736 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO.
3, MARCH 2012
Subsurface Utility Extraction and Characterization:
Combining GPR Symmetry and
Polarization Attributes
Urs Böniger, Member, IEEE, and Jens Tronicke
Abstract—Polarization of the electromagnetic wavefield has
significant implications for the acquisition and interpretation of
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. Based on the geometrical
and physical properties of the subsurface scatterer and the phys-
ical properties of its surrounding material, strong polarization
phenomena might occur. Here, we develop an attribute-based
analysis approach to extract and characterize buried utility pipes
using two broadside antenna configurations. First, we enhance
and extract the utilities by making use of their distinct sym-
metric nature through the application of a symmetry-enhancing
image-processing algorithm known as phase symmetry. Second,
we assess the polarization characteristics by calculating two at-
tributes (polarization angle and linearity) using principal compo-
nent analysis. Combination of attributes derived from these steps
into a novel depolarization attribute allows one to efficiently detect
and distinguish different utilities present within 3-D GPR data.
The performance of our analysis approach is illustrated using
synthetic examples and evaluated using field examples (including
a dual-configuration 3-D data set) collected across a field site,
where detailed ground-truth information is available. Our results
demonstrate that the proposed approach allows for a more de-
tailed extraction and combination of utility relevant information
compared to approaches relying on single-component data and,
thus, eases the interpretation of multicomponent GPR data sets.
Index Terms—Multicomponent ground-penetrating radar
(GPR) data, phase symmetry, pipe detection, polarization
analysis, principal component analysis (PCA).
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N A VARIETY of archaeological, environmental, engi-
neering, and geological problems, ground-penetrating radar
(GPR) has become a popular geophysical technique to study
the shallow subsurface, mainly owing to its high-resolution
imaging capabilities (see, e.g., [1] and [2]). Usually, the inter-
pretation of 2-D and 3-D GPR data sets is limited to a pure
structural interpretation by, for example, tracking coherent re-
flection events from subsurface horizons or picking diffraction
hyperbolas caused by isolated objects and other discontinuities.
Such a strategy focusing on target detection and depth deter-
mination may be sufficient for some applications; however, it
largely ignores the vectorial nature of the GPR wavefield, which
Manuscript received April 19, 2010; revised September 29, 2010 and
April 29, 2011; accepted July 10, 2011. Date of publication September 22,
2011; date of current version February 24, 2012. This work was supported by
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Project TR512/1-2.
The authors are with the Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften,
Universität Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: urs@geo.
uni-potsdam.de).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2163413
0196-2892/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
can be used to further characterize buried targets (see, e.g.,
[3]–[5]). Efficient detection and characterization of subsurface
utilities is of high importance considering the annual costs
arising from damage to unknown subsurface utilities during
construction or maintenance activities [6]. The 3-D GPR and its
application for subsurface utility detection thus represent a field
of continuously growing importance. This study introduces
a signal- and image-processing-based approach to enhance
and extract subsurface utilities, including their polarization
characteristics.
GPR data are commonly acquired using a perpendicular
broadside antenna configuration, i.e., transmitter and receiver
antennas are oriented parallel to each other and perpendicular
to the direction of data acquisition (profile direction). As most
GPR systems employ linearly polarized dipole antennas, the
transmitting antenna emits an electromagnetic (EM) wavefield
whose electric field is polarized parallel to the long axis of the
dipole, and the receiving antenna records only the component
parallel to its long axis. However, it has been noted that various
targets of GPR surveys, such as buried pipes and fractures, have
polarization-dependent scattering characteristics (see, e.g., [4],
[5], [7], and [8]). This implies that the visibility of a subsurface
scatterer in the acquired data depends on the used antenna
configuration (e.g., broadside configuration) and its orientation
with respect to the feature to be imaged. As a consequence,
certain subsurface objects might not be imaged using a single-
component perpendicular broadside antenna configuration. For
example, Radzevicius and Daniels [4] have found that the
backscattered fields from buried cylinders (such as pipes and
cables) may be strongly depolarized depending on the orien-
tation of the cylinder relative to the antennas, the electrical
properties of the cylinders and the background material, as well
as the depth and radius-to-wavelength ratio of the cylinders.
Thus, polarization-dependent scattering properties have impor-
tant implications for target detection, survey design, and data
interpretation.
To address GPR polarization phenomena, various stud-
ies examined the use of recording GPR data at multiple
transmitter–receiver configurations where, compared to the
standard perpendicular broadside configuration, one or both
antennas were rotated to acquire different components of the
electric field. For example, Lehmann et al. [9] suggested the
combination of two GPR data sets recorded using perpen-
dicular and parallel broadside antenna configurations to cre-
