Point coordinates extraction from localized hyperbolic reflections in GPR data

Abstract In this paper, we propose an automated detection algorithm for the localization of apexes and points on the prongs of hyperbolic reflection incurred as a result of GPR scanning technology. The objects of interest encompass cylindrical underground utilities that have a distinctive form of hyperbolic reflection in radargram. Algorithm involves application of trained neural network to analyze radargram in the form of raster image, resulting with extracted segments of interest that contain hyperbolic reflections. This significantly reduces the amount of data for further analysis. Extracted segments represent the zone for localization of apices. This is followed by extraction of points on prongs of hyperbolic reflections which is carried out until stopping criterion is satisfied, regardless the borders of segment of interest. In final step a classification of false hyperbolic reflections caused by the constructive interference and their removal is done. The algorithm is implemented in MATLAB environment. There are several advantages of the proposed algorithm. It can successfully recognize true hyperbolic reflections in radargram images and extracts coordinates, with very low rate of false detections and without prior knowledge about the number of hyperbolic reflections or buried utilities. It can be applied to radargrams containing single and multiple hyperbolic reflections, intersected, distorted, as well as incomplete (asymmetric) hyperbolic reflections, all in the presence of higher level of noise. Special feature of algorithm is developed procedure for analysis and removal of false hyperbolic reflections generated by the constructive interference from reflectors associated with the utilities. Algorithm was tested on a number of synthetic and radargram acquired in the field survey. To illustrate the performances of the proposed algorithm, we present the characteristics of the algorithm through five representative radargrams obtained in real conditions. In these examples we present different acquisition scenarios by varying the number of buried objects, their disposition, size, and level of noise. Example with highest complexity was tested also as a synthetic radargram generated by gprMax. Processing time in examples with one or two hyperbolic reflections is from 0.1 to 0.3 s, while for the most complex examples it is from 2.2 to 4.9 s. In general, the obtained experimental results show that the proposed algorithm exhibits promising performances both in terms of utility detection and processing speed of the algorithm.

[1]  Farid Melgani,et al.  Automatic Analysis of GPR Images: A Pattern-Recognition Approach , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[2]  Anthony G. Cohn,et al.  3D mapping of buried underworld infrastructure using dynamic Bayesian network based multi-sensory image data fusion , 2013 .

[3]  L. Capineri,et al.  3-D radar imaging of buried utilities by features estimation of hyperbolic diffraction patterns in radar scans , 2004, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Grounds Penetrating Radar, 2004. GPR 2004..

[4]  Matteo Pastorino,et al.  Detection of subsurface metallic utilities by means of a SAP technique: Comparing MUSIC- and SVM-based approaches , 2013 .

[5]  Mansor Nakhkash,et al.  Automatic detection of buried utilities and solid objects with GPR using neural networks and pattern recognition , 2000 .

[6]  Huanhuan Chen,et al.  Probabilistic robust hyperbola mixture model for interpreting ground penetrating radar data , 2010, The 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[7]  Paolo Gamba,et al.  Neural detection of pipe signatures in ground penetrating radar images , 2000, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[8]  Raffaele Persico,et al.  Automated Detection of Reflection Hyperbolas in Complex GPR Images With No A Priori Knowledge on the Medium , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[9]  Lara Pajewski,et al.  Cylindrical-Wave Approach for electromagnetic scattering by subsurface metallic targets in a lossy medium , 2013 .

[10]  Colin G. Windsor,et al.  A Data Pair-Labeled Generalized Hough Transform for Radar Location of Buried Objects , 2014, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[11]  Josef Kittler,et al.  A survey of the hough transform , 1988, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[12]  Chao Yu,et al.  An automatic recognition algorithm for GPR images of RC structure voids , 2013 .

[13]  Chen Xiao-li,et al.  Feature extraction and classification of echo signal of ground penetrating radar , 2008, Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences.

[14]  Lu Wang,et al.  Automatic Feature Recognition for GPR Image Processing , 2010 .

[15]  P. Falorni,et al.  The Estimation of Buried Pipe Diameters by Generalized Hough Transform of Radar Data , 2005 .

[16]  Yi Huang,et al.  Neural network target identifier based on statistical features of GPR signals , 2002, International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar.

[17]  Henrique Lorenzo,et al.  GPR Signal Characterization for Automated Landmine and UXO Detection Based on Machine Learning Techniques , 2014, Remote. Sens..

[18]  Joaquín Izquierdo,et al.  Location of buried plastic pipes using multi-agent support based on GPR images , 2011 .

[19]  Lars Schmidt-Thieme,et al.  Buried pipe localization using an iterative geometric clustering on GPR data , 2014, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[20]  Fathi E. Abd El-Samie,et al.  Detection of landmines and underground utilities from acoustic and GPR images with a cepstral approach , 2010, J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent..

[21]  Steve Millard,et al.  Location of steel reinforcement in concrete using ground penetrating radar and neural networks , 2005 .

[22]  A. Simi,et al.  Hough transform based automatic pipe detection for array GPR: Algorithm development and on-site tests , 2008, 2008 IEEE Radar Conference.

[23]  Chi-Chih Chen,et al.  Automatic GPR target detection and clutter reduction using neural network , 2002, International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar.

[24]  Miro Govedarica,et al.  A new method to simultaneously estimate the radius of a cylindrical object and the wave propagation velocity from GPR data , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[25]  Augusto Sarti,et al.  Detection of linear objects in GPR data , 2004, Signal Process..

[26]  D. Daniels Ground Penetrating Radar , 2005 .

[27]  Jin Chen,et al.  Tree Root Automatic Recognition in Ground Penetrating Radar Profiles Based on Randomized Hough Transform , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[28]  Waleed Al-Nuaimy,et al.  Image processing and neural network techniques for automatic detection and interpretation of ground penetrating radar data , 2002 .

[29]  Jörg Schmalzl,et al.  Using pattern recognition to automatically localize reflection hyperbolas in data from ground penetrating radar , 2013, Comput. Geosci..

[30]  Serena Matucci,et al.  The Detection of Buried Pipes From Time-of-Flight Radar Data , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[31]  M. Govedarica,et al.  SHALLOW-LANDSLIDE SPATIAL STRUCTURE INTERPRETATION USING A MULTI-GEOPHYSICAL APPROACH , 2012 .

[32]  Gang Li,et al.  Stable Electromagnetic Modeling Using a Multigrid Solver on Stretching Grids: The Magnetotelluric Example , 2016, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[33]  John F. Canny,et al.  A Computational Approach to Edge Detection , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[34]  Harry M. Jol,et al.  Ground penetrating radar : theory and applications , 2009 .

[35]  M. Rossini,et al.  Detecting objects hidden in the subsoil by a mathematical method , 2003 .