Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 227-240

Analysis of multi-offset GPR data: a case study in a

coarse-grained gravel aquifer
A. Becht1,2*, E. Appel1 and P. Dietrich1,3
1
Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universität Tübingen, Sigwartstraße 10, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany
2
Now at: Statoil ASA, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway
3
Now at: Umweltforschungszentrum, Leipzich-Halle GmbH, Permoserstraße 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany

Received August 2004, revision accepted November 2005

ABSTRACT
Multi-offset ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data were collected in a coarse-grained gravel aquifer
located in a glacial delta environment within dipping foresets (at the Tettnang aquifer test site, SW
Germany). We apply prestack processing techniques and normal-moveout (NMO) velocity analysis
in preparation for stacking. The estimation of propagation velocities is of considerable importance
for converting time-domain radargrams into depth-sections and for an interpretation in terms of
petrophysical properties. In our case, interval velocity determination is difficult because reflector
dip angles are variable, and stacking and NMO velocities differ significantly since the antenna
offset is comparable to the reflector depth. Using a synthetic two-layer model, we systematically
study possible errors in interval velocity determination. We compare the cases of decreasing veloc-
ity with depth (typical for ground-penetrating (GPR) surveys of aquifers) and increasing velocity
with depth (typical for seismic surveys). In the case of decreasing velocity with depth, the discrep-
ancy between stacking and NMO velocity is considerable and, consequently, interval velocities
calculated with the Dix equation or the more accurate 2D NMO approximation for dipping layers
show unacceptably high errors. The errors are much smaller in comparable models with increasing
velocity with depth. Thus, the small-offset approximation inherent in the NMO concept is not
appropriate for the first case. Consequently, it is necessary to model the true common-midpoint
(CMP) raypaths to determine realistic interval velocities from our GPR field data.
Stacked GPR sections of multi-offset data show significant improvements in imaging of reflec-
tors and depth of investigation compared with a standard constant-offset section. This allows a more
reliable interpretation of geological structures. Simultaneous acquisition of four channels, which is
possible with some commercial GPR systems, yields significantly better results than constant-offset
standard acquisition without increasing the efforts for data acquisition. Major reflectors in the GPR
section can be correlated with distinct contrasts of porosity, represented by the base of open-frame-
work gravels and sand beds within poorly sorted gravels.

INTRODUCTION
Accurate investigation of the subsurface structure is required in
many environmental and engineering applications and sedimen-
tological studies. The conventional method of drilling yields only
sparse 1D information, which is often insufficient for an accurate
site characterization. Therefore, 2D or 3D geophysical techniques
are increasingly used for high-resolution imaging of subsurface
structures. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a promising tech-
nique for high-resolution investigations of the shallow subsurface
and has been used in a variety of applications for the last two
decades. The GPR method is best applicable in low-loss media
with low silt and clay content and fresh pore-water.
*abecht@gmx.de
GPR data are most commonly acquired along single lines
using a constant-offset transmitter–receiver configuration.
Data acquisition and 2D processing are relatively simple and
fast, allowing a rapid interpretation of GPR lines. In the past
decade, research has been focused on GPR acquisition and
processing techniques for improved imaging and interpretation
of subsurface structures. Certain processing steps used for
correctly imaging the geometry of subsurface reflectors (e.g.
migration, time-to-depth conversion) need reliable velocity mod-
els. Frequently, multi-offset common-midpoint (CMP) measure-
ments are used to determine subsurface velocities. Recent
studies have shown that, when using the CMP acquisition geom-
etry for entire profiles, multitrace seismic processing techniques
can be applied to enhance GPR images of the subsurface (Fisher

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 227

228 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich

et al. 1992; Greaves et al. 1996; Hollender et al. 1999; Pipan et

al. 1999). Prospects of multi-offset data acquisition and process-
ing include reducing random and correlated noise, estimating 2D
or 3D velocity models, and applying advanced processing
techniques, such as amplitude-versus-offset analysis. In addition
to improving GPR images, velocity models based on multi-offset
GPR profiling were, for example, used to estimate the water-
content variations of the subsurface (Greaves et al. 1996;
Garambois et al. 2002). However, multi-offset GPR is still not
widely used, because CMP data acquisition for entire profiles is
very time-consuming. More efficient multi-offset data collection
is nowadays possible through advances in commercial
multichannel GPR systems, which allow simultaneous recording
of up to four or even 16 channels with different offsets.
In this study, we describe the acquisition, processing and inter-
pretation of multi-offset GPR data at a coarse-grained gravel aqui-
fer in SW Germany. The test site is situated in foreset deposits of a
glacial delta environment and thus encompasses dipping gravel
beds with highly contrasting hydraulic properties. Special emphasis
is placed on the velocity analysis of CMP data, because reliable
velocity information is of considerable importance for converting
traveltime-domain radargrams into depth-domain geological sec-
tions and for possible interpretation in terms of petrophysical
parameters. Potential errors in interval velocity determination FIGURE 1
related to simplifications inherent in the normal-moveout (NMO) Location map of the test site.
concept are discussed with a synthetic modelling study. We com-
pare stacked sections of different fold orders (maximum- and four-
fold stacked) with a constant-offset section representing a standard
GPR survey and show improvements in the stacked multi-offset
data. The maximum-stacked GPR section is interpreted geologi-
cally with the aid of drillings located along the GPR line.

STUDY AREA
The study area is located in a gravel pit close to Lake Constance in
SW Germany (see Fig. 1). The sediments encompass gravel beds
of a coarse-grained delta deposited during the last Alpine glaciation
period. We established a test site within the dipping foresets of the
delta, which generally show dip angles of 20–30°. Five boreholes
were drilled to a depth of 25 m for detailed geophysical and hydrau-
lic investigations in order to generate a large database for compari-
sons and evaluations of the methods. The groundwater level was FIGURE 2
about 3 m below the ground surface, depending on seasonal varia- Outcrop photograph showing dipping foresets of the coarse-grained
tions. The sedimentology was studied in adjoining outcrops and gravel delta.
could be correlated with the subsurface at the test site. An outcrop
photograph near the test site is shown in Fig. 2. fer. The deposits show extremely contrasting hydraulic proper-
The drilling cores were described in detail, based on a litho- ties; Table 1 gives an overview of the typical gravel types at the
facies type classification scheme developed from outcrop studies test site. More details about the lithofacies types and hydraulic
(Kostic 2004). Differentiation of lithofacies types on the delta properties have been given by Kostic (2004).
slope is controlled by gravitational mass transport processes.
Typical lithofacies types are poorly sorted gravels, bimodal grav- DATA ACQUISITION
els (cobbles in a sandy matrix), open-framework gravels (frame- We acquired multi-offset GPR data during two days in May 2003.
work of cobbles free of matrix), and sand or gravel-sand beds. The GPR line was parallel to the drillings B1–B3, orientated in
The lithofacies types control the hydraulic properties of the aqui- the dip direction of the gravel foresets (see Fig. 3). The ground

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
 Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 229

TABLE 1
Overview of average porosities and hydraulic conductivities for the characteristic gravel types at the test site (modified after Kostic 2004). The abbre-
viation are as follows: G – gravel, S – sand, b – bimodal, c – cobble-rich, o – open-framework; e.g. cG,o indicates cobble-rich gravel, open-framework.
Porosity data are average values from laboratory measurements based on numerous samples from various locations (Heinz et al. 2003). Hydraulic
conductivities are geometric means of measured values (based on flowmeter field data) and calculated values (based on grain-size distributions using
the Kozeny–Carman equation and Beyer (1964) method) at the described test site.

Gravel type Porosity Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

Open-framework gravel (cG,o) 0.26 1.9 ×10-1

Bimodal gravel (cG,b) 0.20 2.2 ×10-4
Poorly sorted gravel (G; cG) 0.18 1.2 ×10-3
Gravel-sand (GS) 0.27 2.1 ×10-4
Sand (S) 0.36 1.0 ×10-4

surface along the multi-offset GPR line was horizontal without
significant topography. The groundwater level was at 3.2 m
below the ground surface during data acquisition.
We used a GSSI SIR 2000 system (Geophysical Survey
Systems Inc., North Salem, NH, USA) and shielded antennae
with a nominal frequency of 100 MHz. We applied the common-
receiver-point (CRP) mode for data acquisition and used a CRP
spacing of 0.25 m. Transmitter offsets ranged from 1 to 10 m
with an offset increment of 0.25 m. In total, we collected 97 CRP
data sets with 37 traces per CRP. After re-sorting the data from
CRP to CMP gathers, a maximum stacking coverage of 18 traces
per CMP can be achieved by this acquisition geometry. To
enhance the signal-to-noise ratio, we used 32 vertical stacks per
trace. The total record time and number of samples per trace
were 500 ns and 1024, respectively. Omitting the low-covered
ends of the line, the total length of the GPR profile after stacking
was about 20 m.
DATA PROCESSING
The data processing of multi-offset GPR data follows the classi-
cal scheme of multi-channel reflection seismics, which is well
documented in the literature (e.g. Hatton et al. 1986; Yilmaz
1987). The processing sequence consists of prestack processing
(amplitude scaling, minimization of coherent and incoherent
noise), velocity analysis, muting, NMO corrections, stacking,
and post-stack processing (migration, time-to-depth conver-
sion). Each of these processing steps is discussed in turn.
We give a comprehensive discussion of the subject of veloc-
ity analysis of CMP data, because it is the crucial point for
converting time-domain radargram data to depth-domain
geological sections and for interpreting velocity information in
terms of petrophysical properties. For this, we briefly review the
NMO concept and discuss possible errors in interval velocity
determination with a synthetic modelling study.
Prestack processing
The multi-offset GPR data were processed using the commer-
cially available software package ReflexW (Sandmeier Scientific
Software, Karlsruhe, Germany). Figure 4(a) shows some raw
data examples of CRP gathers after filtering with a running mean
dewow (window length: 14 ns) and applying a static time-zero
correction. Some hyperbolic arrivals from reflections can be
identified in these raw data; however, system ringing (horizontal
arrivals) is significant and the signal-to-noise ratio is therefore
relatively low. System ringing is a well-known artefact, which
may be caused by feedback effects within the GPR system. To
reduce coherent and random noise, we processed the data in the
following manner.

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4
Photograph of data acquisition site and plan view. Drillings are indicated Examples of CRP gathers: (a) Raw data with AGC (100 ns window) for
by B1–B5. display; (b) data after prestack processing.

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
230 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich
We first tried to minimize the effects of system ringing.
System ringing showed up as horizontal events with nearly
constant amplitudes within individual CRP gathers. We effec-
tively minimized this horizontal coherent noise by applying a
sliding background removal filter for each CRP gather individu-
ally. The filter acts as a horizontal high-pass filter and calculates
an average trace over a window of traces around a mid-trace and
where x is the source–receiver offset, t0 is the zero-offset time of
the normal raypath to the reflector, and vNMO is the NMO
velocity. Solving (1) for the delay time ∆tNMO, or normal
moveout, of a reflection for a raypath with a source–receiver
offset x compared with the zero-offset normal raypath, we derive
the well-known NMO equation,
t   t0 .
12
subtracts it from the mid-trace. We used a window width of 't NMO 2
0  x 2 vNMO
2
(2)
seven traces for averaging.
Amplitude scaling was based on amplitude envelopes follow- In the general case of arbitrarily dipping layers, the NMO veloc-
ing an approach described by Gross et al. (2003). This approach ity is approximated by
has advantages over the commonly applied automatic-gain con-
1 N i 1
§ cos 2 D k ·
trol (AGC). After application of an AGC, broad low-amplitude 2
vNMO
t0 cos 2 E 0
¦ v 't – ¨ cos
i 1
2
i i
k 1©
2
Ek ¹
¸, (3)
shadows typically appear after the strong direct-wave first arriv-
als. This effect is reduced with the amplitude-envelope approach. where t0 is the two-way traveltime of the normal ray to the Nth
First, the Hilbert transform is calculated for each trace. The reflector, ∆ti is the two-way traveltime of the normal ray to the
resulting amplitude envelope is normalized on the maximum Nth reflector within the ith layer, and vi is the interval velocity
value and smoothed with a running average filter to reduce the within the ith layer. The angles i and i are the angles of inci-
effects of local events and noise. A threshold value is set to con- dence and refraction of the normal ray at the ith interface, and 0
trol the maximum gain-factor in order not to over-amplify noise. is the angle between the emerging normal ray and the vertical at
After parameter testing, we chose a maximum gain-factor of the surface. Assuming the reflectors are plane surfaces and inter-
2000. Finally, the original traces are divided by their filtered val velocities are constant, the emergence angle 0 of the normal
amplitude envelopes to obtain amplitude-balanced traces. ray is related to the time slope Sx = dt0(x)/dx of a reflector by
The final step of prestack processing was band-pass filtering
with a passband of 30–160 MHz to reduce high-frequency noise. Sx 2sinE 0 v1 , (4)
Figure 4(b) shows the example CRP gathers after applying these
processing steps. The CRP gathers were subsequently re-sorted where v1 is the interval velocity of the first layer. The time slope
into CMP gathers for velocity analysis and stacking. Sx of a reflector can be measured on a zero-offset stacked section.
Using (1), (3), (4) and Snell’s law,
Velocity analysis
In principle, velocity information can be extracted from CMP sin D i vi sin Ei vi 1 , (5)
data by analysing the propagation velocity of the direct ground
wave and by NMO-velocity analysis of reflection hyperbolae. which describes refraction at the ith interface, it is possible to
The latter is important for defining a velocity model for stacking. determine interval velocities, depths and dips of all layers with a
In addition, stacking velocities can be used to estimate interval knowledge of t0, Sx and vNMO for each primary reflection, pro-
velocities representing the average wave-propagation velocities vided the offset is small compared with reflector depth. The
within individual layers of the subsurface. Estimating interval- derivations of these equations and numerical examples have
velocity models is an important and critical point necessary for been given by Shah (1973) for the 2D case and by Hubral (1976)
processing steps, such as migration and time-to-depth conver- for the 3D case.
sion. In the following, we summarize the NMO concept and In the special case of plane horizontal layers and if the
discuss inherent simplifications. source–receiver offset is small compared with the reflector
depth, the NMO velocity can be approximated by the root-mean-
Review of the NMO concept square (rms) velocity, defined by
Let us assume a 2D subsurface geometry with a number of plane
1 N 2
layers with arbitrary dip angles. The wave-propagation velocity vN2 ¦ vi 'ti ,
t0 i 1
(6)
within each layer, or the interval velocity, is assumed to be iso-
tropic and homogeneous. For a CMP arrangement of source and where vN is the rms velocity between the surface and the Nth
receiver positions and if the source–receiver offset is small com- reflector, t0 is the vertical two-way traveltime from the surface to
pared with the reflector depth (small-offset approximation), the the Nth reflector, and ∆ti is the vertical two-way traveltime
time–distance curve is given by the hyperbolic expression, within the ith layer. Assuming we have estimated rms velocities
from NMO velocities, we can calculate interval velocities using
t 2  x  t02  x 2 vNMO
2
, (1) the Dix recursive equation (Dix 1955),

