Advertisement

Moscow University Geology Bulletin

, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 219–228 | Cite as

Modern Directions of Application of Ground-Penetrating Radar

  • M. S. Sudakova
  • M. L. Vladov
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Application of ground-penetrating radar in Russia has been addressed in the last decade not only in scientific publications and production reports, but also in newspaper articles and TV reports on federal and regional channels. Three directions of using ground-penetrating radar that seem promising for the authors and will be developed in the future are considered. These include georadar ray tomography, integration of ground-penetrating radar with other geophysical methods, and the use of ground-penetrating radar for solving geocryological problems. Examples of using different techniques of collection and processing of the data for solving geological and technical problems are presented.

Keywords

electromagnetic tomography integration of geophysical methods pseudo–3D survey permafrost rocks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berthelier, J.J., Ney, R., Ciarletti, V., Reineix, A., et al., GPR, a ground-penetrating radar for the Netlander mission, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
  2. Butnor, J.R., Johnsen, K.H., Lundmark, T., et al., Imaging tree roots with borehole radar, 11th Int. Conf. on Ground Penetrating Radar, June 19–22, 2006, Columbus Ohio, USA. Columbus Ohio, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Elsayed, I.S., Alhussein, A.B., Gad, E., and Mahfooz, A.H., Shallow seismic refraction, two-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging, and ground penetrating radar for imaging the ancient monuments at the western shore of old Luxor city, Egypt, Archaeological Discovery, 2014, no. 2, pp. 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farmani, M.B., Keers, H., and Kitterod, N.-O., Timelapse GPR tomography of unsaturated water flow in an ice-contact delta, Vadose Zone J., 2007, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Fortier, R. and Savard, C., Engineering geophysical investigation of permafrost conditions underneath airfield embankments in Northern Quebec (Canada), Proc. Conf. Geo 2010, Calgary: Canada, 2010, pp. 1307–1316.Google Scholar
  6. Hausmann, H., Krainer, K., Bruckl, E., and Mostler, W., Internal structure and ice content of Reichenkar rock glacier (Stubai Alps, Austria) assessed by geophysical investigations, Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 2007, no. 18, pp. 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Makino, K.-I. and Miura, H., Location of Mammoth remains in permafrost of Northern Siberia using GPR and multifrequency EM, 18th EEGS Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. Extended Abstract. 2005.Google Scholar
  8. Munroe, J.S., Doolittle, J.A., Kanevskiy, M.Z., et al., Application of ground penetrating radar imagery for three-dimensional visualisation of near surface structures in ice-rich permafrost, Barrow, Alaska, in Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 2007. www.interscience.wiley.com. doi 10.1002/ p.59410.1002/ p.594Google Scholar
  9. De Pascale, G.P., Pollard, W.H., and Williams, K.K., Geophysical mapping of ground ice using a combination of capacitive coupled resistivity and ground-penetrating radar, Northwest Territories, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surface (2003–2012), 2008, vol. 113, no. F2, no. 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Sadurtdinov, M.R., Malkova, G.V., Skvortsov, A.G., et al., The current state of insular permafrost in the Pechora River floodplain (Nenets Autonomous Okrug) based on the results of integrated geocryological and geophysical surveys, Mater. 5-i Konf. geokriologov Rossii “Geotekhnika v kriolitozone” 14–17 iyunya 2016, MGU, Moskva (Proc. 5th Conf. Geocryologists of Russia “Geotectonics in Cryozone”, June 14–17, 2016, MSU, Moscow), Moscow, 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Sudakova, M.S., Kalashnikov, A.Yu., and Terentieva, E.B., Studying the possibilities of georadar tomography in searching for air cavities in engineering constructions, Russ. J. Nondestructive Testing, vol. 52, no. 9, 2016, pp. 520–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sudakova, M.S., Terentieva, E.B., and Kalashnikov, A.Yu., Searching and measurement of functional voids by means of GPR tomography by the example of two columns, Int. J. for Computational Civil and Structural Engineering, 2017, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sudakova, M.S., Kalashnikov, A.Yu., Vladov, M.L., et al., Detection of voids in engineering structures using GPR method, Geotekhnics, 2017, no. 2, pp. 30–37.Google Scholar
  14. Sudakova, M.S., Sadurtdinov, M.R., Skvortsov, A.G., et al., Ground penetrating radar applications to permafrost investigations, Kriosfera Zemli, 2017, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 62–74.Google Scholar
  15. Tronicke, J., Dietrich, P., Wahlig, U., and Appel, E., Integrating surface georadar and crosshole radar tomography: a validation experiment in braided stream deposits, Geophysics, 2002, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1516–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wendrich, A., Trela, C., Krause, M., et al., Location of Voids in Masonry Structures by Using Radar and Ultrasonic Traveltime, Berlin: ECNDT, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeologyMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations