Geophysics foundations:

Seeing underground:
Introduction
Outline
This five page article was written for those involved in the earth sciences who have no background in
geophysics. It is intended to explain very briefly how applied geophysics can contribute unique and important
information that helps solve a wide range of practical problems in the earth sciences and engineering. The
article was adapted from Geophysical Inversion: New Ways of Seeing the Earth's Subsurface, by Francis
Jones and Doug Oldenburg, in Innovation, October 1998, Assocation of Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of British Columbia.

Importance of Earth's subsurface

The surface of the earth has provided the setting for most human endeavours throughout the history of civilization, and these
activities have been profoundly affected by the largely invisible characteristics of the immediate subsurface. Human development
has depended heavily on resources obtained from both near surface (as in construction materials) and from hundreds to
thousands of metres deep (as in metalliferous ores and petroleum based products). We also use water from subsurface aquifers,
deposit much of our waste within the near subsurface, and build structures that must interface safely with these shallow regions.

Physical properties vs rock type and structure

In relation to these activities, subsurface characteristics of particular interest to earth scientists include the location, distribution
and structure of rock types, grain size distribution, and material strength, porosity and permeability, to name a few. The earth's
inherent complexity can make it difficult or impossible to infer these characteristics from direct observation. Therefore they often
must be inferred from the distribution of more fundamental physical properties such as density, electrical conductivity, acoustic
impedance and others. These basic properties can be measured via geophysical surveys that record the earth's response to
various types of natural or manmade signals. The following table lists physical properties that are most commonly related to
geological materials and/or structures, and geophysical survey types that can map variations of these physical properties.
Common physical properties

Associated geophysical survey techniques

Electrical resistivity (or conductivity)

DC resistivity, all electromagnetic methods

Magnetic susceptibility

All magnetic survey methods

Density

Gravity, and seismic reflection or refraction

Acoustic wave velocity

Seismic reflection or refraction

Other physical properties that can be usefully mapped include chargeability, natural radioactivity,
dielectric permitivity, and porosity.

Demand for improved modeling

Subsurface structures are usually interpreted either in terms of objects, layers, linear features, or
complex distributions. This type of information, obtained remotely and non-invasively using
geophysical surveys, is routinely used in geotechnical, exploration and environmental activities to
characterize geological structures, estimate ore reserves, map contaminant plumes, etc. What is
involved in obtaining such information? First, field work is done (Figure 1) which involves making
many careful measurements along survey lines on the ground or from aircraft. Traditionally,
interpretations of these measurements are often made from graphs or maps of raw or processed
data, resulting in qualitative or crudely quantitative information about the locations, depths, and types of materials under ground.
In the face of ongoing demand for increasingly quantitative information, however, sophisticated techniques are now being used to
numerically estimate the distribution of the earth's physical properties. These modelling procedures give geoscientists a more cost
effective, reliable and accurate means of extracting as much information as possible from conventional survey data. They also
make it possible to present the rather technical information in more visual and meaningful ways to managers, shareholders,
regulatory agencies and other interest groups.
After reading this article, it should become evident that the application of geophysics to problems involving earth's subsurface is a
non-trivial process. A seven step framework can be used to help understand each aspect of this process. This framework is not
referenced often in the article, but there is a one page summary referenced elsewhere which should be examined.

Geophysics foundations:
Seeing underground:
Geophysics primer
Geophysical surveys are performed when information about the earth's subsurface
is desired but direct sampling through expensive and invasive techniques such as
drilling or trenching is insufficient, impractical or ill-advised. A survey may target a
whole earth scale, within the top few metres of the subsurface, or anywhere in
between.

