Sensitivity of multi-coil frequency domain electromagnetic induction sensors to map soil magnetic susceptibility

European Journal of Soil Science

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 469-478

  Simpson, D ^a   Van Meirvenne, M ^a   Luck E ^b   Ruhlmann J ^c   Saey, T ^a   Bourgeois, J ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^c Inst Veg Orn Crops G Erfurt   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC METHOD; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSOR; SOIL DEPTH; TOPSOIL;

EID: 77954772989     PISSN: 13510754     EISSN: 13652389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01261.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Benech C, Marmet E. Optimum depth of investigation and conductivity response rejection of the different electromagnetic devices measuring apparent magnetic susceptibility. Archaeological Prospection 1999, 6:31-45.
2. Clark A. Seeing Beneath the Soil - Prospecting Methods in Archaeology 1990, Routledge, Abingdon, UK
3. Dalan RA, Bevan BW. Geophysical indicators of culturally emplaced soils and sediments. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 2002, 17:779-810.
4. 1998, Geonics Limited, Technical Note TN-31., Geonics Limited, Mississauga, ON
5. Guérin R, Méhéni Y, Rakotondrasoa G, Tabbagh A. Interpretation of slingram conductivity mapping in near-surface geophysics: using a single parameter fitting with 1D model. Geophysical Prospecting 1996, 44:233-249.
6. Hendrickx JMH, Borchers B, Corwin DL, Lesch SM, Hilgendorf AC, Schlue J. Inversion of soil conductivity profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements: theory and experimental verification. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2002, 66:673-685.
7. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting 1966, Pergamon Press, Oxford
8. Linford NT. Geophysical survey at Boden Vean, Cornwall, including an assessment of the microgravity technique for the location of suspected archaeological void features. Archaeometry 1998, 40:187-216.
9. McNeill JD. Electromagnetic Terrain Conductivity Measurement at low Induction Numbers 1980, Technical Note TN-6., Geonics Limited, Mississauga, ON
10. Saey T, Simpson D, Vitharana UWA, Vermeersch H, Vermang J, Van Meirvenne M. Reconstructing the paleotopography beneath the loess cover with the aid of an electromagnetic induction sensor. Catena 2008, 74:58-64.
11. Scollar I. Magnetic properties of soils. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing 1990, 375-421. Scollar I. (ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
12. Simpson D, Simpson D, Van Meirvenne M, Saey T, Vermeersch H, Bourgeois J, Lehouck A. Evaluating the multiple coil configurations of the EM38DD and the DUALEM-21S sensors to detect archaeological anomalies. Archaeological Prospection 2009, 16:91-102.
13. Tabbagh A. The response of a three-dimensional magnetic and conductive body in shallow depth electromagnetic prospecting. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 1985, 81:215-230.
14. Tabbagh A. What is the best coil orientation in the slingram electromagnetic prospecting method? Archaeometry 1986, 28:185-196.
15. Tabbagh A. Electromagnetic prospecting. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing 1990, 520-590. Scollar I. (ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
16. Wait JR. Mutual electromagnetic coupling of loops over a homogeneous ground. Geophysics 1955, 20:630-637.
17. Wait JR. A note on the electromagnetic response of a stratified earth. Geophysics 1962, 27:382-385.