GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 65, NO. 1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2000); P. 113125, 11 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

Synthesis of amplitude-versus-offset variations in ground-penetrating radar data

Xiaoxian Zeng , George A. McMechan , and Tong Xu

numerical modeling tools required for systematic study have become available only recently. Including analysis of GPR amplitude data in environmental and engineering site evaluations and in geologic applications potentially constrains the range of possible interpretations. One way to investigate the relations between the recorded amplitudes and the distribution of electromagnetic properties that produced them is through numerical simulations for simple models. Numerical modeling algorithms for two- or three-dimensional (2-D or 3-D) electromagnetic responses at GPR frequencies have been presented by a number of authors. These algorithms range from ray-based methods (Goodman, 1994; Cai and McMechan, 1995; Powers and Olhoeft, 1996) to integral equation solutions (Xiong and Tripp, 1997a, b) to Fourier methods (Powers and Olhoeft, 1994, 1995; Zeng et al., 1995; Carcione, 1996) and time-domain nite differencing (Yee, 1966; Luebbers et al., 1990; Maloney et al., 1990; Tirkas and Balanis, 1992; Livelybrooks and Fullagar, 1994; Roberts and Daniels, 1994; Casper and Kung, 1996; Wang and Tripp, 1996; Xu and McMechan, 1997; Bergmann et al., 1998). In most of these papers, attenuation of GPR waves is considered to be produced only by electrical conductivity, because it is usually the primary attenuation mechanism (ignoring dielectric and magnetic relaxations), or the relaxations are included in an effective conductivity that is proportional to frequency. For examples of the latter, see Turner and Siggins (1994) and Casper and Kung (1996). Previous studies have considered numerical and analytic solutions for normal incidence reection coefcients as a function of frequency (Luebbers et al., 1990; Luebbers, 1992), scattering by targets of specic geometry (Britt, 1989; Carcione, 1996; Xu and McMechan, 1997), or resonant modes in thin layers (Rossiter et al., 1975). A few examples of multioffset GPR simulations exist (e.g., Xiong and Tripp, 1997a, b). However, we could nd no systematic study of reections from an interface as a function of offset, except for variations of single parameters such as conductivity (e.g., Turner, 1992). As the

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the importance of amplitude-versus-offset information in the interpretation of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data, GPR reections are synthesized as a function of antenna separation using a 2.5-D nitedifference solution of Maxwells equations. The conductivity, the complex dielectric permittivity, and the complex magnetic permeability are varied systematically in nine suites of horizontally layered models. The source used is a horizontal transverse-electric dipole situated at the air-earth interface. Cole-Cole relaxation mechanisms dene the frequency dependence of the media. Reection magnitudes and their variations with antenna separation differ substantially, depending on the contrast in electromagnetic properties that caused the reection. The spectral character of the dielectric and magnetic relaxations produces only second-order variations in reection coefcients compared with those associated with contrasts in permittivity, conductivity, and permeability, so they may not be separable even when they are detected. In typical earth materials, attenuation of propagating GPR waves is inuenced most strongly by conductivity, followed by dielectric relaxation, followed by magnetic relaxation. A pervasive feature of the simulated responses is a locally high amplitude associated with the critical incident angle at the air-earth interface in the antenna radiation pattern. Full waveeld simulations of two eld data sets from a uvial/eolian environment are able to reproduce the main amplitude behaviors observed in the data.

INTRODUCTION

Amplitude information rarely is used explicitly in interpretation of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data because the

Manuscript received by the Editor September 2, 1997; Revised manuscript received May 28, 1999. The University of Texas at Dallas, Center for Lithospheric Studies, P.O. Box 830688 (FA31), Richardson, Texas 75083-0688. E-mail: zeng@utdallas. edu; mcmec@utdallas.edu. Formerly The University of Texas at Dallas, Center for Lithospheric Studies, P.O. Box 830688 (FA31), Richardson, Texas 75083-0688; currently Texaco Exploration and Production Technology, 3901 Briarpark, Houston, Texas 77042. E-mail: xut@texaco.com. c 2000 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved. 113

114

Zeng et al.

requisite numerical tools are now available for more comprehensive studies of GPR amplitude, the time is right to perform such calculations. The results of the numerical simulations presented below show that the use of the offset dependence of amplitude is potentially a useful diagnostic element in interpretation of GPR data. For the purpose of understanding amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) data, it is useful to consider separately the effects of the complex dielectric permittivity ( ), the complex magnetic permeability ( ), and the conductivity ( ) on the propagation and reection of GPR waves. We represent the frequency dependence of and by using the four-parameter empirical description of Cole and Cole (1941). The Cole-Cole parameterization is common in laboratory studies of frequencydependent electric properties (e.g., Olhoeft and Capron, 1993) but has been used only rarely in numerical modeling of GPR data; exceptions are the algorithms of Powers and Olhoeft (1996), Powers (1996), and Xu and McMechan (1997). The Cole-Cole parameterization potentially allows AVO analysis of common-reection-point GPR gathers for interpretation of electromagnetic material properties, following procedures similar to those used for extraction of elastic or viscoelastic properties in reection seismology (Castagna and Backus, 1993; Allen and Peddy, 1993). Our goal in this paper is to investigate and analyze the main AVO behaviors in GPR data through a limited suite of synthetic examples, and thereby to determine the relative effects of the various electromagnetic properties on observed amplitudes.
NUMERICAL MODELING

The behavior of the magnetic relaxation can be treated using the same empirical form as for dielectric relaxation (Olhoeft, 1972; Olhoeft and Strangway, 1974; Olhoeft and Capron, 1994) with the magnetic permeability variables , , , 0 , l , , , and replacing the dielectric permittivity variables , , , 0 , l , , , and , respectively, in equation (1), where 0 = 4 107 H/m. The relaxation frequencies used for all the models are (radians/s) = 2 (radians) 125 106 (Hz), and = 2 67 106 (radians/s), which are representative of values measured in soils (Olhoeft and Capron, 1993). In the nite-difference solution, the relaxation mechanisms are included through memory variables (Carcione, 1996; Xu and McMechan, 1997; Bergmann et al., 1998) which replace convolution between the electromagnetic elds and the time-varying material properties. In a material with no relaxation mechanisms, the effective relative permittivity and permeability are constant, with values (l )/2 and (l )/2, respectively, as obtained by setting = 0 in equation (1). Attenuation still may occur if the medium is conductive. Most of the models considered below have at least one element with = 0.

