Ground‐penetrating radar: A near‐face experience from Washington County, Arkansas

Liner, Christopher L.; Liner, Jeffrey L.

doi:10.1190/1.1437057

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Daniels et al 1988;Jol 1995;Liner & Liner 1995). Some processing packages, such as pulseEKKO software, will significantly improve data output, but are not as sophisticated as seismicbased packages, such as Gradix 1.10 software, which allow the user more control of processing parameters.…”

Section: Processing Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and application of GPR in sandy fluvial environments: methodological considerations

Woodward

Ashworth

Best

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a popular technique for imaging and interpreting sedimentary architecture. However, current literature shows a wide range in the quality of information provided on the GPR methodology and processing technique. It is therefore difficult to judge the validity of the GPR interpretations and this produces inherent difficulties for comparison between surveys. This paper describes the key steps required to collect, process and interpret GPR surveys in sandy fluvial sediments. GPR data from the South Saskatchewan River, Canada, are used to illustrate each stage of data collection and processing. Particular attention is given to the appropriate set-up conditions for the GPR software and hardware, the selection of dataprocessing techniques and velocity analysis. Methods for the interpretation of GPR reflectors are also investigated using ground-truth control provided by a cut-face exposure. This paper presents recommendations for a systematic and rigorous methodology for the collection, processing and interpretation of GPR data in sandy fluvial environments. The paper suggests that all data-collection parameters and processing steps should be recorded or tabulated in any GPR publication to facilitate comparisons between surveys.deposits (e.g. Bridge et al.

show abstract

Section: Processing Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and application of GPR in sandy fluvial environments: methodological considerations

Woodward

Ashworth

Best

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, surveys have been used to image shallow structures in coarse-grained, well-sorted sedimentary deposits (e.g., Jol and Smith 1992;Smith and Jol 1992). Other diverse geological applications include studies of: the subsurface structure of a meteor impact crater (Pilon et al 1991), fracture distributions in granites (Holloway et al 1986), reef stratigraphy in a Paleozoic limestone (Pratt and Miall 1993), structures in folded rocks (Liner and Liner 1995), and the morphology of a subglacial volcano (Gilbert et al 1996). Furthermore, the development of higher power transmitters (e.g., 1000 V), lower frequency antennae (e.g.…”

Section: Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of volcanic deposits with ground-penetrating radar

Russell

Stasiuk

1997

Bulletin of Volcanology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field-based studies of surficial volcanic deposits are commonly complicated by a combination of poor exposure and rapid lateral variations controlled by unknown paleotopography. The potential of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) as an aid to volcanological studies is shown using data collected from traverses over four well-exposed, Recent volcanic deposits in western Canada. The deposits comprise a pumice airfall deposit (3-4 m thick), a basalt lava flow (3-6 m thick), a pyroclastic flow deposit (15 m thick), and an internally stratified pumice talus deposit (60 m thick). Results show that GPR is effective in delineating major stratigraphic contacts and hence can be used to map unexposed deposits. Different volcanic deposits also exhibit different radar stratigraphic character, suggesting that deposit type may be determined from radar images. In addition, large blocks within the pyroclastic deposits are detected as distinctive point diffractor patterns in the profiles, showing that the technique has potential for providing important grain-size information in coarse poorly sorted deposits. Laboratory measurements of dielectric constant (K') are reported for samples of the main rock types and are compared with values of K' for the bulk deposit as inferred from the field data. The laboratory values differ significantly from the "field" values of K'; these results suggest that the effectiveness of GPR at any site can be substantially improved by initial calibration of well-exposed locations.

show abstract

“…The acquisition and interpretation of GPR data from carbonate rocks therefore is by far less straightforward than for siliciclastic rocks. The few published GPR studies of carbonates deal, e.g., with a Silurian grainstone shoal (Pratt and Miall 1993), fractures within Mississippian carbonates (Liner and Liner 1995), the architecture of a shallow Jurassic limestone (Dagallier et al 2000), Jurassic buildups (Asprion and Aigner 2000), Pleistocene oolite bodies (Grasmueck and Weger 2002), karst aquifers (Cunningham 2004), and Danian carbonate mounds (Nielsen et al 2004). The present study presents the approach of using GPR sections for extrapolating facies information and geometries from outcrops and wells in order to refine and extend the resolution of the medium-and small-scale complexities in facies architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrapolation of depositional geometries of the Menorcan Miocene carbonate ramp with ground-penetrating radar

Asprion

Westphal

Nieman³

et al. 2008

Facies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Tortonian carbonate ramp of Menorca was previously studied on the basis of outcrops along sea-cliff outcrops. These sea cliffs, in combination with inland water wells, are the basis for a facies model for the reconstruction of the internal architecture and for characterizing the internal heterogeneities of this carbonate platform. However, any such three-dimensional reconstruction is generally limited by the given geometrical arrangement of the twodimensional outcrops and the uncertainties of correlation with the one-dimensional wells. Here, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has been employed in order to test and refine the depositional model. Although GPR is well known for being an excellent tool for high-resolution underground studies of sedimentary systems, the application for studying carbonate rocks is still far from routine. The reason for this discrepancy is two-fold: the minor mineralogical contrast between lithologies in carbonate rocks results in subtle reflections, and, even more important, the porosity structure in carbonates is thoroughly and repeatedly changed during diagenesis, commonly across the different facies, leading to problems in predictability of the petrophysical properties. The study of the Menorcan carbonate ramp with large distance-deep penetration GPR sections demonstrates that in spite of these difficulties, GPR is a valuable tool for extrapolating information from outcrops and wells. It is useful for characterizing heterogeneities larger than outcrop scale.

show abstract

Ground‐penetrating radar: A near‐face experience from Washington County, Arkansas

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

The use and application of GPR in sandy fluvial environments: methodological considerations

The use and application of GPR in sandy fluvial environments: methodological considerations

Characterization of volcanic deposits with ground-penetrating radar

Extrapolation of depositional geometries of the Menorcan Miocene carbonate ramp with ground-penetrating radar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About