ISSN 2047-0371

1.5.5. Ground Penetrating Radar

Martin Robinson1, Charlie Bristow2, Jennifer McKinley1 and Alastair Ruffell1
1
School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast
2
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Birkbeck University of London
(mrobinson34@qub.ac.uk)

ABSTRACT: Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is an effective tool to visualise the structure of the
shallow subsurface. The purpose of this article is to offer guidelines to non-specialist GPR users on
the collection, processing and interpretation of GPR data in a range of environments. The
discussion on survey design focuses on single fold, fixed-offset reflection profiling, the most
common mode of GPR data collection, however the design factors can be applied to other survey
types. Information on the visualisation of processed data, as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of GPR, is provided. Possible applications of GPR in geomorphological research
are presented, along with a case study outlining how GPR can be used to measure peat thickness.

KEYWORDS: Ground penetrating radar, survey design, processing, interpretation, applications

Introduction research. An operator of GPR equipment

must have an understanding of the
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has become fundamental principles underlying the
a popular tool in sedimentological studies, technique (Daniels, 2004). A training course
with Table 1 illustrating recent research that or field survey with an experienced operator
has utilised GPR in the analysis of is highly recommended.
environmental processes (Jol and Bristow,
2003). It is a non-invasive geophysical
technique designed primarily for subsurface Principles
investigation (Neal, 2004; Comas et al.,
A GPR system transmits short pulses of high
2004). A GPR system detects changes in the
frequency EM energy (10-1000 MHz) from an
electrical properties of the shallow subsurface
antenna into the subsurface (Jol and Smith,
using discrete pulses of high frequency
1991; Holden et al., 2002). As an EM wave
electromagnetic (EM) energy, usually in the
disseminates downwards, its velocity is
10-1000 MHz range (Neal, 2004). The
altered due to encounters with materials of
technique has been successfully applied in a
differing electrical properties (Neal, 2004).
wide range of environmental studies however
Abrupt changes in the dielectric constant
an understanding of the capabilities and
results in a portion of the energy being
limitations of GPR is vital when considering
reflected, with the receiving antenna of the
using the technique, with the quality of GPR
GPR system detecting the reflected EM
results often being dependent on the
energy (Figure 1a). Scattering of the radar
surveyed environment (Daniels, 2004). The
waves occurs when the radar signal travels
purpose of this article is to offer guidelines on
through overburden. It is worth noting that
the collection, processing and interpretation
most GPR antennas are not focussed and
of GPR data.
transmit energy into the air as well as the
ground. As a result it is possible to get
This paper presents an overview of good
reflections from objects above ground such
practice material for non-specialist users
as walls, cars, fences or overhead cables.
working in the field of environmental
Some antennas are shielded to reduce

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
external noise and prevent the signals being
transmitted through the air but this adds to
the weight and bulk of the antennas which
can be awkward in the field.
The time between transmission and
reception, referred to as the two-way travel-
time (TWT) and commonly measured in
nanoseconds, is a function of reflector depth
and the EM velocity of propagation (Neal,
2004; Jol and Smith, 1991). GPR provides a
continuous profile of the subsurface,
displaying horizontal survey distance against
vertical TWT. Vertical TWT is converted to
depth with knowledge of the propagation
velocity, expressed as (Equation 1):
𝑑 = 𝑣×𝑡/2 (Equation 1)
In which 𝑑 is depth, 𝑣 is velocity, and 𝑡 is
TWT. The propagation of EM energy through
media is controlled by several material
properties. Dielectric constant (dielectric
permittivity), a property which is strongly
dependent on the water content of a material,
is the primary factor controlling the velocity of
an EM wave. Reflections therefore can
typically be related to interfaces where there
is a considerable change in water content
(Comas et al., 2005). Electrical conductivity is
a measure of charge transport, through a
2
medium, on application of an electric field
(Powers, 1997). The most important electrical
conduction losses, in relation to GPR
performance, occur due to ionic charge
transport in water and electrochemical
processes associated with cation exchange.
Olhoeft (1998) describes the importance of
clay mineral cation exchange in studies of
soil and sediment. The equation for the
velocity of propagation is expressed as
(Equation 2):
𝑣 = 𝑐/ 𝜀! (Equation 2)
In which 𝑣 is the velocity, 𝑐 is the speed of
light (300mm/ns) and 𝜀! is the relative
dielectric constant. Table 2 provides typical
dielectric constant and electrical conductivity
values for common materials encountered
using GPR.
Suitability of GPR
It is essential from a scientific view to clearly
establish what data are required to test a
particular hypothesis. This will influence the
size of the survey, the depth of investigation
and the resolution needed (Jol and Bristow,
2003). Before planning a survey it is
important to determine if GPR will be
effective.

Table 1. Recent environmental studies that use GPR

Depositional Setting Recent Papers

Glacial Appleby et al. (2010); Benediktsson et al. (2009); Degenhardt (2009);

Gibbard et al. (2012); Hart et al. (2011); Irvine-Fynn et al. (2006); Kim et
al. (2010); Langston et al. (2011); Leopold et al. (2011); Monnier et al.
(2011); Murray and Booth (2010)
Fluvial Ashworth et al. (2011); Johnson and Carpenter (In Press); Kostic and
Aigner (2007); Lunt and Bridge (2004); Nobes et al. (2001); Rice et al.
(2009); Słowik (2011)
Delta Barnhardt and Sherrod (2006); Gibbard et al (2012); Gutsell et al. (2004)
Coastal Bennett et al. (2009); Bristow and Pucillo (2006); Buynevich et al. (2010);
Clemmensen et al. (2012); Nielsen and Clemmensen (2009); Olson et al.
(In Press); Pascucci et al. (2009); Tamura et al (2011)
Aeolian Bristow et al. (2007, 2010); Buynevich et al. (2010); Clemmensen et al.
(2012); Tamura et al. (2011); Vriend et al. (2012)
Peatland Comas et al. (2005, 2011); De Oliveira et al. (2012); Kettridge et al.
(2008); Lowry et al. (2009); Plado et al. (2011); Rosa et al. (2009)
Faults Bhosle et al. (2007); Christie et al. (2009); Malik et al. (2010)

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
3 Martin Robinson et al.
Figure 1. (a) The propagation of an EM wave
in subsurface material (adapted from Neal,
2004); (b) Fixed offset profiling (adapted from
Annan, 2001); (c) Common mid-point (CMP)
sounding (adapted from Annan, 2001).
GPR can quickly be deemed an unsuitable
technique if the target is beyond the depth
range of the GPR system. For GPR to work
effectively, the target must exhibit electric
properties (dielectric constant and electrical
conductivity) which contrast with the host
subsurface. The strength of an EM reflection
is proportional to the magnitude of this
contrast, with the amount of energy reflected
British Society for Geomorphology
being given by the reflection coefficient (𝑅),
expressed as (Equation 3):
!! ! !!
𝑅= (Equation 3)
!! ! !!
In which 𝑣! and 𝑣! are the velocities for
layers 1 and 2 i.e the target and the host
subsurface (Neal, 2004). In all cases, the
value of 𝑅 will be between +1 and -1, with
values further from zero representing greater
differences in electrical properties. Table 2
can be used as a guide to determine the
suitability of GPR for a particular study, with
velocity values for typical subsurface
mediums being provided. The environment
under investigation needs to be examined
before performing a survey. Metallic objects
and major structural features within the
vicinity of the survey location can seriously
affect GPR results (Annan and Cosway,
1994).
Survey Design
This discussion on survey design focuses on
single fold, fixed-offset reflection profiling
(Figure 1b), the most common mode of GPR
data collection, however the design factors
can be applied to other survey types (Jol and
Bristow, 2003; Annan, 2005). The step-like
procedure involves moving a signal
transmitter and receiver, in a fixed antenna
geometry, over the surface in repetitive steps.
This mode is preferred in studies that require
high spatial-horizontal resolution. Continuous
data collection is not recommended for
detailed sedimentary investigations as the
movement during collection can smear the
data, creating problems when locating a
specific subsurface feature. Continuous data
collection is more appropriate for
reconnaissance surveys (Jol and Bristow,
2003).
Several parameters need to be defined when
designing a single fold, fixed-offset reflection
survey.
Radar Frequency: Vertical Resolution
Antenna frequency is a significant factor in
survey design, determining the resolution and
depth of penetration (Baker et al., 2007). Low
frequency waves tend to penetrate deeper
into the subsurface as they are not as easily
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar 4
Table 2. Typical dielectric constant, electrical conductivity, velocity and attenuation values of
common subsurface materials (Leckebusch, 2003; rows labelled * from Annan, 2005)

