IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO.
7, JULY 2014
Improved Characterization of Fine-Texture Soils
Using On-Ground GPR Full-Waveform Inversion
Sebastian Busch, Jan van der Kruk, Member, IEEE, and Harry Vereecken
Abstract—Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) uses the record-
ing of electromagnetic waves and is increasingly applied for a
wide range of applications. Traditionally, the main focus was on
the analysis of the medium permittivity since estimates of the
conductivity using the far-field approximation contain relatively
large errors and cannot be interpreted quantitatively. Recently, a
full-waveform inversion (FWI) scheme has been developed that
is able to reliably estimate permittivity and conductivity values
by analyzing reflected waves present in on-ground GPR data. It
is based on a frequency-domain solution of Maxwell’s equations
including far, intermediate, and near fields assuming a 3-D subsur-
face. Here, we adapt the FWI scheme for on-ground GPR to invert
the direct ground wave traveling through the shallow subsurface.
Due to possible interference with the airwaves and other reflec-
tions, an automated time-domain filter needed to be included in the
inversion. In addition to the obtained permittivity and conductiv-
ity values, also the wavelet center frequency and amplitude return
valuable information that can be used for soil characterization.
Combined geophysical measurements were carried out over a silty
loam with significant variability in the soil texture. The obtained
medium properties are consistent with Theta probe, electromag-
netic resistivity tomography, and electromagnetic induction results
and enable the formulation of an empirical relationship between
soil texture and soil properties. The permittivities and conductivi-
ties increase with increasing clay and silt and decreasing skeleton
content. Moreover, with increasing permittivities and conductivi-
ties, the wavelet center frequency decreases, whereas the wavelet
amplitude increases, which is consistent with the radiation pattern
and the antenna coupling characteristics.
Index Terms—Antenna radiation patterns, conductivity, decon-
volution, electromagnetic measurements, frequency-domain anal-
ysis, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), permittivity, wavelets.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE characterization of the subsurface with various elec-
tromagnetic methods is of growing importance for a wide
range of applications, such as environmental and agricultural
engineering studies, where the medium property permittivity
and conductivity are determined. Since the dielectric permittiv-
ity is highly correlated to the soil water content [1], [2] and the
electric conductivity depends on soil properties such as water
Manuscript received September 19, 2012; revised February 28, 2013 and
July 7, 2013; accepted July 7, 2013. Date of publication October 25, 2013; date
of current version February 27, 2014. This work was supported in part by the
“TERrestrial ENvironmental Observatories” and in part by the “Transregional
Collaborative Research Centre 32” (TR32).
The authors are with the Institute of Bio- and Geosciences: Agrosphere
(IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany (e-mail:
s.busch@fz-juelich.de; j.van.der.kruk@fz-juelich.de; h.vereecken@fz-
juelich.de).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2278297
0196-2892 © 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
3947
content, ion concentration, and soil texture [3], the investigation
of these properties using hydrogeophysical methods improves
the characterization and the understanding of the various highly
dynamic processes taking place in the subsurface.
At the point scale, time-domain reflectometry (TDR) is the
most accurate method to estimate the permittivity and conduc-
tivity for the same sensing volume [1], [4]–[7]. A relatively
new method to estimate the apparent relative permittivity of the
soil is the Theta probe method operating with a fixed-frequency
impedance sensor [8]. However, compared with TDR results,
Theta probe measurements overestimate the water content of
the soil by ∼1.5 [9], and the performance depends on the texture
and compaction of the soil [9], [10].
At the field scale, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is one of
the promising tools for the electrical characterization of the
subsoil. Until now, many studies have investigated the potential
of GPR for estimating the soil relative permittivity, hereinafter
referred to as permittivity, which is strongly related to the soil
water content [11]–[13]. A commonly used method to estimate
the dielectric permittivity is a velocity analysis of the elec-
tromagnetic waves using the common midpoint (CMP) or the
wide-angle reflection–refraction (WARR) method [14], where
the midpoint or source position remains fixed. By increasing
the distance between the source and receiver antennas, the
different wave types such as direct airwaves (DAWs), direct
ground waves (DGWs), and reflected and refracted waves can
be distinguished. Here, the velocity of the subsurface can be
estimated using ray-based techniques such as ground-wave
travel-time picking [15], [16], reflected-wave analysis [17]–
[22], refracted-wave analysis [23], or a combined analysis of
ground, reflected, and refracted waves [11], [14]. The great
advantage of these methods is that the permittivity can then
be directly computed from the measured data. Estimates of the
subsurface conductivity can be carried out using a far-field am-
plitude decay function [24]. However, these estimates contain
large errors [25] and are not reliable for the characterization of
the near subsurface.
Estimates of the apparent electrical conductivity of the sub-
surface can also be carried out using low-frequency electrical
resistivity tomography (ERT) and electromagnetic induction
(EMI) measurements. Many studies have used ERT and EMI
measurements to monitor transient hydrological processes [26],
to estimate soil properties such as water content and solute
concentrations [27], [28] and to obtain electrical conductivity
profiles in different sensing depths [29]–[31].
Although the traditionally used methods analyzing ERT,
EMI, and GPR data enable to obtain estimates of the soil
permittivity or conductivity, none of the currently available
3948 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014
methods is able to return two independent medium property
estimates for the same sensing volume.
Recent developments in full-waveform inversion (FWI) of
cross-hole [32]–[35] and off-ground GPRs [36], [37], where
significant portions of the measured waveform are used, in-
dicate the benefits of FWI approach to estimate quantitative
permittivity and conductivity values. All FWIs need knowledge
about the emitted field, which is mostly described by an effec-
tive source wavelet. For off-ground GPR, the emitted electric
field can be considered as independent from the subsurface
[38]. For cross-hole GPR, the radiation characteristics for the
antennas can be approximated by the radiation patterns in a
homogeneous space. Here, the exact radiation patterns are well
described by the far-field expressions [39] that are often used in
ray-based tomography inversion, e.g., [40]. Coupling variations
also occur, particularly if conditions change from saturated to
unsaturated zone [41], but usually, these effects are not included
in the analysis since most borehole surveys only are employed
in the saturated or unsaturated zone.
For on-ground GPR radiation patterns, far-field expressions
still differ from the exact radiation patterns at a distance of
seven wavelengths [42]. Moreover, the coupling of the anten-
nas and, therefore, the shape and amplitude of the wavelet
strongly depend on the underlying medium [43]. Consequently,
the estimation of the effective source wavelet and, therefore,
the application of the FWI are less straightforward. Recently, a
frequency-domain FWI for synthetic and experimental on-
ground reflection GPR data has been introduced that returns
quantitative values of the subsurface permittivity and conduc-
tivity [25]. The inversion approach requires an initial model of
the subsurface medium parameters: permittivity and conductiv-
ity, which mainly influence the velocity and amplitudes, respec-
tively. Travel-time inversion usually returns initial values for the
relative permittivity. However, reliable conductivity values are
difficult to obtain particularly for conductive fine-texture soils.
Erroneous conductivity values result in wrong amplitudes of the
effective source wavelet that is needed for the FWI, which, in
turn, also results in erroneously inverted conductivity values,
since the conductivity and wavelet amplitudes are coupled.
To assure a good inversion result and, therefore, an accurate
estimation of the unknown source wavelet, an essential part
of the inversion consists of a combined optimization of the
effective source wavelet and the medium parameters.
Commonly, the center frequency of the antenna source
wavelet is assumed to be specified by the manufacturer [44]–
[46]. However, this is not representative for on-ground GPR
application since the center frequency decreases with increasing
permittivity values. Therefore, the FWI returns a data-driven
effective source wavelet. In this way, changes in the subsurface
properties and, therefore, the wavelet characteristics are explic-
itly taken into account during the inversion process.
The novel inversion approach was first applied to synthetic
single-layer and waveguide data as well as to measured GPR
data reflecting a single-layer low-velocity waveguide where
a thin layer of high-permittivity sandy silt is overlying low-
permittivity gravel. Focusing on the analysis of reflected waves,
the effective source wavelets and the starting model of the
subsurface properties were significantly improved throughout
the inversion process, which leads to an improvement of the
inversion result. For synthetic data, the proposed optimization
procedure worked well even when the initial model and, there-
fore, the effective wavelet differ strongly from the true model
parameters. Complex wave phenomena such as offset depen-
dent amplitudes and dispersion due to a low-velocity waveguide
were well reconstructed. In the case of measured waveguide
data, the FWI algorithm reduced the misfit of the initial model,
derived from conventional kinematic dispersion inversion, by a
factor of four to eight [25], and obtained quantitative values for
the permittivities and conductivities.
In this paper, we 1) extend the on-ground GPR FWI for the
analysis of the DGW; 2) include an automated time-domain
filter to filter out interferences with the DAWs and reflections;
3) apply the FWI for fine-texture soils with a high variability
in the soil water content; 4) compare the obtained results with
Theta probe, ERT, and EMI measurements; and 5) correlate
the obtained medium permittivities and conductivities with the
soil texture (clay, silt, and skeleton) and the wavelet center fre-
quency and amplitude by formulating a linear relationship. The
use of multichannel systems and optimized data acquisition will
enable large-scale measurements with the presented approach
that returns quantitative permittivity and conductivity values of
the same sensing volume, which can be applied for a wide range
of applications.
II. M ETHODOLOGY
The FWI scheme for on-ground CMP GPR data is based
on a 3-D frequency-domain solution of Maxwell’s equations
[25] assuming a layered model of the subsurface. Whereas
the FWI inversion approach is implemented and validated for
reflected waves in [25], here, we adapt the on-ground GPR
inversion scheme for the analysis of the DGW which propagates
to a depth of up to ∼30 cm [47], [48]. An important part of
this inversion approach is the use of an exact forward model
assuming subsurface homogeneity, isotropy, and infinitesimal
point-dipole antenna, a sequential optimization of the source
wavelet and starting model parameters as well as a subsequent
parameter optimization while keeping the wavelet fixed.
A. Forward Modeling
To further enable the inversion of the DGW, the subsurface
is approximated by a homogeneous half-space with permittivity
ε1 and conductivity σ1 , respectively. Using the starting model
parameters m = [ε1 , σ1 ], the subsurface Green’s function is
calculated using an accurate 3-D frequency-domain forward
model of Maxwell’s equation [49]. The electrical field in the
frequency domain is described as the multiplication of the
source wavelet of a point-dipole source and Green’s function
of the medium as follows:
Ê(fn , xm ) = Ĝ(fn , xm , m) · Ŵ (fn ) (1)
where ˆ indicates the frequency domain and xm and fn are
the specific offsets and frequencies, respectively. Closed-form
expressions for the airwaves and ground waves that travel
BUSCH et al.: IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE-TEXTURE SOILS 3949

directly from the point source toward the point receiver for a data independently. The filter essentially defines the mute zone
broadside source–receiver configuration are given by [24], [43] above and below the ground wave and sets all data points within
these areas to zero. This filter is applied on the measured and
∞ 
1 −ς0 ∂12 synthetic data. Since the forward model calculates the data in
Ĝ(fn , xm , m)= · + J0 (κxm )κdκ
2π Γ0 −Γ1 η1 Γ0 −η0 Γ1 the frequency domain, two additional fast Fourier transforms
κ=0 are needed to implement this time-domain filter in the FWI
(2)
algorithm. Because a limited number of offsets are used in
where ζ0 = jωn μ 0 , η0 = jωn ε0 , η1 = σ1 + jωn ε1 , ωn = the inversion, multichannel operations such as τ − p or ω − k
2πn f , and Γs = κ2 + ηs ς0 . Here, the subscripts s = 0, 1 filters to remove the airwaves and other reflections are less
indicate the properties of the air and soil, j is the imaginary appropriate.
unit, κ is the horizontal wavenumber, and J0 is the zeroth-order
Bessel function.
D. Wavelet Estimation
After filtering of the airwaves and possible reflections, we
B. Far-Field Expression for Ground Wave
have isolated the measured ground wave for a certain number of
Using a high-frequency and large-offset approximation, offsets that contain the same effective wavelet. To estimate this
Green’s function in (2) can be described as [24] effective source wavelet Ŵest (fn ), the overdetermined system
   in the following equation is solved for each separate frequency
Z0 xm
Ĝ(fn , xm , m) = exp −iω n using a least squares approach [25], [51]:
2π(1 − ε1 )x2m c0
   
√ xm σ1 Z1 Ĝ(fn , xm , m) · Ŵest (fn ) = Êobs (fn , xm ). (6)
− ε1 exp −iωn exp − xm (3)
c1 2

where c0 and Z0 are the velocity and electrical impedance of E. Sequential and Simultaneous Source Wavelet and
air, respectively; ε1 , σ1 , c1 , and Z1 are the relative permittivity, Model Optimization
conductivity, velocity, and electrical impedance of the subsur-
face, respectively; and xm is the offset. Rewriting (1) using (3) Since the wavelet amplitudes and medium properties are
returns separate expressions for the DAW Ê0 (fn , xm , m) and coupled, an important aspect for a successful inversion is the
the DGW Ê1 (fn , xm , m) estimation of the unknown source wavelet, which is addressed
  by an iterative sequential optimization process combining the
Z0 xm global and local optimizations of model parameters and source
Ê0 (fn , xm , m) = exp −iωn · Ŵ (fn )
2π(1−ε1 )x2m c0 wavelet. The local minimization is carried out using the sim-
(4) plex search algorithm [52], which belongs to the direct search
√   methods and enables the solving of nonlinear unconstrained op-
− ε1 Z 0 xm σ1 Z1
Ê1 (fn , xm , m) = exp −iωn − xm timization problems. In the case of a homogeneous half-space,
2π(1−ε1 )x2m c1 2
each iteration k = 1, . . . , K includes the following: 1) the
· Ŵ (fn ). optimization of the initial values for ε1 together with the phase
(5) of the effective source wavelet ϕ for each frequency and 2) the
optimization of the initial value for σ1 together with the ampli-
Using these approximated ray-based models that ignore the tude of the wavelet by minimizing the objective functions
vectorial radiation and wave propagation of the electromagnetic ⎛

waves, as well as the angle-dependent reflection coefficients, 1 
M  N

CP (mP ) = · ⎝ Êmod (fn , xm , mP )
relative large errors are obtained compared to exact field expres- M · N m=1 n=1  Ê 
sions [42], [50], yielding inaccurate estimates of the subsurface mod (fn , xm , mP )
⎞
conductivity [25]. 
Êobs (fn , xm ) ⎠
−  
 (7)
Êobs (fn , xm ) 
C. Airwave Filtering ⎛  

 Ê
A crucial step for the inversion of the DGW is the effect of 1 
M  N
 mod n m A 
(f , x , m )
CA (mA ) = · ⎝ 
the DAW propagating between the transmitting and receiving M · N m=1 n=1  Ê max (xm )
antennas. In the case of near offsets in the CMP/WARR profiles,   ⎞
 
the DAW might interfere with the DGW, and the analysis of the Êobs (fn , xm ) 
− ⎠ (8)
Ê max (xm ) 
DGW will become a challenging task since the DAW and DGW
cannot be clearly distinguished. Moreover, in the case of larger
offsets, the DAW may mask weaker subsurface signals and
make them difficult or impossible to see or interpret. Therefore, where Êobs (fn , xm ) is the measured electrical field, Êmod (fn ,
to minimize the effect of the DAW on the DGW FWI result, we xm , mA ) is the modeled electrical field for the parameters
introduce a time-domain filter which acts on each trace of the mP = [ε1 , ϕ] and mA = [σ1 , A], and M and N are the
3950 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014

numbers of offsets and frequencies, respectively. Note that, to

avoid the irregular weighting of different offsets in the objective
function CA (mA ), (8) is trace-normalized by the maximum
spectral amplitude Êmax (xm ) at each offset. The last step of
each iteration contains the deconvolution of the effective source
wavelet (6) based on the optimization results mk = [εk , σ k ].
The process is repeated until the objective function
N 

1 M 
 Êmod (fn , xm , mk )
Fig. 1. Inversion results of the ERT showing lateral and vertical conductivity
variations at the Selhausen test site. The bright colors indicate low conductivi-
k
Cf x (m ) = · 
M · N m=1 n=1  max (x )
Êxm m
ties; the dark colors indicate high conductivities.
 TABLE I
Êobs (fn , xm )  S TARTING M ODEL AND S IMULTANEOUS I NVERSION R ESULTS O BTAINED
−  (9) F ROM THE FWI OF THE WARR M EASUREMENTS AT THE R ECEIVER
max (x ) 
Êxm m P OSITIONS AT 10, 30–50, AND 80–110 m AT THE S ELHAUSEN
T EST S ITE . I N M OST C ASES , THE S AME O FFSET R ANGE xFWI
WAS U SED TO D ETERMINE THE R AY-BASED (RB)
fulfills the termination criterion Cf x (mk ) > Cf x (mk−1 ) or the AND F ULL -WAVEFORM (FWI) R ESULTS
maximum iteration number k is reached.
To further address the cross-coupling between the permittiv-
ity and the conductivity, which is not explicitly taken into ac-
count during the sequential optimization process, the optimized
parameters mk serve as input for a simultaneous parameter
optimization while keeping the wavelet fixed, which returns the
final inversion result.

III. C OMBINED A NALYSIS OF THE S OIL P ROPERTIES

To explore the potential of the FWI for a fine-texture soil,
combined Theta probe, ERT, EMI, and GPR measurements
were carried out on a silty loam at our test site in Selhausen.

A. Selhausen Test Site B. Measurement Setup

The Selhausen test site of the Forschungszentrum Jülich
GmbH is located in the southern part of the Lower Rhine
Embayment in Germany. Here, Eolian sediments of Pleistocene
and Eocene ages, with a thickness of up to 1 m, cover Qua-
ternary sediments, which are mostly fluvial deposits from the
Rhine/Meuse river and the Rur river system [53]. According to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture textural classification, the
major soil type is silty loam [53]. Since the surface topography
of the test site is weakly inclined (< 4◦ ), colluvial sediments
eroded from the upper part of the test site can be found in
the lower part of the test site. The ground water depth shows
seasonal fluctuations between 3 and 5 m below the surface.
A distinct gradient in soil texture is present with a consid-
erably higher stone content at the upper part of the field [54].
In the upper part of the test site, the surface soil contains up to
60% stones with diameters of several centimeters and 10% at
the lower part. Soil samples show that the top soil (0–30 cm)
contains 54% skeleton, 14%, sand, 25% silt, and 7% clay in
the upper part of the field compared to 9% skeleton, 14% sand,
63% silt, and 14% clay in the lower part of the field [Fig. 5(a)].
Due to the geomorphology and soil texture variation, a high
variability in the surface soil water content is detectable. Previ-
ous studies in [53] and [55] using GPR, TDR, and volumetric
soil samples showed that a gradient in soil water content and,
therefore, in the permittivity from the upper to the lower part of
the field is partly related to changes in texture.
Along a profile with a length of 120 m, we combined ERT
using the SYSCAL PRO system (IRIS Instruments, Orleans,
France) with 120 electrodes and an electrode spacing of 0.25 m
in dipole–dipole configuration. Seven 30-m-long profiles were
measured using the roll-along technique with 15-m overlap.
Moreover, EMI measurements were carried out every 1 m in
the horizontal coplanar (HCP) and vertical coplanar (VCP) ori-
entations with EM38 (Geonics, Mississauga, ON, Canada) and
GSSI Profiler (Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., Salem, NH,
USA) in VCP and HCP orientations. GPR WARR measure-
ments with unshielded 200-MHz antennas (Sensors & Software
Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada) were conducted every 10 m,
and measurements of the effective permittivity in the top soil
were carried out using Theta Probe ML2 sensors (Macaulay
Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen, U.K., and Delta-T
Devices, Cambridge, U.K.) every 1 m.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
A. ERT and EMI Inversions
The ERT data were inverted with the RES2DINV software
[56] (Geotomo Software, Penang, Malaysia) which gives a
2-D model consisting of multiple rectangular blocks of different
discrete resistivity values. Optimizing the resistivity (inverse of
conductivity) by minimizing the misfit between the calculated
and measured ERT data returns a resistivity image of the
BUSCH et al.: IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE-TEXTURE SOILS 3951

Fig. 2. Measured WARR after applying a gain function at the receiver positions at (a) 40 and (b) 90 m. The red and blue colors indicate trace-normalized positive
and negative, respectively. For the inversion, the airwave present in the data is muted out. The dashed black lines indicate the selected offset range xFWI for the
FWI; (c) and (d) show (black) the picked maximum amplitudes of the DGW, (dashed red) the fitted ray-based decay function, and (blue) the applied gain function.
Note that, for the inversion of the GPR data, the true amplitudes without applying a gain function are used.

subsurface [56]. A robust inversion scheme that uses the L1-
norm for data and model space was used because sharp layer
boundaries were expected due to the presence of a plowing zone.
The inverted profile shown in Fig. 1 has a root-mean-square
error of 3.3%, was obtained after five iterations, and clearly in-
dicates the heterogeneity of the Selhausen test site. In the upper
part of the test site (10–30 m horizontally), the ERT inversion
results indicate relative low conductivities of 5–10 mS/m and
apparently no layering, whereas in the lower part of the test site,
a high conductivity layer (5–20 mS/m) of a thickness of 0.4 m
is overlying an even more conductive layer (> 20 mS/m).
In contrast to ERT measurements, current EMI systems only
return qualitative values for the subsurface conductivity be-
cause of instrument calibration difficulties [57]–[60]. To over-
come these limitations, Lavoué et al. [61] proposed a method
to calibrate EMI measurements with the electrical conductivity
values obtained from ERT inversion. Therefore, the conductiv-
ity distribution obtained from RES2DINV inversion was used
as input in an electromagnetic forward model for synthetic
EMI data with the same EMI configurations as used for the
experimental measurements. The obtained synthetic EMI data
were then used to calibrate the measured data following the
procedure described in [61]. After calibration, the field data
were then inverted for a two-layer subsurface by minimizing
the misfit between the measured and modeled magnetic fields
following the procedure described in [62]. Note that, due to
metal objects at the surface, the area between 55 and 85 m is
excluded from the calibration of the EMI data.
B. GPR FWI
The relatively high conductivities at the Selhausen test site
cause significant attenuation of the electromagnetic waves in
the subsurface and, therefore, a decreasing penetration depth of
the GPR with increasing conductivities. Since reflected waves
could not be clearly identified in the measured WARR profiles
by muting the airwaves and applying a gain function to the
data, the data are well suited to validate the extended FWI for
the analysis of the DGW. We estimated the initial permittivity
and conductivity values for each WARR measurement using the
ray-based direct ground expression (2).
Next, the FWI is performed for each WARR measurement
along the 120-m-long profile. Table I gives an overview of the in-
version results and indicates the offset range xFWI and the
number of traces nFWIx within xFWI used for the inversion, the
initial model for the subsurface permittivity εRB and conduc-
tivity σ RB obtained from ray-based methods, and the inverted
permittivity εFWI and conductivity σ FWI , as well as the corre-
sponding objective functions C RB and C FWI , respectively.
The WARR profiles after applying a gain function at the
receiver positions at 40 and 90 m, representing GPR mea-
surements on relatively low and higher conductivity media,
are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (c), respectively. In both data sets,
a dominant airwave is presented, which interferes with the
ground wave. However, due to these interferences, clipping of
the amplitudes for small offsets, the increasing attenuation of
the DGW, and a decreasing signal-to-noise ratio for increasing
offsets limits the number of offsets which can be used for the
FWI (see also Table I).
Fig. 2(b) and (d) shows the picked maximum amplitudes of
the DGW (black) and the applied gain function (blue). The
fitted far-field decay function as given in (5) (dashed red) and
the slope of the ground wave return ray-based conductivity and
permittivity, respectively, that are used as starting model for the
FWI. Note that the inversion of the data is carried out using true
amplitudes and no gain function was applied. The subsurface
3952 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014

Fig. 3. Time- and frequency-domain amplitudes and phase spectra of the initial and inverted effective wavelets for the WARR measurements at the receiver
positions at (a)–(c) 40 and (d)–(f) 90 m.

Fig. 4. Time-domain traces of the measured data and the initial and inverted models for the WARRs at (a) 40 and (b) 90 m. The amplitudes are trace normalized
to the measured data and show true amplitudes.

properties obtained from the ray-based approach and the full-
waveform inverted subsurface properties are shown in Table I.
The significant improvement of the subsurface model is indi-
cated by the smaller FWI objective function C FWI , compared to
the ray-based objective function C RB . For the WARR measure-
ment at the receiver position at 40 m, the objective functions
C RB of the ray-based model in Table I decrease by 6% (from
1.7 × 10−1 to 1.6 × 10−1 ), whereas the objective function C RB
for the WARR at 90 m decreases by 10% (from 2.1 × 10−1 to
1.9 × 10−1 ). The initial (green) and inverted effective wavelets
(dashed red) are shown in Fig. 3. Small variations in the
phase of the wavelet [Fig. 3(c) and (f)] indicate a relatively
good permittivity ε starting model obtained from conventional
velocity analysis for the WARR measurements at the receiver
BUSCH et al.: IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE-TEXTURE SOILS
Fig. 5. Results of the measurements. (a) Grain-size distribution at the
Selhausen test site for 0–30-cm depth shows increasing clay and silt contents,
a rather constant sand content, and a decreasing skeleton content for increasing
position. (b) Permittivity ε values obtained from (blue) Theta probe measure-
ments, (dashed black) GPRRB ray-based techniques, and (black) GPRFWI
FWI, as well as (c) the conductivity σ values obtained from ERT, EMI,
GPRRB , and GPRFWI , increase for increasing positions. Between 55 and
85 m, metal objects and cables at and in the subsurface influence the geophysi-
cal measurements.
positions at 40 and 90 m. Comparing the initial and inverted
wavelet amplitudes [Fig. 3(a), (b), (d), and (e)], particularly the
wavelet for the WARR at 90 m differs significantly, indicating
an erroneous initial conductivity σ model.
The time-domain traces of the measured data and the initial
and inverted models for the WARRs at 40 and 90 m are
presented in Fig. 4. Note that the data are trace normalized
to the measured data and therefore show true amplitudes. In
contrast to the initial model (dashed green), the measured data
(black) and the inverted model (dashed red) overlie each other
except for some phase mismatch on the first cycle at far offset,
which is possibly due lateral inhomogeneity.
Fig. 5 and Tables II and III show the grain-size distribution
at the Selhausen test site and the results of the combined Theta
probe, ERT, EMI, and GPR measurements. For a depth of
0–30 cm, Fig. 5(a) clearly indicates increasing clay (green;
7%–14%) and silt (red; 25%–63%) contents, a constant
sand content (blue; 13%–14%), and a decreasing skeleton
content (dashed black; 54%–9%) for increasing position.
The permittivity values obtained from Theta probe (blue;
11.4–17.4) measurements, the GPRRB ray-based technique
(dashed black; 10.6–17.4), and the GPRFWI FWI (black;
8.1–18.5) are shown in Fig. 5(b). The increasing permittivities
observed with increasing WARR positions are consistent with
3953
TABLE II
S OIL T EXTURE C ONTENT AT THE WARR M EASUREMENTS
AT THE R ECEIVER P OSITIONS AT 10, 30–50, AND
80–110 m AT THE S ELHAUSEN T EST S ITE
TABLE III
P ERMITTIVITIES AND C ONDUCTIVITIES O BTAINED F ROM THE C OMBINED
T HETA P ROBE , ERT, EMI, AND GPR M EASUREMENTS
AT S ELHAUSEN T EST S ITE
increasing clay and silt contents and a decreasing skeleton
content. The conductivity values obtained from ERT (green;
4.3–19.1 mS/m) and EMI (red; 5.2–19.3 mS/m) inversions,
as well as the values obtained from GPRRB (dashed black;
5.5–28.2 mS/m) and GPRFWI (black; 2.4–28.5 mS/m), are
shown in Fig. 5(c). Since only the ground wave is used for the
FWI of the GPR data, which is traveling through the upper
∼30 cm of the subsurface [47], [48], the GPR conductivities
in Fig. 5(c) are compared with the mean ERT and EMI
conductivities for a depth of 0–30 cm. Here, particularly at the
WARR positions at 50, 80, and 90 m where the fine-texture
soil content increases, conventional used ground-wave picking
GPRRB returns either lower or higher conductivity values
than the ERT, EMI, and GPRFWI techniques. Although each
method has a different sensing depth and frequency range,
and the results are therefore not directly comparable, these
methods indicate similar trends in the electric properties of
the soil.
Between the 55- and 85-m positions along the profile, metal
objects at the surface and cables in the subsurface (60–70 m)
influence the geophysical measurements. Therefore, ERT and
EMI measurements within this offset range are not used for the
calibration of the EMI data.
3954 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014
Fig. 6. Correlations between the subsurface conductivities obtained from
measured with ERT, EMI, and GPR inversions, the permittivities obtained
from Theta probe measurements and GPR inversion, and the soil texture at
the Selhausen test site, respectively. [(a), (b), (e), and (f)] Conductivity and
permittivity increase with increasing clay and silt contents, whereas [(d) and
(h)] the σ and ε decrease with increasing skeleton content. [(c) and (g)] Due to
a constant sand constant, there is no correlation with increasing σ and ε from
the upper to the lower part of the test site.
Fig. 6 shows the correlations between the subsurface conduc-
tivity (measured with GPR, ERT, and EMI), the permittivity
(measured with GPR and Theta probes), and the soil texture
at the Selhausen test site. As already seen in Fig. 5(c) and
(d), the GPR FWI conductivities and permittivities increase
with increasing clay and silt contents, i.e., with increasing
content of fine-texture soil [Fig. 6(a), (b), (e), and (f)], whereas
the conductivities and permittivities decrease with increas-
Fig. 7. Correlation between permittivity, conductivity, and texture of the soil
indicates a linear relationship for [(a) and (b)] fine-texture (clay and silt) and
(c) coarse-texture (skeleton) soils.
ing skeleton content, i.e., with increasing coarse-texture soil
[Fig. 6(d) and (h)]. The corresponding correlation coefficients
R2 between 0.61 and 0.92 indicate a strong linear relationship
between conductivity, permittivity, and soil texture (clay, silt,
and skeleton). Due to a relatively constant sand content, there is
no correlation with the increasing conductivity and permittivity
[Fig. 6(c)–(g)] for increasing position. These results are in
good agreement with the results of Theta probe, ERT, and EMI
measurements, which indicates the reliability of the on-ground
GPR FWI.
Fig. 7 shows the 3-D correlation between the permittivity
and conductivity values obtained from the GPR FWI and the
(a) clay, (b) silt, and (c) skeleton contents. The calculated
2 2
correlation coefficients are Rclay = 0.55, Rsilt = 0.81, and
2
Rskeleton = 0.44 and clearly indicate a linear relation between
the clay, silt, and skeleton contents with the subsurface permit-
tivity and conductivity values.
This relationship can be parameterized by an orthogonal
distance regression
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
x x0 vx
⎝ y ⎠ = ⎝ y0 ⎠ + ⎝ v y ⎠ · d (10)
z z0 vz
where (x, y, z) is a data point, (x0 , y0 , z0 ) is the point on the
regression line L, (vx , vy , vz ) is the vector defining the direc-
tion of L, and d is the distance whose value is varied to define
the point (x0 , y0 , z0 ) on L. Minimizing the sum of squared
distances from (x0 , y0 , z0 ) to L returns the best fitting line with
the direction (vx , vy , vz ). The orthogonal distance regression
BUSCH et al.: IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE-TEXTURE SOILS 3955

Fig. 9. (a) Normalized time-domain source wavelet for (black) the WARRs at
10, 30–50, and 80–110 m and (red) the calculated mean wavelet; (b) and (c)
indicate the corresponding maximum wavelet amplitude and center frequency.
Fig. 8. Data-driven time-domain (a) and frequency-domain amplitude spectra
(b) of the optimized wavelets for the WARR’s at 10 m, 30–50 m, and
80–110 m. Note that the wavelets are normalized to the wavelet with the
maximum amplitude (WARR at receiver position 110 m) and thus shifted
in time.

for the soil texture and the permittivity ε and conductivity σ

values obtained from the FWI is parameterized by
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
ε 15.13 0.27
⎝ σ ⎠= ⎝ 15.17 ⎠ − ⎝ 0.94 ⎠ · d (11)
Mclay 11.36 0.20
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
ε 15.13 0.17
⎝ σ ⎠= ⎝ 15.17 ⎠ − ⎝ 0.57 ⎠ · d (12)
Msilt 50.32 0.80
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
ε 15.13 0.16
⎝ σ ⎠= ⎝ 15.17 ⎠ − ⎝ 0.52 ⎠ · d (13)
Mskeleton 24.73 −0.84

where Mclay , Msilt , and Mskeleton are the clay, silt, and skeleton
contents, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the inverted data-driven effective wavelets
for the WARRs at the receiver positions at 10, 30–50, and
80–110 m in the time domain [Fig. 8(a)] and the corresponding
amplitude spectra [Fig. 8(b)]. Here, the zero crossings are
aligned to enable a comparison of the wavelet shape and ampli-
tude. Although the amplitude of the effective wavelets differs at
each midpoint position, the shapes of the wavelets are similar.
Fig. 9(a) shows the normalized wavelets (black) from Fig. 8(a)
as well as the calculated mean wavelet (red). With increasing
permittivity ε and conductivity σ values for increasing position
along the profile (see Fig. 5), the wavelet center frequency fc
shifts to lower frequencies [Fig. 9(c)], whereas the wavelet
amplitude ŴA (fc ) increases [Fig. 9(b)]. This is also obvious in
Fig. 10, where fc and ŴA (fc ) show a strong correlation with σ
and ε. The correlation coefficients R2 in the range of 0.44–0.94
clearly indicate that the effective wavelet is influenced by the
subsurface properties.
Fig. 10. Correlations between the wavelet center frequency and amplitude
and the subsurface permittivity and conductivity, respectively. The correlations
indicate [(a) and (b)] an increasing wavelet amplitude WA with increasing
conductivities σ and ε and [(c) and (d)] a decreasing wavelet center frequency
Wf c with increasing σ and ε.
For a half-wavelength dipole antenna in a homogeneous
half-space, the resonance frequency depends on the relative
permittivity of the material surrounding the antenna, which,
in turn, depends on the permittivity of the material supporting
the metal antenna, the air, the ground material and roughness,
and the antenna height [63]. For an increasing permittivity ε,
the antenna appears to be electrically longer, resulting in a
decrease of the antenna center frequency fc . In addition, due to
a decrease in fc , the antenna system emits more low-frequency
energy, which, in turn, results in an increasing wavelet ampli-
tude ŴA (fc ).
3956 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014
All inverted wavelet characteristics are consistent with the
changing electrical length of the antenna and the radiation
characteristics for ground coupled antennas. Note that, by
carrying out FWI, also quantitative values for the wavelet
center frequency and amplitude are obtained that might also
be used for an improved characterization of the subsurface. In
addition, radiation patterns of horizontal electric dipoles show
that the wave energy emitted in the subsurface, characterized by
ŴA (fc ), is increasing with increasing permittivity [64], [65]
and conductivity [66], which seem to be dominant over the
decreasing radiated power due to a possible deterioration of the
impedance matching condition.
V. C ONCLUSION
A recently developed FWI approach for on-ground GPR has
been extended and validated for the inversion of the DGW
to characterize the shallow part of the subsurface, assuming
a locally homogeneous half-space. In the case of on-ground
GPR CMP/WARR data, the proposed method indicates the
high information content present in GPR data. The permittivity
and conductivity values obtained from the inversion of WARR
data measured on a silty loam are in very good agreement
with the results obtained from conventional used Theta probe
(effective dielectric permittivity), ERT, and EMI measurements
(electric conductivity), respectively. Here, in contrast to con-
ventional used GPR ray-based techniques, the FWI returns reli-
able conductivity values particularly for conductive fine-texture
soils.
Since the novel inversion approach enables to obtain one
permittivity value and one conductivity value for the same
sensing volume, this technique also allows the formulation of
an orthogonal distance regression parameterization between the
soil electrical properties and texture (clay, silt, and skeleton).
Here, a combination of soil moisture measurements and on-
ground GPR measurements will also attribute the obtained
changes in the subsurface permittivity and conductivity to
changes in the soil moisture and texture, respectively.
Moreover, strong correlations between the subsurface per-
mittivity and conductivity and the wavelet amplitude and center
frequency clearly show the benefits of the on-ground GPR
FWI for the improved characterization of the subsurface. This
indicates the need for an accurate estimated source wavelet for
ground coupled GPR antennas.
Note that the inversion results characterizing the subsurface
and antenna properties are based on a limited number of WARR
measurements and the inversion of the DGW but can easily
be extended to a multilayer model. Furthermore, acquiring and
inverting quantitative medium properties on large scales offer
considerable potential for a wide range of applications. As a
next step, the results obtained from the FWI can be used to
estimate the soil moisture content using the permittivities and
Topp’s equation as well as the conductivities and Archie’s law.
Moreover, inverting for the constitutive parameter in Archie’s
law will probably improve the characterization of soils.
As a next step, the proposed FWI approach can be extended
for multilayer models and can be used as a starting model for a
2.5-D or 3-D on-ground GPR FWI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and
the Editor A. Plaza for their help in improving the manuscript.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. C. Topp, J. L. Davis, and A. P. Annan, “Electromagnetic determination
of soil water content, measurements in coaxial transmission lines,” Water
Resour. Res., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 574–582, Jun. 1980.
[2] A. Tabbagh, C. Camerlynck, and P. Cosenza, “Numerical modeling for
investigating the physical meaning of the relationship between relative
dielectric permittivity and water content of soils,” Water Resour. Res.,
vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2771–2776, Sep. 2000.
[3] J. D. Rhoades, P. A. C. Raats, and R. J. Prather, “Effects of liquid phase
electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk
soil electrical conductivity,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 651–
655, Sep. 1976.
[4] F. N. Dalton, W. N. Herkelrath, D. S. Rawlines, and J. D. Rhoades,
“Time-domain reflectometry: Simultaneous measurement of soil water
content and electrical conductivity with a single probe,” Science, vol. 224,
no. 4652, pp. 989–990, Jun. 1984.
[5] W. R. Whalley, “Considerations on the use of time-domain reflectome-
try (TDR) for measuring soil-water content,” J. Soil Sci., vol. 44, no. 1,
pp. 1–9, Mar. 1993.
[6] M. A. Malicki, R. Plagge, and C. H. Roth, “Improving the calibration of
dielectric TDR soil moisture determination taking into account the solid
soil,” Eur. J. Soil Sci., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 357–366, Sep. 1996.
[7] G. C. L. Wyseure, M. A. Mojid, and M. A. Malik, “Measurement of
volumetric water content by TDR in saline soils,” Eur. J. Soil Sci., vol. 48,
no. 2, pp. 347–354, Jun. 1997.
[8] G. J. Gaskin and J. D. Miller, “Measurement of soil water content using a
simplified impedance measuring technique,” J. Agric. Eng. Res., vol. 63,
no. 2, pp. 153–159, Feb. 1996.
[9] D. A. Robinson, C. M. K. Gardner, and J. D. Cooper, “Measurement of rel-
ative permittivity in sandy soils using TDR, capacitance and theta probes,
comparison, including the effects of bulk soil electrical conductivity,”
J. Hydrol., vol. 223, no. 3/4, pp. 198–211, Oct. 1999.
[10] N. Sarani and P. Afrasjab, “Effect of soil texture on moisture measurement
accuracy with Theta probe ML2 in Sistan region,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Chem., Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2012, pp. 114–117.
[11] R. A. van Overmeeren, S. V. Sariowan, and J. C. Gehrels, “Ground pen-
etrating radar for determining volumetric soil water content; Results of
comparative measurements at two test sites,” J. Hydrol., vol. 197, no. 1–4,
pp. 316–338, Oct. 1997.
[12] K. W. Weiler, T. S. Steenhuis, J. Boll, and K. S. J. Kung, “Comparison
of ground penetrating radar and time domain reflectometry as soil water
sensors,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 62, pp. 1237–1239, 1998.
[13] J. A. Huisman, S. Sperl, W. Bouten, and J. M. Verstraten, “Soil water
content measurements at different scales, accuracy of time domain re-
flectometry and ground-penetrating radar,” J. Hydrol., vol. 245, no. 1–4,
pp. 48–58, May 2001.
[14] J. A. Huisman, S. S. Hubbard, J. D. Redman, and A. P. Annan, “Measuring
soil water content with ground penetrating radar, A review,” Vadose Zone
J., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 476–491, 2003.
[15] L. W. Galagedara, G. W. Parkin, and J. D. Redman, “An analysis of
the ground-penetrating radar direct ground wave method for soil water
content measurement,” Hydrol. Process., vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 3615–3628,
Dec. 2003.
[16] C. M. Steelman and A. L. Endres, “An examination of direct ground wave
soil moisture monitoring over an annual cycle of soil conditions,” Water
Resources Res., vol. 46, no. 11, p. W11 533, Nov. 2010.
[17] S. Tillard and J. C. Dubois, “Analysis of GPR data—Wave-propagation
velocity determination,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 33, no. 1–3, pp. 77–91,
Jan. 1995.
[18] R. J. Greaves, D. P. Lesmes, J. M. Lee, and M. N. Toksoz, “Velocity vari-
ations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-penetrating
radar,” Geophysics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 683–695, May 1996.
[19] A. L. Endres, W. P. Clement, and D. L. Rudolph, “Ground penetrating
radar imaging of an aquifer during a pumping test,” Groundwater, vol. 38,
no. 4, pp. 566–576, Jul. 2000.
[20] S. Garambois, P. Senechal, and H. Perroud, “On the use of combined
geophysical methods to assess water content and water conductivity
of near-surface formations,” J. Hydrol., vol. 259, no. 1–4, pp. 32–48,
Mar. 2002.
BUSCH et al.: IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE-TEXTURE SOILS
[21] R. W. Jacob and J. F. Hermance, “Assessing the precision of GPR velocity
and vertical two-way travel time estimates,” J. Environ. Eng. Geophys.,
vol. 9, pp. 143–153, 2004.
[22] J. H. Bradford, “Measuring water content heterogeneity using multifold
GPR with reflection tomography,” Vadose Zone J., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 184–
193, Feb. 2008.
[23] R. N. Bohidar and J. F. Hermance, “The GPR refraction method,”
Geophysics, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1474–1485, 2002.
[24] J. van der Kruk and E. C. Slob, “Effective source wavelet determination,”
in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Ground Penetrating Radar, Expanded Abstracts,
2002, pp. 144–149.
[25] S. Busch, J. van der Kruk, J. Bikowski, and H. Vereecken, “Quantitative
conductivity and permittivity estimation using full-waveform inversion of
on-ground GPR data,” Geophysics, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. H79–H91, 2012.
[26] K. Kemna, J. Vanderborght, B. Kulessa, and H. Vereecken, “Imaging and
characterisation of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models,” J. Hydrol., vol. 267,
no. 3/4, pp. 125–146, 2002.
[27] A. Ramirez, W. Daily, D. LaBrecque, E. Owen, and D. Chesnut, “Moni-
toring an underground steam injection process using electrical resistance
tomography,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 73–87, Jan. 1993.
[28] Q. Z. Zhou, J. Shimada, and A. Sato, “Three-dimensional spatial and
temporal monitoring of soil water content using electrical resistivity to-
mography,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 273–285, Feb. 2001.
[29] B. Borchers, T. Uram, and J. M. H. Hendrickx, “Tikhonov regularization
of electrical conductivity depth profiles in field soils,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
J., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1004–1009, Jul. 1997.
[30] J. M. H. Hendrickx, B. Bochers, D. L. Corwin, S. M. Lesch,
A. C. Hilgendorf, and J. Schlue, “Inversion of soil conductivity profiles
from electromagnetic induction measurements, Theory and experimental
verification,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 673–685, 2002.
[31] T. Saey, D. Simpson, K. Vermeersch, L. Cockx, and M. Van Meirvenne,
“Comparing the EM38DD and DUALEM-21S sensors for depth-to-clay
mapping,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 7–12, Jan. 2009.
[32] J. R. Ernst, A. G. Green, H. Maurer, and K. Holliger, “Application of a
new 2D time-domain full-waveform inversion scheme to crosshole radar
data,” Geophysics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. J53–J64, Sep. 2007.
[33] G. A. Meles, J. van der Kruk, S. A. Greenhalgh, J. R. Ernst, H. Maurer,
and A. G. Green, “A new vector waveform inversion algorithm for simul-
taneous updating of conductivity and permittivity parameters from com-
bination crosshole/borehole-to-surface GPR data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 3391–3407, Sep. 2010.
[34] A. Klotzsche, J. van der Kruk, G. A. Meles, J. Doetsch, H. Maurer, and
N. Linde, “Full-waveform inversion of cross-hole ground-penetrating
radar data to characterize a gravel aquifer close to the Thur River,
Switzerland,” Near Surf. Geophys., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 635–649, Dec. 2010.
[35] A. Klotzsche, J. van der Kruk, G. A. Meles, and H. Vereecken, “Crosshole
GPR full-waveform inversion of waveguides acting as preferential flow
paths within aquifer systems,” Geophysics, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. H57–2H62,
Jul. 2012.
[36] S. Lambot, E. C. Slob, I. van den Bosch, B. Stockbroeckx, B. Scheers,
and M. Vanclooster, “Estimating soil electric properties from monostatic
ground-penetrating radar signal inversion in the frequency domain,” Water
Resour. Res., vol. 40, p. W04 205, 2004.
[37] A. Kalogeropoulos, J. van der Kruk, J. Hugenschmidt, S. Busch, and
K. Merz, “Chlorides and moisture assessment in concrete by GPR full
waveform inversion,” Near Surf. Geophys., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 277–285,
Jun. 2011.
[38] E. Slob, M. Sato, and G. Olhoeft, “Surface and borehole ground-
penetrating-radar developments,” Geophysics, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 75A103–
75A120, Sep. 2010.
[39] J. van der Kruk, C. P. A. Wapenaar, J. T. Fokkema, and P. M. van den Berg,
“Improved three-dimensional image reconstruction technique for multi-
component ground penetrating radar data,” Subsurf. Sens. Technol. Appl.,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 61–99, Jan. 2003.
[40] K. Holliger, M. Musil, and H. Maurer, “Ray-based amplitude tomography
for crosshole georadar data: A numerical assessment,” J. Appl. Geophys.,
vol. 47, no. 3/4, pp. 285–298, Jul. 2001.
[41] J. Tronicke and K. Holliger, “Effects of gas- and water-filled boreholes on
the amplitudes of crosshole georadar data as inferred from experimental
evidences,” Geophysics, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 1255–1260, 2004.
[42] R. Streich and J. van der Kruk, “Accurate imaging of multicomponent
GPR data based on exact radiation patterns,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 93–103, Jan. 2007.
[43] G. S. Smith, “Directive properties of antennas for transmission into a
material half-space,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-32, no. 3,
pp. 232–246, Mar. 1984.
3957
[44] Z. Wu and C. Liu, “An image reconstruction method using GPR data,”
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 327–334, Jan. 1999.
[45] J. Buchner, U. Wollschläger, and K. Roth, “Inverting surface GPR data
using FDTD simulation and automatic detection of reflections to esti-
mate subsurface water content and geometry,” Geophysics, vol. 77, no. 4,
pp. H45–H55, 2012.
[46] M. Bano, “Modelling of GPR waves for lossy media obeying a complex
power law of frequency for dielectric permittivity,” Geophys. Prospect.,
vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 11–26, Jan. 2004.
[47] L. W. Galagedara, G. W. Parkin, J. D. Redman, P. von Bertoldi, and
A. L. Endres, “Field studies of the GPR ground wave method for estimat-
ing soil water content during irrigation and drainage,” J. Hydrol., vol. 301,
no. 1–4, pp. 182–197, Jan. 2005.
[48] L. W. Galagedara, J. D. Redman, G. W. Parkin, A. P. Annan, and
A. L. Endres, “Numerical modeling of GPR to determine the direct ground
wave sampling depth,” Vadose Zone J., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1096–1106,
Nov. 2005.
[49] J. van der Kruk, R. Streich, and A. G. Green, “Properties of surface wave-
guides derived from separate and joint inversion of dispersive TE and TM
GPR data,” Geophysics, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. K19–K29, Jan./Feb. 2006.
[50] J. van der Kruk, R. Streich, and M. Grasmueck, “Toward true-amplitude
vector migration of GPR data using exact radiation patterns,” in Advances
in Near-Surface Seismology and Ground-Penetrating Radar, Geophys.
Dev. Ser., vol. 15, R. D. Miller, J. H. Bradford, and K. Holliger, Eds.
Tulsa, OK, USA: Soc. Exploration Geophys., 2010, ch. 6, pp. 97–116.
[51] R. Streich and J. van der Kruk, “Characterizing a GPR antenna system
by near-field measurements,” Geophysics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. A51–A55,
2007.
[52] J. C. Lagarias, J. A. Reeds, M. H. Wright, and P. E. Wright, “Convergence
properties of the Nelder–Mead simplex method in low dimensions,” Siam
J. Optim., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 112–147, 1998.
[53] L. Weihermüller, J. S. Huisman, S. Lambot, M. Herbst, and H. Vereecken,
“Mapping the spatial variation of soil water content at the field scale
with different ground penetrating radar techniques,” J. Hydrol., vol. 340,
no. 3/4, pp. 205–216, Jul. 2007.
[54] J. Vanderborght, A. Graf, C. Steenpass, B. Scharnagl, N. Prolingheuer,
M. Herbst, H. J. Hendricks Franssen, and H. Vereecken, “Within-field
variability of bare soil evaporation derived from eddy covariance mea-
surements,” Vadose Zone J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 943–954, Nov. 2010.
[55] K. Z. Jadoon, S. Lambot, B. Scharnagl, J. van der Kruk, E. Slob, and
H. Vereecken, “Quantifying field-scale surface soil water content from
proximal GPR signal inversion in the time domain,” Near Surf. Geophys.,
vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 483–491, Dec. 2010.
[56] Manual RES2DINV, Geotomo Software, Penang, Malaysia, Feb. 2013.
[57] J. Triantafilis, G. M. Laslett, and A. B. McBratney, “Calibrating an
electromagnetic induction instrument to measure salinity in soil under
irrigated cotton,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1009–1017,
May 2000.
[58] K. A. Sudduth, S. T. Drummond, and N. R. Kitchen, “Accuracy issues in
electromagnetic sensing of soil electrical conductivity for precision agri-
culture,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 239–264, May 2001.
[59] H. Abdu, D. A. Robinson, and S. B. Jones, “Comparing bulk soil elec-
trical conductivity determination using the DUALEM-1S and EM38-DD
electromagnetic induction instruments,” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 71,
no. 1, pp. 189–196, Jan. 2007.
[60] R. Gebbers, E. Lücke, M. Dabas, and H. Domsch, “Comparison of in-
struments for geoelectrical soil mapping at the field scale,” Near Surf.
Geophys., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 179–190, Jun. 2009.
[61] F. Lavoué, J. van der Kruk, J. Rings, F. André, D. Moghadas,
L. A. Huisman, S. Lambot, L. Weihermüller, J. Vanderborght, and
H. Vereecken, “Electromagnetic induction calibration using apparent elec-
trical conductivity modelling based on electrical resistivity tomography,”
Near Surf. Geophys., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 553–561, Dec. 2010.
[62] A. Mester, J. van der Kruk, E. Zimmerman, and H. Vereecken, “Quantita-
tive two-layer conductivity inversion of multi-configuration electromag-
netic induction measurements,” Vadose Zone J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1319–
1330, Nov. 2011.
[63] O. Loeffler and M. Bano, “GPR measurements in a controlled vadose
zone: Influence of the water content,” Vadose Zone J., vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 1082–1092, Nov. 2004.
[64] Sensors & Software Inc., Subsurface Views, Jul. 2010. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.sensoft.ca/Resources/NewsletterArchive.aspx
[65] N. Engheta, C. H. Papas, and C. Elachi, “Radiation patterns of in-
terfacial dipole antennas,” Radio Sci., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1557–1566,
Nov./Dec. 1982.
[66] E. Slob and J. Fokkema, “Coupling effects of two electric dipoles on an
interface,” Radio Sci., vol. 37, no. 5, p. 1073, 2002.
3958 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 52, NO. 7, JULY 2014

Sebastian Busch received the M.Sc. degree in Harry Vereecken received the Eng. and M.Sc.
geosciences from the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, degrees in agricultural engineering and the Ph.D.
Bochum, Germany, in 2008. He is currently working degree in agricultural sciences from the Katholieke
toward the Ph.D. degree at the Institute of Bio- and Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 1982 and
Geosciences: Agrosphere (IBG-3), Forschungszen- 1988, respectively. His Ph.D. was on the develop-
trum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany. ment of pedotransfer functions to estimate soil hy-
His current research focuses on quantitative draulic properties.
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) imaging using From 1988 to 1990, he was a Research Assistant
on-ground GPR full-waveform inversion and the on modeling nitrogen and water fluxes in soils and
coupled hydrogeophysical inversion of time-lapse groundwater. From 1990 to 1992, he was a Re-
surface GPR data to estimate the hydraulic properties searcher with the Institute of Petroleum and Organic
of a layered subsurface. Geochemistry, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany, where he
became the Head of the Division “Behavior of Pollutants in Geological Sys-
tems” from 1992 to 2000 and has been the Director of the Institute of Bio- and
Jan van der Kruk (S’00–A’01–M’03) received the Geosciences: Agrosphere (IBG-3) since 2000. His current field of research is
M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering and the Ph.D. modeling of flow and transport processes in soils and hydrogeophysics.
degree in geophysics from the Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, in 1995 and
2001, respectively.
From 2001 to 2008, he was a Lecturer and a
Senior Researcher with the Applied and Environ-
mental Geophysics Group, Eidgenoessische Tech-
nische Hochschule Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. His
research career has focused on the development of
imaging and inversion methodologies and their ap-
plications to solving applied problems. Since 2008, he has held a profes-
sorship position with Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen
University, Aachen, Germany, and is currently a Research Group Leader
with Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany. His recent work has
focused on the inversion of dispersive ground-penetrating radar (GPR) waves
propagating in surface waveguides, GPR full-waveform inversion techniques,
and quantitative multiconfiguration inversion of electromagnetic induction data.
Dr. van der Kruk was the recipient of the Best Paper Award from the
Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Delft University of Technology, in 2000
and the Honorable Mention for Best Paper in Geophysics in 2006. In 2011, he
was the General Chair of the International Workshop on Advanced GPR in
Aachen. In 2012, he presented a Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG)
online virtual class about “Full-Waveform Inversion of Ground Penetrating
Radar Data,” and he was a Co-organizer of the SEG-American Geophysical
Union (AGU) Hydrogeophysics Workshop in Boise, ID, USA.