1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 9 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The technique of magnetic resonance sounding (MRS) has shown several improvements in data processing, inversion and interpretation during the last years. Along with these improvements, detailed innovations on instrumentation have been demanded to support their use. Latest developments in surface nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) instrumentation promise to fulfil these hardware requirements such as decreased dead time, improved digital signal detection, multi‐channel capabilities and improved reference techniques with the second generation surface NMR instruments.

In this paper, we compare data from two generations of instruments and assess the impact of the improvements on practical issues, i.e., the increased accuracy of data due to shorter dead times and new noise reduction approaches and the feasibility for efficient 2D measuring schemes. Well‐known and documented test sites and synthetic considerations are used to evaluate these developments.

First, the relaxation signals of different devices using the same loop match each other. The inversion results coincide within the range of data errors. Decay time estimation appears to be more stable for the new generation instrument.

Second, the potential of shorter effective dead times (considering a relaxation of the protons during the pulse) is investigated using statistical analysis of synthetic data sets with different decay times and noise levels. The additionally measured data at early times significantly improve the scope and accuracy of the determined parameters initial amplitude and time and thus extend the range of formations to be characterized. A field example comparing an effective dead time of 18 ms and 45 ms is presented.

Two different reference techniques were successfully applied for noise cancellation at the very noisy test site Nauen. We observed an equivalent signal improvement using the software‐based and hardware‐based technique. However, software noise cancellation approaches are easily adaptable and extendable.

Finally, considerations are given how to efficiently carry out 2D surveys using multi‐channel instruments. A 2D field data set using the GMR demonstrates that 2D surveys can already be realized in moderate measuring times.

The new generation of instruments provides comparable results and improved capabilities that will enable surface NMR measurements to be applied in a wider range of applications.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2011 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
2010-11-01
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BeauceA., BernhardJ., LegchenkoA. and VallaP.1996. Une nouvelle methode geophysique pour les etudes hydrogeologiques: L’application de la resonance magnetique nucleaire. Hydrogeologie1, 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BraunM. and YaramanciU.2008. Inversion of resistivity in magnetic resonance sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 151–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CallaghanP.T., EcclesC.D., HaskellT.G., LanghorneP.J. and SeymourJ.D.1998. Earth’s field NMR in Antarctica: A pulsed gradient spin echo NMR study of restricted diffusion in sea ice. Journal of Magnetic Resonance133, 148–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. GirardJ., BoucherM., LegchenkoA. and BaltassatJ.2005. Numerical modeling of magnetic resonance signal from water‐filled cavities. 2005 Near Surface meeting, Palermo, Italy, Expanded Abstracts, B037.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. GoldmanM., RabinovichB., RabinovichM., GiladD., GevI. and SchirovM.D.1994. Application of the integrated NMR‐TDEM method in groundwater exploration in Israel. Journal of Applied Geophysics31, 27–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. GüntherT., RückerC. and SpitzerK.2006. Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography – ii. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. HertrichM.2005. Magnetic resonance sounding with separated transmitter and receiver loops for the investigation of 2D water content distributions.PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HertrichM., BraunM., GüntherT., GreenA.G. and YaramanciU.2007. Surface nuclear magnetic resonance tomography. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing45, 3752–3759.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. HertrichM., BraunM. and YaramanciU.2005. Magnetic resonance soundings with separated transmitter and receiver loops. Near Surface Geophysics3, 141–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. HertrichM., GreenA.G., BraunM. and YaramanciU.2009. High‐resolution surface‐NMR tomography of shallow aquifers based on multi‐offset measurements. Geophysics74, G47–G59.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HertrichM. and YaramanciU.2002. Joint inversion of surface nuclear magnetic resonance and vertical electrical sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 179–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Iris Instruments
    Iris Instruments . 2000. NumisPlus – Surface Proton Magnetic Resonance System for Water Prospecting (User Manual).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LangeG., HertrichM., KnödelK. and YaramanciU.2000. Surface NMR in low Earth magnetic field intensity and low water content – A case history in Namibia. 6th EEGS meeting, Bochum, Germany, Expanded Abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. LangeG., YaramanciU. and MeyerR.2007. Surface nuclear magnetic resonance. In: Environmental Geology. Handbook of Field Methods and Case Studies (eds K.Knödel , G.Lange and H.‐J.Voigt ), pp. 403–430. Springer‐Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LegchenkoA.2005. Improved modelling of the magnetic resonance signal in the presence of shallow aquifers. Near Surface Geophysics3, 121–130.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ., BeauceA. and BernardJ.2002. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a geophysical tool for hydrogeologists. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 21–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LegchenkoA., SemenovA. and SchirovM.D.1990. A device for measurement of subsurface water saturated layers parameters. USSR Patent 1540515 (in Russian).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. LegchenkoA. and ShushakovO.A.1998. Inversion of surface NMR data. Geophysics63, 75–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.1998. Processing of surface proton magnetic resonance signals using non‐linear fitting. Journal of Applied Geophysics39, 77–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.2002. A review of the basic principles for proton magnetic resonance sounding measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 3–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.2003. Removal of power‐line harmonics from proton magnetic resonance measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics53, 103–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LubczynskiM.W. and RoyJ.2003. Hydrogeological interpretation and potential of the new magnetic resonance sounding (MRS) method. Journal of Hydrology283, 19–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2002. Smooth and block inversion of surface NMR amplitudes and decay times using simulated annealing. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 163–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2005. Forward modeling and inversion of MRS relaxation signals using multi‐exponential decomposition. Near Surface Geophysics3, 165–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2008. Pore size distributions and hydraulic conductivities of rocks derived from magnetic resonance sounding relaxation data using multi‐exponential decay time inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 73–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mueller‐PetkeM.2009. Extended use of magnetic resonance sounding datasets – QT inversion and resolution studies.PhD thesis, Berlin University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mueller‐PetkeM., HillerT., HerrmannR. and YaramanciU.2011. Reliability and limitations of surface NMR assessed by comparison to borehole NMR. Near Surface Geophysics9 (this issue).
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mueller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2008. Resolution studies for magnetic resonance sounding (MRS) using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 165–175.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mueller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2010. QT‐Inversion – Comprehensive use of the complete surface‐NMR dataset. Geophysics75, WA199.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. PlataJ.L. and RubioF.2002. MRS experiments in a noisy area of a detrital aquifer in the south of Spain. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 83–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. RoyJ. and LubczynskiM.W.2005. MRS multi‐exponential decay analysis: aquifer poresize distribution and vadose zone characterization. Near Surface Geophysics3, 287–298.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. SchirovM.D., LegchenkoA. and CreerG.1991. A new direct non‐invasive groundwater detection technology for Australia. Exploration Geophysics22, 333–338.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SemenovA., BurshteinA., PusepA. and SchirovM.D.1988. A device for measurements of underground mineral parameters. USSR Patent 1079063 (in Russian).
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SemenovA., SchirovM., LegchenkoA., BurshteinA. and PusepA.1989. Device for measuring the parameter of underground mineral deposits. UK Patent 2198540B.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. TrushkinD., ShushakovO.A. and LegchenkoA.1994. The potential of a noise‐reducing antenna for surface NMR groundwater surveys in the earth’s magnetic field. Geophysical Prospecting42, 855–862.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Vista ClaraI.2009. GMR Manual and Documentation (User’s Manual).
     [Google Scholar]
  37. VouillamozJ., DescloitresM., BernardJ., FourcassiereP. and RomagnyL.2002. Application of integrated magnetic resonance sounding and resistivity methods for borehole implementation. A case study in Cambodia. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 67–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. WalbreckerJ.O., HertrichM. and GreenA.G.2009. Accounting for relaxation processes during the pulse in surface NMR data. Geophysics74, G27–G34.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. WalshD.2008. Multi‐channel surface NMR instrumentation and software for 1D/2D groundwater investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 140–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. WalshD.O. and FerreP.2009. Practical limitations and applications of short dead‐time surface NMR. 4th International Workshop on MRS, Grenoble, France, Expanded Abstracts, 249–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. WeichmanP.B., LunD.R., RitzwollerM.H. and LavelyE.M.2002. Study of surface nuclear magnetic resonance inverse problems. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 129–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. YaramanciU., LangeG. and KnödelK.1999. Surface NMR within a geophysical study of an aquifer at Haldensleben (Germany). Geophysical Prospecting47, 923–943.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
Loading
Assessment of the potential of a new generation of surface nuclear magnetic resonance instruments
Near Surface Geophysics 9, 89 (2011); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010063
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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