Dielectric Electrical Conductivity Velocity Attenuation

Material
Constant (mSm-1) (m ns-1) (dB m-1)
Air 1 0 0.3 0
Salt water 80 3000 0.033 600
Fresh water 80 0.5 0.033 0.1
Ice* 3-4 0.01 0.16 0.01
Granite, dry 5 0.01 0.13 0.01
Limestone* 4-8 0.5-2 0.12 0.4-1
Shales* 5-15 1-100 0.09 1-100
Sand, dry 5 0.01 0.13 0.01
Sand, wet* 20-30 0.1-1.0 0.06 0.03-0.3
Clay, wet 10 500 0.095 300
Soils:
sandy, dry 2.6 1.4 0.19 1
sandy, wet 25 69 0.06 23
clayey, dry 2.5 2.7 0.19 3
clayey, wet 19 500 0.07 200
frozen 6 0.1 0.12 0.1

attenuated as high frequency waves. The
ability of a GPR system to resolve fine
subsurface features however deteriorates at
lower frequencies, meaning the selection of
the optimal antenna frequency is a trade-off
between the desired resolution and the
achievable penetration depth (Harari, 1996).
As a rule of thumb, it is better to trade
resolution for depth, with high resolution
being useless if the target cannot be detected
(Annan, 2005).
An antenna does not transmit EM waves at a
single frequency but across a frequency
spectrum, with the higher frequencies in the
range being preferentially attenuated as they
propagate through the subsurface. This
results in the return centre frequency, the
most common frequency detected by the
receiving antenna, typically being lower than
the nominal centre frequency of the
transmitting antenna. More realistic vertical
resolution estimates are consequently
obtained using the return centre frequency
(Neal, 2004). The preferential attenuation of
high frequency radar waves also causes a
decrease in resolution down the GPR profile
even when no changes in the velocity exist.
The majority of sedimentary studies use
antenna with frequencies between 50 and
500MHz (Jol and Bristow, 2003). Table 3,
based on the assumption that the required
spatial resolution is approximately 25% of the
target depth, can be used as a simple guide
to determine a suitable frequency. It is
important to understand that the depth of
penetration is highly dependent on the clay
content of the medium, with clay significantly
attenuating EM waves and limiting the
investigation depth (Bristow, 2013). The
information presented in Table 2 therefore
should not be a substitute for thorough
survey planning, with the depth of penetration
being subject to the soil type (Annan, 2001).
Table 3. Guideline frequency values (Annan,
2001)
Depth (m) Centre Frequency (MHz)
0.5 1000
1.0 500
2.0 200
5.0 100
10.0 50
30.0 25
50.0 10

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
5 Martin Robinson et al.
Stratigraphy in sedimentary environments
occurs at scales ranging from 10-3 to 101 m
both horizontally and vertically (Jol and
Bristow, 2003). Identifying a suitable
resolution is often a vital component of many
subsurface environmental studies. Vertical
resolution is usually considered to be
approximately one quarter of the radar signal
wavelength in the subsurface, with
wavelength being a function of antenna
frequency and the velocity of the signal
(Bristow, 2009). This is shown by Equation 4.
! which needs to be considered when
λ =   ! (Equation 4)
λ = Wavelength
V = Velocity
f = Frequency
Bristow (2009) provides theoretical values for
GPR resolution in sands based on Eq.4
(Table 4). For example, a 100MHz transmitter
used to investigate sand saturated with fresh
water (velocity of 0.06m ns-1) will produce a
wavelength of 0.6m and a resolution of 0.15m
(one-quarter of the wavelength value). The
approximate velocity values presented in
Table 2 can be used with a desired resolution
value to identify a suitable GPR frequency for
a particular study. Various antennas
frequencies can be employed to effectively
image the subsurface using GPR (Jol and
Bristow, 2003). The use of multiple
frequencies depends entirely on the research
question, with the time and cost of swapping
several different antennas, as well as
processing data collected at different
frequencies, needing to be considered.
Time Window
The required time window (W) is estimated
using the following equation (Equation 5):
2×Depth
W = 1.3   Velocity (Equation 5)
Table 4. Theoretical values for GPR resolution in different sands (Bristow, 2009). Note: Velocity
value for dry sand differs slightly from figure provided in Table 1
Theoretical Resolution
Antenna Central
(m) for Saturated Sand
Frequency (MHz) -1
(0.06 m ns )
50 0.3
100 0.15
200 0.075
400 0.0375
British Society for Geomorphology
with the maximum depth and minimum
velocity likely to be observed being used. The
equation accounts for uncertainty in velocity
and depth variations by increasing the
estimated time by 30% (Annan, 2005). Table
2 can be used as a guide if no information on
the electrical properties of the survey site is
available.
Temporal Sampling Interval
The time interval between points on a
recorded waveform is another parameter
designing a survey. Annan (2005) indicates
that as part of a good survey design, the
sampling rate should be approximately six
times the centre frequency of the antenna
being used, with the following expression
being utilised to calculate suitable sampling
intervals (Equation 6):
!"""
𝑡= (Equation 6)
!!
In which 𝑡 is the maximum sampling interval
(ns) and 𝑓 is the centre frequency (MHz).
Table 5 indicates the calculated sampling
interval for a variety of antenna frequencies.
The sampling values presented in the table
should only be exceeded when data volume
and acquisition speed are more important
than the integrity of the data (Annan, 2001).
The consequence of using small sample
values is that random signals (noise) are
given more influence on the trace. An
increase in antenna frequency requires an
increase in the sample rate due to the
preferential attenuation at high frequencies.
Increases in sample rate should be based on
the Nyquist principle - the greatest vertical
resolution that can be expected is one-
quarter the wavelength (Jol and Bristow,
2003).
Theoretical Resolution Theoretical
(m) for Damp Sand Resolution (m) for Dry
-1 -1
(0.1m ns ) Sand (0.15m ns )
0.5 0.75
0.25 0.375
0.125 0.1875
0.0625 0.09375
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
Table 5. Suitable sampling intervals and
corresponding antenna frequencies (Annan,
2001)
Antenna Centre Maximum Sampling
Frequency (MHz) Interval (ns)
10 16.7
20 8.3
50 3.3
100 1.67
200 0.83
500 0.33
1000 0.17
Each trace in a GPR profile should be
vertically stacked to enhance the return
signals, with the running average of a number
of radar transmissions being taken (Jol and
Bristow, 2003). If a GPR system was
programmed to collect 512 samples for each
trace, with the system also being set up to
stack 16 sequential traces into one record,
then at least 8192 pulses (512 pulses
multiplied by 16) would need to be
transmitted for every recorded reflection trace
(Conyers, 2013). This stacking process
minimises random signals (noise) and
emphasises persistent signals (reflections).
An increase in trace stacking however will
increase survey time (Jol and Bristow, 2003).
Step Size: Horizontal Resolution
Step size, the distance between each data
collection point made along a GPR profile, is
an important part of the survey design
process (Jol and Bristow, 2003). A minimum
step size for each antenna frequency is
usually suggested by the manufacturer
(Bristow, 2009). The extent of the target
however outweighs the guidelines proposed
by the manufacturer, with the object of
interest needing to be resolved both
horizontally and vertically. These values are
based on the Nyquist sampling interval, one-
quarter of the wavelength in the subsurface
and expressed as (Equation 7):
!"
n! =   (Equation 7)
!√!
n! = Sampling Interval (m)
f = Antenna Centre Frequency (MHz)
K = Dielectric Constant
British Society for Geomorphology
6
A maximum step size of one metre, often less
(0.1-0.5m) depending on antenna frequency,
should be used in sedimentary studies to
provide detailed horizontal resolution of
structures (Jol and Bristow, 2003). A typical
survey performed with 100MHz antennas
should have a step size of 0.25m, however a
larger step size can be used when the
subsurface comprises continuous horizontal
layers. GPR data will not adequately define
steeply dipping reflectors if the step size is
too large (Annan, 2005).
Antenna Separation
The majority of GPR systems have separate
antennas for transmitting and receiving
(bistatic operation), with some antennas
having a fixed separation while others can be
varied (Annan, 2005; Jol and Bristow, 2003).
Antenna separation should be as small as
possible based on the needs of the survey
and the wavelength of the antennas. The
depth resolution of targets decreases as the
distance between antennas increases,
however this effect is not significant until the
antenna separation nears half of the target
depth (Jol and Bristow, 2003). A safe
antenna separation, if there is very little site
information available, is 20% of the target
depth (Annan, 2005).
Line Spacing and Orientation
Line spacing is a compromise between the
amount of detail required for the survey and
the extent of the survey area. To avoid spatial
aliasing, where the target is not correctly
resolved, the line spacing is required to be
approximately one quarter of the extent of the
structure being investigated (Bristow, 2009).
Survey lines should be arranged, whenever
possible, in a grid, with lines running parallel
and perpendicular to the expected dip
direction of the structure (Jol and Bristow,
2003). Bristow (2009) indicates that images
of sedimentary structures are improved if
data is collected in the up-dip direction.
Closely spaced lines give sufficiently dense
coverage to produce 3D block models of the
subsurface (Jol and Bristow, 2003).
Grasmueck et al. (2005) recommend a
quarter-wavelength spatial sampling (step
size) as the minimum requirement for a full
resolution 3D survey.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
7 Martin Robinson et al.

