Vol. 38

Front:[PDF file] Back:[PDF file]
Latest Volume
All Volumes
All Issues
2012-01-13

Combining Advances in EM Induction Instrumentation and Inversion Schemes for Uxo Characterization

By Charles Oden
Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 38, 107-134, 2012
doi:10.2528/PIERB11112607

Abstract

Several experimental time-domain EM induction instruments have recently been developed for unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection and characterization that use multiple transmitting and receiving coil combinations. One such system, the US Geological Survey's ALLTEM system, is unique in that it measures both the electro-dynamic response (i.e., induced eddy currents) and the magneto-static response (i.e., induced magnetization). This allows target characterization based on the dyadic polarizability of both responses. This paper examines the numerical response of the ALLTEM instrument due to spheroidal, conductive, and permeable UXO targets; and to conductive and optionally viscous magnetic earth. An inversion scheme is presented for spheroidal targets that incorporates fully polarimetric measurements for both magneto-static and electro-dynamic excitations. The performance of the inversion algorithm is evaluated using both simulated and surveyed data. The results are examined as a function of the number of coil combinations, number of instrument locations, and uncertainty in sensor location and orientation. Results from the specific cases tested (prolate spheroids lying horizontally) show that 1) that collecting data from more than 12 sensor locations or from more than four coil combinations reduced the chances that inversion solutions would be from a local minimum, and 2) that uncertainties in position greater than 3 cm or in orientation greater than 10 degrees cause errors in the estimated spheroid principal lengths of greater than 100%. Soil conductivities less than 1 S/m contribute negligible interference to the target response, but viscous magnetic soils with permeabilities greater than 10-6 MKS units do cause detrimental interference.

Citation


Charles Oden, "Combining Advances in EM Induction Instrumentation and Inversion Schemes for Uxo Characterization," Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 38, 107-134, 2012.
doi:10.2528/PIERB11112607
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pier.php?paper=11112607

References


    1. McNeill., J. D and M. Bosnar, Applications of TDEM techniques to metal detection and discrimination: A case history with the new geonics EM-63 fully time-domain metal detector, AN-32, Geonics, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2000.

    2. Won, I. J., D. Keiswetter, and T. H. Bell, "Electromagnetic induction spectroscopy for clearing landmines," IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 39, No. 4, 703-709, 2001.
    doi:10.1109/36.917876

    3. Mahmoudi, M. and S. Y. Tan, "Depth detection of conducting marine mines via eddy-current and current-channeling response," Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 90, 287-307, 2009.
    doi:10.2528/PIER09011301

    4. Huang, H. and I. J. Won, "Detecting metal objects in magnetic environments using a broadband electromagnetic method," Geophysics, Vol. 68, No. 6, 1877-1887, 2003.
    doi:10.1190/1.1635040

    5. Pasion, L. R., Inversion of time domain electromagnetic data for the detection of unexploded ordinance, Ph.D. Thesis, U. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007.

    6. Morrison, F., T. Smith, A. Becker, and E. Gasperikova, Detection and classification of buried metal objects, Final Report, UX-1225, Paper LBNL-53962, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 2005.
    doi:10.2172/840326

    7. Baum, C. E., Detection and identification of visually obscured targets, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1999.

    8. Wright, D. L., C. W. Moulton, T. H. Asch, S. R. Hutton, P. J. Brown, M. N. Nabighian, and Y. Li, ALLTEM, a triangle wave on-time time-domain system for UXO applications, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 18, 1357-1367, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 2005.

    9. Gasperikova, E., J. T. Smith, H. F. Morrison, and A. Becker, Berkeley UXO discriminator (BUD), Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Paper LBNL-62263, 2007.

    10. Pasion, L. R., S. D. Billings, K. A. Kingdon, D. W. Oldenburg, N. Lhomme, and J. Jacobson, "Cooperative inversion of time domain electromagnetic and magnetometer data for the discrimination of unexploded ordnance," J. Env. and Eng. Geoph., Vol. 13, No. 3, 193-210, 2008.
    doi:10.2113/JEEG13.3.193

    11. Oden, C. P. and C. W. Moulton, GP workbench manual: Technical manual, user's guide, and software guide, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2006-1365, 2007.

    12. Smith, J. T. and H. F. Morrison, "Estimating equivalent dipole polarizabilities for the inductive response of isolated conductive bodies," IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 42, No. 6, 1208-1214, 2004.
    doi:10.1109/TGRS.2004.826789

    13. Billings, S. D., L. R. Pasion, and D. W. Oldenburg, Discrimination and identification of UXO by geophysical inversion, Technical Report, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, ERDC/GSL TR-02-16, 2002.

    14. McFee, J. E., Electromagnetic remote sensing: Low frequency electromagnetics, Technical Report 124, Defense Research Establishment Suffeld, Ralston, Alberta, Canada, 1989.

