WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 48, W08505, doi:10.

1029/2012WR011955, 2012

High-resolution water content estimation from surface-based

ground-penetrating radar reflection data by impedance inversion
C. Schmelzbach,1,2,3 J. Tronicke,1 and P. Dietrich4,5
Received 3 February 2012; revised 30 May 2012; accepted 7 June 2012; published 7 August 2012.
[1] Mapping hydrological parameter distributions in high resolution is essential to understand
and simulate groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Of particular interest is
surface-based ground-penetrating radar (GPR) reflection imaging in electrically resistive
sediments because of the expected close link between the subsurface water content and the
dielectric permittivity, which controls GPR wave velocity and reflectivity. Conventional
tools like common midpoint (CMP) velocity analysis provide physical parameter models of
limited resolution only. We present a novel reflection amplitude inversion workflow for
surface-based GPR data capable of resolving the subsurface dielectric permittivity and
related water content distribution with markedly improved resolution. Our scheme is an
adaptation of a seismic reflection impedance inversion scheme to surface-based GPR
data. Key is relative-amplitude-preserving data preconditioning including GPR
deconvolution, which results in traces with the source-wavelet distortions and propagation
effects largely removed. The subsequent inversion for the underlying dielectric permittivity
and water content structure is constrained by in situ dielectric permittivity data obtained
by direct-push logging. After demonstrating the potential of our novel scheme on a realistic
synthetic data set, we apply it to two 2-D 100 MHz GPR profiles acquired over a shallow
sedimentary aquifer resulting in water content images of the shallow (3–7 m depth) saturated
zone having decimeter resolution.
Citation: Schmelzbach, C., J. Tronicke, and P. Dietrich (2012), High-resolution water content estimation from
surface-based ground-penetrating radar reflection data by impedance inversion, Water Resour. Res., 48, W08505,
doi:10.1029/2012WR011955.