ate a pseudoscalar wavefield. In a parallel broadside antenna
BÖNIGER AND TRONICKE: SUBSURFACE UTILITY EXTRACTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
configuration, transmitter and receiver are oriented parallel to
each other and parallel to the direction of data acquisition.
Furthermore, advanced 3-D multiconfiguration (also known
as multicomponent) imaging approaches have been developed
in [10] and [11]. Gestel and Stoffa [12] made use of Alford
rotations to extract the main axis of subsurface anisotropy and
the orientation of buried objects from multipolarization 2-D
GPR data, while the study in [13] has applied a similar approach
to find the strike of fractures. Tsoflias et al. [5] made use of the
phase characteristics from 2-D multipolarization measurements
to detect vertical fractures. In addition, Roberts and Daniels [3]
have investigated GPR polarization phenomena associated with
typical GPR targets and found that polarization characteristics
may be extremely useful for detecting and characterizing small-
diameter (relative to the incident wavelength) long circular
cylinders such as buried pipes and cables. Radzevicius and
Daniels [4] have further investigated polarization and cylinder
scattering concepts relevant for GPR. Considering the response
of metal and plastic pipes with varying diameters, these authors
also provide guidelines for survey design and data interpre-
tation. Nevertheless, multicomponent GPR surveying is far
from being a standard exploration tool, and further work is
definitively needed for processing, analyzing, and interpreting
such data sets.
In this study, we present a dual-configuration 3-D GPR
processing flow using perpendicular and parallel broadside
antenna configurations to efficiently image and characterize
buried utility pipes. Our attribute-based processing and analysis
strategy allows for improved target extraction and characteriza-
tion by combining the geometrical and physical characteristics
from both components into a novel depolarization attribute. Our
strategy is illustrated using data collected at a field site where
detailed ground-truth information is available. In the following,
after introducing our field site and providing details regarding
data acquisition and standard processing, we illustrate and
discuss the main structural and polarization characteristics of
our data. Then, we show how the structural information from
both data sets can be significantly enhanced by using a data
attribute known as phase symmetry [14]. To characterize the
polarization characteristics of our two-component data set, we
further employ two polarization attributes based on principal
component analysis (PCA). Finally, through combination of the
proposed structural and physical attributes, we illustrate how
the major information from dual-configuration data sets can
be fused into one attribute which significantly enhances the
interpretability of such data sets.
II. BACKGROUND
In the following sections, we introduce the survey site and
our standard processing flow applied to the different data sets
presented in this study.
A. Survey Site
GPR data have been acquired at a test site located in
Horstwalde, Germany. This site has been installed by the
University of Potsdam and the Federal Institute for Materials
737
Research and Testing and is located ∼30 km south of Berlin,
Germany. The geology at the site is predominantly charac-
terized by glacial sands and gravels deposited during the last
glaciation periods. During the installation of this test site,
consisting of several shallow-to-intermediate depth boreholes,
numerous geophysical surveys have been conducted. The pri-
mary goal of these surveys was to identify optimum borehole
locations which included the detection of subsurface utilities
installed during the past century when the site was used as
a military training area. During these studies, we found that
the GPR technique provides the best performance at this site
(compared to other geophysical techniques such as magnetic
or EM induction mapping) and that multipolarization data sets
may further help to characterize the detected buried utilities.
B. Data Acquisition and Standard Processing
We conducted a dual-configuration 3-D GPR data set cover-
ing an area of ∼20 × 20 m and one 2-D profile perpendicular
to three selected utility pipes using different antenna config-
urations to further study polarization phenomena at our site.
The data sets were acquired using cart-mounted unshielded
200-MHz linearly polarized dipole antennas using a fixed offset
of 0.9 m. Positioning of the GPR traces was performed kinemat-
ically using a self-tracking total station (TTS). Details of this
TTS-based acquisition approach are presented in [15] and [16].
The data sets were recorded using a time window of 300 ns, a
sample interval of 0.2 ns, 16 vertical stacks, in- and crossline
trace spacings of ∼0.05 and ∼0.1 m, respectively, for the 3-D
data sets, and a ∼0.05-m trace spacing for the 2-D profile.
Processing the 3-D GPR data involved latency correction
[16], zero-time correction, wow removal, frequency filtering,
and amplitude scaling using a smoothed average envelope
[1], [17]. It should be noted that the same amplitude scaling
function was used for both data sets X11 and X22 recorded
using the perpendicular and parallel broadside antenna con-
figurations, respectively. The data were then gridded onto a
rectangular grid (0.1 × 0.1 m) using a natural neighbor-based
algorithm [15], [18]–[20]. Afterward, the preprocessed data
cubes were migrated using a 3-D zero-offset Stolt algorithm
with a migration velocity of 0.111 m/ns derived from several
common-midpoint measurements. Fig. 1 shows time slices
through the unmigrated and migrated data cubes of the two
copolarized 3-D data sets X11 and X22 . Here, we focus on
the prominent linear features representing buried utility pipes.
When comparing the X11 and the X22 slices, polarization
effects are evident in the unmigrated and migrated data. Most
of these features show a dominant polarization perpendicular to
the orientation of the object. When comparing the unmigrated
[Fig. 1(a)–(d)] and migrated data [Fig. 1(e)–(h)], we see that
migration successfully focuses the diffracted energy and, thus,
significantly improves the resolution capabilities of the data.
To further study the polarization phenomena visible in the 3-D
data sets, we acquired a multicomponent 2-D profile by suc-
cessively rotating a broadside antenna configuration from 0◦
to 180◦ using increments of 10◦ . Fig. 2 shows the survey
geometry of this 2-D experiment, including approximative pipe
geometries derived from Fig. 1. Only basic processing (latency
738 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2012
Fig. 1. (a)–(d) Unmigrated and (e)–(h) migrated time slices through the 3-D GPR data cubes at a two-way travel time of 21 ns (a, b, e, and f) and 25 ns (c, d, g,
and h). The symbols in the upper right corners indicate antenna orientation with respect to the in-line direction.
Fig. 2. Illustration of the survey geometry of the 2-D multicomponent GPR
experiment across three distinct subsurface features (utility pipes) to high-
light the polarization phenomena using a broadside antenna configuration.
The location of the pipes (labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4) is sketched based on
Fig. 1. The dashed black line and the arrow indicate the profile location and
direction, respectively. The sketch in the lower left corner illustrates the antenna
configuration and the clockwise antenna rotation with respect to the profile
orientation.
correction, zero-time correction, wow removal, and amplitude
scaling followed by gridding onto a trace spacing of 0.02 m)
was applied to the 2-D data in order to highlight the ob-
served polarization phenomena in minimally processed data.
Fig. 3 shows the resulting profiles obtained from this experi-
ment. The three target events located around ∼10, ∼12.5, and
∼14 m northing show interference phenomena at ∼11, ∼12, and
∼13 m northing, and the corresponding subsurface scatterers
are obviously located at different depths. In addition, Pipes 1
and 3 show maximum amplitudes around 0◦ and 180◦ antenna
orientations (i.e., parallel broadside configuration). While the
corresponding diffraction hyperbolas are visible up to ∼ 60◦ ,
they are significantly attenuated at ∼ 90◦ . In contrast to Pipes
1 and 3, Pipe 2 is visible at all angles with maximum am-
plitudes around 90◦ antenna orientation. Summarizing Figs. 1
and 3, our data suggest that the survey site consists of two
types of pipes characterized by differences in reflection and
polarization strength. Based on these observations, we intro-
duce an attribute-based approach to extract and emphasize pipe
structures and potential polarization effects by performing the
following: 1) enhancing the geometry of the target features
(based on their characteristic symmetry) and 2) characterizing
the dominant polarization effects using PCA.
III. G EOMETRICAL E XTRACTION U SING
P HASE S YMMETRY
Interpretation of GPR data is commonly based on visual
inspection of coherent events, which from our point of view is
often based on the perception of feature symmetry. Symmetry
represents an important biological characteristic in order to
distinct between, e.g., animals and static environmental back-
grounds [21], [22], whereby its visual perception developed
during evolution. Man-made objects often exhibit intrinsic sym-
metry (e.g., mirror or rotational) for different reasons, for ex-
ample, improved structural stability from an engineering point
of view. Subsurface utilities also exhibit symmetry usually
facilitating visual perception when inspecting GPR time slices.
In order to detect and extract subsurface utilities from 3-D
GPR data in heterogeneous materials, we will exploit feature
symmetry.
Another observation based on visual perception is the signif-
icance of phase information for feature detection. References
[23] and [24] showed how phase information contributes to the
human perception of discontinuities (such as edges) in images.
Following these studies, Kovesi [25], [26] introduced a phase-
based feature extraction algorithm making use of 2-D rotational
BÖNIGER AND TRONICKE: SUBSURFACE UTILITY EXTRACTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
Fig. 3. Gridded profiles from our 2-D multicomponent GPR experiment (for survey geometry and angle definition, see Fig. 2). In the lower right corner, the
diffraction hyperbolas of the three pipes are sketched to highlight the target events. All the profiles are plotted using equal amplitude scaling.
log-Gabor filters [27] for edge and symmetry detection. Gabor
filters and, subsequently, log-Gabor filters have often been at-
tributed to have filtering properties similar to the ones found in
mammalian cortical cells [27]. Log-Gabor functions are defined
by a Gaussian amplitude spectrum (if plotted on a logarithmic
frequency scale with a zero DC component) and provide a high
spatial and frequency localization. Phase symmetry, a contrast-
invariant measure, was introduced by Kovesi [25] to highlight
feature symmetry within 2-D images. Russell et al. [28] just
recently applied a related phase-based edge detection algorithm
to highlight faults in 3-D seismic data.
In the following, we briefly introduce our phase-symmetry-
based processing flow using a synthetic example in accordance
with our field data. Subsequently, we apply our processing flow
to the dual-component 3-D GPR field data set. For a detailed
introduction on phase-based edge and symmetry detection, we
refer the interested reader to [25].
A. Phase Symmetry
As introduced by Kovesi [25], phase symmetry consists of
2-D log-Gabor filter banks, obtained by elementwise multi-
plication of the radial component, i.e., the log-Gabor transfer
function with an angular Gaussian scaling function


