Further investigations of underground resistivity structures in coastal areas using grounded-source airborne electromagnetics
© The Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences (SGEPSS); The Seismological Society of Japan; The Volcanological Society of Japan; The Geodetic Society of Japan; The Japanese Society for Planetary Sciences; TERRAPUB. 2011
Received: 23 May 2011
Accepted: 4 August 2011
Published: 6 October 2011
Understanding geological and hydrogeological characteristics in coastal areas is an issue of paramount importance considering its socio-economic relevance, whereas, to date, limited information has been acquired due to the lack of suitable survey methods. We have conducted an airborne electromagnetic survey in an alluvial coastal plain, Kujukuri, in southeast Japan, to examine the effectiveness of elucidating the subsurface electric-resistivity structure both on land and offshore. Our approach was to use a grounded electrical dipole source and a helicopter-towed magnetic field receiver. Repeated surveys both at high and low tides revealed that a reliable resistivity structure is available to a depth of 300–350 m in coastal areas where shallow (∼5 m deep) water prevails.
Key wordsAirborne electromagnetics resistivity coastal area Kujukuri
Coastal areas are vital for human activity, because many people live and work in them. Nevertheless, coastal areas are vulnerable to natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes (e.g., Mallin and Corbett, 2006; Wang et al., 2006; Hornbach et al., 2010), as evidenced by the recent magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake that devastated coastal areas in northeast Japan on March 11, 2011. In order to mitigate natural disasters, it is important to map and understand underground features in coastal areas, because liquefaction caused by earthquakes depends on geological settings (Hallier et al., 2008), tsunami generation is, to some extent, associated with underwater landslides caused by the instability of sediments (Tinti et al., 2006), and hurricanes are major factors which erode, transport and redeposit sediments in coastal areas (Miner et al., 2009).
Underground electrical resistivity is an important geophysical property because it responds to both groundwater salinity and geology. In general, low electrical resistivity corresponds to high salinity and/or soft sediments.
To determine the electric-resistivity structure in coastal areas, airborne electromagnetic (AEM) surveys have been used (e.g., Vrbancich and Fullagar, 2007; Viezzoli et al., 2010). Vrbancich and Fullagar (2007) showed AEM can reveal seawater depth, sediment thickness, and depth to bedrock. However, until now, AEM could only reveal the resistivity structure to a depth of ∼200 m in coastal areas (Viezzoli et al., 2010). Conventional AEM, using an airborne inductive source limits the depth of exploration because the presence of a conductor, such as saline surface water, decreases the penetration of the AEM signal.
In order to enhance the depth of exploration, we used a grounded electrical source aligned parallel to the coast line and towed a magnetic receiver in the air. The method, called grounded-electrical-source airborne transient electromagnetics, or GREATEM (Mogi et al., 1998), should enhance survey depth in coastal areas, since this method galvanically injects electric current into the ground. The method has increased the depth of exploration to 800 m in on-shore areas (Mogi et al., 2009) compared to 300 m by conventional AEM.
2. Airborne Electromagnetics
2.1 Background of the survey area
A grounded electrical dipole source of 2.I km long was set ∼300 m inland parallel with the shoreline (Fig. 1). Flight reconnaissance was conducted on September 7, 2010, when the difference in tide height was the largest (1.1 m). Flights along eleven lines (A-K lines) spaced 200 m apart were performed twice (at the time of low and high tides) to examine whether a difference in tide heights affects the results. Due to flight regulations in Japan, residential areas were avoided.
The source signal was a time-varying current injected into the ground by the grounded electrical dipole. Three components of the secondary magnetic field were recorded in the air. The magnetic field responses were recorded for both the current ‘off’ as well as the current ‘on’ time, and only data for the current ‘off’ time were used because they were found to be better in quality than those for the current ‘on’ time. The waveforms were digitized using a 24-bit AD converter at a sampling rate of 80 µs, and 20,000 data points were recorded during one transmitter cycle (1.6 s) for this survey. These data acquisition instruments and batteries were placed in a ‘bird’ towed by a helicopter. The height of the bird was maintained at 100 m, which means safe reconnaissance is possible compared with a much lower bird’s height (∼30 m) for conventional AEM. The GREATEM system used was the same as reported by Okazaki et al. (2011), in which the data reduction method, including noise elimination, was described. After the corrections for motion-induced noise, and natural and artificial noises, the data of 5 cycles (8 s, including two waveforms in each cycle) were stacked to minimize random noise, which averages ∼110 m along the flight path for the flight speed of 50 km/h used in this study. Finally, the transient response was inverted to a resistivity structure, assuming a horizontally-layered structure. The inversion was made by comparing field data with theoretical responses. Eight horizontal layers were assumed and a non-linear least-squares method (Sasaki, 1981) was applied to obtain the resistivity structure.
Mitsuhata et al. (2006) applied three different-scale electromagnetic measurements on land. Their results show that on the land side a high-resistivity surficial zone about 30-m thick (sandy ridge) is underlain by a low-resistivity (∼1 Ω m) zone, which was thought to be caused by sea-water intrusion. They also showed that a surficial low-resistivity structure (salt marsh) exists behind the sandy ridge. These features are also recognized in our study (typically shown in Fig. 3), assuring the credibility of our method.
Hayashi et al. (2009) reported wellbore logging data from 30 m to 1660 m in depth adjacent to our study site (Fig. 1), which shows that a low-resistivity zone of 1–2 Ω m comprised of Quaternary siltstone exists from 30 m to at least 1000 m in depth. This also is in good agreement with our data.
The reason the electrical source was set 300–400 m inland was to gain the highest quality data beneath the shoreline. This goal was achieved as evidenced by a clear signal at the shoreline (see Fig. 2). Although the method employed has some limitations in that it is impossible to delineate the resistivity structure directly beneath the source (typically shown in Fig. 4(a)) and data quality becomes worse with increasing distance from the source, the GREATEM system has the capability to determine the underground resistivity structure to a greater depth and more safely than conventional AEM.
It was found that GREATEM can determine the resistivity structure in coastal areas to a depth of 300–350 m up to ∼800 m offshore. These values depend on the configuration of the system (e.g., the length of the dipole electric source and its power, etc.) and noise reduction techniques, which will be improved in the near future. The method is useful to map the three-dimensional distribution of sand ridges and underground saline water. This information is vital for the mitigation of natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, the management of water resources, and development planning in coastal areas.
Staffs at Northern Chiba Prefecture Forestry Administrative Office, Chiba Prefecture Sammu Improvement Center, Chibaken Recreation Toshi Kaihatsu Co., and Sammu City Office were helpful to conduct the field experiment. Staffs at Nakanihon Air Service Co. performed the flight reconnaissance. Dr. D. Fitterman and an anonymous reviewer were helpful to improve the manuscript. We sincerely thank all of them.
- Hallier, S., E. Chaljub, M. Bouchon, and H. Sekiguchi, Revisiting the basin-edge effect at Kobe during the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake, Pure Appl. Geophys., 165, 1751–1760, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-008-0404-y, 2008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hayashi, H., T. Nakamitsu, Y. Yanagisawa, M. Watanabe, S. Horiuchi, C. Shimada, A. Kitamura, S. Sekiguchi, and K. Kasahara, Borehole geology and age of the Hasunuma seismic observatorion well, Sanbu city, Chiba prefecture, Central Honshu, Japan, Rep. NIED, 73, 19–39, 2009 (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
- Hornbach, M. J., N. Braudy, R. W. Briggs, M.-H. Cormier, M. B. Davis, J. B. Diebold, N. Dieudonne, R. Douilly, C. Frohlich, S. P. S. Gulick, H. E. Johnson III, P. Mann, C. McHugh, K. Ryan-Mishkin, C. S. Prentice, L. Seeber, C. C. Sorlien, M. S. Steckler, S. J. Symithe, F. W. Taylor, and J. Templeton, High tsunami frequency as a result of combined strike-slip faulting and coastal landslides, Nature Geosci., 3, 783–788, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo975, 2010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mallin, M. A. and C. A. Corbett, How hurricane attributes determine the extent of environmental effects: Multiple hurricanes and different coastal systems, Estuar. Coast., 29, 1046–1061, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02798667, 2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Miner, M. D., M. A. Kulp, D. M. FitzGerald, and I. Y. Georgiou, Hurricane-associated ebb-tidal delta sediment dynamics, Geology, 37, 851–854, doi:https://doi.org/10.1130/G25466A.1, 2009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mitsuhata, Y., T. Uchida, K. Matsuo, A. Marui, and K. Kusunose, Various-scale electromagnetic investigations of high-salinity zones in a coastal plain, Geophysics, 71, B167–B173, 2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mogi, T., Y. Tanaka, K. Kusunoki, T. Morikawa, and N. Jomori, Development of grounded electrical source airborne transient EM (GREATEM), Expl. Geophys., 29, 61–64, 1998.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mogi, T., K. Kusunoki, H. Kaieda, H. Ito, A. Jomori, N. Jomori, and Y. Yuuki, Grounded electrical-source airborne transient electromagnetic (GREATEM) survey of Mount Bandai, north-eastern Japan, Expl. Geophys., 40, 1–7, doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/EG08115, 2009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Okazaki, K., T. Mogi, M. Utsugi, Y. Ito, H. Kunishima, T. Yamazaki, Y. Takahashi, T. Hashimoto, Y. Ymamaya, H. Ito, H. Kaieda, K. Tsukuda, Y. Yuuki, and A. Jomori, Airborne electromagnetic and magnetic surveys for long tunnel construction design, Phys. Chem. Earth, 2011 (in press).Google Scholar
- Sasaki, Y., Automatic interpretation of resistivity sounding data over two-dimensional structures (I), BUTSURI-TANKO (Geophys. Expl.), 34, 341–350, 1981 (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
- Tinti, S., A. Armigliato, A. Manucci, G. Pagnoni, F. Zaniboni, A. C. Yalciner, and Y. Altinok, The generating mechanisms of the August 17, 1999 Izmit Bay (Turkey) tsunami: regional (tectonic) and local (mass instabilities) causes, Marine Geol., 225, 311–330, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2005.09.010, 2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Uehara, D., A. Kikuchi, A. Tanaka, M. Katsuda, M. Nagakawa, M. Okuma, K. Watanabe, and Y. Mitsuhata, Application of electrical resistivity measurements along a land-seafloor continuously crossing line in the Kujukuri coastal area, Japan, BUTSURI-TANSA(Geophys. Expl.), 60, 489–499, 2007 (in Japanese with English abstract).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Viezzoli, A., L. Tosi, P. Teatini, and S. Silvestri, Surface water-groundwater exchange in transitional coastal environments by airborne electromagnetics: The Venice Lagoon example, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L01402, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041572, 2010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vrbancich, J. and P. K. Fullagar, Towards remote sensing of sediment thickness and depth to bedrock in shallow seawater using airborne TEM, Expl. Geophys., 38, 77–88, doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/EG07006, 2007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang, C.-Y., A. Wong, D. S. Dreger, and M. Manga, Liquefaction limit during earthquakes and underground explosions: Implications on ground-motion attenuation, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am., 96, 355–363, doi:https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050019, 2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar