1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 19, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The physical parameter derived from the inversion of electromagnetic surveys, the distribution of subsurface conductivity, is interesting in itself only in very few instances. In most cases, the conductivity distribution will have to be interpreted in terms of the target properties of the survey, for example: a geological interpretation of lithology; a hydrogeological interpretation of hydraulic conductivity; a biohazard/geotechnical interpretation of polluted/not‐polluted ground; and/or an archaeological interpretation of manmade/natural finds. The parameters of interest in these categories are often called derived products, indicating that the parameter of interest is not the same as the parameter whose distribution is found in the inversion process of the geophysical data. The interpretation process can be done in a wide variety of ways; from a predominantly cognitive approach based on professional experience, to an application of rigorous quantitative relations found from scientific endeavours.

In most practical situations, the number of locations with independently measured information on the derived product is considerably smaller than the number of geophysics locations. It is precisely this sparsity of primary information on the derived product that encourages the use of geophysical inversion results as a sort of qualified interpolator through a formulation of a correlation between a geophysical parameter and the parameter characterising the derived product. In this paper, a general, quantitative approach to deriving the parameter of interest is presented using statistical analytic measures and an advanced use of an interpolation method that takes uncertainties into account. The approach is demonstrated in a field example from Ølgod, Denmark, where the cumulated clay thickness in the upper 30 m is estimated using a combination of borehole drilling records and an airborne transient survey.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12171
2021-09-12
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12171
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aguilar‐López, J.P., Bogaard, T. & Gerke, H.H. (2020) Dual‐permeability model improvements for representation of preferential flow in fractured clays. Water Resources Research, 56, 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Auken, E. & Christiansen, A.V. (2004) Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics, 69, 752–761.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Auken, E., Pellerin, L., Christensen, N. B. & Sørensen, K. I. (2006) A survey of current trends in near‐surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics, 71(5), G249–G260.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Auken, E., Christiansen, A. V., Westergaard, J. A., Kirkegaard, C., Foged, N. & Viezzoli, A. (2009) An integrated processing scheme for high‐resolution airborne electromagnetic surveys, the SkyTEM system. Exploration Geophysics, 40, 184–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Auken, E., Christiansen, A.V., Kirkegaard, C., Fiandaca, G., Schamper, C., Behroozmand, A.A.et al. (2014). An overview of a highly versatile forward and stable inverse algorithm for airborne, ground‐based and borehole electromagnetic and electric data. Exploration Geophysics, 46, 223–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Auken, E., Boesen, T. & Christiansen, A.V. (2017) A review of airborne electromagnetic methods with focus on geotechnical and hydrological applications from 2007 to 2017. Advances in Geophysics, 58, 47–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Belikov, V.V., Ivanov, V.D., Kontorovich, V.K., Korytnik, S.A. & Semenov, A.Y. (1997) The non‐Sibsonian interpolation: a new method of interpolation of the values of a function on an arbitrary set of points. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 37(1), 9–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. De Carlo, L., Caputo, M.C., Masciale, R., Vurro, M. & Portoghese, I. (2020) Monitoring the drainage efficiency of infiltration trenches in fractured and karstified limestone via time‐lapse hydrogeophysical approach. Water 2020, 12, 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Christensen, N.B. & Tølbøll, R.J. (2009) A lateral model parameter correlation procedure for one‐dimensional inverse modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 57, 919–929.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Christensen, N.B. (2016a) Fast approximate 1D modelling and inversion of transient electromagnetic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 64, 1620–1631.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen, N.B. (2016b) Strictly horizontal lateral parameter correlation for 1D inverse modelling of large data sets. Near Surface Geophysics, 14, 391–399.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen, N.B. (2018) Interpretation attributes derived from AEM inversion models using the continuous wavelet transform. Near Surface Geophysics, 16, 665–678.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, N.B. (2021) Resolution attributes for AEM inversion models. A Conceptual Analysis and Novel Measures. Submitted.
  14. Christiansen, A.V., Foged, N. & Auken, E. (2014) A concept for calculating accumulated clay thickness from borehole lithological logs and resistivity models for nitrate vulnerability assessment. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 108, 69–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Commer, M., Pride, S.R., Vasco, D.W., Finsterle, S. & Kowalsky, M.B. (2020) Imaging of a fluid injection process using geophysical data—A didactic example. Geophysics 2020, 85, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooper, G.R.J. & Cowan, D. (2009) Blocking geophysical borehole log data using the continuous wavelet transform. Exploration Geophysics, 40(2), 233–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cowan, D.R. & Cooper, G.R.J. (2003) Wavelet analysis of detailed drillhole magnetic susceptibility data, Brockman Iron Formation, Hamersley Basin, Western Australia. Exploration Geophysics, 34, 87–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis, A.C. & Christensen, N.B. (2013) Derivative analysis for layer selection of geophysical borehole logs. Computers & Geosciences, 60, 34–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gonzales Amaya, A., Ortiz, J., Durán, A. & Villazon, M. (2019) Hydrogeophysical methods and hydrogeological models: basis for groundwater sustainable management in Valle Alto (Bolivia). Sustainable Water Resources Management, 5, 1179–1188.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Graeves, R.J., Lesmes, D.P., Lee, J.M. & Toksöz, M.N. (1996) Velocity variations and water content estimated from multi‐offset ground penetrating radar. Geophysics, 61, 683–695.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gunnink, J.L. & Siemon, B. (2009) Combining airborne electromagnetics and drillings to construct a stochastic 3D lithological model. EAGE 15th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Dublin, Ireland.
  22. Han, D.H., Nur, A. & Morgan, D. (1986) Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones. Geophysics, 51, 2093–2107.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. He, X., Sonnenborg, T.O., Jørgensen, F., Høyer, A.‐S., Møller, R.R. & Jensen, K.H. (2013) Analyzing the effects of geological and parameter uncertainty on prediction of groundwater head and travel time. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 3245–3260.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill, E.J. & Uvarova, Y. (2018) Identifying the nature of lithogeochemical boundaries in drill holes. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 184, 167–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill, E.J., Pearce, M.A. & Stromberg, J.M. (2020) Improving automated geological logging of drill holes by incorporating multiscale spatial methods. Mathematical Geosciences, 53, 21–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinnell, A.C., Ferré, T.P.A., Vrugt, J.A., Huisman, J.A., Moysey, S., Rings, J.et al. (2010) Improved extraction of hydrologic information from geophysical data through coupled hydrogeophysical inversion. Water Resources Research, 46.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hubbard, S.S. & Rubin, Y. (2000) Hydrogeological parameter estimation using geophysical data. A review of selected techniques. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 45, 3–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Høyer, A.S., Lykke‐Andersen, H., Jørgensen, F. & Auken, E. (2011) Combined interpretation of SkyTEM and high‐resolution seismic data. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36, 1386–1397.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Høyer, A.‐S., Møller, I. & Jørgensen, F. (2013a) Challenges in geophysical mapping of glaciotectonic structures. Geophysics, 78, B287–B303.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoyer, A.‐S., Jørgensen, F., Piotrowski, J.A. & Jakobsen, P.R. (2013b) Deeply rooted glaciotectonism in western Denmark: geological composition, structural characteristics and the origin of Varde hill‐island. Journal of Quaternary Science, 28, 683–696.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Høyer, A.‐S., Jørgensen, F., Lykke‐Andersen, H. & Christiansen, A.V. (2014) Iterative modelling of AEM data based on geological a priori information from seismic and borehole data. Near Surface Geophysics, 12, 635–650.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jain, A.K. (2010) Data clustering: 50 years beyond K‐means. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31, 651–666.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jørgensen, F., Scheer, W., Thomsen, S., Sonnenborg, T.O., Hinsby, K., Wiederhold, H.et al. (2012) Transboundary geophysical mapping of geological elements and salinity distribution critical for the assessment of future sea water intrusion in response to sea level rise. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 1845–1962.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jørgensen, F., Møller, R.R., Nebel, L., Jensen, N., Christiansen, A.V. & Sandersen, P. (2013) A method for cognitive 3D geological voxel modelling of AEM data. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 72, 421–432.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirsch, R., Sengpiel, K.P. & Voss, W. (2003) The use of electrical conductivity mapping in the definition of an aquifer vulnerability index. Near Surface Geophysics, 1, 13–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Klimentos, T. (1991) The effects of porosity‐permeability‐clay content on the velocity of compressional waves. Geophysics, 56, 1930–1939.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ledoux, H., Gold, C.M. & Fisher, P. (2005) An efficient natural neighbour interpolation algorithm for geoscientific modelling. In: Fisher, Peter F. (Ed.) Developments in spatial data handling. Berlin: Springer, pp. 97–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ley‐Cooper, A.Y., Macnae, J.C. & Tweed, S. (2008) Estimating subsurface porosity and salt loads using airborne geophysical data. Near Surface Geophysics, 6, 31–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallat, S. (1998) A wavelet tour of signal processing. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Maurer, H., Holliger, K. & Boerner, D.E. (1998) Stochastic regularization: smoothness or similarity?Geophysical Research Letters, 25(15), 2889–2892.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Møller, I., Søndergaard, V.H. & Jørgensen, F. (2009a) Geophysical methods and data administration in Danish groundwater mapping. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin, 17, 41–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Møller, I., Søndergaard, V.H., Jørgensen, F., Auken, E. & Christiansen, A.V. (2009b) Integrated management and utilization of hydrogeophysical data on a national scale. Near Surface Geophysics, 7, 647–659.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Paasche, H., Tronicke, J., Holliger, K., Green, A.G. & Maurer, H. (2006) Integration of diverse physical‐property models: subsurface zonation and petrophysical parameter estimation based on fuzzy c‐means cluster analyses. Geophysics, 71, H33–H44.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Reynolds, D.A. & Kueper, B.H. (2001) Multiphase flow and transport in fractured clay/sand sequences. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 51, 41–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rhoades, J.D., Manteghi, N.A., Shouse, P.J. & Alves, W.J. (1989) Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: new formulations and calibrations. Soil Sciences Society of America Journal, 53, 433–439.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Serban, D.Z. & Jacobsen, B.H. (2001) The use of broadband prior covariance for inverse palaeoclimate estimation. Geophysical Journal International, 147, 29–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Shevnin, V., Mousatov, A., Ryjov, A. & Delgado‐Rodriquez, O. (2007) Estimation of clay content in soil based on resistivity modelling and laboratory measurements. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 265–275.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sibson, R. (1981) A brief description of natural neighbor interpolation. In: Barnett, V. (Ed.) Interpreting multivariate data. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 21–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Sørensen, K.I. & Larsen, F. (1999) Ellog Auger drilling: 3‐in‐one method for hydrogeological data collection. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 19(4), 97–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sørensen, K.I. & Auken, E. (2004) SkyTEM ‐ a new high‐resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics, 35, 191–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Thomsen, R., Søndergaard, V.H. & Sørensen, K.I. (2004) Hydrogeological mapping as a basis for establishing site‐specific groundwater protection zones in Denmark. Hydrogeology Journal, 12, 550–562.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wu, J. (2012) Advances in K‐means clustering ‐ a data mining thinking. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12171
Loading
Using geophysical survey results in the inference of aquifer vulnerability measures
Near Surface Geophysics 19, 505 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12171
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12171
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12171
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Aquifer vulnerability; Derived products; Geophysics

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error