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240

vN2 t N  vN2 1t N 1 (7)
vi2 ,
t N  t N 1
where vN and tN are the rms velocity and the two-way traveltime
from the surface to the Nth reflector, respectively. Basically, the
rms velocity is a weighted average of the interval velocities
above a reflector. In the special case of plane horizontal layers,
the NMO velocity is equal to the rms velocity. In the case of dip-
ping layers, the two quantities may differ significantly.
In the special case of a single dipping reflector or in a multi-
layer case with parallel dipping reflectors, the zero-offset raypath
is straight and normal to all reflectors, and the emergence angle
0
of the normal ray is equal to the dip angle. From (3) and (4),
the NMO velocity is approximated by
vNMO vN / cos M , (8)
where is the reflector dip angle. Thus, the NMO velocity of a
dipping reflector increases with the dip angle and overestimates
the rms velocity. This relationship is important when estimating
rms velocities from NMO velocities.
There are a number of different methods for NMO-velocity
analysis of CMP data (e.g. Hatton et al. 1986; Yilmaz 1987).
A frequently used technique is the method of constant-velocity
stacks, where the CMP data are NMO-corrected with a range of
constant velocities. In the processed scans, the velocity at which
the reflector appears most accurately horizontal corresponds to
the correct stacking velocity. Another common technique is sem-
blance-amplitude analysis, where CMP data are NMO-corrected
and stacked with a range of trial velocities. In the resultant veloc-
ity spectrum, peaks represent the optimum stacking velocity.
These methods aim at determining stacking velocities for the
optimum quality of the stacked signal, assuming a hyperbolic
traveltime–offset function as defined in (1).
At this point, we should make a clear distinction between
NMO velocity and stacking velocity, which are often used syn-
onymously in practice. Stacking velocity is an average moveout
velocity which gives optimum stacking results. In contrast,
NMO velocity is the small-offset moveout velocity measured
near the zero-offset normal raypath. If the offset is small com-
pared with reflector depth, the stacking velocity may serve as a
good approximation for NMO velocity. However, if the offset is
large and the velocity field is complicated with, for example,
lateral velocity gradients or steeply dipping layers, NMO can
deviate strongly from hyperbolic and the determined stacking
velocities may differ significantly from NMO velocities.
In multi-offset GPR, the offset range is typically of the same
magnitude as the reflector depth, due to the limited depth of
investigation and the necessity for large offsets for reliable
velocity estimations. In fact, constant-offset GPR data collected
at the field site used in this study show investigation depths of
maximum 10–15 m, whereas the antenna offsets of the multi-
offset data range up to 10 m. In addition, we may expect a rela-
tively complicated situation at our field site with strong velocity
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 231
contrasts and dipping reflectors. When simplified, we expect a
two-layer velocity model with a fast top layer and a slow bottom
layer, corresponding to the unsaturated and saturated zones,
respectively. The velocity within these zones is variable due to
the different porosities of the dipping gravel beds. Determining
interval velocities of the saturated zone is difficult because we
must analyse reflections from variably dipping gravel beds
below the horizontal groundwater level.
Thus, we are faced with the following questions: What is the
magnitude of the discrepancy between stacking velocity and
NMO velocity? Consequently, is the small-offset approximation
appropriate under such conditions? How large is the error in the
interval velocity estimation based on stacking velocities, when
using the Dix equation or the NMO approximation for dipping
layers? Are there differences in the case of decreasing velocity
with depth, which is typical for GPR surveys in aquifer settings,
compared to the case of increasing velocity with depth, which we
usually encounter in reflection seismic surveys? To discuss these
issues, we present a modelling study in the next section.
Modelling study
To study the effects of large offsets and dipping reflectors on NMO-
velocity analysis and interval-velocity determination, we calculated
synthetic CMP traveltimes for a two-layer case consisting of a dip-
ping reflector underlying a horizontal reflector as shown in Fig. 5.
For each CMP transmitter–receiver pair, we forward-calculated the
raypath for a reflection at the dipping interface using Snell’s law.
Knowing the lengths of the raypath segments in each layer and the
layer velocity, we then calculated the traveltime. The geometry of
FIGURE 5
Model 1 showing the situation of the GPR field survey with shallow
reflector case (left) and deep reflector case (right). The dip angle of the
second interface is = 20°. (a) Raypaths for second reflector; for clarity,
every second ray is shown. (b) Modelled traveltimes (crosses), stacking
hyperbola (solid line) and NMO hyperbola (dashed line). The model
parameters and calculated velocities are listed in Table 2.
232 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich
the CMP arrangement corresponds to the field data with offsets
ranging from 0 to 10 m and an offset increment of 0.5 m.
From the modelled traveltime–offset curve, we determined
the stacking velocity and the NMO velocity. Determination of
the NMO velocity is based on (1) and consists of fitting a least-
squares hyperbola to the small-offset traveltimes, where t(0) is
given by the zero-offset time of the normal raypath. We used the
first three offsets (x = 0–1 m) for fitting. The stacking velocity
corresponds to a least-squares hyperbola fitted to the full offset
range. Thus, the zero-offset times of the stacking and NMO
hyperbolae may differ slightly.
We used two approaches to determine interval velocities from
stacking velocities. The first and simple approach is the Dix
equation (7), which assumes horizontal layering and small off-
sets compared to reflector depth. The second approach is based
on the 2D NMO-velocity approximation for arbitrarily dipping
layers given by (3), which considers dipping layers and also
assumes small offsets. The first approach applying the Dix for-
mula is straightforward and requires the additional assumption
that the rms velocity to the second interface is equal to the NMO
velocity. For the second approach, we performed the following