1. Introduction the close link between hydrologically relevant parameters

[2] An important issue in hydrological studies is the
detailed description of subsurface hydrological-parameter
distributions at the scales relevant to modeling groundwater
flow and contaminant transport. Geophysical methods [e.g.,
Rubin and Hubbard, 2005] bridge the gap in resolution
and coverage between borehole logging and core analyses,
which provide very detailed but inherently 1-D information
[e.g., Kobr et al., 2005], and methods capturing large-scale
average properties of an investigated area such as pumping
and tracer tests [e.g., Leven and Dietrich, 2006]. The anal-
ysis of efficiently acquired and noninvasive surface-based
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) [e.g., Davis and Annan, 1989;
Knight, 2001] data has received particular interest because of
1
Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Potsdam,
Potsdam, Germany.
2
Department of Geosciences, Geophysics, Freie Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany.
3
Now at Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
4
UFZ, Department Monitoring and Exploration Technologies, Helmholtz
Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
5
Center of Applied Geoscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany.
Corresponding author: C. Schmelzbach, Institute of Geophysics,
ETH Zurich, Sonneggstr. 5, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
(cedric.schmelzbach@bluewin.de)
©2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
0043-1397/12/2012WR011955
W08505
and the electrical properties governing GPR wave prop-
agation [e.g., Huisman et al., 2003; van Overmeeren et al.,
1997]. In electrically resistive sediments such as sands,
changes in the subsurface water content, qw, are widely rec-
ognized as the predominant cause of changes in the relative
dielectric permittivity, !r, which in turn controls GPR wave
velocity and reflectivity [e.g., Kowalsky et al., 2001; Annan,
2005; Knight and Endres, 2005]. In the saturated zone, qw is
equivalent to porosity, f, which is a critical hydrological
parameter related to permeability and storage, yet difficult to
assess from borehole data.
[3] A common way to estimate the subsurface qw distri-
bution from surface-based GPR data is common midpoint
(CMP) measurements, which require a multioffset acquisi-
tion strategy [e.g., Tillard and Dubois, 1995; Greaves et al.,
1996; Bradford, 2008]. Empirical relations such as Topp’s
equation [Topp et al., 1980] may be employed to relate !r
values derived from GPR velocity to qw. However, Bradford
et al. [2009] pointed out that qw estimates from 100 MHz
multioffset GPR data have a meter-scale lateral and vertical
resolution when compared with spatially averaged neutron
porosity logs. This resolution capability, which is larger than
the dominant GPR wavelength, is comparable to the resolu-
tion of cross-hole and vertical radar profiling (VRP) tra-
veltime tomography using 100 MHz [e.g., Tronicke et al.,
2002; Cassiani et al., 2004; Tronicke and Knoll, 2005;
Ernst et al., 2007a]. However, hydrological modeling may
require higher-resolution parameter models [e.g., Hubbard
1 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
and Rubin, 2005]. GPR data interpretation techniques that
are able to provide very detailed physical property models
such as amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) analysis [e.g., Baker,
1998; Zeng et al., 2000; Bradford and Deeds, 2006; Deparis
and Garambois, 2009], finite-frequency tomography [e.g.,
Buursink et al., 2008], and full-waveform tomography [e.g.,
Ernst et al., 2007b; Gloaguen et al., 2007; Meles et al., 2010]
are generally much more demanding in terms of either data
acquisition or computing time and, therefore, can often only
be used to construct models of limited spatial extent.
[4] The wavefield recorded by GPR systems is the result
of electromagnetic wave scattering from electric imped-
ance contrasts in the subsurface, largely analogous to
seismic wave scattering at changes in the elastic properties.
Seismic and GPR data analysis approaches are mutually
transferable due to the strong mathematical analogies that
exist between seismic and electromagnetic wave propaga-
tion [e.g., Carcione and Cavallini, 1995; Wapenaar, 2007;
Belina et al., 2009b]. A testimony of the conceptual simi-
larities between standard constant-offset surface-based GPR
and poststack (zero-offset) seismic reflection data is the
fact that common GPR processing strategies are essentially
identical to that established for seismic data [e.g., Neal, 2004;
Annan, 2005].
[5] In seismic data analysis, workflows to invert poststack
reflection data for the subsurface seismic impedance were
first developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s [e.g.,
Lavergne and Willm, 1977; Lindseth, 1979; Russell, 1988].
In principle, seismic impedance inversion is capable of pro-
viding subsurface physical parameter models with a vertical
resolution in the quarter-wavelength range (Rayleigh crite-
rion [Kallweit and Wood, 1982]). To the best of our knowl-
edge, an analogous inversion of GPR reflection data has not
yet been presented in the literature. One popular seismic
reflection amplitude inversion technique is “model-based
impedance inversion.” This technique involves recovering
the Earth’s reflectivity from suitably preconditioned data
under the assumption that the reflectivity represents a series
of sparsely distributed spikes and constraining the inversion
by supplementary acoustic-impedance logging data [Russell,
1988]. Data preconditioning, which involves relative-
amplitude-preserving scaling, deconvolution, and migration,
is critical to transform the recorded wavefield into data suit-
able for impedance inversion [see, e.g., Yilmaz, 2001]. These
processing steps are readily adapted from seismic processing
to GPR data analysis with the prominent exception of
deconvolution. Deconvolution is key to remove reflection
image distortions due to the source wavelet and to improve
the image accuracy. After deconvolution, the reflection data
are expected to more closely represent the subsurface
reflectivity than the unprocessed data. Because of the mixed-
phase GPR source wavelet, standard deconvolution routines
are often applied to GPR data with only limited success [see,
e.g., Belina et al., 2009a]. In contrast, the recently proposed
GPR deconvolution routine by Schmelzbach et al. [2011a]
offers a robust way to estimate and remove the source
wavelet from GPR data.
[6] Because of the limited frequency bandwidth of seismic
reflection data, supplementary data such as sonic logs or
stacking velocities are necessary to constrain the impedance
inversion workflow in order to recover the full-bandwidth
subsurface impedance structure. In particular, the low-
frequency information missing from seismic data is key to
2 of 16
W08505
reconstruct the large-scale physical parameter structure.
Source signal and consequently data band limitation are also
observed for GPR data. Whereas supplementary acoustic
impedance data are readily derived from sonic and density
borehole logs in the case of seismic data, corresponding tools
to measure the electric impedance in situ in shallow uncon-
solidated sediments at GPR operating frequencies have been
missing until lately. In this study, we revert to a recently
developed direct-push (DP) tool to measure !r in situ. This
DP tool is attached to the tip of a small diameter hollow steel
rod and pushed into the soft ground. Two ring electrodes with
an interelectrode spacing of !4 cm are used to measures
!r with a frequency shift technique [Hilhorst, 1997] at an
operating frequency of 20 MHz. Similar tools to measure !r
in situ in soils have been presented by, for example, Shinn
et al. [1998], Vaz and Hopmans [2001], and Lin et al.
[2006]. Studies linking DP !r log analysis to GPR data
interpretation include, for example, Clement et al. [1997],
Majer et al. [2001], and Schmelzbach et al. [2011b].
[7] Here, we present a novel data interpretation approach
to invert the reflection amplitudes of surface-based GPR
measurements for high-resolution subsurface qw models with
a vertical resolution in the quarter-wavelength range. The
proposed workflow is an adaptation to GPR of the well-
established model-based seismic impedance workflow. We
begin by deriving the pertinent theoretical background of
inverting the GPR reflection data to models of the parameters
governing GPR wave propagation. Next, we illustrate and
assess the applicability of our new workflow on realistic
synthetic GPR data. In particular, we demonstrate that the
simplifications regarding media properties and wave propa-
gation underlying the inversion procedure are valid for GPR
data from typical sand/gravel aquifers. Finally, we apply our
new methodology to two 2-D field 100 MHz GPR data sets
and derive a subsurface qw model with a decimeter resolution
for the shallow saturated zone of a sand-gravel aquifer.
2. Methodology
2.1. Background
[8] In order to relate the recorded GPR signals to the
relevant subsurface physical properties, we assume high-
frequency (10–1000 MHz) electromagnetic wave propagation
through nonmagnetic and low-loss media with frequency-
independent electric properties [see, e.g., Annan, 2005].
That is, the electric conductivity, s, is very small and the
medium’s magnetic permeability, m, is equal to that for free
space, m0. Typically, these assumptions are fulfilled for
materials such as clay-free sand and gravel. Under these
r, ffiffidetermines
conditions, the relative dielectric permittivity, !p ffiffi
both the GPR propagation velocity (vGPR ¼ c0 = !r, where c0
is the speed of light in free space (!0.3 m/ns)) and the elec-
trical impedance of a medium [e.g., Annan, 2005]
Z0
Z ¼ pffiffiffiffi ; ð1Þ
!r
where Z0 is the impedance of free space (!377 W).
[9] Our inversion sequence is based on the assumption that
the subsurface can be represented as a stack of horizontal
homogeneous layers. Furthermore, we assume that a suitably
preconditioned GPR trace D(t) can be treated as a 1-D (plane
wave) wavefield that can be modeled as convolution of a
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
reflectivity series R(t) with a stationary band-limited wavelet
W(t), formulated as [e.g., Robinson and Treitel, 2000]
Dðt Þ ¼ Rðt Þ ⊗ W ðt Þ;
where ⊗ denotes the convolutional operator and t denotes
time. The corresponding normal incidence reflection coeffi-
cient R at the boundary between the two media n and n + 1 is
a function of the impedances of both media and is related via
equation (1) to !r by [e.g., Ward and Hohmann, 2006]
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Znþ1 & Zn !rn & !rnþ1
Rn ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi :
Zn þ Znþ1 !rn þ !rnþ1
The vector character of the electromagnetic waves and the
source radiation patterns of the GPR antennas can be ignored
under the plane wave (far-field), normal incidence, and
horizontal interfaces assumptions, which are implicit in
equations (2) and (3). The wavelet W(t) is assumed to be
stationary, hence, the amplitude decay with propagation time
and dispersion [e.g., Annan, 1996; Irving and Knight, 2003;
Bradford, 2007] are not modeled by equation (2). When
transformed to the frequency domain, equation (2) represents
the multiplication of the Fourier spectra of the broadband R(t)
with the band-limited W(t), illustrating that D(t) is severely