Figure 2. GPR profile using unshielded 200MHz antennas with 0.1m step size, dewow and SEC
gain in a parkland setting (a) with trees and a fence, includes reflections from above (b) and
beneath the ground (c) with interpretation (d) see text for details

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
Antenna Shielding
When a GPR antenna directs EM energy into
the subsurface, a portion of the energy is lost
to the air. These EM waves, as they
propagate through the air, can encounter an
object or planar surface with a different
dielectric constant, resulting in part of the
signal being reflected to the receiver (Neal,
2004). Thus, not all reflections on radar
profiles necessarily originate from features
within the subsurface which can be seen in
(Figure 2). The GPR profile in Figure 2
includes reflections from objects above and
beneath the ground. These can be readily
distinguished by velocity analysis fitting
hyperbolic curves to observed hyperbolic
reflections. The hyperbolas from the trees
with metal tree guards indicate a velocity
around 0.3mns-1 (Figure 2b) which is
consistent with the velocity of the GPR signal
through the air at the speed of light (0.299
mns-1). The tighter hyperbola shown in Figure
2c indicates a velocity of 0.064 mns-1, a
typical velocity for water saturated sediments.
The gently inclined planar reflection picked
out in blue in Figure 2d could be mistakenly
interpreted as dipping bedrock strata but
actually comes from a fence between 12.5
and 15.5 m from the GPR profile as shown in
Figure 2a. Shielding can be used to reduce
these unwanted surface reflections. However,
shielded antenna never fully eliminate
airwaves, therefore shielded antenna data
should be treated with caution. Operators
should always look for potential sources of
airwave in the area of study. Profile lines -
run towards and away from a possible source
to evaluate if the object is scattering energy
(Annan, 2005).
Velocity Sounding Design
The velocity of an EM wave needs to be
determined to convert two-way travel-time
into depth. This value can be obtained by the
basic process of probing or excavating to
determine depth to a known reflector, then
using the depth and measured reflection time
to calculate the velocity (Jol and Bristow,
2003). An example of this “ground truth”
approach is shown in Figure 3 where a CMP
survey on the top of the outcrop indicated a
surface velocity of 0.13mns-1 (Jol et al.,
2003). However, correlation with a measured
section of the outcrop indicates an average
velocity at depths up to 30m is 0.1mns-1.
British Society for Geomorphology
8
Common mid-point (CMP) sounding (Figure
1c) and wide angle reflection and refraction
(WARR) surveys estimate signal velocity by
increasing the separation between the
transmitter and receiver in steps at a fixed
location and measuring the change of the
two-way travel-time to reflections (Jol and
Bristow, 2003; Annan, 2005).
CMP surveys are generally considered to be
more precise than WARR surveys and should
be the first survey completed on arrival at a
site (Jol and Bristow, 2003). Jol and Bristow
(2003) suggest to start a CMP survey with a
minimum antenna separation then move
each antenna out by 5 or 10cm until no signal
is returned. This however is only appropriate
when performed above a horizontal reflector
in multiple directions. Some software
programs can measure the angle of
hyperbolic reflections as a proxy for the
moveout encountered in CMP, calculating
velocity by fitting curves to observed
hyperbolas as illustrated in Figure 2b and
Figure 2c.
Data Processing
GPR data processing can be a daunting task
for new users. This section provides good
practice guidelines to ensure consistent,
efficient and realistic processing. A brief
overview of several basic processing
techniques is provided.
It is important to keep processing simple. The
majority of GPR data collected in
sedimentological environments only requires
minimal processing to allow interpretation (Jol
and Bristow, 2003). The temptation to
overprocess should be avoided as more
sophisticated processing methods are likely
to introduce bias and potential artefacts into
the data (Cassidy, 2009). The user should
take a systematic and consistent approach to
the processing sequence, accurately
recording all processing steps and
parameters. GPR utilises many aspects of
seismic data analysis that have been
developed to industry-standard. Although not
all seismic processing methods can be
applied to GPR data, the majority can be
used directly (Annan, 2005).
Basic processing steps, usually directly
applied to the raw data, typically take the
form of trace editing, filtering or data
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
9 Martin Robinson et al.
correction, introducing minimal user bias. be remembered that no amount of processing
Most, if not all, of these steps need to be will save poor quality data (Cassidy, 2009).
used to make a basic interpretation. It must

Figure 3. 50 MHz GPR profile of the Navajo Sandstone, a Jurassic cross-stratified aeolian
sandstone at Zion National Park in Utah (adapted from Jol et al., 2003). Reflections of cross-
stratification and the bounding surfaces between them are clearly imaged by the GPR to a depth of
almost 30m. A photograph of the outcrop is shown in Figure 8. Beneath 30m depth the arc shaped
crossing reflections are reflections through the air from the canyon walls.