Model parameterization For numerical modeling, we use the 2.5-D staggered-grid nite-difference solution of Maxwells equations described by Xu and McMechan (1997). This scheme explicitly includes attenuation and dispersion associated with dielectric and magnetic relaxations as well as conductivity. Relaxations are modeled using only two Cole-Cole functions for each material in the model; this corresponds to only one distribution for dielectric relaxation and one for magnetic relaxation in each material. The complex dielectric permittivity is expressed through the empirical Cole and Cole (1941) formula

() = () + () = 0 +

0 (l ) 1 + (i/ )

(1)

where and are the real and imaginary parts of ; 0 is the dielectric permittivity in a vacuum (0 = 8.854 1012 F/m); 0 1; i = 1; is the relaxation radial frequency; and l and are the relative dielectric permittivities at very low and very high frequencies, respectively. denes the width of the frequency-dependent transition between the high- and low-frequency limits of () (Figure 1). = 1 corresponds to a single Debye relaxation mechanism; < 1 corresponds to a distribution of mechanisms centered around . The four parameters l , , , and describe the dependence of on the radial frequency of the source . The real and imaginary parts of the relative dielectric permittivity ( /0 ) for a typical earth material are shown in Figure 1. In some soils, such as iron-enriched sand, the magnetic permeability is also a complex, frequency-dependent parameter.

FIG. 1. Frequency dependence of the (a) real and (b) imaginary parts of the complex relative dielectric permittivity ( /0 ) of a typical earth material. The curves are given by the Cole-Cole equation (1) using l = 9.0, = 6.0, and = 2 radians 125 MHz. The label on each curve pair is the corresponding value of . The real part of ( /0 ) denes the velocity dispersion; the ratio of the imaginary part to the real part is the loss tangent, which denes the attenuation. The maximum attenuation occurs near (Gueguen and Palciauskas, 1994).

AVO in GPR Data

115

Dipole source denition We consider only horizontal electric dipole antennae placed at the air-earth interface (the free surface) for both transmitters and receivers. These dipoles are oriented transverse to the (x z) plane of the computational grid (with long axes perpendicular to the prole, in the y direction). The dipole source is dened by specifying a nonzero component of source current (Jy ) at the source location (Xu and McMechan, 1997); the dipole antenna radiation pattern is a consequence of the free-surface boundary conditions (e.g., Annan, 1973; Engheta et al., 1982) and thus implicitly changes as the (complex) properties of the uppermost earth layer change (Turner, 1994). The maximum radiation is in the (x z) plane, at the critical angle of c = sin1 (n 1 ), where n is the refractive index of the earth material below the air, and angle c is measured from vertical in the (x z) plane. At angles beyond c , a critically refracted head wave travels along the free surface with the air velocity (Clough, 1976). Superimposing 2-D solutions for different horizontal wavenumbers (k y ) simulates 3-D geometric spreading for a nitelength dipole oriented perpendicular to the (x z) plane (Xu and McMechan, 1997). We used 0 k y 4, with k y = 1, as suggested by Livelybrooks and Fullagar (1994). With the parameters listed below, a common-source gather (for one k y ) is produced in about ve minutes in a single 167-MHz Ultrasparc processor. Simulation parameters The model grid used was 230 450 points with a 2-cm increment (4.6 m in depth and 9.0 m in the horizontal direction), excluding 1 point on all four edges used for implementing Murs (1981) second-order absorbing boundary condition. The models were run for 1800 time steps with an increment of 0.04 ns, for a total time of 72 ns. These space and time steps satisfy the stability and grid-dispersion criteria (Petropoulos, 1994) in all the models used. At least 10 grid points per wavelength are recommended (e.g., Kunz and Luebbers, 1993); our examples consistently exceed this at the dominant frequency, usually by more than a factor of two. Except where stated otherwise, the simulations below are for a band-limited (Ricker) source time wavelet with a dominant frequency of 200 MHz; where higher frequencies are used, the computation parameters are scaled proportionally. Processing and plotting format To remove any problems caused by direct waves interfering with the target reection, the response of a homogeneous halfspace with the properties of the upper layer is subtracted from the simulation to isolate the reected phases. For display, each reection is attened (approximately) in time by a simple shift of each trace. The shift is dened by the predicted normal moveout curve for a reection created at 1.2-m depth using a velocity of 0.1074 m/ns (corresponding to a relative permittivity of 7.5, a relative permeability of 1.0, and no dispersion). This is done only for display purposes, but because it is identical for all examples, the relative moveout is preserved. A normal moveout correction (as typically done in seismic data processing) is not done because this would stretch the wavelets and hence distort the amplitude measurements.

For each trace, the AVO measurement consists of summing the square of the electric eld amplitude of the reection and its associated arrivals (e.g., the small head wave produced at the free surface). Then the square root of the sum is taken to get back to amplitude, which is plotted as a function of offset (Demirbag et al., 1993). This process results in an exceptionally robust measurement, but the polarity information is lost. Thus, polarity and waveshape (phase) information is described in the text where appropriate.
SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS OF GPR AVO CURVES

In this section, we use a at-layered earth model to examine the basic AVO responses in the absence of amplitude variations resulting from model geometry. Then the following section contains eld-data examples in which the primary behaviors are still visible but are distorted by various lateral variations in properties and by waveeld focusing and defocusing. All computed responses and the extracted AVO curves contain all the effects of the properties of the model and of the antenna radiation pattern. Nine suites of models are used to investigate amplitudeversus-offset behavior; all models have the same at-layer geometry consisting of an air layer above two layers of various earth materials. Each suite of models (and AVO responses) is obtained by perturbing a single parameter in either the layer or the half-space, while keeping all other parameters xed. In describing these models, all permittivity and permeability values are relative (i.e., = /0 and = /0 ). The properties of the air layer ( = 1.0; = 1.0; = 0.0) are the same in all models and so will not be considered further. The two earth layers are an upper layer of 1.2-m thickness and an underlying half-space; these are designated layers 1 and 2, respectively, and their properties are given in Table 1 for all models. Traces are computed for an aperture along the free surface of 0 to 5 m that is centered between the edges of the computational grid. This geometry corresponds to incidence angles at the reector of 0.0 to 64.34 . Because the reector is at, the AVO behavior in a common-source gather is equivalent to that in a common-reection-point gather, but it is much less expensive to compute. This section is divided into three main parts. First, we vary the properties of the half-space beneath the reector to produce suites of AVO curves to illustrate how these properties affect reectivity. Then we vary the properties of the layer between the reector and the free surface to illustrate the effects of the properties of that layer on propagation through it. Finally, we briey consider responses as a function of source frequency. Some of the scenarios considered go beyond the range of typical geologic material properties but are included for completeness because they address the important situation of buried anomalies that are the targets of engineering and environmental site evaluations. For example, a medium with a high normally would have high also, but varying a single parameter is more instructive regarding how each parameter affects the AVO response. Reection magnitudes and AVO curve shapes differ markedly, depending on the contrast in electromagnetic properties that caused the reection and on the properties of the overlying material. At any given offset, the geometric spreading is identical for all models and so does not contribute to AVO differences. Differences between the

116

Zeng et al.

observed and reference AVO responses commonly are used in seismic AVO studies (e.g. Chiburis, 1987; Allen and Peddy, 1993). Effects of the lower-layer properties on AVO observations Figure 2 shows four common-source GPR gathers computed for a range of dielectric permittivity values in the lower layer (model 1 in Table 1). Reection amplitudes increase as the contrast in permittivity increases, and the phase of the reected arrival is reversed when the sign of the contrast is reversed (e.g., Figures 3a and 3d). The reections in Figures 3c and 3d contain patterns of amplitude and phase changes that are associated with critical reections and head waves, even though the reectors have negative impedance contrasts. These critical reections are generated at the free surface, not at the subsurface reector, so their interpretation will be in error if they are attributed to a subsurface reector. An additional postcritical reection and head wave are produced at the subsurface reector when the impedance contrast is positive (Figure 3a). The AVO plot in Figure 4a shows that the position of the high-amplitude peak associated with critical reection at the free surface is independent of the properties of the bottom layer and remains stationary at about 1.9-m offset. However, the critical reection produced by a low-to-high impedance contrast at the reector moves to progressively shorter offset with increasing impedance of the lower layer. Such observations of critical angles at internal reectors are rare, but not impossible, in eld GPR data as permittivity generally increases with depth. The amplitude peaks in the other plots in Figure 4 also are associated with the free surface. Figures 4b and 4c show the AVO behavior as a function of conductivity and permeability in the lower layer (models 2 and 3, respectively, in Table 1). Normal-incidence reections from both conductivity and magnetic permeability contrasts were illustrated previously by Lazaro-Mancilla and Gomez Trevino (1994), who concluded that such reections could be similar in magnitude to those generated by contrasts in dielectric permittivity. Figures 4b and 4c extend the validity of this conclusion to nonnormal incidence although the relative amplitude decrease with increasing offset is more rapid for permeability than for conductivity. Although the common-source gathers are not shown for these examples, the polarity, wavelet shape, and overall behavior of the conductive model responses are similar to those of the large-permittivity models (e.g., Fig-

ures 3c and 3d), while the permeability model responses resemble the low-permittivity model responses (e.g., Figures 3a and 3b). This is expected because of the reciprocal positions of (or ) and in the expression for intrinsic electric impedance (e.g., Belanis, 1989):

Z=

i . + i

(2)

The polarity of reections from contrasts in any of , , or alone cannot be predicted without knowledge of the values of all the other parameters in Z , including . The reections from contrasts in dielectric and magnetic relaxations alone are not shown, but they have characteristics similar to reections from small positive contrasts in permittivity and permeability, respectively. The permittivity and permeability in the impedance (equation 2) are complex (equation 1), and so the effective impedance depends on both the imaginary and real parts of and . If = 0 and is pure real, the magnitude of the impedance corresponding to a ColeCole complex dielectric permittivity is (von Hipple, 1995)

|Z | =

1 + tan2

(3)

where tan is the loss tangent dened by the ratio / . For = 0 in equation (1), = 0, so there is no loss, and |Z | takes the maximum value. As tan , increases, |Z | decreases. Similarly, if = 0 and is pure real, the magnitude of the impedance corresponding to a Cole-Cole complex magnetic permeability is (von Hipple, 1995)

|Z | =

1 + tan2

(4)

where tan is the loss tangent dened by the ratio / . As tan increases, |Z | increases. Figures 4d and 4e contain the AVO curves for models 4 and 5, respectively (Table 1). In both models, increasing (equation 1) produces increasing contrast in impedance derived from (or ) and hence increasing reection amplitude, but the reection magnitudes are very small, even for = 1. As a consequence of the reciprocal behavior described above, the sign of the reection coefcient obtained by increasing tan through is opposite to that obtained by increasing tan through . It is unlikely that these small-amplitude contributions to reectivity can be distinguished in the AVO analysis of eld data

Table 1. Electromagnetic properties of the models used for the examples. The models also include an air layer above layer 1. For , only the average value is given; when is not 0, l and are 20%, respectively, of the average values. For , only the average value is given; when is not 0, l and are 13%, respectively, of the average values. Layer 1 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1.0 0. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.15 1.0 1.02.8 1.0 1.15 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 00.05 0. 0. 0. 2.056.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 0. 0. 0. 0.1.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Layer 2 1.0 1.0 1.02.8 1.0 1.15 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.15 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

AVO in GPR Data

117

(especially in the presence of contrasts in , , and/or in . This is not the case, however, for the attenuation of propagating waves associated with dielectric and magnetic relaxations (see below). Effects of upper- (overburden) layer properties on AVO observations In this section, we consider the AVO effects caused by changes in the electromagnetic properties of the layer between

the reector and the free surface. Changes in these properties produce complex interactions among three factors: the coupling and radiation pattern of the antennae at the free surface; the attenuation, dispersion, and propagation time through the layer; and the reection coefcient at the reector. We have not attempted to simulate the effects associated with local variations in antenna orientation or height, or with surcial geologic conditions typically present in eld data. Because we are most interested in the relative effects of the three attenuation mechanisms on the waves propagating through the upper layer, all the models (6, 7, 8, and 9 in Table 1) maintain the same contrast in l and across the reector to ensure that all models produce visible reections. The differences between the resulting AVO curves are caused by the differences in the overburden attenuations. The effective relative dielectric permittivity in the lower layer is 20.5. This value lies near the center of the range of values used for the lower layer in the previous section, and so it provides a tie between the results presented above and those in this section. The effect of permittivity contrasts already have been considered above and so are not repeated here. Figure 5 shows the attened reections for three values of in the upper layer, while keeping all parameters of the lower layer xed (model 6 of Table 1). The plots in Figure 5b are for = 0.01 S/m, which often is considered the upper limit for obtaining useful GPR data. Similarly, Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c contain attened reections for three values of (relative) in

FIG. 2. Common-source GPR gathers for models with contrasts in dielectric permittivity (model 1 of Table 1). The dielectric permittivity of the upper layer is xed at 7.5; for the lower layer, it is (a) 2.0, (b) 6.0, (c) 20.5, and (d) 56.0. In (a), R is the primary reection from the reector at 1.2-m depth, A is the direct air wave, G is the direct ground wave, and M is the rst free-surface multiple. The direct-wave amplitudes may be inaccurate within a few grid points of the source (Roberts, 1994). The (constant) amplitude scaling is the same for all panels. Large amplitudes are clipped for clarity.

FIG. 3. Preprocessed and attened reections extracted from the common-source gathers in Figure 2 (for model 1 in Table 1). Preprocessing includes subtraction of the direct air and ground waves. The dielectric permittivity of the upper layer is xed at 7.5; for the lower layer it is (a) 2.0, (b) 6.0, (c) 20.5, and (d) 56.0. Amplitude scaling is the same for all panels. Large amplitudes are clipped for clarity.

118

Zeng et al.

the upper layer, while keeping xed at 1.0 in the lower layer (model 7 of Table 1). Amplitude attenuation is very sensitive to ; note that the amplitude scale on the AVO plot of Figure 7a is a log scale. At = 0.01 S/m, the amplitude is reduced from the nonconductive case by a factor of about 10 at zero offset, and by nearly 100 at 5-m offset (Figure 7a). Perhaps the most interesting effect of increasing is that the propagation velocity v decreases (Figure 6). If = 0 and

both and are small, then the propagation velocity is given by (e.g. von Hipple, 1954; Gueguen and Palciauskas, 1994)

v=

2 cos . 1 + cos

(5)

The loss tangent tan (= / + / ) empirically describes the net effect of the electromagnetic properties that produce velocity dispersion as a function of frequency (as described

FIG. 4. AVO curves for reections from contrasts in (a) relative dielectric permittivity , (b) electrical conductivity , (c) relative magnetic permeability , (d), dielectric relaxation exponent , and (e) magnetic relaxation exponent . These correspond to model sets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Table 1, respectively. The label on each curve gives the value of the property perturbed in the lower layer; quantities in (a), (c), (d), and (e) are dimensionless, and in (b), is in S/m. In (a), the light, solid lines are for a negative impedance contrast (high over low) and the heavy dashed lines are for a positive contrast (low over high); the corresponding reections have opposite polarity.

AVO in GPR Data

119

below). If increases sufciently in the upper layer, a lowvelocity waveguide is produced [see equation (5)]. This waveguide has a critical angle of propagation (and hence also a head wave) at the lower boundary as well as at the free surface (B and F, respectively, in Figure 6d). Head wave F propagates with the velocity of air; head wave B propagates with the velocity of the lower half-space. The AVO behavior (see curve A in Figure 7b) is correspondingly complicated. The position of the peak amplitude of the AVO curves (Figure 7b) also shifts systematically with as the resulting velocity changes [equation (5)] shift the critical angle at the free surface. The effects of varying either the dielectric or magnetic relaxation exponents ( and , respectively) in the upper layer (Figures 7c and 7d) are similar. These simulations correspond, respectively, to model sets 8 and 9 of Table 1, for which the main reectivity is produced by the contrast, with small perturbations caused by the relaxations. It must be emphasized that varying or results in frequency-dependent changes in both the real and imaginary parts of or , respectively (Figure 1). Varying from 0 to 1 reduces the zero-offset reection amplitude by approximately 40%; varying over the same range reduces it by only 15%. These increase to approximately 60% and 25%, respectively, at larger offsets. Increases in reection coefcients associated with increasing contrasts are overshadowed by the decreasing reection amplitudes caused by the accumulated attenuation along the propagation path. Note that this amplitude decrease with increasing is the reverse of the direction in Figures 4d and 4e, in which reectivity is produced by contrasts, but there is no attenuation between the reector and the free surface. The fact that both these curve families are subparallel suggests that they provide small modications to amplitudes that are determined primarily by other variables, and that, in general, they may be detectable, but not separable, in GPR data. The phase changes and attenuations associated with complex

