Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics; December 2006; v. 11; issue. p. 269-287; DOI: 10.2113/JEEG11.4.269
© 2006 Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clement, W. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Research Article

Issues During the Inversion of Crosshole Radar Data: Can We Have Confidence in the Outcome?

William P. Clement

Center for the Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725 billc{at}cgiss.boisestate.edu

One method of assessing the confidence in modeled features is to compare the results from different inversion schemes. I use synthetic traveltimes calculated from a model of an unconfined aquifer to determine the reliability of crosshole tomography. I compare the inverted models from straight and curved ray approximations to wave propagation. I investigate the effects of added random noise, regularization, the starting model, and the reference model on the curved ray inversion method. I also investigate the effects of different grid sizes for the forward model and of limited ray coverage through the earth model. Understanding the effects of these different methods and parameterizations will help place confidence limits on modeled features to more accurately reflect our knowledge of the subsurface. Straight or curved ray approximations to wave propagation resulted in similar models. However, the resolution estimates are substantially different and would lead to different assessments of the model reliability. Comparisons of the different choices for the model parameterization show that the resulting models are similar, indicating that tomography is a robust method. The most important factor to obtain reliable parameter estimates from crosshole radar tomography is to acquire wide aperture, densely sampled data with little noise.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society