applied. This usually involves setting a

Data Editing particular rule such as the time-zero position
Data editing, often the most time consuming is the airwave first break point or the first
part of a processing sequence, involving negative peak of the trace. Successful
tasks such as data reorganisation, data file realignment causes all reflections beneath to
merging and updating background become correctly aligned. Time-zero
information (Annan, 2005). The occurrence of correction is therefore often the first data
inevitable errors during data acquisition processing step performed (Neal, 2004). The
means some traces may need to be processing software often performs this
reversed, merged or omitted. The automatically (Cassidy, 2009).
maintenance of data is important when trying
to obtain good quality interpretations Dewow Filtering
(Cassidy, 2009).
Dewowing is a basic processing step which
uses temporal filtering to remove very low
Time-zero Correction frequency components from the data (Annan,
Traces need to be adjusted to a common 2005). It reduces the data to a mean zero
time-zero position before processing can be level, with the majority of modern GPR

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
systems applying dewow to each trace
automatically (Cassidy, 2009). For advice on
manual dewow correction see Cassidy
(2009).
Topographic Correction
Topographic correction is required to place
the GPR data within its correct spatial context
(Cassidy, 2009). When the surface and
subsurface stratigraphy are horizontal,
elevation static corrections can be used to
topographically correct data, repositioning the
time zero in the vertical axis and adjusting
reflections accordingly (Bristow, 2009).
Dipping reflections can be restored to the
correct dip by migrating the data, then
applying the static correction for topography
(Bristow, 2009). For information on advanced
methods, such as migration, see Cassidy
(2009).
Gain
The next basic processing step is to select a
gain function for the data. Gains improve the
visual form of the GPR sections, with most
techniques altering the data structure in some
form. It is therefore important to understand
the effects of gain functions. Radar signals
are rapidly attenuated as they propagate
through the subsurface, making events from
greater depths more difficult to discriminate
(Annan, 2005). Gains enhance the
appearance of later arrivals due to the effect
of signal attenuation and geometrical
spreading losses (Cassidy, 2009). There are
several different types of gains including
constant gain, exponential gain, exponential
gain compensation (SEC) and automatic gain
control (AGC), with each function having
different characteristics. Gain functions can
be easily changed, usually by altering the
time window (a region of the trace in time),
the gain function (linear, exponential, user-
defined, etc) and the maximum gain allowed
(Cassidy, 2009).
Constant, linear or exponential gains are
systemically applied gain functions that have
a specific mathematical operator that is
defined by the user or system automatically
(Cassidy, 2009).
Automatic gain control (AGC) and spherical
and exponential gain compensation (SEC)
are two of the most popular types of gain
British Society for Geomorphology
10
function. AGC equalises the amplitudes down
each trace, making it ideal for monitoring
stratigraphic horizon continuity as well as the
continuity of other reflections. This function
however eliminates all amplitude information
(Jol and Bristow, 2003).
SEC attempts to emulate the variation in
signal amplitude as it travels through the
subsurface (Annan, 2005). Unlike AGC, SEC
retains the relative amplitude information,
with the reflections representing the true
strength of the returned signal (Cassidy,
2009). This however only really applies if you
have equivalent gains at the same depth.
Filtering
Filters are applied to remove system or
human-induced noise and improve the visual
quality of the GPR data (Cassidy, 2009).
There are many different types of filters, from
simple band-pass filters to sophisticated
domain and transform filters. Simple filters
are usually very effective at removing
high/low-frequency noise, while sophisticated
functions are more appropriate for specific
problems. Filters can be applied before or
after gains however pre-gain filters operate
on the data in its truest form (Cassidy, 2009).
Filters can average down the trace (temporal)
or from trace to trace (spatial), smoothing the
data and removing high frequency noise
(Bristow, 2013). Temporal filters are used to
remove noise at frequencies that are higher
or lower than the main GPR signal, ultimately
acting as clean-up filters which make the
GPR section visually better (Jol and Bristow,
2003). Spatial filtering is applied to either
suppress or emphasise specific features.
These filters are often used to remove the
strong air/wave response and ringing from
GPR data (Cassidy, 2009). Low pass spatial
filters are suitable when trying to identify
sedimentological features of interest, such as
bedding, which are usually spatially extensive
and low-angled (Cassidy, 2009). A high pass
spatial filter has the opposite effect in that it
suppresses flat-lying reflections and
emphasises dipping events (Annan, 2005).
High pass filters (frequency domain filters)
allow higher frequency components to pass
while removing low frequency components -
low pass filters do the opposite. High-pass
and low-pass filters can be combined in
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
11 Martin Robinson et al.
band-pass filters, letting through frequencies
either side of the peak frequency of the
transmitted signal (Bristow, 2013). More
information and advice on when to use
certain filters can be found in Cassidy (2009).
Background Subtraction
Background removal is one of the most
common processing steps applied to GPR
data (Annan, 2005). It often takes the form of
a high pass filter or an average trace removal
(a form of spatial filtering). This step allows
subtle weaker signals to become visible in
the processed section (Annan, 2005).
Background subtraction is usually not
necessary, therefore if data always requires
background removal the equipment used to
collect it may be flawed (Annan, 2005).
For information on advanced processing
methods see Cassidy (2009).
Visualising Processed Data
The processed GPR data only becomes
useful when it is available in image format
(Daniels et al., 1988). It is traditionally
presented as a radargram, a pseudo cross
sectional image comprising a horizontal
distance axis against a vertical TWT axis
(Figure 4; Noon and Narayanan, 2002).
These can be difficult to interpret, with
several closely spaced point scatterers
producing reflection hyperbolas which blur
the radargram (Brunzell, 1999). The
identification of multiple targets within a
radargram unavoidably introduces
subjectivity to the data analysis process
(Daniels, 2004).
Figure 4. Radargram illustrating decrease in depth of peat
British Society for Geomorphology
A selection of GPR profiles, collected from a
range of depositional environments, has been
provided.
Figure 5 shows an interpreted 200 MHz GPR
profile across a normal fault at Piano di
Pezza in the Italian Apennines. The
processed GPR profile shows a strong sub-
horizontal reflection that dips gently towards
the north. At its southern end, this reflection
is at a depth of approximately 0.5m below the
surface. Towards the northern end of the
profile, the deep purple reflection is at a
depth of approximately 6m from the surface
at its deepest part, approximately 7m south of
the footwall scarp. The change in depth to the
reflector is indicative of subsidence adjacent
to the fault and the accumulation of sediment
in the hanging wall of the fault. Breaks in the
reflections where there is a vertical offset are
interpreted as faults; the displacement of the
reflection is of the order of 1m indicating a
fault displacement of a similar magnitude.
Between the northward dipping reflections
there is a “wedge” of weakly defined
reflections which thins towards the south,
away from the main fault scarp. Offsets in the
reflections indicate approximately 0.5m
vertical displacement across faults. The
faulting identified on the GPR profile is
dominated by vertical offset across synthetic
and antithetic normal faults within and parallel
to the main fault zone and this is consistent
with the published trench profile (Pantosi et
al., 1996). The main zone of deformation is
localised within 8m south of the fault on the
trench and GPR profiles. For additional
information on this study see Jewell and
Bristow (2004).
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
Figure 6 shows 200 MHz GPR profiles across
sand dunes a linear dune in Namibia to
investigate the internal structure of linear
dunes from Bristow et al. (2000).
Figure 7 displays a 200 MHz GPR profile
across a gravel beach ridge, Waitaki coast,
South Island, New Zealand. The profile
shows inclined reflections interpreted as
sedimentary layers within the beach ridge.
The reflections are divided into two radar
facies shaded orange and pink. Seaward
dipping reflections are interpreted to be
formed by beach (foreshore) progradation
(Orange), while landward dipping reflections
are interpreted as backshore washover
deposits (Pink). Radar sequence boundaries
are picked at horizons where there are
reflection terminations or truncations marking
erosion of the foreshore during storms. Some
of these surfaces can be correlated with
surfaces within the washover deposits which
are interpreted to have been formed during
coeval storm events. For further information
see Dickson et al. (2009).
As processing power has advanced, GPR
data has been increasingly presented in the
form of 3D models and time/depth slices
(Annan, 2009). 3D surveying involves
collecting data along closely spaces lines,
with sufficiently dense data coverage allowing
the generation of 3D block models (Jol and
Bristow, 2003). These 3D models allow the
user to interpret the depositional structure of
stratigraphic units in greater detail than was
possible using sparsely spaced 2D profiles
(Jol and Bristow, 2003). Although 3D
surveying can provide the best visualisation
of the subsurface, the collection of 3D data is
time consuming, with a considerable amount
of time being required to accurately record
the position and elevation of the data points
(Serma and Setan, 2009; Bristow, 2009).
This is why, in general, only small areas are
surveyed.
In the case of Figure 8, a grid 10m x 7m was
surveyed with 200MHz antennas which
imaged to a depth of around 12m. This can
be compared with the depth of penetration of
almost 30m achieved on the same outcrop
with 50MHz antennas (Figure 9). With a
longer wavelength the 50MHz antennas
penetrate much deeper but with an
British Society for Geomorphology
12
associated loss of resolution. See figures on
outcrop for scale and log on Figure 3 for
depth and bedding thickness. Modified from
Jol et al. (2003).
Interpretation
The interpretation of a GPR profile is
inherently subjective, dependent on the
knowledge, skill and experience of the user
(Annan, 2005). GPR profiles should receive
preliminary interpretation once collected to
determine if resurveying is required (Jol and
Bristow, 2003). After the data has been
processed, an interpretation, independent of
sedimentary models and other datasets such
as cores, should be completed. Many
interpretations based on models and other
data can overlook key components that are
visible in the GPR profile (Jol and Bristow,
2003). At the surface the earliest arrivals are
the direct transmissions from the transmitter
to the receiver through the air at the speed of
light, the air wave, after this comes the direct
signal through the ground or along the
surface, the ground wave. These two direct
signals form a pair of black and white lines
along the top of all GPR profiles. They cover
any reflections approximately equivalent to a
depth of half the antenna spacing.
Reflections from the subsurface appear
beneath the air and ground waves. The GPR
signal is not a simple sine wave but has a
more complex waveform and as a result a
single reflector can appear as a pair of
reflections. This is sometimes overlooked
resulting in over interpretation of GPR
profiles.
Data should initially be printed out, with major
reflections being identified and traced around.
The next step is to identify and characterise
(as downlap, onlap, offlap, etc) reflection
terminations, constructing a chronology of
sedimentary deposits (Jol and Bristow, 2003).
Figures 7 and 9 show examples with
bounding surfaces picked out in red and
reflection terminations marked by small black
arrows. The ability to identify significant radar
reflection patterns allows the location of
features such as bedding planes, bedsets
and cross-stratification to be determined (Jol
and Bristow, 2003).
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
13 Martin Robinson et al.