band-limited compared to R(t) (e.g., a realistic 100 MHz GPR
wavelet and resulting recorded data have a signal frequency
range of less than two octaves i.e., !50–150 MHz).
2.2. Inversion strategy
[10] Our inversion scheme to extract subsurface physical
property models from the GPR reflection data consists of the
following major steps: (1) deterministic amplitude scaling to
compensate for the reflection amplitude decay with propa-
gation time due to geometrical spreading, absorption and
transmission losses, (2) GPR deconvolution and migration to
remove the GPR source wavelet, to produce an accurate
image of the subsurface, and to increase the vertical and
horizontal resolution, (3) sparse-spike deconvolution to
recover an estimate of the band-limited reflectivity from the
preconditioned data, (4) band-limited integration and scal-
ing to obtain an estimate of the band-limited impedance and
the band-limited relative dielectric permittivity distribution,
(5) recovery of a full-bandwidth impedance estimate using
supplementary data, and (6) estimation of the water content
distribution.
[11] Reflection amplitudes decay with propagation time
due to geometrical spreading, absorption, and transmission
losses. The compensation for these effects is key for the later
recovery of the correct reflectivity. We tested different
amplitude-scaling approaches (tn scaling; multiplication with
the inverse smoothed trace envelop [e.g., Gross et al., 2004])
and found the most reliable amplitude recovery for both
synthetic and field data is using gain functions based on the
inverse of the deterministic amplitude decay model given by
" #
1
At ðt Þ ¼ A0 ðtÞ n expð&at Þ;
t Usually, an approximation to a continuous impedance dis-
where A0(t) and At(t) are the true and recorded amplitudes
at time t, respectively [e.g., Russell, 1988]. The exponent n
was set to 1 for the field data (3-D spherical spreading) and
n = 0.5 was used to gain the 2-D synthetic data.
W08505
[12] GPR deconvolution [Schmelzbach et al., 2011a] is
key to remove the distortions of the recorded reflection data
due to the shape of the mixed-phase source wavelet. Standard
ð2Þ deconvolution routines either involve the estimation of the
source wavelet from the data assuming it is minimum phase,
which is often not met by GPR data, or require that the source
wavelet is known, which is very difficult for field data.
In contrast, the GPR deconvolution routine employed here
aims at retrieving the source wavelet from the data without
making assumptions about the phase spectrum of the wave-
let. Instead, GPR deconvolution is based on more restrictive
ð3Þ assumptions about the amplitude value distribution of the
deconvolution output than standard stochastic deconvolu-
tion. A further key feature is the use of prior information
about the source wavelet, which is included in a Bayesian
framework to constrain the wavelet estimation [see also
Schmelzbach and Scherbaum, 2011]. We use GPR decon-
volution to estimate the original source wavelet for each trace
and replace it by a symmetric, zero-phase W(t) with an
equalized amplitude spectrum over the signal bandwidth.
Because this processing step is carried out trace by trace,
varying antenna coupling effects [Lampe and Holliger, 2003]
are also largely removed. Not removing the source wavelet
from the GPR data would result in systematically erroneous
final amplitude and time (depth) estimates of !r and q [e.g.,
Russell, 1988].
[13] Subsequent migration converts the recorded 2-D/3-D
wavefield into a 1-D wavefield with improved horizontal
resolution [e.g., Stolt and Benson, 1986]. Given the assump-
tions underlying the convolutional model, we believe that
seismic migration algorithms are sufficient for our purposes
[see, e.g., Fisher et al., 1992; Bradford, 2006]. After GPR
deconvolution and migration, the processed data D(t) are
expected to meet the assumptions underlying equation (2).
[14] In order to robustly extract an estimate of the band-
limited reflectivity series 〈R(t)〉, where the angle brackets
indicate band limitation, from the preconditioned data D(t),
we use an L1 norm iterative reweighting least squares scheme
for sparse-spike deconvolution [Sacchi, 1997]. Sparse-spike
deconvolution inverts equation (2) under the constraint that
the reflectivity series associated with a layered Earth model
can be represented as a series of spikes [e.g., Oldenburg
et al., 1983]. This procedure provides the times and sizes of
the largest reflectors and effectively recovers the lost high-
frequency part of the reflectivity.
[15] The reflectivity estimates can be related to the sub-
surface impedance by reversing equation (3) to compute Zi+1
of layer i + 1 from the knowledge of Zi of the layer i
through a recursive equation. Note that the errors accumulate
in recursions. In generalized form and assuming that the
impedance of the first layer Z1 is known, the impedance of
layer n is given by
n&1 "
Y #
1 þ Ri
Zn ¼ Z1 : ð5Þ
1 & Ri
i¼1
ð4Þ
tribution is used instead of equation (5), which is given by
[e.g., Berteussen and Ursin, 1983; Oldenburg et al., 1983]
!
n&1
X
Zn ≈ Z1 exp 2 Ri : ð6Þ
i¼1
3 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
Table 1. Processing Flow for GPR Impedance Inversion
Processing step
1.GPR-related preprocessing
2.Deterministic amplitude corrections
3.De-wow by high-pass filtering
4.Further signal-to-noise improvement
5.GPR deconvolution to remove the mixed-phase GPR source wavelet
6.Migration to transform the 2-D/3-D wavefield to 1-D
7.Optional correction for residual phase errors
8.Sparse-spike deconvolution to recover 〈R〉
9.Depth-to-time conversion of DP !r logs, correlation with GPR data to
cross-check the depth-to-time relation
10. Recovery of 〈Z〉 by band-limited integration and scaling; optionally
compute 〈!r〉
11. Recovery of Z by adding Zb
12. Conversion of Z to !r and optionally to qw (or f)
13. Time-to-depth conversion of the physical parameter models for
interpretation
Equation (6) is valid for small reflection coefficients only
(|R| < !0.3). In practice, we obtain an estimate of the
band-limited impedance 〈Z(t)〉 by evaluating equation (6) in
the frequency domain by band-limited integration of 〈R(t)〉
[Ferguson and Margrave, 1996]. Because the correct scaling
of W(t) is usually not known when deconvolving D(t) (see
equation (2)), also the correct scale of R(t) cannot be deter-
mined from the GPR data alone. Supplementary data such as,
for example, DP !r logs can be used to scale 〈R(t)〉 and 〈Z(t)〉
to the expected value range.
[16] Noise generally precludes the recovery of the lost
low-frequency part of R(t) from D(t) and the smooth back-
ground reflectivity and impedance trend, Zb(t), needs to be
constructed from supplementary data [e.g., Russell, 1988].
The full-bandwidth impedance is then obtained as follows
[e.g., Lindseth, 1979]:
Z ðtÞ ¼ hZ ðt Þi þ Z b ðt Þ; ð7Þ
where Zb(t) may be derived from low-pass-filtered DP !r
logs, high-quality CMP velocity functions, or geological
background information. Finally, the Z(t) estimates can be
converted to !r(t) estimates using equation (1) and may be
used to compute qw estimates using, for example, Topp’s
equation or site-specific models developed using available
calibration data. Furthermore, the estimated !r(t) profiles may
be converted to GPR propagation velocities and used for
time-to-depth conversion of the GPR reflection images.
[17] If no reliable Zb(t) can be derived, an estimate of the
band-limited relative dielectric permittivity 〈!r(t)〉 may be
obtained by evaluating the total differential of the rearranged
equation (1):
" # " #
Z0 2 hZ ðt Þi Z0 2 hZ ðt Þi
h!r ðtÞi ¼ &2 ≈ &2 ave ; ð8Þ
Z ðt Þ Z ðt Þ Z Z ave
where Z ave represents a guessed average impedance value. At
sites where the large-scale GPR velocity structure is observed
to be almost constant, equation (8) may already provide inter-
pretable models of relative !r and relative qw changes.
[18] In principle, the above outlined impedance inversion
scheme should be able to resolve the physical parameter
values of layers with a thickness greater than a quarter
wavelength (or a quarter of a period in time [e.g., Russell,
1988]). Consequently, a resolution capability of a few
4 of 16
W08505
Comment
e.g., time zero corrections, DC removal
Equation (4)
e.g., suppression of shallow diffractions, first-arrival muting
Schmelzbach et al. [2011a]
Levy and Oldenburg [1987]
Sacchi [1997]
velocity information from CMP velocity analyses
Ferguson and Margrave [1996]; equation (8)
equation (7); construction of Z b using, e.g., low-pass-filtered DP !r logs
equation (1); e.g., Topp’s equation
decimeters can be expected for typical 100 MHz GPR data
in unsaturated sand-gravel environments (vGPR ≈ 0.1 m/ns).
3. Synthetic Example
[19] We now present a realistic synthetic example of how
our inversion workflow described above and summarized in
Table 1 can be used to derive high-resolution subsurface !r
and qw images from surface-based GPR reflection amplitude
data. A synthetic qw model was built consisting of horizontal
layers with superimposed stochastic parameter variations
(Figure 1a). The stochastic variations were defined by von
Kármán autocovariance functions [e.g., Goff and Jordan,
1988; Goff et al., 1994] with horizontal and vertical correla-
tion lengths of 20 m and 1 m, respectively, leading to pre-
dominantly horizontal stratification. The mean and standard
deviation of the qw distribution are 0.22 and 0.019, respec-
tively, with a minimum-to-maximum value range of 0.18 to
0.28, which we consider realistic for partially to fully water-
saturated sediments. In order to simulate the GPR wave
propagation through our model, we converted the qw model
to subsurface !r values using Topp’s equation. For s, we
assumed a uniform value of 2 mS/m because conductivity
variations with water content as predicted by, for example,
Archie’s law [Archie, 1942] would be minimal in our field
case. Throughout the simulation region, m was set to m0.
Figure 1b shows a 1-D !r profile extracted from the model at
10 m distance, which we included in the inversion as a sim-
ulated synthetic DP !r log. One prominent feature of the
subsurface model is a thin, !0.5 m thick high water content
(high !r or low velocity) layer at !4.5 m depth. The thickness
of this layer should be compared with the dominant wave-
length of !0.9 m for an average !r of !12 and a dominant
frequency of 100 MHz. Converted to two-way travel times,
the thickness of this layer observed at !100 ns corresponds
to !15 ns (Figures 2a and 2b).
[20] We modeled a constant offset (1 m antenna separa-
tion) GPR survey with 0.1 m trace spacing using GPRMAX2D,
a 2-D finite difference time domain (FDTD) solution of
Maxwell’s equations [Giannopoulos, 2005]. The source cur-
rent function was the first derivative of a Gaussian pulse with
a dominant frequency of 100 MHz (see Figure 3a for the
emitted source wavelet). After the numerical simulations,
we first compensated for the reflection amplitude decay with
propagation time using equation (4). The constant a was
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 1. (a) Input synthetic water content model. (b) Synthetic DP relative dielectric permittivity log that
would be measured at 10 m distance. (c) Synthetic 1 m common-offset 100 MHz GPR reflection image
obtained over the subsurface model shown in Figure 1a by FDTD modeling followed by scaling. (d) Syn-
thetic 1-D CMP velocity profile that would be measured at 10 m distance. (e) Final estimated water content
model.

