Performance Analysis of Tomographic Methods Against Experimental Contactless Multistatic Ground Penetrating Radar

Abstract

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology for underground exploration consists in the transmission of an electromagnetic signal in the ground for sensing the presence of buried objects. While monostatic or bistatic configurations are usually adopted, a limited number of multistatic GPR systems have been proposed in the scientific literature. In this manuscript, we investigate the recovery performance of a specific and unconventional contactless multistatic GPR system, designed at the Georgia Institute of Technology for the subsurface imaging of anti-tank and anti-personnel plastic mines. In particular, for the first time, tomographic approaches are tested against this experimental multistatic GPR system, while most GPR processing in the scientific literature processes multi-monostatic experimental data sets. Firstly, by mimicking the system at hand, an accurate theoretical as well as numerical analysis is performed in order to estimate the data information content and the performance achievable. Two different tomographic linear approaches are adopted, i.e. the linear sampling method (LSM) and the Born approximation (BA) method, this latter enhanced by means of the compressive sensing (CS) theoretical framework. Then, the experimental data provided by the Georgia Institute of Technology are processed by means of a multi-frequency CS and BA-based method, thus generating very accurate 3D maps of the investigated underground scenario. Index Terms-ground penetrating radar (GPR), inverse scattering (IS) problem, microwave tomography, plastic landmine detection, linear sampling method (LSM), Born approximation (BA), compressive sensing (CS), sparse recovery. I. INTRODUCTIONROUND-PENETRATING radar (GPR) represents a powerful technology able to investigate in a non-invasive and non-destructive way non-accessible scenarios, as witnessed by the numerous and different applications, which include demining, lunar explorations, archaeology, geology, and civil engineering [1].GPR technology is usually adopted for subsurface imaging

Microwave Imaging of the Neck by Means of Artificial Neural Networks for Tumor Detection

“…However, this fact does not prevent the identification of the tumor. Moreover, the spinal cord is properly recognized inside the vertebral bone, too, both in the relative dielectric permittivity and electric conductivity (e.g., estimated values of 25-35 vs. the actual values of [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. It is worth noting that in general, the dielectric properties of the muscle and tumor tissues may overlap.…”

“…The inversion procedure, to obtain the properties of the target starting from the scattered electric field data, requires the solution of an ill-posed and nonlinear electromagnetic problem [28]. To solve it, different methods were developed by using qualitative [29]- [32] or quantitative approaches [33]- [38]. In this framework, other new, fast and reliable non-linear approaches for addressing the imaging problem are investigated.…”

An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Based on Total Variation Regularization and Projection Constraint with Applications in Ground-Penetrating Radar Inversion: A Model Simulation Study

“…∆d = d obs − d cal (5) where d obs denotes the observe dataset, d cal denotes the simulated dataset of model parameters obtained by using the PSO inversion, f it MAE is the fitness error of each particle, ∆d represents the difference between the observed dataset (i.e., refers to the simulated dataset based on the actual parameters in this study) and the model parameters (i.e., by using the PSO inversion).…”

“…Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) involves electromagnetic (EM) signals with high resolution and has great promise for various engineering and subsurface mapping applications [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The finite difference method is a kind of differential equation method, which uses the difference equations of variable discrete and finite unknown quantities to solve continuous variables.…”

Chemical detection of explosives in soil for locating buried landmine

“…Detection of landmine in soil is affected by many different factors, including type of mine, type of explosive, type of casing and geographical features of the land, vegetation-such as type of soil, moisture content, topography etc. Detection of buried and partially buried landmines employ different techniques such as GPR, metal detectors, NIR and SWIR, microwave radar and visible light detection etc [5][6][7][8][9][10] . These techniques, however, suffer from many drawbacks and have resulted in significant false alarms, hence, detection of chemical signature of mine/ explosive is preferable to reduce these false alarms.…”