多线圈和多频率频域电磁感应仪器的比较

IF 2.1 Q3 SOIL SCIENCE
G. Blanchy, Paul McLachlan, Benjamin Mary, Matteo Censini, J. Boaga, Giorgio Cassiani
{"title":"多线圈和多频率频域电磁感应仪器的比较","authors":"G. Blanchy, Paul McLachlan, Benjamin Mary, Matteo Censini, J. Boaga, Giorgio Cassiani","doi":"10.3389/fsoil.2024.1239497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Characterization of the shallow subsurface in mountain catchments is important for understanding hydrological processes and soil formation. The depth to the soil/bedrock interface (e.g., the upper ~5 m) is of particular interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (FDEM) methods are well suited for high productivity characterization for this target as they have short acquisition times and do not require direct coupling with the ground. Although traditionally used for revealing lateral electrical conductivity (EC) patterns, e.g., to produce maps of salinity or water content, FDEM inversion is increasingly used to produce depth-specific models of EC. These quantitative models can be used to inform several depth-specific properties relevant to hydrological modeling (e.g. depths to interfaces and soil water content).There are a number of commercial FDEM instruments available; this work compares a multi-coil device (i.e., a single-frequency device with multiple receiver coils) and a multi-frequency device (i.e., a single receiver device with multiple frequencies) using the open-source software EMagPy. Firstly, the performance of both devices is assessed using synthetic modeling. Secondly, the analysis is applied to field data from an alpine catchment.Both instruments retrieved a similar EC model in the synthetic and field cases. However, the multi-frequency instrument displayed shallower sensitivity patterns when operated above electrically conductive grounds (i.e., 150 mS/m) and therefore had a lower depth of investigation. From synthetic modeling, it also appears that the model convergence for the multi-frequency instrument is more sensitive to noise than the multi-coil instrument.Despite these limitations, the multi-frequency instrument is smaller and more portable; consequently, it is easier to deploy in mountainous catchments.","PeriodicalId":73107,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in soil science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of multi-coil and multi-frequency frequency domain electromagnetic induction instruments\",\"authors\":\"G. Blanchy, Paul McLachlan, Benjamin Mary, Matteo Censini, J. Boaga, Giorgio Cassiani\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsoil.2024.1239497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Characterization of the shallow subsurface in mountain catchments is important for understanding hydrological processes and soil formation. The depth to the soil/bedrock interface (e.g., the upper ~5 m) is of particular interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (FDEM) methods are well suited for high productivity characterization for this target as they have short acquisition times and do not require direct coupling with the ground. Although traditionally used for revealing lateral electrical conductivity (EC) patterns, e.g., to produce maps of salinity or water content, FDEM inversion is increasingly used to produce depth-specific models of EC. These quantitative models can be used to inform several depth-specific properties relevant to hydrological modeling (e.g. depths to interfaces and soil water content).There are a number of commercial FDEM instruments available; this work compares a multi-coil device (i.e., a single-frequency device with multiple receiver coils) and a multi-frequency device (i.e., a single receiver device with multiple frequencies) using the open-source software EMagPy. Firstly, the performance of both devices is assessed using synthetic modeling. Secondly, the analysis is applied to field data from an alpine catchment.Both instruments retrieved a similar EC model in the synthetic and field cases. However, the multi-frequency instrument displayed shallower sensitivity patterns when operated above electrically conductive grounds (i.e., 150 mS/m) and therefore had a lower depth of investigation. From synthetic modeling, it also appears that the model convergence for the multi-frequency instrument is more sensitive to noise than the multi-coil instrument.Despite these limitations, the multi-frequency instrument is smaller and more portable; consequently, it is easier to deploy in mountainous catchments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in soil science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in soil science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2024.1239497\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in soil science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2024.1239497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

山区集水区浅层地下的特征对于了解水文过程和土壤形成非常重要。土壤/基岩界面(如上部约 5 米)的深度尤其令人感兴趣。频域电磁感应(FDEM)方法采集时间短,无需与地面直接耦合,因此非常适合对这一目标进行高产能表征。虽然频域电磁感应反演传统上用于揭示横向电导率(EC)模式,例如绘制盐度或含水量图,但现在越来越多地用于制作特定深度的电导率模型。这些定量模型可用于提供与水文建模相关的若干特定深度属性信息(如界面深度和土壤含水量)。目前有许多商用 FDEM 仪器可供选择;本研究使用开源软件 EMagPy 对多线圈设备(即具有多个接收线圈的单频设备)和多频率设备(即具有多个频率的单接收器设备)进行了比较。首先,通过合成建模对两种设备的性能进行评估。在合成和现场情况下,两种仪器都能检索到相似的欧共体模型。不过,多频仪器在导电地面(即 150 mS/m)以上运行时显示的灵敏度模式较浅,因此调查深度较低。从合成建模来看,多频仪器的模型收敛性对噪声的敏感性要高于多线圈仪器。尽管存在这些局限性,但多频仪器体积更小,更便于携带,因此更容易在山区集水区部署。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of multi-coil and multi-frequency frequency domain electromagnetic induction instruments
Characterization of the shallow subsurface in mountain catchments is important for understanding hydrological processes and soil formation. The depth to the soil/bedrock interface (e.g., the upper ~5 m) is of particular interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (FDEM) methods are well suited for high productivity characterization for this target as they have short acquisition times and do not require direct coupling with the ground. Although traditionally used for revealing lateral electrical conductivity (EC) patterns, e.g., to produce maps of salinity or water content, FDEM inversion is increasingly used to produce depth-specific models of EC. These quantitative models can be used to inform several depth-specific properties relevant to hydrological modeling (e.g. depths to interfaces and soil water content).There are a number of commercial FDEM instruments available; this work compares a multi-coil device (i.e., a single-frequency device with multiple receiver coils) and a multi-frequency device (i.e., a single receiver device with multiple frequencies) using the open-source software EMagPy. Firstly, the performance of both devices is assessed using synthetic modeling. Secondly, the analysis is applied to field data from an alpine catchment.Both instruments retrieved a similar EC model in the synthetic and field cases. However, the multi-frequency instrument displayed shallower sensitivity patterns when operated above electrically conductive grounds (i.e., 150 mS/m) and therefore had a lower depth of investigation. From synthetic modeling, it also appears that the model convergence for the multi-frequency instrument is more sensitive to noise than the multi-coil instrument.Despite these limitations, the multi-frequency instrument is smaller and more portable; consequently, it is easier to deploy in mountainous catchments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信