are largest when and are of similar magnitude and is close to 1 [equation (1) and Figure 1]. The same behavior is present in as it also is described by the Cole-Cole model. As the dominant frequency of the source changes, relative to the relaxation frequency ( or ), the dispersion and attenuation vary signicantly [equation (1)]. Thus, the examples above show specic instances that are representative, but not comprehensive.

Responses as a function of frequency Frequency dependence enters AVO computations in two ways: through the time-varying electrical properties [equation (1) and Figure 1] and through the impedance [equation (2)], which determines the reectivity. It previously has been shown (Turner and Siggins, 1994) that the reection coefcient at an interface between two media with constant tan (= / / ) is frequency independent, but attenuation and dispersion of waves propagating through the media are frequency dependent. Figure 8 shows a representative example of reection responses and the corresponding AVO curves as a function of frequency for model 8 in Table 1 with a xed distribution of dielectric relaxation ( = 0.7) in the upper layer. With all other parameters xed, reected GPR waves are expected to show

FIG. 5. Flattened common-source GPR gathers for models with various conductivities in the upper layer (model 6 of Table 1). (a) is for 0.0 S/m; (b) is for 0.01 S/m; (c) is for 0.05 S/m. Relative scaling factors are 1.0 in (a), 5.0 in (b), and 3000.0 in (c).

FIG. 6. Flattened common-source GPR gathers for models with various relative magnetic permeabilities in the upper layer (model 7 of Table 1). (a) is for 1.1; (b) is for 1.9; (c) and (d) are for 2.8. In (d), of the lower layer is 7.5 rather than 20.5. F is the head wave generated at the free surface; B is the head wave generated at the reector at the bottom of the layer. B appears only when is sufciently large in the upper layer that its velocity becomes less than that in the lower layer. The relative scaling factors are 1.0 for (a), (b), and (c), and 2.0 for (d).

120

Zeng et al.

systematic changes in both attenuation and dispersion as the source frequency changes [equations (1) and 5)]. Dispersion is evident in Figures 8a8c; at xed , velocity increases (e.g., the zero-offset time decreases) with increasing frequency (i.e., with decreasing ). Figure 8d contains a summary of the AVO behavior for this model. The migration of the maximum amplitude peak with frequency is a consequence of the corresponding shift in critical angle as the effective refractive index changes with frequency (Figure 1). If nite was included in the model, there would also be an attenuation with linear frequency dependence (Turner and Siggins, 1994) superimposed on the frequency-symmetrical Cole-Cole patterns associated with relaxations. This difference in the character of the frequency response potentially allows separation of the dielectric relaxation and conductivity effects; an example of a similar situation in the seismic context is given by Kang and McMechan (1994). Thus, acquisition of multifrequency GPR data is essential (but perhaps still not, for some parameters, sufcient) for resolving electrical properties in the subsurface.
FIELD DATA EXAMPLE

The examples above were computed for at-layered models to avoid complications in data analysis associated with the

structure geometry. However, one of the main advantages of the nite-difference implementation is that it can handle arbitrary spatial distributions of electromagnetic properties and so is directly applicable to simulation of eld GPR data. Reections from variably shaped reectors will be modied from those shown above by lateral variations in velocity, reectivity, and attenuation and by focusing and defocusing. We consider examples of two common-receiver gathers from a 100-MHz GPR prole collected in 1990 near Chalk River, Ontario, Canada. (We invoke reciprocity and model these as common-source gathers.) The site is in the Ottawa River valley in a composite uvial and eolian environment that is ideal for GPR propagation. Auxiliary constraints and information are available in the form of previous GPR proles and cored boreholes. Detailed analyses and geologic interpretation of this multichannel data set are presented by Fisher et al. (1992) and Greaves et al. (1996). Modeling of constant-offset data from a different line in the same area was presented by Zeng et al. (1995), but the multichannel data have not been modeled previously. The two common-receiver gathers chosen for analysis are from a portion of the GPR survey line that has reections from a sequence of predominantly sand and gravel layers with moderate structural dips (Figure 9). is assumed to be 1 everywhere because this is consistent with the geologic environment.

FIG. 7. (a) AVO curves for reections from contrasts in (a) electrical conductivity , (b) relative magnetic permeability , (c) dielectric relaxation exponent , and (d) magnetic relaxation exponent . These correspond to models 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Table 1, respectively. The label on each curve gives the value of the property perturbed in the upper layer; quantities in (b), (c), and (d) are dimensionless, and in (a), is in S/m. For reference, the 0.0 S/m curve in (a) is the same as the curve labeled 20.5 in Figure 4a. The curve labeled A in (b) is for the data in Figure 6d.

