2016
DOI: 10.1190/geo2014-0549.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpretation of shallow electromagnetic instruments resistivity and magnetic susceptibility measurements using rapid 1D/3D inversion

Abstract: Interpretation of shallow EMI resistivity and magnetic susceptibility measurements using rapid 1D/3D inversion Short title: Rapid1D/3D inversion of shallow EMI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given that any electromagnetic (EM) method in the low frequency range [16] is diffusive and integrates a large volume based on the footprint of the system, this approach will inevitably smoothen out real soil structures. A few authors have suggested to perform a full inversion of the EMI data without assuming the LIN approximation [29][30][31], but it is our impression that this is not common practice. For airborne instruments of a similar type, the industry standard has been to perform a full processing and inversion of the data [32,33].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given that any electromagnetic (EM) method in the low frequency range [16] is diffusive and integrates a large volume based on the footprint of the system, this approach will inevitably smoothen out real soil structures. A few authors have suggested to perform a full inversion of the EMI data without assuming the LIN approximation [29][30][31], but it is our impression that this is not common practice. For airborne instruments of a similar type, the industry standard has been to perform a full processing and inversion of the data [32,33].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, in this study, we have tried to get as much information as possible by a constrained inversion of FDEM data (Benech et al, 2016). The characteristics of sedimentary filling and depth of the limestone substrate have been interpreted from the solution The thickness of the first layer kept fix to 1.5 m, and the thickness of the second layer was considered the free variable.…”
Section: Interpretation and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The true penetration depths are a function of the topsoil conductivity which should vary with different sites(Heil and Schmidhalter, 2017;Paton, 2012). The penetration depth for MSa is much different from that of the ECa and shows a complex pattern with negative or less than background values for the horizontal coplanar response when the target's depth is less than 0.36 times transmitter-receiver separation(Benech et al, 2016;Sadatcharam et al, 2020) Sadatcharam et al (2020). showed that 90% of the cumulative response signals from vertical coplanar transmitter-receive coils with spacings of 32, 71 and 118 cm are from a theoretical depth of 30, 65 and 110 cm, validating their use for shallow investigation at less than 1 m depth.…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%