4.7 Article

Novel Airborne EM Image Appraisal Tool for Imperfect Forward Modeling

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14225757

关键词

airborne geophysics; AEM; TEM; resistivity; conductivity; appraisal; modeling; electromagnetics

资金

  1. FWO (Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders) [1113020N, 1113022N]
  2. Flemish Institute for the Sea (VLIZ) Brilliant Marine Research Idea 2022
  3. Research Foundation -Flanders (FWO)
  4. Flemish Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an appraisal tool for evaluating the inconsistency between the inversion model and multidimensional data, using a normalized gradient calculated based on multidimensional forward modeling. Additionally, an alternative approach is suggested to account for imperfect forward modeling with low computational cost. The method is demonstrated on an AEM survey, revealing potential problematic zones in the estimated fresh-saltwater interface.
Full 3D inversion of time-domain Airborne ElectroMagnetic (AEM) data requires specialists' expertise and a tremendous amount of computational resources, not readily available to everyone. Consequently, quasi-2D/3D inversion methods are prevailing, using a much faster but approximate (1D) forward model. We propose an appraisal tool that indicates zones in the inversion model that are not in agreement with the multidimensional data and therefore, should not be interpreted quantitatively. The image appraisal relies on multidimensional forward modeling to compute a so-called normalized gradient. Large values in that gradient indicate model parameters that do not fit the true multidimensionality of the observed data well and should not be interpreted quantitatively. An alternative approach is proposed to account for imperfect forward modeling, such that the appraisal tool is computationally inexpensive. The method is demonstrated on an AEM survey in a salinization context, revealing possible problematic zones in the estimated fresh-saltwater interface.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据