Joint inversion of inductive and galvanic data: significant resolution improvement honouring both data types – 3D EM and 2D DCIP

Clicks: 19
ID: 329862
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #150 of 337 articles by views in geophysical journal international

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 337 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Summary Joint inversion of electrical and electromagnetic (E&EM) data can reduce the non-uniqueness of geophysical inversion by exploiting the complementary sensitivities of galvanic and inductive measurements. However, many existing approaches either rely on one-dimensional electromagnetic (1D EM) forward modelling or neglect induced polarization (IP) effects, which can be limiting in the presence of polarizable targets or laterally complex structures. We present a joint inversion framework that combines three-dimensional electromagnetic (3D EM) modelling with two-dimensional direct current resistivity and induced polarization (2D DCIP) modelling. The framework uses a common maximum phase angle (MPA) reparameterization of the Cole-Cole model for both inductive and galvanic data, together with decoupled forward and model meshes that allow each EM system to be modelled on a dedicated 3D forward mesh while all datasets update a common 2D inversion model. The method is evaluated using two synthetic examples and a mineral exploration field dataset. The synthetic examples represent a hydrogeological setting with weak-to-moderate IP effects and a mineral exploration setting with stronger IP effects associated with a finite conductive and polarizable intrusion. For both cases, we compare EM-only inversion, DCIP-only inversion, 1D EM/2D DCIP joint inversion, and 3D EM/2D DCIP joint inversion. The results show that the 3D EM/2D DCIP joint inversion improves the recovery of resistivity and IP structures when 3D EM effects are significant. In the hydrogeological example, the 3D EM kernel improves the imaging of laterally complex clay-rich structures, whereas in the mineral exploration example it reduces artefacts associated with the finite intrusion and improves the separation of distinct polarizable zones. The field application combines airborne EM and ground DCIP data acquired over Fe-Ti-V oxide mineralization in southern Portugal. The joint inversion honours both datasets and provides a single resistivity and IP model compatible with the main geological setting. Overall, the results indicate that 3D EM/2D DCIP joint inversion is useful for interpreting inductive and galvanic datasets across different IP regimes, particularly where finite or laterally complex polarizable structures make 1D EM modelling inadequate.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214472385 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jian Chen, Francesco Dauti, A. Signora, Stefano Galli, Nicole Sullivan, Bo Zhang, Gianluca Fiandaca
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal geophysical journal international
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/gji/ggag382
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggag382
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.