Advertisement

Ground Penetrating Radar Resolution in Archaeological Geophysics

  • David C. Nobes
  • Juzhi Deng
Chapter
Part of the Natural Science in Archaeology book series (ARCHAEOLOGY)

Abstract

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is now a common tool for archaeological imaging. However, difficulties arise in choosing the right antenna. Do we choose high-frequency antennas to yield lots of detail? Or do we choose lower frequency antennas to see larger scale features that provide site context? Often we are tempted to use a high-frequency signal, in order to see all the detail. However, this can be counter-productive. Lots of detail may actually obscure the features that are the primary targets. Conversely, lower frequency antennas can locate the features of interest, but may not provide as much detail as desired. In general, choosing a lower frequency antenna yields better results. The optimum choice of antenna depends on the site conditions; using a range of antennas for initial tests helps establish the “best” signal frequency to use. The imaging may be best done in two stages: an initial stage using low frequency antennas; followed by high-frequency imaging to yield greater detail over the areas where it is useful.

In addition, conditions can change around a site, both laterally and with depth. For example, if there is a void—such as crypt beneath an old church site or a cave of archaeological interest—then the GPR velocity will be radically different across that void. If the void is air-filled, then the velocity will be much faster than in the surrounding soil or rock; any void reflections will arrive much sooner than those from within the surrounding material. If the void is water-filled, then the velocity will be much slower, causing a significant time delay when compared with the reflections from within the surrounding material. In addition, voids can generate multiple reflections because of the strong velocity contrast at the void top and bottom, and near-vertical voids, such as cracks, can generate stacks of diffractions caused by scattering from the rough walls of the crack.

Keywords

Ground penetrating radar Resolution Frequency Voids 

References

  1. Annan AP (2005) The principles of ground penetrating radar. In: Butler DK (ed) Near-surface geophysics, vol 13. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Investigations in Geophysics, Tulsa, OK, pp 357–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annan AP, Cosway SW (1994) GPR frequency selection. In: GPR ’94: Proceeding of the Fifth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Kitchener, Canada, vol. II, pp 747–760Google Scholar
  3. Arias P, Armesto J, Di-Capua D, González-Drigo R, Lorenzo H, Pérez-Gracia V (2007) Digital photogrammetry, GPR and computational analysis of structural damages in a mediaeval bridge. J Eng Fail Anal 14:1444–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton CVM, Montagu KD (2004) Detection of tree roots and determination of root diameters by ground penetrating radar under optimal conditions. Tree Physiol 24:1323–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beres M, Luetscher M, Olivier R (2001) Integration of ground penetrating radar and microgravimetric methods to map shallow caves. J Appl Geophys 46:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böniger U, Tronicke J (2010) Improving the interpretability of 3D GPR data using target–specific attributes: application to tomb detection. J Archaeol Sci 37:360–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carcione JM (1996) Ground radar simulation for archaeological applications. Geophys Prospect 44:871–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain AT, Sellers W, Proctor C, Coard R (2000) Cave detection in limestone using ground penetrating radar. J Archaeol Sci 27:957–964.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chianese D, D’Emilio M, Di Salvia S, Lapenna V, Ragosta M, Rizzo E (2004) Magnetic mapping, ground penetrating radar surveys and magnetic susceptibility measurements for the study of the archaeological site of Serra di Vaglio (southern Italy). J Archaeol Sci 31:633–643.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conyers LB (2004) Moisture and soil differences as related to the spatial accuracy of GPR amplitude maps at two archaeological test sites. In: Slob E, Yarovoy A, Rhebergen J (eds) GPR 2004: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft, Netherlands, vol. II, pp 435–438Google Scholar
  11. de Domenico D, Giannino F, Leucci G, Bottari C (2006) Integrated geophysical surveys at the archaeological site of Tindari (Sicily, Italy). J Archaeol Sci 33:961–970.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng J (2001) Research on the data processing system and measurement parameters setting of ground penetrating radar, Report from East China geological Institute [in Chinese], 23pGoogle Scholar
  13. Deng J, Mo H, Liu Q (2001) The application of ground-penetrating radar to karst detection. Geophys Geochem Explor 25(6):474–477Google Scholar
  14. Deng X, Du T, Yuan Q, Zhong X (2015) Tunnel lining thickness and voids detection by GPR. Electron J Geotech Eng 20:2019–2030Google Scholar
  15. Diamanti N, Giannopoulos A, Forde MC (2008) Numerical modelling and experimental verification of GPR to investigate ring separation in brick masonry arch bridges. Non-Destr Test Eng Int 41(5):354–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2008.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. El-Fouly A (2000) Voids investigation at Gabbari Tombs, Alexandria, Egypt using ground penetrating radar technique. In: Proceedings of ICEHM2000, Cairo University, Egypt, pp 84–90Google Scholar
  17. Field G, Leonard G, Nobes DC (2001) Where is Percy Rutherford’s grave? In: M. Jones M, Sheppard P (eds) Australasian Connections and New Directions: Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Archæometry Conference, Research in Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Auckland, 5, pp 123–140Google Scholar
  18. Gordon HW, Bassett KN, Nobes DC, Jacomb C (2004) Gardening at the edge: documenting the limits of tropical Polynesian kumara horticulture in southern New Zealand. Geoarchaeology 19(1):185–218Google Scholar
  19. Jol HM (1995) Ground penetrating radar antennae frequencies and transmitter powers compared for penetration depth, resolution and reflection continuity. Geophys Prospect 43:693–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keay S, Earl G, Hay S, Kay S, Ogden J, Strutt KD (2009) The role of integrated geophysical survey methods in the assessment of archaeological landscapes: the case of portus. Archaeol Prospect 16:154–166.  https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King ML, Wu D, Nobes DC (2003) Non-invasive ground penetrating radar investigation of a failing concrete floor slab. In: Proceedings of NDT-CE 2003, the international conference on non-destructive testing in civil engineering, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung, Berlin, Proceedings BB85-CD. http://www.ndt.net/article/ndtce03/papers/p043/p043.htm
  22. Kofman L, Ronen A, Frydman S (2006) Detection of model voids by identifying reverberation phenomena in GPR records. J Appl Geophys 59(4):284–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leckebusch J, Peikert R (2001) Investigating the true resolution and three-dimensional capabilities of ground-penetrating radar data in archaeological surveys: measurements in a sand box. Archaeol Prospect 8:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leucci G (2002) Ground-penetrating radar survey to map the location of buried structures under two churches. Archaeol Prospect 9:217–228.  https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leucci G, De Giorgi L (2005) Integrated geophysical surveys to assess the structural conditions of a karstic cave of archaeological importance. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leucci G, Negri S, Carrozzo MT (2003) Ground penetrating radar (GPR): an application for evaluating the state of maintenance of the building coating. Ann Geophys 46(3):481–489Google Scholar
  27. Marcak H, Golebiowski T, Tomecka-Suchon S (2008) Geotechnical analysis and 4D GPR measurements for the assessment of the risk of sinkholes occurring in a Polish mining area. Near Surf Geophys 6:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCoy MD, Ladefoged TN (2009) New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology. J Archaeol Res 17:263–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-009-9030-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nobes DC (1999) Geophysical surveys of burial sites: a case study of the Oaro urupa. Geophysics 64(2):357–367.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nobes DC, Lintott B (2000) Rutherford’s “Old Tin Shed”: Mapping the foundations of a Victorian-age lecture hall. In: Noon DA, Stickley GF, Longstaff D (eds) GPR 2000: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on ground penetrating radar, Gold Coast, Australia, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE), 4084, pp 887–892Google Scholar
  31. Nobes DC, Wallace LR (2018) Geophysical imaging of an Early nineteenth century colonial defensive blockhouse: applications of EM directionality and multi-parameter imaging. In: El-Qady G, Metwaly M (eds) Archaeogeophysics. Springer, Berlin (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Novo A, Lorenzo H, Rial FI, Pereira M, Solla M (2008) Ultra-dense grid strategies for 3D GPR in Archaeology. In: Proceedings of GPR 2008: 12th international conference on ground penetrating radar, Birmingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Nuzzo L, Leucci G, Negri S, Carrozzo MT, Quarta T (2002) Application of 3D visualization techniques in the analysis of GPR data for archaeology. Ann Geophys 45:321–337Google Scholar
  34. Papadopoulos N, Sarris A, Yi M-J, Kim J-H (2009) Urban archaeological investigations using surface 3D ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography methods. Explor Geophys 40:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pérez Gracia V, Antonio Canas J, Pujades LG, Clapes J, Caselles O, Garcia F, Osorio R (2000) GPR survey to confirm the location of ancient structures under the Valencian Cathedral (Spain). J Appl Geophys 43:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pipan M, Baradello L, Forte E, Prizzon A, Finetti I (1999) 2-D and 3-D processing and interpretation of multi-fold ground penetrating radar data: a case history from an archaeological site. J Appl Geophys 41:271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porsani JL, de Matos Jangelme G, Kipnis R (2010) GPR survey at Lapa do Santo archaeological site, Lagoa Santa karstic region, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. J Archaeol Sci 37:1141–1148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ranalli D, Scozzafava M, Tallini M (2004) Ground penetrating radar investigations for the restoration of historic buildings: the case study of the Collemaggio Basilica (L’Aquila, Italy). J Cult Herit 5:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selim EI, Basheer AA, Elqady G, Hafez MA (2014) 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. Archaeol Discov 2:31–43.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2014.22005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaaban FA, Abbas AM, Atya MA, Hafez MA (2008) Ground-penetrating radar exploration for ancient monuments at the Valley of Mummies -Kilo 6, Bahariya Oasis, Egypt. J Appl Geophys 68(2):194–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appgeo.2008.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheriff RE (2002) Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics, 4th edn. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, p 429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yalçiner CÇ, Bano M, Kadioglu M, Karabacak V, Meghraoui M, Altunel E (2009) New temple discovery at the archaeological site of Nysa (western Turkey) using GPR method. J Archaeol Sci 36:1680–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geophysics and Measurement-Control TechnologyEast China University of TechnologyNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations