% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{vanderKruk:21748,
      author       = {van der Kruk, J. and Diamanti, N. and Giannopoulos, A. and
                      Vereecken, H.},
      title        = {{I}nversion of dispersive {GPR} pulse propagation in
                      waveguides with heterogeneities and rough and dipping
                      interfaces},
      journal      = {Journal of applied geophysics},
      volume       = {81},
      issn         = {0926-9851},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-21748},
      pages        = {88 - 96},
      year         = {2012},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
      abstract     = {We investigate the influence of interface roughness,
                      heterogeneous media, and dipping layers on the inversion of
                      dispersive GPR pulse propagation in a surface waveguide,
                      using 3D FDTD modelling. For both broadside and endfire
                      source-receiver configurations, we calculated responses for
                      different interface roughnesses, heterogeneities in
                      dielectric properties, and dipping interfaces. For
                      increasing roughness and heterogeneity, increased
                      backscatter energy is visible in the data. The use of
                      multiple source-receiver offsets to calculate the
                      phase-velocity spectrum produced a relatively good
                      signal-to-noise ratio. For low interface roughness the
                      medium properties could be reasonably well reconstructed.
                      For the largest interface roughness, significant diffracted
                      energy was present and the medium properties could not be
                      reliably reconstructed. For models having stochastic
                      relative permittivity variations with a Std up to $15\%$ and
                      correlation lengths between 0.1 and 0.5 m, the model
                      parameters could still be relatively well reconstructed. For
                      models with a dipping interface, the shot and countershot
                      configuration clearly indicate lateral changes. Single-mode
                      inversions return a wide range of medium property values,
                      whereas combined TE-TM inversion return permittivity values
                      that are remarkable close to the epsilon(1) and epsilon(2)
                      values for both the shot and countershot configuration. In
                      general, the interface roughness and heterogeneous media
                      have a relative small influence on the inversion results.
                      This is probably due to the use of multi-offset data for
                      calculating the phase-velocity spectrum which is reducing
                      the random noise. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights
                      reserved.},
      keywords     = {J (WoSType)},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
      shelfmark    = {Geosciences, Multidisciplinary / Mining $\&$ Mineral
                      Processing},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000304578900011},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.09.013},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/21748},
}