GPR vs EMI

[cvg]

GPR vs EMI
Attempting to locate underground, relatively shallow pipes and are unsuccessful with EMI. Is there any reason to believe that GPR would be more successful?

24 inch reinf concrete pipe, less than 10 feet deep in sandy soils

 

[IRstuff]

Is the soil moisture high? Are the pipes metallic?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[cvg]

generally the moisture content is low. soil is mostly silty sand
the pipes are reinforced concrete, so some metal but not a lot

 

[IRstuff]

EMI needs enough electrical conductivity in the target object that distorts the magnetic field of the sensor; that's how you find things. Rebar might not be sufficient.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Ron]

GPR should work for this case

 

[IRstuff]

GPR would only care about moisture in the soil, since it's detecting changes in dielectric transmission. Someone with a multi-frequency GPR should be able to cover all the moisture bases, and the depth of penetration can be in the 10s of meters for some frequencies.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm