Temperature-dependent hysteresis effects on EM induction instruments: An example of single-frequency multi-coil array instruments

Diurnal drifts of DUALEM were studied at single locations and along a transect.ECa of the perpendicular arrays were more stable than the horizontal coplanar arrays.In-phase of the horizontal coplanar arrays were more stable than the perpendicular.DUALEM measurements show instrument- and temperature-dependent hysteresis effects.Shading the instruments and applying drift correction procedures should be adopted. Non-invasive electromagnetic (EM) induction has been used in agriculture, earth science and archaeology. This is because the apparent electrical conductivity (ECa or quadrature response mSm1) and the apparent magnetic susceptibility (in-phase response ppt) which they measure are related to soil properties such as clay, soil mineralogy, salinity and soil moisture as well as buried metal objects. Although the accuracy issues of the single-coil array EM38 meter have been widely discussed, the accuracy issues of the next generation, multi-coil (perpendicular-PRP and horizontal-HCP) array DUALEM meter, particularly the instrument drift, have little been reported. In this study, the diurnal drifts of a DUALEM-421S and a DUALEM-21S were studied at single locations (for a 24h period) and along a 480-m transect (at five typical operation times). Based on the experiment results of the two DUALEM instruments, it was found that the ECa readings of the PRP arrays were more stable than those of the HCP arrays. The reverse was true for in-phase measurements. Specifically, during the diurnal cooling and heating phases, ECa measurements of the HCP arrays and in-phase PRP arrays showed different correlations with ambient temperature, which can be defined as instrument-specific and temperature-dependent hysteresis effects. In addition, the stability of ECa and in-phase measurements increased with array length and was much less compared to the theoretical values. It was suggested a similar experiment should be conducted for the DUALEM instruments before the DUALEM surveys and repeated DUALEM surveys for mapping the spatio-temporal variations in soil properties should be carried out at the similar temperature (i.e., similar ambient temperature and within the same warming or cooling phase). In addition, shading the instruments with non-conductive thermal insulation should be adopted and drift correction procedures should be applied to improve the quality of the measurements of the EM instruments.

[1]  N. Kitchen,et al.  Accuracy issues in electromagnetic induction sensing of soil electrical conductivity for precision agriculture , 2001 .

[2]  Philippe De Smedt,et al.  An efficient calibration procedure for correction of drift in EMI survey data , 2014 .

[3]  E. Brevik,et al.  The use of electromagnetic induction techniques in soils studies , 2014 .

[4]  Peter J. Shouse,et al.  Minimizing Drift in Electrical Conductivity Measurements in High Temperature Environments using the EM-38 , 2004 .

[5]  I. Mayergoyz.  Mathematical models of hysteresis and their applications , 2003 .

[6]  J. Triantafilis,et al.  Electromagnetic Conductivity Imaging (emci) of Soil using a DUALEM-421 and Inversion Modelling Software (EM4Soil) , 2013 .

[7]  Francis wyffels,et al.  Identifying and removing micro-drift in ground-based electromagnetic induction data , 2016 .

[8]  Philippe De Smedt,et al.  Exploring the potential of multi-receiver EMI survey for geoarchaeological prospection: A 90 ha dataset , 2013 .

[9]  David Beamish,et al.  Levelling aeromagnetic survey data without the need for tie‐lines , 2015 .

[10]  Bruce D. Smith,et al.  Calibration and filtering strategies for frequency domain electromagnetic data , 2012 .

[11]  F. A. Monteiro Santos,et al.  2-Dimensional soil and vadose-zone representation using an EM38 and EM34 and a laterally constrained inversion model , 2009 .

[12]  Philippe De Smedt,et al.  Identifying Soil Patterns at Different Spatial Scales with a Multi‐Receiver EMI Sensor , 2013 .

[13]  Scott B. Jones,et al.  Comparing bulk soil electrical conductivity determination using the DUALEM-1S and EM38-DD electromagnetic induction instruments , 2007 .

[14]  Budiman Minasny,et al.  Comparing temperature correction models for soil electrical conductivity measurement , 2011, Precision Agriculture.

[15]  F. A. Monteiro Santos,et al.  Resolving the spatial distribution of the true electrical conductivity with depth using EM38 and EM31 signal data and a laterally constrained inversion model , 2010 .

[16]  Jorge Luís Porsani,et al.  Comparing performance of instrumental drift correction by linear and quadratic adjusting in inductive electromagnetic data , 2011 .

[17]  Egon Zimmermann,et al.  Development and drift-analysis of a modular electromagnetic induction system for shallow ground conductivity measurements , 2014 .

[18]  D. Corwin,et al.  Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture , 2005 .

[19]  Jingyi Huang,et al.  Monitoring and modelling soil water dynamics using electromagnetic conductivity imaging and the ensemble Kalman filter , 2017 .

[20]  Jingyi Huang,et al.  Time‐lapse monitoring of soil water content using electromagnetic conductivity imaging , 2017 .

[21]  F. Frischknecht,et al.  Fields about an oscillating magnetic dipole over a two-layer earth, and Application to ground and airborne electromagnetic surveys , 1967 .