Figure 5. An interpreted 200 MHz GPR profile across a normal fault at Piano di Pezza in the Italian Apennines (modified from Jewel and Bristow, 2004).

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar 14

Figure 6. 200 MHz GPR profiles across sand dunes a linear dune in Namibia to investigate the internal structure of linear dunes (Bristow et al., 2005).
British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
15 Martin Robinson et al.

Figure 7. 200 MHz GPR profile across a gravel beach ridge, Waitaki coast, South Island, New Zealand (Dickson et al. 2009). Although
saline sea-water will normally attenuate the GPR signal, this coarse grained, well drained gravel beach combined with high rainfall means
that sea-water is flushed from the beach sediments permitting imaging of beach progrades and washovers.
British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar 16

Figure 8. Site photograph accompanied by a 10m x 7m grid surveyed with 200MHz antennas, figures for scale (adapted from Jol et al., 2003).
The depth of penetration (approx. 12m) and resolution of <0.2m can be compared with the 50MHz profile of the same outcrop shown in Figure 3
where depth of penetration is approx. 30m with resolution approx. 1m.

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
17 Martin Robinson et al.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9. Image indicates how a GPR profile (a) can be interpreted to identify radar sequence boundaries (b) to derive a relative
chronology (c) and select sites for optical dating to constrain rates of dune migration (Bristow et al., 2005).

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar 18

Figure 10. Annotated 100MHz GPR profile collected across part of a sand bar in the
Jamuna / Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh (adapted from Best et al., 2003).

Figure 9 shows a GPR profile across a sand
dune in the Namib Sand Sea from Bristow et
al. (2005). The top panel (Figure 9a) shows
the GPR profile with topographic correction.
The second panel (Figure 9b) shows
reflection terminations marked by small
arrows with truncation where arrows point up,
and downlap where arrows point down. The
radar sequence boundaries which are picked
out in red mark breaks in deposition. On the
basis of superposition and cross-cutting
relationships a relative chronology is derived
numbers 1 to 22 in the yellow shaded section
(Figure 9c). The interpreted GPR profile has
been used to select sample points for dating
in order to determine the rate of migration of
the sand dune (Bristow et al., 2005).
Another common interpretation strategy is to
identify reflection patterns with similar

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
19 Martin Robinson et al.
geometry which are termed radar facies (Jol
and Bristow 2003). An example of radar
facies interpretation is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10 shows a 100MHz GPR profile
collected across part of a sand bar in the
Jamuna/Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh.
Three different reflection patterns have been
identified and interpreted as radar facies,
including: discontinuous concave reflections
from sets of trough cross-stratification
produced by dune bedforms migrating across
the top of the sand bar; inclined tangential
reflections from the lee-side slipface on the
downstream margin of the bar migrating
obliquely across the channel; continuous
undulating reflections from scour and fill at
the base of the channel (Best et al., 2003).
The source of all signals should always be
questioned. Novice users tend to incorrectly
assume that all GPR responses originate
from the subsurface. Airwave events,
features associated with energy that
propagates through the air and gets reflected
back to the GPR receiver, can originate from
above ground objects including fences,
telephone poles and overhead wires (Annan,
2005). Such lateral reflections of the airwave
can appear as hyperbolic features on a GPR
profile (See Figure 2). Survey areas should
be checked for potential sources of airwave
events. If a potential source is found, profile
lines should be run towards and away from
the object to assess its effect on the GPR
output. Users should always treat shielded
antenna data with doubt as antenna shielding
is never fully effective (Annan, 2005).
Case Study: Determining Peat
Thickness using GPR
Aim of the Study
GPR was used to determine the thickness of
peat at a site in Northern Ireland. The aim of
the study was to rapidly acquire continuous
peat thickness data for a profile located on an
upland blanket bog (a peatland up to 6m
deep) situated approximately 9km north-west
of the town of Dungiven (Co.Derry). The site,
a gently sloping hill facing the north and
north-west, has an average topographical
height of approximately 210mAOD. The
underlying geology of the bog is psammite
and pelite, with a superficial geology of sandy
silt and sandy clay.
British Society for Geomorphology
Existing studies (Table 1) suggest that GPR
can be used effectively to identify the
subsurface contact point between the base of
the peat and drift material.
Survey Design
50 MHz antennas were used to ensure the
maximum depth of the peat would be
identifiable (~6m). Although the average peat
thickness for the site was approximately
1.5m, blanket bogs can reach depths of 6m.
The employment of an antenna frequency of
100MHz, reaching an approximate depth of
5m (Table 3), may have resulted in the target
(peat and subsoil interface) not being
detected.
The survey was completed using a MALÅ 50
MHz Rough Terrain Antenna (RTA). The
flexible snake-like design of the antenna
(comprising both a transmitter and receiver)
provides optimum results in difficult
environments, with the equipment allowing
the operator to perform a survey without
having to clear an access route. This system
is therefore ideal for surveying peatlands
affected by turf cutting (removal of peat for
fuel or horticulture).
Continuous data collection was used in this
survey, with a step size therefore not being
specified. A time window of 405ns was
employed, with the time trigger interval being
every half second and traces being stacked
by 16 - settings were selected based on the
experience of GPR users at Queen’s
University Belfast. The antennas of the MALÅ
system have a fixed separation meaning the
EM wave velocity could not be determined
using CMP sounding. Velocity was
determined through the manual probing of
the transect line, a process providing
accurate information on the depth of the
subsurface reflector. A series of connected
probes were driven into the peat until a
significant change in resistance was
encountered. The peat probe was then
removed and measured using a tape. Using
the thickness of the peat and the basal
reflection on the GPR profile, a velocity of
0.037mns-1 was calculated.
Due to the survey environment, it was not
possible to collect data in a straight line.
Differential global positioning system (dGPS)
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar 20

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 11. (a) Unprocessed radargram of case study transect; (b) Processed radargram of case study transect; (c) Processed radargram of
case study transect with base of peat labelled.
British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
21 Martin Robinson et al.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. (a) Processed radargram of case study transect section (200m - 400m); (b)
Processed radargram of case study transect section (200m - 400m) with base of peat labelled

points were collected approximately every accentuating stratigraphic horizon continuity

20m along the profile using a Leica SR530
rover system, with the degree of sinuosity in
the survey line being investigated in ArcGIS.
It was determined that each dGPS point, on
average, deviated from the predetermined
survey line by approximately 2.50m, with the
greatest deviation being 8.07m. This degree
of sinuosity in the profile was deemed
acceptable, considering the extent of large-
scale vegetation and safety issues related to
historical peat cutting.
Data Processing
Minimal processing was applied to the
collected data before interpretation. De-
wowing and time-zero correction were
automatically applied to the data. Automatic
gain control (AGC) was employed,
in the radargram. Background subtraction, a
common processing step, was then applied,
removing noise from the data. Down-the-
trace averaging (running average) was used
to reduce random noise, acting as a low pass
filter.
Visualising Processed Data
The data from the transect has been
presented in the form of a radargram, with
Figures 11a and 11b showing the
unprocessed and processed data,
respectively. Figure 11c shows the processed
radargram, annotated with a broken line
indicating the estimated base of the peat.
Figures 12a and 12b show a subsection of
the line, allowing reflections to be viewed in

British Society for Geomorphology Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
greater detail. Depth scale was determined
using manual probe measurements.
The radargram was printed, with the first
continuous major reflection, the contact
between the base of the peat and drift
material, being traced. Although the data
were not collected within close proximity of
any metallic fencing or buildings, the profile
was situated adjacent to a nearby windfarm,
with the closest turbine being approximately
200m. The wind turbine, located
approximately 150m along the profile, does
not appear to have a noticeable impact on
the radargram. This is due to the exponential
decay of the emitted EM wave, with Table 3
clearly indicating that the footprint of a
50MHz antenna would not incorporate a wind
turbine located over 200m from the survey
line.
Summary
The brief case study provided shows how
GPR can be successfully utilised in
environmental studies, providing a noise created by diffractions from small ice
continuous profile of varying peat thickness
values for a selected case study site. Minimal
processing was successfully used to indicate
the boundary between overlying peat and the
superficial geology, with the visualised profile
being very useful in peatland studies.
Advantages and Limitations
A major advantage of GPR is that the scale
of resolvable features can range from several
centimetres to hundreds of metres using a
selection of available antennas (Mellet,
1995). GPR systems have the ability to
rapidly collect large amounts of continuous
subsurface data (Hruska et al., 1999;
Doolittle and Collins, 1995). Most GPR
techniques also allow acquired data to be
reviewed on-site for quality control purposes
(Mellet, 1995). The ability to use remote non-
contacting tranducers of radiated energy, as
opposed to ground contacting types needed
for seismic studies, is a significant advantage
that GPR has over seismic techniques.
A significant limitation of GPR is that the
antennas transmit and receive EM energy in
a complex 3D cone, with reflections
originating from anywhere on the radar wave
front (Neal, 2004). The impression that a
British Society for Geomorphology
22
reflection on a 2D radar profile is obtained
from directly beneath the survey point is
incorrect. Out-of-plane reflections from
isolated point reflectors and reflector surfaces
(known as “side swipes”) are difficult to
identify on reflection profiles (Neal, 2004).
This can lead to errors in depth estimation
and interpretation (Olhoeft, 1998) - see
Figures 2 and 3 for examples of out of plane,
airwave reflections.
A major limitation of GPR is that the
performance of a system can be seriously
affected by the environment it is surveying,
with conductive soils strongly attenuating EM
waves. Rapp and Hill (2006) states that a
100MHz GPR can penetrate approximately
15m of dry sandy soil or sediment compared
to as little as 1m of wet clayey soil. The rapid
attenuation of EM waves by conductive fine-
grained sediments can produce high
frequency ringing which can subsequently
obscure primary reflections (Neal, 2004).
Moorman et al. (2003) indicates that
problems can occur when using GPR to
survey permafrost environments, with the
lenses resulting in deeper structures being
masked. Another problem is that limitations
that are dependent on the applied data
collection configuration cannot be overcome
once the basic GPR survey data has been
collected (Neal, 2004).
Conclusion
GPR, a geophysical technique with
multidisciplinary applications, has become a
valuable tool in sedimentological studies.
This article has provided good practice
guidelines on the collection, processing and
interpretation of GPR data. A variety of
survey design factors were proposed
including operating frequency, temporal
sampling interval, step size and antenna
separation. Basic data processing steps have
been reviewed, with information also being
provided on data visualisation and
interpretation. Possible applications of GPR
in geomorphological research have been
presented, with a case study outlining how
GPR has been used to measure peat
thickness being provided.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
23 Martin Robinson et al.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Alastair Ruffell and
Dr. Jennifer McKinley for their guidance
during the preparation of this article. Special
thanks go to Prof. Charlie Bristow for
providing some excellent GPR images from a
range of environmental settings - they are
greatly appreciated.
References
Annan AP. 2009. Electromagnetic principles
of ground penetrating radar. In Ground
penetrating radar: theory and applications,
Jol HM (ed). Elsevier: Amsterdam; 3-40.
Annan AP. 2005. Ground-penetrating radar.
In Near surface geophysics, Butler DK (ed).
Society of exploration geophysicists: Tulsa,
Investigations in Geophysics 13; 357-438.
Annan AP. 2001. Ground penetrating radar
workshop notes. Sensors and Software Inc:
Mississauga.
Annan AP and Cosway SW. 1994. GPR
frequency selection. In Proceedings of the
fifth international conference on ground
penetrating radar, Redman JD (ed). Waterloo
Centre for Groundwater Research: Kitchener;
747-760.
Appleby JR, Brook MS, Vale SS and
MacDonald-Creevey AM. 2010. Structural
glaciology of a temperate maritime glacier:
Lower Fox glacier, New Zealand.
Geografiska annaler: series a, physical
geography 92: 451-467.
Ashworth PJ, Sambrook Smith GH, Best JL,
Bridge JS, Lane SN, Lunt IA, Reesink AJH,
Simpson CJ and Thomas RE. 2011.
Evolution and sedimentology of a channel fill
in the sandy braided South Saskatchewan
River and its comparison to the deposits of
an adjacent compound
bar. Sedimentology 58: 1860-1883.
Baker GS, Jordan TE and Pardy J. 2007. An
introduction to ground penetrating radar
(GPR). The geological society of America
special papers 432: 1-18.
Barnhardt WA and Sherrod BL. 2006.
Evolution of a Holocene delta driven by
episodic sediment delivery and coseismic
deformation, Puget Sound, Washington,
USA. Sedimentology 53: 1211-1228.
British Society for Geomorphology
Benediktsson ÍÖ, Ingólfsson Ó, Schomacker
A and Kjær KH. 2009. Formation of
submarginal and proglacial end moraines:
implications of ice-flow mechanism during the
1963-64 surge of Búarjökull, Iceland. Boreas
38: 440-457.
Bennett MR, Cassidy NJ and Pile J. 2009.
Internal structure of a barrier beach as
revealed by ground penetrating radar (GPR):
Chesil beach, UK. Geomorphology 104: 218-
229.
Best JL, Ashworth PJ, Bristow CS and Roden
J., 2003. Three dimensional sedimentary
architecture of a large, mid-channel sand
braid bar, Jamuna River, Bangladesh.
Journal of sedimentary research 73: 516-530.
Bhosle B, Parkash B, Awasthi AK, Singh VN
and Singh S. 2007. Remote sensing-GIS and
GPR studies of two active faults, Western
Gangetic Plains, India. Journal of applied
geophysics 61: 155-164.
Bristow CS. 2013. Ground penetrating radar.
In Treatise on geomorphology, vol 14,
Shroder JF (ed). Academic Press: San
Diego; 183-194.
Bristow CS. 2009. Ground penetrating radar
in aeolian dune sands. In Ground penetrating
radar: theory and applications, Jol HM (ed).
Elsevier: Amsterdam; 273-298.
Bristow CS and Pucillo K. 2006. Quantifying
rates of coastal progradation from sediment
volume using GPR and OSL: the Holocene fill
of Guichen Bay, south-east South Australia.
Sedimentology 53: 769-788.
Bristow CS, Augustinus PC, Wallis IC, Jol
HM and Rhodes EJ. 2010. Investigation of
the age and migration of reversing dunes in
Antarctica using GPR and OSL, with
implications for GPR on Mars. Earth and
planetary science letters 289: 30-42.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.10.026
Bristow CS, Duller GAT and Lancaster N.
2007. Age and dynamics of linear dunes in
the Namib Desert. Geology 35:555-558.
Bristow CS, Lancaster N and Duller GAT.
2005. Combining ground penetrating radar
surveys and optical dating to determine dune
migration in Namibia. Journal of the
geological society 162(2): 315-322.
Bristow CS, Bailey SD and Lancaster N.
2000. The sedimentary structure of linear
sand dunes. Nature 406: 56-59.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
Brunzell H. 1999. Detection of shallowly
buried objects using impulse radar. IEEE
transactions on geoscience and remote
sensing 37: 875-886.
Buynevich IV, Filho PWMS and Asp NE.
2010. Dune advance into a coastal forest,
equatorial Brazil: A subsurface perspective.
Aeolian research 2: 27-32.
Cassidy NJ. 2009. Ground penetrating radar
data processing, modelling and analysis. In
Ground penetrating radar: theory and
applications, Jol HM (ed). Elsevier:
Amsterdam; 141-176.
Christie M, Tsoflias GP, Stockli DF and Black
R. 2009. Assessing fault displacement and
off-fault deformation in an extensional
tectonic setting using 3-D ground-penetrating
radar imaging. Journal of applied geophysics
68: 9-16.
Clemmensen LB, Nielsen L, Bendixen M and
Murray A. 2012. Morphology and
sedimentary architecture of a beach-ridge
system (Anholt, the Kattegat sea): a record of
punctuated coastal progradation and sea-
level change over the past ~1000 years.
Boreas 41: 422-434.
Comas X, Slater L and Reeve A. 2011. Pool
patterning in a northern peatland:
geophysical evidence for the role of
postglacial landforms. Journal of hydrology
399: 173-184.
Comas X, Slater L and Reeve A. 2005.
Stratigraphic controls on pool formation in a
domed bog inferred from ground penetrating
radar (GPR). Journal of hydrology 315: 40-
51.
Comas X, Slater L and Reeve A. 2004.
Geophysical evidence for peat basin
morphology and stratigraphic controls on
vegetation observed in a northern peatland.
Journal of hydrology 295: 173-184.
Conyers LB (2013) Ground-penetrating radar
for archaeology (3rd edition). AltaMira Press:
Plymouth.
Daniels DJ. 2004. Ground penetrating radar
(2nd edition). The Institution of Electrical
Engineers: London.
Daniels DJ, Gunton DJ and Scott HF. 1988.
Introduction to subsurface radar. IEE
proceedings f: radar and signal processing
135: 278–320.
British Society for Geomorphology
24
De Oliveira MAT, Porsani JL, de Lima GL,
Jeske-Pieruschka V and Behling H. 2012.
Upper Pleistocene to Holocene peatland
evolution in Southern Brazilian highlands as
depicted by radar stratigraphy, sedimentology
and palynology. Quaternary research 77:
397-407.
Degenhardt JJ. 2009. Development of
tongue-shaped and multilobate rock glaciers
in alpine environments – interpretations from
ground penetrating radar surveys.
Geomorphology 109: 94-107.
Dickson ME, Bristow CS, Hicks DM, Jol H,
Stapleton J, Todd D. 2009. Beach volume on
an eroding sand–gravel coast determined
using ground penetrating radar. Journal of
coastal research 25: 1149-1159.
Doolittle JA and Collins ME. 1995. Use of soil
information to determine application of
ground penetrating radar. Journal of applied
geophysics 33: 101-108.
Gibbard PL, West RG, Boreham S and Rolfe
CJ. 2012. Late Middle Pleistocene ice-
marginal sedimentation in East Anglia,
England. Boreas 41: 319-336.
Grasmueck M, Weger R and Horstmeyer H.
2005. Full resolution 3D GPR imaging.
Geophysics 70: k12-k19.
Gutsell JE, Clague JJ, Best ME, Bobrowsky
PT and Hutchinson I. 2004. Architecture and
evolution of a fjord-head delta, western
Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal
of Quaternary science 19: 497-511.
Harari Z. 1996. Ground-penetrating radar
(GPR) for imaging stratigraphic features and
groundwater in sand dunes. Journal of
applied geophysics 36: 43-52.
Hart JK, Rose KC and Martinez K. 2011.
Temporal englacial water content variability
associated with a rapidly retreating glacier.
Earth surface processes and landforms 36:
1230-1239.
Holden J, Burt TP and Vilas M. 2002.
Application of ground-penetrating radar to the
identification of subsurface piping in blanket
peat. Earth surface processes and landforms
27: 235-249.
Hruska J, Cermák J and Sustek S. 1999.
Mapping tree root systems with ground-
penetrating radar. Tree physiology 19: 125-
130.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
25 Martin Robinson et al.
Irvine-Fynn TDL, Moorman BJ, Williams JLM
and Walter FSA. 2006. Seasonal changes in
ground-penetrating radar signature observed
at a polythermal glacier, Bylot Island,
Canada. Earth surface processes and
landforms 31: 892-909.
Jewell C and Bristow CS. 2004. GPR studies
in the Piano di Pezza area of the Ovindoli-
Pezza Fault, Central Apennines, Italy:
Extending palaeoseismic trench
investigations with high resolution GPR.
Proceedings of the Tenth International
Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar,
Delft, The Netherlands: 555-558 IEEEXplore.
Johnson BA and Carpenter PJ. In Press.
Geophysical response of slackwater and
sandy terrace deposits near Savanna,
Northwestern Illinois. Environmental earth
sciences. DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-1798-5
Jol HM and Bristow CS. 2003. GPR in
sediments: advice on data collection, basic
processing and interpretation, a good
practice guide. In Ground penetrating radar in
sediments, Bristow CS and Jol HM (eds).
Geological Society: London, Special
Publication 211; 9-28.
Jol HM and Smith DG. 1991. Ground
penetrating radar of northern lacustrine
deltas. Canadian journal of earth sciences
28: 1939-1947.
Jol HM, Bristow CS, Smith DG, Junck B and
Putnam P. 2003. Stratigraphic imaging of the
Navajo Sandstone using ground-penetrating
radar. The leading edge, September 2003:
882-887.
Kettridge N, Comas X, Baird A, Slater L,
Strack M, Thompson D, Jol H and Binley A.
2008. Ecohydrologically important subsurface
structures in peatlands revealed by ground-
penetrating radar and complex conductivity
surveys [on-line]. Journal of geophysical
research 113.
Kim KY, Lee J, Hong MH, Hong JK, Jin YK
and Shon H. 2010. Seismic and radar
investigations of Fourcade Glacier on King
George Island, Antarctica. Polar research 29:
298-310.
Kostic B and Aigner T. 2007. Sedimentary
architecture and 3D ground-penetrating radar
analysis of gravelly meandering river deposits
(Neckar Valley, SW Germany).
Sedimentology 54: 789-808.
British Society for Geomorphology
Langston G, Bentley LR, Hayashi M,
McClymont A and Pidlisecky A. 2011. Internal
structure and hydrological functions of an
alpine proglacial moraine. Hydrological
processes 25: 2967-2982.
Leckebusch J. 2003. Ground-penetrating
radar: a modern three-dimensional
prospection method. Archaeological
Prospection 10: 213-240.
Leopold M, Williams MW, Caine N, Völkel J
and Dethier D. 2011. Internal structure of the
Green Lake 5 rock glacier, Colorado Front
Range, USA. Permafrost and periglacial
processes 22: 107-119.
Lowry CS, Fratta D and Anderson MP. 2009.
Ground penetrating radar and spring
formation in a groundwater dominated peat
wetland. Journal of hydrology 373: 68-79.
Lunt IA and Bridge JS. 2004. Evolution and
deposits of a gravelly braid bar,
Sagavanirktok River, Alaska. Sedimentology
51: 415-432.
Malik JN, Sahoo AK, Shah AA, Shinde DP,
Juyal N and Singhvi AK. 2010. Paleoseismic
evidence from trench investigation along
Hajipur fault, Himalayan Frontal Thrust, NW
Himalaya: implications of the faulting pattern
on landscape evolution and seismic hazard.
Journal of structural geology 32: 350-361.
Mellet JS.1995. Ground penetrating radar
applications in engineering, environmental
management, and geology. Journal of
applied geophysics 33: 157-166.
Monnier S, Camerlynck C, Rejiba F, Kinnard
C, Feuillet T and Dhemaied A. 2011.
Structure and genesis of the Thabor rock
glacier (Northern French Alps) determined
from morphological and ground-penetrating
radar surveys. Geomorphology 134: 269-279.
Moorman BJ, Robinson SD and Burgess MM.
2003. Imaging periglacial conditions with
ground-penetrating radar. Permafrost and
periglacial processes 14: 319-329.
Murray T and Booth AD. 2010. Imaging
glacial sediment inclusions in 3-D using
ground-penetrating radar at Kongsvegen,
Svalbard. Journal of Quaternary science 25:
754-761.
Neal A. 2004. Ground-penetrating radar and
its use in sedimentology: principles, problems
and progress. Earth science reviews 66: 261-
330.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)
 Ground Penetrating Radar
Nielsen L and Clemmensen LB. 2009. Sea-
level markers identified in ground-penetrating
radar data collected across a modern beach
ridge system in a microtidal regime. Terra
nova 21: 474-479.
Nobes DC, Ferguson RJ and Brierley GJ.
2001. Ground-penetrating radar and
sedimentological analysis of Holocene
floodplains: insight from the Tuross valley,
New South Wales. Australian journal of earth
sciences 48: 347-355.
Noon DA and Narayanan RM. 2002.
Subsurface remote sensing. In Review of
radio science 1999-2002 Stone WR (ed).
Wiley-IEEE: USA; 535-552.
Olhoeft GR. 1998. Electrical, magnetic and
geometric properties that determine ground
penetrating radar performance. Proceedings
of GPR’98, seventh international conference
on ground penetrating radar. University of
Kansas: Lawrence; 477-483.
Olson D, Kennedy DM, Dawe I and Calder M.
In Press. Decadal-scale gravel beach
evolution on a tectonically-uplifting coast:
Wellington, New Zealand. Earth surface
processes and landforms. DOI:
10.1002/esp.3233
Pantosti D, D’Addezio G and Cinti FR. 1996.
Paleoseismicity of the Ovindoli-Pezza fault,
central Apennines, Italy: a history including a
large, previously unrecorded earthquake in
the Middle Ages (860–1300 A.D.). Journal of
geophysical research: solid earth 101(B3):
5937–5960.
Pascucci V, Martini IP and Endres AL. 2009.
Facies and ground-penetrating radar
characteristics of coarse-grained beach
deposits of the uppermost Pleistocene glacial
Lake Algonquin, Ontario, Canada.
Sedimentology 56: 529-545.
Plado J, Sibul I, Mustasaar M and Jõeleht A.
2011. Ground-penetrating radar study of the
Rahivere peat bog, eastern Estonia. Estonian
journal of earth sciences 60: 31-42.
Powers MH. 1997. Modelling frequency-
dependent GPR. The leading edge 16: 1657-
1662.
Rapp G and Hill CL. 2006. Geoarchaeology:
the earth-science approach to archaeological
interpretation (2nd edition). Yale University
Press: London.
British Society for Geomorphology
26
Rice SP, Church M, Wooldridge CL and
Hickin EJ. 2009. Morphology and evolution of
bars in a wandering gravel-bed river; lower
Fraser river, British Columbia, Canada.
Sedimentology 56: 709-736.
Rosa E, Larocque M, Pellerin S, Gagné S
and Fournier B. 2009. Determining the
number of manual measurements required to
improve peat thickness estimations by
ground penetrating radar. Earth surface
processes and landforms 34: 377-383.
Serma AIA and Setan H. 2009. Ground
penetrating radar (GPR) for subsurface
mapping: preliminary result. Geoinformation
science journal 9: 45-62.
Słowik M. 2011. Reconstructing migration
phases of meandering channels by means of
ground-penetrating radar (GPR): the case of
the Obra River, Poland. Journal of soils and
sediments 11: 1262-1278.
Tamura T, Kodama Y, Bateman MD, Saitoh
Y, Watanabe K, Matsumoto D and
Yamaguchi N. 2011. Coastal barrier dune
construction during sea-level highstands in
MIS 3 and 5a on Tottori coast-line, Japan.
Palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology,
palaeoecology 308: 492-501.
Vriend NM, Hunt ML and Clayton RW. 2012.
Sedimentary structure of large sand dunes:
examples from Dumont and Eureka dunes,
California. Geophysical journal international
190: 981-992.
Geomorphological Techniques, Part 1, Sec. 5.5 (2013)