Rock fracture characterization with GPR by means of deterministic deconvolution
Introduction
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) investigation of rocks is a well-known application and has been performed for nearly 40 years now (Stewart and Unterberger, 1976). According to the desired trade-off between resolution and penetration depth, the full frequency range of commercial GPR systems (i.e., from tens of MHz to few GHz) has been employed in field investigations and laboratory experiments (Sambuelli and Calzoni, 2010, Sassen and Everett, 2009). Provided that water content is low and high conductivity minerals are not present, rocks generally offer favorable propagation conditions to electromagnetic radiation because of their relatively low absorption over the frequency band of GPR systems (Annan, 2001). In the last decades several GPR surveys have addressed the detection of fractures within rock bodies to characterize mining sites (Annan et al., 1988), quarries (Grasmueck et al., 2010), rock masses (Pipan et al., 2003), road cuts (Longoni et al., 2012) and unstable rock slopes (Heincke et al., 2005). In many instances the detection and location of fractures are obviously of great importance for safety reasons, but, for example, can also be valuable in the production of ornamental stones, both before and after rock blocks are quarried (Arosio et al., 2012, Lualdi and Zanzi, 2004). In addition, some authors have been dealing with GPR characterization of rock fracture parameters, namely thickness and filling material (Deparis and Garambois, 2009, Grégoire and Hollender, 2004).
Fractures can generally be envisaged as layers embedded in a homogeneous rock formation. This gives rise to two signals with opposite polarities reflected by the two sides of a fracture. If two distinct signals can be clearly identified and are well separated in time, fracture thickness can be directly determined by the time difference between reflections in a single measurement (provided that the velocity of the layer filling is known) and the fracture is referred to as a thick layer. On the contrary, the fracture is considered to be a thin layer, or a thin bed, when the two reflections overlap in a way that just a single composite wavelet is identifiable. In such a case there may be constructive or destructive interference between reflections (tuning effect; Kallweit and Wood, 1982, Sheriff, 1985), and the information about fracture parameters is encoded in the features of the composite reflection. More in detail, the amplitude of the composite reflected wavelet, together with its amplitude and phase spectra, depends on the source wavelet, on the time delay between the reflections as well as on the magnitude and polarity of the reflection coefficients.
The difference between a thick and a thin layer is dictated by the range resolution of a radar system, i.e., its ability to distinguish two or more targets on the same bearing but at different ranges (Annan, 2001). For an impulse radar (i.e., an electromagnetic device that emits short-duration pulses) like GPR, transmitted pulse width is the primary factor in range resolution, and it is widely accepted that two pulses are said to be resolved if their envelopes are separated in time by half the envelope width. The envelope width is commonly defined as the time between the points on the envelope where the envelope is greater than half of its peak amplitude (Annan, 2001). Radar range resolution is derived from the Rayleigh's resolution criterion, which was originally defined with an optical analogy and set the threshold for the resolvable limit. Rayleigh's criterion states that the limit of an optical device to distinguish separate images of objects lying close to one another occurs when the two diffraction images are separated by a distance equal to the peak-to-trough distance of the diffraction pattern of the device (Kallweit and Wood, 1982). If we define the dominant frequency as the reciprocal of the time between successive peaks or troughs of the propagating wavelet (also known as dominant period or breadth), Rayleigh's criterion converts to the well-known quarter-wavelength criterion. It is worth pointing out that this widely accepted criterion for range resolution is in actual fact a reasonable but arbitrary choice, and depends on the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), the duration and shape of the wavelet, as well as the analytical tools used to examine the collected data (Ricker, 1953). Although other researchers have tried to provide different resolvable limits (Ricker, 1953, Widess, 1973), it has been shown that Rayleigh's peak-to-trough time separation corresponds to the practical limit (Kallweit and Wood, 1982).
Relatively high propagation velocity of the electromagnetic energy within rock fractures coupled to the frequency range of commercial GPR antennas, results in wavelengths that are large compared to the thickness of fractures commonly encountered in surveys, which are generally few cm wide at most. For this reason, most rock fractures may be considered as thin layers from a GPR point of view. In such a case, thin bed response is the sum of the primary reflections and multiple reflections due to the reverberation of the signal back and forth within the layer (Fig. 1a). The composite reflected event is given by the interference between reflected and transmitted signal replicas occurring at fixed time delays and scaled according to the Fresnel's reflection and transmission coefficients of the interfaces. Thin bed reflection coefficient as a function of frequency is related to the ratio of bed thickness to wavelength within the bed. In case of layers much thinner than the wavelength, reflection coefficient magnitude varies linearly with frequency, while, as the layer gets thicker, it oscillates between 0 and a maximum value corresponding to destructive and constructive interference between primary reflections and multiples respectively. If layer material is lossy, the oscillations damp out as layer thickness increases. A similar trend can be observed when analyzing the reflection coefficient as a function of bed thickness; maxima and minima occur at thicknesses that are multiples of λ/4 and λ/2 respectively. Fig. 1b and c shows amplitude and phase of the normal-incidence thin bed reflection coefficient as a function of frequency and thickness respectively, computed using the analytic expressions (see Eqs. (4), (5)) for air and water thin beds embedded in sandstone. Absorption is only considered for the water thin bed, where the dielectric constant is modeled according to the Debye formula (Debye, 1929, Section 18). In fact, the fracture acts as a frequency filter whose mask is dependent upon the frequency band of the incident signal and on the properties of the layer.
Response of thin layers has been largely investigated by the seismic industry and, more recently, by the GPR community as well (Bradford and Deeds, 2006, Tsoflias and Hoch, 2006). From a theoretical point of view, Lord Rayleigh pioneered the discussion by exploring the response of a plate of finite thickness to an incoming plane sinusoidal wave (Rayleigh, 1945, Section 13). More in details, for a plate of thickness d and assuming normal incidence, thin bed response is given bywhere i is the imaginary unit, λ is the wavelength within the bed andis the ratio between the acoustic impedances of the thin layer and the surrounding medium respectively. Annan et al. (1988) proposed a relationship when dealing with transient signals of pulse radarwhere R12 is the normal-incidence electromagnetic reflection coefficient between the medium and the thin bed and λ may be regarded as the dominant wavelength of the radar pulse within the bed. Though dealing with Acoustics and Electromagnetics respectively, both approaches are based on the same phenomenon which assumes an infinite series of waves bouncing back and forth within a thin layer. In fact, the relationships above are identical, and with proper changes to the notation, they can be expressed in terms of magnitude and phase (see Appendix A)
It is easy to show that, when the bed is very thin compared to the wavelength, the response of the thin layer is simplified into (Annan, 2001, Koefoed and de Voogd, 1980)where v is the velocity of the wave within the bed and f is the frequency. This equation points out the linear relationship between frequency (or thickness) and reflected amplitude and the 90° phase-shift of the reflected signal, highlighted in the right-hand side of Eq. (5) as well.
In the scientific literature thin bed response has been analyzed according to different perspectives concerning time resolution (Kallweit and Wood, 1982, Neidell and Poggiagliolmi, 1977, Ricker, 1953, Sheriff, 1985), the linear relationship between bed thickness and reflected amplitude (Annan et al., 1988, Chung and Lawton, 1995b, Koefoed and de Voogd, 1980, Widess, 1973), the dispersion of the reflected event (O'Neill, 2000), and the derivative effect upon the incident signal (Annan, 2001, Chung and Lawton, 1995a, de Voogd and den Rooijen, 1983, Widess, 1973).
In the following I study thin bed response through synthetic GPR experiments. Analysis of the results is performed both in time and frequency domains to seek possible matching with findings of previous studies and to improve approaches to rock fracture characterization. I propose a 4-step procedure in which deterministic deconvolution is used to retrieve magnitude and phase thin bed response in the selected frequency band. After deconvolved curves are obtained, fracture thickness and filling are estimated by means of a fitting process.
Section snippets
Methods
In this section I focus on the analysis of numerical tests in which thin bed response to incoming GPR signals is explored. The propagation of electromagnetic pulses generated by GPR is modeled by solving Maxwell's equations using a 2D Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) code (Giannopoulos, 2005). According to the set-up of previous GPR experiments (Arosio et al., 2013), I decided to model two sandstone blocks at different distances from one another in order to simulate the presence of an
Discussion
I first focus my analysis on the time domain. Visual inspection of modeled traces suggests that as the fracture gets thinner (leftmost traces in Fig. 2b and c) thin bed reflections tend to resemble the first derivative with respect to time of the incident wavelet (rightmost trace in Fig. 2b and c), as observed by several authors (e.g., Chung and Lawton, 1995a). This result is quite obvious if we think about the physics of the phenomenon which, as described in the introduction, generally
Conclusions
I explored the features of the GPR response to layers embedded in a homogeneous rock formation. I analyzed radar data modeled with a FDTD software in both time and frequency domains and found good agreement with the relationships proposed in the scientific literature. The effectiveness of thin bed analysis in the time domain may be affected by several factors (e.g., absorption, transmission losses); therefore I propose to assess thin bed characteristics, namely thickness and filling material,
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Prof. Luigi Zanzi for his valuable suggestions and for his critical review of this work. The author wishes to thank Dr. Antonis Giannopoulos who made his modeling code available to the scientific community. The comments of two anonymous reviewers helped to improve the quality of this manuscript significantly.
References (32)
Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax
Constr. Build. Mater.
(2005)Ground Penetrating Radar Workshop Notes
(2001)- et al.
Radar sounding in potash mines, Saskatchewan, Canada
Geophysics
(1988) - et al.
Quality control of stone blocks during quarrying activities
- et al.
GPR investigations of rock fractures: considerations on thin beds
- et al.
Fracture thickness from GPR measurements
- et al.
Ground-penetrating radar theory and application of thin-bed offset-dependent reflectivity
Geophysics
(2006) - et al.
Frequency characteristics of seismic reflections from thin beds
Can. J. Explor. Geophys.
(1995) - et al.
Amplitude responses of thin beds: sinusoidal approximation versus ricker approximation
Geophysics
(1995) - et al.
Thin-layer response and spectral bandwidth
Geophysics
(1983)
Polar Molecules
On the use of dispersive APVO GPR curves for thin-bed properties estimation: theory and application to fracture characterization
Geophysics
Diffraction Imaging of Vertical Fractures and Karst With Full-resolution 3D GPR, Cassis Quarry, France, in: 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition Incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010
Discontinuity characterization by the inversion of the spectral content of ground penetrating radar (GPR) reflections—application of the Jonscher model
Geophysics
Acquisition and processing strategies for 3D georadar surveying a region characterized by rugged topography
Geophysics
Ricker wavelets in their various guises
First Break
Cited by (27)
Detection of roadbed layers in mountainous area using down-up-crosshole penetrometer and ground penetrating radar
2024, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement ConfederationA 3D optimization algorithm for sustainable cutting of slabs from ornamental stone blocks
2020, Resources PolicyCitation Excerpt :Among the used methods, the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), appeared to be a valid non-destructive method for discontinuities detection in ornamental stone quarries of different rock types (Elkarmoty et al., 2016; Elkarmoty et al., 2017b, 2017c, 2018a; Martínez et al., 2017; Seol et al., 2001; Luodes et al., 2011, 2015; Rey et al., 2015; Lualdi and Zanzi, 2004; Koster and Kruse, 2016; Grasmueck et al., 2004; Yi et al., 2004). With reference to the use of GPR in order to detect and model discontinuities and assessing of rock blocks, it worth to mention the works in (Rey et al., 2015, 2017; Zanzi et al., 2017; Arosio et al., 2012; Arosio, 2016; Elkarmoty et al., 2018b). However, in (Elkarmoty et al., 2018b), it is possible to analyze the application of a 3D deterministic discontinuities model, to ornamental stone blocks, significant for the topic of this paper.
Monitoring the internal quality of ornamental stone using impact-echo testing
2019, Applied AcousticsCitation Excerpt :Depending on applications, two approaches based on different types of waves can be employed [7]. The first category is composed of approaches based on electric waves [25,30,38,35,25,2,39,3]. These approaches attempt to determine what defects or imperfections (cavities, fractures and cracks) exist within the block and what is the size, shape or spatial orientation of each defect in order to reduce costs related to the breakage of the stone block.
Detection of cavities and fragile areas by numerical methods and GPR application
2019, Journal of Applied GeophysicsCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, the existence of the cavities in the underground is a potential source of dangerous phenomena from environmental, industrial and urban construction those described by (Driad and Piwakowski, 2002; Francisco, 2017; and Mochales et al., 2008). So, the GPR is a non-invasive subsurface prospecting method based on the propagation of electromagnetic waves (Vaughan, 1986; Xia et al., 2004, Diego, 2016). The measurements are sensitive to the dielectric permittivity variations between the cavities and the external environment (François, 2014; Pueyo-Anchuel et al., 2010).
Analyses of GPR signals for characterization of ground conditions in urban areas
2018, Journal of Applied GeophysicsCitation Excerpt :Note that the GPR survey can be simply conducted by scanning the ground using an antenna (ASTM D6432, 2011). The GPR survey has been commonly used for the detection of the interface between layers, which have different electrical properties (Arosio, 2016). The GPR survey, however, produces only the interface depth between layers that have different electromagnetic impedances by using the travel time of the electromagnetic wave.