1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 15, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 15 Number 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Electromagnetic wave propagation methods are extensively used in geophysical prospecting, such as in archaeological and utility surveys. The signal penetration and attenuation of electromagnetic waves depend strongly on the apparent permittivity and electrical conductivity of the soil, which vary on a seasonal basis, affecting the detection of buried features, especially their detected depth. Nevertheless, there is a significant lack of high‐quality long‐term seasonal field monitoring data of electromagnetic properties in different soil conditions to aid the understanding of how these properties vary in field conditions. The results reported in this paper will contribute to addressing this scarcity of data. Long‐term data are presented and analysed from bespoke time‐domain reflectometry monitoring stations designed to enable collection of apparent relative dielectric permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity, and temperature data at a high temporal resolution (hourly) from three remote sites with different soils over an extended period of time (16–23 months). In addition to providing an extensive dataset, the data highlight the importance of using accurate electromagnetic soil data for geophysical prospecting. The greatest changes in geophysical properties for all sites are detected in the near‐surface soils (< 0.5 m), where many buried utilities are generally found, with rapid wetting events and slower drying events greatly affecting both the apparent relative dielectric permittivity and the bulk electrical conductivity. However, the most critical factor for determining these properties is the soil water holding capacity, which, in turn, is a function of the clay mineralogy and content. An analysis of the ratio of energy loss to energy storage shows that the optimum time for ground penetrating radar surveying is during the dry periods and when the soil temperature is low, displaying the significance of soil temperature on survey outcomes, due to its significant effect on the bulk electrical conductivity. The results from this paper will aid survey planning, thereby ensuring a better underground target detection rate.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2017 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
2017-05-01
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BakerJ.M. and AllmarasR.R.1990. System for automating and multiplexing soil‐moisture measurement by time‐domain reflectometry.Soil Science Society of America Journal54, 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BechtoldM., HuismanJ.A., WeihermuellerL. and VereeckenH.2010. Accurate determination of the bulk electrical conductivity with the TDR100 cable tester.Soil Science Society of America Journal74, 495–501.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BevenK.2004. RobertE.Horton’s perceptual model of infiltration processes. Hydrological Processes18, 3447–3460.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BinleyA., CassianiG., MiddletonR. and WinshipP.2002. Vadose zone flow model parameterisation using cross‐borehole radar and resistivity imaging.Journal of Hydrology267, 147–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BittelliM., SalvatorelliF. and PisaP.R.2008. Correction of TDR‐based soil water content measurements in conductive soils.Geoderma143, 133–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BoddiceD.2015. Changing geophysical contrast between archaeological features and surrounding soil. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BoddiceD., FryR., BeckA.R., GaffneyC., MetjeN. and SchmidtA.2013. The impact of environmental dynamics on multiple sensor responses over archaeological features, examples from the DART Project.Archaeological Prospection: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference (eds W.Neubauer , I.Trinks , R.B.Salisbury and C.Einwögerer ), pp. 415–418. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BoxwellM.2010. Solar Electricity Handbook 2010: A Simple Practical Guide to Solar Energy ‐ Designing and Installing Photovoltaic Solar Electric Systems.Coventry, UK: Code Green Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BridgeB.J., SabburgJ., HabashK.O., BallJ.A.R. and HancockN.H.1996. The dielectric behaviour of clay soils and its application to time domain reflectometry.Australian Journal of Soil Research34, 825–835.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. BrunetP., ClémentR. and BouvierC.2010. Monitoring soil water content and deficit using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)—A case study in the Cevennes Area, France.Journal of Hydrology380, 146–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. BSI
    BSI1990. Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes: Part 2: Classification Tests. British Standards Institution.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. CampbellR.B., BowerC.A. and RichardsL.A.1948. Change of electrical conductivity with temperature and the relation of osmotic pressure to electrical conductivity and ion concentration for soil extracts.Soil Science Society Proceedings,66–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. CassidyN.J.2007. Frequency‐dependent attenuation and velocity characteristics of magnetically lossy materials.IEEE Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar,Naples, Italy, pp. 142–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. CassidyN.J.2009. Electrical and magnetic properties of rocks, soils and fluids. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed H.M.Jol ), pp. 41–72. Elsevier Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. ChenY. and OrD.2006. Effects of Maxwell‐Wagner polarization on soil complex dielectric permittivity under variable temperature and electrical conductivity.Water Resources Research42, W06424.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ConyersL.B.2004. Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology.Lanham, MD. AltaMira Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. CurioniG., ChapmanD.N., MetjeN., FooK.Y. and CrossJ.D.2012. Construction and calibration of a field TDR monitoring station. Near Surface Geophysics10, 249–261.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. CurtisJ.O.2001. Moisture effects on the dielectric properties of soils.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing39, 125–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. DoolittleJ.A. and CollinsM.E.1995. Use of soil information to determine application of ground‐penetrating radar.Journal of Applied Geophysics33, 101–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. DoolittleJ.A., MinzenmayerF.E., WaltmanS.W., BenhamE.C., TuttleJ.W. and PeasleeS.D.2007. Ground‐penetrating radar soil suitability map of the conterminous United States.Geoderma141, 416–421.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. DoolittleJ.A., DobosR., PeasleeS.D., WaltmanS.W., BenhamE.C. and TuttleW.2010. Revised ground‐penetrating radar soil suitability maps.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics15, 111–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. EvettS.R.1998. Coaxial multiplexer for time domain reflectometry measurement of soil water content and bulk electrical conductivity.Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers41, 361–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. EvettS.R.2000. The TACQ computer program for automatic time domain reflectometry measurements: I. Design and operating characteristics.Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers43, 1939–1946.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. FerraraC., BaroneP.M., SteelmanC.M., PettinelliE. and EndresA.L.2013a. Monitoring shallow soil water content under natural field conditions using the early‐time GPR signal technique. Vadose Zone Journal12.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. FerraraC., Di TullioV., BaroneP.M., MatteiE., LauroS.E., ProiettiN.et al. 2013b. Comparison of GPR and unilateral NMR for water content measurements in a laboratory scale experiment. Near Surface Geophysics11, 143–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. FredlundD.G. and XingA.Q.1994. Equations for the soil‐water characteristic curve.Canadian Geotechnical Journal31, 521–532.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. FriedmanS.P.2005. Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 45–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. FryR., StottD., BoddiceD. and BeckA.R.2012. What a difference a year makes: preliminary DART datasets from Cherry Copse, Cirencester.AARG News45, 42–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. GongY., CaoQ. and SunZ.2003. The effects of soil bulk density, clay content and temperature on soil water content measurement using time‐domain reflectometry.Hydrological Processes17, 3601–3614.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. HainesW.B.1930. Studies in the physical properties of soil. V: The hysteresis effect in capillary properties, and the modes of moisture distribution associated therewith.Journal of Agricultural Science20, 97–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. HewlettJ.D. and HibbertA.R.1967. Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas. In: Forest Hydrology (eds W.E.Sopper and H.W.Lull ), pp. 275–290. Pergamon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. HippJ.E.1974. Soil electromagnetic parameters as functions of frequency, soil density, and soil moisture.Proceedings of the IEEE62, 98–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. HortonJ.H. and HawkinsR.H.1965. Flow path of rain from the soil surface to the water table.Soil Science100, 377–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. HortonR.E.1933. The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle.Transactions of the American Geophysical Union14, 446–460.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. HubbardS., ChenJ., FangY., WilliamsK., MukhopadhyayS., SonnenthalE.et al. 2006. Improved parameterization of hydrological models and reduction of geophysical monitoring data ambiguity through joint use of geophysical and numerical modeling methods.CWMR XVI‐Computational Methods in Water Resources.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. HubbardS.S., PetersonJrJ.E., MajerE.L., ZawislanskiP.T., WilliamsK.H., RobertsJ.et al. 1997. Estimation of permeable pathways and water content using tomographic radar data.The Leading Edge16, 1623–1630.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. HuismanJ.A., LinC.P., WeihermullerL. and VereeckenH.2008. Accuracy of bulk electrical conductivity measurements with time domain reflectometry.Vadose Zone Journal7, 426.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. HuismanJ.A., SnepvangersJ.J.J.C., BoutenW. and HeuvelinkG.B.M.2003. Monitoring temporal development of spatial soil water content variation: comparison of ground penetrating radar and time domain reflectometry.Vadose Zone Journal2, 519–529.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. IMKO GmbH.
