Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; August 2001; v. 20; no. 8; p. 890-895; DOI: 10.1190/1.1487302
© 2001 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butler, D. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Potential fields methods for location of unexploded ordnance

Dwain K. Butler

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, U.S.

Corresponding author: butlerd@wes.army.mil

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Millions of acres of land, formerly and currently used for military activities are potentially contaminated by surface and buried unexplored ordnance (UXO). Surface and buried UXO exists at hundreds of sites with diverse geologic and environmental conditions. UXO exists from the surface to depths as great as 10 m and ranges in size from 20-mm projectiles to 2000-lb bombs (Figure 1). UXO cleanup is currently the highest priority U.S. Department of Defense environmental quality issue at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). UXO cleanup is also required at active test and training ranges for continued safe use of existing facilities.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Typical ordnance items and cost distribution for UXO cleanup.

 
The most frequently used methods for UXO location surveys are total-field magnetometers (TFM) and "simple" time-domain electromagnetic induction (TDEM) instruments. Simple TDEM loosely refers to systems that measure 1–2 time windows (gates) from the induced transient decay signal. When used by experienced geophysical practitioners during demonstrations at controlled UXO test sites, probabilities of detection of UXO exceed 90%. Generally, for production surveys at large sites, only one of these systems will be deployed.

Other geophysical methods proposed, demonstrated, and/or utilized for UXO surveys are ground-penetrating radar (GPR), frequency-domain electromagnetic induction (FDEM), multigate TDEM, multicomponent TDEM, multicomponent (vector) magnetometers, magnetic gradiometers, acoustic/seismic methods, gravimetry, and airborne systems of various types. GPR is not an applicable tool or approach for large-area UXO detection surveys. However, GPR has applicability and considerable potential for small-area UXO discrimination and identification efforts after UXO has been located by other methods. Efforts to apply airborne geophysical surveys for UXO location at heights typically greater than 25 m, including magnetometry, GPR, and SAR, have been failures. Recently, however, TFM and simple TDEM surveys from a helicopter platform at 1.5–2.5 m elevation . . . [Full Text of this Article]






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists