1887
Volume 11 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Tomographic inversions of cross‐hole ground‐penetrating radar provide images of electromagnetic properties of the shallow subsurface and are used in a wide range of applications. Whereas the resolutions of ray‐based methods like first‐arrival traveltime and first‐cycle amplitude tomography are limited to the scale of the first Fresnel zone, full‐waveform inversions incorporate precise forward modelling using the full recorded signal for a solution of Maxwell’s equation, which results in sub‐wavelength resolutions. In practice, the method can be time‐consuming in data acquisition and expensive in computational costs. To overcome these expenses, a semi‐reciprocal acquisition setup with a reduced number of transmitters and an interchange of transmitter and receiver boreholes instead of a one‐sided equidistant setup in either borehole yielded promising results. Here, this optimized, semi‐reciprocal acquisition setup is compared to a dense, equidistant, one‐sided acquisition setup measured at the field site Krauthausen, Germany. The full‐waveform inversion results are evaluated using the checkerboard test as a capable resolution analysis tool to determine resolvabili‐ties. We introduced also a new method of time‐zero correction by a cross‐correlation of a zero‐offset profile with corresponding horizontal traces of each multi‐offset gather. The obtained experimental results from Krauthausen combined with the checkerboard analysis indicate the main three‐permittivity layers that correspond with different porosities. Also fine‐layered structures within these main layers were reliably imaged. We conclude that the use of the semi‐reciprocal setup is optimum for acquisition speed, inversion speed and obtained permittivity inversion results. Our results indicate that conductivity results are better for denser transmitter‐receiver setups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012045
2012-09-01
2020-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArchieG.E.1942. The electrical resistity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers/Petroleum Division146, 54–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BarrashW. and ClemoT.2002. Hierarchical geostatistics and multifacies systems: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Boise, Idaho. Water Resources Research38, 1196.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeresMilanJr. and HaeniF.P.1991. Application of ground‐penetrating radar methods in hydrogeologic studies. Ground Water29(3), 375–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BinleyA., WinshipP. and MiddletonR.2001. High‐resolution characterization of vadose zone dynamics using cross‐borehole radar. Water Resources Research37, 2639–2652
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CassidyN.J.2009. Ground Penetrating Radar Data Processing, Modelling and Analysis. In: Ground Penetrating Radar Data Processing, Modelling and Analysis (ed. H.M.Jol ), pp. 141–172. Elsevier Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1989. Ground‐Penetrating Radar for High‐Resolution Mapping of Soil and Rock Stratigraphy. Geophysical Prospecting37, 531–551.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DayA.J., PeirceC. and SinhaM.C.2001. Three‐dimensional crustal structure and magma chamber geometry at the intermediate‐spreading, back‐arc Valu Fa Ridge, Lau Basin results of a wide‐angle seismic tomographic inversion. Geophysical Journal International146, 31–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DessaJ.‐X. and PascalG.2003. Combined traveltime and frequency‐domain seismic waveform inversion: A case study on multi‐offset ultrasonic data. Geophysical Journal International154, 117–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DickensT.A.1994. Diffraction tomography for crosswell imaging of nearly layered media. Geophysics59, 694.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DoetschJ., LindeN., CosciaI., GreenhalghS.A. and GreenA.G.2010. Zonation for 3D aquifer characterization based on joint inversions of multimethod crosshole geophysical data. Geophysics75, 53–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. EnglertA.2003. Measurement, Estimation and Modelling of Groundwater Flow Velocity at Krauthausen Test Site. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ErnstJ.R.2007. 2‐D finite‐difference time‐domain full‐waveform inversion of crosshole georadar data. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ErnstJ.R., GreenA.G., MaurerH. and HolligerK.2007b. Application of a new 2D time‐domain full‐waveform inversion scheme to crosshole radar data. Geophysics72, J53–J64.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ErnstJ.R., MaurerH., GreenA.G. and HolligerK.2007a. Full‐Waveform Inversion of Crosshole Radar Data Based on 2‐D Finite‐Difference Time‐Domain Solutions of Maxwell's Equations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing45, 2807–2828.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HagreyS.A. and MuellerC.2000. GPR study of pore water content and salinity in sand. Geophysical Prospecting48, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. KlotzscheA., van der KrukJ., MelesG.A., DoetschJ., MaurerH. and LindeN.2010. Full‐waveform inversion of cross‐hole ground‐penetrating radar data to characterize a gravel aquifer close to the Thur River, Switzerland. Near Surface Geophysics8, 635–649.