Abstract
This study uses ground penetrating radar (GPR) data as constraints in the inversion of radio-magnetotelluric (RMT) data, to provide an improved model at shallow depth. We show that modification of the model regularization matrix using all GPR common-offset (CO) reflections can mislead the constrained inversion of RMT data. To avoid such problems, common mid-point (CMP) GPR data are translated to a resistivity model by introducing a new petrophysical relationship based on a combination of Topp’s and Archie’s equations. This model is updated through a semi-iterative method and is employed as an initial and prior model in the subsequent inversion of RMT data. Finally, a water content model that fits the GPR CMP and RMT data is derived from the resistivity model computed by the constrained inversion of RMT data. To assess the proposed scheme, it is applied to a synthetic data set. Then, real RMT data collected along an 870 m-long profile across a known aquifer situated in the north of Heby, central Sweden, are inverted. By removing the smoothness constraints across GPR CO interfaces or using CMP-based inversion, thick (> 10 m) vadose and saturated zones are resolved and shown to correlate with logs from nearby boreholes. Nevertheless, the application of our CMP-based inversion was the only efficient scheme to retrieve thin (~ 3 m) saturated zones and the water table at a depth of 7–15 m in the RMT models. The estimated models of water content are in good agreement with the available hydrogeological information in the study area.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archie, G. E. (1942). The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers,146, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.2118/942054-G.
Bastani, M., Hübert, J., Kalscheuer, T., Pedersen, L. B., Godio, A., & Bernard, J. (2012). 2D joint inversion of RMT and ERT data versus individual 3D inversion of full tensor RMT data: An example from Trecate site in Italy. Geophysics,77(4), WB233–WB243. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0525.1.
Bastani, M., & Pedersen, L. B. (2001). Estimation of magnetotelluric transfer functions from radio transmitters. Geophysics,66(4), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1487051.
Bergmann, P., Ivandic, M., Norden, B., Rücker, C., Kiessling, D., Lüth, S., et al. (2014). Combination of seismic reflection and constrained resistivity inversion with an application to 4D imaging of the CO2 storage site, Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics,79(2), B37–B50. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0131.1.
Bouchedda, A., Chouteau, M., Binley, A., & Giroux, B. (2012). 2-D joint structural inversion of cross-hole electrical resistance and ground penetrating radar data. Journal of Applied Geophysics,78, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.10.009.
Bradford, J. H. (2015). Reverse-time prestack depth migration of GPR data from topography for amplitude reconstruction in complex environments. Journal of Earth Science,26(6), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-015-0596-x.
Brunet, P., Clément, R., & Bouvier, C. (2010). Monitoring soil water content and deficit using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT): A case study in the Cevennes area, France. Journal of Hydrology,380(1), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.032.
Buchner, J. S., Wollschläger, U., & Roth, K. (2012). Inverting surface GPR data using FDTD simulation and automatic detection of reflections to estimate subsurface water content and geometry. Geophysics,77(4), H45–H55. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0467.1.
Candansayar, M. E., & Tezkan, B. (2006). A comparison of different radiomagnetotelluric data inversion methods for buried waste sites. Journal of Applied Geophysics,58(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.07.001.
Candansayar, M. E., & Tezkan, B. (2008). Two-dimensional joint inversion of radiomagnetotelluric and direct current resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting,56(5), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00695.x.
Chen, Y. H., Chew, W. C., & Oristaglio, M. L. (1997). Application of perfectly matched layers to the transient modeling of subsurface EM problems. Geophysics,62(6), 1730–1736. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444273.
Costabel, S., Siemon, B., Houben, G., & Günther, T. (2017). Geophysical investigation of a freshwater lens on the island of Langeoog, Germany: Insights from combined HEM, TEM and MRS data. Journal of Applied Geophysics,136(C), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.11.007.
Davis, J. L., & Annan, A. P. (1989). Ground penetrating radar for high resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophysical Prospecting,37(5), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02221.x.
deGroot-Hedlin, C., & Constable, S. (1990). Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics,55(12), 1613–1624. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442813.
Demirci, İ., Candansayar, M. E., Vafidis, A., & Soupios, P. (2017). Two dimensional joint inversion of direct current resistivity, radio-magnetotelluric and seismic refraction data: An application from Bafra Plain, Turkey. Journal of Applied Geophysics,139(C), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.03.002.
Doetsch, J., Linde, N., Pessognelli, M., Green, A. G., & Günther, T. (2012). Constraining 3-D electrical resistance tomography with GPR reflection data for improved aquifer characterization. Journal of Applied Geophysics,78(C), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.04.008.
Doolittle, J. A., Jenkinson, B., Hopkins, D., Ulmer, M., & Tuttle, W. (2006). Hydropedological investigations with ground-penetrating radar (GPR): Estimating water-table depths and local ground-water flow pattern in areas of coarse-textured soils. Geoderma,131(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.027.
Favetto, A., Pomposiello, C., Booker, J., & Rossello, E. A. (2007). Magnetotelluric inversion constrained by seismic data in the Tucumán Basin (Andean Foothills, 27°S, NW Argentina). Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jb004455.
Feng, X., Yu, Y., Liu, C., & Fehler, M. (2015). Combination of H-alpha decomposition and migration for enhancing subsurface target classification of GPR. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,53(9), 4852–4861.
Fisher, E., McMechan, G. A., Annan, A. P., & Cosway, S. W. (1992). Examples of reverse-time migration of single-channel, ground-penetrating radar profiles. Geophysics,57(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443271.
Gallardo, L. A., & Meju, M. A. (2003). Characterization of heterogeneous near-surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data. Geophysical Research Letters,30(13), 1658–1661. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017370.
Gallardo, L. A., & Meju, M. A. (2004). Joint two-dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,109(B3), B03311. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002716.
Garambois, S., Sénéchal, P., & Perroud, H. (2002). On the use of combined geophysical methods to assess water content and water conductivity of near-surface formations. Journal of Hydrology,259(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00588-1.
Giroux, B., & Chouteau, M. (2010). Quantitative analysis of water-content estimation errors using ground-penetrating radar data and a low-loss approximation. Geophysics,75(4), WA241–WA249. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3464329.
Greaves, R. J., Lesmes, D. P., Lee, J. M., & Toksöz, M. N. (1996). Velocity variations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-penetrating radar. Geophysics,61(3), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443996.
Hamann, G., & Tronicke, J. (2014). Global inversion of GPR traveltimes to assess uncertainties in CMP velocity models. Near Surface Geophysics,12(4), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2014005.
Irving, J., & Knight, R. (2006). Numerical modeling of ground-penetrating radar in 2-D using MATLAB. Computers & Geosciences,32(9), 1247–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.006.
Kalscheuer, T., Blake, S., Podgorski, J. E., Wagner, F., Green, A. G., Maurer, H., et al. (2015). Joint inversions of three types of electromagnetic data explicitly constrained by seismic observations: results from the central Okavango Delta, Botswana. Geophysical Journal International,202(3), 1429–1452. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv184.
Kalscheuer, T., García Juanatey, M. D. L. A., Meqbel, N., & Pedersen, L. B. (2010). Non-linear model error and resolution properties from two-dimensional single and joint inversions of direct current resistivity and radiomagnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International,182(3), 1174–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04686.x.
Kalscheuer, T., Juhojuntti, N., & Vaittinen, K. (2018). Two-dimensional magnetotelluric modelling of ore deposits: Improvements in model constraints by inclusion of borehole measurements. Surveys in Geophysics,39(3), 467–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9454-y.
Kalscheuer, T., Pedersen, L. B., & Siripunvaraporn, W. (2008). Radiomagnetotelluric two-dimensional forward and inverse modelling accounting for displacement currents. Geophysical Journal International,175(2), 486–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03902.x.
Knight, R. (2001). Ground penetrating radar for environmental applications. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,29(1), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.229.
Lochbühler, T., Doetsch, J., Brauchler, R., & Linde, N. (2013). Structure-coupled joint inversion of geophysical and hydrological data. Geophysics,78(3), ID1–ID14. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0460.1.
Meier, P., Kalscheuer, T., Podgorski, J. E., Kgotlhang, L., Green, A. G., Greenhalgh, S., et al. (2014). Hydrogeophysical investigations in the western and north-central Okavango Delta (Botswana) based on helicopter and ground-based transient electromagnetic data and electrical resistance tomography. Geophysics,79(5), B201–B211. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0001.1.
Menke, W. (2018). Geophysical data analysis: Discrete inverse theory. Cambridge: Academic Press.
Mohammadi Vizheh, M., & Kamkar Rouhani, A. (2014). Detection of subsurface installations and analysis of GPR pulse characteristics. Iranian Journal of Geophysics,7(4), 117–133.
Mohammadi Vizheh, M., Oskooi, B., Bastani, M., & Kalscheuer, T. (2019). Constrained inversion of RMT data using GPR sections versus joint interpretation of their result in an aquifer investigation. Journal of Research on Applied Geophysics, 5(2), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.22044/jrag.2018.6877.1188.
Moorkamp, M. (2017). Integrating electromagnetic data with other geophysical observations for enhanced imaging of the Earth: A tutorial and review. Surveys in Geophysics,38(5), 935–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9413-7.
Moorkamp, M., Heincke, B., Jegen, M., Roberts, A. W., & Hobbs, R. W. (2011). A framework for 3-D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International,184(1), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04856.x.
Mota, R., & Santos, F. M. D. (2006). 2D sections of porosity and water saturation percent from combined resistivity and seismic surveys for hydrogeologic studies. The Leading Edge,25(6), 735–737. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2210058.
Mukherjee, D., Heggy, E., & Khan, S. D. (2010). Geoelectrical constraints on radar probing of shallow water-saturated zones within karstified carbonates in semi-arid environments. Journal of Applied Geophysics,70(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2009.11.005.
Müllern, C.-F. (2008). Description to the map Groundwater bodies in Heby municipality. Technical Report SGU-rapport: 1652-8336. Geological Survey of Sweden.
Murray, T., Booth, A., & Rippin, D. M. (2007). Water-content of Glacier-Ice: Limitations on estimates from velocity analysis of surface ground-penetrating radar surveys. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,12(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.2113/jeeg12.1.87.
Neal, A. (2004). Ground-penetrating radar and its use in sedimentology: principles, problems and progress. Earth-Science Reviews,66(3), 261–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.01.004.
Parker, R. L. (1994). Geophysical inverse theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pedersen, L. B., Bastani, M., & Dynesius, L. (2006). Some characteristics of the electromagnetic field from radio transmitters in Europe. Geophysics,71(6), G279–G284. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2349222.
Perttu, N., Persson, L., Erlström, M., & Elming, S.-Å. (2012). Magnetic resonance sounding and radiomagnetotelluric measurements used to characterize a limestone aquifer in Gotland, Sweden. Journal of Hydrology,424–425, 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.042.
Perttu, N., Wattanasen, K., Phommasone, K., & Elming, S.-Å. (2011). Characterization of aquifers in the Vientiane Basin, Laos, using magnetic resonance sounding and vertical electrical sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics,73(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.01.003.
Sandmeier, K. (2016). Reflexw 8.1 Manual. Sandmeier Software, Zipser Strabe 1, D-76227 Karlsruhe, Germany.
SGU. (2017a). Aquifers map (digital). Uppsala: Geological Survey of Sweden.
SGU. (2017b). Quaternary deposits map (digital), 1:25,000–1:100,000. Uppsala: Geological Survey of Sweden.
Shah, S. D., Kress, W. H., & Legchenko, A. (2008). Application of magnetic resonance soundings and other surface geophysical methods to enhance subsurface analysis of a ground‐water availability model—A pilot study. In Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2008 (pp. 896–915).
Siripunvaraporn, W., & Egbert, G. (2000). An efficient data-subspace inversion method for 2-D magnetotelluric data. Geophysics,65(3), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444778.
Swift, L. W. (1976). Algorithm for solar radiation on mountain slopes. Water Resources Research,12(1), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i001p00108.
Takougang, E. M. T., Harris, B., Kepic, A., & Le, C. V. A. (2015). Cooperative joint inversion of 3D seismic and magnetotelluric data: With application in a mineral province. Geophysics,80(4), R175–R187. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0252.1.
Tezkan, B., Hördt, A., & Gobashy, M. (2000). Two-dimensional radiomagnetotelluric investigation of industrial and domestic waste sites in Germany. Journal of Applied Geophysics,44(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00014-2.
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L., & Annan, A. P. (1980). Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research,16(3), 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i003p00574.
Turesson, A. (2006). Water content and porosity estimated from ground-penetrating radar and resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics,58(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.04.004.
van Overmeeren, R. A. (1998). Radar facies of unconsolidated sediments in The Netherlands: A radar stratigraphy interpretation method for hydrogeology. Journal of Applied Geophysics,40(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(97)00033-5.
Wang, S., Kalscheuer, T., Bastani, M., Malehmir, A., Pedersen, L. B., Dahlin, T., et al. (2018). Joint inversion of lake-floor electrical resistivity tomography and boat-towed radio-magnetotelluric data illustrated on synthetic data and an application from the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory site, Sweden. Geophysical Journal International,213(1), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx414.
Ward, S. H. (1990). 6. Resistivity and induced polarization methods. In Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics (pp. 147–190).
Yan, P., Garcia Juanatey, M. A., Kalscheuer, T., Juhlin, C., Hedin, P., Savvaidis, A., et al. (2017a). A magnetotelluric investigation of the Scandinavian Caledonides in western Jämtland, Sweden, using the COSC borehole logs as prior information. Geophysical Journal International,208, 1465–1489. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw457.
Yan, P., Kalscheuer, T., Hedin, P., & Garcia Juanatey, M. A. (2017b). Two-dimensional magnetotelluric inversion using reflection seismic data as constraints and application in the COSC project. Geophysical Research Letters,44(8), 3554–3563. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072953.
Yaramanci, U., Lange, G., & Hertrich, M. (2002). Aquifer characterisation using Surface NMR jointly with other geophysical techniques at the Nauen/Berlin test site. Journal of Applied Geophysics,50(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(02)00129-5.
Yochim, A., Zytner, R. G., McBean, E. A., & Endres, A. L. (2013). Estimating water content in an active landfill with the aid of GPR. Waste Management,33(10), 2015–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.020.
Yogeshwar, P., Tezkan, B., Israil, M., & Candansayar, M. E. (2012). Groundwater contamination in the Roorkee area, India: 2D joint inversion of radiomagnetotelluric and direct current resistivity data. Journal of Applied Geophysics,76(C), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.11.001.
Zhang, P., Roberts, R. G., & Pedersen, L. B. (1987). Magnetotelluric strike rules. Geophysics,52(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442301.
Zhou, J., Revil, A., Karaoulis, M., Hale, D., Doetsch, J., & Cuttler, S. (2014). Image-guided inversion of electrical resistivity data. Geophysical Journal International,197(1), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu001.
Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful to the University of Tehran (UT) for the financial support facilitating a 6-month sabbatical stay at Uppsala University (UU) in Sweden. The second author acknowledges funding from the UT under the mission commandment no.: 155/96/1894 dated 2017/12/23 for a 1-year sabbatical leave starting from 2018/01/21 at the Luleå University of Technology in Sweden. SGU is also acknowledged for providing the field data used in the real case example. UU supported us with the EnviroMT system and provided a working place to the first author. We also thank Dr. Shunguo Wang for helping with data processing and Dr. Hamzeh Sadeghi and Ms. Laura Schmidt for their friendly help during the field survey. Dr. Michael Commer (Editor) and two anonymous reviewers are appreciated for their constructive comments and suggestions to noticeably improve the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: RMT Theory
In the RMT method, two horizontal components of the electric field (ex and ey) and the three magnetic field components (hx, hy, and hz) are measured simultaneously. These electromagnetic field components are connected through the impedance tensor Z and the the tensor of vertical magnetic transfer functions (tipper vector) T. Pedersen et al. (2006) showed that the distribution of transmitters in Europe is appropriate for the estimation of RMT transfer functions that are given in the frequency domain as follows:
where E and H are the Fourier transforms of the electric (e) and magnetic (h) components, respectively, at signal frequency f, Z(f) denotes the two-by-two complex impedance tensor, and T(f) is the one-by-two tensor of vertical magnetic transfer functions (VMTF) or tipper vector. Z and T contain information about the subsurface resistivity distribution. Ideally, in a two-dimensional case, with structures striking in one direction (for example x-direction), zero values are expected for the diagonal elements of the impedance tensor. When the strike is in the x-direction, \(Z_{xy}\) corresponds to the TE mode, where the electric currents flow in the strike direction, and \(Z_{yx}\) represents the TM mode, where the electric currents flow in a plane perpendicular to the strike direction. For each impedance tensor element and each frequency, the apparent resistivity and phase can be deduced as
where ω is angular frequency, and µ0 is the magnetic permeability of free space. The distribution of electric resistivity in the subsurface can be estimated through inversion of the appropriate impedance data, tipper data or apparent resistivities and phases.
As a result of time-series processing, estimates of the transfer functions (impedance and tipper data) together with their uncertainties in form of standard deviations are retrieved. However, the inversion code by Kalscheuer et al. (2010) uses apparent resistivities and phases of the complex-valued impedances rather than the impedances as input data. For a given standard deviation of the impedance, it can be shown through Gaussian uncertainty propagation that 1% relative uncertainty on the impedance corresponds to 2% relative uncertainty on the apparent resistivity and 0.57 degrees absolute uncertainty on the phase. Moreover, in the inversion code, apparent resistivities are transformed to logarithms of apparent resistivities, such that the corresponding uncertainties essentially are relative uncertainties of the apparent resistivities. In the inversion of field data, the uncertainty floors for the impedance and tipper data are subjective choices based on an assessment of the general data quality and tentative inversions.
Appendix 2: Damped Occam Inversion
In the damped Occam inversion algorithm, the Lagrange multiplier λ for the smoothness constraints is fixed at a user-defined value, and a Marquardt–Levenberg damping term is added to the cost function U. An optimal Marquardt–Levenberg damping factor β is searched for in every iteration of the inversion. In this study, we used the resistivity model and corresponding Lagrange multiplier found optimal in the Occam inversion as an initial model and fixed λ, respectively, in a subsequent damped Occam inversion. For our synthetic example in Figs. 3 and 4, Fig. 12 shows the produced artifacts due to a suboptimal fixing process in Step 4 and the influence of the damped Occam method in Step 5 for smearing them out.
Appendix 3: RMT Strike Analysis of and Fit to Heby Data
By analyzing the impedance tensor, the Swift skew (Swift 1976) provides an overall measure of dimensionality and 3D effects. The measured RMT data seems to be affected by noise, especially along P1-1. Upon closer inspection, this effect could be related to cables buried underneath the ditches along the road and low-quality data at a frequency of 113 kHz. After the rejection of noisy data, the Swift skews of the RMT data measured in the Heby area are lower than 0.25 (Fig. 13a, c). Therefore, subsurface structures can be expected to be predominantly 1-D and 2-D. In this study, we utilized Zhang et al.’s (1987) method for dimensionality, distortion, and strike analysis. Independent strike angles were extracted for each station and frequency of RMT data by calculating distortion parameters and strike directions simultaneously. Generally, strike angles computed by analysis of the impedance tensor are ambiguous by 90°, such that complementary information in the form of the directions of induction arrows computed from vertical magnetic transfer functions or geological maps is needed to assign a unique strike direction. We have predominantly considered the geological map to determine the strike angles. The results of the strike analyses show that there is no consistent strike direction along P1. However, one preferred strike direction can be distinguished from cumulative rose diagrams for each profile (Fig. 13). Relative to our measurement coordinate systems, these preferred strike directions are − 15 and 10 degrees East of North for P1-1 and P1-2, respectively. These strike directions correspond to 30° and 5° West of geographic North, for P1-1 and P1-2, respectively. Therefore, for each profile on Fig. 5, we have rotated the reference coordinate system to the mentioned strike direction minimizing the least-squares Q value (Zhang et al. 1987) and projected the station locations accordingly.
Figure 14 shows the observed and calculated data, as well as their misfits for TE-mode impedances, TM-mode impedances and tipper data using smoothness-constrained inversion of the RMT data collected along P1 (Fig. 7b). White cells represent data rejected in the inversion due to either low quality or high misfit values in initial test inversions. Similarly, the data fits of the inverted models using the proposed CMP-based scheme along P1-1 (Fig. 8d) and P1-2 (Fig. 10d) are illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohammadi Vizheh, M., Oskooi, B., Bastani, M. et al. Using GPR Data as Constraints in RMT Data Inversion for Water Content Estimation: A Case Study in Heby, Sweden. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177, 2903–2929 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02391-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02391-1