1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 17, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Inversion of ground‐penetrating radar signals requires accurate and efficient forward modelling. The symplectic Euler method promises good results when simulating ground‐penetrating radar wave propagation in substructures, but its computational efficiency is limited by the same Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy stability condition as the finite‐difference time‐domain method. A two‐dimensional graphics processor unit–accelerated parallel symplectic Euler algorithm is used to simulate ground‐penetrating radar wave propagation. We compared the reflection waveforms as well as the simulation time of the complex underground structure models simulated by the parallel symplectic Euler method with traditional finite‐difference time‐domain method. Results show that the parallel symplectic Euler algorithm achieves the same level of accuracy as the standard finite‐difference time‐domain method. Moreover, it significantly improves the computational efficiency, as the calculation speed is improved by more than 21 times. We verify the performance of the proposed algorithm through a map of the single‐track radar data for a three‐layered pavement model and a simulation wiggle map for a structural damage pavement model. This provides a theoretical basis for accurately interpreting ground‐penetrating radar detection data and efficient forward modelling for the next step of inversion imaging.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12056
2019-07-24
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12056
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AuerN., EinkemmerL., KandolfP. and OstermannA.2018. Magnus integrators on multicore CPUs and GPUs. Computers & Geosciences228, 115–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AnnanA.P.2003. Ground Penetrating Radar. Principles, Procedures and Applications. Sensors & Software, Inc., Mississauga.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BelliK., RappaportC.M., HeZ. and Wadia‐FascettiS.2009. Effectiveness of 2‐D and 2.5‐D FDTD ground‐penetrating radar modeling for bridge‐deck deterioration evaluated by 3‐D FDTD. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing47, 3656–3663.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BlumersA.L., TangY.H., LiZ., LiX.J., and KarniadakisG.E.2017. GPU‐accelerated red blood cells simulations with transport dissipative particle dynamics. Computers & Geosciences217, 171–179.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CampoD.2019. Finite difference time domain modelling as support to ground penetrating radar surveys of precast concrete units. Near Surface Geophysics3, 277–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CassidyN.J.2007a. A review of practical numerical modelling methods for the advanced interpretation of ground–penetrating radar in near‐surface environments. Near Surface Geophysics5, 5–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CassidyN.J.2007b. Erratum: A review of practical numerical modelling methods for the advanced interpretation of ground‐penetrating radar in near‐surface environments. Near Surface Geophysics5, 148.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. D'AmbrosioR., IxaruL.G. and PaternosterB.2011. Construction of the EF‐based Runge‐Kutta methods revisited. Computer Physics Communications182, 322–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DziekonskiA., LameckiA. and MrozowskiM.2011. GPU acceleration of multilevel solvers for analysis of microwave components with finite element method. IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters21, 1–3.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FangH.Y. and LinG.2012. Symplectic partitioned Runge‐Kutta methods for two‐dimensional numerical model of ground penetrating radar. Computers & Geosciences49, 323–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FangH.Y., LinG. and ZhangR. L.2013. The first‐order symplectic Euler method for simulation of GPR wave propagation in pavement structure. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing51, 93–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. FengD.S. and DaiQ.W.2011. GPR numerical simulation of full wave field based on UPML boundary condition of ADI‐FDTD. NDT & E International44, 495–504.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FengD.S., WangH.H. and DaiQ.W.2013. Forward simulation of ground penetrating radar based on the element‐free Galerkin method. Chinese Journal of Geophysics—Chinese Edition56, 298–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. FengD.S. and YangD.X.2016. Ground penetrating radar numerical simulation with interpolating wavelet scales method and research on fourth‐order Runge‐Kutta auxiliary differential equation perfectly matched layer. Acta Physica Sinica65.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GiannakisI. and GiannopoulosA.2014. Time‐synchronized convolutional perfectly matched layer for improved absorbing performance in FDTD. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters14, 690–693.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. GiannakisI., GiannopoulosA. and WarrenC.2016. A realistic FDTD numerical modeling framework of ground penetrating radar for landmine detection. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing9, 37–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. GiannakisI., GiannopoulosA. and WarrenC.2018. Realistic FDTD GPR antenna models optimized using a novel linear/nonlinear full‐waveform inversion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing57, 1768–1778.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. GiannopoulosA.2005. Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax. Construction and Building Materials19, 755–762.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GiannopoulosA.2018. Multipole perfectly matched layer for finite‐difference time‐domain electromagnetic modeling. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation66, 2987–2995.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GuoX.Y., ChuQ., ChungS.K., DuZ.H., WenL.Q. and GuY.Q.2018. GPU‐acceleration on a low‐latency binary‐coalescence gravitational wave search pipeline. Computers & Geosciences231, 62–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. HowardM.P., PanagiotopoulosA.Z. and NikoubashmanA.2018. Efficient mesoscale hydrodynamics: multiparticle collision dynamics with massively parallel GPU acceleration. Computers & Geosciences230, 10–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. HuangY.Q., ZhangJ.Z. and LiuQ.H.2011. Three‐dimensional GPR ray tracing based on wavefront expansion with irregular cells. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing49, 679–687.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. HuangZ.X. and WuX.L.2006. Symplectic partitioned Runge–Kutta scheme for Maxwell's equations. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry106, 839–842.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. IrvingJ. and KnightR.2006. Numerical modeling of ground‐penetrating radar in 2‐D using MATLAB. Computers & Geosciences32, 1247–1258.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LeeP. and VayJ.L.2015. Efficiency of the perfectly matched layer with high‐order finite difference and pseudo‐spectral Maxwell solvers. Computer Physics Communications182, 322–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LiaoZ.P.1996. Extrapolation non‐reflecting boundary conditions. Wave Motion24, 117–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LindholmE., NickollsJ., ObermanS. and MontrymJ.2008. NVIDIA Tesla: a unified graphics and computing architecture. IEEE Micro28, 39–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LiuC. and ShenL.C.1991. Numerical simulation of subsurface radar for detecting buried pipes. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing29, 795–798.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MillingtonT.M. and CassidyN.J.2010. Optimising GPR modelling: a practical, multi‐threaded approach to 3D FDTD numerical modelling. Computers & Geosciences36, 1135–1144.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MorgenthalerA.W. and RappaportC.M.2011. GPR wave scattering from complex objects using the semi‐analytic mode matching algorithm: coordinate scattering center selection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing49, 1949–1956.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. NVIDIA Corporation , 2017. NVIDIA CUDA C Programming Guide. version 9.1 edition.
  32. Sanz‐SernaJ.M.1988. Runge‐Kutta schemes for Hamiltonian systems. BIT Numerical Mathematics28, 877–883.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. TafloveA.1995. Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite‐Difference Time‐Domain Method. Artech House, Norwood, MA. 599 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vande GinsteD., RogierH., OlyslagerF., and De ZutterD.2004. A fast multipole method for layered media based on the application of perfectly matched layers—the 2‐D case. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation52, 2631–2640.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. WarrenC., GiannopoulosA. and GiannakisI.2016. gprMax: open source software to simulate electromagnetic wave propagation for ground penetrating radar. Computer Physics Communications209, 163–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. WangH., WuB., HuangZ.X. and WuX.L.2014. A symplectic FDTD algorithm for the simulations of lossy dispersive materials. Computer Physics Communications185, 862–872.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. XiangC., KongF.M., LiK. and LiuM.2018. A high‐order symplectic FDTD scheme for the Maxwell‐Schrodinger system. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics54.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. XieJ.G., GuoZ.C., LiuH. and LiuQ.H.2018. GPU acceleration of time gating based reverse time migration using the pseudospectral time‐domain algorithm. Computers & Geosciences117, 57–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. XiongZ.H. and TrippA.C.1997. 3‐D electromagnetic modeling for near‐surface targets using integral equations. Geophysics62 (4), 1097–1106.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. XueQ.F., WangY.B., ZhanY. and ChangX.2015. An efficient GPU implementation for locating micro‐seismic sources using 3D elastic wave time‐reversal imaging. Computers & Geosciences82, 89–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. ZhangF., LiuB., LiuL., WangJ., LinC., YangL., LiY., ZhangQ. and YangW.2019. Application of ground penetrating radar to detect tunnel lining effects based improved full waveform inversion and reverse time migration. Near Surface Geophysics17, 127–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. ZygiridisT.T., KantartzisN.V. and TsiboukisT.D.2014. GPU‐accelerated efficient implementation of FDTD methods with optimum time‐step selection. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics50, 1–8.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12056
Loading
Modelling ground‐penetrating radar wave propagation using graphics processor unit parallel implementation of the symplectic Euler method
Near Surface Geophysics 17, 417 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12056
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12056
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12056
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2D; Finite‐difference; Ground‐penetrating radar; Modelling; Symplectic Euler method

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error