− log(ω/ω0 )2 dθ2
G(ω, θ) = exp − (1)
2 · log(k/ω0 )2 2 · σθ2
where ω and ω0 are the frequency range and the center fre-
quency, respectively. k corresponds to a scaling factor, dθ
739
corresponds to the angular difference to the specified filter
orientation, and σθ defines the standard deviation of the applied
Gaussian filter. Applied over multiple scales and orientations,
one obtains a filter bank representation of the image (e.g., a
GPR time slice) that consists of even- and odd-symmetric filter
outputs. As demonstrated for a 1-D signal by Kovesi [25],
points with high symmetry are characterized by high magni-
tudes in the even-symmetric filter output but low magnitudes in
the odd-symmetric filter output. Therefore, phase symmetry at
the spatial coordinates i and j is defined as
 
r,n ([|er,n (i, j)| − |or,n (i, j)|] − T )
S(i, j) = max  ,0
r,n Ar,n (i, j) + 
(2)
where the max operator limits the attribute to symmetric fea-
tures and er,n and or,n are the even- and odd-symmetric filter
outputs, respectively, at orientation r and scale n. T represents
a noise compensation term, and  was introduced to avoid
instabilities by zero division. Ar,n represents the magnitude per
orientation and scale and is defined as

Ar,n (i, j) = e2r,n (i, j) + o2r,n (i, j). (3)
The advantages of this phase-based symmetry measure are its
normalization to a range between 0 and 1 and its robustness
against changes in contrast as often observed in GPR time
slice data.
740 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2012

Fig. 4. Suggested feature extraction approach applied to a synthetic image (Xm ) representing a single GPR time slice generated from utilities (Xu ) and
a geological background (Xg ). S(Xm ) is the result when phase symmetry is calculated directly from Xm . In order to improve the phase symmetry result,
preprocessing using Laplacian-based highboosting (L(Xm )) is applied, which produces a favorable extraction result ((S ◦ L)(Xm )). For details, see text.

B. Synthetic Examples symmetry image (S ◦ L)(Xm ) shows an increasing amount

Fig. 4 shows our proposed feature extraction approach using
a synthetic example in accordance to the previously introduced
field data. Xu and Xg represent the utility and geological back-
ground response, respectively, and Xm = Xu + Xg simulates a
migrated GPR time slice image. Calculation of phase symmetry
S(Xm ) successfully enhances the target features from Xm as
well as symmetric features from Xg . In order to suppress the
geological background response, we use an image-processing
step called Laplacian-based highboosting [29] prior to the
calculation of the S-attribute. Thereby, we attenuate large-scale
global features (introduced by Xg ) and enhance sharp local
features. The result of applying Laplacian-based highboosting
to Xm is shown in the panel labeled as L(Xm ). Subsequent cal-
culation of phase symmetry (S ◦ L)(Xm ) shows a significantly
improved result compared to S(Xm ). Feature continuity agrees
well with the one obtained by visual inspection.
To further investigate the efficiency of phase symmetry for
utility extraction, we conducted a noise study using the syn-
thetic example from Fig. 4. In doing so, we steadily decreased
the amplitude ratio between Xu and Xg . Fig. 5 shows the
results of this analysis for three selected Xu -to-Xg ratios. As
expected, by decreasing the Xu -to-Xg ratio, the resulting phase
of features from Xg because Laplacian-based highboosting
becomes less efficient. However, for all Xu -to-Xg ratios (1.65,
0.82, and 0.46), the extracted utility features [Fig. 5(d)–(f)]
are again in good agreement with features an experienced
interpreter would depict by visually inspecting the individual
images [Fig. 5(a)–(c)].
C. Application to Field Data
For the dual-configuration GPR data collected at the
Horstwalde test site, we calculate S for each data set after
applying Laplacian-based highboosting. The information from
the X11 and X22 data is combined by
Sdc = max {(S ◦ L)(X11 ), (S ◦ L)(X22 )} (4)
to ensure maximum information from both components. The
application of a temporal running-average filter (window size
of 1.4 ns) has proven to further emphasize the expected tar-
get features. Given the Sdc image, we calculate the feature
angle φf using Prewitt gradients [29] by


 Sdc ∗ PE  π
φf = arctan − (5)
Sdc ∗ PN  4
BÖNIGER AND TRONICKE: SUBSURFACE UTILITY EXTRACTION AND CHARACTERIZATION 741

Fig. 5. Evaluation of the influence of the Xu -to-Xg ratio on the performance of phase-symmetry-based feature extraction. (a)–(c) GPR time slice images Xm
with decreasing Xu -to-Xg ratio from left to right. (d)–(f) Corresponding phase symmetry images obtained after Laplacian-based highboosting (S ◦ L)(Xm ).
The Xu -to-Xg ratios were calculated by dividing the root-mean-square amplitude of the utility signals by the standard deviation of the geological background.

