Section 1: Reviews
Published:January 01, 2010
Joint inversion of crosshole ground-penetrating radar and seismic data can improve model resolution and fidelity of the resultant individual models. Model coupling obtained by minimizing or penalizing some measure of structural dissimilarity between models appears to be the most versatile approach because only weak assumptions about petrophysical relationships are required. Nevertheless, experimental results and petrophysical arguments suggest that when porosity variations are weak in saturated unconsolidated environments, then radar wave speed is approximately linearly related to seismic wave speed. Under such circumstances, model coupling also can be achieved by incorporating cross-covariances in the model regularization. In two case studies, structural similarity is imposed by penalizing models for which the model cross-gradients are nonzero. A first case study demonstrates improvements in model resolution by comparing the resulting models with borehole information, whereas a second case study uses point-spread functions. Although radar seismic wave-speed crossplots are very similar for the two case studies, the models plot in different portions of the graph, suggesting variances in porosity. Both examples display a close, quasilinear relationship between radar seismic wave speed in unconsolidated environments that is described rather well by the corresponding lower Hashin-Shtrikman (HS) bounds. Combining crossplots of the joint inversion models with HS bounds can constrain porosity and pore structure better than individual inversion results can.
Figures & Tables
Advances in Near-surface Seismology and Ground-penetrating Radar
Near-surface seismology and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) have enjoyed success and increasing popularity among a wide range of geophysicists, engineers, and hydrologists since their emergence in the latter half of the twentieth century. With the common ground shared by near-surface seismology and GPR, their significant upside potential, and rapid developments in the methods, a book bringing together the most current trends in research and applications of both is fitting and timely. Conceptually, near-surface seismology and GPR are remarkably similar, and they share a range of attributes and compatibilities that provides opportunities to integrate processing and interpretation workflows, which makes them a perfect pair to share pages in a book.
With growth in numbers and professional emphasis have come sections, focus groups, and even professional societies specifically promoting near-surface geophysics. The emergence of near-surface geophysics groups, beginning in the late 1990s and extending into the early twenty-first century, has fueled a diversity of opportunities for professional collaborations. A range of workshops and shared publications has been the fruit of collaborative efforts. The near-surface community continues to extend and develop methods and approaches necessary to satisfy increasing demands in some of the socioeconomically pertinent disciplines such as civil and environmental engineering and hydrology. This book represents the first formal cooperative effort undertaken by the near-surface communities of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, the American Geophysical Union, and the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.