Abstract
Electromagnetic (EM) induction and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) methods have been used extensively in areas of karst to detect and delineate major structural and solution features and to improve site assessments. These methods do not work equally well in all soils and the amount of practical information derived from surveys has varied. The choice of the most appropriate method often depends on the electrical properties of the soils. This study characterized the use of GPR and EM at two contrasting sites in Florida and Pennsylvania. The Florida site is underlain by relatively thick layers of electrically resistive sands overlying loamy marine sediments and limestone bedrock. GPR was effectively used to determine the thickness of surface layers and the locations of buried solution features. Multiple, contrasting soil horizons and layers weakened relationships and created non-unique interpretations for EM. The Pennsylvania site is was underlain by clayey residuum and limestone bedrock. The clayey residuum is opaque to GPR and observation depths are severely restricted. EM induction effectively characterized the depths to bedrock within the Pennsylvania site. The integrated use of both methods, supported by commensurate `ground truth' verifications, helped to increase confidence in interpretations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
