4.7 Article

On the Limitations of Hyperbola Fitting for Estimating the Radius of Cylindrical Targets in Nondestructive Testing and Utility Detection

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2022.3195947

关键词

Noise level; Permittivity; Optimization; Testing; Transmitting antennas; Receiving antennas; Inspection; Concrete; ground-penetrating radar (GPR); hyperbola fitting; nondestructive testing; radius estimation; rebars; utility detection

资金

  1. Royal Society International Exchanges Cost Share 2020
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42111530126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperbola fitting is a widely used interpretation technique in ground-penetrating radar, but it is not suitable for simultaneously estimating both the velocity of the medium and the size of the target due to its inherent nonuniqueness and sensitivity to noise.
Hyperbola fitting is a mainstream interpretation technique used in ground-penetrating radar (GPR) due to its simplicity and relatively low computational requirements. Conventional hyperbola fitting is based on the assumption that the investigated medium is a homogeneous half-space, and that the target is an ideal reflector with zero radius. However, the zero-radius assumption can be easily removed by formulating the problem in a more generalized way that considers targets with arbitrary size. Such approaches were recently investigated in the literature, suggesting that hyperbola fitting can be used not only for estimating the velocity of the medium, but also for estimating the radius of subsurface cylinders, a very challenging problem with no conclusive solution to this day. In this letter, through a series of synthetic and laboratory experiments, we demonstrate that for practical GPR survey, hyperbola fitting is not suitable for simultaneously estimating both the velocity of the medium and the size of the target, due to its inherent nonuniqueness, making the results unreliable and sensitive to noise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据