Fig. 6. (a) Fused X11 and X22 data time slice at 21 ns, (b) corresponding phase symmetry Sdc , and (c) feature angle φf slices calculated using (4) and (5),
respectively.

with PN and PE being the convolutional Prewitt operators
sensitive along local northing and easting, respectively. Fig. 6
shows the application of this procedure to a selected time slice
at 21 ns (see also Fig. 1). For comparison, Fig. 6(a) shows
a migrated data slice after fusing the migrated data cubes
X11 and X22 [Fig. 1(e) and (f)]. Fusion is performed using
a weighted summation, where the weights are based on the
signal energy calculated over a window length corresponding
to the dominant wavelength. This fusion approach minimizes
information loss (loss of sharpness) in a signal-driven manner.
An alternative wavelet-based data fusion method can be found
in [30]. It should be noted that the fused data are only used for
comparison, while all attribute analyses are performed using the
individual X11 and X22 data.
Comparing Fig. 6(a)–(c), we see that Sdc successfully
highlights the target objects, i.e., three west–east and one
north–south oriented utility pipes, while φf quantifies the
orientation of these objects. Later on, φf is used to calculate
a new depolarization attribute, and Sdc is used to render the
target objects in 3-D.
IV. PCA-D ERIVED P OLARIZATION ATTRIBUTES
PCA is a common statistical tool in various scientific fields,
including the analysis of geophysical data [31]–[35]. In the
following, we introduce the basics of PCA being relevant for
our analyses. For a detailed introduction into the field of PCA,
we would like to refer the interested reader to [36] and [37].
PCA is based on the extraction of dominant features from
the data covariance matrix. The eigenvalues of the covariance
matrix, in our case from X11 and X22 , represent the so-
called principal components. From these principal components,
several attributes can be derived. In this study, we focus on
the polarization angle φp and the linearity R. The polarization
742 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2012

Fig. 7. Four potential scenarios to illustrate the proposed attributes φp and R. The examples are calculated using Morlet wavelets to represent dual-configuration
GPR data (X11 , X22 ). (a) Identical (unpolarized) waveforms, (b) phase-shifted waveforms, (c) in-phase waveforms with different amplitudes, and (d) phase-
shifted waveforms with differing amplitudes.

angle [38] is the orientation of the two principal components

(pc1 and pc2 ) which we calculate by


 pc1  π

φp = arctan − . (6)
pc2  4

As used here, linearity (also termed as degree of rectilinearity)

has been introduced by Flinn [39]. In our case, it is defined as


min{λC,1 , λC,2 }
R=1− (7)
max{λC,1 , λC,2 }

with λC,i being the ith eigenvalue of the covariance matrix.

