1887
ASEG2003 - 16th Geophysical Conference
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Conductivity-depth images are finding application in salinity, ground water and environmental mapping. Hydrological modeling demands are for a much higher vertical resolution than the 10+m accuracy that was adequate in CDIs used for mineral exploration. Contractors are increasingly confident of system waveform, geometry, and some provide corrections for factors such as pitch, roll and yaw. This increased system accuracy is the trigger for efforts in increasing the accuracy of processing.

The CDI process makes a number of approximations in order to increase the speed of processing. One of the most critical in program EMFlow is an assumption that the transmitter and receiver are entirely within the current system induced in the ground at all delay times. This assumption equates to all components of the secondary field decaying monotonically with time. For typical fixed-wing AEM geometries, this assumption is poor for the z component of the response, and in fact on a CDI, z component data may predict to top of a surficial conductor to be several metres in the air. Allowing for part of the induced currents to lie between the transmitter and receiver leads to an accurate prediction of surficial conductors to lie at or below surface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2003ab105
2003-08-01
2026-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Lane, R. Heislers, D. and McDonald, P., 2001. Filling in the gaps – validation and integration of airborne EM data with surface and subsurface observations for catchment management – an example from Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Exploration Geophysics 23, 225-235.
  2. Macnae, J. and Lamontagne, Y., 1987, Imaging quasi-layered conductive structures by simple processing of transient electromagnetic data: Geophysics, 52, 545-554.
  3. Macnae, J. C, Smith, R., Polzer, B. D., Lamontagne, Y. and Klinkert, P. S., 1991, Conductivity-depth imaging of airborne electromagnetic step-response data: Geophysics, 56, 102-114.
  4. Macnae, J., King, A., Stolz, N., Osmakoff, A. and Blaha, A., 1998, Fast AEM data processing and inversion: Expl. Geophys, 29, 163-169.
  5. Smith, R. S. and West, G. F., 1988, An explanation of abnormal TEM responses: Coincident-loop negatives, and the loop effect: Expl. Geophys, 19, 435-446.
  6. Stolz, E. and Macnae, J., 1998, Evaluating EM waveforms by singular-value decomposition of exponential basis functions : Geophysics, 63, 64-74.
  7. Wolf gram, P. and Golden, H, 2001, Airborne EM applied to sulphide nickel – examples and analysis, Expl. Geophysics 32, 136-140.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2003ab105
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CDI; conductivity; shallow; sounding
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