0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
50 vues3 pages
Two generic types of slope monitoring radar commercially available. Real-beam and synthetic aperture radars measure displacement but differ markedly in the way they locate and map the measured displacements. The principal difference between the two types is the technology forming the spatial distribution of the reflections from the surfaces to be monitored.
Two generic types of slope monitoring radar commercially available. Real-beam and synthetic aperture radars measure displacement but differ markedly in the way they locate and map the measured displacements. The principal difference between the two types is the technology forming the spatial distribution of the reflections from the surfaces to be monitored.
Two generic types of slope monitoring radar commercially available. Real-beam and synthetic aperture radars measure displacement but differ markedly in the way they locate and map the measured displacements. The principal difference between the two types is the technology forming the spatial distribution of the reflections from the surfaces to be monitored.
Comparing Real Beam and Synthetic Aperture Techniques for
Slope Stability Radar
Dr I D Longstaff, Emeritus Professor, University of Queensland, Australia White Paper C1001
Constraints Real-Beam Radar (eg. GroundProbe SSR and Reutech MSR) Synthetic Aperture Radar (eg. IDS IBIS) Mapping Displacement The most robust and most accurate in 3D. The least robust and inaccurate in 3D. Coverage of Slope 100% of scanned area Typically 70% of the scanned area some data has artifacts and is systemically unreliable. Maximum Sector scanned Typically +/- 120 o in front, left side and right side directions with potential for 360 o cover Up to +/- 30 o in front direction only Monitoring Steep Slopes relative to line of sight Suitable. Not suitable. Monitoring Shallow Slopes at long range Suitable but not for extremely long ranges (many kilometers) Suitable for all ranges There are currently two generic types of slope monitoring radar commercially available. These are similar in the way they measure displacement but differ markedly in the way they locate and map the measured displacements. The technology used in these mapping processes has an important impact on the suitability of these radars for particular applications. The principal difference between the two types is the technology forming the spatial distribution of the reflections from the surfaces to be monitored. One type is real-beam radar. This has a conventional dish antenna which mechanically scans a pencil beam in raster fashion over the region of interest, as in Figure 1a. The other type is synthetic aperture radar (SAR) where a small antenna slides along a rail collecting data which is processed to form multiple fan shaped beams, as in Figure 1b. Important differences between these two techniques are:- The mechanically scanned pencil beam, together with range information forms a three dimensional representation of the surface to be monitored, Figure 1a. This allows a three dimensional representation of the rock face with the displacement characteristics superimposed in colour.
In contrast the SAR scans only in azimuth with a fan beam which simultaneously covers all elevation angles, Figure 1b. A fine grain digital terrain model (3D Mine Map) is required to map range into elevation. This is not produced by the radar. Alternatively a uniformly sloping ground can be assumed but this distorts the image if the assumption is not a good fit. Background In recent years we have seen the emergence of commercial slope stability radar products to improve safety in open cut mines. These are the SSR from GroundProbe, the MSR from Reutech, and the IBIS from IDS. The SSR and MSR use a real-beam radar technique, while the IBIS uses a synthetic aperture technique. There are significant differences in the real-beam and synthetic aperture techniques which impact on the best choice of system for a particular application. Geotechnical engineers, mine managers, and mine safety officers are involved in the selection and setting up of these radars and it is important for the right choice to be made, because of the impact on safety. Aim This white paper compares the real beam and synthetic aperture techniques for slope stability radars and their impact on performance for safety-critical decisions. The summary of these differences is contained in Table 1. Introduction All the commercial available slope-monitoring radars in service measure the slight ground or rock-face movements which are the pre-cursors to a landslide or rock-face fall. These movements are measured in mm or cm over a period of time hours or days, and certain characteristics of the movement time-history give a reliable warning of an impending failure. Typically a warning algorithm will give an alert or warning if the displacement, velocity, or acceleration exceeds pre-set values anywhere on the rock face. The level of these thresholds will typically be set by a geotechnical engineer based on knowledge of the local geological structures. The radar suppliers geotechnical engineers may help by calling on their specialist understanding of the equipment capabilities and their database of previous rock-wall failures. Table 1. Summarizing the differences
2
contrast to the synthetic aperture radar described later). A narrow conical beam is formed in space, of angular beam-width related to the size of the dish, which performs a raster scan over the surface to be monitored. The data collected with a real-bream radar is three dimensional, representing the signal strength and phase angle in each elevation, azimuth, and range cell. Repeated scans allow the change in phase at each position to be measured and converted to the displacement in range from the initial position. The time history of movement can then be accumulated, and checked by signal processor for any features indicating a warning. Typically the degree of displacement is shown in cool to hot colours, with red typically indicating a critical pre-set value has been reached. An advantage of the scanning dish radar is the three-dimensional radar profile of the rock surface can be displayed superimposed with the displacement colours. Similarly the displacement image can be easily superimposed on a photographic image. Both of these display formats allow an interpretation of the movements in relation to any geotechnical features, such as fault lines and blocks. The radar conical beam causes the resolving power to be proportional to range and this typically sets a limit on maximum range for a given performance. Typically the resolving power might require any wall movement to be attributed to a particular bench. In this case the footprint size produced by the radar should be smaller than 10m - 15m, depending on the mine bench heights in question. The beam cone angle is set by the size of the antenna aperture measured in wavelengths, and for a one-meter dish at 3 cm wavelength (10 GHz) this is about 2 degrees. So a requirement for a 10m-15m resolving power limits the maximum range of radar with these parameters to about 300m-450m. Increasing the size of the dish or the operating frequency will increase the maximum range in the same proportion. But limiting factors are that a large dish presents a wind-loading problem, also higher frequencies suffer more from propagation anomalies on hot or rainy days. A frequency in the range 10 15 GHz seems to be the best choice, allowing a manageable antenna size. In addressing the dynamic range issue we need to explain the side-lobe characteristics of the antenna. No antenna is perfect and some of the transmitter energy spills into other angles, likewise a receiver antenna will collect some energy from other angles, albeit at low levels. This Figure 1a. Footprint of a real-beam radar (eg. SSR and MSR), that provides independent footprint measurements of slope movement. Figure 1b. Set of footprints of a synthetic aperture radar (eg. IBIS), formed by synthesized fan beams projected over different ranges (adapted from Ref 3)
Measuring Displacement These radars all use a technology termed interferometry to make the fine measurements in range. If a reflector moves closer by half a wavelength towards the radar the path length there and back is shortened by a whole wavelength. Path length changes can be measured from the change in phase of the reflected signal, with 360 degrees corresponding to 15 mm for the typical radar wavelength of 30mm. Phase changes of just a few degrees can easily be measured by modern signal processing technology giving the potential for very accurate range measurements. In practice external factors limit the accuracy to a millimeter or so. Such factors include propagation anomalies (analogous to the shimmer seen on a hot day), the movement of vegetation cover, and interfering returns from reflectors at other angles. The first two of these affect both types of radar in a similar way, but the interfering reflections impact these radars very differently - as discussed later in this paper.
Another common feature of these radars is they all display the measured displacements on an image of the rock face, with colour representing the degree of movement. It is the technology behind the image formation process which differentiates these radars and their suitability for particular applications. Mapping Displacement Two factors influence the quality of an image and we describe here the particular implications of these on the displacement images produced by slope-monitoring radars. These factors are resolution and dynamic range (also known as definition and contrast ratio). Resolution is about the finest spatial detail which can be represented. Dynamic range is about the ratio of the strongest and weakest signals in the scene which can be captured without the strong signal spilling across the scene to cause artifacts (measurement errors in our case) in other parts of the scene. With radar these two characteristics are determined by the shape of the beam. Resolving power is set by the size of the main-beam footprint as presented on the rock face. Dynamic range is set by the pattern of radiation falling outside the main beam footprint, the so-called side-lobe pattern. Mapping the Displacement with a Real-Beam Radar The most robust method of imaging rock face movement is with a mechanically scanned radar dish, sometimes called real-beam radar (in
3
plot of sensitivity as a function of angle off the main beam. Two important measures are captured by the directional pattern: the peak side-lobe to main beam ratio and the integrated side-lobe ratio (ISLR). The peak side-lobe ratio is important. If a side-lobe peak scans across a large reflector, say from a mining machine, it will add to the signal from the main beam and corrupt the phase measurement made at the angle of the main beam. Allowable breakthrough must be very small, typically 20 dB lower, depending on the accuracy specification. Fortunately for real-beam radars the side-lobes are controlled on both transmission and on reception so the overall side-lobe level is easy to control. For instance it is relatively easy to produce an antenna with a one way pattern having peak side-lobes 20 dB lower than the main beam, so that for a two way radar pattern the side-lobes would be 40 dB down. The Synthetic Aperture Radar described in the next section does not have this advantage. The integrated side-lobe ratio (ISLR) is important because the sum of signals from all angles must be much lower than the signal in the main beam footprint for an accurate phase measurement. A typical one-way antenna pattern may well have an ISLR of only -15 dB, but the two-way pattern of a real beam radar doubles this to -30 dB. Hence for example, if the reflectivity across the whole scene is on average about the same as the reflectivity in the main beam, then the interfering sum will be 30 dB down if the ISLR is -30dB which is acceptable. Again, the Synthetic Aperture Radar described in the next section does not have this advantage. Mapping the Displacement with a Synthetic Aperture Radar This type of radar does not form a narrow transmitter beam like the real-beam radar described earlier. Rather it transmits and receives with a wide beam pattern as the antenna traverses a horizontal rail placed side-on to the scene. All the beams are then formed (synthesized) by processing the data set after completing the transition. This technique forms a set of fan beams which have a narrow pattern in azimuth and a broad pattern in elevation, see Figure 1b. An important advantage of this technique is that the horizontal rail can span a much wider horizontal aperture than is practical with a dish antenna of the same diameter - especially in windy locations. The implication of this is that the horizontal resolving power can be adjusted to suit long-range operation just by using a longer rail.
However a problem arises because the vertical fan beam gives no information about the elevation angle of any returned signals. So the radar relies on range resolution to help separate returns from different elevations. If a digital terrain model is available these ranges can then be projected into elevation for display purposes. Alternatively a uniform slope can be assumed but this distorts the image where it does not fit the assumption. A consequence is that the size of the 2D patch illuminated by the pulse length is dependent on the slope of the ground. Hence, a problem arises with this process if the slope being viewed has regions which are steep with respect to the line of sight. In this case a
single range cell can span a larger elevation region, so returns from a displacement occurring over a small region may be swamped by signal from the rest of the stationary region. This would under report the extent of the threat. The fact that vertical resolution is variable and dependent on the slope indicates the accuracy of measured displacements may not correspond well to the actual displacements. Hence this type of slope monitoring radar is not such a precision instrument compared with real-beam radar. Another problem with Synthetic Aperture Radar is they have a limited dynamic range. This is because the transmitter pattern is very broad, and the directional pattern is synthesized on reception, the overall directional pattern is in effect a one-way pattern. For this the peak side-lobe ratio and integrated side-lobe ratio are much higher than the two-way pattern of the real beam radar. As a consequence THE SAR system needs a process to decide if the signal received is from the main beam is corrupted by signals from side-lobes. This is conventionally achieved with a side-lobe cancellation process which compares the main beam signal with the signal from a wide beam. If the wide beam antenna receives strong signals indicating these can add into the main beam sufficiently to affect the phase measurement then the main beam signal is blanked out. For this reason a SAR slope monitoring radar is only able to image strong signal returns and show blank regions where the main beam returns are corrupted. For this reason images produced by these radars typically contain blank regions. Conclusions A real-beam slope monitoring radar offers a more precise instrument for monitoring the rock wall movements which are the pre-cursor to a fall. It provides full coverage of the slope and independent measurements in horizontal and vertical dimensions. A synthetic aperture radar gives scope for high azimuthal resolution at long range, but vertical resolution depends on converting range information into elevation using a digital terrain model. This radar also suffers from higher side-lobes in the beam pattern which can introduce artifacts to lower reflectivity parts of the scene; hence these parts are normally blanked out, causing an incomplete cover. To conclude the real beam radar is perhaps the best choice for open cut mines and the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) may be better for long range monitoring of landside threats where the ground profile is shallow and offering a suitable view of the slope. However the SAR approach would not be the best choice for very steep slopes relative to the line-of-sight. References 1) Skolnik, M. I.: Radar handbook, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, 1991 2) Barton, K. D. and S. A. Leonov: Radar Technology handbook, Artech House, Boston, 1997 3) McHugh E. L., Long D. G., and C. Sabine., Applications of Ground-based Radar to Mine Slope Monitoring, ASPRS Annual Conference Proceedings, May 2004, Denver, Colorado