2005
DOI: 10.1784/insi.2005.47.7.394
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The estimation of buried pipe diameters using ground penetrating radar

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the root diameter in this study is usually less than 2.5 cm, it is assumed that the diameters of roots can be ignored [29]. In this manner, the hyperbola function could be applied in Equation (1), according to the geometry relationship shown in Figure 4 [28],…”
Section: Recognition Of Hyperbolas Using Randomized Hough Transform (mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the root diameter in this study is usually less than 2.5 cm, it is assumed that the diameters of roots can be ignored [29]. In this manner, the hyperbola function could be applied in Equation (1), according to the geometry relationship shown in Figure 4 [28],…”
Section: Recognition Of Hyperbolas Using Randomized Hough Transform (mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The randomized Hough transform (RHT), as one of the popular variants of the Hough transform [24][25][26], applies random sampling and converging mapping strategy to overcome the drawbacks of Hough transform regarding computational cost, detection accuracy, and resistance to noise [25,26]. As a result, the RHT has been applied widely in actual automatic recognition of landmines and pipelines in GPR images [27][28][29][30].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, we processed the data of Fig. 10 by an approach based on the generalized Hough transform method (Windsor et al, 2005a,b). This method attempts to estimate four parameters, such as the ( x , z ) location of the center of the buried pipe, its radius, and the wave propagation velocity in the soil.…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…-Determination of the wave propagation time to a known interface using single-offset surface GPR (Grote et al, 2003;Lunt et al, 2005;van Overmeeren et al, 1997;Weiler et al, 1998) -Detection of the velocity-dependent reflecting hyperbola of a buried object using single-offset surface GPR along a transect (Vellidis et al, 1990;Windsor et al, 2005) -Extraction of stacking velocity fields from multi-offset radar soundings at a fixed central location (common midpoint method) (Garambois et al, 2002;Greaves et al, 1996) -Determination of the ground-wave velocity for surface water content retrieval using multi-and single-offset surface GPR (Chanzy et al, 1996;Du and Rummel, 1994;Galagedara et al, 2003Galagedara et al, , 2005aGrote et al, 2003;Huisman et al, 2001Huisman et al, , 2002) -Determination of the surface reflection coefficient using single-offset offground GPR (Chanzy et al, 1996;Redman et al, 2002;Or, 2003, 2004) -Determination of the two-dimensional spatial distribution of water between boreholes using transmission tomography (Alumbaugh et al, 2002;Binley et al, 2001;Rucker and Ferre, 2005;Zhou et al, 2001) In particular, time-lapse GPR measurements have recently permitted to monitor soil water dynamics between boreholes and infer the soil hydraulic properties governing water flow (Binley et al, 2001;Cassiani and Binley, 2005;Kowalsky et al, 2005;Linde et al, 2006;Rucker and Ferré, 2004;Tsoflias et al, 2001). GPR can also be used to monitor remediation amendments and processes .…”
Section: Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning
confidence: 99%