Integration of Thermal Observations with Other Geophysical Methods

  • Lev EppelbaumEmail author
  • Izzy Kutasov
  • Arkady Pilchin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Earth System Sciences book series (LNESS)


Integrated interpretation errors mainly depend on the type of applied algorithm. The ways for calculation of the reliability of single geophysical method and the reliability of information obtained by a set of geophysical methods is shown. The methodology of some information parameters calculation is shown in detail. Integrated interpretation can be deterministic, probabilistic and mixed (probabilistic–deterministic). A notion of Physical-Geological Model necessary for combined geophysical analysis is explained. Several examples illustrate effective integration of thermal and other geophysical methods.


Ring Structure Geophysical Method Geophysical Investigation Geophysical Field Geophysical Observation 
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.


  1. Akselrod SM, Putkaradze LA (1979) Integrated interpretation of logging with due account of variations in physical properties of the object under study. Review of VIEMS, Ser. Regional, Exploration, and Borehole Geophysics, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. Borda M (2011) Fundamentals in information theory and coding. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borovko NN (1979) Optimization of geophysical investigations in ore deposit prospecting. Nedra, Leningrad (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Brillouin LN (1962) Science and information theory, 2nd edn. Academic Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulakh EG, Rzhanitsyn VA, Markova MN (1976) Application of minimization method for solution of structural geology problems using gravity data. Naukova Dumka, Kiev (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. Daston L (1988) Classical probability in the enlightenment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Eppelbaum LV (1987) Multimodel approach to the study of geophysical targets (in Russian). Deposited by VINITI, USSR Academic of Science, No. 7842-87, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  8. Eppelbaum LV, Alperovich L, Zheludev V, Pechersky A (2011) Application of informational and wavelet approaches for integrated processing of geophysical data in complex environments. In: Proceeding of the 2011 SAGEEP conference, vol 24. Charleston, South Carolina, USA, pp 24–60Google Scholar
  9. Eppelbaum L, Eppelbaum V, Ben-Avraham Z (2003) Formalization and estimation of integrated geological investigations: informational approach. Geoinformatics 14(3):233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eppelbaum LV, Ezersky MG, Al-Zoubi AS, Goldshmidt VI, Legchenko A (2008) Study of the factors affecting the karst volume assessment in the Dead Sea sinkhole problem using microgravity field analysis and 3D modeling. Adv GeoSci 19:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eppelbaum LV, Khesin BE (1988) Physical–geological models for pyrite deposits of the Filizchay and Lesser-Caucasian types. In: Transactions of all-union meeting “Multifactor ore deposit models as the basis for developing effective methods of search, evaluation and prospecting”, Tbilisi, pp 126–127 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Eppelbaum LV, Khesin BE (2012) Geophysical studies in the caucasus. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eppelbaum LV, Livshits Ya, Flexer A, Ben-Avraham Z (1998) Integrated geological–geophysical analysis of Ring Structures phenomenon in the Eastern Mediterranean. Transactions of the conference of Israel geological society annual meeting. Mizpe-Ramon, Israel, p 25Google Scholar
  14. Fotiadi EE (ed) (1970) Geology and mathematics; problems of diagnosis and identification in geology, geochemistry and geophysics. Nauka, Novosibirsk (in Russian)Google Scholar
  15. Gadirov VG, Eppelbaum LV (2012) Detailed gravity, magnetics successful in exploring Azerbaijan onshore areas. Oil Gas J 110(11):60–73Google Scholar
  16. Karatayev GI, Pashkevich IK (1986) Integrated analysis of geological and geophysical data. Naukova Dumka, Kiev (in Russian)Google Scholar
  17. Khalfin LA (1958) Information theory of geophysical interpretation. Doklady AN USSR 122(6):1007–1010 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Khesin BE, Alexeyev VV, Eppelbaum LV (1996) Interpretation of Geophysical Fields in Complicated Environments. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer, Ser: Modern Approaches in Geophysics, Boston, Dordrecht, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khesin BE, Eppelbaum LV (1997) The number of geophysical methods required for target classification: quantitative estimation. Geoinformatics 8(1):31–39Google Scholar
  20. Malyshev VP (1981) Probabilistic–deterministic design of experiment. Nauka, Alma-Ata (in Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Nikitin AA (1993) Statistical processing of geophysical data. Series of advanced geophysics, Russian experience, vol 22. Electromagnetic Research Centre, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  22. Parasnis DS (1997) Principles of applied geophysics (revised and supplumented), 5th edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Pilchin AN (1981) Influence of additional pressure on seismic velocity and density of rocks in Middle-Kura depression. Explor Geophys (Razvedochnaya Geofizika) 91:122–127 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Poltoratsky VV, Ginzburg SN (1989) Gravity prospecting. In: Brodovoi VV (ed) Borehole and mining geophysics, vol II. Nedra, Moscow, pp 190–209 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:3–4, 379–432, 623–656Google Scholar
  26. Shraibman VI, Zhdanov MS, Vitvitsky OV (1977) Correlation methods for transformation and interpretation of geophysical anomalies. Nedra, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Svetov BS (1992) Information theory basis of geophysics. Electromagnetic Research Centre, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  28. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tzimelzon IO (1959) A problem of geological interpretation of Talysh-Vandam gravity maximum. Geol Oil-and-Gas (3):55–65 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  30. Ventsel ES (1969) The probability theory (revised), 3rd edn. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  31. Zadeh LA (1983) The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhdanov MS (2002) Geophysical inverse theory and regularization problems. Methods in geochemistry and geophysics, vol 36, Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geophysics, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.BYG Consulting Co.BostonUSA
  3. 3.Universal Geoscience and Environment Consulting CompanyWillowdaleCanada

Personalised recommendations