4.7 Article

Locational accuracy of underground utility mapping using ground penetrating radar

Journal

TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 20-29

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2012.11.007

Keywords

Underground utility mapping; Ground penetrating radar; Locational accuracy; Root mean square error; Scanning technique

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many of today's underground utilities are reaching the end of their practical life and need to be replaced or repaired. At the same time, new utility installations due to urban expansion and development of new communication technologies such as broadband are in progress. Hence accurate information of these utilities is essential for utility owners, engineers, contractors or surveyors, particularly as reference for excavation. Ground penetrating radar has been widely used in extracting information of buried utilities for better utility maintenance and management. The widely used scanning technique (i.e. 'perpendicular-to-pipe' scanning) is limited for retrieving the precise position of targets due to the effects of surrounding media. This paper provides a solution for the prevention of failed excavations by means of precise underground utility mapping. This paper first of all examines the accuracy of the commonly used data acquisition scanning technique, by conduction a series of tests, and then developed a better method. Subsequently, a real-life experiment was carried out to validate the performance of the proposed new scanning technique, to demonstrate its accuracy and effectiveness. We found that our method was able to do 'along-pipe' scanning with very high precision (i.e. less than +0.10 m, conforming to Quality Level A utility data). Hence, the proposed method set as a new benchmark for using ground penetrating radar for precisely locating buried utilities. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available