Tweet
Ground penetrating radar - questions on depth and accuracy
I've tried researching various aspects of GPR but came up with a lot of differing answers, some contradictory. I'm thinking that much of this may be related to the quality, technology, age and strength of the unit so I thought I would ask here.
I'm interested in void detection and possibly trace metals (maybe something the size of rebar 1/4" to 1" diameter). Voids could be anywhere from 20ft to 150ft down and have a minimum diameter of 24" x 36" (more likely 30" x 42-48") and run a length of 30ft up to 300+ ft. The detection of the voids would be difficult but the best and maybe only method of detection would be perpendicular to the voids. (for those interested these are some old tunnels in historic sites that have long since been buried by soil/sand buildup.
As far as available technology, if power (is wattage the determining power factor?) is a major determining factor, there would be plenty of power available for the process (I could see 10 Kw easily available if necessary).
I have also heard of some detection methods that use a receiver on the opposite side of the void as the receiver. In the example above, a bore hole would be drilled at maybe 200-250ft if the max detection depth of voids is 150. Some type of receiver would be pulled through the bore hole under the transmission device on the surface. This method is very undesirable as it would be so much more labor intensive but is still of interest.
I'm interested in void detection and possibly trace metals (maybe something the size of rebar 1/4" to 1" diameter). Voids could be anywhere from 20ft to 150ft down and have a minimum diameter of 24" x 36" (more likely 30" x 42-48") and run a length of 30ft up to 300+ ft. The detection of the voids would be difficult but the best and maybe only method of detection would be perpendicular to the voids. (for those interested these are some old tunnels in historic sites that have long since been buried by soil/sand buildup.
As far as available technology, if power (is wattage the determining power factor?) is a major determining factor, there would be plenty of power available for the process (I could see 10 Kw easily available if necessary).
I have also heard of some detection methods that use a receiver on the opposite side of the void as the receiver. In the example above, a bore hole would be drilled at maybe 200-250ft if the max detection depth of voids is 150. Some type of receiver would be pulled through the bore hole under the transmission device on the surface. This method is very undesirable as it would be so much more labor intensive but is still of interest.