procedure: Calculate the time slope Sx = 2 sin / v2 from (4) and
(5) with 0 = 1 and 1 = , where is the dip angle of the second
interface. Determine the emergence angle 0 of the normal ray
from v1 and Sx using (4), and the refraction angle 1 using Snell’s
law with 0 = 1. Calculation of the lengths of the normal raypath
segments using t1(0) and t2(0) provides ∆t1 and ∆t2. With these
parameters and the assumption that stacking velocity equals NMO
velocity, equation (3) can be solved for the interval velocity.
Model 1 resembles the situation of the multi-offset GPR field
survey. The first layer represents the unsaturated zone with a
constant velocity v1 of 0.12 m/ns and a vertical zero-offset time
TABLE 2
Model parameters and calculated velocities. The velocities v2,STK and v2,NMO are the stacking and NMO velocities of reflections from the second
interface. Using v2,STK, the interval velocity v2,DIX is calculated with the Dix formula, v2,2D with the 2D NMO approximation for dipping layers
Parameter Mod. 1, shallow
Model definition
t1(0) (ns) 50
t2(0) (ns) 160
v1 (m/ns) 0.12
v2 (m/ns) 0.07
(°) 20
Velocity analysis
v2,STK (m/ns) 0.1197
v2,NMO (m/ns) 0.1091
Interval velocities using v2,STK
v2,DIX (m/ns) 0.1196
v2,2D (m/ns) 0.0883
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
t1(0) of 50 ns, which corresponds to a thickness of 3.0 m. The
second layer represents the saturated zone with a constant veloc-
ity v2 of 0.07 m/ns. The dip angle of the second interface is
equal to 20°. We examined two cases: when the dipping reflector
is relatively shallow and when it is deep, with corresponding
zero-offset times t2(0) of 160 ns and 260 ns. The model param-
eters and velocity values determined are listed in Table 2.
Figure 5 shows the raypaths and calculated traveltimes together
with the stacking and NMO hyperbolae. The modelled travel-
time–offset curves are not exactly hyperbolic and deviate sig-
nificantly from the NMO hyperbolae. The stacking velocity
v2,STK overestimates the NMO velocity v2,NMO by 9.7% for the
shallow case and by 5.5% for the deep reflector case.
Use of the Dix equation to recover the interval velocity of the
second layer results in unacceptably high values, overestimating
the true interval velocity by 71% and 40% for the shallow and
deep cases, respectively. The 2D NMO approach, which consid-
ers the correct time slope of the reflector, leads to interval
velocities that overestimate the true values by 26% and 10% for
the shallow and deep cases, respectively. If we used v2,NMO
instead of v2,STK for this second calculation, we would of course
recover the true interval velocity of 0.07 m/ns. Thus, discrepan-
cies in v2,NMO and v2,STK are strongly amplified in this model when
we calculate the interval velocity from the stacking velocity,
based on the assumption that the stacking velocity approximates
the NMO velocity sufficiently well. In this example, neither the
Dix equation nor the 2D NMO approximation for dipping layers
is adequate to determine interval velocities from stacking veloc-
ities. The small-offset approximation is not appropriate.
Figure 6 shows the relative difference between stacking and
NMO velocities of the dipping interface, computed for dip angles
varying between 0° and 30° and for the constant zero-offset times
Mod. 1, deep Mod. 2, shallow Mod. 2, deep
50 85 85
260 155 210
0.12 0.07 0.07
0.07 0.12 0.12
20 20 20
0.1025 0.1015 0.1085
0.0972 0.1002 0.1081
0.0979 0.1298 0.1283
0.0772 0.1218 0.1206
 Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 233

FIGURE 7
FIGURE 6 Model 2 showing shallow reflector case (left) and deep reflector case
Relative difference between stacking velocity and NMO velocity versus (right). The dip angle of the second interface is = 20°. (a) Raypaths for
dip angle for Model 1 (see Table 2). second reflector; for clarity, every second ray is shown. (b) Modelled
traveltimes (crosses), stacking hyperbola (solid line) and NMO hyper-
t2(0) of 160 and 260 ns. The relative difference between the two bola (dashed line). The model parameters and calculated velocities are
velocities increases non-linearly with increasing dip angle and listed in Table 2.
decreasing zero-offset time or, respectively, reflector depth. This
figure implies that, in the case of Model 1, interval velocities deter-
mined from stacking velocities are very sensitive to the dip angle
or, respectively, the time slope being measured on a zero-offset
stacked section. Note that when = 0° (the horizontal two-layer
case), the relative difference is still about 1–2%. This means that,
even in the horizontal layer case, interval velocities are overesti-
mated when we use the stacking velocity as an approximation for
the NMO velocity and calculate interval velocities with the Dix
equation.
Model 2 is similar to Model 1 but the values of v1 and v2 are
interchanged and hence v1 = 0.07 m/ns and v2 = 0.12 m/ns. The
zero-offset times are chosen such that the vertical depths of the two
interfaces below the CMP are equivalent to Model 1. This case
reflects a situation of increasing velocity with depth which is typi-
cal, for example, in seismic surveys. Thus, this case may serve as a
good example of a shallow reflection seismic experiment, where
the time units and absolute values are, of course, different. In con-
trast to Model 1, the stacking and NMO hyperbolae are almost FIGURE 8
congruent and v2,STK overestimates v2,NMO by only 1.3% for the shal- Relative difference between stacking velocity and NMO velocity versus
low reflector case and 0.44% for the deep reflector case (Fig. 7). dip angle for Model 2 (see Table 2).
Interval velocities calculated with the Dix formula overestimate the
true value by 8.2% and 6.9% for the shallow and deep reflector
cases, respectively. Using the 2D NMO approximation for dipping difference does not increase significantly with dip angle; it depends
reflectors, the corresponding values are only 1.5% and 0.50%. mainly on the zero-offset time or depth of the reflector.
Thus, the errors in interval-velocity determination are much small- Thus, there are considerable differences between the cases of
er compared to Model 1; the 2D NMO approximation yields results decreasing and increasing velocity with depth as a consequence
with very small errors in this case. Figure 8 shows the relative dif- of different raypath geometries. When velocity increases with
ference between stacking velocity and NMO velocity, calculated depth as in Model 2, the errors in interval-velocity calculation
for varying dip angles. In contrast to Model 1 (Fig. 6), the relative are acceptable with the Dix equation and very small with the

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
234 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich

more accurate 2D NMO approximation. However, both methods

lead to unacceptable errors when velocity decreases with depth
as in Model 1. For this case, the small-offset approximation is
certainly not appropriate. A more accurate approach that consid-
ers the actual CMP geometry and allows forward calculation of
stacking velocities is necessary for interval velocity estima-
tions.

Velocity analysis of field data

In principle, velocity information can be obtained from CMP
data by analysing the velocities of the direct ground-wave arriv-
als and by NMO-velocity analysis of reflection hyperbolae.
A priori, we may expect a velocity model with at least two layers
consisting of an unsaturated zone with higher velocities and a FIGURE 9
saturated zone with lower velocities. A more detailed differentia- Example of velocity analysis. (a) CMP No. 141 at 18-m profile distance.
tion of the model depends on the presence of consistent and (b) Velocity spectrum. The triangles indicate the stacking velocities of
strong reflectors which can be analysed. In general, the number the analysed reflectors. (c) 1D stacking-velocity model.
of CMPs to be analysed depends on the lateral variability of the
velocity and the geometry of subsurface structures. Ideally, each
CMP could be analysed to determine the optimum stacking-
velocity model for maximum coherence of reflected arrivals.
However, in practice, the resulting 2D stacking-velocity model
for the complete section would tend to be very heterogeneous on
the scale of the CMP spacing, leading to artefacts in the final
stacked section. Therefore, a compromise between lateral
smoothness and resolution of the 2D stacking-velocity model
must be achieved. We performed NMO-velocity analyses at
regular intervals of 2 m along the line. We determined stacking FIGURE 10
velocities from CMP data using semblance-amplitude analysis. Velocity profiles for the unsaturated zone. The solid line represents the
In the resultant velocity spectrum, peaks representing the opti- velocity of the direct ground wave determined for each CMP (spacing =
mum stacking velocity were picked to determine a 1D velocity 0.125 m). The dashed line corresponds to the stacking velocity of reflec-
model for that CMP. In general, the resolution of the velocity tions from the groundwater level, analysed every 0.5 m.
spectrum improves with an increasing number of traces and a
larger offset range of a CMP. We estimate an uncertainty of about
±0.005 m/ns when velocities are picked in single-velocity spec-
tra. As an example, Fig. 9 shows a CMP gather with the calcu-
lated velocity spectrum and determined stacking velocities for
three major reflectors.
In most CMP gathers, the groundwater level is represented by
strong and consistent arrivals at about 53 ns two-way traveltime.
Since it is not possible to determine stacking velocities of reflec-
tions from above the groundwater level, the groundwater level is
the first major reflector to be analysed. The stacking velocities of
these arrivals represent the true average velocities of the unsatu-
rated zone, because the groundwater level is quasi-horizontal
within the survey area. In some places, however, interferences of
reflections from the dipping gravel beds with those from the
groundwater level may result in uncertainties of velocity deter- FIGURE 11
mination. Figure 10 shows velocity profiles for the unsaturated Stacking-velocity model interpolated from 1D velocity functions. The
zone based on NMO-velocity analysis of reflections from the numbers indicate stacking velocities in m/ns. The thick lines represent
groundwater level and on velocities of the direct ground wave. the reflectors for which stacking velocities were determined. Velocities
The latter were determined by regression analysis of the arrival below the bottom reflector were extrapolated for the purpose of NMO
times of the first positive phase of the direct ground wave for correction.

