Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
www.elsevier.com/locate/jappgeo
Abstract
Both ground-penetrating radar and the resistivity method have proven to be useful tools for exploring water content
variations, since related parameters such as dielectric constant and the resistivity of rocks and sediments are highly dependent
on moisture content. These methods were used independently to estimate volumetric water content in the unsaturated zone and
porosity in the saturated zone in a 100-m sandy section. Two sample sites along the profile were also chosen for a shallow
geophysical investigation and soil sampling, to enable the calibration and verification of the indirect geophysical methods. The
grain distribution at these sites is dominated by medium-sized sand (0.250.5 mm). The water content was 6.9 vol.% and
calculated porosities are 37% and 40% respectively. At each of these sites the mean water content values calculated from
resistivity are within one percentage unit of measured water content while those calculated from ground-penetrating radar give
higher values by as much as 2.9 percentage units. The water contents in the unsaturated zone in the section, estimated from
resistivity and ground-penetrating radar, show very similar trends, although that deduced from ground-penetrating radar is
generally somewhat larger, consistent with the results from the sample sites. The mean porosity values obtained from the two
methods in the saturated zone are in good agreement.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ground-penetrating radar; Resistivity; Volumetric water content; Porosity
1. Introduction
Soil water content and porosity are important
variables in hydrological processes and are of primary interest in hydrogeological investigations.
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has proven to be a
100
2. Geological setting
The test site is located at Veddige 70 km south of
Goteborg on the Swedish west coast at an elevation
of 15 m (Fig. 1). The post-glacial marine limit in the
region is 65 m above sea level (Passe, 1986). During
the overall post-glacial regression a small transgression (the Tapes transgression) occurred in certain
parts of southwestern Sweden, reaching 17 m
above sea level in the area (Passe, 1986). Large
quantities of mostly glaciofluvial sediments, originating from a terminal moraine in the vicinity, were
redeposited in an old channel. The area is underlain
by wave-sorted sand and gravel which overlies the
Grain size
distribution (mm)
Weightpercent
Measured h
Calculated
porosity
30 m
Gravel (N2)
Sand (0.0712)
Silt (b0.071)
Gravel (N2)
Sand (0.0712)
Silt (b0.071)
16
80
4
21
75
4
6.9%
39.9%
6.9%
37.3%
60 m
101
3. Seismic refraction
3.1. Method
Measured volumetric water content (h) is the mean of three samples. A grain density of 2.65 g/cm3 was used in the porosity
calculation. The samples were taken at about 1 m depth. See
Figs. 3 and 7 for locations of sample sites.
Fig. 2. The seismic refraction model showing the interface between unsaturated and saturated zones. The water table declines from 8.1 to 10.1 m
in the outlined area which coincides with the GPR profile.
102
4. Ground-penetrating radar
4.1. Method
Two different GPR techniques were used in this
study, the common-offset and the common midpoint
(CMP) methods. The former was used to get an
overview of the subsurface and to reveal any steeply
declining surface, while the latter was used to get
velocities with depths at regular intervals along the
profile. Additional CMP soundings were measured at
the two sample sites at 30 and 60 m to enable comparisons between water contents deduced from GPR
and known water contents.
GPR data is usually collected with the commonoffset method, in which the transmitting and receiving
antennae are a fixed distance apart (Davis and Annan,
1989). The 100 m common-offset profile was measured using a Ramac GPR system from Mala Geoscience. Antennae were 2 m apart with a centrefrequency of 50 MHz. The antennae were orientated
parallel to each other and perpendicular to the profile.
The data were collected every 0.2 m at a sample
frequency of 500 MHz. To improve the signal-tonoise ratio, every trace was vertically stacked using
the auto-stack option, which means that every trace
was stacked between 32 and 64 times. A bhip chainQ,
calibrated to actual length, was used to measure distance. This is a simple way to control the distance
between each trace measured. A cotton-thread runs
out as the operator slowly walks the profile. Every 0.2
m (in this case) the radar is triggered and a radar pulse
is transmitted and subsequently received by the antenna. A more labour-intensive way to obtain data is
to make an entire GPR survey using the multi-offset
CMP technique (Fisher et al., 1992). In this case the
radar data can be used for traditional seismic processing and are sorted in CMP-gathers, which are used in
velocity analyses. The one-dimensional velocity models analyzed from CMP-gathers are then interpolated
for the construction of a two-dimensional velocity
profile. However, a less laborious way, used in this
survey, to obtain such a 2-D velocity profile is to
conduct individual multi-offset CMP soundings at
appropriate intervals along the profile. These measurements can easily be collected in the field using
the hip chain measuring device.
In a multi-offset CMP sounding the separation
between transmitting and receiving antenna is continually increased from a fixed central location while the
two-way travel time to reflectors are measured. Any
subsurface contrast in electromagnetic properties
results in energy being reflected back to the surface.
Each reflection measured in this manner is used to
derive the RMS (root mean square) velocity down to
it. The CMP soundings were conducted using 50 MHz
antennae with a sampling frequency of 500 MHz. At
each CMP location the antenna separation was increased from 0 to 20 m, with increments of 0.2 m.
The measuring device was placed at the midpoint. The
true distance walked was corrected in the processing
of data. To ensure that the antennae were moved
equally from the midpoint, the measurements were
performed stepwise using a measuring tape to control
distances. Two persons are needed for this procedure.
The spacing of individual CMP soundings, which
should be measured in a profile, is a compromise
between lateral and vertical variations of radar wave
velocity and the time and effort to make the measurements. In this case we chose to conduct a spacing of 5
m and a total number of 21 CMPs, which took about
2 h to collect. At the sample sites, CMP soundings
were conducted in two directions to reveal possible
three-dimensional geometry. The antennae centre frequency used was 200 MHz with a sampling frequency
of 2000 MHz. The trace increment was 0.1 m. The
vertical auto-stack function was used in all CMP
measurements.
The processing of GPR data (50 MHz) included
time-zero adjustments and low-cut filtering (dewow),
which removes low-frequency induction effects on the
radar equipment. The data were also compensated for
geometrical spreading and attenuation. The linear part
of the gain was set to 0.02 (1/pulse width) and the
exponential part was set to 0.03 dB/m (Davies and
Annan, 1989). AGC scaling was used for display. The
semblance approach (Yilmas, 1987) was used to pick
preliminary RMS (or normal move-out) velocities. If
the CMP data contains many and closely-spaced (in
time) reflections it could be difficult to distinguish
between real reflections arising from the interface
between two electrically different media, and just a
103
4.3. Results
The 100 m long, GPR common-offset profile is
presented in a timedepth section in Fig. 3. The
Fig. 3. The GPR common-offset profile with depth represented by time. The arrows show the water table between 20 and 100 m at about 150 ns
and the lowest picked reflector used in velocity analyses between 215 and 260 ns. Sample locations are indicated.
104
Fig. 4. Examples of CMP measurements used in the velocity analyses with a one-dimensional velocity model (continuous line: interval velocity,
dotted line: RMS velocity), hyperbolic adaptions and semblance images at a) 30 m, b) 60 m and c) 90 m along the profile.
105
Fig. 4 (continued).
Fig. 5. The GPR two-dimensional interval-velocity profile constructed from 21 one-dimensional velocity models. The continuous line shows the
water table deduced from seismic refraction.
106
Fig. 6. Volumetric water content section calculated from GPR interval velocities using the relationship of Topp et al. (1980). The continuous line
shows the water level deduced from seismic refraction.
5. Resistivity
5.1. Method
The resistivity method is based on measuring the
electrical potential which results from an applied direct
electrical current flowing in the ground. The distribution of the electrical potential field depends in turn on
the resistivity of the ground. In a multi-electrode array
the measured result is displayed as a two-dimensional
variation of apparent resistivity. Software applications
for inversion of two-dimensional apparent resistivity
to solve for true resistivity can be classified as either
smooth inversion (DeGroot-Hedlin and Constable,
1990) or block inversion (Inman, 1975) methods,
each of which has some disadvantages. Smooth inversion has a tendency to smear both resistivity and depth
to interfaces even in the case of well-defined structures
with sharp resistivity contrasts. On the other hand
Table 2
GPR wave velocity and vertical electrical soundings (VES) measured northsouth (NS) and eastwest (EW) directions
Sample site
Calculated h (%)
VES q (Vm)
Calculated h (%)
30
30
60
60
127
127
125
125
9.4
9.4
9.8
9.8
11,30011,500 11,700
750076007800
650066006800
560058006100
0.9
1.3
1.6
3.2
5.35.35.2
6.86.76.6
7.47.37.2
8.17.97.7
m (NS)
m (EW)
m (NS)
m (EW)
Equivalent VES models resistivities (q) up to 1.2% fit, and the RMS (root mean square) errors for the best model (middle value) are given. To
calculate the volumetric water content (h) from Archies formula (Eq. (7)), pore water conductivity of 13 mS/m and m = n = 1.7 was used. See
Figs. 3 and 7 for locations of sample sites.
107
Fig. 7. The resistivity model. The outlined area coincides with the GPR profile and is used in the water content calculation. Sample locations are
indicated.
108
5.3. Results
Fig. 8. The volumetric water content section calculated from resistivity using Archies (1942) equation. Water conductivity is set to 13 mS/m
and m = n = 1.7. The continuous line shows the water table deduced from seismic refraction.
109
Fig. 9. This section shows the difference between volumetric water contents deduced from GPR and resistivity.
110
from resistivity is that true resistivities can be derived. This could also be problematic due to the
equivalence principle relating depth and resistivity.
An alternative inversion routine, the block inversion
(Inman, 1975), has proven to be useful when the
subsurface layer geometry is simple (Dannowski and
Yaramanci, 1999). In more complex environments
the input model required for this inversion routine
may be too difficult to estimate to get a satisfying
result. In using the Archie equation several parameters, such as the constants m and n and sometimes also water conductivity, have to be estimated.
The small-scale investigation at the sample sites was
used to calibrate these parameters. Furthermore, it
was assumed that these parameters did not change in
the section. In this survey this assumption can be
justified by the facts that the constants m and n are
related to pore shape and pore fluid and that the
wave-sorted sandy material in the section has the
same origin and genesis as sand washed out from a
terminal moraine.
In summary, two methods, ground-penetrating
radar and resistivity, were independently evaluated
for their capability to assess water content and
porosity in a sandy section. The methods were
used in combination with empirical relationships.
Additional information from two sample sites was
used to relate the indirect methods to known water
content and porosity. This is of special importance
when using empirical relationship in different specific environments. The results obtained showed
very similar trends of water-content distribution,
although absolute values differ somewhat, and
there is a good agreement between the methods in
the saturated zone if the mean porosity is compared.
The use of two independent methods greatly
strengthens the results which can be obtained in
this type of study.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank associate professor Gustaf
Lind, Earth Sciences Centre, Goteborg University, for
assistance during fieldwork and for constructive review of the manuscript. I also thank professor David
Cornell, Earth Sciences Centre, Goteborg University,
for correction of the English language.
References
Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers/Petroleum Division 146, 54 62.
Bachrach, R., Nur, A., 1998. High-resolution shallow-seismic
experiments in sand: Part I. Water table, fluid flow, and saturation. Geophysics 63 (4), 1225 1233.
Beard, D.C., Weyl, P.K., 1973. The influence of texture on porosity
and permeability on unconsolidated sand. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 57, 349 369.
Dannowski, G., Yaramanci, U., 1999. Estimation of water content
and porosity using combined radar and geoelectrical measurements. European Journal of Environmental and Engineeering
Geophysics 4, 71 85.
Davis, J.L., Annan, S.P., 1989. Ground-penetrating radar for highresolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophysical
Prospecting 37 (5), 531 551.
DeGroot-Hedlin, C., Constable, S., 1990. Occams inversion to
generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric
data. Geophysics 55 (12), 1613 1624.
Dix, C.H., 1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements.
Geophysics 20 (1), 68 86.
Fisher, E., McMechan, G.A., Annan, A.P., 1992. Acquisition and
processing of wide-aperture ground-penetrating radar data. Geophysics 57 (3), 495 504.
Garambois, S., Senechal, P., Perroud, H., 2002. On the use of
combined geophysical methods to assess water content and
water conductivity of near-surface formations. Journal of Hydrology 259, 32 48.
Graton, L.C., Fraser, H.J., 1935. Systematic packing of spheres,
with particular reference to porosity and permeability. Journal of
Geology 43, 785 909.
Greaves, J.G., Lesmes, D.P., Lee, M.L., Toksoz, M.N., 1996. Velocity variations and water content estimated from multi-offset,
ground-penetrating radar. Geophysics 61 (3), 683 695.
Huisman, J.A., Sperl, C., Bouten, W., Verstraten, J.M., 2001. Soil
water content measurements at different scales: accuracy of time
domain reflectometry and ground-penetrating radar. Journal of
Hydrology 245, 48 58.
Inman, J.R., 1975. Resistivity inversion with ridge regression.
Geophysics 40 (5), 798 817.
Jackson, P.D., Taylor, S.D., Stanford, P.N., 1978. Resistivityporosity particle shape relationships for marine sands. Geophysics 43
(6), 1250 1268.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J., 1999. The rock physics
handbook. Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media. Cambridge University Press. 329 pp.
Olayinka, A.I., Yaramanci, U., 2000. Use of block inversion in the
2-D interpretation of apparent resistivity data and its comparison
with the smooth inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics 45,
63 81.
Olayinka, A.I., Yaramanci, U., 2002. Smooth and sharp-boundary
inversion of two-dimensional pseudosection data in presence of
a decrease in resistivity with depth. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 7, 139 165.
111