    15. Bruce, B., N. Khadr, R. DiMarco, and H. H. Nelson, The combination use of magnetic and electromagnetic detection and characterization of UXO, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 9, 469-478, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 1996.

    16. Snyder, D. D. and D. C. George, Qualitative and quantitative UXO detection with EMI using arrays of multi-component receivers, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 19, 1749-1760, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 2006.

    17. McDonald, J. R. and R. Robertson, Sensor evaluation study for use with towed arrays for UXO site characterization, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 9, 451-464, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 1996.

    18. Sylvester, P. P. and D. Omeragic, "Sensitivity of metal detectors to spheroidal targets," IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1131-1135, 1995.

    19. Wright, D. L., C. W. Moulton, T. H. Asch, P. J. Brown, M. N. Nabighian, Y. Li, and C. P. Oden, Alltem UXO detection sensitivity and inversions for target parameters from Yuma proving ground test data, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 20, 1422-1435, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 2007.

    20. Ward, S. H. and G. W. Hohmann, Electromagnetic theory for geophysical applications, electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics, Vol. 1 Ch. 4, M. N. Nabighian Edition, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 1988.

    21. Parise, M., "Fast computation of the forward solution in controlled-source electromagnetic sounding problems," Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 111, 119-139, 2011.
    doi:10.2528/PIER10101409

    22. Anderson, W. L., "Computer program: Numerical integration of related Hankel transforms of orders 0 and 1 by adaptive digital filtering," Geophysics, Vol. 44, No. 7, 1287-1305, 1979.
    doi:10.1190/1.1441007

    23. Smith, J. T. and H. F. Morrison, "Approximating spheroid inductive responses using spheres," Geophysics, Vol. 71, No. 2, 21-25, 2006.
    doi:10.1190/1.2187738

    24. Das, Y., "Effects of soil electromagnetic properties on metal detectors," IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 44, No. 6, 1444-1453, 2006.
    doi:10.1109/TGRS.2006.870401

    25. Pasion, L. R., S. D. Billings, D. W. Oldenburg, D. Sinex, and Y. Li, Evaluating the effects of magnetic susceptibility in UXO discrimination problems, Final Report, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, SEED Project UX-1285, 2003.

    26. Olhoeft, G. R. and D. W. Strangway, "Magnetic relaxation and the electromagnetic response parameter," Geophysics, Vol. 39, No. 3, 302-311, 1974.
    doi:10.1190/1.1440429

    27. Vafeas, P., G. Perrusson, and D. Lesselier, "Low-frequency solution for a perfectly conducting sphere in a conductive medium with dipolar excitation," Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 49, 87-111, 2004.
    doi:10.2528/PIER04021905

    28. Smith, J. T., H. F. Morrison, and A. Becker, "Parametric forms and the inductive response of a permeable conducting sphere," J. Env. and Eng. Geoph., Vol. 9, No. 7, 213-216, 2004.
    doi:10.4133/JEEG9.4.213

    29. Zhou, G.-Q. and W.-J. Zhou, "The magnetic-moment quadric and conditions of vanishing magnetic moment for a rotational charged body," Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 70, 211-223, 2007.
    doi:10.2528/PIER07011201

    30. Zhou, G.-Q., "Charge moment tensor and the magnetic moment of rotational charged bodies," Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 68, 151-160, 2007.
    doi:10.2528/PIER06080603

    31. Wright, D. L., T. H. Asch, C. W. Moulton, T. P. Irons, and M. N. Nabighian, Effects of spatial data density, sensor noise, and position errors on UXO and clutter target parameters from inversions of ALLTEM data, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 21, 327-339, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 2008.

    32. Barrow, B. and H. H. Nelson, Effects of positioning error on inverting EMI data for UXO discrimination using the MTADS platform, Conference Proceedings on The UXO/Countermine Forum, New Orleans, LA, 2001.

    33. Smith, J. T. and H. F. Morrison, "Optimizing receiver configurations for resolution of equivalent dipole polarizabilities in-situ," IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 43, No. 7, 1490-1498, 2005.
    doi:10.1109/TGRS.2005.846869

    34. Shubitidze, F., K. O'Neill, B. E. Barrowes, I. Shamatava, J. P. Fernández, K. Sun, and K. D. Paulsen, "Application of the normalized surface magnetic charge model to UXO discrimination in cases with overlapping signals," J. Applied Geophysics, Vol. 61, No. 3--4, 292-303, 2007.
    doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.06.008

    35. Wright, D. L., C. W. Moulton, T. H. Asch, P. J. Brown, S. R. Hutton, M. N. Nabighian, and Y. Li, ALLTEM for UXO applications --- first field tests, Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering & Environmental Problems, Vol. 19, 1761-1775, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, 2006.