Advertisement

Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 29–63 | Cite as

Theoretical Developments in Electromagnetic Induction Geophysics with Selected Applications in the Near Surface

  • Mark E. Everett
Article

Abstract

Near-surface applied electromagnetic geophysics is experiencing an explosive period of growth with many innovative techniques and applications presently emergent and others certain to be forthcoming. An attempt is made here to bring together and describe some of the most notable advances. This is a difficult task since papers describing electromagnetic induction methods are widely dispersed throughout the scientific literature. The traditional topics discussed herein include modeling, inversion, heterogeneity, anisotropy, target recognition, logging, and airborne electromagnetics (EM). Several new or emerging techniques are introduced including landmine detection, biogeophysics, interferometry, shallow-water electromagnetics, radiomagnetotellurics, and airborne unexploded ordnance (UXO) discrimination. Representative case histories that illustrate the range of exciting new geoscience that has been enabled by the developing techniques are presented from important application areas such as hydrogeology, contamination, UXO and landmines, soils and agriculture, archeology, and hazards and climate.

Keywords

Controlled-source electromagnetics Electrical conductivity Near-surface geophysics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the EM Induction Workshop committee for the opportunity to present this review. I am also grateful to Sofia Davydycheva and Richard Smith, respectively, for bringing to my attention some important logging and airborne electromagnetics papers. This paper was written while I was on sabbatical leave from Texas A&M as a visiting professor at ETH, Zurich.

References

  1. Abdu H, Robinson DA, Seyfried M, Jones SB (2008) Geophysical imaging of watershed subsurface patterns and prediction of soil texture and water holding capacity. Water Resour Res 44:2008WR007043Google Scholar
  2. Abubakar A, Habashy TM, Druskin VL, Knizhnerman L, Alumbaugh D (2008) 2.5D forward and inverse modeling for interpreting low-frequency electromagnetic measurements. Geophysics 73:F165–F177Google Scholar
  3. Asten MW, Duncan AC (2007) Fast approximate EM induction modeling of metallic and UXO targets using a permeable prism. J Appl Geophys 61:235–242Google Scholar
  4. Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA (2010) Geophysical signatures of microbial activity at hydrocarbon contaminated sites: a review. Surv Geophys 31:247–283Google Scholar
  5. Auken E, Violette S, d’Ozouville N, Deffontaines B, Sørensen KI, Viezzoli A, de Marsily G (2009) An integrated study of the hydrogeology of volcanic islands using helicopter borne transient electromagnetic: application in the Galápagos Archipelago. C R Geosci 341:899–907Google Scholar
  6. Avdeev D, Knizhnik S (2009) 3D integral equation modeling with a linear dependence on dimensions. Geophysics 74:F89–F94Google Scholar
  7. Aziz Z, van Geen A, Stute M, Versteeg R, Horneman A, Zheng Y, Goodbred S, Steckler M, Weinman B, Gavrieli I, Hoque MA, Shamsudduha M, Ahmed KM (2008) Impact of local recharge on arsenic concentrations in shallow aquifers inferred from the electromagnetic conductivity of soils in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Water Resour Res 44:2007WR006000Google Scholar
  8. Bala J, Pieta A (2010) Validation of joint inversion of direct current and electromagnetic measurements. Acta Geophys 58:114–125Google Scholar
  9. Boerner RU (2010) Numerical modelling in geo-electromagnetics: advances and challenges. Surv Geophys 31:225–245Google Scholar
  10. Bréard A, Perrusson G, Lesselier D (2008) Hybrid differential evolution and retrieval of buried spheres in subsoil. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 5:788–792Google Scholar
  11. Bréard A, Perrusson G, Lesselier D (2009) Low-frequency electromagnetic modeling of conductive obstacles buried in subsoil as coupled ellipsoids. Radio Sci 44:2008RS003939Google Scholar
  12. Brenning A, Koszinski S, Sommer M (2008) Geostatistical homogenization of soil conductivity across field boundaries. Geoderma 143:254–260Google Scholar
  13. Butler KE (2009) Trends in waterborne electrical and EM induction methods for high resolution sub-bottom imaging. Near Surf Geophys 7:241–246Google Scholar
  14. Candansayar ME, Tezkan B (2008) Two-dimensional joint inversion of radiomagnetotelluric and direct current resistivity data. Geophys Prosp 56:737–749Google Scholar
  15. Chen XD, O’Neill K, Grzegorczyk TM, Kong JA (2007) Spheroidal mode approach for the characterization of metallic objects using electromagnetic induction. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:697–706Google Scholar
  16. Commer M, Newman GA (2008) New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion. Geophys J Int 172:513–535Google Scholar
  17. Conyers LB, Ernenwein EG, Grealy M, Lowe KM (2008) Electromagnetic conductivity mapping for site prediction in meandering river floodplains. Arch Prosp 15:81–91Google Scholar
  18. Cox LH, Wilson GA, Zhdanov MS (2010) 3D AEM inversion with a moving footprint: a case study for salt mapping at Bookpurnong, South Australia. In: Proceedings of SAGEEP 2010, KeystoneGoogle Scholar
  19. Davydycheva S (2010) 3D modeling of new-generation (1999–2010) resistivity logging tools. Lead Edge 29:780–789Google Scholar
  20. Davydycheva S, Homan D, Minerbo G (2009) Triaxial induction tool with electrode sleeve: FD modeling in 3D geometries. J Appl Geophys 67:98–108Google Scholar
  21. Decker KT, Everett ME (2009) Roughness of a layered geological medium and implications for interpretation of the transient electromagnetic response of a loop source. In: Proceedings of 22nd SAGEEP, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  22. Doll WE, Bell DT, Gamey J, Beard LP, Sheehan JR, Norton J (2010) Performance metrics for state-of-the-art airborne magnetic and electromagnetic systems for mapping and detection of unexploded ordnance. In: Proceedings of SPIE 7664Google Scholar
  23. Druyts P, Das Y, Craeye C, Acheroy M (2009) Modeling the response of electromagnetic induction sensors to inhomogeneous magnetic soils with arbitrary relief. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 47:2627–2638Google Scholar
  24. Endo M, Cuma M, Zhdanov MS (2008) A multigrid integral equation method for large-scale models with inhomogeneous backgrounds. J Geophys Eng 5:438–447Google Scholar
  25. Endo M, Cuma M, Zhdanov MS (2009) Large-scale electromagnetic modeling for multiple inhomogeneous domains. Commun Comput Phys 6:269–289Google Scholar
  26. Epov MI, Shurina EP, Nechaev OV (2007) 3D forward modeling of vector field for induction logging problems. Russ Geol Geophys 48:770–774Google Scholar
  27. Epov MI, Antonov EY, Fedorov AI (2010) Effect of inclined conductivity anisotropy on frequency induction and TEM data. Russ Geol Geophys 51:317–321Google Scholar
  28. Everett ME (2009) Transient electromagnetic response of a loop source over a rough geological medium. Geophys J Int 177:421–429Google Scholar
  29. Fan Y, Snieder R (2009) Required source distribution for interferometry of waves and diffusive fields. Geophys J Int 179:1232–1244Google Scholar
  30. Fraser DC, Hodges G (2007) Induction-response functions for frequency-domain electromagnetic mapping system for airborne and ground configurations. Geophysics 72:F35–F44Google Scholar
  31. Frigui H, Zhang LJ, Gader PD (2010) Context-dependent multisensor fusion and its application to land mine detection. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48:2528–2543Google Scholar
  32. Gasperikova E, Smith JT, Morrison HF, Becker A, Kappler K (2009) UXO detection and identification based on intrinsic target polarizabilities—a case history. Geophysics 74:B1–B8Google Scholar
  33. Haas C, Nicolaus M, Willmes S, Worby A, Flinspach D (2008) Sea ice and snow thickness and physical properties of an ice floe in the western Weddell Sea and their changes during spring warming. Deep Sea Res II 55:963–974Google Scholar
  34. Hu WY, Abubakar A, Habashy TM (2009) Joint electromagnetic and seismic inversion using structural constraints. Geophysics 74:R99–R109Google Scholar
  35. Huang H, Rudd J (2008) Conductivity-depth imaging of helicopter-borne TEM data based on a pseudolayer half-space model. Geophysics 73:F115–F120Google Scholar
  36. Hue YK, Teixeira FL (2007) Numerical mode-matching method for tilted-coil antennas in cylindrically layered anisotropic media with multiple horizontal beds. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:2451–2462Google Scholar
  37. Kadioglu S, Daniels JJ (2008) 3D visualization of integrated ground penetrating radar data and EM-61 data to determine buried objects and their characteristics. J Geophys Eng 5:448–456Google Scholar
  38. Kalscheuer T, Pedersen LB, Siripunvaraporn W (2008) Radiomagnetotelluric two-dimensional forward and inverse modelling accounting for displacement currents. Geophys J Int 175:486–514Google Scholar
  39. Knizhnerman L, Druskin V, Zaslavsky M (2009) On optimal convergence rate for the rational Krylov subspace reduction for electromagnetic problems in unbounded domains, SIAM J Numer Anal 47:953–971Google Scholar
  40. Lee HO, Teixeira FL (2007) Cylindrical FDTD analysis of LWD tools through anisotropic dipping-layered earth media. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:383–388Google Scholar
  41. Løseth LO, Ursin B (2007) Electromagnetic fields in planarly layered anisotropic media. Geophys J Int 170:44–80Google Scholar
  42. McKenna SP, McKenna JR (2010) Modeling and analysis of the response of a triaxial, frequency-domain electromagnetic induction sensor to a buried linear conductor. Geophysics 75:F1–F14Google Scholar
  43. Monteiro Santos FA, El-Kaliouby HM (2010) Comparative study of local versus global methods for 1D joint inversion of direct current resistivity and time domain electromagnetic data. Near Surf Geophys 8:135–143Google Scholar
  44. Monteiro Santos FA, Triantafilis J, Bruzgulis KE, Roe JAE (2010) Inversion of multi configuration electromagnetic (DUALEM-421) profiling data using a one-dimensional laterally constrained algorithm. Vadose Zone J 9:117–125Google Scholar
  45. Mulder WA, Wirianto M, Slob EC (2008) Time-domain modeling of electromagnetic diffusion with a frequency-domain code. Geophysics 73:F1–F8Google Scholar
  46. Newman GA, Commer M, Carazzone JJ (2010) Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysics 75:F51–F61Google Scholar
  47. Nobes DC (1996) Troubled waters: environmental applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods. Surv Geophys 17:393–454Google Scholar
  48. Novo MS, da Silva LC, Teixeira FL (2007) Finite volume modeling of borehole electromagnetic logging in 3-D anisotropic formations using coupled scalar- vector potentials. IEEE Ant Wirel Propag Lett 6:549–552Google Scholar
  49. Omeragic D, Habashy T, Chen YH, Polyakov V, Kuo CH, Altman R, Hupp D, Maeso C (2010) 3D reservoir characterization and well placement in complex scenarios using LWD directional EM measurements. Petrophysics 50:396–415Google Scholar
  50. Pardo D, Torres-Verdín C, Nama MJ, Paszynski M, Calo VM (2008) Fourier series expansion in a non-orthogonal system of coordinates for the simulation of 3D alternating current borehole resistivity measurements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:3836–3849Google Scholar
  51. Pasion LR, Billings SD, Oldenburg DW (2008) Improving detection and discrimination of buried metallic objects in magnetic geologic settings by modeling the background soil response. In: SPIE proceedings, vol 6953, p 695310Google Scholar
  52. Pellerin L (2002) Applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods for environmental and geotechnical investigations. Surv Geophys 23:101–132Google Scholar
  53. Plessix RE, van der Sman P (2008) Regularized and blocky 3D controlled source electromagnetic inversion. In: Proceedings of PIERS 2008, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  54. Plessix RE, Darnet M, Mulder WA (2007) An approach for 3D multisource, multifrequency CSEM modeling. Geophysics 72:SM177–SM184Google Scholar
  55. Robinson DA, Lebron I, Kocar B, Phan K, Sampson M, Crook N, Fendorf S (2009a) Time-lapse geophysical imaging of soil moisture dynamics in tropical deltaic soils: An aid to interpreting hydrological and geochemical processes. Water Resour Res 45:2008WR006984Google Scholar
  56. Sambuelli L, Leggieri S, Calzoni C, Porporato C (2007) Study of riverine deposits using electromagnetic methods at a low induction number. Geophysics 72:B113–B120Google Scholar
  57. Shubitidze F, Karkashadze D, Barrowes B, Shamatava I, O’Neill K (2008) A new physics-based approach for estimating a buried object’s location, orientation and magnetic polarization from EMI data. J Environ Eng Geophys 13:115–130Google Scholar
  58. Singer BS (2008) Electromagnetic integral equation approach based on contraction operator and solution optimization in Krylov subspace. Geophys J Int 175:857–884Google Scholar
  59. Singer BSh, Fainberg EB (2007) Fast imaging and inversion of on and off shore electromagnetic data. Tectonophysics 445:81–97Google Scholar
  60. Smith JT, Morrison HF, Doolittle LR, Tseng HW (2007) Multi-transmitter multi-receiver null coupled systems for inductive detection and characterization of metallic objects. J Appl Geophys 61:227–234Google Scholar
  61. Song LP, Oldenburg DW, Pasion LR, Billings SD (2008a) Adaptive focusing for source localization in EMI sensing of metallic objects: a preliminary assessment. J Environ Eng Geophys 13:131–145Google Scholar
  62. Song LP, Shubitidze F, Pasion LR, Oldenburg DW, Billings SD (2008b) Computing transient electromagnetic responses of a metallic object using a spheroidal excitation approach. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 5:359–363Google Scholar
  63. Stalnaker J, Miller E (2007) Particle swarm optimization as an inversion tool for a nonlinear UXO model. In: Proceedings of IGARSS, pp 432–435Google Scholar
  64. Streich R (2009) 3D finite-difference frequency-domain modeling of controlled-source electromagnetic data: direct solution and optimization for high accuracy. Geophysics 74:F95–F105Google Scholar
  65. Sun XY, Nie Z (2008) 3-D modeling of electromagnetic induction in anisotropy media using finite element method. In: IEEE antennas and propagation international symposium, pp 707–710Google Scholar
  66. Swidinsky A, Edwards RN (2009) The transient electromagnetic response of a resistive sheet: straightforward but not trivial. Geophys J Int 179:1488–1498Google Scholar
  67. Swidinsky A, Edwards RN (2010) The transient electromagnetic response of a resistive sheet: an extension to three dimensions. Geophys J Int 182:663–674Google Scholar
  68. Tarokh AB, Miller EL (2007) Subsurface sensing under sensor positional uncertainty. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:675–688Google Scholar
  69. Tezkan B (1999) A review of environmental applications of quasi-stationary electromagnetic techniques. Surv Geophys 20:279–308Google Scholar
  70. Triantafilis J, Buchanan SM (2009) Identifying common near-surface and subsurface stratigraphic units using EM34 signal data and fuzzy k-means analysis in the Darling River valley. Austr J Earth Sci 56:535–558Google Scholar
  71. Vallée MA, Smith RS (2009) Inversion of airborne time-domain electromagnetic data to a 1D structure using lateral constraints. Near Surf Geophys 7:63–71Google Scholar
  72. van den Berg PM, Abubakar A, Habashy TM (2008) An efficient 3D integral equation method for computation of electromagnetic wavefields in a layered configuration containing inhomogeneous objects. In: Proceedings of PIERS 2008, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  73. Viezzoli A, Christiansen AV, Auken E, Sørensen K (2008) Quasi-3D modeling of airborne TEM data by spatially constrained inversion. Geophysics 73:F105–F113Google Scholar
  74. Walker SE, Pasion LR, Oldenburg DW, Billings SD (2007) Investigating the effect of data quality on time domain electromagnetic discrimination. J Appl Geophys 61:254–278Google Scholar
  75. Wang H, Tao H, Yao J, Chen G (2008a) Fast multiparameter reconstruction of multicomponent induction well-logging datum in a deviated well in a horizontally stratified anisotropic formation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:1525–1534Google Scholar
  76. Wang H, So P, Yang S, Hoefer WJR, Du H (2008b) Numerical modeling of multicomponent induction well-logging tools in the cylindrically stratified anisotropic media. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:1134–1147Google Scholar
  77. Wang GL, Torres-Verdín C, Gianzero S (2009) Fast simulation of triaxial borehole induction measurements acquired in axially symmetrical and transversely isotropic media. Geophysics 74:E233–E249Google Scholar
  78. Wapenaar K, Slob E, Snieder R (2008) Seismic and electromagnetic controlled-source interferometry in dissipative media. Geophys Prosp 56:419–434Google Scholar
  79. Wei MH, Scott WR Jr, McClellan JH (2010) Robust estimation of the discrete spectrum of relaxations for electromagnetic induction responses. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48:1169–1179Google Scholar
  80. Weiss CJ, Everett ME (2007) Anomalous diffusion of electromagnetic eddy currents in geological formations. J Geophys Res 112:2006JB00475Google Scholar
  81. Weller U, Zipprich M, Sommer M, Zu Castell W, Wehrhan M (2007) Mapping clay content across boundaries at the landscape scale with electromagnetic induction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1740–1747Google Scholar
  82. Wilson GA, Cox LH, Zhdanov MS (2010) Practical 3D inversion of entire airborne electromagnetic surveys. ASEG Preview, June, 29–33Google Scholar
  83. Yegorov IV (2009) 3-D numerical modeling of an electromagnetic field in geoelectrics using the Trefftz method. Izv Phys Solid Earth 45:812–821Google Scholar
  84. Yin C, Hodges G (2009) Wire-loop surface conductor for airborne EM system testing. Geophysics 74:F1–F8Google Scholar
  85. Yuan N, Nie XC, Liu R, Qiu CW (2010) Simulation of full responses of a triaxial induction tool in a homogeneous biaxial anisotropic formation. Geophysics 75:E101–E114Google Scholar
  86. Zhang B, O’Neill K, Kong JA, Grzegorczyk TM (2008) Support vector machine and neural network classification of metallic objects using coefficients of the spheroidal MQS response modes. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:159–161Google Scholar
  87. Zhdanov MS, Dmitriev VI, Gribenko AV (2007) Integral electric current method in 3-D electromagnetic modeling for large conductivity contrast. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:1282–1290Google Scholar
  88. Zhong L, Li J, Bhardwaj A, Shen LC, Liu RC (2008) Computation of triaxial induction logging tools in layered anisotropic dipping formations. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:1148–1163Google Scholar

Bibliography: Hydrogeology

  1. Al-Garni MA, El-Kaliouby HM (2010) Delineation of saline groundwater and sea water intrusion zones using transient electromagnetic (TEM) method, Wadi Thuwal area, Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci. doi: 10.1007/s12517-009-0094-5 Google Scholar
  2. Auken E, Violette S, d’Ozouville N, Deffontaines B, Sørensen KI, Viezzoli A, de Marsily G (2009b) An integrated study of the hydrogeology of volcanic islands using helicopter borne transient electromagnetic: application in the Galápagos Archipelago. C R Geosci 341:899–907Google Scholar
  3. Baldridge WS, Cole GL, Robinson BA, Jiracek GR (2007) Application of time-domain airborne electromagnetic induction to hydrogeologic investigations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico, USA. Geophysics 72:B31–B45Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan S, Triantafilis J (2009) Mapping water table depth using geophysical and environmental variables. Ground Water 47:80–96Google Scholar
  5. Callegary JB, Leenhouts JM, Paretti NV, Jones CA (2007a) Rapid estimation of recharge potential in ephemeral stream channels using electromagnetic methods, and measurements of channel and vegetation characteristics. J Hydrol 344:17–31Google Scholar
  6. Callegary JB, Ferre TPA, Groom RW (2007b) Vertical spatial sensitivity and exploration depth of low-induction-number electromagnetic-induction instruments. Vadose Zone J 6:158–167Google Scholar
  7. Duque C, Calvache ML, Pedrera A et al (2008) Combined time domain electromagnetic soundings and gravimetry to determine marine intrusion in a detrital coastal aquifer (southern Spain). J Hydrol 349:536–547Google Scholar
  8. Falgas E, Ledo J, Marceullo A, Queralt P (2009) Monitoring freshwater-seawater interface dynamics with audiomagnetoelluric data. Near Surf Geophys 7:391–399Google Scholar
  9. Kafri U, Goldman M, Levi E (2008) The relationship between saline groundwater within the Arava Rift Valley in Israel and the present and ancient base levels as detected by deep geoelectromagnetic soundings. Environ Geol 54:1435–1445Google Scholar
  10. Levi E, Goldman M, Hadad A et al (2008) Spatial delineation of groundwater salinity using deep time domain electromagnetic geophysical measurements: a feasibility study. Water Resour Res 44, art.no. W12404Google Scholar
  11. Morin RH, LeBlanc DR, Troutman BM (2010) The influence of topology on hydraulic conductivity in a sand-and-gravel aquifer. Ground Water 48:181–190Google Scholar
  12. Robinson DA, Binley A, Crook N, Day-Lewis FD, Ferré TPA, Grauch VJS, Knight R, Knoll M, Lakshmi V, Miller R, Nyquist J, Pellerin L, Singha K, Slater L (2008a) Advancing process-based watershed hydrological research using near-surface geophysics: a vision for, and review of, electrical and magnetic geophysical methods. Hydrol Process 22:3604–3635Google Scholar
  13. Viezzoli A, Tosi L, Teatini P, Silvestri S (2010) Surface water–groundwater exchange in transitional coastal environments by airborne electromagnetics: the Venice Lagoon example. Geophys Res Lett 37:L01402Google Scholar
  14. Zhu Q, Lin HS (2009) Simulation and validation of concentrated subsurface lateral flow paths in an agricultural landscape. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:1503–1518Google Scholar

Contamination

  1. Coria D, Bongiovanni V, Bonomo N, de la Vega M, Garea MT (2009) Hydrocarbon contaminated soil: geophysical-chemical methods for designing remediation strategies. Near Surf Geophys 7:227–236Google Scholar
  2. Hoque MA, Khan AA, Shamsudduha M, Hossain MS, Islam T, Chowdhury SH (2009) Near surface lithology and spatial variation of arsenic in the shallow groundwater: southeastern Bangladesh. Environ Geol 56:1687–1695Google Scholar
  3. Jin S, Fallgren P, Cooper J, Morris J, Urynowicz M (2008a) Assessment of diesel contamination in groundwater using electromagnetic induction geophysical techniques. J Environ Sci Health A 43:584–588Google Scholar
  4. Jin S, Fallgren PH, Morris JM, Cooper JS (2008b) Source treatment of acid mine drainage at a backfilled coal mine using remote sensing and biogeochemistry. Water Air Soil Pollut 188:205–212Google Scholar
  5. Martinelli P, Duplaá MC (2008) Laterally filtered 1D inversions of small-loop, frequency-domain EMI data from a chemical waste site. Geophysics 73:F143–F149Google Scholar
  6. Martinelli HP, Osella AM (2010) Small-loop electromagnetic induction for environmental studies at industrial plants. J Geophys Eng 7:91–104Google Scholar
  7. Paine JG, Nance HS, Collins EW, Niemann KL (2007) Quantifying contributions to stream salinity using electromagnetic induction and hydrochemistry in a small Texas coastal-plain basin. Appl Geochem 22:2207–2224Google Scholar
  8. Paine JG, Collins EW, Nance HS, Niemann KL (2009) Combining airborne electromagnetic induction and hydrochemistry to quantify salinity contributions to a large stream basin, Colorado River, Texas, USA. Near Surf Geophys 7:271–282Google Scholar
  9. Rucker DF (2010) The application of magnetic gradiometry and electromagnetic induction at a former radioactive waste disposal site. Waste Manage Res 28:364–372Google Scholar
  10. Sherriff BL, Ferguson IJ, Gupton MW, van Gulck JF, Sidenko N, Priscu C, Perez-Flores M, Gomez-Trevino E (2009) A geophysical and geotechnical study to determine the hydrological regime of the central Manitoba gold mine tailings deposit. Can Geotech J 46:69–80Google Scholar
  11. Sudha B, Tezkan M, Israil D, Singhal C, Rai J (2010) Geoelectrical mapping of aquifer contamination: a case study from Roorkee, India. Near Surf Geophys 8:33–42Google Scholar

UXO and Landmines

  1. Aliamiri A, Stalnaker J, Miller EL (2007) Statistical classification of buried unexploded ordnance using nonparametric prior models. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:2794–2806Google Scholar
  2. Benavides A, Everett ME (2007) Non-linear inversion of controlled source multi-receiver electromagnetic induction data for unexploded ordnance using a continuation method. J Appl Geophys 61:243–253Google Scholar
  3. Benavides A, Everett ME, Pierce C (2009) Unexploded ordnance discrimination using time-domain electromagnetic induction and self-organizing maps. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23:169–179Google Scholar
  4. Beran L, Oldenburg DW (2008) Selecting a discrimination algorithm for unexploded ordnance remediation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:2547–2557Google Scholar
  5. Billings SD, Pasion LR, Beran L, Lhomme N, Song LP, Oldenburg DW, Kingdon K, Sinex D, Jacobson J (2010) Unexploded ordnance discrimination using magnetic and electromagnetic sensors: case study from a former military site. Geophysics 75:B103–B114Google Scholar
  6. Fails EB, Torrione PA, Scott WR, Collins LM (2008) Performance comparison of frequency domain quadrupole and dipole electromagnetic induction sensors in a landmine detection application. SPIE Proc 6953:695304Google Scholar
  7. Ghvedashvili G, Kakulia D, Shubitidze F (2010) Investigation of EMI response for magnetically susceptible and conductive rough surfaces. In: Proceedings of DIPED-2009, pp 49–52Google Scholar
  8. Grzegorczyk TM, Zhang B, Kong JA, Barrowes BE, O’Neill K (2008) Electromagnetic induction from highly permeable and conductive ellipsoids under arbitrary excitation: application to the detection of unexploded ordnances. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:1164–1176Google Scholar
  9. He L, Ji S, Scott WR, Carin L (2007) Adaptive multimodality sensing of landmines. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:1756–1774Google Scholar
  10. Huang HP, San Filipo B, Oren A et al (2007) Coaxial coil towed EMI sensor array for UXO detection and characterization. J Appl Geophys 61:217–226Google Scholar
  11. Liu Q, Liao X, Carin L (2008) Detection of unexploded ordnance via efficient semisupervised and active learning. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 46:2558–2567Google Scholar
  12. Mahmoudi M, Tan SY (2009) Depth detection of conducting marine mines via eddy-current and current channeling response. Prog Electromag Res 90:287–307Google Scholar
  13. O’Neill K, Fernández JP (2009) Electromagnetic methods for UXO discrimination. In: Byrnes J (ed) Unexploded ordnance detection and mitigation. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–221Google Scholar
  14. Pasion LR, Billings SD, Oldenburg DW, Walker SE (2007) Application of a library based method to time domain electromagnetic data for the identification of unexploded ordnance. J Appl Geophys 61:279–291Google Scholar
  15. Pasion LR, Billings SD, Kingdon KA, Oldenburg DW, Lhomme N, Jacobson J (2008) Cooperative inversion of time domain electromagnetic and magnetometer data for the discrimination of unexploded ordnance. J Eng Environ Geophys 13:193–210Google Scholar
  16. Robledo L, Carrasco M, Mery D (2009) A survey of land mine detection technology. Int J Remote Sens 30:2399–2410Google Scholar
  17. Scott WR (2008) Broadband electromagnetic induction sensor for detecting buried landmines. In: Proceedings of IGARSS-2007, pp 22–25Google Scholar
  18. Shubitidze F, O’Neill K, Barrowes BE, Shamatava I, Fernández JP, Sun K, Paulsen KD (2007) Application of the normalized surface magnetic charge model to UXO discrimination in cases with overlapping signals. J Appl Geophys 61:292–303Google Scholar
  19. Shubitidze F, Demidenko E, Barrowes BE, Shamatava I, Fernández JP, O’Neill K (2008a) Combining dipole and mixed model approaches for UXO discrimination. SPIE Proc 6953:695305Google Scholar
  20. Shubitidze F, Barrowes B, Shamatava I, Fernández JP, O’Neill K (2008b) Underwater UXO detection and discrimination: understanding EMI scattering phenomena in a conducting environment. SPIE Proc 6953:69530MGoogle Scholar
  21. Shubitidze F, Fernandez JP, Shamatava I, Pasion LR, Barrowes BE, O’Neill K (2010) Application of the normalized surface magnetic source model to a blind unexploded ordnance discrimination test. ACES J 25:89–98Google Scholar
  22. Stanley RJ, Ho KC, Gader P et al (2007) Land mine and clutter object discrimination using wavelet and time domain spatially distributed features from metal detectors and their fusion with GPR features for hand-held units. Circuits Syst Signal Proc 26:165–191Google Scholar
  23. Sun K, O’Neill K, Barrowes BE, Shubitidze F, Shamatava I, Fernandez JP, Paulsen KD (2007) Data-derived SEA for time domain EMI sensing of UXO. In: PIERS 2007 proceedings, pp 26–30Google Scholar
  24. Throckmorton CS, Tantum SL, Tan Y, Collins LM (2007) Independent component analysis for UXO detection in highly cluttered environments. J Appl Geophys 61:304–317Google Scholar
  25. Williams D, Yu Y, Kennedy L, Zhu X, Carin L (2007a) A bivariate Gaussian model for unexploded ordnance classification with EMI data. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 4:629–633Google Scholar
  26. Williams D, Wang C, Liao X, Carin L (2007b) Classification of unexploded ordnance using incomplete multisensor multiresolution data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45:2364–2373Google Scholar
  27. Zeng ZF, Huang HP, Liu FS (2009) Identifying landmines by incorporating measurement uncertainties into EMIS library and decision threshold. J Environ Eng Geophys 14:39–46Google Scholar

Soils and Agriculture

  1. Amezketa E, del Valle de Lersundi J (2008) Soil classification and salinity mapping for determining restoration potential of cropped riparian areas. Land Degrad Dev 19:153–164Google Scholar
  2. Barbiéro L, Parate HR, Descloitres M, Bost A, Furian S, Kumar MSM, Kumar C, Braun JJ (2007) Using a structural approach to identify relationships between soil and erosion in a semi-humid forested area, South India. Catena 70:313–329Google Scholar
  3. Besson A, Cousin I, Bourennane H, Nicoullaud B, Pasquier C, Richard G, Dorigny A, King D (2010) The spatial and temporal organization of soil water at the field scale as described by electrical resistivity measurements. Eur J Soil Sci 61:120–132Google Scholar
  4. Cockx L, Van Meirvenne M, De Vos B (2007) Using the EM38DD soil sensor to delineate clay lenses in a sandy forest soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1314–1322Google Scholar
  5. Cockx L, Van Meirvenne M, Vitharana UWA, Verbeke LPC, Simpson D, Saey T, Van Coillie FMB (2009) Extracting topsoil information from EM38DD sensor data using a neural network approach. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1–8Google Scholar
  6. Cousin I, Besson A, Bourennane H, Pasquier C, Nicoullaud B, King D, Richard G (2009) From spatial-continuous electrical resistivity measurements to the soil hydraulic functioning at the field scale. C R Geosci 341:859–867Google Scholar
  7. Gebbers R, Luck E, Dabas M, Domsch H (2009) Comparison of instruments for geoelectric soil mapping at the field scale. Near Surf Geophys 7:179–190Google Scholar
  8. Harvey O, Morgan CLS (2009) Predicting regional-scale soil variability using a single calibrated apparent soil electrical conductivity model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:164–169Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn J, Brenning A, Wehrhan M, Koszinski S, Sommer M (2009) Interpretation of electrical conductivity patterns by soil properties and geological maps for precision agriculture. Precis Agric 10:490–507Google Scholar
  10. Martinez G, Vanderlinden K, Ordóñez R, Muriel JL (2009) Can apparent electrical conductivity improve the spatial characterization of soil organic carbon? Vadose Zone J 8:586–593Google Scholar
  11. Robinson DA, Abdu H, Jones SB, Seyfried M, Lebron I, Knight R (2008) Eco- geophysical imaging of watershed-scale soil patterns links with plant community spatial patterns. Vadose Zone J 7:1132–1138Google Scholar
  12. Robinson DA, Lebron I, Kocar B, Phan K, Sampson M, Crook N, Fendorf S (2009) Time-lapse geophysical imaging of soil moisture dynamics in tropical deltaic soils: an aid to interpreting hydrological and geochemical processes. Water Resour Res 45:2008WR006984Google Scholar
  13. Saey DS, Vermeersch H, Cockx L, Van Meirvenne M (2009) Comparing the EM38DD and DUALEM-21S sensors for depth-to-clay mapping. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:7–12Google Scholar
  14. Triantafilis J, Buchanan SM (2010) Mapping the spatial distribution of subsurface saline material in the Darling River valley. J Appl Geophys 70:144–160Google Scholar
  15. Triantafilis J, Monteiro Santos FA (2009) 2-dimensional soil and vadose-zone representation using an EM38 and EM34 and a laterally constrained inversion model. Austr J Soil Res 47:809–820Google Scholar
  16. Triantafilis J, Kerridge B, Buchanan SM (2009a) Digital soil-class mapping from proximal and remotely sensed data at the field level. Agron J 101:841–853Google Scholar
  17. Triantafilis J, Mitchell S, Lesch B, La Lau K, Buchanan SM (2009b) Field level digital soil mapping of cation exchange capacity using electromagnetic induction and a hierarchical spatial regression model. Austr J Soil Res 47:651–663Google Scholar
  18. Urdanoz V, Amezketa E, Clavería I, Ochoa V, Aragüés R (2008) Mobile and georeferenced electromagnetic sensors and applications for salinity assessment. Spanish J Agric Res 6:469–478Google Scholar
  19. Valckx J, Cockx L, Wauters J, Van Meirvenne M, Govers G, Hermy M, Muys B (2009) Within-field spatial distribution of earthworm populations related to species interactions and soil apparent electrical conductivity. Appl Soil Ecol 41:315–328Google Scholar
  20. Viezzoli A, Auken E, Munday T (2009) Spatially constrained inversion for quasi 3D modelling of airborne electromagnetic data—an application for environmental assessment in the Lower Murray Region of South Australia. Explor Geophys 40:173–183Google Scholar
  21. Vitharana UWA, Van Meirvenne M, Simpson D, Cockx L, De Baerdemaeker J (2008) Key soil and topographic properties to delineate potential management classes for precision agriculture in the European loess area. Geoderma 143:206–215Google Scholar

Archaeology

  1. Bongiovanni MV, Bonomo N, de la Vega M, Martino L, Osella A (2008) Rapid evaluation of multifrequency EMI data to characterize buried structures at a historical Jesuit Mission in Argentina. J Appl Geophys 64:37–46Google Scholar
  2. Creasman PP, Vining B, Koepnick S, Doyle N (2009) An exploratory geophysical survey at the pyramid complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, Egypt, in search of boats. Int J Nautical Arch 38:386–399Google Scholar
  3. Nobes DC (2007) Effect of grain size on the geophysical responses of indigenous burial sites. In: Proceedings of EAGE Near-Surf. 2007, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. Nobes DC, Wallace LR (2007) Geophysical imaging of an early 19th century colonial defensive blockhouse. In: Proceedings of EAGE Near-Surf 2007, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  5. Simpson D, Lehouck A, Van Meirvenne M, Bourgeois J, Thoen E, Vervloet J (2008) Geoarchaeological prospection of a medieval manor in the Dutch Polders using an electromagnetic induction sensor in combination with soil augerings. Geoarchaeology 23:305–319Google Scholar
  6. Simpson D, van Meirvenne M, Saey T, van Meersch H, Bourgeois J, Le Houck A, Cockx L, Vitharana UWA (2009) Evaluating the multiple coil configurations of the EM38DD and DUALEM-21S sensors to detect archaeological anomalies. Arch Prosp 16:91–102Google Scholar
  7. Thiesson J, Dabas M, Flageul S (2009) Detection of resistive features using towed Slingram electromagnetic induction instruments. Arch Prosp 16:103–109Google Scholar
  8. Verdonck L, Simpson D, Cornelis WM, Plyson A, Bourgeois J, Docter R, van Meirvenne M (2009) Ground-penetrating radar survey over Bronze Age circular monuments on a sandy soil, complemented with electromagnetic induction and fluxgate gradiometer data. Arch Prosp 16:193–202Google Scholar

Hazards and Climate

  1. Druckenmiller ML, Eicken H, Johnson MA, Pringle DJ, Williams CC (2009) Toward an integrated coastal sea-ice observatory: system components and a case study at Barrow, Alaska. Cold Regions Sci Tech 56:61–72Google Scholar
  2. Guo J, Sun B, Tian G (2007) The application of electromagnetic-induction on the measurement of sea ice thickness in the Antarctic. Appl Geophys 4:214–220Google Scholar
  3. Haas C, Lobach J, Hendricks S, Rabenstein L, Pfaffling A (2009) Helicopter- borne measurements of sea ice thickness, using a small and lightweight, digital EM system. J Appl Geophys 67:234–241Google Scholar
  4. McLeod MK, Slavich PG, Irhas Y, Moore N, Rachman A, Ali N, Iskandar T, Hunt C, Caniago C (2010) Soil salinity in Aceh after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Agric Water Manag 97:605–613Google Scholar
  5. Saey T, Simpson D, Vitharana UWA, Vermeersch H, Vermang J, Van Meirvenne M (2008) Reconstructing the paleotopography beneath the loess cover with the aid of an electromagnetic induction sensor. Catena 74:58–64Google Scholar
  6. Schmutz M, Guérin R, Andrieux P, Maquaire O (2009) Determination of the 3D structure of an earthflow by geophysical methods: the case of Super Sauze, in the French southern Alps. J Appl Geophys 68:500–507Google Scholar
  7. Sharma SP, Anbarasu K, Gupta S, Sengupta A (2010) Integrated very low frequency EM, electrical resistivity, and geological studies on the Lanta Khola landslide, North Sikkim, India. Landslides 7:43–53Google Scholar
  8. Shirasawa K, Eicken H, Tateyama K, Takatsuka T, Kawamura T (2009) Sea-ice- thickness variability in the Chukchi Sea, spring and summer 2002–2004. Deep Sea Res II 56:1182–1200Google Scholar
  9. Zach JJ, Brauti K (2009) Methane hydrates in controlled-source electromagnetic surveys—analysis of a recent data example. Geophys Prosp 57:601–614Google Scholar
  10. Zhao L, Geng JH, Zhang S, Yang D (2008) 1-D Controlled source electromagnetic forward modeling for marine gas hydrates studies. Appl Geophys 5:121–126Google Scholar

Other Applications

  1. Antonov EY, Shein AN (2008) Improving inversion quality for IP-affected TDEM data. Russ Geol Geophys 49:790–802Google Scholar
  2. Bastani M, Malehmir A, Ismail N, Pedersen LB, Hedjazi F (2009) Delineating hydrothermal stockwork copper deposits using controlled-source and radio-magnetotelluric methods: a case study from northeast Iran. Geophysics 74:B167–B181Google Scholar
  3. Chelovechkov AI, Chistoserdov BM, Baidikov SV (2008) A two-loop frequency-domain electromagnetic induction system for detection of anomalous objects. Russ Geol Geophys 49:628–632Google Scholar
  4. Dolgun AA, Shurina EP, Epov MI (2009) Propagation of electromagnetic waves from an induction source in media with time-dependent conductivity and permittivity. Russ Geol Geophys 50:983–990Google Scholar
  5. Ellis M, Evans RL, Hutchinson D, Hart P, Gardner J, Hagen R (2008) Electromagnetic surveying of seafloor mounds in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Petrol Geol 25:960–968Google Scholar
  6. Epov MI, Morozova GM (2010) TEM soundings in magnetic media. Russ Geol Geophys 51:204–208Google Scholar
  7. Lei D, Zhao G, Yang Z, Zhao F, Li X (2008) An application of CSAMT to a geological investigation for railway route selection. Near Surf Geophys 6:315–318Google Scholar
  8. MacLennan K, Li Y (2010) Signal extraction from 4D transient electromagnetic surveys using the equivalent source method. Geophysics, pre-printGoogle Scholar
  9. Manstein AK, Panin GL, Tikunov SY (2008) A device for shallow frequency-domain electromagnetic induction sounding. Russ Geol Geophys 49:430–436Google Scholar
  10. Menghini A, Pagano G, Floris S, Bernini E, Pelorosso M (2010) TDEM method for hydrothermal water detection. First Break 28:93–101Google Scholar
  11. Mitsuhata Y, Imasato T (2009) On-site bias noise correction in multi-frequency Slingram-type electromagnetic induction instruments. J Eng Environ Geophys 14:179–188Google Scholar
  12. Nagler P, Jetton A, Fleming J, Didan K, Glenn E, Erker J, Morino K, Milliken J, Gloss S (2007) Evapotranspiration in a cottonwood (Populus fremontii) restoration plantation estimated by sap flow and remote sensing methods. Agric For Meteorol 144:95–110Google Scholar
  13. Nobes DC (2007) Detecting linear features using the directionality of the HLEM response. In: Proceedings of EAGE Near Surf, 2007, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  14. Pankratov OV, Geraskin AI (2010) On processing of controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) data. Geol Acta 8:31–49Google Scholar
  15. Pardo D, Torres-Verdin C, Demkowicz LF (2007) Feasibility study for 2D frequency-dependent, electromagnetic sensing through casing. Geophysics 72:F111–F118Google Scholar
  16. Pavlov AT, Lepeshkin VP, Pavlova YN (2007) Possibilities and specific features of pulsed inductive electromagnetic sounding of shallow sections under complex geological conditions. Izv Phys Solid Earth 43:251–258Google Scholar
  17. Petho G, Takacs E (2007) Geophysical application of power lines EM fields. In: Proceedings of EAGE Near Surf 2007, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfaffhuber AA, Monstad S, Rudd J (2009) Airborne electromagnetic hydrocarbon mapping in Mozambique. Explor Geophys 40:237–245Google Scholar
  19. Shen J, Sun W (2008) 2.5-D modeling of cross-hole electromagnetic measurement by finite element method. Petrol Sci 5:126–134Google Scholar
  20. Singleton AC, Osinski GR, Samson C, Williamson MC, Holladay S (2010) Electromagnetic characterization of polar ice-wedge polygons: implications for periglacial studies on Mars and Earth. Planet Space Sci 58:472–481Google Scholar
  21. Slatt RM, Eslinger EV, Van Dyke SK (2009) Acoustic and petrophysical properties of a clastic deepwater depositional system from lithofacies to architectural elements’ scales. Geophysics 74:WA35–WA50Google Scholar
  22. Srigutomo W, Kagiyama T, Kanda W, Munekane H, Hashimoto T, Tanaka Y, Utada H, Utsugi M (2008) Resistivity structure of Unzen volcano derived from time domain electromagnetic (TDEM) survey. J Volcanol Geothermal Res 175:231–240Google Scholar
  23. Suzuki K, Oyama T, Kawashima F, Tsukada T, Jyomori A (2010) Monitoring of grout material injected under a reservoir using electrical and electromagnetic surveys. Explor Geophys 41:69–79Google Scholar
  24. Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ (2009) Assessment of multi-frequency electromagnetic induction for determining soil moisture patterns at the hillslope scale. J Hydrol 368:56–67Google Scholar
  25. Wirianto M, Mulder WA, Slob EC (2007) A feasibility study of land CSEM reservoir monitoring in a complex 3-D model. Geophys J Int 181:741–755Google Scholar
  26. Utada H, Takahashi Y, Morita Y, Koyama T, Kagiyama T (2007) ACTIVE system for monitoring volcanic activity: a case study of the Izu-Oshima Volcano, Central Japan. J Volcan Geotherm Res 164:217–243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut fur GeophysikETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Geology and GeophysicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations