1887
Volume 13 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We present a 2D/3D topographic migration scheme for ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) data which is able to account for variable velocities by using the root mean square (rms) velocity approximation. We test our migration scheme using a synthetic 2D example and compare our migrated image to the results obtained using common GPR migration approaches. Furthermore, we apply it to 2D and 3D field data. These examples are recorded across common subsurface settings including surface topography and variations in the GPR subsurface velocity field caused by a shallow ground water table. In such field settings, our migration strategy provides well focused images of common‐offset GPR data without the need for a detailed interval velocity model. The synthetic and field examples demonstrate that our topographic migration scheme allows for accurate GPR imaging in the presence of variations in surface topography and subsurface velocity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014037
2014-07-01
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐ChalabiM.1973. Series approximation in velocity and traveltime computations. Geophysical Prospecting21, 783–795.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AnnanA.P.2005. Ground‐penetrating radar. In: Near Surface Geophysics, (ed. D.K.Butler ) pp. 357–138. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BönigerU. and TronickeJ.2010a. Integrated data analysis at an archaeological site: A case study using 3D GPR, magnetic, and high‐resolution topographic data. Geophysics75, B169–B176.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BönigerU. and TronickeJ.2010b. On the potential of kinematic GPR surveying using a self‐tracking total station: evaluating system crosstalk and latency. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing48, 3792–3798.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BristowC.S. and JolH.M.2003. Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments. The Geological Society, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CarcioneJ. and CavalliniF.1995. On the acoustic‐electromagnetic analogy. Wave Motion21, 149–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CastleR.1994. A theory of normal moveout. Geophysics59, 983–999.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ChoD., HoganC. and MargraveG.F.2007. Acoustic finite difference parameter analysis and modelling in Matlab. Crewes Project Report19, 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DanielsD.J.2004. Ground Penetrating Radar, vol. 1. 2nd ed. The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DixC.H.1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics20, 68–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DujardinJ. and BanoM.2013. Topographic migration of GPR data: Examples from Chad and Mongolia. Comptes Rendus Geoscience345, 73–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HamannG. and TronickeJ.2014. Global inversion of GPR traveltimes to assess uncertainties in CMP velocity models. Near Surface Geophysics12, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HeinckeB., GreenA.G., van der KrukJ. and HorstmeyerH.2005. Acquisition and processing strategies for 3D georadar surveying a region characterized by rugged topography. Geophysics70, K53–K61.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. JolH.2009. Ground Penetrating Radar Theory and Applications. 1st ed. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LehmannF. and GreenA.G.2000. Topographic migration of georadar data: Implications for acquisition and processing. Geophysics65, 836–848.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LehmannF., Vonder MiihllD., van der VeenM., WildP. and GreenA.G.1998. True topographic 2‐D migration of georadar data. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, pp. 107–114. Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. RobeinE.2003. Velocities, Time‐imaging and Depth‐imaging: Principles and Methods. 1st ed. EAGE Publications, Houten.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SchneiderW.A.1978. Integral formulation for migration in two and three dimensions. Geophysics43, 49–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SindowskiK.H.1970. Erläuterungen zu Blatt Spiekeroog Nr. 2212. Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Bodenforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TanerM. and KoehlerF.1969. Velocity spectra‐digital computer derivation and applications of velocity functions. Geophysics34, 859–881.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TronickeJ., BlindowN., GroßR. and LangeM.1999. Joint application of surface electrical resistivity‐ and GPR‐measurements for ground‐water exploration on the island of Spiekeroog – Northern Germany. Journal of Hydrology223, 44–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TronickeJ., VillamorP. and GreenA.G.2006. Detailed shallow geometry and vertical displacement estimates of the Maleme Fault Zone, New Zealand, using 2D and 3D georadar. Near Surface Geophysics4, 155–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. WigginsJ.W.1984. Kirchhoff integral extrapolation and migration of nonplanar data. Geophysics49, 1239–1248.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. YilmazO. and ChambersR.1984. Migration velocity analysis by wave‐field extrapolation. Geophysics49, 1664–1674.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. YilmazÖ. and DohertyS.2001. Seismic Data Analysis, vol. 2. 2nd ed. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014037
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2014037
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error