Technology you can trust in

Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR] is a reliable and widely trusted tool for gaining subsurface information in a wide variety of applications. The science underlying the technique is widely understood, as are the limitations of the method, and the majority of well known and respected operators of GPR form the membership of the European GPR Association.

In order to obtain membership of EuroGPR, candidates are expected to provide evidence of professional competence and integrity and when members, to adhere to the Association's code of conduct and guidelines. This ensures that the services provided by the members of EuroGPR are delivered within a framework of good practice upheld by the Association.

Where prospective clients for GPR surveys choose to use services provided by non members of the Association, they should be aware that these may not meet the professional standards of performance normally provided by members of EuroGPR. In these situations the client would be well advised to perform the process of due diligence in assessing the qualifications, competence and integrity of the GPR survey provider to ensure a satisfactory outcome.

Prospective clients should be extremely careful to question the technical validity of claims for GPR services that appear to offer results significantly better than the norm, as these may not be able to be subsequently substantiated and could result in potential losses. In order to assist prospective clients to reach a considered view we have provided a short list of relevant literature which indicates the sort of claims which should be treated with caution.

Technical claims which appear “too good to be true”, even if presented as a scientific advance, can be evaluated using the criteria of the Scamalyzer, kindly provided by geophysicist and author Greg Hodges. This takes as its starting point common attributes of previously discredited “technology”. Use of this spreadsheet involves the subjective assessment by the individual assigning the values and the Association assumes no responsibility for assessments made.

Relevant Literature

  • D. J. Daniels, E. Utsi, 2013. "GPR case history and known physical principles" Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR 2013), Nantes, France, July 2013 (ISBN 978-1-4799-0937-7, IEEE Catalogue No. CFP13538-PRT) 
  • Hodges, G, 2005.  "Voodoo Methods: Dealing With the Dark Side of Geophysics" Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Atlanta, USA, April 2005.
  • Hodges, G, 2011.  "Commentary: There's a dark side to Geophysics", Northern Miner, Canada, 6th May 2011.
  • McCann, W A, 1995.  "GPR and Archaeology in Central London", Archaeological Prospection, Vol2, pp 155-166, 1995.
  • Olhoeft, G R, Quality Control in Geophysics, in Geophysical technologies for detecting underground coalmine voids: 28-30 July 2003, Lexington, KY, proceedings CD-ROM, 7p.
  • M.T. Tuley, J.M. Ralston, F.S. Rotondo, A.M. Andrews, and E.M. Rosen, Evaluation of EarthRadar unexploded ordnance testing at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA, Aerospace and Electronics Magazine, IEEE, Vol 17, Issue 5, pp10 – 12, 2002.

Websites Relating to Discredited Geophysical Methods (not necessarily GPR)