5 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 2. Synthetic data traces extracted at 10 m distance for different processing stages (see also
Figure 1). (a) True (black line) and estimated (gray line) relative dielectric permittivity profile. (b) True
full-bandwidth reflectivity derived from Figure 2a. (c) GPR data trace extracted from the FDTD-modeled
data after scaling. (d) The GPR trace shown in Figure 2c after GPR deconvolution and migration. (e) Band-
limited reflectivity computed from Figure 2d. (f ) Band-limited impedance computed from Figure 2e.
(g) Low-frequency impedance background (gray line) and estimated full-bandwidth impedance (black
line). Traces in Figures 2c–2e were normalized to a standard deviation of 1.

estimated by fitting the data to reflectivity series estimated
from the DP !r log. Figure 1c shows the simulated GPR data
after scaling and muting the top parts to suppress waves trav-
eling directly between the antennas. The poor correspondence
between a GPR trace extracted from the scaled data at 10 m
distance (Figure 2c) and the corresponding true reflectivity
function (Figure 2b), which was derived by means of
equation (3) from the true !r trace shown in Figure 2a, illus-
trates the inherent distortions of the GPR data due to the source
wavelet. For example, the maximum amplitudes of the distinct
reflection at !150 ns is observed several nanoseconds later
than the corresponding spike in the reflectivity because of the
delay of the maximum source wavelet amplitudes relative to
the onset of the wavelet (see Figure 3a). Because of the neg-
ative sign of the maximum source wavelet amplitudes,
reflections in the GPR data trace show the opposite sign than
the corresponding spikes in the reflectivity. GPR deconvolu-
tion [Schmelzbach et al., 2011a] was used to remove the
mixed-phase source wavelet (Figure 3a) and broaden the data
amplitude spectrum within the signal bandwidth of !40–140
MHz. Note the significantly improved similarity between the
deconvolved data (Figure 2d) and the reflectivity (Figure 2b).
In order to assess the applicability of the convolutional model
to GPR deconvolution and to the subsequent impedance
inversion workflow, we compared the FDTD modeled trace
shown in Figures 2c and 3b with a trace obtained by con-
volving the known FDTD source wavelet (black wavelet in
Figure 3a) with the reflectivity series computed from the time-
converted !r model (Figure 2b). The close match between the
FDTD-modeled trace and the convolution model trace con-
firmed that convolution is well suited to simulate GPR data for
low-resistive media [see, e.g., van Dam and Schlager, 2000].
6 of 16
Convolution of the estimated source wavelet (gray wavelet in
Figure 3a) with the true reflectivity series (Figure 2b) yielded a
trace that closely matches the FDTD-modeled data trace
(Trace 3 in Figure 3b). This observation confirms the reli-
ability of the wavelet estimation and deconvolution output.
[21] We then migrated the deconvolved GPR image using
the phase shift algorithm of Gazdag [1978]. Figure 1d
displays the simulated 1-D CMP velocity profile used for
migration, which was derived by laterally averaging the
layered background model.
[22] Before subjecting the data to the actual impedance
inversion, we checked the data for a residual nonzero phase
wavelet using the technique proposed by Levy and Oldenburg
[1987]. Residual phase distortions may be due to inaccuracies
of the GPR deconvolution or may have been introduced by
other processing routines. Accurate impedance estimation
requires the phase errors to be generally less than 10' [White,
1997]. In the case of our synthetic data, we removed a min-
imal 10' constant phase shift. Note that phase shifts <30'
are not recognizable by eye. Then, we extracted 〈R(t)〉
(Figure 2e) by sparse-spike deconvolution and performed the
band-limited integration and scaling in the frequency domain
to estimate the band-limited impedance 〈Z(t)〉 (Figure 2f ).
The full-bandwidth impedance Z(t) was obtained by adding
a 1-D impedance background model derived from the
0–40 MHz low-pass filtered DP !r log, which was hypo-
thetically collected in the center of the model. (Figure 2g).
Finally, we converted the Z values to !r and qw values
employing equation (1) and Topp’s equation. Figure 1e dis-
plays the entire inverted qw model plotted as function of
depth.
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

distance is not representing the lateral changes sufficiently

at the intermediate-range scale, although the observed dis-
crepancies are small (<!10%). Conversely, the fine-scale
(>40 MHz) structures were well resolved confirming that
the proposed workflow, which is based on the simple 1-D
convolutional model (equation (2)), is applicable to realistic
GPR data.

4. Horstwalde Field Data Example

Figure 3. (a) True 100 MHz wavelet used for FDTD mod-
eling (black line) and wavelet estimated by the GPR decon-
volution (light gray line). Wavelets were normalized to an
maximum absolute amplitude value of 1. (b) Trace 1, GPR
data trace extracted from the FDTD-modeled data after scal-
ing (same as Figure 2c); trace 2, convolution of the true
reflectivity series (Figure 2b) with the true 100 MHz wavelet
shown in Figure 3a; trace 3, convolution of the true reflec-
tivity series (Figure 2b) with the estimated 100 MHz wavelet
shown in Figure 3a. Traces in Figure 3b were normalized to a
standard deviation of 1. Each trace is plotted three times for
better visibility.
4.1. Database, Data Preconditioning, and Inversion
[24] We now discuss the application of our inversion
methodology to field GPR data acquired in a saturated
glaciofluvial environment at a site close to Horstwalde,
Germany [Niederleithinger, 2009]. Previous investigations
at this site identified a series of horizontally layered sand and
gravel units interrupted by thin organic material layers and
a groundwater table at !3 m depth [Linder et al., 2010;
Schmelzbach et al., 2011b; Tronicke et al., 2012]. For the two
2-D profiles reported here, we measured the GPR data in
continuous recording mode by moving a pair of 100 MHz
antennas with a constant separation of 1 m and !0.15 m trace
spacing using the surveying approach described by Böniger
and Tronicke [2010] (Figure 5a). To acquire the data, a
time sampling of 0.4 ns was employed and 16 vertical stacks
were taken at each point. The two transects were oriented
perpendicular to each other, with profile P1 oriented south–
north and profile P2 oriented west–east. An observed pene-
tration depth of !15 m (!350 ns traveltime) and a generally
high signal-to-noise ratio indicated a geological environment

[23] Visual comparison of the true and estimated

qw models (Figures 1a and 1e) as well as the true and esti-
mated !r(t) traces (black and gray lines in Figure 2a) reveals
an overall close match between the two models. The overall
rms value of the differences is 0.017, corresponding to a
relative error of !7.5%. Note that the thin, subwavelength-
scale high qw layer at !4.5 m depth was well resolved,
illustrating the high-resolution capabilities of the proposed
workflow. In detail, the differences between the estimated
and true qw models (Figure 4a) increase away from the
hypothetical DP logging location at 10 m distance. For
example, the intermediate-scale qw structures at !2 m depth,
and 5–8 m and 12–15 m distance differ between the true and
inverted model by !0.02. When analyzing the amplitude
spectra of the trace-by-trace difference between the estimated
and true !r(t) shown in Figure 4b, we see that the discrepancy
between the two models is first of all concentrated in the Figure 4. (a) Difference between the estimated and true
<40 MHz range, whereas the differences are small and do water content model (Figures 1a and 1e). (b) Decadic loga-
not increase with distance from the logging location at 10 m rithm of the amplitude spectrum for each trace of the time
for the >40 MHz range. These observations illustrate that the domain difference between the estimated and true relative
0–40 MHz 1-D Zb model derived from one DP log at 10 m dielectric permittivity.
7 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 5. (a) Map of the Horstwalde survey area. P1 (black line) and P2 (gray line) mark the 2-D GPR
profile locations, and DP1–DP5 indicate the DP logging locations. (b) Original (dashed line) and edited
(solid line) CMP-based velocity profile at the DP1 location. (c) Raw DP !r log (dark gray line) and cali-
brated DP !r log (black line) matching the edited and !r-converted velocity profile (light gray line).

favorable for GPR imaging. Therefore, we expect low dis-
persive attenuation for this site.
[25] An additional multioffset GPR profile collected along
the same line as P1 provided a 2-D CMP-based velocity
model that revealed a significant vertical velocity change
from !0.125 m/ns for the unsaturated zone to !0.075 m/ns
for the saturated zone across the groundwater table but
showed only mild lateral velocity variations of generally
<5%. Figure 5b displays a 1-D velocity profile extracted
from the 2-D velocity model at the crossing point of the two
GPR profiles. Because the groundwater table depth changed
by !0.3 m between the acquisition of profiles P1/P2 and the
surveying of the multioffset GPR data, which was carried out
about half a year later, the depth of the velocity drop across
the groundwater table in the velocity profile was accordingly
adjusted for the data analysis reported here.
[26] DP !r logs were measured simultaneously with the
P1/P2 GPR data at five locations along the two profiles (i.e.,
DP1–DP5; Figure 5a), with DP1 being located at the crossing
point of the two profiles (for details, see Schmelzbach et al.
[2011b]). A comparison of the DP logs with the GPR
velocity profiles converted to !r values revealed that the DP
tool consistently provided too low values (dark gray line in
Figure 5c). Later depth-to-time conversion tests and corre-
lations with the GPR images, as well as laboratory tests
(T. Vienken, personal communication, 2008) also indicated a
calibration error of the DP tool. Therefore, we used collo-
cated velocity profiles and DP logs to derive a linear cali-
bration function to correct all !r logs (black line in Figure 5c).
[27] Following the processing flow summarized in Table 1,
the GPR data preconditioning involved subtracting DC shifts
from each trace, time-zero adjustments and corrections for
minor (<1 m) topographic variations by time shifting, fol-
lowed by deterministic amplitude corrections (equation (4)).
“De-wow” filtering by high-pass frequency filtering (pass
frequencies >20 MHz) proved to preserve signals better than
nonlinear residual median filtering [Gerlitz et al., 1993]
(Figure 6a). Diffractions originating from a system of pipes
buried at !1.5 m depth [Böniger and Tronicke, 2012] caused
8 of 16
high-amplitude coherent noise, which interfered with the
signals (see black arrow in Figure 6a). These events charac-
terized by steep apparent dips, were modeled in the f-k
domain and subtracted from the data (Figure 6b). Following
the muting of the first arriving direct waves, GPR deconvo-
lution was used to remove the mixed-phase GPR source
wavelet from each trace (Figure 6c). Minor trace-to-trace
amplitude level variations after deconvolution were removed
by rms balancing the 50–150 MHz band-pass-filtered traces.
Phase shift migration using the 1-D velocity profile shown
in Figure 5b repositioned dipping energy and collapsed
diffractions, thereby transforming the 2-D data into a 1-D
wavefield image with increased lateral resolution.
[28] For the further impedance inversion, we concentrated
on the shallow saturated zone (i.e., !75–175 ns corre-
sponding to a depth interval of !3–7 m). The far-field
assumption is likely violated in the shallow (<3 m) unsatu-
rated zone and, although of minor importance at our site,
dispersion effects may affect data at late (>175 ns) times.
After correcting for minor residual phase errors (step 7 in
Table 1; Figure 6c), sparse-spike deconvolution of the pre-
conditioned data provided estimates of 〈R(t)〉. Band-limited
integration of 〈R(t)〉 and scaling to the impedance variation
range of the DP logs yielded 〈Z(t)〉 (Figure 7a).
[29] Matching the logging data, which were collected as a
function of depth, to the GPR images, which were recorded
as a function of traveltime, required a high-quality velocity
function. The best match was found by scaling the original
CMP-based 1-D velocity function (dashed line in Figure 5b)
by 105% and additionally shifting the logs by &6 ns thereby
correcting for minor velocity-picking errors and GPR
velocity variations in the unsaturated zone (solid line in
Figure 5b; see also Figure 8).We then constructed the
impedance background model (Zb) by interpolation of the
time-converted and low-pass-filtered (pass frequencies
<40 MHz) DP logs (Figure 7b). Figure 7c displays the final
model after combining 〈Z(t)〉 and Zb (equation (7); step 11
in Table 1).
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 6. (a) P1 data processed up to step 3 in Table 1. The blue arrows mark the reflection from the
groundwater table at !3 m depth, the black arrow indicates a high-amplitude diffraction from a shallow
pipe, and the dark gray box marks the portion of the data shown in Figures 6b and 6d. (b) P1 data portion
input to GPR deconvolution after diffraction removal (step 5 in Table 1). (c) Source wavelets estimated by
the GPR deconvolution. Every other wavelet is plotted as a wiggle trace. (d) P1 data portion input to sparse-
spike deconvolution (step 8 in Table 1). Two-way traveltime converted to depth is indicated on the right.
DP logging locations and crossing point of profiles P1 and P2 are indicated in Figures 6a, 6b, and 6d.

4.2. Assessment and Final Water Content Models
[30] The close match between a 1-D profile extracted from
the estimated Z model and an impedance profile computed
from the DP1 !r log shown in Figure 9a highlights that the
impedance structure derived from the GPR reflection data
strongly correlates with the subsurface !r structure captured
by the DP sonde. Note that the DP logs were used in the
impedance inversion workflow only to scale 〈Z(t)〉 and to
construct Zb. The overall high correlation of P1 and P2 Z
traces at their crossing point further confirms the repro-
ducibility of the Z images (Figure 9b). As a further test, we
repeated the impedance inversion of the P1 GPR data but
excluded the DP1 data (i.e., using only DP2 and DP4 for
scaling and Zb construction) to assess the impact of the DP1
log on the impedance results (Figure 9c). Whereas the large-
scale trend of the recovered Z structure significantly differs
from the final model, the fine-scale structure and, hence, the
recovered relative !r correlates well with the DP logging
information.
[31] As a final test, we input the estimated and depth-
converted !r structure (see Figure 7c) into the GPRMAX2D
FDTD scheme to compute synthetic data with the same
acquisition parameters as the field data P1 profile. We used
a symmetric Ricker-type source wavelet with a frequency
content comparable to the processed field data. Note that a
negative time shift of half the wavelet duration is sufficient to
transform a causal Ricker wavelet into a zero-phase wavelet
that is symmetric around time zero. Figure 10 displays the
field data after deconvolution but before migration (step 5 in
Table 1) together with the synthetic section after deterministic
9 of 16
amplitude scaling. Because the velocity of the unsaturated
zone (depth <3 m) was not resolved by our inversion
approach and due to the causal source wavelet used for the
FDTD simulations compared to the zero-phase wavelet
remaining in the deconvolved field data, the simulated data
were shifted by &21.2 ns to allow a one-to-one comparison
within the target time window (75–175 ns). The overall close
correspondence between the field data and synthetic data is
a strong indication that the impedance inversion resulted in
an !r image of the target zone that is reasonably close to
the true subsurface structure. Trace-by-trace comparisons
(Figures 10c–10e) further highlight the close match in timing
and relative amplitudes between field and synthetic data. In
summary, the high correlation between DP logs and the final
inversion result (Figure 9), and the close match between the
field data and the FDTD simulations based on the inversion
results (Figure 10) suggest that our inversion approach reli-
ably resolved the subsurface !r structure.
[32] Figure 11 displays the final estimated qw images for
the P1 and P2 GPR data spliced together with the DP logging
information for the southern part of our investigation area.
Topp’s equation was used to convert the !r values from both
the inversion results and DP logs to qw. GPR wavelengths
between 0.6 and 0.8 m result in a theoretical vertical resolu-
tion of 0.15–0.20 m for the qw images. Overall, the DP logs
and the inverted qw profiles show a close match, notwith-
standing the fact that surface-based GPR data and DP logging
have different support volumes. General features of the
resolved qw models are low qw values for depths <4.5 m,
intermediate qw values for 4.5–6 m depth, and high qw values
for depths >6 m. The P1 and P2 data show a somewhat better
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 7. (a) Portion of the estimated band-limited impedance for profile P1. (b) Portion of the low-
frequency impedance background for profile P1. (c) Portion of the estimated full-bandwidth impedance
for profile P1. The color bar indicates also the corresponding full-bandwidth relative dielectric permittivity
values. DP logging locations and crossing point of profiles P1 and P2 are indicated in Figures 7a–7c.

10 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

and high qw layers that could be relevant for the local-scale

hydrological regime.

Figure 8. (a) DP1 reflectivity log band-pass filtered to the
same frequency content as the field data and depth-to-time
converted using the original CMP velocity profile (dashed
line in Figure 5b). (b) Band-pass filtered DP1 reflectivity
log shown in Figure 8a but depth-to-time converted using a
105% scaled CMP velocity profile (solid line in Figure 5b).
(c) Band-pass-filtered DP1 reflectivity log shown in Figure 8b
with an additional time shift of &6 ns applied. (d) P1 trace
extracted at the DP1 location from the deconvolved and
migrated data (Figure 6c). In Figures 8a–8d, each trace is
plotted three times for better visibility.
match for depths >4.5 m compared to shallower depths,
which may be due to minor differences in the background
model derived from DP1, DP2, and DP4 for P1 and DP1,
DP3, and DP5 for P2. Regarding the fine-scale structures, the
final qw models show a number of relatively thin (<1 m) low
5. Discussion
[33] Our inversion approach is based on the assumption
that GPR plane wave propagation through low-loss media
with frequency-independent properties can be modeled by
the convolutional model (equation (2)). We believe that
the assumptions underlying this modeling approach do not
restrict the applicability of our workflow to typical hydro-
logical studies. The success of GPR imaging would most
likely only be limited at sites with significant dispersive
attenuation (e.g., clay-rich sediments [Arcone et al., 2008]).
A large number of successful GPR reflection imaging studies
document the wide range of environments suitable for GPR
imaging [e.g., Beres and Haeni, 1991; Smith and Jol, 1992;
Beres et al., 1995, 1999; McMechan et al., 1997; Tronicke
et al., 1999; Nitsche et al., 2002]. If moderate dispersion
effects are observed, techniques such as proposed by Turner
[1994] or Irving and Knight [2003] could be applied to
ensure a stationary wavelet. In principle, our workflow is
applicable to data from environments with low to moderate
subsurface relief only, where the flat reflector assumption
holds locally. In case of shallowly dipping reflectors, modi-
fied migration routines may be used to correct for the antenna
radiation pattern [e.g., Moran et al., 2000; Streich et al.,
2007; Streich and van der Kruk, 2007].
[34] Low-frequency information is key to recover the
intermediate-scale to large-scale physical property distribu-
tion (see Figures 4 and 9), which is well known from seismic
impedance inversion [e.g., Russell, 1988]. Supplementary
data such as DP !r logs, GPR velocity models from CMP
velocity analyses, or geological background information are

Figure 9. Impedance profiles extracted at the crossing point of profiles P1 and P2 (location of DP1).
(a) DP1 impedance log (black line), low-frequency impedance background (Zb, light gray line), and P1
impedance estimate (Z est, dark gray line). (b) P1 (dark gray line) and P2 (light gray line) impedance
estimate plotted together with the DP1 impedance log (black line). (c) P1 low-frequency impedance back-
ground (Zb, light gray line) and impedance estimate (Z est, dark gray line) derived without DP1 log data.
Arrows mark examples of close fit.
11 of 16
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR W08505

Figure 10. (a) P1 section after deconvolution (processed up to step 5 in Table 1). (b) FDTD-modeled
synthetic data based on the inverted relative dielectric permittivity model (Figure 7c). The synthetic data
were shifted by &21.2 ns to match the field data (see text for details). Sections in Figures 10a and 10b were
scaled to a rms amplitude value of 1. DP logging locations DP1 and DP2 and crossing point of profiles P1
and P2 are indicated in Figures 10a and 10b. (c–e) Traces extracted at 25 m, 31 m, and 36 m distance from
Figures 10a and 10b.