    IMKO GmbH.2012. IMKO GmbH Trime System Specifications.Ettlingen, Germany: IMKO GmbH.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. JolH.2009. Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. JolliffeI.T.2002. Principal Component Analysis.Secaucus, NJ: Springer‐Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. JonesS.B. and OrD.2004. Frequency domain analysis for extending time domain reflectometry water content measurement in highly saline soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal68, 1568–1577.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. JonesS.B., WraithJ.M. and OrD.2002. Time domain reflectometry measurement principles and applications.Hydrological Processes16, 141–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. KnightR.1991. Hysteresis in the electrical resistivity of partially saturated sandstones.Geophysics56, 2139–2147.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. LedieuJ., De RidderP., De ClerckP. and DautrebandeS.1986. A method of measuring soil moisture by time domain reflectometry.Journal of Hydrology88, 319–328.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. LinC.P.2003. Frequency domain versus travel time analysis of TDR waveforms for soil moisture measurements.Soil Science Society of America Journal67, 720–729.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. MalickiM.A., PlaggeR. and RothC.H.1996. Improving the calibration of dielectric TDR soil moisture determination taking into account the solid soil.European Journal of Soil Science47, 357–366.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. MenzianiM., PugnaghiS., VincenziS. and SantangeloR.2003. Soil Moisture Monitoring in the Toce Valley (Italy). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences7, 890–902.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Met Office
    Met Office . 2014. Regional Climate Summaries. [Online] [cited 09/04/16]; Available from: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional/.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. MukhlisinM. and SaputraA.2013. Performance evaluation of volumetric water content and relative permittivity models.The Scientific World Journal2013, 421–762.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. OrD. and RasmussenV.P.1999. Effective frequency of TDR travel time based measurement of bulk dielectric permittivity.Third Workshop on Electromagnetic Wave Interaction With Water and Moist Substances,Russell Agric. Res. Cent, Athens.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. PerroneA., VassalloR., LapennaV. and Di MaioC.2008. Pore water pressures and slope stability: a joint geophysical and geotechnical analysis.Journal of Geophysics and Engineering5, 323.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. PonizovskyA.A., ChudinovaS.M. and PachepskyY.A.1999. Performance of TDR calibration models as affected by soil texture.Journal of Hydrology218, 35–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. RawlsW.J., BrackensiekD.L. and SaxtonK.E.1982. Estimation of soil water properties.Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers25, 1316–1328.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Research Councils UK
    Research Councils UK . 2016. Gateway to Research: The Detection of Archaeological residues using Remote Sensing Techniques (DART). [Online] [cited 26/05/16]; Available from: http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=AH/H032673/1.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. ReynoldsJ.M.1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics.Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. RobinsonD.A., JonesS.B., WraithJ.M., OrD. and FriedmanS.P.2003. A review of advances in dielectric and electrical conductivity measurement in soils using time domain reflectometry.Vadose Zone Journal2, 444–475.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. RobinsonD.A., SchaapM.G., OrD. and JonesS.B.2005. On the effective measurement frequency of time domain reflectometry in dispersive and non‐conductive dielectric materials.Water Resources Research41, W02007.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. SchneiderJ.M. and FrattaD.2009. Time‐domain reflectometry ‐Parametric study for the evaluation of physical properties in soils.Canadian Geotechnical Journal46, 753–767.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. SciottiM., ColoneF., PastinaD. and BucciarelliT.2003. GPR for archaeological investigations: real performance assessment for different surface and subsurface conditions.IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium Proceedings: Learning from Earth’s Shapes and Sizes,Toulouse, France, pp. 2266–2268.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. ScollarI., TabbaghA., HesseA. and HerzogI.1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Smith‐RoseR.L.1933. The electrical properties of soils for alternating currents at radio frequencies.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London140, 359.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. TelfordW.M., GeldartL.P. and SheriffR.E.1990. Applied Geophysics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. ThomasA.M., RogersC.D.F., MetjeN. and ChapmanD.N.2007. Soil electromagnetic mapping for enhanced GPR utility location.Proceedings of the 25th No‐Dig International Conference on Trenchless Installation of Utilities,Rome, Italy.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. ThomasA.M., ChapmanD.N., RogersC.D.F. and MetjeN.2010a. Electromagnetic properties of the ground: Part I—Fine‐grained soils at the liquid limit. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology25, 714–722.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. ThomasA.M., ChapmanD.N., RogersC.D.F. and MetjeN.2010b. Electromagnetic properties of the ground: Part II‐The properties of two selected fine‐grained soils. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology25, 714–722.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. ThringL., BoddiceD., MetjeN., CurioniG., ChapmanD. and PringL.2014. Factors affecting soil permittivity and applications in soil mechanics.Canadian Geotechnical Journal51, 1303–1317.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. ToppG.C., DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil‐water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines.Water Resources Research16, 574–582.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. ToppG.C., ZegelinS.J. and WhiteI.2000. Impacts of the real and imaginary components of relative permittivity on time domain reflec‐tometry measurements in soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal64, 1244–1252.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Van DamR.L., BorchersB. and HendrickxJ.M.H.2005. Methods for prediction of soil dielectric properties: a review.Proceedings of the Society of Photo‐Optical Instrumentation Engineers5794, 188–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. WeilerK.W., SteenhuisT.S., BollJ. and KungK.J.S.1998. Comparison of ground penetrating radar and time‐domain reflectometry as soil water sensors.Soil Science Society of America Journal62, 1237–1239.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. WellerA., LewisR., CanhT., MollerM. and ScholzB.2014. Geotechnical and geophysical long‐term monitoring at a levee of Red River in Vietnam.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics19, 183–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. YoungsE.G. and PoulovassilisA.1976. The different forms of moisture profile development during the redistribution of soil water after infiltration.Water Resources Research12, 1007–1012.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
Loading
Unique insight into the seasonal variability of geophysical properties of field soils: practical implications for near‐surface investigations
Near Surface Geophysics 15, 515 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017020
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error