2003
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2003.4760
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Soil Water Content with Ground Penetrating Radar: A Review

Abstract: We present a comprehensive review of methods to measure soil water content with ground penetrating radar (GPR). We distinguish four methodologies: soil water content determined from reflected wave velocity, soil water content determined from ground wave velocity, soil water content determined from transmitted wave velocity between boreholes, and soil water content determined from the surface reflection coefficient. For each of these four methodologies, we discuss the basic principles, illustrate the quality of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
353
0
9

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 665 publications
(363 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
1
353
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…centimeters and the spatial resolution is too coarse (Robinson et al, 2012). At intermediate scales (decameter to hectometer), geophysical techniques, such as electromagnetic induction (EMI), ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), have proven to be promising alternatives to infer soil water down to several meters (e.g., Huisman et al, 2003;Brunet et al, 2010;Robinson et al, 2012;Steelman et al, 2012;Brillante et al, 2014). EMI is useful for mapping the horizontal distribution of subsurface electrical resistivity, but it gives little information on its vertical distributions (Robinson et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…centimeters and the spatial resolution is too coarse (Robinson et al, 2012). At intermediate scales (decameter to hectometer), geophysical techniques, such as electromagnetic induction (EMI), ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), have proven to be promising alternatives to infer soil water down to several meters (e.g., Huisman et al, 2003;Brunet et al, 2010;Robinson et al, 2012;Steelman et al, 2012;Brillante et al, 2014). EMI is useful for mapping the horizontal distribution of subsurface electrical resistivity, but it gives little information on its vertical distributions (Robinson et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the different measuring mode of GPR, the GPR method is mainly divided into the multi-offset reflection method (including CMP and WARR methods), FO method, surface reflection method, and transillumination method [30,31]. On the basis of obvious layered soil structure in study area, we applied the CMP method of GPR to soil moisture measurement, and FO method to obtain the soil profile structure.…”
Section: Gpr Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These two waves arrive separately at the receiving antenna (Rx) (i.e., they do not interfere) if the wavelength is smaller than the Tx-Rx offset, particularly when the permittivity of the material is sufficiently high. The ground wave arrival time can be used to estimate the permittivity of the material (by measuring the wave velocity) and therefore its water content [8,9, and literature therein].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%