Difference in galvanic and inductive methods' results, new examples for DIP and BIEP
About authors
- 1 — Moscow State University
- 2 — Moscow State University
- 3 — Moscow State University
- 4 — Moscow State University
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.
References
- Ваньян Л.Л. Основы электромагнитных зондирований. М., 1965. 108 с.
- Каринский А.Д. Влияние электрической анизотропии горных пород на электромагнитное поле в скважине: Автореф. дис. … д-ра физ.-мат. наук / МГРИ. М., 2008. 32 с.
- Электропрофилирование с незаземленными рабочими линиями / Сост. А.С.Нахабцев, Б.Г.Сапожников, А.И.Яблучанский. Л., 1985. 96 с.
- McNeil J.D. Technical Note TN-6. Electromag- netic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers / Geonics Ltd. 1980. 13 p.
Similar articles
High resolution helicopter-borne electromagnetic surveying in 1:5000 scale
2013 A. K. Volkovitskii, E. V. Karshakov, E. V. Moilanen
Platinum group elements, gold and silver in supergene nickel deposits on dunite-harzburgite bedrock of ophiolitic massifs
2013 I. V. Talovina, V. G. Lazarenkov, N. I. Vorontsova, A. G. Pilyugin, A. M. Gaifutdinova
Engineering-geological and geoecological aspects of a substantiation of long stability of concrete constructions of Cheboksary hydroelectric рower plant
2013 R. E. Dashko, N. A. Perevoshchikova, D. Yu. Vlasov