Content uploaded by John F. Hermance
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John F. Hermance on May 14, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 40, I\‘O. 4 (AUGUST 1975). P. 664-668; 1 FIG., 1 TABLE
THE TELLURIC-MAGNETOTELLURIC METHOD
.JOHiX F. HERMANCE”
AND
RICHARD E. THAYER”
The telluric-magnrtotelluric method uses
magnetotrlluric measurements at the base site,
but only telluric mrnsurements at remote sites.
It thus combines the economy, simplicity, and
speed of the traditional telluric method with the
quantitative advantages of the traditional mag-
netotelluric method. The dominant features of
the combined method are the following: First,
the time required to set up a telluric site is less
by a factor of at least, 5 than the time for a
complete magnetotelluric site. Second, one does
not need to record magnetic field data at the
base site simultaneously wit’11 the electric field
recorded at each remote site. One needs only
enough magnetic data to adequately determine
the base tensor. A tclluric transfer tensor cou-
pling electric field measurements at t#he base site
and each remote site can be used to transfer the
base impedance tensor to an impedance tensor
at each rem&e site. By being much more selec-
tive of the magnetic data used in the analysis,
one can significantly improve the signal-to-noise
rat#io. Third, the data are analyzed to determine
each element of the complex imlwdance tensor
so that, important, phase information as well as
cLm#plitude information is availablr for interpre-
tations which are more sophisticated than those
currently attempted in convent ional telluric
surveys. Finally, in making the ultimate inter-
pretation in terms of the impedance tensor
rather than the telluric tensor usrd in conven-
t,ional telluric surveys, one essentially refers t#he
interpretation of remote electric field observa-
tions to the ma.gnefic field at the base site rather
than to the electric field. Both rsperience and
model studies demonstrate t#hat the magnetic
field is much more homogeneous than the elec-
tric field in the vicinity of lateral hricrogeneities;
thus the selection of a proper base site is not
as critical in the combined method as it is in
the conventional telluric method.
INTRODUCTION
The
telluric
n&hod has evolved over a num-
ber of years through the notable efforts of
Schlumberger (1939) in France, Berdichevskiy
(19G5) in Russia, and Yungul (1966) and
Yungul et al (1973) in the United States. The
method involves the comparison of horizontal
electric field measurements simultaneously re-
corded at a base site and a remote site; the
measurements WC grounded electrode lines.
After sufficient data arc acquired from one
remote site, the portable instruments from that
site are moved to a new location while the base
station is kept fixed (see Figure 1). After a
large number of remote sites are occupied, a
patt,ern may emerge that reveals the distortion
of regional electric current systems around
local geolrogic structures of interest, provided,
of course, that these structurrs exhibit an
elect,rical contrast with their surroundings.
Alt#hough many features of telluric current,
fields make them potentially attractive can-
didates for regional reconnaissance studies (for
example, the fact that one usch broad-scale
natural
sources rather than localized, high-
powered artificial sources), the application of
these measurements, as in most geophysical
techniques, is restricted by the tools one has at
hand for t,heir interpretation. In fact, it appears
from the current lit,erature (Kellrr and Frisch-
knecht, 1966; Yungul, 1966, 1968; Yungul et al,
1973) that the reduction and interpretation of
Manuscript received by the Editor May 29, 1974; revised manuscript received January 22,
1975.
* Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
@ 1975 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights resew&.
664
Downloaded 05/14/19 to 128.148.254.57. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The telluric-Magnetotelluric Method 665
FIG.
1.
Plan view schematically representing the location relative to a suspected anomalous structure
of a magnetotelluric base site and telluric remote sites.
these
measurements is generally qualitative and
only becomes quantitative for severely restricted
field situations seldom encountered in practice.
In contrast, the magnetotelluric method,
which uses information from both the magnetic
and the electric field intensities, has evolved
considerably from the original concepts of
Cagniard (1953). These concepts were valid for
simple plane-layered situations, but the method
has reached a point where it is now a quantita-
tive tool for commercial exploration, even in the
presence of large scale lateral inhomogeneities
(Word et al, 1971; Vozoff, 1972).
However, there are several problems involved
in using the conventional magnetotelluric
method for high density coverage of a survey
area. First’, from one to several hours are neces-
sary t’o set up a complete magnetotelluric sound-
ing experiment, whereas a telluric system can be
set up in ten or fifteen minutes. Second, for a
given source field strength, it is generally more
difficult to obtain high-quality magnetic field
data by the use of convent,itrnal induction-coil
sensors or fluxgate magnetometers than it is to
obtain high-qualit,y electric field data, with
grounded electrode lines. Although adequate
electric field data, are available a great deal of
the time high amplitude magnetic field data
occur much less frequently. This means, of
course, that one may have to record magnetic
field variat,ions for a longer period of time to
obtain adequate data. On the avera.ge, a sig-
nificantly longer time is required for each mag-
netotelluric measurement than for a conven-
t,ional telluric measurement. Clearly, the very
feat,ure that makes the magmtotelluric method
attractive, namely, that it incorporates magnetic
field information into the anal)&, may serve to
detract from its usefulness for rapid reconnais-
sancc surveys.
This, then, was our motivaiion for develop-
ing a technique which combines the economy,
Downloaded 05/14/19 to 128.148.254.57. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
666 Hermance and Thayer
simplicity, and speed of the traditional telluric
method with the quantitative characteristics of
the tradit,ional magnetotellwic method. Al-
though from time to time various workers have
alluded to this idea (Srivastava et, al, 1963;
Vozoff et al, 1964; Yungul, 1966; Yungul et al,
1973), very little quantitative work seems to
have been done toward actually combining the
two methods, except for a series of measure-
ments reported by Madden and Swift (1969)
;
they used a fixed base magnetic observatory and
remote telluric. field observations. In their ex-
periment, however, the telluric field was not
recorded at the base site as we advocate in the
following discussion. We might, classify their
experiment as a telluric-magnetic experiment
rat,her than a telluric-magnetotelluric experi-
ment, such as is described in this paper.
THE TELLURIC-MAGNETOTELLURIC METHOD
Base impedance tensor
The tensor impedance is defined as the matrix
of linear coupling coefficients relating the mag-
netic field components measured at a point t,o
the elect,ric field components measured at the
same point. In other words, one postulates the
existence of a relation of the form
or, in a more condensed form,
Eb =
[Z”].H’,
where the superscript b indicates that the field
components are recorded at a base site; hence
[Zb] is called the base-site magnetotelluric im-
pedance tensor, or simply t’he base impedance
tensor.
The electric field E consisting of two horizontal
components (E,,E,) and the magnetic field H
consisting of the two horizontal components
(HZ,&,) are monitored more or less continuously
at the base site throughout the survey. Actual
recordings of E and H are made during periods
of appropriately high magnetic activity. From
select’ed samples of E and H the tensor im-
pedance elements are determined by the use of
one of a number of available techniques (see, for
example, the review by Hermance, 1973).
The telluric transfer tensor
The behavior of electric fields in the vicinit’y
of laterally inhomogeneous structures can be
calculated in closed form at the dc limit for a
variety of simple two- and three-dimensional
theoretical models (Berdichevskiy, 1965). These
solutions can then be used to develop for a par-
ticu1a.r model a linear relation between the
electric vectors observed at two points on the
earth’s surface. If we let one of there points cor-
respond to our base site and the other point to
our remote site, as shown in figure 1, we have
in general a linear coupling relation of the form
[:::I = [$ ::;]Q:] , (3)
or in a more condensed form
E’ = [T].E~, (4)
where [T] is the telluric transfer tensor. Except
for the dc limit, the tensor elements in [T] will
be complex functions of frequency as well as
position.
It turns out that (3) is not, only valid for
simple t,heoretical models
;
it can also be used
as a conventZion for expressing the relation be-
t,ween telluric field measurements made in na-
ture. The usefulness of the relation has been
verified experimentally many times by demon-
strating the st,abilit#y of estimates of t’he t,ensor
elements derived for different record sections.
However, as might be expected, certain cases
could arise in which (3) is not valid, and one
must be cautious in applying it. Our experience
in the field suggests that the telluric transfer
tensor as defined above is generally a valid
relation within a precision of 5 percent and
that situations in which it is not valid are more
easily conceived in t,heory t,hnn realized in
practice.
Determining the tensor elements of [T] from
simultaneous samples of EV and Eb is directly
analogous to determining the t,ensor elements
of [Zb] from simultaneous samples of E* and Hb,
as discussed in the previous section. Therefore
we can determine the elements of [T] by the use
of the same techniques described by Hermance
(1973).
In this way, a telluric transfer tensor that
relates the electric field components at, a given
remote site to the electric field components at
the base site can be calculated.
Downloaded 05/14/19 to 128.148.254.57. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The
Telluric-Magnetotelluric
Method 667
The transfer impedance tensor
Table 1. Comparison of the direct and indirect
At t,he base site, we have from simultaneous
methods for estimating the transfer impedance
tensor.
electric and magnetic field meas4rements~ Indirect. Direct,
E’ = [Zb].Hb. (5) Element estimate estimate Deviation
considered A 13 N%o)
Between the remote site and t’he base site, we
0.150
0
232 -4.8
have from simultaneous electric field measure-
-0.011 0.078 -5.2
1.222 1.‘291 -4.1
ments
0.167 0.
203
-2.1
-1.006 -1.011 to.3
E’ = [T] .E*. (6)
-0.385
-0.248 -8.4
0.323 0.298 +1.5
Substituting (5) into the right-hand side of (6),
0.140 0.050 +5.3
we obtain
E’ = [T].[Z*].H*. (7) method using the two-stage analysis described
above, which yields the tensor product [T]-[Z”].
We will call the product of t’he telluric trans- Table 1 summarizes the results of a comparison
fer t,ensor and the base impedance tensor the between the two methods using data from two
transfer impeda.nce tensor sites on the Reykjanes Peninsula in southwest
Iceland. The base site is located at the center of
[Z’I =
Pl.[Zbl,
the peninsula, and the remote site is 7 km to the
since it relates the electric field at, the remote south along the sea coast. We define the percent
site to the magnetic field at the base site. deviation for each tensor elemcut as
The remote impedance tensor
It seems plausible to assume that the horizontal
magnetic field is in fact reasonably uniform over where A corresponds to the indirect estimate, B
the survey area. For example, in Iceland we have corresponds to the direct Pstimate, and the
found from simultaneous measurements with Euclidean norm of the tensor
magnetometers separated by a distance of 30 km
that H is uniform to within IO percent, even
llzll = Pii
IzJl”2
beneath the auroral zone. In this case, if we
assume that over the survey area H’ G Hb, then is a measure of its magnitude. In Table 1, we
to a very good approximation the impedance compare the actual values of the tensor cal-
tensor at the remote site is simply given by the culated by each method and give the percent
transfer impedance tensor: deviation of each element. The agreement is
quite good. For interpretative purposes, it is
[zr] G [Z”]. often desirable to rotate the impedance tensor
We have, therefore, transferred an impedance int,o its principal coordinates, calculating the
measurement’ at the base site to an impedance maximum and minimum tensor resistivities For
estimate at the remote site using only electric example in the direction for which Z,, is maxi-
field recordings. We have not had to move our mized,
magnetometers, nor have we had to make mag-
netic field measurements simultaneous with our
remote telluric recordings. where f is the frequency in PC+. When this is
AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST
done for the direct and indirrct8 tensors in
We
now consider the precision with which the Table 1, the results are 17.2 and 16.3 ohm-m,
transfer impedance tensor can be estimated. Two respectively, for the maximum and 10.7 and
methods for estimating
[ZI]
are available: a 10.4 ohm-m for the minimunl resistivities. In
direct method using simultaneous measurements general, it. appears that the two methods can be
of the magnetic field at the base site and the expoctcd to agree, both in individual tensor
_.
electric field at the remote site and an indirect elements and auxiliary parameters, to within
Downloaded 05/14/19 to 128.148.254.57. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
668
Hermance and Thayer
5 percent, a more than satisfa.ctory tolerance for
many applications.
CONCLUSIONS
The dominant advantages of the combined
telluric-magnetotelluric met’hod outlined here
are the following:
First, the t,ime required to set up a telluric
site is less by a factor of at least. 5 than that
required for a complete magnetotelluric site.
We are grateful to axel Bjiirnsson of the
Department, of Natural Heat, National Energy
Authority of Iceland, for his assistance in ac-
quiring the field data used above. This research
was supported by NSF grants G$-33444 and
GA-37092.
Second, one does not need to record magnetic
field data at t)he base site simultaneously with
each remote site. One needs only enough mag-
netic data to determine adequately the base im-
pedance tensor and can therefore be much more
selective in choosing the magnetic data used in
the analysis. This point is sometimes quite im-
portant, since by carefully selecting the data to
be used in the final analysis one can improve
the signal-to-noise ratio by more than a factor
of five.
Berdichevskiy, M. N., 1965, Elect.ricnal prospecting
with the telluric current method: Quart. Colo-
rado School of Mines, v. 60, no. 1. (English
translation of original 1960 Russian article.)
Cagniard, L., 1953, Basic theory of the mag-
netotelluric method of geophyslcnl prospecting
:
Geophysics, v. 18,. p. 605-635.
Hermance, J. F., 1973, Processing of magnetotel-
lurie data: Phys. Earth Plan. Interiors, v. 7,
p.
349-364.
Third, the dais arc analyzed to determino
each eiement of the cornpiex impedance tensor,
so that important phase information as well as
amplitude information is available for interpre-
t&urn- mmc sop~hisricated than those currentiy
attempted.
Keller. G. V.. and Frischknecht. F. C.. 1966. Elec-
t,rical methbds in geophysical’ prospecting’: New
York, Pergamon Press,
519
p.
Madden, T. R., and Swift, C. M.! Jr., 1969, Mag-
netotelluric studies of the electrical conductivity
st.ructure of the crust and upper mantle, &I
The earth’s crust and upper mantle: AGU
Geophys. Monogr.
13,
Pembroke J. Hart, ed.,
D. 469-479.
Finally, in making the final interpretation in
terms of the impedance tensor rather than the
telluric tensor used in conventional telluric sur-
veys, one essentially refers the interpretation of
remote electric field observations to the magn,etic
field at t)he base site rather than to the base-site
electric field, whirh itself may be strongly dis-
torted due to local inhomogeneous structures.
Experience and model studies demonstrate that,
tho magnetic field is much more homogeneous
in the vicinity of lateral discontinuities than is
the electric field; thus the selection of a proper
base site is not as critical in the combined
method as it is in the conventional telluric
method.
Schlumbrrger, M., 1939, The application of telluric
currents to surface prospecting: Trans. AGU,
p. 271-277.
Srivasta,va, S. P., Douglass, J. L., and Ward, S. H.,
1963. The application of the mannetotelluric
and ‘telluric Methods in central Alberta: Geo-
physics, v. 28, p. 426446.
Vozoff, K., 1972, The magnetotelluric method in
the exploration of sedimentary basins: Geo-
physics, v. 37, p. 98-141.
Vozoff, K., Ellis, R. M., and Burke. M. D., 1964!
Telluric currents and t.heir use in petroleum
cxplorat,ion
:
Bull. AAPG, v. 48, p. 1890-1901.
Word. D. R.. Smith. H. W.. and Boslick. F. X.. Jr..
197i,
Cruital invkstigations by the magnetbtel:
luric tensor impedance method,
in
The structure
and physical properties of the earth’s crust:
AGU Mcncr. 14. J. G. Heacnck 0~1
*. _U.,
D. !&J-E?.
Clearly, the t&uric-magnetotelluric method
allows one to retain the speed and economy of
the traditional magnetotelluric method as well
as the quantitative aspects of the traditional
magnetotelluric method.
Yungul, S. I?., 1966, Telluric so&d&-A mag-
netot,elluric method without magnetic measure-
ments: Geophysics, v. 31, p. 185-191.
1968, Measurement of telluric “relative
ellipse area” by means of “vectograms”: Geo-
physics, v. 33, p. 127-131.
Yungul, S. H., Hembree, M. F+, and Greenhouse,
J. P., 1973, Telluric anomahes associated with
isolated reefs in Midland Basin, Texas: Geo-
physics, v. 38, p.
545-556.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Downloaded 05/14/19 to 128.148.254.57. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/