2001
DOI: 10.1029/2000gl008538
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Near‐surface imaging using coincident seismic and GPR data

Abstract: Abstract. In many near-surface applications, detailed subsurface characterization is important. Characterization often is obtained using ground-penetrating radar (GPR) or shallow seismic-reflection (SSR)imaging methods, depending upon depth of interest and surficial geology. Each method responds to different physical properties; thus, each may produce different images of the same near-surface volume. By incorporating the two methods, we generated a cross-section of the subsurface at an alluvial test site and i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previously reported studies have discussed the coincident use of seismic and GPR methods [Cardimona et al, 1998;Bachrach and Nur, 1998b;Baker et al, 2001;Sloan et al, 2007], demonstrating the ability to image concurrent features and improve geologic interpretations. Due to the response of each method to different physical properties, field site conditions may not be suitable for the joint use of both methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previously reported studies have discussed the coincident use of seismic and GPR methods [Cardimona et al, 1998;Bachrach and Nur, 1998b;Baker et al, 2001;Sloan et al, 2007], demonstrating the ability to image concurrent features and improve geologic interpretations. Due to the response of each method to different physical properties, field site conditions may not be suitable for the joint use of both methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many geological environments, SSR, GPR, and ERI are effective methods for imaging near-surface boundaries due to variations in stratigraphy and in electromagnetic (EM) properties, obtaining detailed, horizontally continuous information about the near subsurface without resorting to invasive and expensive drilling (Neal, 2004). Geologic complexity such as cross-stratification, conflicting dips, joints and faults, or rapid lateral and vertical particle-size variations pose a challenge in the interpretation of the shallow stratigraphy using SSR, GPR, and ERI methods (Wyatt and Temples, 1996;Baker et al, 2001; Gross et al, 2004;Clement et al, 2006). However, the use of a combination of these methods generally improves the chances for a more accurate geologic interpretation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variations in resistance to current flow at depth cause distinctive variations in the potential difference measurements, which provide information about the subsurface structures and materials. Although these techniques work well in near-surface investigations and are quite similar in terms of how the active energy is applied to the earth, GPR still offers the highest potential resolution of the three methods for shallow imaging in low EM loss materials (Baker et al, 2001).In site characterization, near-surface geophysical surveys at different resolution scales are critical to model the heterogeneity of the shallow subsurface. These noninvasive geophysical methods respond to changes in the material composition and pore fluid Figure 1.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many geological environments, SSR, GPR, and ERI are effective methods for imaging near-surface boundaries due to variations in stratigraphy and in electromagnetic (EM) properties, obtaining detailed, horizontally continuous information about the near subsurface without resorting to invasive and expensive drilling (Neal, 2004). Geologic complexity such as cross-stratification, conflicting dips, joints and faults, or rapid lateral and vertical particle-size variations pose a challenge in the interpretation of the shallow stratigraphy using SSR, GPR, and ERI methods (Wyatt and Temples, 1996;Baker et al, 2001;Gross et al, 2004;Clement et al, 2006). However, the use of a combination of these methods generally improves the chances for a more accurate geologic interpretation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variations in resistance to current flow at depth cause distinctive variations in the potential difference measurements, which provide information about the subsurface structures and materials. Although these techniques work well in near-surface investigations and are quite similar in terms of how the active energy is applied to the earth, GPR still offers the highest potential resolution of the three methods for shallow imaging in low EM loss materials (Baker et al, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%