1887
Volume 51, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Frequency domain helicopter-borne electromagnetic (FHEM) surveys have been used as an effective tool for the exploration of underground resources for as long as airborne electromagnetics (AEM) has existed. Large FHEM data sets are commonly interpreted with very fast 1D inversion algorithms that often numerically adequately fit the data sets, even though they yield incorrect results near 2D/3D geological structures. The present study aims to compare 1D and 2D inversion algorithms when applied to the reconstruction of geologically complex regions. We have developed a 2D inversion algorithm incorporating the Levenberg–Marquardt least-squares approach regularised through spatial constraints to retrieve 2D electrical resistivity models associated with arbitrary surface topography. The approach uses a 2D finite element frequency domain solution and a tailored triangular meshing algorithm based on the Ruppert’s Delaunay refinement for the forward modelling. We illustrate how rough topographic effects obscure the FHEM response and affect recovered resistivity models through numerical experiments. We also demonstrate the influence of acquisition frequency and resistivity structure on the topographic effect. In the Appendix, we discuss the FHEM footprint concept from a 2D perspective to assess how 2D effects affect and bias 1D inversion results. Complex 2D synthetic scenarios are presented to compare 1D and 2D inversion in various settings. Two field cases from Norway and Iran are presented to show the model improvements with 2D inversion. For the Norwegian case, the 2D FHEM inversion aligns well with a model retrieved from ground-based electrical resistivity tomography. We show the bias imposed on the 2D inversion of the data set from Iran by improper system calibration.

© 2019 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
2020-01-02
2026-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AarhusInv 2015 Manual for inversion program ver. 6.3: HydroGeophysics Group (HGG), University of Aarhus, Denmark. [Web document]. Available at< http://www.hgg.geo.au.dk/HGGsoftware/em1dinv/em1dinv_manual.pdf>.
  2. Abedi, M., D. Fournier, S. G. Devriese, and D. W. Oldenburg 2018 Integrated inversion of airborne geophysics over a structural geological unit: A case study for delineation of a porphyry copper zone in Iran. Journal of Applied Geophysics152: 188–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auken, E., N. Foged, and K. I. Sørensen 2002 Model recognition by 1-D laterally constrained inversion of resistivity data: 9th Meeting, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society—European Section, Proceedings, 241–244.
  4. Auken, E., and A. V. Christiansen 2004 Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics69: 752–761. doi: 10.1190/1.1759461
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1759461 [Google Scholar]
  5. Auken, E., A. V. Christiansen, J. H. Westergaard, C. Kirkegaard, N. Foged, and A. Viezzoli 2009 An integrated processing scheme for high-resolution airborne electromagnetic surveys, the SkyTEM system. Exploration Geophysics40: 184–192. doi: 10.1071/EG08128
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG08128 [Google Scholar]
  6. Banaszczyk, S., D. Annetts, and M. Dentith 2016 Towards resolving dipping contacts undercover in the Capricorn Orogen using AEM. ASEG Extended Abstracts1: 1–8. doi: 10.1071/ASEG2016ab167
     https://doi.org/10.1071/ASEG2016ab167 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baranwal, V. C., E. Dalsegg, J. F. Tønnesen, J. S. Rønning, I. L. Solberg, A. Rodionov, and H. Dretvik 2015 Mapping of marine clay layers using airborne EM and ground geophysical surveys at Byneset, Trondheim municipality: Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) Report 2015.006.
  8. Baranwal, V. C., J. S. Rønning, I.-L. Solberg, E. Dalsegg, J. F. Tønnesen, and M. Long 2017 Investigation of a sensitive clay landslide area using frequency-domain helicopter-borne EM and ground geophysical methods: Landslides in sensitive clays. Cham: Springer international publishing. 475-485.
  9. Beamish, D. 2003 Airborne EM footprints. Geophysical Prospecting51: 49–60. doi: 10.1046/j.1365‑2478.2003.00353.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2003.00353.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Boesen, T., E. Auken, A. V. Christiansen, G. Fiandaca, C. Kirkegaard, A. Aspmo Pfaffhuber, and M. Vöge 2018 An efficient 2D inversion scheme for airborne frequency-domain data. Geophysics83: E189–E201. doi: 10.1190/geo2017‑0280.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0280.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brodie, R., and M. Sambridge 2006 A holistic approach to inversion of frequency-domain airborne EM data. Geophysics71: G301–G312. doi: 10.1190/1.2356112
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2356112 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang-Chun, Y., R. Xiu-Yan, L. Yun-He, Q. Yan-Fu, Q. Chang-Kai, and C. Jing 2015 Review on airborne electromagnetic inverse theory and applications. Geophysics80: W17–W31. doi: 10.1190/geo2014‑0544.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0544.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, N. B., A. Fitzpatrick, and T. Munday 2010 Fast approximate 1D inversion of frequency domain electromagnetic data. Near Surface Geophysics8: 1–15. doi: 10.3997/1873‑0604.2009026
     https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2009026 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahlin, T. 1993 On the Automation of 2D Resistivity Surveying for Engineering and Environmental Applications: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering Geology, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R. G. 1998 Inversion of airborne electromagnetic data. Exploration Geophysics29: 121–127. doi: 10.1071/EG998121
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG998121 [Google Scholar]
  16. Farquharson, C. G., D. W. Oldenburg, and P. S. Routh 2003 Simultaneous 1D inversion of loop-loop electromagnetic data for magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity. Geophysics68: 1857–1869. doi: 10.1190/1.1635038
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1635038 [Google Scholar]
  17. Holcombe, J., and G. Jirack 1984 3-D terrain corrections in resistivity surveys. Geophysics49: 439–452. doi: 10.1190/1.1441679
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441679 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, H. J., Y. Song, and K. H. Lee 1999 Inequality constraint in least-squares inversion of geophysical data. Earth, planets and space51: 255–259. doi: 10.1186/BF03352229
     https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352229 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ley-Cooper, A. Y., A. Viezzoli, J. Guillemoteau, G. Vignoli, J. Macnae, L. Cox, and T. Munday 2014 Airborne electromagnetic modeling options and their consequences in target definition. Exploration Geophysics46: 74–84. doi: 10.1071/EG14045
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG14045 [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, W. B., Z. F. Zeng, J. Li, X. Chen, K. Wang, and Z. Xia 2016 2.5 D forward modeling and inversion of frequency-domain airborne electromagnetic data. Applied Geophysics13: 37–47. doi: 10.1007/s11770‑016‑0548‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11770-016-0548-y [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, G., and A. Becker 1990 Two-dimensional mapping of sea-ice keels with airborne electromagnetic. Geophysics55: 239–248. doi: 10.1190/1.1442832
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442832 [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, G. M., and A. Becker 1992 Evaluation of terrain effects in AEM survey suing the boundary element method. Geophysics57: 272–278. doi: 10.1190/1.1443240
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443240 [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Y., C. G. Farquharson, C. Yin, and V. C. Baranwal 2017 Wavelet-based 3-D inversion for frequency-domain airborne EM data. Geophysical Journal International213: 1–15. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx545
     https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx545 [Google Scholar]
  24. Loke, M. H. 2000 Topographic modelling in electrical imaging inversion. EAGE 62nd Conference and Technical Exhibition, Glasgow (Ecosse)29: 62–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Loke, M. H. 2010 Res2DInv ver. 3.59.102. Geoelectrical Imaging 2D and 3D, Instruction Manual: Geotomo Software, Available at <www.geoelectrical.com>.
  26. Mitsuhata, Y. 2000 2-D electromagnetic modeling by finite-element method with a dipole source and topography. Geophysics65: 465–475. doi: 10.1190/1.1444740
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444740 [Google Scholar]
  27. Newman, G. A., and D. L. Alumbaugh 1995 Frequency-domain modeling of airborne electromagnetic responses using staggered finite differences. Geophysical Prospecting43: l021–1042. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.1995.tb00294.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1995.tb00294.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Paterson, R., J. Silic and D. FitzGerald 2018 High Accuracy 2.5 D AEM Inversion Method for Banded Iron-Formation (BIF) and Other Geological Settings: In the 7TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON AIRBORNE ELECTROMAGNETICS (AEM2018), Kolding, Denmark.
  29. Reid, J. E., J. Vrbancich, and A. P. Worby 2003 A comparison of shipborne and airborne electromagnetic methods for Antarctic sea ice thickness measurements. Exploration Geophysics34: 46–50. doi: 10.1071/EG03046
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG03046 [Google Scholar]
  30. Reid, J. E., and J. Vrbancich 2004 A comparison of the inductive-limit footprint of airborne electromagnetic configurations. Geophysics69: 1229–1239. doi: 10.1190/1.1801939
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1801939 [Google Scholar]
  31. Reid, J. E., A. Pfaffling, and J. Vrbancich 2006 Airborne electromagnetic footprints in 1D earths. Geophysics71: G63–G72. doi: 10.1190/1.2187756
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2187756 [Google Scholar]
  32. Reite, A. J., H. Sveian, and E. Erichsen 1999 Trondheim fra istid til nåtid – landskapshistorie og løsmasser: Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Gråsteinen 5 (in Norwegian).
  33. Ruppert, J. 1995 A Delaunay Refinement Algorithm for Quality 2-Dimensional Mesh Generation. Journal of Algorithms18: 548–585. doi: 10.1006/jagm.1995.1021
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1995.1021 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sasaki, Y., and H. Nakazato 2003 Topographic effects in frequency-domain helicopter-borne electromagnetics. Exploration Geophysics34: 24–28. doi: 10.1071/EG03024
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG03024 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sattel, D. 1998 Conductivity information in three dimensions. Exploration Geophysics29: 157–162. doi: 10.1071/EG998157
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG998157 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sattel, D. 2004 The resolution of shallow horizontal structure with airborne EM. Exploration Geophysics35: 208–216. doi: 10.1071/EG04208
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG04208 [Google Scholar]
  37. Scholl, C., and F. Miorelli 2018 Otze – Airborne EM Inversion on Unstructured Model Grids: The 7TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON AIRBORNE ELECTROMAGNETICS (AEM2018), Kolding, Denmark.
  38. Shirzaditabar, F., M. Bastani, and B. Oskooi 2011 Imaging a 3D geological structure from HEM, airborne magnetic and ground ERT data in Kalat-e-Reshm area, Iran. Journal of Applied Geophysics75: 513–522. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Siemon, B., E. Auken, and A. V. Christiansen 2009 Laterally constrained inversion of helicopter-borne frequency-domain electromagnetic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics67: 259–268. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2007.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2007.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Solberg, I. L., V. C. Baranwal, E. Dalsegg, H. Dretvik, D. Gasser, J. S. Rønning, and J. F. Tønnesen 2015 Geologi på Byneset: en sammenstilling av geologiske, geofysiske og geotekniske data: NGU Report 2015.002 (in Norwegian).
  41. Solberg, I. L., M. Long, V. C. Baranwal, A. S. Gylland, and J. S. Rønning 2016 Geophysical and geotechnical studies of geology and sediment properties at a quick-clay landslide site at Esp, Trondheim, Norway. Engineering Geology208: 214–230. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.031
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.031 [Google Scholar]
  42. Spies, B. R., and F. C. Frischknecht 1991 Electromagnetic sounding, in Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists2: 285–426.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Stoyer, C., and R. J. Greenfield 1976 Numerical solutions of the response of a two-dimensional earth to an oscillating magnetic dipole source. Geophysics41: 519–530. doi: 10.1190/1.1440630
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440630 [Google Scholar]
  44. Streich, R., M. Becken, and O. Ritter 2011 2.5D controlled-source EM modeling with general 3D source geometries. Geophysics76: F387–F393. doi: 10.1190/geo2011‑0111.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0111.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tølbøll, R. J., and N. B. Christensen 2007 Sensitivity functions of frequency-domain magnetic dipole-dipole systems. Geophysics72: F45–F56. doi: 10.1190/1.2409623
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2409623 [Google Scholar]
  46. Viezzoli, A., A. V. Christiansen, E. Auken, and K. Sørensen 2008 Quasi-3D modeling of airborne voTEM data by spatially constrained inversion. Geophysics73: F105–F113. doi: 10.1190/1.2895521
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2895521 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vöge, M. 2010 ngi25em version 4.0 User Documentation (unpublished). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
  48. Vöge, M., A. Pfaffhuber, E. Auken, C. Kirkegaard, T. Boesen, S. Hendricks, and P. Hunkeler 2015 2.5D Inversion of Sea Ice Thickness from Helicopter EM Data: First European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference.
  49. Wilson, G., A. Raich, and F. Sugeng 2006 2.5D inversion of airborne electromagnetic data. Exploration Geophysics37: 363–371. doi: 10.1071/EG06363
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06363 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wolfgram, P., D. Sattel, and N. B. Christensen 2003 Approximate 2D inversion of AEM data. Exploration Geophysics34: 29–33. doi: 10.1071/EG03029
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG03029 [Google Scholar]
  51. Xi, J., and W. Li 2016 2.5 D Inversion Algorithm of Frequency-Domain Airborne Electromagnetics with Topography. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2016: 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2016/1468514
     https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1468514 [Google Scholar]
  52. Xie, X., J. Macnae, and J. Reid 1998 The limitations of 1-D AEM inversion for 2-D overburden structures: 68th SEG meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 760-763.
  53. Yin, C., X. Huang, Y. Liu, and J. Cai 2014 Footprint for frequency-domain airborne electromagnetic systems. Geophysics79: E243–E254. doi: 10.1190/geo2014‑0007.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0007.1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Yu, W. W., and E. Haber 2012 A 2.5 D Inversion of Airborne Electromagnetic data: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
Loading
Comparing resistivity models from 2D and 1D inversion of frequency domain HEM data over rough terrains: cases study from Iran and Norway
Exploration Geophysics 51, 45 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1588068
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2D; AEM; electrical properties; frequency domain; HEM; inverse theory; numerical modelling

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