AVO in GPR Data

121

The attenuation is low (see the inversion results of Cai and McMechan [1999]) and, for the purpose of parameterization, it is assumed to be produced by alone. The rationale for this (in the absence of independent measurements) is that even a small conductivity will dominate the attenuation in any medium (Figure 7), and the frequency used (108 Hz) is far below the waterrelaxation frequency (1010 Hz), so is small. As discussed below, we expect a high porosity and high degree of saturation (with water near the freezing point), for which the effective conductivity is very small. Thus, while the data do provide good examples of AVO behavior, they are lacking in some of the more dramatic aspects of attenuation and dispersion; the latter will be left until a good relevant data set is found. The

derived model is, of course, nonunique, but it is geologically plausible and is able to predict the main observations in the eld data (Figure 10). Ideally, the model building should be based on lab measurements of the electrical properties, from samples of each of the main units, but such measurements were not available. The AVO features seen in the recorded data (Figures 10a and 10c) have structural as well as lithologic contributions, and both are simulated by the nite-difference computations (Figures 10b and 10d). In both, the AVO of each reector has a pattern consisting of increasing amplitude, followed by decreasing amplitude, as anticipated from the radiation-pattern effects described above. The position of the amplitude peak is

FIG. 8. AVO responses as a function of frequency for model 8 in Table 1, with = 0.7. (a), (b), and (c) are attened reections for 40, 125, and 400 MHz, respectively. All traces have the same scaling factor. The label on each AVO curve in (d) gives the dominant frequency of the source in MHz. For reference, the 200-MHz curve would fall between the curves labeled 0.5 and 0.8 in Figure 7c.

FIG. 9. Model for eld data example. This model is derived from the geometry in common-offset and migrated sections, velocity analyses from common-midpoint gathers, and lithologic and depth control provided by a slightly off-line well core near horizontal position 10 m. This auxiliary information is detailed in previous studies (Fisher et al., 1992; Greaves et al., 1996), and so is not shown here. In (d), points A and B correspond to the receiver locations for the common-receiver gathers in Figure 10. The numbered interfaces in (b) produce the correspondingly numbered waves in Figures 10b and 10d.

122

Zeng et al. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

at increasing offset with increasing time, consistent with a xed critical angle at the free surface. Comparisons of real and predicted AVO curves for four individual reections in Figure 10 are presented in Figure 11. Although the main features and trends of the AVO behaviors are simulated, the details and precise locations of the maximum amplitudes are only approximate. Further renements may improve the t, but the present model is already the result of 135 iterations. We attribute the remaining mist primarily to the fact that it is not possible to simulate exactly the response of a 3-D structure with a 2.5-D model. The polarity of the reections is consistent with the lithologic predictions. Reections from the sequence of sands are generally of negative polarity, corresponding to increasing permittivity (decreasing velocity and decreasing impedance) with depth. The reection from the top of a clay layer (the deepest modeled reector, at about 16-m depth) has positive polarity corresponding to a decreasing permittivity (increasing velocity and increasing impedance) with depth. Low porosity and, hence, a small water content in the clay explain the observed character of the reection. In this low-conductivity (cold-water-saturated) environment, changes dominate the reectivity (Figures 9b and 9c). The unusually high values of in some parts of the model are consistent with previous estimates of water content (using this same data set) by Greaves et al. (1996). Both their and our results for these high values are consistent with fully water-saturated porosity in the range of 40% by volume (Topp et al., 1980).

We have presented a suite of synthetic AVO computations by systematically varying each of the electromagnetic properties of a layer-over-a-half-space model. The synthetic GPR responses include all the antenna radiation-pattern, free-surface, and propagation (attenuation and dispersion) effects, not just the reection coefcients. Thus, the simulated wide-aperture gathers contain AVO behaviors that are comparable to eld GPR data. The main features in two representative eld common-receiver gathers are predicted fairly well (Figures 10 and 11) by synthetic data computed for a model (Figure 9) whose average parameters were estimated independently. The new model involves renement through the addition of details to the average model, so the two models are compatible with each other. Although only simple models were considered in this paper, an important advantage of the nite-difference approach is that AVO curves can be predicted for any model with arbitrary complexity, and for any frequency. Thus, the tools and methodology illustrated here can be used in a broader context of GPR data prediction, eld-survey design, and data analysis and interpretation (e.g., Xu and McMechan, 1997). In the longer term, the nite-difference solution may set the stage for full-wave multifrequency inversion of GPR data. From the above results, it is expected that not all parameters will be resolvable. For example, contrasts in dielectric and magnetic relaxations produce very similar AVO behaviors (Figures 7c

FIG. 10. Field (a and c) and corresponding synthetic (b and d) common-receiver gathers. (a) and (b) are for a receiver at point A in Figure 9d; (c) and (d) are for point B. Numbered reections in (b) and (d) are produced by the similarly numbered model elements in Figure 9b; 14 is the air wave, 12 and 13 are a complex interference between the direct ground wave and reections from shallow structure, and the other waves are reections and diffractions.

AVO in GPR Data

123

and 7d) and have relatively small reectivity compared with those produced by independent changes in , , and , and thus may not be separable in typical real GPR measurements. However, use of additional independent data from multiple frequencies, from lab measurements (e.g., Olhoeft and Capron, 1993), and/or from other antenna polarizations (e.g., Roberts, 1994) may provide tractable solutions. The shape of the AVO responses of all the models considered is dominated by the amplitude peak associated with the critical angle at the free surface. The position of this peak is controlled primarily by the dielectric permittivity of the material immediately beneath the antennas (Figure 4a). The position of the peak and the rates of amplitude decay to either side of the peak (which can be substantially different) depend on which electromagnetic properties change at the target interface and by how much (Figures 4 and 7). Some of the results we have obtained (especially the suites of curves in Figures 4 and 7) potentially can be used for empirical characterization and interpretation of targets in eld data. For example, the overall shapes and rates of amplitude decay of AVO curves for magnetic targets (Figures 4c and 4d) are diagnostically different from those for conductive targets (Figures 4b and 4d). One of the difculties in interpreting AVO curves (which is beyond the scope of this paper) is that models relating petrophysical properties to electrical properties are still incomplete. Therefore, although some attempts appear to be qualitatively successful (Hoekstra and Delaney, 1974; Wobschall, 1977; Topp

