1887
Volume 10 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The quantitative retrieval of soil apparent electrical conductivity using electromagnetic induction (EMI) has remained limited due to strong simplifications regarding EMI antenna modelling. In this paper, a new technique for EMI antenna modelling is applied for the common‐offset EMI systems. The EMI system is efficiently described using global transmission and reflection coefficients and Green's functions are used to describe wave diffusion for horizontal and vertical dipole modes. We performed EMI measurements along a 180‐metre‐long transect with two different instrument heights above the soil surface, as well as with different orientations and frequencies. To ensure proper retrieval of the soil apparent electrical conductivity, the reference values were obtained from electrical conductivity data measured from 11 undisturbed soil cores taken along the EMI transect. The apparent electrical conductivity values calculated by applying the proposed model have a good agreement with reference values, however some discrepancies can be observed that are mainly attributed to the presence of local heterogeneities and also errors due to the variations in the height of the EMI instruments above the ground. The proposed method appears to be promising for quantitative retrieval of soil apparent electrical conductivity and resolving calibration issues that are typically encountered using EMI. In addition, the model calibration (antenna transfer functions determination) was successfully accomplished using conductivity values measured from the soil cores.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012002
2011-12-01
2020-08-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbduH., RobinsonD.A. and JonesS.B.2007. Comparing bulk soil electrical conductivity determination using the DUALEM‐1S and EM38‐DD electromagnetic induction instruments. Soil Science Society of America Journal71, 189–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AmezketaE.2007. Soil salinity assessment using directed soil sampling from a geophysical survey with electromagnetic technology: A case study. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research5, 91–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeamishD.2011. Low induction number, ground conductivity meters: A correction procedure in the absence of magnetic effects. Journal of Applied Geophysics75, 244–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BorchersB., UramT. and HendrickxJ.M.H.1997. Tikhonov regularization of electrical conductivity depth profiles in field soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal61, 1004–1009.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CookP.G. and WalkerG.R.1992. Depth profiles of electrical‐conductivity from linear‐combinations of electromagnetic induction measurements. Soil Science Society of America Journal56, 1015–1022.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Decagon. 2008. 5TE operator's manual. Version 1: Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DietrichP., ButlerJ.J. and FaissK.2008. A rapid method for hydraulic profiling in unconsolidated formations. Ground Water46, 323–328.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FriedmanS.P.2005. Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 45–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GebbersR., LuckE., DabasM. and DomschH.2009. Comparison of instruments for geoelectrical soil mapping at the field scale. Near Surface Geophysics7, 179–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HendrickxJ.M.H., BorchersB., CorwinD.L., LeschS.M., HilgendorfA.C. and SchlueJ.2002. Inversion of soil conductivity profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements: Theory and experimental verification. Soil Science Society of America Journal66, 673–685.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HuyerW. and NeumaierA.1999. Global optimization by multilevel coordinate search. Journal of Global Optimization14, 331–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. InmanD.J., FreelandR.S., AmmonsJ.T. and YoderR.E.2002. Soil investigations using electromagnetic induction and ground‐penetrating radar in southwest Tennessee. Soil Science Society of America Journal66, 206–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KizitoF., CampbellC.S., CampbellG.S., CobosD.R., TeareB.L., CarterB. and HopmansJ.W.2008. Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low‐cost capacitance soil moisture sensor. Journal of Hydrology352, 367–378.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. van der KrukJ., MeekesJ.A.C., van den BergP.M. and FokkemaJ.T.2000. An apparent‐resistivity concept for low‐frequency electromagnetic sounding techniques. Geophysical Prospecting48, 1033–1052.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LagariasJ.C., ReedsJ.A., WrightM.H. and WrightP.E.1998. Convergence properties of the Nelder‐Mead simplex method in low dimensions. Siam Journal on Optimization9, 112–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LambotS., JavauxM., HupetF. and VancloosterM.2002. A global multilevel coordinate search procedure for estimating the unsaturated soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research38(11), 1224, doi: 10.1029/2001WR001224.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LambotS., SlobE.C., van den BoschI., StockbroeckxB. and VancloosterM.2004. Modeling of ground penetrating radar for accurate characterization of subsurface electric properties. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing42, 2555–2568.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LavouéF., van der KrukJ., RingsJ., AndreF., MoghadasD., HuismanJ.A. et al. 2010. Electromagnetic induction calibration using apparent electrical conductivity modelling based on electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics8, 553–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LessoffS.C., SchneidewindU., LevenC., BlumP., DietrichP. and DaganG.2010. Spatial characterization of the hydraulic conductivity using direct‐push injection logging. Water Resources Research46, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008949.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McNeillJ.D.1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers: Tech note TN‐6. Geonics Ltd., Mississauga, ON, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. McNeillJ.D.1996. Why doesn't Geonics limited build a multi‐frequency EM31 or EM38?: Tech note TN‐30. Geonics Ltd., Mississauga, ON, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MoghadasD., AndreF., VereeckenH. and LambotS.2010. Efficient loop antenna modeling for zero‐offset, off‐ground electromagnetic induction in multilayered media. Geophysics75, WA125–WA134.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. PellerinL. and WannamakerP.E.2005. Multi‐dimensional electromagnetic modeling and inversion with application to near‐surface earth investigations. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 71–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ReedyR.C. and ScanlonB.R.2003. Soil water content monitoring using electromagnetic induction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering129, 1028–1039.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SacchettoM., TrevisanA., ElmgrenK. and MelanderK.2004. CPTWD (cone penetration test while drilling) a new method for deep geotechnical surveys.Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1 and 2. Millpress Science Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SaeyT., SimpsonD., VermeerschH., CockxL. and Van MeirvenneM.2009. Comparing the EM38DD and DUALEM‐21S sensors for depth‐to‐clay mapping. Soil Science Society of America Journal73, 7–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SheetsK.R. and HendrickxJ.M.H.1995. Noninvasive soil‐water content measurement using electromagnetic induction. Water Resources Research31, 2401–2409.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SherlockM.D. and McDonnellJ.J.2003. A new tool for hillslope hydrologists: Spatially distributed groundwater level and soilwater content measured using electromagnetic induction. Hydrological Processes17, 1965–1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SimpsonD., Van MeirvenneM., LuckE., RuhlmannJ., SaeyT. and BourgeoisJ.2010. Sensitivity of multi‐coil frequency domain electromagnetic induction sensors to map soil magnetic susceptibility. European Journal of Soil Science61, 469–478.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. SlobE.C.2000. Electromagnetic exploration methods for shallow geophysical surveys. Lecture notes, Delft University of Technology, Applied Earth Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. SudduthK.A., DrummondS.T. and KitchenN.R.2001. Accuracy issues in electromagnetic induction sensing of soil electrical conductivity for precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture31, 239–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SudduthK.A., KitchenN.R., BolleroG.A., BullockD.G. and WieboldW.J.2003. Comparison of electromagnetic induction and direct sensing of soil electrical conductivity. Agronomy Journal95, 472–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. TangC.M.1979. Electromagnetic fields due to dipole antennas embedded in stratified anisotropic media. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation27, 665–670.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. TillmannA., EnglertA., NyariZ., FejesI., VanderborghtJ. and VereeckenH.2008. Characterization of subsoil heterogeneity, estimation of grain size distribution and hydraulic conductivity at the krauthausen test site using cone penetration test. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology95, 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Triantafilis, J., LaslettG.M. and McBratneyA.B.2000. Calibrating an electromagnetic induction instrument to measure salinity in soil under irrigated cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal64, 1009–1017.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. WalkerJ. and YuH.S.2010. Analysis of the cone penetration test in layered clay. Geotechnique60, 939–948.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. WardS.H. and HohmannG.W.1987. Electromagnetic theory for geophysical application. In: Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics, Investigations in Geophysics Series, vol. 1 (ed M.N.Nabighian ), pp. 131–312. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. ZengQ., SunY., LammersP.S., MaD., LinJ. and HuegingH.2008. Improvement of a dual‐sensor horizontal penetrometer by incorporating an EC sensor. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture64, 333–337.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012002
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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