[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (26)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = gprMax

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
24 pages, 6819 KiB  
Article
Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Road Structural Defects Using GPR Investigation and Back-Projection Algorithm
by Lutai Wang, Zhen Liu, Xingyu Gu and Danyu Wang
Sensors 2025, 25(1), 162; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25010162 - 30 Dec 2024
Viewed by 486
Abstract
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) has demonstrated significant advantages in the non-destructive detection of road structural defects due to its speed, safety, and efficiency. This paper proposes a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction method for GPR images, integrating the back-projection (BP) imaging algorithm to accurately determine the [...] Read more.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) has demonstrated significant advantages in the non-destructive detection of road structural defects due to its speed, safety, and efficiency. This paper proposes a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction method for GPR images, integrating the back-projection (BP) imaging algorithm to accurately determine the size, location, and other parameters of road structural defects. Initially, GPR detection images were preprocessed, including direct wave removal and wavelet denoising, followed by the application of the BP algorithm to effectively restore the defect’s location and size. Subsequently, a 3D data set was constructed through interpolation, and the effective reflection data were extracted by using a clustering algorithm. This algorithm distinguished the effective reflection data from the background data by determining the distance threshold between the data points. The 3D imaging of the defect was then performed in MATLAB. The proposed method was validated using both gprMax simulations and laboratory test models. The experimental results indicate that the correlation between the reconstructed and actual defects was approximately 0.67, demonstrating the method’s efficacy in accurately achieving the 3D reconstruction of road structural defects. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Three-dimensional reconstruction process for road structural defects.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Principle of GPR detection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Three-level wavelet decomposition.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GPR image of the underground cavity model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Principle of BP algorithm imaging.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>BP imaging.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Basic flow of K-means clustering algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Defect model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>B-Scan images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>B-Scan images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Results of BP imaging.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Results of BP imaging.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Results of 3D reconstruction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Laboratory test model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>IDS-RIS GPR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>B-Scan images and processing results of laboratory test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14 Cont.
<p>B-Scan images and processing results of laboratory test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Radar used in detection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Result of 3D reconstruction on the actual road.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Core sample.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4857 KiB  
Article
Study of Void Detection Beneath Concrete Pavement Panels through Numerical Simulation
by Jie Yuan, Huacheng Jiao, Biao Wu, Fei Liu, Wenhao Li, Hao Du and Jie Li
Buildings 2024, 14(7), 1956; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071956 - 27 Jun 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1025
Abstract
In the structure of composite pavement, the formation of voids beneath concrete panels poses significant risks to structural integrity and operational safety. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) detection serves as an effective method for identifying voids beneath concrete pavement panels. This paper focuses on analyzing [...] Read more.
In the structure of composite pavement, the formation of voids beneath concrete panels poses significant risks to structural integrity and operational safety. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) detection serves as an effective method for identifying voids beneath concrete pavement panels. This paper focuses on analyzing the morphological features of GPR echo signals. Leveraging the GprMax numerical simulation software, a numerical simulation model for void conditions in concrete pavement is established by setting reasonable pavement structure parameters, signal parameters, and model space parameters. The reliability of the numerical simulation model is validated based on field data from full-scale test sites with pre-fabricated voids. Various void conditions, including different void thicknesses, sizes, shapes, and filling mediums, are analyzed. The main conclusions of the study are as follows: the correlation coefficient between measured and simulated signals is above 0.8; a noticeable distinction exists between echo signals from intact and voided structures; signals exhibit similar phase and time delays for different void thicknesses and sizes but significant differences are observed in the A-scan signal intensity, the signal intensity, and the width of the B-scan signal; the impact of void shape on GPR echo signals mainly manifests in the variation of void thickness at different measurement points; and the relationship between the dielectric properties of the void-filling medium and the surrounding environment dictates the phase and time delay characteristics of the echo signal. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Composite Construction in Civil Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of Yee tuple in FDTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Simulation model building process of GprMax.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Example of two-dimensional airport cement pavement simulation model and simulation results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic composition of pavement structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Results of radar signal verification of void disease 1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Results of radar signal verification of void disease 2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>A-scan signal morphology of void structure and intact structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>B-scan signal morphology of void structure and intact structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>A-scan signal morphology at different void thicknesses.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>B-scan signal morphology at different void thicknesses.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>A-scan signal morphology at extreme void thickness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>A-scan signal morphology at different void sizes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>B-scan signal morphology at different void sizes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>B-scan signal morphology under different void shapes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>A-scan signal morphology of different void-filling media.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>B-scan signal morphology of different void-filling media.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 4373 KiB  
Article
Enhancing Image Alignment in Time-Lapse-Ground-Penetrating Radar through Dynamic Time Warping
by Jiahao Wen, Tianbao Huang, Xihong Cui, Yaling Zhang, Jinfeng Shi, Yanjia Jiang, Xiangjie Li and Li Guo
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(6), 1040; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16061040 - 15 Mar 2024
Viewed by 1231
Abstract
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a rapid and non-destructive geophysical technique widely employed to detect and quantify subsurface structures and characteristics. Its capability for time lapse (TL) detection provides essential insights into subsurface hydrological dynamics, including lateral flow and soil water distribution. However, during [...] Read more.
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a rapid and non-destructive geophysical technique widely employed to detect and quantify subsurface structures and characteristics. Its capability for time lapse (TL) detection provides essential insights into subsurface hydrological dynamics, including lateral flow and soil water distribution. However, during TL-GPR surveys, field conditions often create discrepancies in surface geometry, which introduces mismatches across sequential TL-GPR images. These discrepancies may generate spurious signal variations that impede the accurate interpretation of TL-GPR data when assessing subsurface hydrological processes. In responding to this issue, this study introduces a TL-GPR image alignment method by employing the dynamic time warping (DTW) algorithm. The purpose of the proposed method, namely TLIAM–DTW, is to correct for geometric mismatch in TL-GPR images collected from the identical survey line in the field. We validated the efficacy of the TLIAM–DTW method using both synthetic data from gprMax V3.0 simulations and actual field data collected from a hilly, forested area post-infiltration experiment. Analyses of the aligned TL-GPR images revealed that the TLIAM–DTW method effectively eliminates the influence of geometric mismatch while preserving the integrity of signal variations due to actual subsurface hydrological processes. Quantitative assessments of the proposed methods, measured by mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE), showed significant improvements. After performing the TLIAM–DTW method, the MAE and RMSE between processed TL-GPR images and background images were reduced by 96% and 78%, respectively, in simple simulation scenarios; in more complex simulations, MAE declined by 27–31% and RMSE by 17–43%. Field data yielded reductions in MAE and RMSE of >82% and 69%, respectively. With these substantial improvements, the processed TL-GPR images successfully depict the spatial and temporal transitions associated with subsurface lateral flows, thereby enhancing the accuracy of monitoring subsurface hydrological processes under field conditions. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Measuring the similarity between two time series (representing A-scan signals in TL-GPR images) by (<b>a</b>) the Euclidean distance; and (<b>b</b>) the DTW distance. (<b>c</b>) The DTW algorithm searches for the optimal path of two time series to ensure the least distance from the starting point to the ending point. R and T represented two time series with lengths of <span class="html-italic">m</span> and <span class="html-italic">n</span>, respectively. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>D</mi> <mfenced separators="|"> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> </semantics></math> indicated the minimal warping path.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>TL-GPR image alignment procedure. The red line represents the marker A-scans (i.e., marker traces), the green line represents the non-marker A-scans between the marker A-scans, and the blue line represents the non-marker A-scans at the beginning and end of a survey transect. (<b>a</b>) and (<b>b</b>) are the background image (as background) and TL image (as TL), respectively; (<b>c</b>) Using the DTW algorithm, the marker and non-marker A-scans are matched successively to solve the problem of inconsistent counts and mis-corresponding A-scans. For example, if the marker A-scan <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>B</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the Background corresponds to <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>b</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the TL image, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> is replaced by <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>b</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. The resulting new image is called TL1; (<b>d</b>) The time offset problem is solved by using the DTW algorithm to warp or overall translation the corresponding A-scans in TL using the A-scans in Background as the standard. The new image obtained was called TL2. At this point, the TL image alignment process is completed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Simple single-root geometric mismatch scenario forward modeling setting—only all possible offsets for a single root with a geometric offset distance of 0.01 m are shown. (<b>a</b>) The initial situation; (<b>b</b>–<b>d</b>) All possible offset scenarios that might occur for a single root with a geometric offset distance of 0.01 m in Simulation 1 (solely geometric mismatch); (<b>e</b>) The ideal situation after the occurrence of subsurface lateral flow; (<b>f</b>–<b>h</b>) All possible offset scenarios that could occur after the occurrence of subsurface lateral flow with a geometric offset distance of 0.01 m in Simulation 2 (which entails both geometric mismatch and real signal variations).