et al., 1980; Feng and Sen, 1985; Hallikainen et al., 1985; Redman et al., 1994; Olhoeft and Capron, 1994; Greaves et al., 1996), factors such as grain contact and uid/solid interface phenomena and electrochemical processes at the microscale remain elusive (Olhoeft, 1987; Gueguen and Palciauskas, 1994). Factors that have not been considered here but that also will inuence AVO behavior include the 3-D reector geometry, scattering, anisotropy, and lateral variations in the overburden. All the models are 2.5-D, so off-line 3-D effects were not included. Only one antenna polarization for one antenna type was considered. Thus, the present paper is only a demonstration of feasibility, not an exhaustive investigation. It is clear, however, that AVO measurements may provide constraints on the composition of a target through more comprehensive interpretation of the GPR waveeld. For the modeling, we used an effective medium representation based on the empirical Cole and Cole (1941) model, which is deemed adequate for practical model description when the GPR wavelengths are large compared with the grain size (Gueguen and Palciauskas, 1994). This representation is exible in terms of its ability to mimic the complex responses of real materials at the macroscale, and the required parameters can be obtained by lab measurements. However, because this representation is empirical, it does not directly produce unique interpretations in terms of micromechanisms and processes. For typical situations in real earth materials, reection amplitudes are most inuenced, in order of importance, by contrasts

FIG. 11. Comparison of eld (solid line) and synthetic (dashed line) AVO data. (a) and (b) are for the reections labeled 8 and 1, respectively, in Figure 10b. (c) and (d) are for the reections labeled 3 and 1, respectively, in Figure 10d. The synthetic data are scaled to have amplitudes similar to the eld data, because we are concerned only with relative amplitudes.

124

Zeng et al. Hallikainen, M. T., Ulaby, F. T., Dobson, M. C., El-Rayes, M. A., and Wu, L-K., 1985, Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soilPart I: Empirical models and experimental observations: IEEE Trans. Geos. Rem. Sens., GE-23, 2534. Hoekstra, P., and Delaney, A., 1974, Dielectric properties of soil at UHF and microwave frequencies: J. Geophys. Res., 79, 16991708. Kang, I. B., and McMechan, G. A., 1994, Separation of intrinsic and scattering Q based on frequency-dependent amplitude ratios of transmitted waves: J. Geophys. Res., 99, 2387523885. Kunz, K., and Luebbers, R., 1993, The nite difference time domain method for electromagnetics: CRC Press. Lazaro-Mancilla, O., and Gomez-Trevino, E., 1994, Modeling GPR reections from magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity variations: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 7986. Livelybrooks, D., and Fullagar, P. K., 1994, FDTD2D+: A nite-difference, time-domain radar modeling program for two-dimensional structure: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 87100. Luebbers, R. J., 1992, FDTD for Nth-order dispersive media: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 40, 12971301. Luebbers, R., Junsberger, F. P., Kunz, K. S., Standler, R. B., and Schneider, M., 1990, A frequency-dependent nite-difference time-domain formulation for dispersive materials: IEEE Trans. Elect. Compat., 32, No. 3, 222227. Maloney, J. G., Smith, G. S., and Scott, W. R. Jr., 1990, Accurate computation of the radiation from simple antennas using the nitedifference time-domain method: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 38, 1059 1068. Mur, G., 1981, Absorbing boundary condition for the nite-difference approximation of the time-domain electromagnetic eld equations: IEEE Trans. Elect. Comp., EMC-23, 377382. Olhoeft, G. R., 1972, Time dependent magnetization and magnetic loss tangent: M.Sc. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1987, Electrical properties from 103 to 10+9 HzPhysics and chemistry, in Banavar, J. R., Koplik, J., and Winkler, K. W., Eds., Proc. of the 2nd Internat. Symp. on the Physics and Chemistry of Porous Media: Am. Inst. Phys. Conf. Proc. 154, 281298. Olhoeft, G. R., and Capron, D. E., 1993, Laboratory measurements of the radio frequency electrical and magnetic propertiers of soils from near Yuma, Arizona: U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Report 93-701. 1994, Petrophysical causes of electromagnetic dispersion: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 145152. Olhoeft, G. R., and Strangway, D. W., 1974, Magnetic relaxation and the electromagnetic response parameter: Geophysics, 39, 302311. Petropoulos, P. G., 1994, Stability and phase error analysis of FD-TD in dispersive dielectrics: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 42, 6269. Powers, M. H., 1996, Modeling the GPR response of 2.5D dispersive media on your PC: 6th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 155159. Powers, M. H., and Olhoeft, G. R., 1994, Modeling dispersive groundpenetrating radar data: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 173183. 1995, GPRMODV2: One-dimensional full waveform forward modeling of dispersive ground penetrating radar data, version 2.0: U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Report 95-58. 1996, Modeling the GPR response of leaking, buried pipes: Proc., SAGEEP, Env. Eng. Geophys. Soc., Expanded Abstracts, 525 534. Redman, J. D., DeRyck, S. M., and Annan, A. P., 1994, Detection of LNAPL pools with GPR: Theoretical modeling and surveys of a controlled spill: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 12831294. Roberts, R. L., 1994, Analysis and theoretical modeling of GPR polarization data: Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univ. Roberts, R. L., and Daniels, J. J., 1994, Finite-difference time-domain forward modeling of GPR data: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 185203. Rossiter, J. R., Strangway, D. W., Annan, A. P., Watts, R. D., and Redman, J. D., 1975, Detection of thin layers by radio interferometry: Geophysics, 40, 299308. Tirkas, P. A., and Balanis, C. A., 1992, Finite-difference time-domain method for antenna radiation: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 40, 334 340. Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L., and Annan, A. P., 1980, Electromagnetic determination of water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines: Water Resour. Res., 16, 574582. Turner, G., 1992, GPR and the effects of conductivity: Expl. Geophys., 23, 381386. 1994, Modeling antenna-ground interactions: Proc., 5th Internat. Conf. on GPR, Expanded Abstracts, 205221. Turner, G., and Siggins, A. F., 1994, Constant Q attenuation of subsurface radar pulses: Geophysics, 59, 11921200.

(when they are present) in dielectric permittivity, electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, dielectric relaxation, and magnetic relaxation (Figure 5). Attenuation is most dependent, in order of importance, on electrical conductivity, dielectric relaxation, and magnetic relaxation (Figure 7). Decreasing conductivity, decreasing permittivity, or increasing permeability, all increase the electromagnetic impedance (equation 2), with corresponding changes in AVO behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research leading to this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-FG03-96ER14596, by the Texas Advanced Technology Program under grant 09741-035, and by the Sponsors of the UT-Dallas GPR Consortium. Constructive criticisms by David Alumbaugh, Karl Ellefsen, and two anonymous reviewers are much appreciated. The eld data in Figure 11 were recorded in 1990 with eld support provided by Sensors & Software, Inc. This paper is Contribution No. 908 from the Geosciences Department at The University of Texas at Dallas.
REFERENCES Allen, J. L., and Peddy, C. P., 1993, Amplitude variation with offset: Gulf coast case studies: Soc. Expl. Geophys. Annan, A. P., 1973, Radio interferometry depth sounding: Part 1 Theoretical discussion: Geophysics, 38, 557580. Belanis, C. A., 1989, Advanced engineering electromagnetics: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bergmann, T., Robertsson, J. O. A., and Holliger, K., 1998, Finitedifference modeling of electromagnetic wave propagation in dispersive and attenuating media: Geophysics, 64, 856867. Britt, C. L., 1989, Solution of electromagnetic scattering problems using time domain techniques: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 37, 11811192. Cai, J., and McMechan, G. A., 1995, Ray-based synthesis of bistatic ground-penetrating radar proles: Geophysics, 60, 8796. 1999, 2-D ray-based tomography for velocity, layer shape, and attenuation from GPR data: Geophysics, 64, 15791593. Carcione, J. M., 1996, Ground-penetrating radar: Wave theory and numerical simulation in lossy anisotropic media: Geophysics, 61, 1664 1677. Casper, D. A., and Kung, K-J. S., 1996, Simulation of groundpenetrating radar waves in a 2-D soil model: Geophysics, 61, 1034 1049. Castagna, J. P, and Backus, M. M., Eds., 1993, Offset-dependent reectivityTheory and practice of AVO analysis: Soc. Expl. Geophys. Chiburis, E. F., 1987, Studies of amplitude versus offset in Saudi Arabia: 57th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 614616. Clough, J. W., 1976, Electromagnetic lateral waves observed by earthsounding radars: Geophysics, 41, 11261132. Cole, K. S., and Cole, R. S., 1941, Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics, I, alternating current characteristics: J. Chem. Phys., 9, 341 351. Demirbag, E., Coruh, C., and Costain, J. K., 1993, Inversion of P-wave AVO, in Castagna, J. P, and Backus, M. M., Eds., Offset-dependent reectivityTheory and practice of AVO analysis: Soc. Expl. Geophys. Engheta, N., Papas, C. H., and Elachi, C., 1982, Radiation patterns of interfacial dipole antennas: Radio Science, 17, 15571566. Feng, S., and Sen, P. N., 1985, Geometrical model of conductive and dielectric properties of partially saturated rocks: J. Appl. Phys., 58, 32363243. Fisher, E. A., McMechan, G. A., and Annan, A. P., 1992, Acquisition and processing of wide aperture ground-penetrating radar data: Geophysics, 57, 495504. Goodman, D., 1994, Ground-penetrating radar simulation in engineering and archeology: Geophysics, 59, 224232. Greaves, R. J., Lesmes, D. P., Lee, J. M., and Toksoz, M. N., 1996, Velocity variations and water content estimated from multi-offset ground-penetrating radar: Geophysics, 61, 683695. Gueguen, Y., and Palciauskas, V., 1994, Introduction to the physics of rocks: Princeton Univ. Press.

AVO in GPR Data von Hipple, A. R., 1954, Dielectric materials and applications: M.I.T. Press. 1995, Dielectrics and waves: Artech House. Wang, T., and Tripp, A., 1996, FDTD simulation of EM wave propagation in 3-D media: Geophysics, 61, 110120. Wobschall, D., 1977, A theory of the complex dielectric permittivity of soil containing water: The semidisperse model: IEEE Trans. Geos. Elect, GE-15, 4958. Xiong, Z., and Tripp, A. C., 1997a, 3-D electromagnetic modeling for near-surface targets using integral equations: Geophysics, 62, 1097 1106.

125

1997b, Ground-penetrating radar responses of dispersive models: Geophysics, 62, 11271131. Xu, T., and McMechan, G. A., 1997, GPR attenuation and its numerical simulation in 2.5-D: Geophysics, 62, 403414. Yee, K. S., 1966, Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwells equation in isotropic media: IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., 14, 302307. Zeng, X., McMechan, G. A., Cai, J., and Chen, H. W., 1995, Comparison of ray and Fourier methods for modeling monostatic ground-penetrating radar proles: Geophysics, 60, 1727 1734.