The purpose of this review is to report the major advancements that have been made within the area of airborne electromagnetics (AEM) between 2007 and 2017, with a focus on geotechnical and hydrological applications. Older articles will be listed in order to provide context for recent advancement, or when describing the underlying methodology. The review is structured such that each section can be read independently, and each section starts out with a brief introduction to establish a common ground. References are inserted where relevant, and as such some articles are cited multiple times, since they are relevant in multiple sections.

A Review of Airborne Electromagnetic Methods With Focus on Geotechnical and Hydrological Applications From 2007 to 2017

A finite-element time-domain (FETD) electromagnetic forward solver for a complex-shaped transmitting loop is presented. Any complex-shaped source can be viewed as a combination of electric ...

A finite-element time-domain forward solver for electromagnetic methods with complex-shaped loop sources

S U M M A R Y We present a numerical algorithm for 3-D electromagnetic (EM) simulations in conducting media with general electric anisotropy. The algorithm is based on the finite-difference discretization of frequency-domain Maxwell’s equations on a Lebedev grid, in which all components of the electric field are collocated but half a spatial step staggered with respect to the magnetic field components, which also are collocated. This leads to a system of linear equations that is solved using a stabilized biconjugate gradient method with a multigrid preconditioner. We validate the accuracy of the numerical results for layered and 3-D tilted transverse isotropic (TTI) earth models representing typical scenarios used in the marine controlled-source EM method. It is then demonstrated that not taking into account the full anisotropy of the conductivity tensor can lead to misleading inversion results. For synthetic data corresponding to a 3-D model with a TTI anticlinal structure, a standard vertical transverse isotropic (VTI) inversion is not able to image a resistor, while for a 3-D model with a TTI synclinal structure it produces a false resistive anomaly. However, if the VTI forward solver used in the inversion is replaced by the proposed TTI solver with perfect knowledge of the strike and dip of the dipping structures, the resulting resistivity images become consistent with the true models.

Fully anisotropic 3-D EM modelling on a Lebedev grid with a multigrid pre-conditioner

A meaningful solution to an inversion problem should be composed of the preferred inversion model and its uncertainty and resolution estimates. The model uncertainty estimate describes an equivalent model domain in which each model generates responses which fit the observed data to within a threshold value. The model resolution matrix measures to what extent the unknown true solution maps into the preferred solution. However, most current geophysical electromagnetic (also gravity, magnetic and seismic) inversion studies only offer the preferred inversion model and ignore model uncertainty and resolution estimates, which makes the reliability of the preferred inversion model questionable. This may be caused by the fact that the computation and analysis of an inversion model depend on multiple factors, such as the misfit or objective function, the accuracy of the forward solvers, data coverage and noise, values of trade-off parameters, the initial model, the reference model and the model constraints. Depending on the particular method selected, large computational costs ensue. In this review, we first try to cover linearised model analysis tools such as the sensitivity matrix, the model resolution matrix and the model covariance matrix also providing a partially nonlinear description of the equivalent model domain based on pseudo-hyperellipsoids. Linearised model analysis tools can offer quantitative measures. In particular, the model resolution and covariance matrices measure how far the preferred inversion model is from the true model and how uncertainty in the measurements maps into model uncertainty. We also cover nonlinear model analysis tools including changes to the preferred inversion model (nonlinear sensitivity tests), modifications of the data set (using bootstrap re-sampling and generalised cross-validation), modifications of data uncertainty, variations of model constraints (including changes to the trade-off parameter, reference model and matrix regularisation operator), the edgehog method, most-squares inversion and global searching algorithms. These nonlinear model analysis tools try to explore larger parts of the model domain than linearised model analysis and, hence, may assemble a more comprehensive equivalent model domain. Then, to overcome the bottleneck of computational cost in model analysis, we present several practical algorithms to accelerate the computation. Here, we emphasise linearised model analysis, as efficient computation of nonlinear model uncertainty and resolution estimates is mainly determined by fast forward and inversion solvers. In the last part of our review, we present applications of model analysis to models computed from individual and joint inversions of electromagnetic data; we also describe optimal survey design and inversion grid design as important applications of model analysis. The currently available model uncertainty and resolution analyses are mainly for 1D and 2D problems due to the limitations in computational cost. With significant enhancements of computing power, 3D model analyses are expected to be increasingly used and to help analyse and establish confidence in 3D inversion models.

/pdf/uncertainty-and-resolution-analysis-of-2d-and-3d-inversion-48y3cwprd5.pdf

Yunhe Liu

Papers

3D time-domain airborne EM modeling for an arbitrarily anisotropic earth

3D anisotropic modeling for airborne EM systems using finite-difference method

Electromagnetic divergence correction for 3D anisotropic EM modeling