Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Subsurface object detection and characterization using Ground Penetrating Radar

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Subsurface characterization and information about buried utility infrastructure is an important issue affecting the public safety and progress of development projects. A heterogeneous subsurface environment is often insufficiently characterized by the data collected through various direct and indirect means, particularly in dense urban areas. The present study aims to detect the subsurface objects and map the stratigraphic environment in a city region using a non-invasive geophysical technique called Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). In this study, antennas of central frequency 200 and 80 MHz have been used to identify the underground utilities and subsurface layer information, respectively. A methodology based on a geometrical approach using Support Vector Machines (SVM) is developed for computing the depth and radius of buried pipes. Also, the electrical discontinuities in the GPR profiles are identified through various processing techniques to extract the subsurface layer information. The results indicate that the 200-MHz antenna and SVM-based methodology estimate the buried pipe parameters with reasonable accuracy at various site combinations. It is found that the bistatic low-frequency 80-MHz antenna suitably characterizes the subsurface layers, which are in close agreement with the borehole data. The processed data illustrate a strong correlation between the radar signals and the characteristics of the strata resolving the uncertainty. The study highlights the capability of GPR in extracting the subsurface data and recommends a multi-frequency approach to map and interpret the complete subsurface environment at a specific site.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdullah FMS, Al-Shuhail AA, Sanuade OA (2019) Characterization of subsurface cavities using gravity and ground penetrating radar. J Environ Eng Geophys 24(2):265–276

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abu-Hassanein ZS, Benson CH, Blotz LR (1996) Electrical resistivity of compacted clays. J Geotech Eng 122(5):397–406

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anbazhagan P (2018) Subsurface investigation—integrated and modern approach. In: Krishna AM, Dey A, Sreedeep S (eds) Geotechnics for natural and engineered sustainable technologies: GeoNEst. Springer, Singapore, pp 245–257

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arcone SA (1984) Field observations of electromagnetic pulse propagation in dielectric slabs. Geophys 49(10):1763–1773

    Google Scholar 

  5. ASTM, D6432–11 (2011) Using the surface ground penetrating radar method for subsurface investigation. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boudreault J-P, Dubé J-S, Chouteau M, Winiarski T, Hardy É (2010) Geophysical characterization of contaminated urban fills. Eng Geol 116(3):196–206

    Google Scholar 

  7. Campanella RG, Weemees I (1990) Development and use of an electrical resistivity cone for groundwater contamination studies. Can Geotech J 27(5):557–567

    Google Scholar 

  8. Camps-Valls G, Gomez-Chova L, Calpe-Maravilla J, Martin-Guerrero JD, Soria-Olivas E, Alonso-Chorda L, Moreno J (2004) Robust support vector method for hyperspectral data classification and knowledge discovery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 42(7):1530–1542

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chalikakis K, Plagnes V, Guerin R, Valois R, Bosch FP (2011) Contribution of geophysical methods to karst-system exploration: an overview. Hydrogeol J 19(6):1169

    Google Scholar 

  10. Davis JL, Annan AP (1989) Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophys Prospect 37(5):531–551

    Google Scholar 

  11. Day-Lewis FD, Slater LD, Robinson J, Johnson CD, Terry N, Werkema D (2017) An overview of geophysical technologies appropriate for characterization and monitoring at fractured-rock sites. J Environ Manag 204:709–720

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ehret B (2010) Pattern recognition of geophysical data. Geoderma 160(1):111–125

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hao T, Rogers CDF, Metje N, Chapman DN, Muggleton JM, Foo KY, Wang P, Pennock SR, Atkins PR, Swingler SG, Parker J, Costello SB, Burrow MPN, Anspach JH, Armitage RJ, Cohn AG, Goddard K, Lewin PL, Orlando G, Redfern MA, Royal ACD, Saul AJ (2012) Condition assessment of the buried utility service infrastructure. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 28:331–344

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hausmann J, Steinel H, Kreck M, Werban U, Vienken T, Dietrich P (2013) Two-dimensional geomorphological characterization of a filled abandoned meander using geophysical methods and soil sampling. Geomorphology 201:335–343

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hebsur AV, Muniappan N, Rao EP, Venkatachalam G (2013) Application of ground penetrating radar for locating buried impediments to geotechnical exploration and piling. Int J Geotech Eng 7(4):374–387

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hemeda S (2012) Ground penetrating radar (GPR) investigations for architectural heritage preservation: the case of Habib Sakakini Palace, Cairo, Egypt. Open J Geol 2(3):9

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hemeda S (2012) Ground penetrating radar investigations for architectural heritage preservation of the Habib Sakakini Palace, Cairo, Egypt. Int J Conserv Sci 3(3):153–162

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hemeda S (2019) Geotechnical and geophysical investigation techniques in Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo area, Egypt. Herit Sci 7(23):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hemeda S, Pitilakis K (2017) Geophysical investigations at Cairo’s oldest, the church of Abu Serga (St. Sergius), Cairo, Egypt. Res Nondestruct Eval 28(3):123–149

    Google Scholar 

  20. Huang C, Davis LS, Townshend JRG (2002) An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 23(4):725–749

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jeng Y (1995) Shallow seismic investigation of a site with poor reflection quality. Geophysics 60(6):1715–1726

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kelly WE (1985) Electrical resistivity for estimating ground-water recharge. J Irrig Drain Eng 111(2):177–180

