Advertisement

Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 13, Issue 4–5, pp 341–379 | Cite as

Corrections for near surface effects: Decomposition of the magnetotelluric impedance tensor and scaling corrections for regional resistivities: A tutorial

  • Ross W. Groom
  • Karsten Bahr
Article

Abstract

This paper primarily examines the effects of small-scale or near-surface conductivity inhomogeneities on the magnetotelluric (MT) impedance tensor. These effects cause three different types of distortion results. (1) The well-knownstatic shifts of sounding curves. (2) When the underlying regional setting is two-dimensional then the two regional impedances are mixed in an arbitrary coordinate system. Thus the level and shape of each sounding curve is distorted as are the phases. (3) At sufficiently high frequencies these effects generate anomalous magnetic fields that in turn alter the background phases.

This tutorial first explores the usefulness of various MT tensor analysis techniques to overcome the problem of phase mixing and to recover regional information in the presence of local geological noise. Synthetic and experimental data are considered. A sequence ofa priori models of increasing complexity are described. The use of appropriate decompositions of the MT tensor each with an increasing number of parameters is emphasised. In a second part, phase mixing and static shifts are examined from a synoptic view. Some static shift removal techniques that can be used in conjunction with the decomposition are discussed. This paper is not a review but rather an investigation of a few methods that the authors have found useful with field data.

Keywords

Field Data Surface Effect Regional Information Regional Setting Static Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Tutorial

  1. Bahr, K.: 1991, ‘Geological Noise in Magnetotelluric Data: A Classification of Distortion Types’,Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 60, 24–38.Google Scholar
  2. Cagniard, L.: 1953, ‘Basic Theory of the Magneto-Telluric Method of Geophysical Prospecting’,Geophysics 18, 605–635.Google Scholar
  3. Cerv, V. and Pek, J.: 1990, ‘Modelling and Analysis of Electromagnetic Fields in 3D Inhomogenous Media’,Surveys in Geophysics 11, 205–229.Google Scholar
  4. Hohmann, G. W.: 1976, ‘Three-Dimensional Induced Polarization and Electromagnetic Modeling’,Geophysics 40, 309–324.Google Scholar
  5. Groom, R. W. and Bailey, R. C.: 1991, ‘Analytic Investigation of the Effects of Near-Surface 3D Galvanic Scatterers on MT Tensor Decompositions’,Geophysics 56, 496–518.Google Scholar
  6. Habashy, T. M., Groom, R. W. and Spies, B.: 1991, ‘Low-Frequency 3D EM Scattering Effects in Conducting Media, Limitations on the Born Approximation, and an Extended Born Approximation’, Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium, July 1991.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, A. G.: 1983, ‘The Problem of Current Channeling: A Critical Review’,Geophysical Surveys 6, 79–122.Google Scholar
  8. Jiracek, G.: 1990, ‘Near Surface and Topographic Distortions in Electromagnetic Induction’,Surveys in Geophysics 11, 163–203.Google Scholar
  9. West, G. F. and Edwards, R. N.: 1985, ‘A Simple Parametric Model for the Electromagnetic Response of an Anomalous Body in a Host Medium’,Geophysics 50, 2542–2559.Google Scholar

Structural Dimensionality

  1. Groom, R. W., Kurtz, R. D., Jones, A. G. and Boerner, D. E.: 1991, ‘A Quantitative MT Methodology for Determining the Dimensionality of Structure’, submittedGeophysical Journal International.Google Scholar
  2. Jones, A. G., Kurtz, R. D., Oldenburg, D. W., Boerner, D. E. and Ellis, R.: 1988, ‘Magnetotelluric Observations Along the Lithoprobe Southeastern Canadian Cordilleran Transect’,Geophysical Research Letters 15, 677–680.Google Scholar
  3. Ranganayaki, R. P.: 1984, ‘An Interpretive Analysis of Magnetotelluric Data’,Geophysics 49, 1730–1748.Google Scholar
  4. Swift, C. M.: 1967, ‘A Magnetotelluric Investigation of an Electrical Conductivity Anomaly in the South Western United States’, Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Eggers, D. W.: 1982, ‘An Eigenstate Formulation of the Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor’,Geophysics 47, 1204–1214.Google Scholar
  6. LaToracca, G. A., Madden, T. R. and Korringa, J.: 1986, ‘An Analysis of the Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor for Three-Dimensional Structures’,Geophysics 51, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
  7. Spitz, S.: 1985, ‘The Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor Properties with Respect to Rotations’,Geophysics 50, 1610–1617.Google Scholar
  8. Yee, E. and Paulson, K. V.: 1987, ‘The Canonical Decomposition and its Relationship to Other Forms of Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor Analysis’,J. Geophys. 61, 173–189.Google Scholar

Physical Decompositions

  1. Bahr, K.: 1988, ‘Interpretation of the Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor: Regional Induction and Local Telluric Distortion’,J. Geophys. 62, 119–127.Google Scholar
  2. Groom, R. W. and Bailey, R. C.: 1989a, ‘Decomposition of the Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor in the Presence of Local Three-Dimensional Galvanic Distortion’,J. Geophys. Res. 94(B2), 1913–1925.Google Scholar

Modelling C by the use of additional information about the surface layer

  1. Berdichevsky, M. N. and Dmitriev, V. I.: 1976, ‘Distortion of Magnetic and Electric Fields by Near-Surface Lateral Inhomogeneities’,Acta Geodaet., Geophys. et Montanist. Acad. Sci. Hung. 11, 447–483.Google Scholar
  2. Craven, J. A., Jones, A. G., Boerner, D. E., Groom, R. W. and Kurtz, R. D.: 1990, ‘The Correction of Static Shift in Magnetotelluric Data from the Lithoprobe Southern Canadian Cordillera Transect’,60th Annual Intl. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, pp. 561–564.Google Scholar
  3. Kemmerle, K.: 1977, ‘Magnetotellurik am Alpen-Nordrand mit Diskussion der lokalen Effekte und einer Einzeleffekt-Auswertung’, Diss. Fachb. Geowissenschaften, München.Google Scholar
  4. Pellerin, L. and Hohmann, J. W.: 1990, ‘Transient Electromagnetic Inversion: A Remedy for Magnetotelluric Static Shifts’,Geophysics 55, 1242–1250.Google Scholar
  5. Spies, B. R.: 1989, ‘Depth of Investigation of Electromagnetic Sounding Methods’,Geophysics 54, 872–888.Google Scholar
  6. Sternberg, B. K., Washburne, J. C. and Pellerin, L.: 1988, ‘Correction for the Static Shift in Magnetotellurics Using Transient Electromagnetic Soundings’,Geophysics 53, 1459–1468.Google Scholar

Extension to long periods and comparison with undistorted reference impedance

  1. Bahr, K. and Filloux, J. H.: 1989, ‘Local Sq Response Functions from EMSLAB Data’,J. Geophys. Res. 94(B10), 14195–14200.Google Scholar
  2. Junge, A.: 1988, ‘The Telluric Field in Northern Germany Induced by Tidal Motion in the North Sea’,Geophys. J. 95, 523–533.Google Scholar
  3. Larsen, J. C.: 1977, ‘Removal of Local Surface Conductivity Effects from Low Frequency Mantle Response Curves’,Acta Geodaet., Geophys. et Montanist. Acad. Sci. Hung. 12, 183–186.Google Scholar
  4. Schmucker, U.: 1987, ‘Magnetic and Electric Fields Due to Electromagnetic Induction by External Sources’, in K. Fuchs and H. Soffel (eds.),Landolt-Brnstein, Numerical Data and Function Relationships in Science and Technology, New ser., Group V: Geophys. Space Res., subvol IIb, Springer, New York, pp. 100–124.Google Scholar

Magnetovariational link to undistorted reference site

  1. Bahr, K.: 1988, ‘Interpretation of the Magnetotelluric Impedance Tensor: Regional Induction and Local Telluric Distortion’,J. Geophys. 62, 119–127.Google Scholar
  2. Jensen, V. and Sierra, J. L.: 1988, ‘Case History: The ECRE Method Applied to a Two Dimensional Salt Structure’ Geometra Ltd. Publication, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Tezkan, B.: 1988, ‘Electromagnetic Sounding Experiments in the Schwarzwald Central Gneiss Massif’,J. Geophys. 62, 109–118.Google Scholar

Spatial filtering or spatial averaging

  1. Groom, R. W. and Bailey, R. C.: 1989b, ‘Some Effects of Multiple Lateral Inhomogeneities in Magnetotellurics’,Geophysical Prospecting 37, 697–712.Google Scholar
  2. Jones, A. G., Boerner, D. E., Kurtz, R. D., Oldenburg, D. W. and Ellis, R.: 1989, ‘EMAP Data Processing in the Wavenumber Domain’,59th Annual Intl. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, p. 172.Google Scholar
  3. Torres-Verdin, C. and Bostick, F. X.: 1992, ‘Principles of Spatial Surficial Electric Field Filtering in Magnetotellurics: Electromagnetic Array Profiling (EMAP)’, accepted forGeophysics.Google Scholar
  4. Brasse, H. and Junge, A.: 1984, ‘The Influence of Geomagnetic Variations on Pipelines and an Application for Large-Scale Magnetotelluric Depth Sounding’,J. Geophys. 55, 31–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross W. Groom
    • 1
  • Karsten Bahr
    • 2
  1. 1.Geological Survey of CanadaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Institut fur Meteorologie und GeophysikFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations