HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Looms, M. C. Articles by Nielsen, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Looms, M. C. Articles by Nielsen, L. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Looms, M. C. Articles by Nielsen, L. Related Collections Downhole/Borehole Methods Ground Penetrating Radar, GPR Other Geophysical Methods Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport

Monitoring Unsaturated Flow and Transport Using Cross-Borehole Geophysical Methods

^a Univ. of Copenhagen, Dep. of Geography and Geology, Oester Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
^b Lancaster Univ., Dep. of Environmental Science, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. Schematic drawing of the field site setup, showing electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) boreholes. The light gray area indicates the infiltration area.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. (a) Sediment samples from a well located 18 m from the center of the field site (d10, d50 and d90 are the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile of the grain size distribution; data were provided by Copenhagen Energy); and (b–c) well logs conducted at the field site. GPR1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to the ground penetrating radar boreholes in Fig. 1.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. Background moisture content profiles estimated using cross-borehole ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT): (a) six zero-offset profiling moisture content profiles and mean moisture content vs. depth; (b) six ERT moisture content profiles withdrawn from the three-dimensional parameter volume and mean moisture content vs. depth; and (c) average moisture content profiles estimated using the two geophysical methods.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4. The result of a synthetic electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) test is presented. The synthetic input resistivity profile and the inverted resistivity profile are converted to moisture content using Eq. [1].

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 5. Average moisture content profiles estimated from ground penetrating radar data for various days. The gray curve is the background moisture content profile, i.e., Day 0, also shown in Fig. 3.

View larger version (55K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 6. Ground penetrating radar tomographic moisture content images. Boreholes 1 and 3 are to the left and right of the image, respectively.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 7. Accumulated difference in water volume estimated from the individual zero-offset profiles (ZOPs) (gray curves) and an average value (black curve).

View larger version (44K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 8. Average electrical resistivity profiles measured using electrical resistivity tomography at various days. The gray curve is the background electrical resistivity profile, i.e., Day 0.

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 9. Electrical resistivity tomography log(electrical resistivity) images. Boreholes 1 and 3 are to the left and right of the image, respectively.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 10. Tomographic images illustrating the soil moisture content change during the first 4 d of the infiltration experiment estimated from ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 11. Average tracer mass profiles estimated from electrical resistivity tomography and ground penetrating radar for various days.

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 12. Tracer mass tomographic estimates computed from electrical resistivity tomography and ground penetrating radar for various days. Day 4 is included to give a visualization of the noise present in the images. The red circles indicate the center of mass locations estimated using two-dimensional moment analysis.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 13. Results of the one-dimensional moment analysis: (a–c) results computed using field data; (d–f) results computed using synthetic data.