High yield electrical prospection for characterization of soil

Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization 4, ISC-4

Volumn 1, Issue , 2013, Pages 587-595

  Guerrero, O ^a   Lataste, J F ^a   Marache, A ^a  

^a University Bordeaux I2M UMR CNRS 5295   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY; EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS; HIGH YIELD; LIMIT STATE; NEW SOURCES; NOISE MEASUREMENTS;

DATA HANDLING; GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING;

CHARACTERIZATION;

EID: 84866905194     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Barker, R.D. 1989. Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four-electrode arrays, Geophysics, soc. of Expl. Geophys. 54: 1031-1037.
2. Blais, J.P. 2004. Methodologie mise en oeuvre par EDF pour la detection de fuites dans les ouvrages en remblais par methodes non destructives, EDF-SGG, Symposcience communication: p. 18.
3. Christensen, N.B. & Sorensen, K. 2001. Pulled array continuous electrical sounding with an additionalinductive source: An experimental design study, Geophysical prospecting, 49: 241-254.
4. Dujardin, F.H. Ertaud, J.Y. Aucouturier, T. Nguen, J. & Thomine, J.M. 1997. Smoothing technique using Fourier transforms applied to stereometric data obtained from optoelectronic recordings of human gait, Human Movement Science, 16: 275-282.
5. Friedel, S., Thielen, A. & Springman, S.M. 2006. Investigation of a slope endangered by rainfall-induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing Original Research Article, Journal of Applied Geophysics, Volume 60, Issue 2, October 2006: 100-114.
6. Gavin, J., Haberman, S. & Verrall, R. 1993. Moving weighted average graduation using kernel estimation, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 12: 113-126.
7. Kafadar, K. & Morris, M.D. 2002. Nonlinear smoothers in two dimensions for environmental data, Chemometrics an Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 60: 113-125.
8. Lew, J.J. 1997. Subsurface Utility Engineering: An Initial Step in Project Development, Journal of Construction Education, 2: 109-118.
9. Loke, M.H. & Barker, R.D. 1996. Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys. Prospect. 44: 131-152.
10. Lund, E.D., Christy, C.D. & Drummond, P.E. 1999. Practical applications of soil electrical conductivity mapping, Veris Technologies, Proceeding of the 2nd European Conference on Precision Agriculture: p. 9.
11. McDonough, P.V., Noonan, J.P. & Hall, G.R. 1995. A new chaos detector, Computers Elect. Engng 6, 21: 417-431.
12. Meric, O. 2006. Etude de mouvement de terrain par methodes geophysiques, Memoire de These, Universite Joseph-Fourier-Grenoble I: p. 252.
13. Panissod, C., Lajarthe, M. & Tabbagh, A. 1997. Potential focusing : a new multielectrode array concept, simulation study, and field test in archeological prospecting, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 38: 1-23.
14. Roy, A. & Apparo, A. 1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods, Geophysics, 36: 943-959.
15. Tabbagh, A. 1992. Methodes geophysiques appliquees a la prospection archeologique, Mem. Soc. Geol. France 161: 9-15.
16. Van Groenigen, J.W. 2000. The influence of variogram parameters on optimal sampling schemes for mapping by kriging, Geoderma, 97: 223-236.
17. Webster, R. 2000. Is soil variation random? Geoderma, 97: 149-163.
18. Webster, R. 2005. Spatial variation, soil properties, Encyclopedia of soil in the Environment, 4: 1-13.