Abstract

Compositing of ground penetrating radar (GPR) scans of differing frequencies have been found to produce cleaner images at depth using the Gaussian mixture model (GMM) feature of the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. GPR scans at various heights (“Stand Off”), as well as ground-based scans, have been studied. In this paper, we compare the GPR response from a chirp excitation function-based radar with the response from the EM GMM algorithm compositing process, using the same mix of frequencies. A chirp excitation pulse was found to be effective in delineating the defined buried object, but the resulting image is less sharp than the GMM EM method.

Highlights

  • Methods to produce sharper delineated objects at depth using ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a continuing topic of study

  • We explore using a chirp excitation function-based radar to replace the multiple frequency scans used in the EM Gaussian mixture model (GMM) algorithm analysis, comparing the result with EM processed scans

  • Our EM developed method, the compositing of GPR scans [1,2,3,4,5], was preceded by Dougherty et al [20] who focused on a method to subtract the direct arrival pulse and combine each signal weighted with equal magnitudes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Methods to produce sharper delineated objects at depth using ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a continuing topic of study. Imaging results from ground-based scans and scans at various heights have benefited from the Gaussian mixture model (GMM) feature of the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm technique [1,2,3,4,5] of combining scans at differing frequencies over the same terrain. We explore using a chirp excitation function-based radar to replace the multiple frequency scans used in the EM GMM algorithm analysis, comparing the result with EM processed scans.

Related Work
Expectation-Maximization Data Mixture Process
Chirp Excitation Function-Based Radar Signal
5.5.Results
Defined Simulated Analysis Space 1
Defined
14. Defined space
Defined Simulated Analysis Space 3
Conclusions
Computer Modeling Verification
Target
GprMax
Expectation-Maximization
Finite-difference time-domain analysis results the 2-D normally model using
Expectation-Maximization Algorithm Test Case
Compositing ‘Standoff’

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.