1887
Volume 65, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We investigate a novel way to introduce resistivity models deriving from airborne electromagnetic surveys into regional geological modelling. Standard geometrical geological modelling can be strengthened using geophysical data. Here, we propose to extract information contained in a resistivity model in the form of local slopes that constrain the modelling of geological interfaces. The proposed method is illustrated on an airborne electromagnetic survey conducted in the region of Courtenay in France. First, a resistivity contrast corresponding to the clay/chalk interface was interpreted confronting the electromagnetic soundings to boreholes. Slopes were then sampled on this geophysical model and jointly interpolated with the clay/chalk interface documented in boreholes using an implicit 3D potential‐field method. In order to evaluate this new joint geophysical–geological model, its accuracy was compared with that of both pure geological and pure geophysical models for various borehole configurations. The proposed joint modelling yields the most accurate clay/chalk interface whatever the number and location of boreholes taken into account for modelling and validation. Compared with standard geological modelling, the approach introduces in between boreholes geometrical information derived from geophysical results. Compared with conventional resistivity interpretation of the geophysical model, it reduces drift effects and honours the boreholes. The method therefore improves what is commonly obtained with geological or geophysical data separately, making it very attractive for robust 3D geological modelling of the subsurface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12465
2016-09-29
2020-04-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics69(3), 752–761.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V., JacøbsenB.H., FogedN. and SørensenK.I.2005. Piece‐wise 1D laterally constrained inversion of resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting53(4), 497–506.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V., WestergaardJ.A., KirkegaardC., FogedN. and ViezzoliA.2009. An integrated processing scheme for high‐resolution airborne electromagnetic surveys, the SkyTEM system. Exploration Geophysics40(2), 184–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BurroughP.A. and McDonnellR.A.1998. Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CalcagnoP., ChilèsJ.P., CourriouxG. and GuillenA.2008. Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part I. Modelling method coupling 3D potential‐field interpolation and geological rules. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors171(1–4), 147–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChilèsJ.P., AugC., GuillenA. and LeesT.2004. Modelling the geometry of geological units and its uncertainty in 3D from structural data: the potential‐field method. Proceedings of International Symposium on Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning, Perth, Australia, pp. 313–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ChristiansenA.V. and AukenE.2012. A global measure for depth of investigation. Geophysics77(4), WB171–WB177.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. D'OzouvilleN., AukenE., SørensenK., VioletteS., de MarsillyG., DeffontainesB.et al. 2008. Extensive perched aquifer and structural implications revealed by 3D resistivity mapping in a Galapagos volcano. Earth and Planetary Science Letters269(3–4), 517–521.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GuillenA., CalcagnoP., CourriouxG., JolyA. and LedruP.2008. Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge. Part II. Modelling validation using gravity and magnetic data inversion. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors171(1–4), 158–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HøyerA.S., JørgensenF., SandersenP.B.E., ViezzoliA. and MøllerI.2015. 3D geological modelling of a complex buried‐valley network delineated from borehole and AEM data. Journal of Applied Geophysics122, 94–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. JørgensenF., MøllerR.R., SandersenP.B.E. and NebelL.2010. 3‐D geological modelling of the Egebjerg area, Denmark, based on hydrogeophysical data. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin20, 27–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. KaufmannO. and MartinT.2008. 3D geological modelling from boreholes, cross‐sections and geological maps, application over former natural gas storages in coal mines. Computers & Geosciences34(3), 278–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LajaunieC., CourriouxG. and ManuelL.1997. Foliation fields and 3D cartography in geology: principles of a method based on potential interpolation. Mathematical Geology29(4), 571–584.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MarteletG., CalcagnoP., GumiauxC., TruffertC., BitriA., GapaisD.et al. 2004. Integrated 3D geophysical and geological modelling of the Hercynian Suture Zone in the Champtoceaux area (South Brittany, France). Tectonophysics382(1–2), 117–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PomerolB.1988. Carte géologique de la France (1/50 000), Feuille Courtenay (366), BRGM.
  16. QuesnelF.1997. Cartographie numérique en géologie de surface – Application aux altérites à silex de l'ouest du Bassin de Paris. PhD dissertation, Université de Rouen, France, 428p.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ReningerP.‐A., MarteletG., DeparisJ., PerrinJ. and ChenY.2011. Singular value decomposition as a denoising tool for airborne time domain electromagnetic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics75(2), 264–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ReningerP.‐A., MarteletG., LasseurE., BeccalettoL., DeparisJ., PerrinJ.et al. 2014. Geological environment of karst within chalk using airborne time domain electromagnetic data cross‐interpreted with boreholes. Journal of Applied Geophysics106, 173–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SapiaV., OldenborgerG.A., JørgensenF., PuginA.J.M., MarchettiM. and ViezzoliA.2015. 3D modeling of buried valley geology using airborne electromagnetic data. Interpretation3(4), SAC9–SAC22.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SørensenK.I. and AukenE.2004. SkyTEM – a new high‐resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics35(3), 191–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SpiesB.R.1989. Depth of investigation in electromagnetic sounding methods. Geophysics54(7), 872–888.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TurnerA.K.2006. Challenges and trends for geological modelling and visualization. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment65(2), 109–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. ViezzoliA., TosiL., TeatiniP. and SilvestriS.2010. Surface water–groundwater exchange in transitional coastal environments by airborne electromagnetics: the Venice lagoon example. Geophysical Research Letters37(1), L01402.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12465
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12465
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Airborne electromagnetic , Modelling and Resistivity 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