2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.04.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GPR imaging criteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The expected depth of the sought targets was between 0.5 m and 1.8 m, and the values of A at 1 m and 2 m, according to equations (1) and 2, were between 0.37 m and 0.8 m. These results confirm that PS = 0.5 m is a reasonable value. e) In [44], it is suggested to use PS < 4λ, which in the present case study yields a minimum PS of 1.06 m and 2.12 m with 400 MHz and 200 MHz antennas, respectively. This further confirms that PS = 0.5 m was an appropriate choice for both sets of antennas.…”
Section: (D)mentioning
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The expected depth of the sought targets was between 0.5 m and 1.8 m, and the values of A at 1 m and 2 m, according to equations (1) and 2, were between 0.37 m and 0.8 m. These results confirm that PS = 0.5 m is a reasonable value. e) In [44], it is suggested to use PS < 4λ, which in the present case study yields a minimum PS of 1.06 m and 2.12 m with 400 MHz and 200 MHz antennas, respectively. This further confirms that PS = 0.5 m was an appropriate choice for both sets of antennas.…”
Section: (D)mentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In [44], it is suggested to use PS < 4λ, which in the present case study yields a minimum PS of 1.06 m and 2.12 m with 400 MHz and 200 MHz antennas, respectively. This further confirms that PS = 0.5 m was an appropriate choice for both sets of antennas.…”
Section: (D)mentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In terms of the worst case, the profiles are parallel with a linear object (PS // ), which means that the response of the GPR will not be obvious enough and a smaller profile spacing is required. In sum [36], a suggestion for the selection of a suitable profile spacing is PS// ≤ 4λ and PS⊥ ≤ 6λ; where λ is the GPR wavelength. In the cases of real urban site I and II, the yields were a minimum PS // of 0.98 m and PS ⊥ = 1.47 m with 400 MHz (the estimated minimal velocity in sites is 0.087 m/ns; minimal wavelength is 0.245 m).…”
Section: Methods and Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, rapid, continuous and reliable estimation of shallow SWC is necessary to achieve effective soil water management at the field scale. Existing methods to characterize shallow SWC are either suited to small scales (<0.1 m), such as the gravimetric method, time-domain-reflectometry (TDR), and capacitive sensors, or to large areas (>10-100 m), such as remote sensing and airborne and spaceborne passive microwave and active radar systems [7]. Below, we briefly describe these methods for measuring shallow SWC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%