1887
Volume 54, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Adequate knowledge of velocity is required for accurate data imaging and depth conversion, as well as for quantifying the distribution of soil water content. Without complementary borehole information in the form of dielectric permittivity and/or porosity logs along the profile, it is currently impossible to reliably estimate the high-frequency electromagnetic velocity distribution in the probed subsurface region. Here, we present a new method for calculating the precise subsurface velocity structure from ground penetrating radar (GPR) reflection data that does not require boreholes or log data. This study investigates the ability of the pulse_EKKO PRO GPR system to predict a vertical profile for the possible velocity estimation of a layered and contaminated geophysical test site in Hangzhou, China. All data were acquired and saved on the GPR system in various files (projects) before analysis using GPR software to obtain approximated velocity modelling using common midpoint (CMP) gathers. Using the velocity spectrum analysis, a vertical profile of the interval velocities can be derived from each CMP gather. The findings of this study indicate that the proposed method is effective and sustainable. Furthermore, owing to the efficacy of the method in terms of field effort and computational complexity, it can easily be expanded to 3D GPR velocity exploration, increasing its importance in comparison to standard offset-based techniques for estimating velocity using GPR.

© 2022 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
2023-05-04
2026-01-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Khersan, E.H., J.M.T.Al-Ani, and S.N.Abrahem. 2016. Integrated GPR and ERT as enhanced detection for subsurface historical structures inside Babylonian houses site, Uruk City, Southern Iraq. Pure and Applied Geophysics173, no. 3: 963–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Annan, A.P.2005. Ground-penetrating radar. In Near-surface geophysics, 357–438. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Annan, A.P., J.L.Davis, and J.Pilon. 1992. Design and development of a digital ground penetrating radar system. Ground Penetrating Radar, Geological Survey of Canada Special Paper90, no. 4: 15–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Babcock, E., and J.Bradford. 2013. Detecting subsurface contamination using ground penetrating radar and amplitude variation with offset analysis. 2013 7th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar32: 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Balanis, C.A.2005. Antenna theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
  6. Bohidar, R.N., and J.F.Hermance. 2002. The GPR refraction method. Geophysics67 no. 5: 1474–1485.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Decker, L., D.Merzlikin, and S.Fomel. 2017. Diffraction imaging and time-migration velocity analysis using oriented velocity continuation. Geophysics82, no. 2: U25–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Deshpande, G., L.Libero, K.R.Sreenivasan, H.Deshpande, and R.K.Kana. 2013. Identification of neural connectivity signatures of autism using machine learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience7: 670.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dix, C.H.1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics20, no. 1: 68–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Doolittle, J.A., and N.F.Bellantoni. 2010. The search for graves with ground-penetrating radar in Connecticut. Journal of Archaeological Science37, no. 5: 941–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Duret, F., F.Bertin, K.Garceran, R.Sternfels, T.Bardainne, N.Deladerriere, and D.Le Meur. 2016. Near-surface velocity modeling using a combined inversion of surface and refracted P-waves. The Leading Edge35, no. 11: 946–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fisher, S.C., R.R.Stewart, and H.M.Jol. 1996. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) data enhancement using seismic techniques. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1, no. 2: 89–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fomel, S., E.Landa, and M.T.Taner. 2007. Poststack velocity analysis by separation and imaging of seismic diffractions. Geophysics72, no. 6: U89–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hollender, F., and S.Tillard. 2000. Ground-penetrating radar multifrequency tomography: A new approach of radar data processing: 70th Ann. In Internat. Mtg, Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1255–1258.
  15. Huisman, J.A., S.S.Hubbard, J.D.Redman, and A.P.Annan. 2003. Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar: A review. Vadose Zone Journal2, no. 4: 476–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Iqbal, I., X.Bin, G.Tian, H.Wang, P.Sanxi, Y.Yang, Z.Masood, and S.Hanwu. 2021. Near surface velocity estimation using GPR data: Investigations by numerical simulation, and experimental approach with AVO response. Remote Sensing13, no. 14: 2814.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Iqbal, I., G.Tian, X.Bin, and Z.Wang. 2022. GPR antennas geometry and its impact over detection of near-surface water contamination through AVO data analysis at laboratory site. Journal of Applied Geophysics205: 104758. doi:10.1016/J.JAPPGEO.2022.104758.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAPPGEO.2022.104758 [Google Scholar]
  18. Iqbal, I., G.Tian, Z.Wang, Z.Masood, Y.Liu, W.Zhao, and Y.Li. 2020. Symmetry between theoretical and physical investigation of water contamination using amplitude variation with offset analysis of ground-penetrating radar data. Symmetry12, no. 6: 991.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacob, R.W., and T.M.Urban. 2016. Ground-penetrating radar velocity determination and precision estimates using common-midpoint (CMP) collection with hand-picking, semblance analysis and cross-correlation analysis: A case study and tutorial for archaeologists. Archaeometry58, no. 6: 987–1002.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Morita, N., E.Umemoto, S.Fujita, A.Hayashi, J.Kikuta, I.Kimura, T.Haneda, T.Imai, A.Inoue, H.Mimuro, Y.Maeda, H.Kayama, R.Okumura, J.Aoki, N.Okada, T.Kida, M.Ishii, R.Nabeshima, and K.Takeda. 2019. GPR31-dependent dendrite protrusion of intestinal CX3CR1+ cells by bacterial metabolites. Nature, 566, no. 7742: 110–4.
