Submit an Article
Become a reviewer
V. A. Shevnin, A. A. Bobachev, I. N. Modin, T. V. Yalov Difference in galvanic and inductive methods' results, new examples for DIP and BIEP. Journal of Mining Institute. Vol 200. p. 104.

Difference in galvanic and inductive methods' results, new examples for DIP and BIEP

Authors:
V. A. Shevnin A. A. Bobachev I. N. Modin T. V. Yalov
Date submitted:
2016-11-10
Date published:

Abstract

Difference in apparent resistivity values determined  in  galvanic and inductive  electrical and electromagnetic methods depends on macroanisotropy of layered cross-section and decreased penetration depth of galvanic methods without changing penetration depth of inductive methods. Joint influence of these two factors in case of high contrast of layers' resistivities results in difference in several tens of apparent resistivity values.

Similar articles

Go to volume
Riftogenic structures in the west sector of amerasia basin based on complex geophysical data
O. E. Smirnov
Physical and chemical genesis of swell and osmotic shrinkage of clay soils in construction’s base by results of experimental researches
R. E. Dashko, A. V. Shidlovskaya
Ongonitic magmatism of the Badzhalsky ore district (Amur River region)
V. I. Alekseev