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240

offsets from 2 m to 6 m. Both velocity profiles show the same
mean value of 0.122 m/ns and relatively small velocity variations
along the profile without significant trends. Discrepancies
between the two profiles (e.g. at 11 m) may be caused by subsur-
face heterogeneity and different sampling volumes of the direct
and reflected waves used for these analyses. Due to these
discrepancies and the relatively small variations in velocity
values, we assigned a constant velocity of 0.122 m/ns (mean
value) and a constant thickness of 3.2 m (depth of groundwater
level) to the first layer of the stacking-velocity model.
Strong and consistent reflections from below the groundwater
level were not present in all CMPs. Therefore, stacking veloci-
ties for the saturated zone could only be determined for two
major reflectors. If reflections were too weak or incoherent, we
interpolated the velocity models from neighbouring CMPs.
Figure 11 shows the 2D stacking-velocity model created by
interpolating the 1D velocity functions at the analysed CMP
locations. Velocities below the lowermost reflector are extrapo-
lated for the purpose of NMO correction. As was shown in the
modelling study, stacking velocities are very sensitive to the
reflector dip angle and obviously vary with traveltime. Therefore,
structures in the stacking velocity model should not be inter-
preted in terms of geological structures or trends. The computa-
tion of interval velocities is the topic of the next section.
Interval velocities
Determining interval velocities from the stacking-velocity model
is complicated by the facts that the NMO small-offset approxi-
mation is not appropriate and the geometry consists of a dipping
reflector underlying a horizontal interface. As shown in the mod-
elling study, use of the Dix equation would lead to enormous
errors in interval-velocity estimates, of up to 70% in this specific
case. Using the NMO approximation for dipping layers would
also lead to significant errors of the order of 10–25%, depending
on reflector depth. Therefore, we use a ray-modelling approach
for inversion of stacking velocities. For an initial interval-veloc-
ity model and a given CMP geometry, the stacking velocity is
forward-calculated. The correct interval velocity is determined
by minimizing the discrepancy between the stacking velocity of
the field data and the modelled value. The model layout is equal
to that of the modelling study described above. The parameters
of the horizontal first layer were fixed at v1 = 0.122 m/ns (mean
velocity of unsaturated zone) and t1(0) = 53 ns (mean traveltime
to the groundwater level). We used the bottom reflector to deter-
mine average interval velocities for the saturated zone (see
Fig. 11). For each analysed CMP location, we measured the time
slope Sx and zero-offset time t2(0) of this reflector from a stacked
section. We then determined the correct interval velocity of the
second layer, thus providing 1D interval-velocity functions at the
analysed CMP locations.
Figure 12(a) shows the resultant interval velocity model
derived by interpolating and contouring the 1D velocity functions.
The mean value of the interval velocity in the saturated zone is
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 235
FIGURE 12
(a) Interval-velocity model determined from inversion of stacking
velocities of the bottom major reflector (compare with Fig. 11). Velocities
below that reflector cannot be determined from the stacking-velocity
model. (b) Tomographic velocity reconstruction between drillings B2
and B3. The thick line indicates the bottom reflector; the numbers
indicate velocities in m/ns.
TABLE 3
Uncertainty in interval-velocity calculation. Calculated interval veloci-
ties of the saturated zone in m/ns for time slopes sx and stacking veloci-
ties v2,STK, varying within the limits of estimated parameter uncertainties.
The model parameters correspond to the CMP at 12-m profile distance.
Bold values indicate the actually determined values for that CMP.
Sx (ns/m)
7.6 8.1 8.6
0.101 0.065 0.055 0.037
v2,STK (m/ns)
0.106 0.078 0.072 0.063
0.111 0.088 0.084 0.078
0.072 m/ns. For comparison, Fig. 12(b) shows the upper part of a
cross-hole tomographic velocity reconstruction between boreholes
B2 and B3. For this tomographic survey, we used a Ramac bore-
hole radar system (Malå Geoscience, Sweden) and antennae with
a nominal frequency of 250 MHz. The velocities of the CMP-
derived interval-velocity model are consistently higher but gener-
ally agree with the tomographic velocity reconstruction. The bot-
tom reflector is indicated by a thick line in the tomographic result
and corresponds to a sharp velocity increase.
It is well known in seismic surveying that interval-velocity
calculations tend to be unstable and are very sensitive to the
accuracy of NMO velocities and other parameters (Hajnal and
Sereda 1981). To assess the uncertainty in interval-velocity
determination for the saturated zone, we calculated interval
velocities for different time slopes Sx and stacking velocities
236 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich
v2,STK varying within the limits of estimated parameter uncertain-
ties. We used the CMP at 12-m profile distance as an example for
these calculations. The model parameters v1, t1(0) and t2(0) were
fixed at values of 0.122 m/ns, 53 ns and 191.5 ns, respectively.
We estimated a parameter uncertainty for v2,STK of ±0.005 m/ns and
for Sx of ±0.5 ns/m, corresponding to an uncertainty in dip angle
of about ±1° for this example. The calculated interval velocities
are listed in Table 3. Computed interval velocities vary between
0.037 m/ns and 0.088 m/ns, where the actual determined value is
0.072 m/ns. In this case, the calculation of interval velocities is
thus very sensitive to the determined stacking velocity and the
time slope of the dipping reflector. Thus, small errors in the deter-
mination of stacking velocity and time slope may translate into
large errors in interval velocity. The interval velocity in this exam-
ple is, therefore, rather inaccurately determined, since it is very
sensitive to the accuracy of other parameters.
Stacked GPR sections
The NMO correction removes the offset dependence of reflec-
tion traveltimes, so that each CMP trace can be treated as a zero-
offset trace. Stacking of NMO-corrected CMP traces produces a
single zero-offset trace which shows an improved signal-to-noise
ratio. The maximum improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio
that can be achieved is a factor of n1/2, where n is the number of
stacked traces (Hatton et al. 1986). Thus, we may expect
enhanced imaging of subsurface structures and an increased
depth of investigation in multifold stacked sections.
A consequence of dipping reflectors and lateral velocity gradi-
ents is that the true reflector points of a CMP do not coincide, so
that a smeared area of a reflector surface is sampled rather than a
common reflector point (assuming ray propagation). Therefore,
reflector points are imaged incorrectly when NMO corrections
are applied before stacking. More sophisticated processing
schemes, including dip-moveout correction or prestack migra-
tion, allow for a more accurate imaging of reflector points (Russel
1998; Yilmaz 1987). However, Greaves et al. (1996) pointed out
that, in general, the NMO correction is sufficiently robust to
improve data quality under most conditions. Since the gravel
sheets in the area of investigation show comparatively small dip
angles of about 20–30°, we use the relatively simple NMO
approach for moveout correction of the CMP data.
Before stacking of NMO-corrected CMP traces, arrivals of
direct waves must be eliminated or ‘muted’ to prevent artefacts.
Some additional points should be considered in choosing an appro-
priate muting window for optimum stack results. For a number of
reasons, it is also advisable to mute large-offset data of shallow
reflections. An undesirable effect of NMO correction is wavelet
distortion due to NMO stretching, which is most significant for
shallow events at large offsets. As discussed earlier, NMO can devi-
ate strongly from hyperbolic in structurally complex areas with
lateral velocity gradients and when the magnitude of the offset
approaches the reflector depth. In these cases, stacking of NMO-
corrected CMP traces, based on flattening of hyperbolae will also
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
FIGURE 13
NMO correction and muting of some example CMP gathers: (a) CMP
gathers; (b) NMO correction; (c) muting.
damage coherent reflection events. Thus, we seek a compromise
between muting to reduce wavelet distortion and accepting large
amounts of data to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. We defined a
mute line constant for all CMPs by determining the zone in which
distorted wavelets and non-horizontal arrivals are dominant in the
NMO-corrected data (Fig. 13).
Figure 14 compares stacked sections with different fold
orders: a constant-offset section (minimum offset), which would
typically be obtained by a standard GPR survey, a 4-fold stacked
section using only traces with offsets of 1, 2, 3 and 4 m, and an
18-fold stacked section (maximum fold) using all traces. The
4-fold stacked section represents a result that could be obtained
by simultaneous acquisition of four channels using an arrange-
ment of one transmitter and four receiver antennae. This type of
data acquisition is nowadays possible with some commercial
GPR systems and is very time-efficient compared to the CRP or
CMP acquisition modes usually applied with single-channel
acquisition systems.
The 4-fold stacked section shows significant improvements
compared to the constant-offset section. Structural details are
better imaged and the reflector continuity is substantially
improved, especially for deeper reflectors. The depth of investi-
gation is increased by about 5–10%. Investigation depth and
imaging of structures is further improved in the 18-fold stacked
section. Reflectors that appeared indistinct in the constant-offset
section are clearly imaged and the depth of investigation is
increased by more than 30%, compared to the constant-offset
section. Evidently, it is necessary to stack all available traces for
optimum results in the deeper part of the section.
INTERPRETATION
For interpretation, the 18-fold stacked section in Fig. 14(c) was
migrated with a phase-shift migration (Gazdag 1978) and travel-
time was converted into depth. For these processing steps, we
used a 1D velocity model as shown in Fig. 15. The velocities of
the unsaturated zone (0.122 m/ns) and the saturated zone
(0.07 m/ns) correspond to average values determined from
 Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 237

velocity analysis of the direct ground wave and cross-hole tom- rated to saturated zone between 40 ns and 70 ns. The parameters
ography, respectively. Very high gradients or steps in the veloc- of this transition zone were chosen, such that the reflector depths
ity model would lead to artefacts in the migrated depth-section; in the depth-section correspond to values obtained when using a
therefore, we used a linear transition of the velocity from unsatu- velocity model with a more realistic step-like velocity decrease