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kneisel C (2006) Assessment of subsurface lithology in mountain environments using 2D resistivity imaging. Geomorphology 80(1):32–44

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kowalczyk S, Maślakowski M, Tucholka P (2014) Determination of the correlation between the electrical resistivity of non-cohesive soils and the degree of compaction. J Appl Geophys 110:43–50

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lambot S, Slob EC, Ivd B, Stockbroeckx B, Vanclooster M (2004) Modeling of ground-penetrating radar for accurate characterization of subsurface electric properties. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 42(11):2555–2568

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lu Q, Pu J, Liu Z, Pai PF (2014) Feature extraction and automatic material classification of underground objects from ground penetrating radar data. J Electr Comput Eng 2014:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mellett JS (1995) Ground penetrating radar applications in engineering, environmental management, and geology. J Appl Geophys 33(1):157–166

    Google Scholar 

  28. Metje N, Atkins PR, Brennan MJ, Chapman DN, Lim HM, Machell J, Muggleton JM, Pennock S, Ratcliffe J, Redfern M, Rogers CDF, Saul AJ, Shan Q, Swingler S, Thomas AM (2007) Mapping the underworld—state-of-the-art review. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 22(5):568–586

    Google Scholar 

  29. Metwaly M (2015) Application of GPR technique for subsurface utility mapping: a case study from urban area of Holy Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Measurement 60:139–145

    Google Scholar 

  30. Muniappan N, Hebsur AV, Rao EP, Venkatachalam G (2012) Radius estimation of buried cylindrical objects using GPR—a case study. In: 14th international conference on ground penetrating radar, Shanghai, China, pp 789–794

  31. Piro S, Campana S (2012) GPR investigation in different archaeological sites in Tuscany (Italy). Analysis and comparison of the obtained results. Near Surf Geophys 10(1):47–56

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rahimi S, Wood CM, Coker F, Moody T, Bernhardt-Barry M, Mofarraj Kouchaki B (2018) The combined use of MASW and resistivity surveys for levee assessment: a case study of the Melvin Price Reach of the Wood River Levee. Eng Geol 241:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ristic AV, Petrovacki D, Govedarica M (2009) A new method to simultaneously estimate the radius of a cylindrical object and the wave propagation velocity from GPR data. Comput Geosci 35(8):1620–1630

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rivera-Rios AM, Flores-Marquez EL (2012) Image-radargram analysis based on generalized hough transform: experimental cases. J Geophys Eng 9(5):558–568

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rizzo E, Capozzoli L, De Martino G, Grimaldi S (2019) Urban geophysical approach to characterize the subsoil of the main square in San Benedetto del Tronto town (Italy). Eng Geol 257:105133

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rogers CDF, Hao T, Costello SB, Burrow MPN, Metje N, Chapman DN, Parker J, Armitage RJ, Anspach JH, Muggleton JM, Foo KY, Wang P, Pennock SR, Atkins PR, Swingler SG, Cohn AG, Goddard K, Lewin PL, Orlando G, Redfern MA, Royal ACD, Saul AJ (2012) Condition assessment of the surface and buried infrastructure—a proposal for integration. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 28:202–211

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sheth HC, Zellmer GF, Demonterova EI, Ivanov AV, Kumar R, Patel RK (2014) The Deccan tholeiite lavas and dykes of Ghatkopar–Powai area, Mumbai, Panvel flexure zone: geochemistry, stratigraphic status, and tectonic significance. J Asian Earth 84:69–82

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shihab S, Al-Nuaimy W (2005) Radius estimation for cylindrical objects detected by ground penetrating radar. Subsurf Sens Technol Appl 6(2):151–166

    Google Scholar 

  39. Srivastava P, Sangode SJ, Meshram DC, Gudadhe SS, Nagaraju E, Kumar A, Venkateshwarlu M (2012) Paleoweathering and depositional conditions in the inter-flow sediment units (bole beds) of Deccan Volcanic Province, India: a mineral magnetic approach. Geoderma 177–178:90–109

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vapnik VN, Chervonenkis AY (1971) On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. Theory Probab Appl 16(2):264–280

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilkins A, Subbarao KB, Ingram G, Walsh JN (1994) Weathering regimes within the Deccan basalts. Volcanism. Wiley Eastern Ltd, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  42. Windsor CG, Capineri L, Falorni P (2005) The estimation of buried pipe diameters by generalized hough transform of radar data. In: Electromagnetics research symposium, Hangzhou, China, pp 345–349

  43. Zhang R, Ma J (2008) An improved SVM method P-SVM for classification of remotely sensed data. Int J Remote Sens 29(20):6029–6036

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the support extended by the authorities of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay to conduct the study and for providing the necessary information.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632014, India

    Divya Priya Balasubramani

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management and Engineering, Mumbai, 400 056, India

    Venkatachalam Gopalakrishnan

Authors
  1. Divya Priya Balasubramani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Venkatachalam Gopalakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BDP and VG conceived the presented idea; BDP collected the data, and designed and performed the analysis; BDP wrote the paper; VG supervised the findings of this work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Divya Priya Balasubramani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors of this paper have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balasubramani, D., Gopalakrishnan, V. Subsurface object detection and characterization using Ground Penetrating Radar. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 5, 101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00352-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00352-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation