1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

This study considers a specific issue, often termed the canopy effect that relates to our ability to provide accurate conductivity models from airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data. The central issue is one of the correct determination of sensor height(s) above the ground surface (terrain clearance) to the appropriate accuracy. The present study uses the radar and laser systems installed on a fixed‐wing AEM system to further investigate the effect. The canopy effect can arise due to a variety of elevated features below and in the vicinity of, the flight line. The most obvious features are well‐defined forest and copse zones together with domestic, commercial and agricultural buildings. Such features may cause the terrain clearance to be underestimated and this has the potential to introduce resistive artefacts and incorrect interface depths into conductivity models. Correct determination of terrain clearance is also important for the accurate processing of the other geophysical data sets acquired by airborne surveys. Radar and laser altimetry offer two very different physical measurements of height above ground. Airborne radars detect the range to the nearest reflecting object. They do this over a cone of influence that may have a radius (at the ground surface) of ~55 m (assuming a survey height of 60 m). Reflections from objects that are off‐line are thus a distinct possibility. In direct contrast, a laser ranging device with low beam divergence provides a highly focused measurement. Laser accuracies (typically <2 cm) are far greater than those of radars (typically ~0.5 m). In addition, the rapid sampling of laser ranging devices (e.g., up to 2 kHz) allows both real‐time and post‐processing algorithms to be applied to estimate the maximum range recorded across appropriate time/spatial windows. In our case a 2 kHz (maximum) dual‐pulse laser when sampled at 200 Hz provides a ×50 oversampling in relation to the 4 Hz sampling of the EM components. Our studies from recent surveys indicate that the radar altimeter often provides significantly underestimated values of terrain clearance. Such estimates may be in error by up to 10 m or 15 m across dense woodland. The issues of accuracy and reliability raised by the routine application of laser altimetry to AEM surveys and conductivity models are evaluated. It is demonstrated that it is now possible to obtain reliable laser estimates of true height above ground surface across: a) most forms of canopy encountered, b) built structures of limited spatial scale and c) bodies of water.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2010 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
2009-09-01
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AhlA. and WinklerE.2006. New AEM hardware developments at the Geological Survey of Austria. AEM Workshop – Airborne EM –Recent Activities and Future Goals, Hannover, Germany, Expanded Abstracts, 15.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BeamishD.2002a. The canopy effect in airborne EM. Geophysics67, 1720–1728.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BeamishD.2002b. An assessment of inversion methods for AEM data applied to environmental studies. Journal of Applied Geophysics51, 75–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BeamishD.2003. Airborne EM footprints. Geophysical Prospecting51, 49–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BeardL.P.2000. Comparison of methods for estimating earth resistivity from airborne electromagnetic measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics45, 239–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BrodyR. and LaneR.2003. The importance of accurate altimetry in AEM surveys for land management. 16th ASEG Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, Expanded Abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ConstableS.C., Parker, R.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. FarquharsonC.G., OldenburgD.W. and RouthP.S.2003. Simultaneous 1D inversion of loop‐loop electromagnetic data for magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity. Geophysics68, 1857–1869.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. FittermanD.V. and Deszcz‐PanM.1998. Helicopter EM mapping of saltwater intrusion in Everglades National Park. Exploration Geophysics29, 240–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FittermanD.V. and YinC.2004. Effect of bird manoeuvre on frequency‐domain helicopter EM response. Geophysics69, 1203–1215.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FraserD.C.1978. Resistivity mapping with an airborne multicoil electromagnetic system. Geophysics43, 144–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HautaniemiH., KurimoM., MultalaJ., LeväniemiH. and VironmäkiJ.2005. The ‘three in one’ aerogeophysical concept of GTK in 2004. Geological Survey of Finland, Special paper 39, 21–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HodgesG.2003. Practical inversions for helicopter electromagnetic data. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems (SAGEEP), 45–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. LeväniemiH, BeamishD., HautaniemiH., KurimoM., SuppalaI., VironmäkiJ., CussR.J., LahtiM. and TartarasE.2009. The JAC airborne EM system AEM‐05. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 67, 219–233.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Natural Resources Canada
    Natural Resources Canada1995. GPS Positioning Guide, 3rd edn.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. PatersonN. and RedfordS.W.1986. Inversion of airborne electromagnetic data for overburden mapping and groundwater exploration. In: Airborne Resistivity Mapping (ed. G.J.Palacky), Paper 86–22, 39–48. Geological Survey of Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. RichardsonL.M.2000. Errors in digital elevation models derived from airborne geophysical survey data. Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Record 2000/37.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. SengpielK.P. and SiemonB.1998. Examples of 1‐D inversion of multi‐frequency HEM data from 3‐D resistivity distribution. Exploration Geophysics29, 133–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. SiemonB.2009. Levelling of helicopter‐borne frequency‐domain electromagnetic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 67, 206–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. SiemonB., AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2009. Laterally constrained inversion of helicopter‐borne frequency‐domain electromagnetic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 67, 259–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. TartarasE. and BeamishD.2006. Laterally constrained inversion of fixed‐wing frequency domain AEM data. Near Surface 2006 meeting, Helsinki, Finland, Expanded Abstracts, B019.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. TølbøllR.J. and ChristensenN.B.2006. Robust 1D inversion and analysis of helicopter electromagnetic (HEM) data. Geophysics71, 53–62.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
Loading
The canopy effect in AEM revisited: investigations using laser and radar altimetry
Near Surface Geophysics 8, 103 (2010); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009054
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