A. Synthetic Studies
To further illustrate φp and R to analyze GPR data, Fig. 7
shows the influence of amplitude and phase variations of a
Morlet wavelet on these attributes. In Fig. 7(a), the two compo-
nents/waveforms (X11 and X22 ) are identical and, thus, result
in φp = 0 (no polarization) and R = 1 (complete redundancy).
In Fig. 7(b), we introduce a phase shift between the two
waveforms of π/2, which results in φp = 0.785 and R = 0.
Here, it is obvious that, for R close to zero (e.g., circular
polarization), φp is not well defined. Fig. 7(c) and (d) further
demonstrates the influence of amplitude and phase variations.
It can be seen that amplitude variations rotate φp while phase
variations predominantly influence R. In order to investigate
the influence of amplitude and phase variations between two
waveforms, we calculated 2-D polarization and linearity maps
over varying amplitude and phase terms. Fig. 8(a) shows the
effects of amplitude variations between X11 and X22 and its
influence on φp . φp clearly depicts the amplitude variations
between X11 and X22 , while R is insensitive to such variations
[not shown in Fig. 8(a)]. Fig. 8(b) shows the influence of phase
variations between 0 and 2π on R. In contrast to amplitude
variations, phase variations do not influence φp [not shown
in Fig. 8(b)] but have a significant influence on R, which is
indicated by the regular patterns in Fig. 8(b). These plots help to
understand the sensitivity of φp and R with respect to amplitude
and phase differences between two waveforms and represent
the basis to analyze our dual-configuration 3-D GPR data.
Fig. 8. Influence of (a) waveform amplitude variations and (b) phase shifts on
the proposed attributes φp and R. The examples are calculated using Morlet
wavelets to represent dual-configuration GPR data (X11 and X22 ).
B. Application to Field Data
For the dual-configuration GPR data collected at the
Horstwalde field site, we calculated the PCA-derived attri-
butes φp and R using (6) and (7) (Fig. 9). We calculated φp
and R from the unmigrated [Fig. 9(a) and (b)] and migrated
[Fig. 9(c) and (d)] data cubes for a selected time slice at 21 ns
(see Fig. 1) using a time window of 12 ns. Polarization angles
[Fig. 9(a) and (c)] further quantify which data set dominates
in specific areas, e.g., positive angles indicate that X11 am-
plitudes are significantly larger than the corresponding X22
amplitudes. Linearity [Fig. 9(b) and (d)] enhances the target
features. The result is similar to an edge-enhancing attribute due
to strong waveform changes at the pipe edges. Comparison of
unmigrated and migrated attribute slices illustrates the focusing
effect of migration, resulting in significantly sharper images.
When comparing Figs. 7(b) and 9(c) and (d), it is evident that
the west–east oriented pipe at ∼12–13 m northing is not clearly
imaged by R. For this object, negative φp values indicate
BÖNIGER AND TRONICKE: SUBSURFACE UTILITY EXTRACTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
Fig. 9. (a) φp and (b) R calculated over a time window length of 12 ns using the unmigrated data cubes. (c) φp and (b) R calculated over a time window length
of 12 ns using the migrated data cubes.
different polarization phenomena compared to the west–east
oriented pipes at ∼10 and ∼14 m northing, respectively. Thus,
we conclude that the polarization attributes φp and R represent
efficient tools to highlight and summarize polarization effects
usually present in multicomponent GPR data.
V. D EPOLARIZATION A NALYSIS
In order to combine the information from the two previously
defined attributes (feature and polarization angle), we introduce
a novel attribute, which we call depolarization Dp
 tions at four selected locations. Fig. 10(c) shows our excavation
φp /φf , if |φf | ≥ |φp |
Dp = (8)
φf /φp , if |φf | < |φp |
where φf and φp are calculated using (5) and (6), respectively.
Dp varies between −1 and 1. A Dp value of 1 indicates a
feature exhibiting maximum polarization with the long axes of
the antenna dipoles parallel to the long axis of the feature. In
contrast, a Dp of −1 indicates a feature exhibiting maximum
polarization with the long axes of the antenna dipoles perpen-
dicular to the long axis of the feature.
Fig. 10 shows the final interpretation of our dual-
configuration data set, including extracted target depths
[Fig. 10(a)], calculated Dp attribute values [Fig. 10(b)], and
available ground-truth information [Fig. 10(c)]. In Fig. 10(a)
and (b), rendering of all pipe features is based on iso-surfaces
calculated from the 3-D phase symmetry cube [see also
Fig. 7(b)]. Fig. 10(a) shows the extracted features with the top
depth mapped onto the iso-surface. It can be seen that the pipes
are located at varying depths ranging from ∼1.11 to ∼0.95 m.
In Fig. 10(b), we mapped Dp onto the same iso-surfaces. This
figure illustrates how this attribute successfully combines the
geometrical and physical information of the X11 and X22 data
sets. The pipes labeled as 1, 3, and 4 are characterized by strong
preferential scattering when the long axis of the dipole antennas
is oriented parallel to the orientation of the pipes, while Pipe 2
is characterized by weak preferential scattering when the long
axis of the antennas is orthogonal to the orientation of the pipe.
Following the findings in [4], the observed strong polarization
effects of Pipes 1, 3, and, 4 are indicative for metal and low-
impedance dielectric cylinders with permittivities higher than
743
the surrounding material, while the weak scattering of Pipe 2
is indicative for dielectric pipes with permittivities lower than
the surrounding material. Based on these observations, our data
suggest that at least two different types of pipes are present
at our site. Considering additional data (e.g., the results of an
EM induction survey; not shown here) and site information, we
interpret Pipes 1, 3, and 4 as metal pipes, while Pipe 2 can
be interpreted as a nonmetallic high-impedance pipe, clearly
differing from Pipes 1, 3, and 4 (see, e.g., [40]).
In order to validate this interpretation, we conducted excava-
results, which confirm our GPR data interpretation. Pipes 1, 3,
and 4 (characterized by strong polarization effects) represent a
network of galvanized steel pipes with a diameter of ∼40 mm
located at a depth range between 1.10 and 0.66 m. The weakly
polarized event (Pipe 2) proved to be a sewer pipe made of
stoneware with a diameter of ∼180 mm buried at a depth of
∼0.74 m below surface. The depths observed for Pipes 1 and
2 differ from the extracted ones. Inspecting Figs. 3 and 10 in
detail, we see that the reflections from these pipes interfere
with the ground-wave arrivals. Detailed data analysis at the
corresponding locations shows that this interference is predomi-
nantly shifting the peak energy of these pipe responses to larger
depths. The strong depth and positional match between GPR
and excavation results for Pipes 3 and 4 illustrate that using
higher antenna frequencies (resulting in a clearer separation
between the ground-wave and the pipe reflections) would also
improve the extracted depth locations of these pipes.
VI. D ISCUSSION AND C ONCLUSION
Using field data recorded across different utility pipes at a
well-constrained field site, we have demonstrated the potential
of considering and analyzing polarization phenomena in 3-D
GPR data. We have introduced an attribute-based processing
flow to enhance the structural and physical characteristics of
the target objects. These attributes are calculated from dual-
configuration 3-D GPR data consisting of two data volumes
recorded using parallel and perpendicular broadside antenna
configurations, respectively.
744 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2012

Fig. 10. Final interpretation of the 3-D GPR field data. (a) Depth to the top pipe surface, calculated using a constant velocity of 0.111 m/ns, mapped onto
iso-surfaces extracted from the phase symmetry cube. (b) Depolarization attribute mapped onto the extracted iso-surfaces. (c) Ground-truth information obtained
from excavation. The white markers in (a) and (b) correspond to the pipe locations from the available ground-truth information.

Phase symmetry has proven to successfully delineate the
objects of interest as this attribute highlights symmetrical fea-
tures and also allows for volumetric feature extraction. Fur-
thermore, PCA has proven to be a feasible tool to extract the
dominant polarization characteristics from dual-configuration
GPR data. We have calculated the PCA-based attribute po-
larization angle and linearity and found that these attributes
are extremely useful to further characterize the target utility
objects. Combination of our structurally and physically based
attributes into a single new attribute, called depolarization,
allows one to distinguish between different types of subsurface
utility pipes based on their depolarization characteristics. This
is a major improvement compared to standard GPR approaches
largely relying on interpreting diffraction hyperbolas in single-
component data sets. Thus, we have successfully developed an
approach toward the inclusion of polarization characteristics of
BÖNIGER AND TRONICKE: SUBSURFACE UTILITY EXTRACTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
GPR wavefields into attribute-based analysis and interpretation
flows.
Given the recent availability of multicomponent sensor sys-
tems acquiring different antenna configurations simultaneously,
we believe that a combined interpretation, as developed in
this study, can result in significantly improved interpretation
for utility detection and characterization. In this study, we
focused on the methodological introduction of the new analysis
framework. At this stage, we have not included the influence of
the radiation characteristics of the source and receiver antenna
into our analysis. Streich et al. [41] recently demonstrated that,
for polarization-independent scatterers, the incorporation of
the radiation characteristics into a single- and multicomponent
vector-migration approach results in adequate GPR images. For
polarization-dependent scatterers as presented in this study, the
use of an exact-field vector-migration scheme is required to ef-
ficiently address radiation-pattern and vector-wave-propagation
effects. We thus believe that the application of an exact-field
vector-migration scheme would further improve the fidelity
of our interpretation. Nevertheless, comparing the raw and
migrated polarization attributes in our 3-D data set, no obvious
variations between the raw and migrated data are observable
apart from the desired focusing effect. Thus, we believe that
our approach is capable in capturing the dominant polarization
effects. Application of this algorithm for automatic feature
extraction and classification might be a further focus of future
work. Additionally, including cross-polarized or 45◦ broadside
configurations into the surveying strategy might further im-
prove the potential of our approach. Aside from utility detection
and characterization, our strategy might also be applicable to
other GPR applications, e.g., the characterization of geological
targets such as fractures and faults.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. J. Daniels, Ground Penetrating Radar, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Peter
Peregrinus Ltd., 2004, ser. IEE Radar, Sonar, Navigation and Avionics
Series.
[2] H. M. Jol, Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2009.
[3] R. L. Roberts and J. J. Daniels, “Analysis of GPR polarization phenom-
ena,” J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 139–157, Aug. 1996.
[4] S. J. Radzevicius and J. J. Daniels, “Ground penetrating radar polarization
and scattering from cylinders,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 111–
125, Sep. 2000.
[5] G. P. Tsoflias, J. P. van Gestel, P. L. Stoffa, D. D. Blankenship, and
M. Sen, “Vertical fracture detection by exploiting the polarization prop-
erties of ground-penetrating radar signals,” Geophysics, vol. 69, no. 3,
pp. 803–810, May/Jun. 2004.
[6] A. M. Thomas, C. D. F. Rogers, D. N. Chapman, N. Metje, and J. Castle,
“Stakeholder needs for ground penetrating radar utility location,” J. Appl.
Geophys., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 345–351, Apr. 2009.
[7] L. Orlando and E. Slob, “Using multicomponent GPR to monitor cracks
in a historical building,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 327–334,
Apr. 2009.
[8] D. S. Sassen and M. E. Everett, “3D polarimetric GPR coherency
attributes and full-waveform inversion of transmission data for char-
acterizing fractured rock,” Geophysics, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. J23–J34,
May/Jun. 2009.
[9] F. Lehmann, D. Boerner, K. Holliger, and A. Green, “Multicomponent
georadar data: Some important implications for data acquisition and pro-
cessing,” Geophysics, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1542–1552, Sep./Oct. 2000.
[10] J. van der Kruk, C. P. A. Wapenaar, J. T. Fokkema, and P. M. van den Berg,
“Three-dimensional imaging of multicomponent ground-penetrating radar
data,” Geophysics, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1241–1254, Jul./Aug. 2003.
745
[11] R. Streich and J. van der Kruk, “Accurate imaging of multicomponent
GPR data based on exact radiation patterns,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 93–103, Jan. 2007.
[12] J. P. V. Gestel and P. L. Stoffa, “Application of Alford rotation to ground-
penetrating radar data,” Geophysics, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1781–1792,
Nov./Dec. 2001.
[13] S. J. Seol, J.-H. Kim, Y. Song, and S.-H. Chung, “Finding the strike
direction of fractures using GPR,” Geophys. Prospecting, vol. 49, no. 3,
pp. 300–308, May 2001.
[14] P. D. Kovesi, “Invariant measures of image features from phase informa-
tion,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 1996.
[15] U. Böniger and J. Tronicke, “Improving the interpretability of 3D GPR
data using target-specific attributes: Application to tomb detection,”
J. Archaeol. Sci., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 672–679, 2010.
[16] U. Böniger and J. Tronicke, “On the potential of kinematic GPR survey-
ing using a self-tracking total station: Evaluating system cross-talk and
latency,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 3792–
3798, Oct. 2010.
[17] D. K. Butler, Near-Surface Geophysics: Investigations in Geophysics
No. 13. Tulsa, OK: Soc. Exploration Geophysicists, 2005.
[18] D. Watson, Contouring: A Guide to the Analysis and Display of Spatial
Data. New York: Pergamon, 1992.
[19] M. Sambridge, J. Braun, and H. McQueen, “Geophysical parametrization
and interpolation of irregular data using natural neighbours,” Geophys. J.
Int., vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 837–857, Dec. 1995.
[20] B. Heincke, W. Wheeler, J. S. Rnning, H. C. Nordheide, K. Blum, and
E. Dalsegg, “Using 2-D and 3-D georadar to characterize karst collapse
as a basis for high-resolution reservoir-analogue models,” in Proc. 12th
Int. Conf. Ground Penetrating Radar, Birmingham, U.K., 2006.
[21] C. W. Tyler, Human symmetry perception and its computational analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ., 2002.
[22] J. Wagemans, “Detection of visual symmetries,” Spatial Vision, vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 9–32, 1995.
[23] T. S. Huang, J. W. Burnett, and A. G. Deczky, “The importance of phase in
image processing filters,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process.,
vol. ASSP-23, no. 6, pp. 529–542, Dec. 1975.
[24] M. C. Morrone and R. A. Owens, “Feature detection from local energy,”
Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 303–313, Dec. 1987.
[25] P. D. Kovesi, “Symmetry and asymmetry from local phase,” in Proc. 10th
Australian Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., 1997, pp. 185–190.
[26] P. D. Kovesi, “Image features from phase congruency,” Videre: A J. Com-
put. Vis. Res., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 1999.
[27] D. J. Field, “Relations between the statistics of natural images and the
response properties of cortical cells,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A, Opt., Image
Sci., Vis., vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 2379–2394, Dec. 1987.
[28] B. Russell, D. Hampson, and J. Logel, “Applying the phase congru-
ency algorithm to seismic data slices—A carbonate case study,” in Proc.
Frontiers Innov.—CSPG CSEG CWLS Convention, 2009, pp. 677–680.
[29] R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods, Digital Image Processing, 2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[30] J. Hugenschmidt and A. Kalogeropoulos, “The inspection of retaining
walls using GPR,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 335–344, Apr. 2009.
[31] G. S. Wagner and T. J. Owens, “Signal detection using multi-channel
seismic data,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., vol. 86, no. 1A, pp. 221–231,
Feb. 1996.
[32] J. R. Scheevel and K. Payrazyan, “Principal component analysis applied to
3D Seismic data for reservoir property estimation,” SPE Reservoir Eval.
Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 64–72, Feb. 2001.
[33] B. Karlsen, J. Larsen, H. B. D. Sorensen, and K. B. Jakobsen, “Compar-
ison of PCA and ICA based clutter reduction in GPR systems for anti-
personal landmine detection,” in Proc. 11th IEEE Workshop Stat. Signal
Process., 2001, pp. 146–149.
[34] A. J. Gámez, C. S. Zhou, A. Timmermann, and J. Kurths, “Nonlinear
dimensionality reduction in climate data,” Nonlinear Process. Geophys.,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 393–398, 2004.
[35] J. E. D. Pereira, A. J. Strieder, J. P. Amador, J. L. S. da Silva, and
L. L. V. Volcato, “A heuristic algorithm for pattern identification in large
multivariate analysis of geophysical data sets,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 36,
no. 1, pp. 83–90, Jan. 2010.
[36] J.-L. Mari and D. Chapellier, Reservoir And Civil Engineering
Geophysics. Paris, France: Editions Technip, 1999.
[37] I. T. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed. New York:
Springer-Verlag, 2002.
[38] P. N. Mahob and J. P. Castagna, “AVO hodograms and polarization
attributes,” Leading Edge, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18–27, Jan. 2002.
[39] E. A. Flinn, “Signal analysis using rectilinearity and direction of particle
motion,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 1874–1876, Dec. 1965.
746 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2012
[40] J. L. Porsani, E. Slob, R. S. Lima, and D. N. Leite, “Comparing detection
and location performance of perpendicular and parallel broadside GPR
antenna orientations,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jan. 2010.
[41] R. Streich, J. van Der Kruk, and A. G. Green, “Vector-migration of stan-
dard copolarized 3D GPR data,” Geophysics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. J65–J75,
Sep./Oct. 2007.
Urs Böniger (S’08–M’10) received the Diploma
degree in geophysics from the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland, in 2004
and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Potsdam,
Potsdam, Germany, in 2010.
He is currently with the University of Potsdam.
His research focuses on attribute-based processing
and interpretation approaches for georadar data as
well as the application of seismic methods to char-
acterize a creeping landslide.
Jens Tronicke received the Diploma degree in geo-
physics from the University of Münster, Münster,
Germany, in 1997 and the Ph.D. degree from the Uni-
versity of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, in 2001.
From 2001 to 2005, he was a Postdoctoral
Researcher with the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland. In 2002,
he received a visiting scientist fellowship by the
German science foundation at the Center of Geo-
physical Investigations of the Shallow Subsurface
at Boise State University. Since 2005, he has been
a Professor with the Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam,
Potsdam, Germany. His research interests include georadar, electrical, and
seismic methods as well as the application of integrated geophysical approaches
to environmental and hydrogeological site characterization.
Prof. Tronicke is a member of AGU, DGG, EAGE, EEGS, and SEG.