2019
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2018.10.0388
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impacts of Soil Physicochemical Properties and Temporal‐Seasonal Soil‐Environmental Status on Ground‐Penetrating Radar Response

Abstract: Core Ideas Ground‐penetrating radar response changes with electrical conductivity and organic matter of same soils. Ground‐penetrating radar responses changes with soil temperatures diurnally and precipitation seasonally. Ground‐penetrating radar response is strongly related to clay content and daily volumetric water content of soils. Irrespective of clay content, response varies with electrical conductivity, cation exchange capacity or clay‐mineral types. The impacts of soils' heterogeneity due to temporal (E… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The interior of the void is generally air with a relative dielectric constant of 1, and the relative dielectric constant of road materials was generally between 3 and 10. The electromagnetic wave emitted by 3D GPR will be reflected at the interface between the void and road material (Sarkar et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2020b).…”
Section: Principle Of Void Detection Of 3d Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interior of the void is generally air with a relative dielectric constant of 1, and the relative dielectric constant of road materials was generally between 3 and 10. The electromagnetic wave emitted by 3D GPR will be reflected at the interface between the void and road material (Sarkar et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2020b).…”
Section: Principle Of Void Detection Of 3d Ground-penetrating Radarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GPR methods were also previously used to indirectly measure water flow (e.g., Zhang et al, 2014;Guo et al, 2020) as well as root density (e.g., Hruska et al, 1999;Guo et al, 2013). Interpreting the interplay of GPR signals with physical and chemical regolith properties is challenging (e.g., Saarenketo, 1998;Sucre et al, 2011;Tosti et al, 2013;Sarkar et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interpreting the interplay of GPR signals with physical and chemical soil properties within the sub-surface is challenging and not well-understood (e.g., Saarenketo, 1999;Sucre et al, 2011;Tosti et al, 2013;Sarkar et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%