RADIO SCIENCE, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1005, doi:10.

1029/2001RS002595, 2003

FDTD-SUPML-ADE simulation for

Ground-Penetrating Radar modeling
Fayçal Rejiba, Christian Camerlynck, and Pierre Mechler
Department of Applied Geophysics, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, UMR 7619, Sisyphe, CNRS, Paris, France

Received 15 December 2001; revised 18 July 2002; accepted 11 September 2002; published 16 January 2003.
[1] GPR data simulations require above all an efficient forward modeling algorithm. A
Finite Difference Time Domain code is presented with Simplified Unsplit Perfect
Matched Layer that leads to insignificant reflections on border with few modifications of
the core algorithm. In addition, the Auxiliary Differential Equation method allows GPR
simulations including dispersive phenomena that could not be neglected at radar
frequencies. The numerical validation is done in a classic way for amplitude/time wave
propagation and SUPML, and using the nonconventional Dispersion Analysis technique
for physical dispersion behavior. Full 3-D and 2-D forward modeling results are
finally presented for lossy, dispersive and random media in GPR conditions. INDEX
TERMS: 0644 Electromagnetics: Numerical methods; 0689 Electromagnetics: Wave propagation (4275); 3210
Mathematical Geophysics: Modeling; 0684 Electromagnetics: Transient and time domain; KEYWORDS:
Ground-Penetrating Radar, Finite Difference-Time Domain, Perfect Matched Layer, Auxiliary Differential
Equation, physical dispersion
Citation: Rejiba, F., C. Camerlynck, and P. Mechler, FDTD-SUPML-ADE simulation for Ground-Penetrating Radar
modeling, Radio Sci., 38(1), 1005, doi:10.1029/2001RS002595, 2003.

1. Introduction an open media [Mur, 1981; Mei and Fang, 1992]. At

[2] Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is widely used in
shallow geophysical exploration, in civil engineering and
water research. It is also efficient for detecting buried
objects such as land mines [Montoya and Smith, 1999],
or archeological structures and artifacts [Conyers and
Goodman, 1997]. In favorable conditions, the transmis-
sion of short electromagnetic pulses (few nanoseconds)
allows the investigation up to several tens of meters for
low loss geological materials.
[3] The simulation of GPR is generally achieved by
several techniques like Ray Tracing [Cai and McMe-
chan, 1995], the Moment Method [Tabbagh, 1995;
Vitebsky et al., 1997], the Spectral and Pseudo-Spectral
Methods [Bitri and Grandjean, 1998; Carcione et al.,
1999; Qing Huo and Guo-Xin, 1999] and FDTD method
[Yee, 1966; Bourgeois and Smith, 1996; Wang and Tripp,
1996; Roberts and Daniels, 1997; Teixeira et al., 1998;
Bergmann et al., 1998; Chen and Huang, 1998; Gürel
and Ugur, 2000].
[4] The FDTD method requires what is generally
called Absorbing Boundary Condition (ABC) to simulate
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.
0048-6604/03/2001RS002595
5-1
present time, Bérenger’s PML [Bérenger, 1994; Katz et
al., 1994] is by far the most interesting ABC. In this
paper, a simplified version of Unsplit PML is used
[Sacks et al., 1995; Gedney, 1996; Sullivan, 1997;
Teixeira et al., 1998].
[5] In addition, frequency dependence of material
properties cannot be dismissed, and we count several
realistic relaxation models for geological structures as the
Cole Cole relation [Xu and McMechan, 1997], the
Jonscher relation [Hollender and Tillard, 1998] or a
visco-elastic analogy formulation [Carcione, 1996].
Throughout this paper, the dispersion will refers to a
simple Debye model, in addition to a static electrical
conductivity term, knowing that at GPR frequencies the
electrical conductivity is frequency independent and real
[Lysne, 1983].
[6] Four main methods are usually used in FDTD
schemes to implement frequencies dependences: the
Z-transform method [Sullivan, 1992], the Auxiliary
Differential Equation (ADE) method [Gandhi et al.,
1993], the Recursive Convolution method [Luebbers et
al., 1990; Luebbers and Hunsberger, 1992] and the
Piecewise Linear Recursive Convolution technique [Kel-
ley and Luebbers, 1996; Teixeira et al., 1998].
[7] In this paper we showed the validity of a 3-D
FDTD-SUPML-ADE implementation to simulate a
5-2 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION

