Vol. 38
Latest Volume
All Volumes
PIERB 100 [2023] PIERB 99 [2023] PIERB 98 [2023] PIERB 97 [2022] PIERB 96 [2022] PIERB 95 [2022] PIERB 94 [2021] PIERB 93 [2021] PIERB 92 [2021] PIERB 91 [2021] PIERB 90 [2021] PIERB 89 [2020] PIERB 88 [2020] PIERB 87 [2020] PIERB 86 [2020] PIERB 85 [2019] PIERB 84 [2019] PIERB 83 [2019] PIERB 82 [2018] PIERB 81 [2018] PIERB 80 [2018] PIERB 79 [2017] PIERB 78 [2017] PIERB 77 [2017] PIERB 76 [2017] PIERB 75 [2017] PIERB 74 [2017] PIERB 73 [2017] PIERB 72 [2017] PIERB 71 [2016] PIERB 70 [2016] PIERB 69 [2016] PIERB 68 [2016] PIERB 67 [2016] PIERB 66 [2016] PIERB 65 [2016] PIERB 64 [2015] PIERB 63 [2015] PIERB 62 [2015] PIERB 61 [2014] PIERB 60 [2014] PIERB 59 [2014] PIERB 58 [2014] PIERB 57 [2014] PIERB 56 [2013] PIERB 55 [2013] PIERB 54 [2013] PIERB 53 [2013] PIERB 52 [2013] PIERB 51 [2013] PIERB 50 [2013] PIERB 49 [2013] PIERB 48 [2013] PIERB 47 [2013] PIERB 46 [2013] PIERB 45 [2012] PIERB 44 [2012] PIERB 43 [2012] PIERB 42 [2012] PIERB 41 [2012] PIERB 40 [2012] PIERB 39 [2012] PIERB 38 [2012] PIERB 37 [2012] PIERB 36 [2012] PIERB 35 [2011] PIERB 34 [2011] PIERB 33 [2011] PIERB 32 [2011] PIERB 31 [2011] PIERB 30 [2011] PIERB 29 [2011] PIERB 28 [2011] PIERB 27 [2011] PIERB 26 [2010] PIERB 25 [2010] PIERB 24 [2010] PIERB 23 [2010] PIERB 22 [2010] PIERB 21 [2010] PIERB 20 [2010] PIERB 19 [2010] PIERB 18 [2009] PIERB 17 [2009] PIERB 16 [2009] PIERB 15 [2009] PIERB 14 [2009] PIERB 13 [2009] PIERB 12 [2009] PIERB 11 [2009] PIERB 10 [2008] PIERB 9 [2008] PIERB 8 [2008] PIERB 7 [2008] PIERB 6 [2008] PIERB 5 [2008] PIERB 4 [2008] PIERB 3 [2008] PIERB 2 [2008] PIERB 1 [2008]
2012-01-13
Combining Advances in EM Induction Instrumentation and Inversion Schemes for Uxo Characterization
By
Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 38, 107-134, 2012
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. Fern√°ndez, 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.