1887

Abstract

Summary

Electric fields are measured across dipoles of typically 50m to 200m at ground Magnetotelluric (MT) soundings. Modeling algorithms, however, normally use point electric field values at the surface of single cells to calculate MT transfer functions.

This is perfectly reasonable for the majority of cases, but there are situations with strong shallow variability of resistivity, where available detailed information might not be used optimally. We explore the consequences of this omission by quantifying the difference between point solutions and electric field integrations across dipoles in 3D forward calculations for selected cases.

The topic ties closely with galvanic distortion and inversion for related parameters, lateral magnetic field variations, and the benefit of providing shallower constraints for the imaging of deeper targets. As a side product, the analysis led us to focus on the fields output from the 3D modeling, and we illustrate electric current systems through the cases analyzed. We observe that in the presence of strong topography and outcropping inhomogeneities, finite dipole solutions can differ considerably from point solutions, while over a varying but continuous regolith cover the effect appears more contained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901488
2019-06-03
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Jiracek, G.R.
    [1990] Near-surface and topographic distortions in electromagnetic induction. Surveys in Geophysics, 11(2-3), 163–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Jones, A.G.
    [1988] Static shift of magnetotelluric data and its removal in a sedimentary basin environment. Geophysics, 53(7), 967–978.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Patzer, C., Tietze, K. and Ritter, O.
    [2018] 3D modelling and inversion using elongated electric field receivers. Extended Abstract, 24th EM Induction Workshop, Helsingør, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Pellerin, L. and Hohmann, G.W.
    [1990] Transient electromagnetic inversion: A remedy for magnetotelluric static shifts. Geophysics, 55(9), 1242–1250.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Soyer, W., Mackie, R.L. and Miorelli, F.
    [2018] Optimizing the Estimation of Distortion Parameters in Magnetotelluric 3D Inversion, 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Soyer, W., Mackie, R.L., Hallinan, S., Pavesi, A., Nordquist, G., Suminar, A., Intani, R. and Nelson, C.
    [2018] Geologically-consistent multiphysics imaging of the Darajat geothermal steam field. First Break, 36(6), 77–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Soyer, W., Miorelli, F. and Mackie, R.L.
    [2018] Considering true layout geometry in magnetotelluric modeling. Extended Abstract, 24th EM Induction Workshop, Helsingør, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Scholl, C. and Miorelli, F.
    [2018] Otze – airborne EM inversion on unstructured model grids. AEM, 7th International Workshop on Airborne Electromagnetics.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Watts, M.D., Mackie, R.L., Scholl, C. and HallinanS.
    [2013] Limitations of MT static shift corrections using time-domain EM data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 681–684.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901488
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901488
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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