Figure 1. Comparison between the 3-D free space analytical solution and the FDTD-Unsplit PML
formulation. The point source is a 2 GHz Ey derived gaussian pulse (DFG) measured after 150 time
steps in the vacuum. Model discretization dx = dy = dz = 1 cm, dt = 16 ps.

rffiffiffiffiffi
GPR acquisition in realistic media. In the followed ~¼ e0
algorithm, the classic PML exponential functions are E E ð1:1Þ
m0
replaced by simplified functions over the entire domain,
that are constant in the computation domain, and hyper- 1
~ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
D D ð1:2Þ
bolic in the SUPML lossy domain: such an implementa- e0  m0
tion leads to an equivalent efficiency and avoids the
heavy implementation due to the PML/computation Then Maxwell’s equations are
domain interface. ~ ¼ c0 r  H
[8] The propagation scheme deals with H (magnetic jwD ð1:3Þ
field) and D (electric flux density) instead of the classic ~ ðwÞ ¼ e*r ðwÞE
D ~ ðwÞ ð1:4Þ
H and E (electric field) update technique, and allows an
easy implementation of the constitutive relation between ~
jwH ¼ c0 r  E ð1:5Þ
D and E by the Auxiliary Differential Equation method.
In addition to the numerical validations needed, we use The equivalent dielectric permittivity includes a real
in this paper, an original approach to validate the electric conductivity term as follows:
physical dispersion that consist in a Dispersion Analysis es  e1 s
generally used in acoustic wave propagation [He, 2000]. e*r ¼ e1 þ þ ð1:6Þ
1 þ j  w  t0 j  w  e0
where es, e1, c0, s, and w are respectively the static
2. Simplified-UPML Formulation permittivity, the high frequency permittivity, the vacuum
[9] We start with the following transformation [Sulli- velocity (m/s), the conductivity (S/m), and the pulsation
van, 1996]: (rad/s).
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION 5-3

Figure 2. Snapshots of a Ey front wave propagation during 150 time steps on a 60 cm segment
lying the 40 cm thickness PML border. A 1 GHz centered DFG Ey source is emitted. Model
discretization dx = dy = dz = 2 cm, dt = 33 ps.

[10] The FDTD formulation consists in a generaliza- [12] Concerning D ~ x (and Hx), some algebra due to the
tion of the Sullivan [1997] approach for the electro- equivalent integral operator jw1 term gives when applied a
magnetic field components using dt and dx, dy, dx for second order centered FDTD scheme:
time and spatial discretization. The time step is chosen 2 n1=2 n1=2
3
H ðiþ1=2; jþ1=2; kÞHz ðiþ1=2; j1=2; kÞ
according the Courant stability usually used for plane @Hz @Hy 4 z 
 , dy 5
wave propagation: @y @z Hy
n1=2
ðiþ1=2; j; kþ1=2ÞHy
n1=2
ðiþ1=2; j; k1=2Þ
1 dz
dt ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1:7Þ
c 1=dx þ 1=dy2 þ 1=dz2
2  rot h
where c is the maximum velocity encountered in the IDn~ xði þ 1=2; j; kÞ ¼ IDn1
~ ði þ 1=2; j; kÞ
media. x

[11] The SUPML are characterized by an anisotropic þ dtc0 gi1 ði þ 1=2Þrot h

implementation for each direction. In what follows, D ~z
~
and Dx components are expressed for the x direction ~ nx ði þ 1=2; j; kÞ ¼ D
~ n1
D x ði þ 1=2; j; kÞ þ dtc0 rot h
from equations (1.3) to (1.5):
    þ dtc0 IDn~ ði þ 1=2; j; kÞ ð1:11Þ
~ sD ðxÞ 1 @Hz @Hy x

jwDx 1 þ ¼ c0  ð1:8Þ The specificity of the SUPML consists in simplified

jwe0 @y @z
 1   attenuation functions g(i,j,k)(1,2,3) and f(i,j,k)(1,2,3). Those
~ z 1 þ sD ðxÞ @Hy @Hx functions that shrink the field’s amplitude in the PML are
D ¼ c0  ð1:9Þ defined to restore the classical propagation in the
jwe0 @x @y
computation domain, and range between 0 and 1:
We use a staggered grid using a Yee [1966] scheme to
express the derivation operators. That explains the 1/2  
increment in the spatial coordinate and time index as 1 npml  i a
fncðiÞ ¼ ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; npml
~ z (and Hz):
follow for D b npml
~ nz ði; j; k þ 1=2Þ ¼ gi3 ðiÞD ~ n1 f i1 ðiÞ ¼ gi1 ðiÞ ¼ fncðiÞ
D z ði; j; k þ 1=2Þ þ gi2 ðiÞdtc0
0 n1=2 n1=2
1 1
Hy ðiþ1=2; j; kþ1=2ÞHy ði1=2; j; kþ1=2Þ gi2 ðiÞ ¼ f i2 ðiÞ ¼
 1 þ fncðiÞ
@ n1=2 dx
n1=2
A ð1:10Þ
Hx ði; jþ1=2; kþ1=2ÞHx ði; j1=2; kþ1=2Þ
dy 1  fncðiÞ
gi3 ðiÞ ¼ f i3 ðiÞ ¼ ð1:12Þ
~ y and Hy are developed in a similar manner.
D 1 þ fncðiÞ
5-4 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION

Figure 3. (a) r values in the calculation domain including PML response in the inlet. (b) r values in
the reference domain without PML influence. (c) Evaluation of percentage of reflection following
the (1.18) expression with a maximum average reflection of 0.8%, corresponding to the (Figure 2).

where npml is the number of layers in the SUPML region eikR

and (a, b) are real parameters. For other directions, G3D ¼ ð1:14Þ
4pR
equivalent formulation concerning the attenuation func-
tions and field equations update are easily expressed. The The shape of the current density is a y-polarized derived
numerical stability for the FDTD-SUPML scheme is gaussian pulse (DFG):
  "   ! #
guaranteed for b less than 3 [Sullivan, 1997], and its t t 2
validity is demonstrated by a simple comparison with the Jy ðtÞ ¼  exp  1 þ =2 ð1:15Þ
analytical S free space solution (Figure 1): dttp dttp
 
SðtÞ ¼ TF1 G3D *Jy ðwÞ ð1:13Þ where tP is the number of time step from the beginning of
the pulse to the first maximum.
TF1 is the inverse Fourier transform, and notation G3D [13] The geometrical model consist in dx = dy = dz = 1
is the Green function defined at the distance R from a point cm, dt = 16 ps, and the source is 2 GHz DFG pulse. The
source: source Jy is added in the FDTD scheme by the following
way:
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION 5-5

Figure 4. (a) Dispersion model (complex dielectric permittivity) used for the dispersion analysis.
It consist in a Debye
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffipole
ffi with es = 1, e1 = 3 and t0 = 0.1 ns. (b) Corresponding phase velocity
curve vphase ¼ 1= ereal .

~ ny ði; j þ 1=2; kÞ ¼ D
D ~ ny ði; j þ 1=2; kÞ þ Jy ðtÞ ð1:16Þ [15] To quantify the efficiency of the SUPML with
such a point source, we calculate, at each time step, the
mean of the average E ~ y (Figure 2) across the upper
 y of E
PML (60 cm  60 cm ! 30dx  30dy).
3. Evaluation of SUPML Xns Xns 
 y ðnpml; tÞ ¼ 1
E E
~ ðx; y; npml; tÞj
[14] PML is now well mastered, and even if SUPML 30 2 x¼1 y¼1 y
differs from the original formulation, it does not really ð1:17Þ
need any validation for plane wave propagation. Never- y
theless, for a point source emitted inside the computation A percentage of reflection is evaluated by comparing E
domain, difficulties arise due to the variation of the angle with what is obtained in a wider enough reference
of incidence inherent to the spherical-shape of the wave. domain in order to avoid PML interference:
We thus consider a 1 GHz Ey DFG point source emitted Ref ¼ 100
in vacuum (equivalent results are obtained with others
polarization). The simulation is made for a 2 cm isotropic  y ðnpml; tÞ
E E  ðnpml; tÞ
discretization with 40 cm of SUPML which is an optimal   domain y
reference calculation
 domain
Max E  y ðnpml; tÞ
reference domain
thickness regarding the pulse width, with the following
parameters (dx = dy = dz = 2 cm, dt = 33 ps). ð1:18Þb ¼ 5
5-6 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION

Figure 5. Both traces recorded at the probes during the simulation (the geometrical model is
presented at left). The source is a Ey 10 GHz DFG emitted in the air on the Debye-like half space
(Figure 4). Model discretization dx = dy = dz = 1 mm, dt = 1,6 ps.

For our example we observe less than 0.8% of reflection same way [Powers and Olhoeft, 1994; Xu and McMe-
(Figure 3). chan, 1997]).
[17] Some algebra between (1.4) and (1.6) using (1.19)
and (1.20) lead to the following expression for the E ~x
4. Dispersion and Attenuation With ADE component:
Method
[16] The FDTD scheme is used for D ~ and H update, by     n   
~ nþ1
a1 D ~ n1
~ x þ a3 D
þ a2 D ~ nx  b3E
 b2E ~ n1
this way, the ADE method looks to be particularly ~ nþ1
x x x
E ¼
adapted to take into account for physical dispersion in x
b1
general and so on for an equivalent Debye model. This
method simply consists in expressing the relation (1.21)
~ and the electric field
between the electric flux density D with
~ thanks to following equivalences:
E
e0 t0 e0
@A Anþ1  An a1 ¼ þ
jwA , ¼ ð1:19Þ 2dt dt2
@t dt
2  t0 e0
@ 2 A Anþ1  2An þ An1 a2 ¼ 
w2 A , 2 ¼ ð1:20Þ dt2
@t dt2 e0 t0 e0
a3 ¼  þ 2
~ or D
A is E ~ 2:dt dt
Let us consider for convenience the dielectric dispersive es e0 þ st0 t0 e1 e0 s
b1 ¼ þ þ
model (1.6) (refined model could be implemented in the 2dt dt2 2
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION 5-7

Figure 6. Magnitude for both traces (Figure 5): optimal accuracy on phase velocity is obtained
between 500 MHz (before 500 MHz the fourier transform is badly evaluated) and 1.5 GHz (after
1.5 GHz the spatial discretization, 2.5 cm, becomes too coarse).

2t0 e1 e0 [19] Rdt is calculated by cross correlation and led to

b2 ¼ 
dt2
es e0 þ st0 t0 e1 e0 s
b3 ¼  þ þ
2dt dt2 2 minimum frequency under which there is not enough
5. Validation by Dispersion Analysis
[18] The 3-D analytical validation for numerical and
physical dispersion is a tough problem for a point source
emitted inside the computation domain. For this reason, a
Dispersion Analysis approach is used. A 10 GHz DFG
pulse in the air and two probes are placed in a Debye
dispersive half space (Figure 4) with the following
discretization properties: dx = dy = dz = 1 mm, dt =
1.6 ps. The probes are near enough to produce less than a
difference angle of p, in an interval of frequencies
corresponding to the representative spectral power of
the source. We know that the delay between the traces is
composed of a delay Rdt inherent to the distance D
between both probes, and a delay Rdp(w) that depends of
the interspectra of both traces measured at their
respective probe [Mari et al., 1997].
superimposed traces (Figure 5), while the spectrum of
respective traces (Figure 6) is used to define the interval
of frequencies where the interpretation can be done: a
accuracy on phase values, and a maximum frequency
above which the spatial discretization is no more
adapted. Rdp is evaluated thanks to the angle difference
f(w) between the traces, after having shifted the later
trace by Rdt (Figure 7).
fðwÞ
Rdp ðf Þ ¼ ð1:22Þ
2pw
The calculated phase velocity (Figure 8) is then
D
VðwÞ ¼ ð1:23Þ
Rdt þ Rdp ðwÞ
6. Real Case Applications
[20] To illustrate the following implementation in a
nondispersive media, let us consider first a constant
5-8 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION

Figure 7. Angle difference f(w) calculated before Rdp evaluation. The range of frequency where
the difference is calculated is determined thanks to the magnitude curve (Figure 6).

offset acquisition with a 225 MHz Pulse Ekko radar on a
20/40 gravel wall buried in clay (Figure 9), with follow-
ing equivalent electromagnetic parameters (the dielectric
permittivity are obtained by pointing the respective
arrivals on the real radargram): top soil: e = 10, m = m0,
s = 0.02 S/m; clay: e = 16, m = m0, s = 0.1 S/m; gravel
wall: e = 2.25, m = m0, s = 0.005 S/m.
[21] A 3-D FDTD simulation (dx = dy = dz = 2.5 cm,
dt = 40 ps) is done on two perpendicular profiles, and
shows the validity of the approach. It requires heavy
computational resources for this simple case: the profiles
(Figure 10) calculated in a 200  200  140 domain
during 550 time steps require about 20 hours of con-
nection on a CRAY SV1 working with four 300 MHz
CPUs.
[22] Here a 2-D example on a realistic problem, con-
cerning pipes detection in distinct dispersive Debye
media, for a constant offset acquisition (offset = 1 cm,
spacing = 20 cm) with 100 MHz bistatic antennas
(Figure 11). The TM mode simulation (point source
Ez) (Figure 12) is done on a 200  200 points domain
(dx = dy = 10 cm) during 1000  dt = 160 ns (dt = 0.16
ns). A random distribution in material-2 is defined to add
a realistic noise in the synthetic radargram.
1. The reflections are less marked in the material-3
because the peak frequency is situated at a maximum of
the imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity (Figure
11), and arrive earlier because the real permittivity at that
frequency is lower (Figure 11) than in material-4.
2. Top and bottom reflections for the water filled
pipes are well distinguished thanks to a pronounced
contrast of permittivity (the water acts like a low filter
because the spatial discretization is no longer adapted for
such a permittivity).
3. The reflections on both interfaces between materi-
al-1/material-2 and material-2/material-3 or 4 are well
defined. Furthermore, we can see the slight separation
between material-3 and 4, due to their respective
characteristic time.
[23] That simulation had required 6h30 on CRAY SV1
supercomputer with four 300MHz CPUs.
7. Conclusion
[24] The FDTD-SUPML-ADE has shown to be well
adapted to simulate GPR acquisition, even on highly
heterogeneous media. The possibilities for 3-D GPR
simulations are obvious, even if large computational
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION 5-9

Figure 8. Comparison between the analytical expression of phase velocity from the dispersive
model (Figure 4) and the dispersion analysis results, on a wide enough frequency interval (several
simulations are done). The difference between the analytical (continuous line) and the calculated
phase velocity is due to numerical dispersion (about 5% for that simulation).

resources are needed for a somewhat restricted volume of
interest. Furthermore, the validation by a Dispersion
Analysis has showed to be an original alternative to the
analytical procedure commonly used for plane wave
source.
[25] Acknowledgments We wish to thank Albane Sainte-
noy (Département des Sciences de la Terre, Université PARIS
XI) for useful suggestions regarding this paper. All computer
time was provided by Centre de Calcul Recherche et Réseau
Jussieu, Université PARIS VI.
References
Bérenger, J. P., A perfect matched layer for the absorption of
electromagnetic waves, J. Comput. Phys., 114, 185 – 200,
1994.
Bergmann, T., J. O. A. Robertsson, and K. Holliger, Finite-
difference modeling of electromagnetic wave propagation
in dispersive and attenuating media, Geophysics, 63, 856 –
867, 1998.
Bitri, A., and G. Grandjean, Frequency-wavenumber modeling
and migration of 2D GPR data in moderately heterogeneous
dispersive media, Geophysics, 46, 287 – 301, 1998.
Bourgeois, J. M., and G. S. Smith, A fully three-dimensional
simulation of a ground-penetrating radar FDTD theory com-
pared with experiment, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.,
34, 36 – 44, 1996.
Cai, J., and G. A. McMechan, Ray-based synthesis of bistatic
ground-penetrating radar profiles, Geophysics, 60, 87 – 96,
1995.
Carcione, J. M., Ground-penetrating radar, wave theory and
numerical simulation in lossy anisotropic media, Geophy-
sics, 61, 1664 – 1677, 1996.
Carcione, J. M., G. Lenzi, and S. Valle, GPR modelling by the
Fourier method: Improvement of the algorithm, Geophys.
Prospect., 47, 1015 – 1029, 1999.
Chen, H. W., and T. M. Huang, Finite-difference time-domain
simulation of GPR data, J. Appl. Geophys., 40, 139 – 163,
1998.
Conyers, L. B., and D. Goodman, Ground Penetrating Radar:
An Introduction for Archaeologists, AltaMira, London, 1997.
5 - 10 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION
Figure 9. 225 MHz pulse Ekko radar 3-D acquisition
on a gravel wall buried in clay with 50 cm between the
antennas and a spacing of 5 cm along each profile. Some
sections are presented in order to situate the wall and was
used to build an equivalent model (Figure 10) from trial
and errors forward modeling.
Gandhi, O. P., B. Q. Gao, and J. Y. Chen, A frequency depen-
dent finite difference time domain formulation for general
dispersive media, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 41,
792 – 797, 1993.
Gedney, S. D., An anisotropic PML absorbing media for the
FDTD simulation of fields in lossy and dispersive media,
Electromagnetic, 16, 399 – 415, 1996.
Grandjean, G., et al., Evaluation of GPR techniques for civil-
engineering applications: Study on a test site, J. Appl. Geo-
phys., 45, 141 – 156, 2000.
Gürel, L., and O. Ugur, Three-dimensional FDTD modeling of
a ground-penetrating radar, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens., 38, 1513 – 1521, 2000.
He, P., Measurement of acoustic dispersion using both trans-
mitted and reflected pulse, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 107, 801 –
807, 2000.
Figure 10. On top, the equivalent geometrical model
(Top soil: e = 10, m = m0, s = 0.02 S/m, Clay: e = 16, m =
m0, s = 0.1 S/m, Gravel wall: e = 2.25, m = m0, s = 0.005
S/m). On bottom, the 3-D FDTD Unsplit PML simula-
tion on two profiles, with a 225 MHz DFG Ey emitter-
receiver. Model discretization dx = dy = dz = 2.5 cm, dt =
40 ps.
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION 5 - 11

Figure 11. Debye model for material 3 and 4. For a 100 MHz peak frequency the equivalent soil
properties are: ereal = 2.5, eimaginary = 13 for material 3 (red line) and ereal = 0, eimaginary = 15 for
material 4 (blue line).

Hollender, F., and S. Tillard, Modeling ground-penetrating ra-
dar wave propagation and reflection with the Jonsher para-
meterization, Geophysics, 62, 1933 – 1942, 1998.
Katz, D. S., E. T. Thiele, and A. Taflove, Validation and exten-
sion to three dimensions of the Berenger PML absorbing
boundary condition for FD-TD meshes, IEEE Microwave
Guided Wave Lett., 4, 268 – 270, 1994.
Kelley, D. F., and R. J. Luebbers, Piecewise linear recursive
convolution for dispersive media using FDTD, IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag., 44, 792 – 797, 1996.
Kunz, K. S., and R. J. Luebbers, The Finite Difference Time
Domain for Electromagnetic, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.,
1993.
Luebbers, R. J., and F. Hunsberger, FDTD for N-th order dis-
persive media, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 40, 1297 –
1301, 1992.
Luebbers, R. J., F. Hunsberger, K. S. Katz, R. B. Standler, and
M. Schneider, A frequency-dependent finite-difference time-
domain formulation for dispersive materials, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., 32, 222 – 227, 1990.
Lysne, P. C., A model for the high-frequency electrical response
of wet rocks, Geophysics, 48, 775 – 786, 1983.
Mari, J. L., F. Glangeaud, and F. Coppens, Traitement du signal
pour géologues et géophysiciens, editions technip, 460 pp.,
Inst. Fr. du Petrole, Rueil-Malmaison, France, 1997.
Mei, K. K., and J. Fang, Superabsorption—A method to im-
prove absorbing boundary conditions, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., 40, 1001 – 1010, 1992.
Montoya, T. P., and G. S. Smith, Land mine detection using a
ground penetrating radar based on resistively loaded Vee di-
poles, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 47, 1795 – 1806, 1999.
Mur, G., Absorbing boundary conditions for wave-like equa-
tions, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., 23, 377 – 382,
1981.
Powers, M. H., and G. R. Olhoeft, Modeling dispersive ground
penetrating radar data, paper presented at 5th International
Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Kitchener, Ont.,
Canada, 12 – 16 June 1994.
Qing Huo, L., and F. Guo-Xin, Simulations of GPR in disper-
sive media using a frequency dependant PSTD algorithm,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 37, 2317 – 2324, 1999.
Roberts, R. L., and J. J. Daniels, Modeling near-field GPR in
three dimensions using the FDTD method, Geophysics, 62,
1114 – 1126, 1997.
5 - 12 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION

Figure 12. Model including several types of pipes used for 2-D, TM mode simulation. The source
is a Ez 100 MHz DFG, (offset = 1 m, spacing = 5 cm). Model discretization: dx = dy = 2 cm, dt =
33 ps.

Sacks, Z. S., D. M. Kingsland, R. Lee, and J. F. Le, A perfectly
matched anisotropic absorber for use as an absorbing bound-
ary condition, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 43, 1460 –
1463, 1995.
Sullivan, D. M., Frequency-dependent FDTD metods using Z
transforms, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 40, 1223 – 1230,
1992.
Sullivan, D. M., A simplified PML for use with the FDTD meth-
od, IEEE Microwave Guided Wave Lett., l6, 97 – 99, 1996.
Sullivan, D. M., An unsplit step 3D PML for use with the
FDTD method, IEEE Microwave Guided Wave Lett., 7,
184 – 186, 1997.
Tabbagh, A., The response of a three dimensionnal magnetic
and conductive body in shallow depth electromagnetic pro-
specting, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 81, 215 – 230, 1995.
Taflove, A., Computational Electromagnetic: The Finite Differ-
ence Time Domain Method, Artech House, Norwood, Mass.,
1995.
 REJIBA ET AL.: FDTD-SUPML-ADE SIMULATION
Teixeira, F. L., W. C. Chew, M. Straka, M. L. Oristaglio, and
T. Wang, Finite difference time domain simulation of ground
penetrating radar on dispersive, inhomogeneous and conduc-
tive soils, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 36, 1928 –
1937, 1998.
Vitebsky, S., L. Carin, M. A. Ressler, and F. H. Le, Ultra-wide-
band, short-pulse ground penetrating radar: Simulation and
measurement, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 35, 762 –
772, 1997.
Wang, T., and A. C. Tripp, FDTD simulation of EM wave
propagation in 3-D media, Geophysics, 61, 1097 – 1106,
1996.
5 - 13
Xu, T., and G. A. McMechan, GPR attenuation and its numer-
ical simulation in 2.5D dimensions, Geophysics, 62, 403 –
414, 1997.
Yee, K. S., Numerical solution of initial boundary value pro-
blems involving Maxwell’s equation in isotropic media,
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 14, 302 – 307, 1966.

C. Camerlynck, P. Mechler, and F. Rejiba, Department of
Applied Geophysics, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, UMR
7619, Sisyphe, CNRS, Case 105, 4 Pl. Jussieu, 75252 Paris
Cedex 05, France. (rejiba@ccr.jussieu.fr)