FIGURE 14
Stacked sections with different
fold orders: (a) Constant-offset
section with minimum offset of
1 m; (b) 4-fold stacked section
using traces with offsets 1, 2, 3
and 4 m; (c) 18-fold stacked sec-
tion using all traces.

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
238 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich
FIGURE 15
Velocity model used for migra-
tion and time-to-depth conver-
sion. GW indicates the ground-
water level.
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
from 0.122 m/ns to 0.07 m/ns at the groundwater level.
Obviously, the chosen 1D velocity model does not account for
lateral velocity gradients or different propagation velocities
within individual gravel beds. Therefore, this simplified velocity
model introduces an error when converting traveltime to depth.
We estimate that this error is of the order of few decimetres,
based on test calculations with more complicated velocity
models derived from cross-hole tomography.
Figure 16(a) shows the migrated depth-section. We can iden-
tify four major continuous dipping reflectors: A, B, C and D. The
shallow reflector B is obviously distorted around the 8-m profile
distance, due to interference with the horizontal reflector related
to the groundwater level (GW). The deepest major reflector D is
FIGURE 16
Interpretation of the 18-fold stacked GPR
section. (a) Migrated depth-section. The let-
ters A to D denote major continuous reflec-
tors; GW is the groundwater level. (b)
Interpretation and correlation with drilling
core logs (gravel-type codes as in Table 1).
The width of the displayed core logs corre-
sponds to the dominant grain-size; lithologi-
cal units that can be correlated between
cores are shown in grey. Solid lines corre-
spond to major continuous reflectors, dashed
lines to minor reflectors.

less pronounced in the right-hand part of the section due to signal
attenuation. Other reflectors are less continuous and some show
sinusoidal shapes.
Reflections of electromagnetic waves in low-loss geological
materials occur at interfaces between lithological units of con-
trasting dielectric permittivity. The dielectric permittivity of
clastic sediments is strongly related to water content. Thus, inter-
faces of lithological units with different water content or, in the
saturated zone, with different porosities act as reflectors.
According to a study by Huggenberger (1993), reflection coef-
ficients are largest between sand and open-framework gravel and
between open-framework and bimodal gravels in unsaturated
conditions. In saturated conditions, the highest reflectivity
occurs at interfaces between sand and bimodal or poorly sorted
gravels and between open-framework and bimodal or poorly
sorted gravels. Bimodal and poorly sorted gravels typically show
similar porosities and, thus, the dielectric permittivity is compa-
rable in saturated conditions. In addition, the reflector strength is
dependent on the transition between lithological units. If the
transition is more gradual rather than sharp, reflections may be
relatively weak. For example, the groundwater level is often not
imaged as a prominent reflector in GPR sections, because the
transition from the unsaturated to the saturated zone may be
rather gradual in the presence of fine-grained matrix due to the
capillary fringe.
When correlating reflectors with core logs, we also must keep
in mind that the accuracy of the core logs is limited. Material is
mixed during drilling and an accurate determination of litho-
facies types is clearly more difficult from core boxes than in
outcrops. Therefore, there is some uncertainty related to the cor-
rect interpretation of lithofacies types, and the depths of the
boundaries are inaccurate to the order of several decimetres.
Figure 16(b) shows core logs of three drillings along the GPR
section and an interpretation. The reflector A can be correlated
with a layer of sand-gravel mixture intercalated into poorly
sorted gravels, showing up in drilling B3. Reflector B is related
to the top of a layer of poorly sorted gravel, which is slightly
coarser than the adjoining gravel beds. A very clear correlation is
possible for the major reflector C. It represents the interface
between highly porous open-framework and less porous bimodal
gravels. While this bottom boundary of the open-framework
gravel bed is well pronounced, the top is rather vague (dashed
line). This can be explained by outcrop observations: the bottom
of open-framework gravels is typically a sharp lithological
boundary with underlying bimodal gravels (both units character-
istically occur as couplets), whereas the top is often more gradu-
al, due to a fining upwards within the open-framework gravel
bed. Reflector D seems to be associated with the bottom of a
cobble-rich gravel bed in drillings B2 and B3 and with the top of
a sand bed in B1. From flowmeter measurements, we know that
this cobble-rich gravel bed is almost as permeable as open-
framework gravel and we may likewise expect a high porosity,
leading to a high reflectivity at the boundary with less porous,
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
Analysis of multi-offset GPR data 239
poorly sorted gravels. Probably, this cobble-rich gravel bed is
open-framework gravel which could not be identified in the
cores, due to material mixing in the process of core extraction.
In summary, major reflectors can be clearly correlated with
lithological boundaries in the gravel sequence. Boundaries with
strong and sharp contrasts of porosity, such as transitions
between sand or sand-gravel and poorly sorted gravel and
between open-framework and bimodal gravel, show a high
reflectivity. More gradual transitions, for example, between
poorly sorted and open-framework gravel, are comparatively
indistinct.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
We have processed, analysed and interpreted multi-offset GPR
data collected at a coarse-grained gravel aquifer within dipping
foresets of a glacial delta. The maximum-fold stacked section
shows enhancements regarding imaging of reflectors and depth of
investigation, compared to a constant-offset section representing
the result of a standard GPR survey. Our results confirm that the
NMO correction is sufficiently robust to yield results with
improved data quality under marginal conditions when the antenna
offset is of the order of the reflector depth and the structure is
relatively complex with horizontal and dipping reflectors.
Multi-offset data acquisition with a single-channel acquisi-
tion system is very time-consuming and expensive. New com-
mercial GPR systems allow multichannel acquisition of, for
example, four channels with different antenna offsets at the same
time. The time for data acquisition of such a 4-channel survey
would be equivalent to a standard constant-offset GPR survey.
We extracted a 4-channel data set with offsets of 1–4 m.
Reflectors are more clearly imaged and the depth of investiga-
tion is increased, when comparing the 4-fold stacked section
with a constant-offset section. However, it was evident that all
traces must be stacked to obtain the best results in the lower part
of the section. We believe that the acquisition strategy of simul-
taneous acquisition of multichannel GPR data has great poten-
tial. The optimum choice of offsets may depend on the data
quality at the specific measurement site, the geological structure,
and the aims of the investigation, for example, whether the sur-
vey should be optimized for maximum depth of investigation or
best resolution in intermediate depths.
Velocity information about the subsurface is crucial for
converting time-domain radargram data into depth-domain geo-
logical sections with correct reflector positioning. In addition,
analysing propagation velocities in terms of hydraulic parameters
would be of great benefit to hydrogeological studies and has been
investigated by different authors (e.g. Greaves et al. 1996;
Garambois et al. 2002). However, the determination of propagation
velocities from surface CMP measurements is often a difficult task
and the accuracy of velocities based on NMO corrections is limited
(Tillard and Dubois 1995). In structurally complex areas with dip-
ping reflectors and where velocity decreases with depth, which is
typical for GPR surveys of aquifers, the discrepancy between
240 A. Becht, E. Appel and P. Dietrich
stacking and NMO velocity may become large. This was demon-
strated with a synthetic modelling study. In these cases, use of the
Dix equation or the more accurate 2D NMO approximation for
dipping layers results in unacceptable errors in computed interval
velocities, because the small-offset approximation is not appropri-
ate. To estimate propagation velocities, we considered the ray
geometry by forward-calculation of stacking velocities for the
actual CMP geometry and iteratively determining the correct inter-
val velocity. However, we showed that interval velocities are very
sensitive to the accuracy of determined stacking velocities and the
measured time slopes of reflectors. Errors in these parameters are
greatly amplified. Therefore, we conclude that interval velocities
based on NMO-velocity analysis of CMP data are uncertainly
determined parameters under such conditions. An interpretation in
terms of petrophysical parameters would be doubtful. Thus, we
think that interval velocities based on surface CMP data are mean-
ingful only under very favourable conditions. More reliable veloc-
ity information and higher resolution could be achieved by meas-
urements with, for example, cross-hole radar tomography.
Major reflectors in the GPR depth-section were correlated with
boundaries between gravel types that show sharp contrasts of
porosity, for example, the base of open-framework gravels or sand
beds within poorly sorted gravels. However, it was difficult to
identify clearly the top of open-framework gravel beds, since the
top is often a more gradual transition. Thus, the results show that
the geometry of gravel deposits can be investigated successfully
with GPR. It is, however, unlikely to map the thickness of indi-
vidual gravel beds, such as the hydraulically highly conductive
open-framework gravels in this field example.
In summary, multi-offset GPR data show significant improve-
ments regarding reflector imaging and depth of investigation
compared to standard constant-offset data. However, extracting
reliable propagation velocities is difficult and may be achieved
only under very favourable conditions. A good compromise
between expenses in acquisition time and benefits in subsurface
imaging is simultaneous data acquisition with a multichannel
GPR system. Thus, we believe that there is great potential for
multi-offset GPR.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the German Science Foundation
(DFG) as part of the projects, Te 155/13-1 and Di 833/4-3. We
thank Dr. Jens Tronicke for help in data acquisition, Björn
Heincke for performing the migration, and Dr. Boris Kostic for
sharing his sedimentological expertise. We also thank the com-
pany Meichle & Mohr, Immenstaad, for access to the test site
and support in the gravel pit.
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 227-240
REFERENCES
Beyer W. 1964. Zur Bestimmung der Wasserdurchlässigkeit von Kiesen
und Sanden aus der Kornverteilung. Wasserwirtschaft-Wassertechnik
14, 165–169.
Dix C.H. 1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements.
Geophysics 20, 68–86.
Fisher E., McMechan G.A. and Annan A.P. 1992. Acquisition and
processing of wide-aperture ground-penetrating radar data. Geophysics
57, 495–504.
Garambois S., Sénechal P. and Perroud H. 2002. On the use of combined
geophysical methods to assess water content and water conductivity of
near-surface formations. Journal of Hydrology 259, 32–48.
Gazdag J. 1978. Wave equation migration with the phase-shift method.
Geophysics 43, 1342–1351.
Greaves R.J., Lesmes D.P., Lee J.M. and Toksöz M.N. 1996. Velocity
variations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-
penetrating radar. Geophysics 61, 683–695.
Gross R., Green A., Horstmeyer H., Holliger K. and Baldwin J. 2003. 3D
georadar images of an active fault: efficient data acquisition, process-
ing and interpretation strategies. Subsurface Sensing Technologies and
Applications 4, 19–40.
Hajnal Z. and Sereda I.T. 1981. Maximum uncertainty of interval
velocity estimates. Geophysics 46, 1543–1547.
Hatton L., Worthington M.H. and Makin J. 1986. Seismic Data
Processing: Theory and Practice. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Heinz J., Kleineidam S., Teutsch G. and Aigner T. 2003. Heterogeneity
patterns of Quaternary glaciofluvial gravel bodies (SW-Germany):
application to hydrogeology. Sedimentary Geology 158, 1–23.
Hollender F., Tillard S. and Corin L. 1999. Multifold borehole radar acqui-
sition and processing. Geophysical Prospecting 47, 1077–1090.
Hubral P. 1976. Interval velocities from surface measurements in the
three-dimensional plane layer case. Geophysics 41, 233–242.
Huggenberger P. 1993. Radar facies: recognition of facies patterns and
heterogeneities within Pleistocene Rhine gravels, NE Switzerland. In:
Braided Rivers (eds J.L. Best and C.S. Bristow), pp. 163–176.
Geological Society Special Publication No. 75.
Kostic B. 2004. 3D sedimentary architecture of Quaternary gravel bod-
ies (SW-Germany): implications for hydrogeology and raw materials
geology. PhD thesis, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A. and Finetti I. 1999. 2D and
3D processing and interpretation of multi-fold ground penetrating
radar data: a case history from an archaeological site. Journal of
Applied Geophysics 41, 271–292.
Russel B. 1998. A simple seismic imaging exercise. The Leading Edge
17, 885–889.
Shah P.M. 1973. Use of wavefront curvature to relate seismic data with
subsurface parameters. Geophysics 38, 812–825.
Tillard S. and Dubois J.-C. 1995. Analysis of GPR data: wave propaga-
tion velocity determination. Journal of Applied Geophysics 33, 77–
91.
Yilmaz Ö. 1987. Seismic Data Processing. Investigations in Geophysics
No. 2. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.