1887
Volume 35, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Sea-ice thickness measurements using electromagnetic (EM) instruments require accurate data. Calibration of sea-ice thickness data acquired using a low induction number (LIN) EM sensor can be performed by conducting a geometric sounding at a range of heights over level sea ice of known thickness, and by comparing the observed data with the expected layered-earth response. Calibration corrections for scaling, phase-mixing, and zero-offset errors can be derived using least-squares inversion to minimise the misfit between the observed data and the theoretical response, and can be incorporated in modelling algorithms used to determine sea-ice thickness.

This paper presents a case history illustrating identification and correction of calibration errors in frequency-domain EM data for Antarctic sea-ice thickness measurements. Comparison of coincident EM measurements made using three EM31 instruments showed that measured apparent conductivities disagreed by up to around 100 mS/m, resulting in errors in the estimated sea-ice thickness of up to 60%. Separate calibration corrections were determined for each instrument by analysis of geometrical sounding data acquired over level sea ice. Sea-ice thickness at the calibration site was determined by making a large number of drilled thickness measurements over the footprint of the EM instrument, and seawater and sea-ice conductivities were determined using independent measurements. Best-fit scaling, phase-mixing, and zero-offset errors were determined via inversion of the geometrical sounding data, with the sea-ice thickness and seawater conductivity fixed at their known values. After application of the calibration corrections, sea-ice thicknesses derived from the three instruments agreed closely with each other and with drilling results. Calibration corrections derived in this manner have been shown to be valid over a period of at least several weeks.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG04283
2004-12-01
2026-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Butler, K.E., Nadeau, J-C., Parrott, R., and Daigle, A., 2004, Delineating recharge to a river valley aquifer by riverine seismic and EM methods: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,9, 95-109.
  2. Deszcz-Pan, M., Fitterman, D.V., and Labson, V.E, 1998, Reduction of inversion errors in helicopter EM data using auxiliary information: Exploration Geophysics,29, 142-146.
  3. Fitterman, D.V., 1998, Sources of calibration errors in helicopter EM data: Exploration Geophysics,29, 65-70.
  4. Frischknecht, EC, Labson, V.E, Spies, B.R., and Anderson, W.L., 1991, Profiling methods using small sources: inNabighian, M.N., (ed.), Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics, Volume 2, Application, Part A: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 105-270.
  5. Kawasaki, K., and Osterkamp, T.E., 1988, Mapping shallow permafrost by electromagnetic induction - practical considerations: Cold Regions Science & Technology,15, 278-288.
  6. McNeill, J.D., 1980, Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurements at low induction numbers: Geonics Limited Technical Note TN-6.
  7. Reid, IE., Worby, A.P., Vrbancich, I, and Munro, A.I.S., 2003, Ship-borne electromagnetic measurements of Antarctic sea ice thickness: Geophysics,68. 1537-1546.
  8. Reid, J.E., Kimber, B.A., and Worby, A.P., 2004, Calibration of a low induction number electromagnetic instrument for sea ice thickness measurements: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,9, 43-50.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG04283
Loading

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