Fracture characterization with GPR: A comparative study

D. Arosio, J. Deparis, L. Zanzi, S. Garambois
{"title":"Fracture characterization with GPR: A comparative study","authors":"D. Arosio, J. Deparis, L. Zanzi, S. Garambois","doi":"10.1109/ICGPR.2016.7572679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Provided that the frequency of the GPR antenna is properly selected, detecting rock fractures is generally an achievable task because most of the investigated rocks are resistive. On the other hand, fractures can be generally envisaged as thin-beds embedded in a homogenous rock formation, thus yielding a complex reflection pattern caused by the reverberation of the GPR signal back and forth within the bed. As a result, dedicated approaches must be developed in order to extract quantitative information about fracture properties, i.e. thickness and permittivity of filling material, encoded in the thin-bed response. This work presents a comparison of two approaches for fracture characterization that we recently tested on synthetic, lab as well as field datasets. Although both approaches rely on amplitude and phase information in the frequency domain, their strategies significantly differ. The first one is based on common-offset data and involves deterministic deconvolution, while the second one processes common-midpoint reflections according to an amplitude-and-phase-variation-with-offset inversion. We test the performance of both approaches on a lab specimen scanned with high frequency antennas. Our aim is to identify shortcomings and advantages of the tested approaches, and to evaluate their outcomes according to the needs of possible field applications, in terms of acquisition time and accuracy.","PeriodicalId":187048,"journal":{"name":"2016 16th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)","volume":"106 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 16th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGPR.2016.7572679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Provided that the frequency of the GPR antenna is properly selected, detecting rock fractures is generally an achievable task because most of the investigated rocks are resistive. On the other hand, fractures can be generally envisaged as thin-beds embedded in a homogenous rock formation, thus yielding a complex reflection pattern caused by the reverberation of the GPR signal back and forth within the bed. As a result, dedicated approaches must be developed in order to extract quantitative information about fracture properties, i.e. thickness and permittivity of filling material, encoded in the thin-bed response. This work presents a comparison of two approaches for fracture characterization that we recently tested on synthetic, lab as well as field datasets. Although both approaches rely on amplitude and phase information in the frequency domain, their strategies significantly differ. The first one is based on common-offset data and involves deterministic deconvolution, while the second one processes common-midpoint reflections according to an amplitude-and-phase-variation-with-offset inversion. We test the performance of both approaches on a lab specimen scanned with high frequency antennas. Our aim is to identify shortcomings and advantages of the tested approaches, and to evaluate their outcomes according to the needs of possible field applications, in terms of acquisition time and accuracy.
探地雷达骨折表征的比较研究
只要GPR天线的频率选择得当,岩石裂缝的探测通常是可以实现的,因为大多数被调查的岩石都是电阻性的。另一方面,裂缝通常可以被设想为嵌入在均匀岩层中的薄层,从而产生复杂的反射模式,这是由GPR信号在地层内来回反射引起的。因此,必须开发专门的方法来提取有关断裂特性的定量信息,即填充材料的厚度和介电常数,这些信息编码在薄层响应中。这项工作介绍了我们最近在合成、实验室和现场数据集上测试的两种裂缝表征方法的比较。虽然这两种方法都依赖于频域的幅度和相位信息,但它们的策略有很大不同。第一种方法基于共偏移量数据,涉及确定性反褶积,而第二种方法根据振幅和相位变化随偏移量反演处理共中点反射。我们在高频天线扫描的实验室样本上测试了这两种方法的性能。我们的目标是确定已测试方法的缺点和优点,并根据可能的现场应用需求,在采集时间和准确性方面评估其结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信