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KlotzscheA., van der KrukJ., MelesG.A. and VereeckenH.2012. Crosshole GPR full‐waveform inversion of waveguides acting as preferential flow paths within aquifer systems. Geophysics77, H57–H62.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KnightR.2001. Ground Penetrating Radar for Environmental Applications. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science29, 229–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LindeN., BinleyA., TryggvasonA., PedersenL.B. and RevilA.2006. Improved hydrogeophysical characterization using joint inversion of cross‐hole electrical resistance and ground‐penetrating radar traveltime data. Water Resources Research42, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LoomsM.C., JensenK.H., BinleyA. and NielsenL.2008. Monitoring Unsaturated Flow and Transport Using Cross‐Borehole Geophysical Methods. Vadose Zone Journal7, 227–237
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MaurerH. and GreenA.G.1997. Potential coordinate mislocations in crosshole tomography: Results from the Grimsel test site, Switzerland. Geophysics62, 1696–1709.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MaurerH., GreenhalghS.A. and LatzelS.2009. Frequency and spatial sampling strategies for crosshole seismic waveform spectral inversion experiments. Geophysics74, WCC79–WCC89.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MaurerH. and MusilM.2004. Effects and removal of systematic errors in crosshole georadar attenuation tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics55, 261–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MelesG.A., GreenhalghS.A., GreenA.G., MaurerH. and van der KrukJ.2012. GPR Full‐Waveform Sensitivity and Resolution Analysis Using an FDTD Adjoint Method. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing50, 1881–1895.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MelesG.A., GreenhalghS.A., van der KrukJ., GreenA.G. and MaurerH.2011. Taming the non‐linearity problem in GPR full‐waveform inversion for high contrast media. Journal of Applied Geophysics73, 174–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MelesG.A., van der KrukJ., GreenhalghS.A., ErnstJ.R., MaurerH. and GreenA.G.2010. A New Vector Waveform Inversion Algorithm for Simultaneous Updating of Conductivity and Permittivity Parameters from Combination Crosshole/Borehole‐to‐Surface GPR Data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing48, 3391–3407.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. MenkeW.1989. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory. Academic Press Inc.New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MorganJ., ChristesonG.L. and ZeltC.A.2002. Testing the resolution of a 3D velocity tomogram across the Chicxulub crater. Tectonophysics355, 215–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. RaoY., WangY. and MorganJ.V.2006. Crosshole seismic waveform tomography – II. Resolution analysis. Geophysical Journal International166, 1237–1248.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. RuckerD.F. and FerréP.A.2003. Near‐Surface Water Content Estimation with Borehole Ground Penetrating Radar Using Critically Refracted Waves. Vadose Zone Journal2, 247–252.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. TarantolaA.1984a. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49, 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. TarantolaA.1984b. Linearized Inversion of Seismic Reflection Data. Geophysical Prospecting32, 998–1015.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. TarantolaA.1986. A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysics51, 1893–1903.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. TillmannA., EnglertA., NyariZ., FejesI., VanderborghtJ. and VereeckenH.2008. Characterization of subsoil heterogeneity, estimation of grain size distribution and hydraulic conductivity at the Krauthausen test site using Cone Penetration Test. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology95, 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. TillmannA., NyariZ., FejesI., EnglertA., VanderborghtJ., StickelJ. et al. 2005. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) on the Krauthausen Test Site, Part I: Data Aquisition and Preliminary Interpretation of the Surveys 2003 and 2004. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. ToppG.C., DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research16, 574.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. VereeckenH., DöringU., HardelaufH., JaekelU., HashagenU., NeuendorfO. et al. 2000. Analysis of solute transport in a heterogeneous aquifer: The Krauthausen field experiment. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology45, 329–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. VidaleJ.E.1990. Finite‐difference calculation of traveltimes in three dimensions. Geophysics55, 521–526.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. ZeltC.A.1998. Lateral velocity resolution from three‐dimensional seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International135, 1101–1112.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. ZeltC.A. and BartonP.J.1998. Three‐dimensional seismic refraction tomography: A comparison of two methods applied to data from the Faeroe Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research103, 7187–7210.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012045
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012045
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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