Slingram EMI prospection: Are vertical orientated devices a suitable solution in archaeological and pedological prospection?

Journal of Applied Geophysics

Volumn 75, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 731-737

  Thiesson, Julien ^a,d   Rousselle, Gabrielle ^b   Simon, François Xavier ^a,c   Tabbagh, Alain ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

^b Sorbonne Universités   (France)

^c PÔle Archéologique Interdépartemental Rhénan ^*  (France)

^d Info Sols Unit   (France)

Author keywords

Calibration; Electrical resistivity; Magnetic susceptibility; Slingram EMI; Vertical geometry

Indexed keywords

3D MODELLING; CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS; ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY; GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES; GROUND SURFACES; SLINGRAM EMI; SOIL SURFACES; SUITABLE SOLUTIONS; VERTICAL DEVICES;

CALIBRATION; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; SURVEYS; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

EQUIPMENT;

ARCHAEOLOGY; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC METHOD; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

EID: 80755143109     PISSN: 09269851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Benech C., Tabbagh A., Desvignes G. Joint interpretation of EM and magnetic data for near-surface studies. Geophysics 2002, 67-6:1729-1739.
2. Brus D.J., Knotters M., van Dooremolen W.A., van Kernebeek P., van Seeters R.J.M. The use of electromagnetic measurements of apparent soil electrical conductivity to predict the boulder clay depth. Geoderma 1992, 55(1-2):79-93.
3. Corwin D.L., Lesch S.M., Oster J.D., Kaffka S.R. Monitoring management-induced spatio-temporal changes in soil quality through soil sampling directed by apparent electrical conductivity. Geoderma 2006, 131(3-4):369-387.
4. Desvignes G., Tabbagh A., Benech C. About the determination of magnetic anomaly sources. Archaeological Prospection 1999, 6-2:85-105.
5. Frischknecht F.C., Labson V.F., Spies B.R., Anderson W.L. Profiling method using small sources. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Investigations in Geophysics 1991, 3:105-252. M.N. Nabighian (Ed.).
6. Job J.O., Tabbagh A., Hachicha M. Détermination par méthode électromagnétique de la concentration en sel d'un sol irrigué. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 1995, 75:463-469.
7. Pétronille M., Thiesson J., Simon F.X., Buchsenschutz O. Magnetic signal prospecting using multiparameter measurements: the case study of the Gallic Site of Levroux. Archaeological Prospection 2010, 17:141-150.
8. Scollar I., Tabbagh A., Hesse A., Herzog I. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing 1990, Cambridge University Press, 674pp.
9. Simpson D., Van Meirvenne M., Saey T., Vermeersch H., Bourgeois J., Lehouck A., Cockx L., Vitharana U.W.A. Evaluating the multiple coil configurations of the EM38DD and DUALEM-21S sensors to detect archaeological anomalies. Archaeological Prospection 2009, 16:91-102.
10. Simpson D., Lehouck A., Verdonck L., Vermeersch H., Van Meirvenne M., Bourgeois J., Thoen E., Docter R. Comparison between electromagnetic induction and fluxgate gradiometer measurements on the buried remains of a 17th century castle. Journal of Applied Geophysics 2009, 68:294-300.
11. Tabbagh A. L'interprétation des données en prospection électromagnétique avec les appareils SH3 et EM15. Revue d'Archéométrie 1982, 6:1-9.
12. Tabbagh A. The response of a three dimensional magnetic and conductive body in shallow depth E.M. prospecting. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 1985, 81-1:215-230.
13. Tabbagh A. What is the best coil orientation in the Slingram electromagnetic prospecting method?. Archaeometry 1986, 28-2:185-196.
14. Tabbagh A., Verron G. Etude par prospection électromagnétique de trois sites à dépots de l'Age du Bronze. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 1983, 80(10-12):375-389.
15. Thiesson J., Dabas M., Flageul S. Detection of resistive features using towed Slingram electromagnetic induction instruments. Archaeological Prospection 2009, 16:103-109.