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Complex multiple-root geometric mismatch scenario forward modeling setting. There are five base roots and five mobile roots in the scenario. H represents the movement in the horizontal direction, and V represents the movement in the vertical direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) An overview of the Fair Hill Catchment, showing drainage boundaries (indicated by the yellow dashed lines) and the location of the sample tree; (<b>b</b>) Water was released onto the tree trunk through PVC tubing to represent the stemflow process; (<b>c</b>) A photo of the geophysical survey area, showing the antenna of the GPR system (the white box) and its moving path (indicated by the red solid line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>An example of GPR data preprocessing effect: (<b>a</b>) Raw data from the forward simulation results of <a href="#remotesensing-16-01040-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>a obtained by gprMax V3.0 (the settings are described in <a href="#sec2dot2dot1-remotesensing-16-01040" class="html-sec">Section 2.2.1</a> above) and the hyperbolic reflections representing the root reflectors; (<b>b</b>) Some radargram processed in Reflexw 9.5 software with first arrival time extraction and background noise removal were used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The velocity analysis was then performed and the time–depth conversion was completed; (<b>c</b>) Kirchoff migration was used to trace hyperbola reflections back to their sources; (<b>d</b>) Hilbert transformation was used to express the magnitude of signals, elucidate subtle objects and reduce multiple reflections; (<b>e</b>) Moving average filter was used to eliminate the influence of geometric mismatch; (<b>f</b>) A graph of the A-scan obtained after the Hilbert transformation—at this point, only the amplitude values symbolizing the signal strength could be represented.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Examples of the differential results from various methods applied to simple single-root geometric mismatch scenarios (“Lm1_Um1”, which represents the root offset 0.01 m to the left and 0.01 m upwards; and “Lm5_Um5”, similarly). (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>m</b>) are the ideal differential result without the presence of geometric mismatch, denoted as “Reference”; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>n</b>) are the differential result without image alignment processing, denoted as “Direct”; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>,<b>o</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the moving average filter, denoted as “MAF”; (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>,<b>p</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the TLIAM–DTW, denoted as “DTW”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Evaluation plot of differential results for single-root geometric mismatch scenarios. The number represents the median of the box. (<b>a</b>) is Simulation 1, where only geometric mismatch exists; (<b>b</b>) is Simulation 2, where true signal variations exist.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Examples of the differential results of various methods applied to complex multiple-root geometric mismatch scenarios. The solid blue box indicates a complete signal with red-blue-red alternation. (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>m</b>) are the ideal differential result without the presence of geometric mismatch, denoted as “Reference”; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>n</b>) are the differential result without image alignment processing, denoted as “Direct”; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>,<b>o</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the moving average filter, denoted as “MAF”; (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>,<b>p</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the TLIAM–DTW, denoted as “DTW”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of differential results for the field measurement scenario. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) represents the TL image alignment results before the infiltration experiment. (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>,<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) represent the TL image alignment results at 0 min and 120 min after the end of the infiltration experiment, respectively. (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>g</b>) are the differential result without image alignment processing, denoted as “Direct”; (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>h</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing obtained using the moving average filter, denoted as “MAF”; (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>i</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing obtained using the TLIAM–DTW, denoted as “DTW”. The yellow dots in (<b>d</b>–<b>i</b>) refer to the lateral roots that are overlap with the isolated wetting areas (i.e., identifying the preferential flow pathways), evidencing the lateral root-derived preferential flow. The green dots in (<b>d</b>–<b>i</b>) indicate the lateral roots that do not contribute to preferential channelization. In (<b>d</b>–<b>i</b>), the solid blue boxes represent signals that are well-matched to the root system, while the dashed blue boxes indicate signals affected by geometric mismatch, which fail to connect with the root system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Differential results of TL images without Hilbert transform, after different alignment methods, using “Lm5_Um5” (refers to a leftward shift of 0.05 m and an upward shift of 0.05 m for root) in simple single-root geometric mismatch scenarios as an example. (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) the differential result of Simulation 1 and Simulation 2. (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>) are the ideal differential result without the presence of geometric mismatch, denoted as “Reference”; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>) are the differential result without image alignment processing, denoted as “Direct”; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the moving average filter, denoted as “MAF”; (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>) are the differential result with image alignment processing using the TLIAM–DTW, denoted as “DTW”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The proposed standard procedure for conducting the TLIAM–DTW method.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Examples of the differential results of various methods applied to the complex multiple-root geometric mismatch scenario. The solid blue box indicates a complete signal with red-blue-red alternation. (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>m</b>) were the ideal differential result without the presence of geometric mismatch, denoted as “Reference”; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>n</b>) were the differential result without image alignment processing, denoted as “Direct”; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>,<b>o</b>) were the differential result with image alignment processing using moving average filter, denoted as “MAF”; (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>,<b>p</b>) were the differential result with image alignment processing using the TLIAM–DTW, denoted as “DTW”.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 4344 KiB  
Article
Wavelet Analysis of GPR Data for Belowground Mass Assessment of Sorghum Hybrid for Soil Carbon Sequestration
by Matthew Wolfe, Iliyana D. Dobreva, Henry A. Ruiz-Guzman, Da Huo, Brody L. Teare, Tyler Adams, Mark E. Everett, Michael Bishop, Russell Jessup and Dirk B. Hays
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(15), 3832; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153832 - 1 Aug 2023
Viewed by 1921
Abstract
Among many agricultural practices proposed to cut carbon emissions in the next 30 years is the deposition of carbon in soils as plant matter. Adding rooting traits as part of a sequestration strategy would result in significantly increased carbon sequestration. Integrating these traits [...] Read more.
Among many agricultural practices proposed to cut carbon emissions in the next 30 years is the deposition of carbon in soils as plant matter. Adding rooting traits as part of a sequestration strategy would result in significantly increased carbon sequestration. Integrating these traits into production agriculture requires a belowground phenotyping method compatible with high-throughput breeding (i.e., rapid, inexpensive, reliable, and non-destructive). However, methods that fulfill these criteria currently do not exist. We hypothesized that ground-penetrating radar (GPR) could fill this need as a phenotypic selection tool. In this study, we employed a prototype GPR antenna array to scan and discriminate the root and rhizome mass of the perennial sorghum hybrid PSH09TX15. B-scan level time/discrete frequency analyses using continuous wavelet transform were utilized to extract features of interest that could be correlated to the biomass of the subsurface roots and rhizome. Time frequency analysis yielded strong correlations between radar features and belowground biomass (max R −0.91 for roots and −0.78 rhizomes, respectively) These results demonstrate that continued refinement of GPR data analysis workflows should yield an applicable phenotyping tool for breeding efforts in contexts where selection is otherwise impractical. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Farming with Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>High-level flowchart of study design.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Photograph of data collection using IDS antenna array. Antenna was mounted on an aluminum cart and moved from one end of the trough to the other during data collection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Descriptive images of trough system. (<b>a</b>) From left to right, plots are numbered 1–8 (see top view). The space labeled ‘B’ was intended as a blank area and no associated mass was harvested. The different layers are demarcated with different shades of gray. (<b>b</b>) Artificial trough environment during growing season. (<b>c</b>) Belowground biomass following trough washing process. Pictured are the three depth layers separated by the green nylon netting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Processing flowchart and visual result. Chart shows the pre-processing steps used to prepare GPR data for CWT analysis. Pictured above is the ‘before’ and ‘after’ representation of the GPR data used in this study. The ‘after’ depiction is the appearance of the data after ‘Cropping’ and ‘Background Correction’ steps prior to the use of the CWT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Box and whisker graphs of root and rhizome tissue biomass per layer. Distributions of both tissue types are shown in three sets of two graphs, with each box and whisker corresponding to the mass measurement distributions for a given layer across all eight agricultural plots for one of the two tissue types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Biomass distribution. Bar graphs of biomass measurements per layer for each agricultural plot demonstrate hybrid’s propensity for deep deposition of recalcitrant mass. (<b>a</b>) Mass measurements of rhizomes. (<b>b</b>) Mass measurements of the fibrous root samples.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Analysis initial result. (<b>a</b>) Depiction of resulting data following CWT. (<b>b</b>) Sample graph showing the correlation of fibrous root mass values with WPFD features. Frequencies highlighted in red were found to be significant at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 (<span class="html-italic">N</span> = 8).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatterplots of highest-performing WPFs. Red lines shown are the least-squares line of best fit. Neither fibrous roots nor rhizomes correlated significantly with any WPFD feature at layer 3. All correlations shown are significant to <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 8).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatterplots of highest-performing WPFs with normalized biomass axes. Red lines shown are the least-squares line of best fit. Data for each experiment were transformed so that all biomass measurements varied between bounds of 0 and 1 to eliminate differences in apparent regression equations due purely to mass.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Results of bootstrapping analysis on highest-performing GPR features. All features plotted in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03832-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> underwent bootstrapping using 1000 iterations. Resulting mean R-values and confidence intervals are shown here as well as in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03832-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Plots of <span class="html-italic">R</span> statistic vs. WPF for each tissue sub-type. Shown are the full results for the multi-layer analysis. All portions of each graph that are highlighted in red represent WPFs that produced WPFD features which correlated with biomass as an alpha of 0.05. Strongest correlations are reported in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03832-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Plots of <span class="html-italic">R</span> statistic vs. WPF for total belowground biomass. Shown are the full results for the combined layer analysis. All portions of each graph that are highlighted in red represent WPFs that produced WPFD features, which correlated with biomass as an alpha of 0.05. Strongest correlations are reported in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03832-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 9444 KiB  
Article
Estimation of Coarse Root System Diameter Based on Ground-Penetrating Radar Forward Modeling
by Linyue Bi, Linyin Xing, Hao Liang and Jianhui Lin
Forests 2023, 14(7), 1370; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071370 - 4 Jul 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1475
Abstract
Root diameter is an important indicator of plant growth and development to a large extent. However, the field monitoring of these parameters is severely limited by the lack of appropriate methods, and some traditional methods may harm the plant and its growing environment. [...] Read more.
Root diameter is an important indicator of plant growth and development to a large extent. However, the field monitoring of these parameters is severely limited by the lack of appropriate methods, and some traditional methods may harm the plant and its growing environment. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a new nondestructive detection method for underground root systems. A new method for the estimation of the diameter of coarse roots using GPR with 900 MHz frequency was proposed in this paper. First, a simulation model was established to simulate the root system under natural conditions, and the root diameter estimation model based on the scanning results of GPR was obtained. Secondly, by studying the influence of soil and root relative permittivity on the diameter estimation model, a method was found to devise a coarse root diameter estimation model under different soil and root conditions of relative permittivity. Thirdly, the applicability of the diameter estimation model to roots with different growth orientations was tested by simulating roots with different growth orientations. Finally, the practical applicability of the estimation method was verified by field experiments. The results suggest that the root diameter estimation model can be constructed by extracting the pixel distance (∆p) of waveform parameters from the 900 MHz scanning results. This method can be used to estimate the diameter of coarse roots with diameters of no less than 2 cm and a relative permittivity greater than 5, and to estimate the diameter of roots in any orientation and soil environment effectively. At the same time, the application in the field experiment also resulted in a good estimation effect. This method provides a new opportunity to achieve more reliable root diameter estimation in complex situations. The estimation of coarse root diameter provides an experimental basis and data support for the healthy growth of trees, and also provides some information for the study of coarse root ecology. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Inventory, Modeling and Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Ground-penetrating radar scanning profile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Ground-penetrating radar principle of scanning and imaging. (<b>a</b>) Diagram of the antenna (blue rectangles) continuously emitting electromagnetic waves underground within the radiation angle (blue sector) range during its movement. The radar can measure the transmission time of the electromagnetic wave signal (red curves) to the target (green circle). (<b>b</b>) The horizontal axis <span class="html-italic">x</span>, which represents the position where the antenna moves, and the vertical axis time, which represents the transmission time when the electromagnetic wave signal emitted by the antenna at that position reaches the target. (<b>c</b>) Transmission time decreasing during the process of the antenna moving from a distance to above the target. The transmission time subsequently increases as the antenna is far away from the object, which shows the characteristic hyperbola in the radar profile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Hyperbolic curve (B-scan) obtained via gprMax scanning the root sample model. Red represents a positive field strength, blue represents a negative field strength, and white represents a zero field strength. A B-scan is composed of multiple traces (A-scans) recorded as the antenna is moved over the target, in this case the root. The horizontal axis and vertical axis represent trace number and time, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic diagram of GPR electromagnetic wave propagation process. The white square labeled <span class="html-italic">T</span> represents the transmitting antenna, the white square labeled <span class="html-italic">R</span> represents the receiving antenna, and the horizontal line represents the ground surface. The red line describes the process during which the electromagnetic wave first detects the upper apex of the root system, and then passes through the root system in a direction perpendicular to the root (the green cylinder) and reaches its lower apex. Point <span class="html-italic">B</span> is the intersection point between the center line of the root space and the base surface of the root, and point <span class="html-italic">C</span> is the intersection point between the center line of the root space and the scanning section of the electromagnetic wave to the root. The black dotted curve describes the electromagnetic wave emitted by the antenna radiating energy in the divergent elliptic cone and scanning the footprint area below it (the circle with the center of <span class="html-italic">R</span><sub>0</sub>), the direction of the long axis of the elliptic cone being the direction of propagation (the long axis of a cone with a circle centered around <span class="html-italic">R</span><sub>1</sub>, <span class="html-italic">R</span><sub>2</sub>, and <span class="html-italic">R</span><sub>3</sub> as its base indicates the three propagation directions).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Simulation models of different root diameters. The lower left corner of the image represents the origin of coordinates. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis represent horizontal transect length and depth, respectively, defining a rectangular area of 10.2 m × 1.2 m. The gray area below 1 m in the vertical direction represents soil, while the white area above 1 m represents air. The green circles represent roots (7 roots in total, where R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 represent the radius of roots, which are 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.07 m, respectively). The transmitting (small red square) and receiving antennas (small blue square) move synchronously to the right along the ground from the left side.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Geometric diagram of spatial root angle deflection. (<b>a</b>) Spatial geometry diagram. (<b>b</b>) Diagram showing α in the side view and showing <span class="html-italic">β</span> in the top view. The two thick green lines represent the root that deflects horizontally and vertically. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis, <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis, and <span class="html-italic">z</span>-axis determine the location of roots in underground space. The red arrow represents that the direction the antenna is moving. The three points <span class="html-italic">A</span>, <span class="html-italic">B</span> and <span class="html-italic">C</span> are the two ends and the central point of the root, respectively, where the <span class="html-italic">C</span> point is on the <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis. α is the angle change in the view side direction, and <span class="html-italic">β</span> is the angle change in the top view direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Root simulation model with spatial angle change. The cube is the experiment area. The solid rectangle on the top is the air, the perspective rectangle on the bottom is the underground area, and the red cylinder represents the root.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Three views of root simulation model with spatial angle change. (<b>a</b>) Side view of model. (<b>b</b>) Front view of model. (<b>c</b>) Top view of model. Red cylinder represents root.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Xiaotangshan Nursery in Changping district, Beijing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Surveying scene of Chinese ash using GPR. The red dotted lines show the survey area and the green circles shows the locations of the Chinese ash.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Forward modeling results of different root diameters (the relative permittivity of the root is 15 and that of the soil is 5). (<b>a</b>) Grayscale Image. (<b>b</b>) The image after removing the direct wave. (<b>c</b>) Image after HSV component extraction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Extraction of hyperbolic vertex pixels. The six hyperbolas correspond to the scanning results of roots with diameters of 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.07 m in turn.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Fitting result of root diameter with pixel distance (∆<span class="html-italic">p</span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Forward modeling results of different root diameters (the relative permittivity of the root is 5). (<b>a</b>) The image after removing the direct wave. (<b>b</b>) Image after HSV component extraction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The result of comparing the estimated values of root diameter of 0.02~0.07 m based on Model 1 with the actual value with a root relative permittivity of 7 in different soils. Prussian blue, dark orange, purple, tree green, medium yellow and perylene brown correspond to root diameters ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m for different soil relative permittivity values from 3 to 31. The hollow circle represents the actual value and the filled circle represents the estimated value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>In total, 14 estimation models were obtained under different soil relative permittivity conditions with the root relative permittivity of 7. The estimation models for different relative permittivity of soils correspond to different colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Fitting result of the slope and the soil relative permittivity. The black circles represent the value of slope of the 14 estimation models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Fitting result of the intercept and the soil relative permittivity. The black circles represent the value of the intercept of the 14 estimation models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>A comparison of the estimated values of root diameter ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m with a root relative permittivity of 7 in different soils based on Model 2. Prussian blue, dark orange, purple, tree green, medium yellow and perylene brown correspond to root diameters ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m for different soil relative permittivity values from 3 to 31. The hollow circle represents the actual value and the filled circle represents the estimated value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The residual distribution of the diameter estimation results obtained from the original model (Model 1) and the new model (Model 2). The red plus sign represents the outlier in the residual distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>In total, 14 estimation models were obtained under different root relative permittivity values with a soil relative permittivity of 15. The estimation models for different relative permittivity values of roots correspond to different colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Fitting result of the slope and the root relative permittivity. The black circles represent the value of slope of the 14 estimation models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Fitting result of the intercept and the root relative permittivity. The black circles represent the value of the intercept of the 14 estimation models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>The result of comparing the estimated values of root diameter of 0.02~0.07 m based on Model 3 with the actual value, with the root relative permittivity being 7 in different soils. Prussian blue, dark orange, purple, tree green, medium yellow and perylene brown correspond to root diameters ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m for different soil relative permittivity from 3 to 31. The hollow circle represents the actual value and the filled circle represents the estimated value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 25
<p>Residual distribution of diameter estimation result obtained via three models. The red plus signs represent the outlier in the residual distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Analysis of GPR propagation characteristics of roots with the same orientation. (<b>a</b>) Root in 3D with a vertical upward set orientation of 0.2 m to the ground surface. (<b>b</b>) Root in 2D extracted from the plane where the 3D measuring line in (<b>a</b>) above is located. The white square labeled <span class="html-italic">T</span> represents the transmitting antenna, the white square labeled R represents the receiving antenna, and the horizontal line represents the ground surface. The green column represents the roots. The red ellipse in (<b>a</b>) is the cross-section of the root system in the vertical direction, and the red circle in (<b>b</b>) is the cross-section of the root scanned. Both sections are 0.2 m away from the ground surface. The vertical line of <span class="html-italic">T</span> with respect to the root in (<b>a</b>) represents the propagation path of the electromagnetic wave at that point; that is, the line where the shortest distance from <span class="html-italic">T</span> to the root lies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 27
<p>Root system simulations with different orientations. The cubes are the experiment area and the red cylinders represent the root. α is the angle change in the view side direction, and <span class="html-italic">β</span> is the angle change in the top view direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 28
<p>Root system forward modeling results of different orientations. α is the angle change in the view side direction, <span class="html-italic">β</span> is the angle change in the top view direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 29
<p>The result of comparing the estimated values of a root diameter of 0.02~0.07 m with the actual value, with a root relative permittivity of 7 and a soil relative permittivity of 17. (<b>a</b>) The result of Model 2. (<b>b</b>) The result of Model 3. Prussian blue, dark orange, purple, tree green, medium yellow and perylene brown correspond to root diameters ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m for different root orientations. The hollow circle represents the actual value and the filled circle represents the estimated value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 29 Cont.
<p>The result of comparing the estimated values of a root diameter of 0.02~0.07 m with the actual value, with a root relative permittivity of 7 and a soil relative permittivity of 17. (<b>a</b>) The result of Model 2. (<b>b</b>) The result of Model 3. Prussian blue, dark orange, purple, tree green, medium yellow and perylene brown correspond to root diameters ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 m for different root orientations. The hollow circle represents the actual value and the filled circle represents the estimated value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 30
<p>Residual distribution of the diameter estimation result obtained from Model 2 and Model 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 31
<p>Example of transect scanning results of GPR. The horizontal axis and vertical axis represent the scan distance and travel time, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 25853 KiB  
Article
Real Depth-Correction in Ground Penetrating RADAR Data Analysis for Bridge Deck Evaluation
by Sepehr Pashoutani and Jinying Zhu
Sensors 2023, 23(2), 1027; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23021027 - 16 Jan 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2789
Abstract
When ground penetrating radar (GPR) is used for the non-destructive evaluation of concrete bridge decks, the rebar reflection amplitudes should be corrected for rebar depths to account for the geometric spreading and material attenuation of the electromagnetic wave in concrete. Most current depth-correction [...] Read more.
When ground penetrating radar (GPR) is used for the non-destructive evaluation of concrete bridge decks, the rebar reflection amplitudes should be corrected for rebar depths to account for the geometric spreading and material attenuation of the electromagnetic wave in concrete. Most current depth-correction methods assume a constant EM wave velocity in the entire bridge deck and correct GPR amplitudes based on the two-way travel time (TWTT) instead of the actual rebar depth. In this paper, we proposed a depth-correction algorithm based on the real rebar depths. To compare different depth-correction methods, we used gprMax software to simulate GPR signals in four models with various dielectric constants and conductivity. The comparison shows that the TWTT-based depth-correction method tends to over-correct GPR amplitudes so that underestimates the deterioration level of concrete decks at certain locations. Two depth-based correction methods are proposed that use migrated amplitudes and further normalize the corrected amplitude by rebar depth (attenuation rate). These methods are then applied to GPR data collected on two bridges, and the results were validated by other NDE methods and chloride concentration test. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic of depth correction procedure. (<b>a</b>) before correction, (<b>b</b>) after correction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>GPR B-scan pre-processing step. The shown example is for Model M1 (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ϵ</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>5</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mi>σ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>). The red dots mark the rebar locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>GPR B-scan pre-processing step. The shown example is for Model M1 (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ϵ</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>5</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mi>σ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>). The red dots mark the rebar locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatter plot of shallow rebar reflection amplitudes before (<b>left column</b>) and after (<b>right column</b>) depth correction, where (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) unmigrated-TWTT, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) migrated-TWTT, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) migrated-depth, and (<b>g</b>) conductivity loss after depth correction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>B-scan of the GPR data collected from Bridge S075 17596.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>GPR amplitude map of bridge S075 17596 based on depth-correction methods using (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) TWTT and unmigrated amplitudes, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) TWTT and migrated amplitudes, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) depth and migrated amplitudes, and (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) attenuation rate (dB/cm) based on depth-migrated amplitudes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>TWTT vs. velocity plot with marginal histogram (Bridge S075 17596).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>HCP voltage map of Bridge S075 17596.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatter plot of HCP data and three GPR depth-corrected amplitudes on Bridge S075 17596 using (<b>a</b>) TWTT-unmigrated amplitudes (CC = 0.347), (<b>b</b>) TWTT-migrated amplitudes (CC = 0.55), (<b>c</b>) depth-corrected amplitudes (CC = 0.63), and (<b>d</b>) attenuation rate with depth-corrected amplitude (CC = 0.57). Color represents data density, and red color indicates high density.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>B-scan of the GPR data collected from Bridge S077 05693R.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>GPR condition map for Bridge S077 05693R using three depth-correction methods (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) TWTT and unmigrated amplitudes, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) TWTT and migrated amplitudes, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) depth and migrated amplitudes, and (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) attenuation rate (dB/cm) based on depth-migrated amplitudes. Two chloride test locations are highlighted.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>GPR condition map for Bridge S077 05693R using three depth-correction methods (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) TWTT and unmigrated amplitudes, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) TWTT and migrated amplitudes, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) depth and migrated amplitudes, and (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) attenuation rate (dB/cm) based on depth-migrated amplitudes. Two chloride test locations are highlighted.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>TWTT vs. velocity plot with marginal histogram (Bridge S077 05693R).</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 50388 KiB  
Article
Ground-Penetrating Radar Full-Wave Inversion for Soil Moisture Mapping in Trench-Hill Potato Fields for Precise Irrigation
by Kaijun Wu, Henri Desesquelles, Rodolphe Cockenpot, Léon Guyard, Victor Cuisiniez and Sébastien Lambot
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(23), 6046; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14236046 - 29 Nov 2022
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 3369
Abstract
In this paper, we analysed the effect of trench-hill soil surface on ground-penetrating radar (GPR) full-wave inversion for soil moisture measurement. We conducted numerical experiments by modelling the trench-hill surface using finite-difference time–domain (FDTD) simulations. The FDTD simulations were carried out with the [...] Read more.
In this paper, we analysed the effect of trench-hill soil surface on ground-penetrating radar (GPR) full-wave inversion for soil moisture measurement. We conducted numerical experiments by modelling the trench-hill surface using finite-difference time–domain (FDTD) simulations. The FDTD simulations were carried out with the open-source software gprMax, using different centre frequencies, namely, 150 MHz, 250 MHz and 450 MHz. The gprMax source/receiver for each centre frequency was calibrated, respectively, to transform the FDTD radar signal to normalized Green’s functions for wave propagation in multilayered media. The radar signals and inversion results of the three different frequency ranges are compared. The FDTD Green’s functions of the trench-hill surface with a flat surface are also compared. The results show that the trench-hill surface only slightly affects the inversion when frequency is lower than 190 MHz, which agrees with Rayleigh’s criterion. Field measurements were performed as well, using a prototype radar mounted on an irrigation robot. The low-frequency antenna was calibrated over a large water plane. The optimal operating frequency range was set to 130–190 MHz. TDR measurements were performed as well for comparison. The results demonstrated promising perspectives for automated and real-time determination of the root–zone soil moisture in potato fields, and thereby for precise and automatic irrigation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Review of Application Areas of GPR)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Potato trench-hill soil simulation model in gprMax. (<b>a</b>) the 3D model and (<b>b</b>) the 2D slice and configurations. Configuration i, the source/receiver moved and measured from point A to B with a step of 0.02 m, resulting in 50 measurements for each centre frequency (150 MHz, 250 MHz and 450 MHz). The soil relative permittivity stays the same, i.e., <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ε</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> = 10. For configuration ii, the 150 MHz centre frequency source/receiver is situated above the centre of the top (point C), slope (point D) and bottom (point E) of the trench-hill surface, respectively, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ε</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> varies from 5 to 22 with a step of 1. <span class="html-italic">h</span> is the distance between the source/receiver and the top of the surface. All measurements were conducted with the source/receiver at the same height, i.e., <span class="html-italic">h</span> = 1.78 m when the source/receiver above the top and <span class="html-italic">h</span> = 2 m when above the bottom.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>FDTD Green’s functions and inversion results with centre frequency (<b>a</b>) 150 MHz, (<b>b</b>) 250 MHz, and (<b>c</b>) 450 MHz. True <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ε</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> = 10, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>h</mi> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> = 1.78 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>h</mi> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>x</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> = 2.00 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Intensity of the electric field for the three centre frequencies (150 MHz, 250 MHz and 450 MHz) and two configurations (source/receiver situated above the centre of the top (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and the bottom (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>). The propagation times as subcaptions were chosen from the peak of signals. Please note that the peaks do not correspond to the FDTD Green’s function in <a href="#remotesensing-14-06046-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> but to <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>b</mi> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mi>h</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Simulated trench-hill and flat surface Green’s functions by gprMax, and analytical Green’s function for the flat surface in the frequency domain. (<b>a</b>) The source/receiver was situated above the central hill of the trench-hill surface. For the relevant flat surface Green’s function (the green dash line), the distance between the source/receiver and the surface <span class="html-italic">h</span> was 1.78 m. (<b>b</b>) The source/receiver was situated above the trench of the trench-hill surface, and the corresponding flat surface was with <span class="html-italic">h</span> defined as 2 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Inversion results for Configuration ii, with the source/receiver situated above the hill, slope and the trench, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Radar system with a log-periodic antenna held at several distances from a water plane to determine the antenna characteristic functions <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi>ω</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> <mo>(</mo> <mi>ω</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi>ω</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> (antenna calibration). The radar measurements were performed in the 80–1000 MHz frequency range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Magnitude and phase of the antenna characteristic functions. (<b>a</b>) the return loss <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, (<b>b</b>) transmitting-receiving response <span class="html-italic">T</span> and (<b>c</b>) feedback loss <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>. The grey bar indicates the frequency range 130–190 MHz used for the field experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The radar prototype was set up on the irrigation robot Oscar (Osiris Agriculture, France).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Potato field in Ferrières, Vallèe Jean Rèaux, Sains-Morainvillers, France. (<b>a</b>) volumetric soil moisture measurement points and orthophoto. Area A indicates the long profile of TDR measurements, and B indicates the short profile; (<b>b</b>) digital surface model map. Coordinates are in WGS84/UTM zone 31 N (m).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison between soil moisture results of GPR (sensitivity down to about 40 cm) and TDR (5 and 15 cm depth).</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 722 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Material Layers in Building Walls Using GeoRadar
by Ildar Gilmutdinov, Ingrid Schlögel, Alois Hinterleitner, Peter Wonka and Michael Wimmer
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(19), 5038; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14195038 - 9 Oct 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2093
Abstract
Assessing the structure of a building with non-invasive methods is an important problem. One of the possible approaches is to use GeoRadar to examine wall structures by analyzing the data obtained from the scans. However, so far, the obtained data have to be [...] Read more.
Assessing the structure of a building with non-invasive methods is an important problem. One of the possible approaches is to use GeoRadar to examine wall structures by analyzing the data obtained from the scans. However, so far, the obtained data have to be assessed manually, relying on the experience of the user in interpreting GPR radargrams. We propose a data-driven approach to evaluate the material composition of a wall from its GPR radargrams. In order to generate training data, we use gprMax to model the scanning process. Using simulation data, we use a convolutional neural network to predict the thicknesses and dielectric properties of walls per layer. We evaluate the generalization abilities of the trained model on the data collected from real buildings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Radar Techniques for Structures Characterization and Monitoring)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Examples of the simulated B-Scans (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and visualizations of the corresponding setups (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Simulated A-scans of a material block with different relative permittivities. Higher relative permittivity increases the wave’s travel time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Simulated A-scans of a material block with different thicknesses. Thicker blocks imply longer traveling times.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Simulated A-scans of a material block with different conductivities. Higher conductivity mostly affects the amplitudes of the peaks and not the wave’s velocity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic description of the employed CNN model. The output of six convolutional layers is flattened and passed as an input to a series of five fully connected linear layers. <span class="html-italic">Softplus</span> enforces positive values on the output.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distribution of the number of layers in samples within the simulated dataset. We favored cases with more layers as they were more difficult to predict.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Visualization of the prediction results. The blocks represent material layers, ordered by the distance from the scanner bottom to top. The colors correspond to the permittivities of materials, with the color bar depicted in Subfig (<b>g</b>).</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 310 KiB  
Review
Genetic and Epigenetic Pathogenesis of Acromegaly
by Masaaki Yamamoto and Yutaka Takahashi
Cancers 2022, 14(16), 3861; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14163861 - 10 Aug 2022
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 2539
Abstract
Acromegaly is caused by excessive secretion of GH and IGF-I mostly from somatotroph tumors. Various genetic and epigenetic factors are involved in the pathogenesis of somatotroph tumors. While somatic mutations of GNAS are the most prevalent cause of somatotroph tumors, germline mutations in [...] Read more.
Acromegaly is caused by excessive secretion of GH and IGF-I mostly from somatotroph tumors. Various genetic and epigenetic factors are involved in the pathogenesis of somatotroph tumors. While somatic mutations of GNAS are the most prevalent cause of somatotroph tumors, germline mutations in various genes (AIP, PRKAR1A, GPR101, GNAS, MEN1, CDKN1B, SDHx, MAX) are also known as the cause of somatotroph tumors. Moreover, recent findings based on multiple perspectives of the pangenomic approach including genome, transcriptome, and methylome analyses, histological characterization, genomic instability, and possible involvement of miRNAs have gradually unveiled the whole landscape of the underlying mechanisms of somatotroph tumors. In this review, we will focus on the recent advances in genetic and epigenetic pathogenesis of somatotroph tumors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pituitary Tumors: Molecular Insights, Diagnosis, and Targeted Therapy)
18 pages, 9439 KiB  
Article
DL-Aided Underground Cavity Morphology Recognition Based on 3D GPR Data
by Feifei Hou, Xu Liu, Xinyu Fan and Ying Guo
Mathematics 2022, 10(15), 2806; https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152806 - 8 Aug 2022
Cited by 15 | Viewed by 2512
Abstract
Cavity under urban roads has increasingly become a huge threat to traffic safety. This paper aims to study cavity morphology characteristics and proposes a deep learning (DL)-based morphology classification method using the 3D ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. Fine-tuning technology in DL can be [...] Read more.
Cavity under urban roads has increasingly become a huge threat to traffic safety. This paper aims to study cavity morphology characteristics and proposes a deep learning (DL)-based morphology classification method using the 3D ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. Fine-tuning technology in DL can be used in some cases with relatively few samples, but in the case of only one or very few samples, there will still be overfitting problems. To address this issue, a simple and general framework, few-shot learning (FSL), is first employed for the cavity classification tasks, based on which a classifier learns to identify new classes given only very few examples. We adopt a relation network (RelationNet) as the FSL framework, which consists of an embedding module and a relation module. Furthermore, the proposed method is simpler and faster because it does not require pre-training or fine-tuning. The experimental results are validated using the 3D GPR road modeling data obtained from the gprMax3D system. The proposed method is compared with other FSL networks such as ProtoNet, R2D2, and BaseLine relative to different benchmarks. The experimental results demonstrate that this method outperforms other prior approaches, and its average accuracy reaches 97.328% in a four-way five-shot problem using few support samples. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>GPR cavity morphology recognition framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Orthogonal slice planes (B-, C-scan) of 3D GPR data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sacked morphological images extracted from an irregular cavity: (<b>a</b>) stacked B-scan images; (<b>b</b>) stacked C-scan images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Typical GPR images of an irregular cavity: (<b>a</b>) B-scan image; (<b>b</b>) C-scan images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Typical GPR images of a rectangular cavity: (<b>a</b>) B-scan image; (<b>b</b>) C-scan images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The 2D GPR morphological images of (<b>a</b>) a spherical cavity, (<b>b</b>) a rectangular cavity, (<b>c</b>) a cylindrical cavity, and (<b>d</b>) an irregular cavity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>FSL architecture for a <span class="html-italic">four-way one-shot</span> problem with one query example.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>RelationNet architecture settings.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RelationNet-based GPR cavity morphology classification scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>GprMax3D simulation flowchart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Road structural simulation model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Display of simulation model from different perspectives (cavity in red).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12 Cont.
<p>Display of simulation model from different perspectives (cavity in red).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Representative 2D GPR images of cavities: (<b>a</b>) spherical, (<b>b</b>) rectangular, (<b>c</b>) cylindrical, and (<b>d</b>) irregular hemispherical.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>Representative 2D GPR images of cavities: (<b>a</b>) spherical, (<b>b</b>) rectangular, (<b>c</b>) cylindrical, and (<b>d</b>) irregular hemispherical.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The results of RelationNet-based cavity morphological classification.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 706 KiB  
Article
A Preliminary Numerical Study to Compare the Physical Method and Machine Learning Methods Applied to GPR Data for Underground Utility Network Characterization
by Rakeeb Mohamed Jaufer, Amine Ihamouten, Yann Goyat, Shreedhar Savant Todkar, David Guilbert, Ali Assaf and Xavier Dérobert
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(4), 1047; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14041047 - 21 Feb 2022
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 3442
Abstract
In the field of geophysics and civil engineering applications, ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology has become one of the emerging non-destructive testing (NDT) methods thanks to its ability to perform tests without damaging structures. However, NDT applications, such as concrete rebar assessments, utility [...] Read more.
In the field of geophysics and civil engineering applications, ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology has become one of the emerging non-destructive testing (NDT) methods thanks to its ability to perform tests without damaging structures. However, NDT applications, such as concrete rebar assessments, utility network surveys or the precise localization of embedded cylindrical pipes still remain challenging. The inversion of geometric parameters, such as depth and radius of embedded cylindrical pipes, as well as the dielectric parameters of its surrounding material, is of great importance for preventive measures and quality control. Furthermore, the precise localization is mandatory for critical underground utility networks, such as gas, power and water lines. In this context, innovative signal processing techniques associated with GPR are capable of performing physical and geometric characterization tasks. This paper evaluates the performance of a supervised machine learning and ray-based methods on GPR data. Support vector machines (SVM) classification, support vector machine regression (SVR) and ray-based methods are all used to correlate information about the radius and depth of embedded pipes with the velocity of stratified media in various numerical configurations. The approach is based on the hyperbola trace emerging in a set of B-scans, given that the shape of the hyperbola varies greatly with pipe depth and radius as well as with velocity of the medium. According to the ray-based method, an inversion of the wave velocity and pipe radius is performed by applying an appropriate nonlinear least mean squares inversion technique. Feature selection within machine learning models is also implemented on the information chosen from observed hyperbola travel times. Simulated data are obtained by means of the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method with the 2D numerical tool GprMax. The study is carried out on mono-static, ground-coupled GPR datasets. The preliminary study showed that the proposed machine learning methods outperforms the ray-based method for estimating radius, depth and velocity. SVR, for instance, calculates depth and radius values with mean absolute relative errors of 0.39% and 6.3%, respectively, with regard to the ground truth. A parametric comparison of the aforementioned methodologies is also included in the performance analysis in terms of relative error. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Buried cylinders in the subsurface and intended estimated parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Geometrical, Ray−based relationship of a buried cylinder.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Examples of hyperbola shape variation across different velocity at same depth and radius.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Examples of hyperbola shape variation across different depth at same velocity and radius.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Examples of hyperbola shape variation across different radii at same velocity and depth.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Representation of travel-time-based feature selection from the hyperbola on a B-scan; <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ε</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>6</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>r</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo> </mo> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>30</mn> <mo> </mo> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Travel time estimation from A−scan for hyperbola formation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Confusion matrix of predicted results for radius estimation based on multi-class SVM classification model. Radius classes: 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 7 cm and 10 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> </semantics></math><math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics></math>, respectively. Blue boxes indicates number of correct predictions and pink boxes represents number of false alarms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) in ray−based estimation of radius at fixed velocity scenario.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) in SVR−based estimation of radius.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) variation in SVR−based radius estimation across different depths.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) variation in SVR−based radius estimation across different velocities of mediums.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>SVR−linear relative error (<span class="html-italic">l.r.e</span>) of radius estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>SVR−linear absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">a.l.r.e</span>) of radius estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) variation in SVR−based depth estimation across different depths.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) variation in SVR−based depth estimation across different velocities of mediums.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>SVR−linear relative error (<span class="html-italic">l.r.e</span>) of depth estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>SVR−linear absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">a.l.r.e</span>) of depth estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Absolute relative error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) across depth classes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>SVR−velocity error (<span class="html-italic">err</span>) across velocity classes.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 842 KiB  
Article
Resilient Predictive Control Coupled with a Worst-Case Scenario Approach for a Distributed-Generation-Rich Power Distribution Grid
by Nouha Dkhili, Julien Eynard, Stéphane Thil and Stéphane Grieu
Clean Technol. 2021, 3(3), 629-655; https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol3030038 - 30 Aug 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2729
Abstract
In a context of accelerating deployment of distributed generation in power distribution grid, this work proposes an answer to an important and urgent need for better management tools in order to ‘intelligently’ operate these grids and maintain quality of service. To this aim, [...] Read more.
In a context of accelerating deployment of distributed generation in power distribution grid, this work proposes an answer to an important and urgent need for better management tools in order to ‘intelligently’ operate these grids and maintain quality of service. To this aim, a model-based predictive control (MPC) strategy is proposed, allowing efficient re-routing of power flows using flexible assets, while respecting operational constraints as well as the voltage constraints prescribed by ENEDIS, the French distribution grid operator. The flexible assets used in the case study—a low-voltage power distribution grid in southern France—are a biogas plant and a water tower. Non-parametric machine-learning-based models, i.e., Gaussian process regression (GPR) models, are developed for intraday forecasting of global horizontal irradiance (GHI), grid load, and water demand, to better anticipate emerging constraints. The forecasts’ quality decreases as the forecast horizon grows longer, but quickly stabilizes around a constant error value. Then, the impact of forecasting errors on the performance of the control strategy is evaluated, revealing a resilient behaviour where little degradation is observed in terms of performance and computation cost. To enhance the strategy’s resilience and minimise voltage overflow, a worst-case scenario approach is proposed for the next time step and its contribution is examined. This is the main contribution of the paper. The purpose of the min–max problem added upstream of the main optimisation problem is to both anticipate and minimise the voltage overshooting resulting from forecasting errors. In this min–max problem, the feasible space defined by the confidence intervals of the forecasts is searched, in order to determine the worst-case scenario in terms of constraint violation, over the next time step. Then, such information is incorporated into the decision-making process of the main optimisation problem. Results show that these incidents are indeed reduced thanks to the min–max problem, both in terms of frequency of their occurrence and the total surface area of overshooting. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integration and Control of Distributed Renewable Energy Resources)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Grid load and PV power generation over a week in April (case study).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Evaluation criteria (nRMSE (<a href="#FD19-cleantechnol-03-00038" class="html-disp-formula">19</a>) and CWC (<a href="#FD22-cleantechnol-03-00038" class="html-disp-formula">22</a>)) for intraday GPR forecasts of GHI, power grid load and water demand, with respect to the forecast horizon, over a one-week period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Synoptic scheme of the amended MPC-based strategy for smart management of a low-voltage power distribution grid using flexible assets. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>GHI</mi> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">cons</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Q</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">out</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mi> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mi> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> be measurements of global horizontal irradiance, grid load, water demand, water volume, and biogas volume, respectively. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <mover accent="true"> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mi> <mo>^</mo> </mover> </semantics></math> be forecasts of stochastic inputs for the following time steps. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>δ</mi> <mi>PV</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>δ</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>δ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> be margins that define confidence intervals for the next time step of GPR forecasts of PV power generation, grid load, and water demand, respectively. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mover accent="true"> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi> <mo>^</mo> </mover> <mi mathvariant="bold">PV</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mover accent="true"> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi> <mo>^</mo> </mover> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">cons</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mover accent="true"> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Q</mi> <mo>^</mo> </mover> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">out</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> be forecasts of PV power generation, grid load, and water demand over the forecast horizon, respectively. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">risk</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mi> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">risk</mi> </msup> </semantics></math> be candidate values and optimal values of worst-case scenario stochastic inputs. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">P</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> be candidate values of biogas plant setpoints and water tower setpoints, respectively. Let <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> be the biogas volume and the water volume, respectively, corresponding to the candidate optimisation variables of a given iteration.Synoptic scheme of the amended MPC-based strategy for smart management of a low-voltage power distribution grid using flexible assets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Feasible space of the min–max problem, defined by the confidence intervals of one-step-ahead forecasts of grid load, water demand, and PV power generation. The time indices are removed to avoid cluttering the illustration. All quantities in this figure correspond to values in the next time slot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The cumulative power supply/demand gap within the power distribution grid, per sliding window size. The gap before optimisation is 10,035 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">k</mi> </semantics></math><math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Computational complexity, measured as the mean number of function evaluations per sliding window weighted by its size.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The total surface area of voltage overshooting per sliding window size.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Percentage of time steps where an overshooting is observed, with respect to the sliding window size used by the MPC scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Average voltage overshooting per time step, with respect to the sliding window size used by the MPC scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Extrema of voltage fluctuations within the power distribution grid for the standard MPC strategy compared to the one using a min–max problem and to the initial case, displayed for a 4 h sliding window (<b>top</b>) and a 10 h sliding window (<b>bottom</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Gap between power supply and demand within the power distribution grid for the standard MPC strategy compared to the one using a min–max problem and to the initial case, displayed for a 4 h sliding window (<b>top</b>) and a 10 h sliding window (<b>bottom</b>).</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 2629 KiB  
Article
Crop Production and Phosphorus Legacy with Long-Term Phosphorus- and Nitrogen-Based Swine Manure Applications under Corn-Soybean Rotation
by Yan Zhang, Tiequan Zhang, Yutao Wang, Chinsheng Tan, Lei Zhang, Xinhua He, Tom Welacky, Xiulan Che, Xiaodong Tang and Zhengyin Wang
Agronomy 2021, 11(8), 1548; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081548 - 1 Aug 2021
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2970
Abstract
The traditional manure management strategy, based on crop N needs, results in accumulation of phosphorus (P) in soil due to the imbalance of N/P ratio between crop requirement and manure supply. This study was conducted from 2004 to 2013 to evaluate the effects [...] Read more.
The traditional manure management strategy, based on crop N needs, results in accumulation of phosphorus (P) in soil due to the imbalance of N/P ratio between crop requirement and manure supply. This study was conducted from 2004 to 2013 to evaluate the effects of P-based liquid and solid swine manure (LMP and SMP, for P-based liquid and solid swine manure, respectively) application, in comparison with N-based application (LMN and SMN, for N-based liquid and solid swine manure, respectively), on crop yield and soil residual P under corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean (Glycine max L.) rotation in a Brookston clay loam soil of the Lake Erie basin, ON, Canada. Chemical fertilizer P (CFP) and non-P treatments were included as controls (CK). For liquid manure treatments, corn yield for LMN showed a lower annual corn yield (7.82 Mg ha−1) than LMP (9.36 Mg ha−1), and their differences were even statistically significant at p < 0.05 in some cropping years. The annual corn yield of LMP was also higher than those of SMP (7.45 Mg ha−1) and SMN (7.41 Mg ha−1), even the CFP (8.61 Mg ha−1), although the corresponding yield differences were not significant (p < 0.05) in some cropping years. For soybean, the plots with P application produced an average of 0.98 Mg ha−1 greater annual yields than CK. No significant differences were found between CFP and manure treatments. The annual corn yield of SMN was close to that of the CK (7.19 Mg ha−1). The grain P removal (GPR) of SMN (18.6 kg ha−1) for soybean was significantly higher than that of the other treatments. The above-ground-P uptake (AGPU) in SMN, for both corn and soybean, was significantly higher than that of the other five treatments. The soil test P (STP) presented clear stratification, concentrating in the top 30 cm soil depth after 10 years of application. The contents of STP with LMN and SMN increased from 7.1 mg P kg−1 to 12.4 and 45.5 mg P kg−1, respectively. The sum of STP mass (0–30 cm) with LMP (31.6 kg ha−1) was largely identical to that with CFP (30.1 kg ha−1); however, with SMN (173.7 kg ha−1), it was significantly higher than the rest of the treatments. Manure P source availability coefficients were averaged at 1.06 and 1.07 for LMP and SMP, respectively. The addition of phosphorus-based liquid or solid swine manure can overcome the drawback of traditional N-based applications by potentially reducing the adverse impact on water quality while sustaining crop agronomic production. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Effects of cropping year and the growing season rainfall on treatmentwise corn grain yield over 10-year (2004–2013) fertilization under corn-soybean rotation in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. Error bar is the standard error of the mean (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). Different letters over the bars indicate the yields were significantly different at the <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.05 level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Relationships between corn yield and the rainfall for the specific periods ((<b>A</b>), February to May; (<b>B</b>), July to September; (<b>C</b>), March to November) during the seasons over 10-years (2004–2013) under corn-soybean rotation in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. ** and ***, significant at <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Responses of soybean grain yield to various sources of P addition (chemical fertilizer vs. liquid and solid swine manures) and application approaches (P-based vs. N-based) over a 10-year time period, 2004–2013, in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. CK, no-P control; CFP, chemical fertilizer P; LMP, P-based liquid swine addition; LMN, N-based liquid swine manure addition; SMP, P-based solid swine manure addition; SMN, N-based solid swine manure addition. Error bar is the standard error of the mean (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 15). The different letters over the bars indicate significant differences at the <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.05 level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Effects of cropping year and source of P addition (chemical fertilizer vs. liquid and solid Scheme 10. year time period, 2004–2013, in a Brookston clay loam soils, Woodslee, ON, Canada. CK, no-P control; CFP, chemical fertilizer P; LMP, P-based liquid swine addition; LMN, N-based liquid swine manure addition; SMP, P-based solid swine manure addition; SMN, N-based solid swine manure addition. Error bar is the standard error of the mean (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The different letters over the bars indicate significant differences at the <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.05 level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Relationship between grain P concentration (GPC) and grain yield for corn and soybean across five corn-soybean rotations (2004–2013) in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. ***, significant at <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.001.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Postharvest soil test P (Olsen-P) content in 0–90 cm soil profile in response to various sources of P addition (chemical fertilizer vs. liquid and solid swine manures) and application approaches (P-based vs. N-based) after 10-year corn-soybean production in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. Horizontal bars are standard errors (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Effects of various sources of P addition (chemical fertilizer vs. liquid and solid swine manures) and application approaches (P-based vs. N-based) on the sum of mass of STP (Olsen-P) in top 30 cm plot soil (SMS 0–30 cm) after 10-year corn-soybean production in a clay loam soil, Woodslee, ON, Canada. Horizontal bars are standard errors (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3), the letters over the bars indicate differences at the significant level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.05.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 11778 KiB  
Article
A Novel Method of Hyperbola Recognition in Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) B-Scan Image for Tree Roots Detection
by Xiaowei Zhang, Fangxiu Xue, Zepeng Wang, Jian Wen, Cheng Guan, Feng Wang, Ling Han and Na Ying
Forests 2021, 12(8), 1019; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12081019 - 30 Jul 2021
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3837
Abstract
Ground penetrating radar (GPR), as a newly nondestructive testing technology (NDT), has been adopted to explore the spatial position and the structure of the tree roots. Due to the complexity of soil distribution and the randomness of the root position in the natural [...] Read more.
Ground penetrating radar (GPR), as a newly nondestructive testing technology (NDT), has been adopted to explore the spatial position and the structure of the tree roots. Due to the complexity of soil distribution and the randomness of the root position in the natural environment, it is difficult to locate the root in the GPR B-Scan image. In this study, a novel method for root detection in the B-scan image by considering both multidirectional features and symmetry of hyperbola was proposed. Firstly, a mixed dataset B-Scan images were employed to train Faster RCNN (Regions with CNN features) to obtain the potential hyperbola region. Then, the peak area and its connected region were filtered from the four directional gradient graphs in the proposed region. The symmetry test was applied to segment the intersecting hyperbolas. Finally, two rounds of coordinate transformation and line detection based on Hough transform were employed for the hyperbola recognition and root radius and position estimation. To validate the effectiveness of this approach for tree root detection, a mixed dataset was made, including synthetic data from gprMax as well as field data collected from 35 ancient tree roots and fresh grapevine controlled experiments. From the results of hyperbola recognition as well as the estimation for the radius and position of the root, our method shows a significant effect in root detection. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>An example of the simulated data. (<b>a</b>) The geometric model of the root detection. (<b>b</b>) The corresponding B-Scan image of (<b>a</b>). (<b>c</b>) The corresponding amplitude map of (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flow chart of the method for tree root detection in GPR B-Scan image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The framework of hyperbola region detection with Faster RCNN (Regions with CNN features). RPN: Region proposal network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Four simple difference descriptors and an example for image gradient calculation. (<b>a</b>) Four pre-defined descriptors. (<b>b</b>) An example image <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>A</mi> </semantics></math> shown by the pixel value. (<b>c</b>) Upward gradient of the image <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>A</mi> </semantics></math>. (<b>d</b>) Downward gradient of image <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>A</mi> </semantics></math>. (<b>e</b>) Left gradient of the image <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>A</mi> </semantics></math>. (<b>f</b>) Right gradient of the image <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>A</mi> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Longitudinal and transverse gradient graphs after binarization. (<b>a</b>) Longitudinal gradient graph combined with the upward and downward gradient graph. (<b>b</b>) Transverse gradient graph combined with the left and right gradient graph.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>A simple example for the Connected Component Analysis for the image. (<b>a</b>) the four-connected structure and eight-connected structure. (<b>b</b>) An example image for connected component analysis. (<b>c</b>) The result after analysis with a four-connected structure. (<b>d</b>) The result after analysis with an eight-connected structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Longitudinal and transverse gradient graphs after denoising by the connected component analysis. (<b>a</b>) The longitudinal gradient graph. (<b>b</b>) The transverse gradient graph.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Separate overlapping hyperbolas with symmetry test for simulation image. (<b>a</b>) The original image before segmentation. (<b>b</b>) The result after separation. (<b>c</b>–<b>g</b>) The intermediate results of the symmetry test for the hyperbolas in (<b>a</b>) from left to right.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Parabola recognition with Hough transform after coordinating transformation. (<b>a</b>) Result for parabola recognition when <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>a</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>b</b>) Result for parabola recognition when <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>a</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Result for parabola recognition when <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>a</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The geometric model for root detection by GPR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>An example for hyperbola fitting with Hough transform. (<b>a</b>) The original and shifted hyperbolas hyper. (<b>b</b>) The first coordinate transformation for the down opening check. (<b>c</b>) The second coordinate transformation for hyperbola fitting. (<b>d</b>) The result after hyperbola fitting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Detection tracks for each tree. (<b>a</b>) An example of a scanning tree (B00796). (<b>b</b>) The designed scanning tracks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The site for controlled experiments. (<b>a</b>) The designed experiment for roots with different radius. (<b>b</b>) The geometric model for the corresponding experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Root simulation model. (<b>a</b>) An example for the geometric model in the simulated experiment. (<b>b</b>) The corresponding B-Scan image from gprMax.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Results of hyperbola detection by Faster RCNN. (<b>a</b>) Results of hyperbola detection on an on-site B-Scan image. (<b>b</b>) Results of hyperbola detection on a simulated B-Scan image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Interacting hyperbola segmentation comparing with C3, OSCA, and ours. (<b>a</b>) An example image with three intersecting hyperbolas. (<b>b</b>) The output of the OSCA labeling with different colors. (<b>c</b>) The output of our method labeling with different colors. (<b>d</b>) The output of C3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Results of our segmentation method. (<b>a</b>) The example in <a href="#forests-12-01019-f016" class="html-fig">Figure 16</a>. (<b>b</b>) The output from the symmetry test labeling with different colors. (<b>c</b>) The result of the hyperbola fitting on (<b>b</b>). (<b>d</b>) is the result of the hyperbola fitting showing on (<b>a</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Results of segmentation on the proposal region in field data. (<b>a</b>) Hyperbola region detection on an on-site B-Scan image. (<b>b</b>) Hyperbola connected area extraction in each proposal hyperbola region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>The fitting hyperbola on the synthetic and field data. (<b>a</b>) Hyperbola fitting result on the simulated B-Scan image. (<b>b</b>) Hyperbola fitting result on the on-site B-Scan image.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 4613 KiB  
Technical Note
Recognition of the Typical Distress in Concrete Pavement Based on GPR and 1D-CNN
by Juncai Xu, Jingkui Zhang and Weigang Sun
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(12), 2375; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13122375 - 18 Jun 2021
Cited by 25 | Viewed by 3255
Abstract
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) signal recognition depends much on manual feature extraction. However, the complexity of radar detection signals leads to conventional intelligent algorithms lacking sufficient flexibility in concrete pavement detection. Focused on these problems, we proposed an adaptive one-dimensional convolution neural network (1D-CNN) [...] Read more.
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) signal recognition depends much on manual feature extraction. However, the complexity of radar detection signals leads to conventional intelligent algorithms lacking sufficient flexibility in concrete pavement detection. Focused on these problems, we proposed an adaptive one-dimensional convolution neural network (1D-CNN) algorithm for interpreting GPR data. Firstly, the training dataset and testing dataset were constructed from the detection signals on pavement samples of different types of distress; secondly, the raw signals are were directly inputted into the 1D-CNN model, and the raw signal features of the radar wave are extracted using the adaptive deep learning network; finally, the output used the Soft-Max classifier to provide the classification result of the concrete pavement distress. Through simulation experiments and actual field testing, the results show that the proposed method has high accuracy and excellent generalization performance compared to the conventional method. It also has practical applications. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Diagram of GPR detection concrete distress principle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) An overview of a sample conventional CNN; (<b>b</b>) The one-dimensional convolutional neural network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>GPR 1D-CNN training flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GPR numerical simulation model: (<b>a</b>) Pavement geometry model of GPR detection; (<b>b</b>) Synthetic B-Scan resulting from the theoretical upper model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Net training accuracy and learning rate parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Net training accuracy and learning rate parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The confusion matrix of pavement distress recognition (A. Normal; B. Void; C. Disengaging; D. No compactness).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Visualization of different layers: (<b>a</b>) Input layer; (<b>b</b>) 1st convolutional layer; (<b>c</b>) 2nd convolutional layer; (<b>d</b>) Full connected layer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Recognition result of 1D-CNN on the whole synthetic B-Scan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Mala GPR X3M controller and 500 MHZ shielded antenna; (<b>b</b>) GPR real-life validation experiment spot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) Time-domain GPR record data of the pavement; (<b>b</b>) Marked distresses distribution region on GPR record profile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>A photo of the pavement distress.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) The simulation 3D geometry model of GPR; (<b>b</b>) Slices of 3D GPR detection pavement.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Time-domain 3D GPR record data of the pavement.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop