
(Depth <3)
About 80% of deep
VS1.6 plastic mines
are detectable.
Plastic Landmine (VS1.6)
Surface
Top of
Mine
at 6
Soil
Stratum
Deeply buried plastic landmines face a
low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Strata in the ground can create large
radar returns that lead to false alarms.

The Hyperbola Flattening Transform
seeks to exploit all the energy of the
hyperbolic signature.
Simulation Simulation
Original Hyperbola
45 Rotation
Simulation Simulation
Remapping:
1/y
y
1
2
2
2
2
=
a
x
d
y
1 = xy
1 =
y
x
The Hyperbola Flattening Transform converts a hyperbolic
signature into a straight line at 45.
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
Mathematical Description
180
90
0
120
Radon Transform illustration
shows a projection for 120
from a circle.
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
Application to
Simulated Data
The RADON transform
creates projections by
summing along lines.

Projections are oriented
for 0 to 180.

Radon Transform of the
flattened hyperbola has a
strong maximum at 45
corresponding to the energy
contained in the hyperbola.
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
Application to Simulated Data
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
Application to Real Data
Transform Location of
Hyperbolic Signature
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
VS1.6
Along Track
The HFT will now be
applied as a detector.

A small kernel is moved
throughout the scene. At
each location, the HFT is
applied.,

At each point the HFT is
run for several values
of the a parameter. The
maximum result is placed
into a detection image.
Original Image
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
Algorithm Application
VS1.6
The HFT is applied to all
locations in the scene.
The detection image shown
here is the result.

Bright pixels correspond
to hyperbolas. Hyperbolic
signatures have been
contrast enhanced, while
non-hyperbolas are
suppressed.
Along Track
Hyperbola Detection Image
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
VS1.6
Along Track
Pixels that break a certain
threshold are shown.
These pixels reveal the
locations of the most
hyperbola-like signals
in the scene.

The region corresponding
to the VS1.6 has been
enhanced by the HFT
detector.

Hyperbola-like Regions
4.2 Hyperbola
Flattening
VS1.6 at 1
4.3 GPR Signature
M19 at 5
4.3 GPR Signature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
C
o
i
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

(
A
c
r
o
s
s

T
r
a
c
k
)

Along Track
Firing Pin
Detection
Landmines contain a small
amount of metal in the
firing pin.

*The data here has been non-
linearly altered. (That is, 3
square roots have been applied.)

Plastic Metal Metal
EMI Data
4.4 Firing Pin
VS2.2 at 1
TM-62P at 2 VS1.6 at 1
Firing Pin
Detection
All These Landmines are Plastic.
Nevertheless, an EMI signal is attainable.
The sensor sled was lowered to just 2 above the ground.
EMI Spatial Signature EMI Spatial Signature EMI Spatial Signature
4.4 Firing Pin
4. Plastic Mine
Summary
1
A
2
A
1
q
2
q
x
p
z
p
Magnetic Polarizability:
EMI Features
Depth? Length
Height
GPR Features
O-k Imaging Features:
Other Features:
RCS
o
0
1
= fp
Firing Pin Detection (binary):
(detected)
(not-detected)
Outline
1.1 Data Collection
6. Current Progress
E
i
E
s
E
t
R
12
=

E
i
E
s
c
1
= c
0
c
2
=

c
r
c
0

r
r
R
c
c
1
1
1
1
12
+
=
5. Adapting to
Environmental Changes
Measuring Dielectric Constant
of a material is done using the
reflection coefficient.
Reflection Coefficient
c
r
c
r

variation median
Air 1 1
Dry Sand 4-6 5
Wet Sand 10-30 20
Dry Clay 2-5 3
Wet Clay 15-40 27

c
r
is frequency independent
for 500 MHz < f < 2.0GHz
2
12
12
1
1
1
1
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
R
R
r
c
Reflection Coefficient
Solving for c
r
is non-linear
Therefore, estimates of
c
r
are very sensitive to noise
in the observations of R
12
.
5. Adapting to
4 =
r
c
n R + = 33 . 0
12
128 Frequencies
r
c
After Conversion to c
r
:
3 . 4 =
r
c
' 4 n
r
+ = c
Sample Mean Biased Estimate
5. Adapting to
Example Dry Soil (c
r
small)
Reflection Coefficient for 128 Frequencies is contaminated with
Gaussian Noise.

Variance at a single frequency is large, so all 128 must be combined
in some way to reduce the estimate variance.
2
22 . 0
128
) var(
) var( = =
r
r
c
c
n~N(0,0.01) (SNR = 10dB)
n~X
1
?(0,3.6)
40 =
r
c 4 =
r
c
Simple First Attempt at Adaptive Filter

Averages c
r
of 50 locations along track

Performed acceptably for c
r
= 4
r
c
r
c
Estimate
From 128
Frequencies
Adaptive
Filter Output
5. Adapting to
Estimation of c
r
is a challenge.

Utilize all available information:
128 Frequencies
20 Antennas
Multiple Locations Along Track

Characterize Noise after Conversion to c
r
X[i] = c
r
+ n[i] n~? (How is n distributed?)
5. Adapting to
Determine Unbiased Estimator for c
r
given non-Gaussian
nature of noise using 128 frequencies (maximum likelihood)

Possibly incorporate a priori information (max. a posteriori)
Approach to Adaptive Processing of c
r
Changes
Outline
1.1 Data Collection
6. Current Progress
6. Current Progress

Wavenumber Migration Processor GPR
Point Target Simulator
Successful Imaging of Metal Landmines
Successful Imaging of Plastic Landmines
GPR Feature Set
Identify Metal Landmine GPR Feature Set
Identify Plastic Landmine GPR Feature Set
Automated Extraction of GPR Metal Features
Automated Extraction of GPR Plastic Features
Plastic Landmine Detection
Evaluate Baseline Performance with ROC Curve
Implement the Hyperbola Flattening Transform
Enhance Processing Speed of the HFT
Evaluate HFT Performance using ROC Curves

6. Current Progress

Physical Signal Modeling EMI
Simple Target Simulator (dipole induction)
Study effect of soil conductivity on measured signature.
EMI Feature Set
Identify Metal Landmine EMI Feature Set
P Use Least Squares to Estimate Magnetic Polarization
Features
P Measure decay rates of iron and aluminum objects.
Identify Firing Pin Detection Features
Spectral Noise Whitener for Firing Pin Detection
Automated Extraction of EMI Metal Features
Automated Extraction of EMI Firing Pin Features

Adaptive Estimation of c
r

Estimation of c
r
from GPR scattering measurements.
Determine statistical model of noise in c
r
observations.
Investigate MLE and MAP estimators for c
r

6. Current Progress

Ground Penetrating Radar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Penetrating Radar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi-modal Adaptive Land Mine Detection Using

Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) and

3.1 GPR Signature

You might also like