1887
Volume 44, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

In order to obtain an accurate EM response with modelling software, most people assume that it is necessary to know or specify the excitation current waveform (or its derivative) precisely. A mathematical analysis shows that accurate model results can be obtained during the off time if the amplitude of the waveform is specified precisely in the latter parts of the waveform; however, in the earlier parts of the waveform, the amplitudes can be approximate as long as the area under the waveform is specified accurately. This means that the discretization should be fine in the latter parts of the waveform, but can be coarse in the early parts of the waveform. Coarse sampling of the waveform means that the convolution integrals can be calculated more efficiently. An example shows that the exponential rise and linear ramp assumed by some modelling software to approximate a waveform can give poor results with errors close to 10%. Another approximate waveform that is precise in the final parts of the waveform and has an accurate area under the waveform curve gives errors less than 0.15%.

ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG12040
2013-03-01
2026-01-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG12040
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Börner R.-U. Ernst O. G. Spitzer K. 2008 Fast 3-D simulation of transient electromagnetic fields by model reduction in the frequency domain using Krylov subspace projection: Geophysical Journal International 173 766 780 10.1111/j.1365‑246X.2008.03750.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03750.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen J. Macnae J. C. 1998 Automatic estimation of EM parameters in tau-domain: Exploration Geophysics 29 170 174 10.1071/EG998170
    https://doi.org/10.1071/EG998170 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cox L. H. Wilson G. A. Zhdanov M. S. 2010 3D inversion of airborne electromagnetic data using a moving footprint: Exploration Geophysics 41 250 259 10.1071/EG10003
    https://doi.org/10.1071/EG10003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Davis A. C. Macnae J. 2008 Quantifying AEM system characteristics using a ground loop: Geophysics 73 F179 F188 10.1190/1.2943189
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2943189 [Google Scholar]
  5. Davis, L. J., and Groom, R. W., 2009, A comparison of airborne and ground electromagnetic data near the Grand Canyon: SEG Expanded Abstracts, 28, 764–768. 10.1190/1.3255865
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255865
  6. Farquharson C. G. 2008 Constructing piecewise-constant models in multidimensional minimum-structure inversions: Geophysics 73 K1 K9 10.1190/1.2816650
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2816650 [Google Scholar]
  7. Holladay, J. S., 1981, YVESFT and CHANNEL, a subroutine package for stable transformation of sparse frequency domain data to the time domain: Research in Applied Geophysics, 17, Geophysics Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Toronto.
  8. Holtham E. Oldenburg D. W. 2010 Three-dimensional inversion of ZTEM data: Geophysical Journal International 182 168 182 10.1111/j.1365‑246X.2010.04634.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04634.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Kaufman A. 1978 Frequency and transient responses of EM fields created by currents in confined conductors: Geophysics 43 1002 1010 10.1190/1.1440861
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440861 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lamontagne, Y., 1975, Application of wideband time-domain electromagnetic measurements in mineral exploration: Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
  11. Liu G. 1998 Effect of transmitter current waveform on airborne TEM response: Exploration Geophysics 29 35 41 10.1071/EG998035
    https://doi.org/10.1071/EG998035 [Google Scholar]
  12. Murray, I. R., Alvarez, C., and Groom, R. W., 1999, Modelling of complex electromagnetic targets using advanced non-linear approximator techniques: 69th SEG Conference (Houston, Texas, USA), Extended Abstracts.
  13. Raiche A. 2008 The P223 software suite for planning and interpreting EM surveys: Preview 2008 no. 132, 25 30
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Stolz E. M. Macnae J. 1998 Evaluating EM waveforms by singular-value decomposition of exponential basis functions: Geophysics 63 64 74 10.1190/1.1444328
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444328 [Google Scholar]
  15. Vallée M. A. Smith R. S. Keating P. 2011 Metalliferous mining geophysics – State of the art after a decade in the new millennium: Geophysics 76 W31 W50 10.1190/1.3587224
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3587224 [Google Scholar]
  16. Wolfgram P. Karlik G. 1995 Conductivity-depth transform of GEOTEM data: Exploration Geophysics 26 179 185 10.1071/EG995179
    https://doi.org/10.1071/EG995179 [Google Scholar]
  17. Yang D. Oldenburg D. W. 2012 Three-dimensional inversion of airborne time-domain electromagnetic data with applications to a porphyry deposit: Geophysics 77 B23 B34 10.1190/geo2011‑0194.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0194.1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1071/EG12040
Loading
Precision requirements for specifying transmitter waveforms used for modelling the off-time electromagnetic response
Exploration Geophysics 44, 1 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1071/EG12040
/content/journals/10.1071/EG12040
/content/journals/10.1071/EG12040
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): airborne; current; ground; modelling; transient

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