Soil compensation techniques for the detection of buried metallic objects using electromagnetic sensors

Magnetic soils are a major source of false positives when searching for landmines or unexploded ordnance (UXO) with electromagnetic induction sensors. In adverse areas up to 30% of identified electromagnetic (EM) anomalies are attributed to geology. The main source of the electromagnetic response is the magnetic viscosity of the ferrimagnetic minerals magnetite and maghaemite. The EM phenomena that give rise to the response of magnetically viscous soil and metal are fundamentally different. The viscosity effects of magnetic soil can be accurately modelled by assuming a ferrite relaxation with a log-uniform distribution of time constants. The EM response of a metallic target is due to eddy currents induced in the target and is a function of the target's size, shape, conductivity and magnetic susceptibility. In this presentation, we consider different soil compensation techniques for time domain and frequency domain EM data. For both types of data we exploit the EM characteristics of viscous remnantly magnetized soil. These techniques will be demonstrated with time domain and frequency domain data collected on Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii. A frequency domain technique based on modeling a negative log-linear in-phase and constant quadrature component was found to be very effective at suppressing false-alarms due to magnetic soils.

[1]  Thomas H. Bell,et al.  Subsurface discrimination using electromagnetic induction sensors , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[2]  Laurens Sander Beran,et al.  Classification of unexploded ordnance , 2005 .

[3]  T. Lee THE EFFECT OF A SUPERPARAMAGNETIC LAYER ON THE TRANSIENT ELECTROMAGNETIC RESPONSE OF A GROUND , 1984 .

[4]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  Sensing of unexploded ordnance with magnetometer and induction data: theory and signal processing , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[5]  Sean E. Walker EXAMPLES OF THE EFFECT OF MAGNETIC SOIL ENVIRONMENTS ON TIME DOMAIN ELECTROMAGNETIC DATA , 2005 .

[6]  Esben Auken,et al.  Electromagnetic Noise Contamination on Transient Electromagnetic Soundings in Culturally Disturbed Environments , 1996 .

[7]  Yogadhish Das,et al.  Effects of soil electromagnetic properties on metal detectors , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[8]  I. J. Won,et al.  GEM‐3: A Monostatic Broadband Electromagnetic Induction Sensor , 1997 .

[9]  G. R. Olhoeft,et al.  Magnetic relaxation and the electromagnetic response parameter , 1974 .

[10]  On the influence of distribution functions on the after-effect function of ferrofluids , 1995 .

[11]  Hollis H. Bennett,et al.  Advanced UXO Detection/Discrimination Technology Demonstration - Kaho'olawe Hawaii , 2004 .

[12]  Stephen D. Billings,et al.  Discrimination and classification of buried unexploded ordnance using magnetometry , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[13]  J. Foley,et al.  The influence of magnetic viscosity on electromagnetic sensors , 2003 .

[14]  D. Oldenburg,et al.  A Discrimination Algorithm for UXO Using Time Domain Electromagnetics , 2001 .

[15]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  A comparison of the performance of statistical and fuzzy algorithms for unexploded ordnance detection , 2001, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst..

[16]  Leonard R. Pasion,et al.  Demonstration Report for the Former Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range. Project 200504: Practical Discrimination Strategies for Application to Live Sites, Ver. 2.0 , 2007 .

[17]  Michel Dabas,et al.  Magnetic susceptibility and viscosity of soils in a weak time varying field , 1992 .