12 of 16
 W08505

13 of 16
SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR

Figure 11. (a and c) Water content estimates computed from the P1 and P2 data. Estimated water content profiles extracted at
the DP logging locations and converted DP water content logs are shown at the DP logging locations. (b) Map of the survey
area showing the locations of image planes A-DP1-A′ and B-DP1-B′ and DP logging locations.
W08505
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
necessary to substitute the missing low-frequency reflection
information. Because GPR source wavelets often have dis-
tinct band-limited frequency characteristics with a sharp
amplitude spectrum, the problem of missing low-frequency
reflection information may be more severe for GPR data than
for seismic data. Furthermore, the missing low-frequency
reflection information may become a more severe problem
with increasing nominal GPR antenna frequency, probably
limiting the application of the workflow to data from low-
frequency GPR systems (≤!100 MHz). Additionally, low-
frequency induction phenomena and system-dependent noise
(“wow”) usually contaminate the low end of the GPR signal
amplitude spectrum and “de-wow” filtering may also affect
the critical low-frequency signal portion.
[35] The computationally most expensive step in our
workflow displayed in Table 1 is GPR deconvolution, which
involves estimating a mixed-phase source wavelet for each
trace in several tens to few hundred iterations. All other
processing steps except migration and sparse-spike decon-
volution are single trace and one-iteration operations that
have a small computational load. Two-dimensional migra-
tion and iterative sparse-spike deconvolution of each trace
require a comparable computational effort, which is small to
intermediate in terms of computation time in relation to the
other processing steps.
6. Conclusions
[36] We have presented a novel methodology for the
estimation of qw (or f for fully water-saturated conditions)
models from standard surface-based constant-offset GPR
reflection data using an impedance inversion workflow. Our
methodology represents a significant step forward in the
GPR data interpretation in that the inversion of reflection
amplitudes delivers quantitative physical parameter images
with a vertical resolution in the quarter-wavelength range,
which is comparable to the resolution capabilities of
full-waveform tomography. By contrast, the resolution
of standard CMP-based velocity analyses and traveltime
tomography is significantly inferior. Key prerequisites of
our workflow are the application of a relative-amplitude-
preserving data preconditioning including GPR deconvolu-
tion and DP !r logs or other supplementary data to constrain
the inversion workflow. The convolutional model and its
underlying assumptions (plane waves, horizontal interfaces,
stationary source signal) are an integral part of our approach.
We have discussed here the application of our workflow to
2-D GPR data, but the extension to 3-D is straightforward.
[37] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the “Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG) under TR 512/3-1 and DI 833/6-1. We
thank Stewart Greenhalgh for a thorough in-house review of the manuscript.
We are grateful to Editor John Selker, the Associate Editor, and three anon-
ymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that helped
to improve this paper.
References
Annan, A. P. (1996), Transmission dispersion and GPR, J. Environ. Eng.
Geophys., 1(B), 125–136, doi:10.4133/JEEG1.B.125.
Annan, A. P. (2005), Ground-penetrating radar, in Near-Surface Geophysics,
Invest. Geophys., vol. 13, edited by D. K. Butler, chap. 11, pp. 357–438,
Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
Archie, G. E. (1942), The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining
some reservoir characteristics, Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng.,
146, 54–62.
14 of 16
W08505
Arcone, S., S. Grant, G. Boitnott, and B. Bostick (2008), Complex per-
mittivity and clay mineralogy of grain-size fractions in a wet silt soil,
Geophysics, 73(3), J1–J13, doi:10.1190/1.2890776.
Baker, G. S. (1998), Applying AVO analysis to GPR data, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 25(3), 397–400, doi:10.1029/97GL03773.
Belina, F., B. Dafflon, J. Tronicke, and K. Holliger (2009a), Enhancing
the vertical resolution of surface georadar data, J. Appl. Geophys.,
68(1), 26–35, doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2008.08.011.
Belina, F. A., J. R. Ernst, and K. Holliger (2009b), Inversion of crosshole
seismic data in heterogeneous environments: Comparison of waveform
and ray-based approaches, J. Appl. Geophys., 68(1), 85–94, doi:10.1016/
j.jappgeo.2008.10.012.
Beres, M., and F. P. Haeni (1991), Application of ground-penetrating-radar
methods in hydrogeologic studies, Ground Water, 29(3), 375–386,
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1991.tb00528.x.
Beres, M., A. Green, P. Huggenberger, and H. Horstmeyer (1995), Map-
ping the architecture of glaciofluvial sediments with three-dimensional
georadar, Geology, 23(12), 1087–1090.
Beres, M., P. Huggenberger, A. G. Green, and H. Horstmeyer (1999), Using
two- and three-dimensional georadar methods to characterize glaciofluvial
architecture, Sediment. Geol., 129(1–2), 1–24.
Berteussen, K. A., and B. Ursin (1983), Approximate computation of the
acoustic impedance from seismic data, Geophysics, 48(10), 1351–1358,
doi:10.1190/1.1441415.
Böniger, U., and J. Tronicke (2010), On the potential of kinematic GPR
surveying using a self-tracking total station: Evaluating system cross-talk
and latency, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 48(10), 3792–3798,
doi:10.1109/TGRS.2010.2048332.
Böniger, U., and J. Tronicke (2012), Subsurface utility extraction and
characterization: Combining GPR symmetry and polarization attributes,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 50(3), 736–746, doi:10.1109/
TGRS.2011.2163413.
Bradford, J. H. (2006), Applying reflection tomography in the postmigra-
tion domain to multifold ground-penetrating radar data, Geophysics,
71(1), K1–K8, doi:10.1190/1.2159051.
Bradford, J. H. (2007), Frequency-dependent attenuation analysis of
ground-penetrating radar data, Geophysics, 72(3), J7–J16, doi:10.1190/
1.2710183.
Bradford, J. H. (2008), Measuring water content heterogeneity using multi-
fold GPR with reflection tomography, Vadose Zone J., 7(1), 184–193,
doi:10.2136/vzj2006.0160.
Bradford, J. H., and J. C. Deeds (2006), Ground-penetrating radar theory
and application of thin-bed offset-dependent reflectivity, Geophysics,
71(3), K47–K57, doi:10.1190/1.2194524.
Bradford, J. H., W. P. Clement, and W. Barrash (2009), Estimating porosity
with ground-penetrating radar reflection tomography: A controlled 3-D
experiment at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Water Resour.
Res., 45, W00D26, doi:10.1029/2008WR006960.
Buursink, M. L., T. C. Johnson, P. S. Routh, and M. D. Knoll (2008),
Crosshole radar velocity tomography with finite-frequency Fresnel vol-
ume sensitivities, Geophys. J. Int., 172(1), 1–17, doi:10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2007.03589.x.
Carcione, J. M., and F. Cavallini (1995), On the acoustic-electromagnetic
analogy, Wave Motion, 21(2), 149–162, doi:10.1016/0165-2125(94)
00047-9.
Cassiani, G., C. Strobbia, and L. Gallotti (2004), Vertical radar profiles
for the characterization of deep vadose zones, Vadose Zone J., 3(4),
1093–1105, doi:10.2113/3.4.1093.
Clement, W. P., S. Cardimona, A. L. Endres, and K. Kadinsky-Cade
(1997), Site characterization at the groundwater remediation field labora-
tory, Leading Edge, 16(11), 1617–1621, doi:10.1190/1.1437538.
Davis, J. L., and A. P. Annan (1989), Ground-penetrating radar for high-
resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy, Geophys. Prospect.,
37(5), 531–551.
Deparis, J., and S. Garambois (2009), On the use of dispersive APVO GPR
curves for thin-bed properties estimation: Theory and application to frac-
ture characterization, Geophysics, 74(1), J1–J12, doi:10.1190/1.3008545.
Ernst, J. R., A. G. Green, H. Maurer, and K. Holliger (2007a), Application
of a new 2D time-domain full-waveform inversion scheme to crosshole
radar data, Geophysics, 72(5), J53–J64.
Ernst, J. R., H. Maurer, A. G. Green, and K. Holliger (2007b),
Full-waveform inversion of crosshole radar data based on 2-D finite-
difference time-domain solutions of Maxwell’s equations, IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., 45(9), 2807–2828.
Ferguson, R. J., and G. F. Margrave (1996), A simple algorithm for band-
limited impedance inversion, CREWES Res. Rep., 8, 1–10.
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
Fisher, E., G. A. McMechan, A. P. Annan, and S. W. Cosway (1992),
Examples of reverse-time migration of single-channel, ground-penetrating
radar profiles, Geophysics, 57(4), 577–586, doi:10.1190/1.1443271.
Gazdag, J. (1978), Wave equation migration with the phase-shift method,
Geophysics, 43(7), 1342–1351, doi:10.1190/1.1440899.
Gerlitz, K., M. D. Knoll, G. M. Cross, R. D. Luzitano, and R. Knight
(1993), Processing ground penetrating radar data to improve resolution
of near-surface targets, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Appli-
cation of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems
(SAGEEP), vol. 6, pp. 561–574, Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
Giannopoulos, A. (2005), Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax,
Constr. Build. Mater., 19(10), 755–762, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2005.06.007.
Gloaguen, E., B. Giroux, D. Marcotte, and R. Dimitrakopoulos (2007),
Pseudo-full-waveform inversion of borehole GPR data using stochastic
tomography, Geophysics, 72(5), J43–J51, doi:10.1190/1.2755929.
Goff, J., and T. Jordan (1988), Statistical modeling of seafloor morphology:
Inversion of sea beam data for second-order statistics, J. Geophys. Res.,
93(B11), 13,589–13,608.
Goff, J. A., K. Holliger, and A. Levander (1994), Modal fields: A new
method for characterization of random seismic velocity heterogeneity,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 21(6), 493–496, doi:10.1029/94GL00311.
Greaves, R. J., D. P. Lesmes, J. M. Lee, and M. N. Toksöz (1996), Velocity
variations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-penetrating
radar, Geophysics, 61(3), 683–695, doi:10.1190/1.1443996.
Gross, R., A. Green, H. Horstmeyer, and J. Begg (2004), Location and
geometry of the Wellington Fault (New Zealand) defined by detailed
three-dimensional georadar data, J. Geophys. Res., 109(B5), B05401,
doi:10.1029/2003JB002615.
