3D VISUALIZATION APPROACH TO GPR DATA

Abstract

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is used to acquire data from near-surface depth for archeological, infrastructural, etc. researches and applications. Acquired data allow users to visualize and interpret the underground structures with high accuracy. The 3D visualization of the underground structures is one of the most problem for GPR research and applications. Usage of the suitable approach for 3D visualization will increase the accuracy of visualization and interpretation of underground structures. In order to contribute to this problem, an approach is proposed. Firstly, GPR data are acquired from the search area and data preprocessing steps are applied to GPR data. Secondly, the incomplete or missing data are recovered using interpolation techniques. Thirdly, the GPR data corresponding to the underground structures or anomalies are extracted and placed in a 3D cube. Finally, the extracted GPR data are visualized in 3D environment. The proposed approach was implemented on the real GPR data acquired from the test area. The results showed that created 3D models of the underground structures are very close to real model.

Keywords

• Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR),GPR Data,Underground Structure,Anomalies,Profile,Trace,Sampling Value,Preprocessing,Interpolation,3D Visualization

References

1. Arkedani, M.R., Neyt, X., Benedetto, D.,Slob, E.,Wesemael, B., Bogaert, P., Craeye, C., Lambot, S., 2014. Soil moisture variability effect on GPR data. 15th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Brussels, Belgium, p. 214-217.
2. Conroy, J.P. and Radzeviciu, S.J. 2003. Compact MATLAB code for displaying 3D GPR data with translucence. Computers & Geosciences 29, 679–681.
3. Conyers, L.B. 2004. Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Lanham
4. Dojack, L. 2012. Ground Penetrating Radar Theory, Data Collection, Processing and Interpretation: A Guide for Archaeologists, 7-9.
5. Giannopoulos, A., 2005. Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax. Construction and Building Materials 19, 755–762.
6. Goodman, D., Piro, S., Nishimura, Y., Schneider, K., Hongo, H., Higashi, N., Steinberg, J., Damiata, B., 2009. GPR archaeometry, In: Jol, H.M. (Ed.), Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 479-508.
7. Intyas, I., Suksmono, A.B., Munir, A. 2016. Image Quality Improvement for GPR Acquisition Using Interpolation Method. In: The 22nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
8. Kadioglu, S. and Ulugergerlic E.U. 2012. Imaging karstic cavities in transparent 3D volume of the GPR data set in Akkopru dam, Mugla, Turkey. Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, 27(3), 263–271.

9. Maeland, E., 1988. On the comparison of interpolation methods. IEEE Transactions on Medical İmaging. 7, 213-217.
10. Nuzzo, L., Leucci, G., Negri, S., Carrozzo, M.T. and Quarta,T. 2002. Application of 3D visualization techniques in the analysis of GPR data for archaeology. Annals Of Geophysıcs, 45(2), 231-337.
11. Ozkan, M. and Samet, R., 2017. “Interpolation Techniques to Recover the Incomplete GPR Data”. In: The 16th International Conference Geoinformatics, Kiev, Ukraine.
12. Samet, R. and Özkan, M. 2016. Incomplete Data Production Techniques in GPR Research and Applications. In: The 15th International Conference Geoinformatics, Kiev, Ukraine.
13. Samet, R., Çelik, E., Tural, S., Şengönül, E., Özkan, M., E., Damcı, “Determining the optimal profile interval by using interpolation techniques in GPR applications”, J.Appl. Geophysics, 2017.
14. Sun, W., Xu, Q., Zhang, H., Yao, Z. 2012. Research on Detection and Visualization of Underground Pipelines. In: The 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing, Environment and Transportation Engineering (RSETE), Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
15. Zhao, W., Tian, G., Forte, E., Pipan, M., Wang, Y., Li, X., Shi, Z., Liu, H., 2015. Advances in GPR data acquisition and analysis for archeology. Geophysical Journal International 202, 62-71.