  21. Lazzari, M., L.De Giorgi, G.Ceraudo, and R.Persico. 2018. Geoprospecting survey in the archaeological site of aquinum (Lazio, Central Italy). Surveys in Geophysics39, no. 6: 1167–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, H., M.Zhai, L.Zhang, Y.Zhou, Z.Yang, J.He, J.Liang, and L.Zhou. 2013. The distribution and composition characteristics of siliceous rocks from Qinzhou Bay-Hangzhou Bay joint belt, South China: Constraint on the tectonic evolution of plates in South China. The Scientific World Journal2013: 949603. doi:10.1155/2013/949603.
     https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/949603 [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, H., and M.Sato. 2014. In situ measurement of pavement thickness and dielectric permittivity by GPR using an antenna array. Ndt & E International64: 65–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, H., X.Xie, J.Cui, K.Takahashi, and M.Sato. 2014. Groundwater level monitoring for hydraulic characterization of an unconfined aquifer by common mid-point measurements using GPR. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics19, no. 4: 259–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pipan, M., L.Baradello, E.Forte, and A.Prizzon. 2000. GPR study of bedding planes, fractures, and cavities in limestone. Eighth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar4084: 682–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pochanin, G.P., S.A.Masalov, V.P.Ruban, P.V.Kholod, D.O.Batrakov, A.G.Batrakova, L.A.Varianytsia-Roshchupkina, S.N.Urdzik, and O.G.Pochanin. 2010. Advances in short-range distance and permittivity ground-penetrating radar measurements for road surface surveying. In Advanced Ultrawideband Radar,37–82CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Shaikh, S.A., G.Tian, Z.Shi, W.Zhao, and S.A.Junejo. 2018. Frequency band adjustment match filtering based on variable frequency GPR antennas pairing scheme for shallow subsurface investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics149: 42–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharma, P., A.Mishra, B.Kumar, and S.P.Gaba. 2016. Experimental study of water contamination detection using ground penetrating radar. 2016 11th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), 715–8. doi:10.1109/ICIINFS.2016.8263031.
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIINFS.2016.8263031 [Google Scholar]
  29. Srivastav, A., P.Nguyen, M.McConnell, K.A.Loparo, and S.Mandal. 2020. A highly digital multiantenna ground-penetrating radar (GPR) system. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement69, no. 10: 7422–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Takahashi, K., J.Igel, H.Preetz, S.Kuroda, and M.Kumar. 2012. Basics and application of ground-penetrating radar as a tool for monitoring irrigation process. Problems, Perspectives and Challenges of Agricultural Water Management160: 152–160.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. van der Kruk, J., R.Streich, and A.G.Green. 2006. Properties of surface waveguides derived from separate and joint inversion of dispersive TE and TM GPR data. Geophysics71, no. 1: K19–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Overmeeren, R.A.1981. A combination of electrical resistivity, seismic refraction, and gravity measurements for groundwater exploration in Sudan. Geophysics46, no. 9: 1304–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, H., H.Liu, J.Cui, X.Hu, and M.Sato. 2018. Velocity analysis of CMP gathers acquired by an array GPR system ‘Yakumo’: Results from field application to tsunami deposits. Exploration Geophysics49, no. 5: 669–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Yilmaz, Ö. 2001. Seismic data analysis: Processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  35. Zhao, W., G.Tian, E.Forte, M.Pipan, Y.Wang, X.Li, Z.Shi, and H.Liu. 2015. Advances in GPR data acquisition and analysis for archaeology. Geophysical Journal International202, no. 1: 62–71.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
Loading
Analysis of subsurface velocity using CMP gathers picked up by unshielded GPR system: results from an experimental NAPL contaminated test site
Exploration Geophysics 54, 261 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2022.2131390
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): common midpoint (CMP); geophysical test; GPR configuration; non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL); subsurface contamination; velocity analysis

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