Hilhorst, M. A. (1997), Dielectric characterization of soil, PhD thesis,
Wageningen Agric. Univ., Wageningen, Netherlands.
Hubbard, S. S., and Y. Rubin (2005), Introduction to hydrogeophysics,
in Hydrogeophysics, edited by Y. Rubin and S. S. Hubbard, pp. 3–21,
Springer, Berlin.
Huisman, J. A., S. S. Hubbard, J. D. Redman, and A. P. Annan (2003),
Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar, Vadose
Zone J., 2(4), 476–491, doi:10.2136/vzj2003.4760.
Irving, J. D., and R. J. Knight (2003), Removal of wavelet dispersion from
ground-penetrating radar data, Geophysics, 68(3), 960–970, doi:10.1190/
1.1581068.
Kallweit, R. S., and L. C. Wood (1982), The limits of resolution of zero-
phase wavelets, Geophysics, 47(7), 1035–1046, doi:10.1190/1.1441367.
Knight, R. (2001), Ground penetrating radar for environmental applications,
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 29(1), 229–255, doi:10.1146/annurev.
earth.29.1.229.
Knight, R. J., and A. L. Endres (2005), An introduction to rock physics
principles for near-surface geophysics, in Near-Surface Geophysics,
Invest. Geophys., vol. 13, edited by D. K. Butler, chap. 3, pp. 31–70,
Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
Kobr, M., S. Mareš, and F. Paillet (2005), Geophysical well logging: Bore-
hole geophysics for hydrogeological studies: Principles and applications,
in Hydrogeophysics, edited by Y. Rubin and S. S. Hubbard, pp. 291–331,
Springer, Berlin.
Kowalsky, M. B., P. Dietrich, G. Teutsch, and Y. Rubin (2001), Forward
modeling of ground-penetrating radar data using digitized outcrop images
and multiple scenarios of water saturation, Water Resour. Res., 37(6),
1615–1625, doi:10.1029/2001WR900015.
Lampe, B., and K. Holliger (2003), Effects of fractal fluctuations in
topographic relief, permittivity and conductivity on ground-penetrating
radar antenna radiation, Geophysics, 68(6), 1934–1944, doi:10.1190/
1.1635047.
Lavergne, M., and C. Willm (1977), Inversion of seismograms and pseudo
velocity logs, Geophys. Prospect., 25(2), 231–250, doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2478.1977.tb01165.x.
Leven, C., and P. Dietrich (2006), What information can we get from
pumping tests? Comparing pumping test configurations using sensitivity
coefficients, J. Hydrol., 319(1–4), 199–215, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.
06.030.
Levy, S., and D. W. Oldenburg (1987), Automatic phase correction of
common-midpoint stacked data, Geophysics, 52(1), 51–59, doi:10.1190/
1.1442240.
Lin, C. P., S. H. Tang, and C. C. Chung (2006), Development of
TDR penetrometer through theoretical and laboratory investigations:
1. Measurement of soil dielectric permittivity, Geotech. Test. J., 29(4),
306–313, doi:10.1520/GTJ14093.
15 of 16
W08505
Linder, S., H. Paasche, J. Tronicke, E. Niederleithinger, and T. Vienken
(2010), Zonal cooperative inversion of crosshole P-wave, S-wave, and
georadar traveltime data sets, J. Appl. Geophys., 72(4), 254–262,
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.10.003.
Lindseth, R. O. (1979), Synthetic sonic logs—A process for stratigraphic
interpretation, Geophysics, 44(1), 3–26, doi:10.1190/1.1440922.
Majer, E., K. H. Williams, J. E. Petterson, and T. E. Daley (2001), High
resolution imaging of vadose zone transport using crosswell radar and
seismic methods, Tech. Rep. LBNL–49022, Lawrence Berkeley Natl.
Lab., Berkeley, Calif., doi:10.2172/792946.
McMechan, G. A., G. C. Gaynor, and R. B. Szerbiak (1997), Use of
ground-penetrating radar for 3-D sedimentological characterization of
clastic reservoir analogs, Geophysics, 62(3), 786–796, doi:10.1190/
1.1444188.
Meles, G., J. Van der Kruk, S. Greenhalgh, J. Ernst, H. Maurer, and
A. Green (2010), A new vector waveform inversion algorithm for simul-
taneous updating of conductivity and permittivity parameters from com-
bination crosshole/borehole-to-surface GPR data, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., 48(9), 3391–3407, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2010.2046670.
Moran, M. L., R. J. Greenfield, S. A. Arcone, and A. J. Delaney (2000),
Multidimensional GPR array processing using Kirchhoff migration,
J. Appl. Geophys., 43(2–4), 281–295, doi:10.1016/S0926-9851(99)
00065-8.
Neal, A. (2004), Ground-penetrating radar and its use in sedimentology:
Principles, problems and progress, Earth Sci. Rev., 66(3–4), 261–330,
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.01.004.
Niederleithinger, E. (2009), The BAM site for non-destructive testing meth-
ods (NDT) in civil engineering, paper presented at International Founda-
tion Congress and Equipment Expo 2009, Am. Soc. of Civil Eng.,
Orlando, Fla., 15–19 March.
Nitsche, F. O., A. G. Green, H. Horstmeyer, and F. Büker (2002), Late
Quaternary depositional history of the Reuss Delta, Switzerland:
Constraints from high-resolution seismic reflection and georadar surveys,
J. Quat. Sci., 17(2), 131–143, doi:10.1002/jqs.645.
Oldenburg, D. W., T. Scheuer, and S. Levy (1983), Recovery of the
acoustic impedance from reflection seismograms, Geophysics, 48(10),
1318–1337, doi:10.1190/1.1441413.
Robinson, E. A., and S. Treitel (2000), Geophysical Signal Analysis, Soc.
of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
Rubin, Y., and S. S. Hubbard (Eds.) (2005), Hydrogeophysics, Water Sci.
Technol. Libr., vol. 50, Springer, Berlin.
Russell, B. H. (1988), Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods, 177 pp.,
Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla., doi:10.1190/1.9781560802303.
Sacchi, M. D. (1997), Reweighting strategies in seismic deconvolution,
Geophys. J. Int., 129(3), 651–656, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.
tb04500.x.
Schmelzbach, C., and F. Scherbaum (2011), Bayesian frequency-domain
mixed-phase wavelet estimation and deconvolution, paper presented
at 73rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Eur. Assoc. of Geosci. and
Eng., Vienna.
Schmelzbach, C., F. Scherbaum, J. Tronicke, and P. Dietrich (2011a),
Bayesian frequency-domain blind deconvolution of ground-penetrating
radar data, J. Appl. Geophys., 75(4), 615–630, doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.
2011.08.010.
Schmelzbach, C., J. Tronicke, and P. Dietrich (2011b), Three-dimensional
hydrostratigraphic models from ground-penetrating radar and direct-push
data, J. Hydrol., 398, 235–245, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.023.
Shinn, J. D., D. A. Timian, R. M. Morey, G. Mitchell, C. L. Antle, and
R. Hull (1998), Development of a CPT deployed probe for in situ mea-
surement of volumetric soil moisture content and electrical resistivity,
Field Anal. Chem. Technol., 2(2), 103–109, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6521(1998)2:2<103::AID-FACT6>3.0.CO;2-X.
Smith, D. G., and H. M. Jol (1992), Ground-penetrating radar investigation
of a Lake Bonneville Delta, Provo level, Brigham City, Utah, Geology,
20(12), 1083–1086.
Stolt, R. H., and A. Benson (1986), Seismic Migration: Theory and
Practice, 382 pp., Geophys. Press, London.
Streich, R., and J. van der Kruk (2007), Accurate imaging of multicom-
ponent GPR data based on exact radiation patterns, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., 45(1), 93–103, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2006.883459.
Streich, R., J. van der Kruk, and A. G. Green (2007), Vector migration
of standard copolarized 3D GPR data, Geophysics, 72(5), J65–J75,
doi:10.1190/1.2766466.
Tillard, S., and J.-C. Dubois (1995), Analysis of GPR data: Wave prop-
agation velocity determination, J. Appl. Geophys., 33(1–3), 77–91,
doi:10.1016/0926-9851(95)90031-4.
W08505 SCHMELZBACH ET AL.: HIGH-RESOLUTION WATER CONTENT FROM SURFACE GPR
Topp, G. C., J. L. Davis, and A. P. Annan (1980), Electromagnetic determi-
nation of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines,
Water Resour. Res., 16(3), 574–582.
Tronicke, J., and M. D. Knoll (2005), Vertical radar profiling: Influence
of survey geometry on first-arrival traveltimes and amplitudes, J. Appl.
Geophys., 57(3), 179–191.
Tronicke, J., N. Blindow, R. Gross, and M. A. Lange (1999), Joint applica-
tion of surface electrical resistivity- and GPR-measurements for ground-
water exploration on the island of Spiekeroog—Northern Germany,
J. Hydrol., 223(1–2), 44–53, doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00111-0.
Tronicke, J., P. Dietrich, U. Wahlig, and E. Appel (2002), Integrating sur-
face georadar and crosshole radar tomography: A validation experiment
in braided stream deposits, Geophysics, 67(5), 1516–1523, doi:10.1190/
1.1512747.
Tronicke, J., H. Paasche, and U. Böniger (2012), Crosshole traveltime
tomography using particle swarm optimization: A near-surface field
example, Geophysics, 77(1), R19–R32, doi:10.1190/geo2010-0411.1.
Turner, G. (1994), Subsurface radar propagation deconvolution, Geophysics,
59(2), 215–223, doi:10.1190/1.1443583.
van Dam, R. L., and W. Schlager (2000), Identifying causes of ground-
penetrating radar reflections using time-domain reflectometry and sedi-
mentological analyses, Sedimentology, 47(2), 435–449, doi:10.1046/
j.1365-3091.2000.00304.x.
16 of 16
W08505
van Overmeeren, R. A., S. V. Sariowan, and J. C. Gehrels (1997), Ground
penetrating radar for determining volumetric soil water content; results
of comparative measurements at two test sites, J. Hydrol., 197(1–4),
316–338, doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03244-1.
Vaz, C. M. P., and J. W. Hopmans (2001), Simultaneous measurement of soil
penetration resistance and water content with a combined penetrometer-
TDR moisture probe, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65(1), 4–12, doi:10.2136/
sssaj2001.6514.
Wapenaar, K. (2007), General representations for wavefield modeling and
inversion in geophysics, Geophysics, 72(5), SM5–SM17, doi:10.1190/
1.2750646.
Ward, S. H., and G. W. Hohmann (2006), Electromagnetic theory for
geophysical applications, in Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geo-
physics, Invest. Geophys., vol. 3, edited by M. N. Nabighian, chap. 4,
pp. 131–311, Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
White, R. (1997), The accuracy of well ties: Practical procedures and exam-
ples, paper presented at 67th SEG Annual Meeting and International
Exposition, Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Dallas, Tex.
Yilmaz, O. (2001), Seismic Data Analysis: Processing, Inversion, and
Interpretation of Seismic Data, Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla.
Zeng, X., G. A. McMechan, and T. Xu (2000), Synthesis of amplitude-
versus-offset variations in ground-penetrating radar data, Geophysics,
65(1), 113–125, doi:10.1190/1.1444702.