Measuring physical properties

During a geophysical survey, energy is put into the earth and responses are
recorded at the surface, in the air or in boreholes. Resulting data reveal
information about the earth because the behaviour of the energy within the ground
is controlled by the distribution of the earth's physical properties. For instance, one
basic physical property is magnetic susceptibility, which describes a rock's ability to
become magnetized. This physical property provides information on rock type and
structures because the rock's magnetic susceptibility relates directly to mineral
type, and to the chemical alteration processes involved in its deposition. A second
important physical property is electrical conductivity, which quantifies a material's capacity to carry electrical current. Figure 2
illustrates one way that a geophysical survey can be carried out to provide information about the subsurface distribution of
electrical conductivity.
Figure 2: An example of how the distribution of a physical property (electrical conductivity in this case)can be measured
to provide information about geologic materials. Click buttons to reveal corresponding images.
1.

2.

The physical properties under this surface are unknown. A geophysical survey - DC resistivity in this case
- is used to generate data.

Current is injected into the ground, and resulting voltages are measured as electrode geometry varies. In this case,
voltages get smaller as electrodes are separated further and further apart.

3.
Inversion of this data set produces an estimate of a "layered earth" or 1D model of the relevant physical property electrical conductivity.

4.

Interpretation converts the model into geologic information.

Evidently, the application of geophysics to problems involving earth's subsurface is a non-trivial process. A seven step framework
can be used to help understand each aspect of this process. This framework is outlined in a one page appendix.

Traditional interpretation
Traditionally, useful information was extracted from geophysical field results by examining maps or line profiles of raw or filtered
survey data. Such images are useful for estimating locations and quantities of buried materials, and to help choose locations for
more invasive (and expensive) techniques such as drilling. For example, large scale maps of magnetic of magnetic or gravity data
often show geologic structure, or identify an anomalous region that might be associated with a desired target. As an example
Figure 3 shows the magnetic data acquired at the Bathurst region of New Brunswick. The major features observed are related to
geologic structure.

Figure 3, Tetatouche Antiform Total Magnetic Field, from "Airborne Geophysical

Survey of the Bathurst Mining Camp",Geological
Survey of Canada website,
http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/app/bathmag
/tetagouche_e.html (Dec. 2006).

Historically, in mineral exploration, the identification of an anomalous region was often the endpoint of the analysis, and the image
was used to plan the location of a drill hole. Unfortunately, the success rate was generally poor. At best, data maps provide some
information about the lateral extent of a body but little information about what is happening at depth. Quantitative analysis, in
particular inversion, is required to obtain 3D information. The mineral exploration example in this article expands on this.
Other geoscience professionals also need to obtain quantitative information from data sets that are difficult to interpret without
inversion. The geotechnical example in this article illustrates both traditional images of data and quantitative models generated by
inversion of this data.

Inversion
The problem of using recorded data to estimate a reasonable earth
model (i.e. a quantitative distribution of one or more physical
properties) is known as the geophysical inverse problem. The adjacent
cartoon illustrates that the pertinant question being addressed is "what
subsurface physical property distribution could have caused the data
that were observed at the surface?" Earlier inversion solutions involved
characterizing the earth by a few prisms or layers and then numerically
finding geometrical and physical properties of these simplified earth
models.
Due to the earth's extreme complexity, useful models often need to have many parameters, usually more than the number of
data. This means that the problem of finding a model (i.e. estimating values for every parameter) is one in which there are more
unknowns that data. Such problems do not have unique solutions, and this nonuniqueness is exacerbated when data are noisy or
inaccurate. Formal inversion methods address these issues using well defined mathematical techniques. An appendix explains
inversion in a little more detail.
In the remainder of this article, some benefits of applying rigorous inversion can be seen by comparing the information in 3D and
2D models obtained by inversion, to the traditional map and pseudosection plots of the raw data.
pg. 2 of 5

Geophysics foundations:
Seeing underground:
Mineral exploration example
Large quantities of magnetic field measurements are routinely gathered over mineral and petroleum exploration prospects using
airborne techniques. Resulting magnetic anomaly maps can provide information about geological trends because rocks containing higher
proportions of the mineral magnetite have a higher magnetic susceptibility, and will affect the local behaviour of the earth's magnetic
field.

Regional and local magnetic surveys

Figure 3 (supplied courtesy of Placer Dome Exploration) provides an example of regional information from an area surrounding the Mt
Milligan copper porphyry deposit, located in central British Columbia. Geological trends can be decerned using this type of data,
however, exploration for a specific deposit requires more detailed information about local subsurface distributions of rock types. Figure
3b shows anomalous strengths of the earth's magnetic field for a small region of one ore body. Evidently there is a range of different
rock types below the surface, but details of location, depth and magnetic susceptibility are difficult to determine directly using
conventional methods.

a.

Figure 3. Total magnetic field strength map for the Mt Milligan region, gathered by airborne magnetic survey
techniques.

b.

Click the button to see a ground based magnetic anomaly map for the small outlined region over one ore body.
The large scale regional magnetic field has been removed from this local map to emphasize the signature of
anomalous subsurface magnetically susceptible rocks.

Inversion to obtain 3D details

The goal of inverting this data set was to produce detailed 3D models of magnetic susceptibility to help geologists develop a more
complete understanding of the rocks associated with the ore deposit. The first step was to reduce the dense data set from the small
region (Figure 3a) to a more manageable 1,029 evenly spaced data points and to divide the model region into 169,000 cells. Then a
desirable model type was chosen. In this instance, the process was set up with two criteria; namely to find a model that was (i) as close
as possible to a uniform earth with zero susceptibility, and (ii) included structure that was smooth in all three spatial dimensions.
In addition, the numerical procedure for finding plausible subsurface models of susceptibility was constrained so that data predicted
from the model would match observed field measurements to a degree specified by assuming a noise level (on measurements) of 5%.
The resulting model was a 3D volume represented by the 169,000 cells, each with a magnetic susceptibility recovered by the inversion.

Visualizing results
There are several ways to usefully present volumetric information of this kind. Contour plots of horizontal or vertical slices through the
volume, as shown in Figure 4, provide quantitative details at any required location. Alternatively, for a more general impression of the
model, a 3D iso-surface image can be created. This is shown in Figure 5, which suggests there is a well defined volume of magnetically
susceptible rocks associated with this deposit. This model correlates well with one of the known principal local rock units (MBX
monsonite stock) and with locations of mineralization.

Figure 4: The model of magnetic susceptibiility recovered by the inversion of ground-based magnetic data is illustrated
by plotting slices from the volume under the survey area. The left panel is a horizontal slice at 80m depth; the right
panels are three vertical slices taken along lines at 9600, 9500, and 9400 metres north. Gray lines indicate the slice
locations.

Corroboration with independent geophysical results

Few geophysical surveys are used alone with no other independent information. At Mt Milligan many types geophysical surveys were
performed on the ground, from airborne platforms, and from within boreholes. For example, a similar inversion procedure was used to
interpret DC electrical measurements gathered over the same area. The 3D iso-surface image of Figure 6 shows a model of the
distribution of chargeability (the capacity for material to hold an electrical charge), a physical property related essentially to metal or
clay content and grain size. The apparent anti-correlation between magnetic susceptibility and chargeability at Mt Milligan is evident
only after careful inversion of two unrelated geophysical data sets. This example illustrates that conducting inversions on multiple types
of data sets can provide an enhanced understanding of the surveyed region; in this case it provides insight about subsequent alteration
of the rocks that occurred after the initial formation of the mineral deposit.

Figure 5: The same magnetic susceptibility distribution model

shown in the previous figure is plotted here as a 3D isosurface
of constant susceptibility. Any surface between zero and the
maximum susceptibility recovered could be chosen for the plot.
The best choice for illustrating geologically relevant features
depends upon estimating the true susceptibility of rocks,
perhaps from borehole or outcropping samples.

Figure 6: An isosurface plot of chargeability, which is usually

related to the presence of sulphide ores, graphite, or clay
minerals. The chargeability model was obtained by carrying out
a 3D inversion of induced polarization data collected along
parallel survey lines over the deposit region. Comparison with
the 3D model of magnetic susceptibility shows that low
chargeability is correlated with high susceptibility. Detailed
correlation of the two inversion results provided information
that contributed to an enhanced understanding of how the ore
body was deposited.

Geophysics foundations:
Seeing underground:
Geotechnical example

Geotechnical work also requires quantitative, accurately located information about the subsurface. Figure 7a. below shows initial
unprocessed results of a DC electrical survey over calcine tailings at the Sullivan Mine in southern BC. Lateral locations of
conductive material can be interpreted directly. However, for this application, there was a need to characterize the extent and
depth of the calcine material (which has a higher electrical conductivity than host rocks) partly to determine the quantity of calcine
and partly to constrain the possible subsurface paths along which ground water could travel.

Limitations of standard data presentation

The standard form of presentation shown in the top panel of figure 7, known as a pseudosection, distorts the actual distribution of
subsurface physical properties. Note that no vertical axis scale is provided. Without formal inversion there is no way to identify the
position and value of electrically conductive or resistive materials that gave rise to the observed data.
Also, with resistivity surveys it is important to estimate the depth of investigation because the ability to resolve geology at depth
depends upon survey geometry and subsurface conductivity as well as the current source power. Traditionally (prior to
development of formal inversion techniques), geophysicists used ad-hoc rules to identify the depths at which interpretations
became unreliable.

Figure 7:
a. (top) Raw DC resistivity data from a survey over
calcine tailings are plotted in pseudosection format.
Resistivity values are apparent rather than true
intrinsic resistivities, and the pattern is determined
by the plotting convention. Circles indicate plotting
points for recorded data values. Lateral surface
distribution of highly conductive (i.e. low resistivity)
calcine is recognizable, but details of the thickness
and geometry of the conductive zone are obscured.
b. (Bottom) The conductivity model recovered by 2D
inversion of data in the top panel. Each rectangular
cell has the value of it's conductivity determined by
the inversion algorithm. The location and volume of
high conductivity material is clearly defined. The
variability at the surface is due to a thin resistive
cover of course bouldery fill overlying the area.
Portions of the 2D model that are not sensitive to the survey are hatched out.
Note that conductivity (which has units of Seimens per metre) is the inverse of resistivity (quoted in units of Ohm-m).

Depth of investigation
A geophysical survey provides information about a limited volume of the earth. In the inversion our mathematical model usually
extends beyond those limits. The value of a physical parameter outside the area of illumination is determined only by parameters
in the inversion and does not present reliable information. To prevent over-interpretation of the inversioin results it is best to
remove those regions from the final images that are to be displayed. The hatching in Figure 7b accomplishes this goal. It is
evident that the geophysical survey provides no information outside of the limits of the survey electrodes and also there is a
maximum depth to which the data are sensitive. The maximum depth depends upon the greatest separation of the current and
potential electrodes and also upon the level of signal strength compared to noise.

Discussion
There is a well-defined region of high electrical conductivity (ie low resistivity, in red colours) near the surface and a region of
lower conductivity (blues) that appears at the surface. The low conductivity coincides with a known bedrock outcrop and this adds
confidence about the interpretability of the image.
Interpretation of a precise depth for the interface between conductive material and bedrock would be greatly aided by a single
borehole drilled to a depth of roughly 50 metres anywhere within the high conductivity region. This would also help to identify the
value of conductivity at which the physical interface should be interpreted.

Geophysics foundations:
Seeing underground:
Conclusions
Geophysical surveys are non-invasive techniques for obtaining information about subsurface
materials and their distribution or structure. The results of surveys can often be used
directly, or after some filtering prior to presentation as graphs or maps.
The survey data, perhaps with some filtering, can sometimes be used to answer the
question of interest. Generally, however, the information is insufficient and more
quantitative analysis is required. The data need to be inverted to generate a distribution of
the physical property. The inherent nonuniqueness of the inverse problem is a complicating
factor and this has motivated the development of different inversion approaches. Irrespective of details, the application of formal
inversion techniques to conventional geophysical data has contributed decisive information in the resolution of mineral exploration
and geotechnical problems.
Mineral exploration, petroleum, and engineering organizations now routinely apply modern inversion techniques to geophysical
surveys, such as gravity, magnetics, resistivity and others. Instead of applying ad-hoc methods to the interpretation of raw or
filtered data, geoscientists can now produce a range of acceptable subsurface models based upon rigorous and well defined
criteria. The value added through the provision of well constrained, easily visualized 2D and 3D models of subsurface physical
properties means that geophysical surveying can be more cost effective, allowing decision makers to act with more confidence in
assessing the risks and costs of projects requiring subsurface information.

UBC Earth and Ocean Sciences, F. Jones

Geophysics foundations:
Seeing underground:
Appendix - Inversion Outline
The problem of estimating a reasonable earth model (i.e. a quantitative distribution of one or more physical properties based upon
recorded data) is known as the geophysical inverse problem. Ever since computers became standard tools for geophysical work,
various methodologies for performing geophysical inversion have been developed. There are two broad classes of inversion:
"Parametric" methods and "Generalized" inversion methods.

Forward modelling: calculating data based upon a

known earth model.

Inversion: estimating a model based upon measured data

and some understanding of the setting.

Parametric methods
These inversion methods involve finding a model of the earth which is described using only a few parameters. In
fact, the solutions require that there be fewer parameters than there are data values so that the problem is
formally "over-determined" (see glossary). A few examples of parametric models are:
Buried object: parameters could be depth to a sphere (or cylindar), a radius or radius and length, and the
physical property contrast between the object and host rocks.
Layered earth: parameters are layer thicknesses and physical property values.
A buried sheet: parameters might be depth to the top of sheet, it's dip, strike, thickness, and the physical
property contrast between the sheet and host rocks.
Inversion usually involves searching for the model (i.e. a set of parameters) which generates a data set that best
matches the field measurements. The inversion algorithm adjusts model parameters to improve the match
between calculated and measured data sets. This is generally an iterative process.
Generalized inversion methods
This second class of inversion methods allows the earth's model to be more realistically complex, which means that
more parameters than data points are permitted. Such problems are mathematically referred to as
"under-determined". Most solutions to this more general form of the geophysical inversion problem involve three steps, which can
be explained briefely as follows:
Represent the earth with many parameters so that complex distributions of physical properties can be simulated. In
practice, the earth is divided into many thousands of cells of fixed geometry, each with a constant but unknown value of
the relevant physical property.
Design an adaptable mathematical function of this earth model called a model objective function.
This function's value depends upon the model. Change the model and the function's value changes.
The inversion process will involve adjusting parameters making the model in order to produce a minimum value for
this objective function. Different types of functions will require different models to produce a minimum value. For
example, one sensible model objective function measures how spatially "smooth" the earth's structure is. When the
model causing a "minimum" value is found, this will be the "smoothest" model possible. This might be a sensible
choice because large scale features of the subsurface are usually more important than fine scale details.
How does the geophysical data contribute? The carefully designed model objective function might be minimized using a
geologically unreasonable model of the earth. However, an acceptable model must be able to cause the measured field
data. This is a second constraint which allows the inversion process to find reasonable models of the earth.
So, inversion using optimization methods have two requirements: (i) adjust the model until it's "objective function" takes on a
minimum value (ii) subject to the constraint that the model can cause the measured data.
The earth model is a fixed distribution of
cells, each with an adjustable value of
the physical property. Measured data
are shown on top.
An acceptible model can cause the data,
and simultaneously produces a
minimum value for the "model objective
function".
In practice a number of inversions, with different reasonable objective functions, should be carried out so the interpreter has some
insight about the range of earth models that can acceptably reproduce the field data. Error statistics about the data will determine
how closely the reproduced data matches the real measured data. The fact that these error statistics are often poorly known is a
second good reason for performing several inversions before settling upon a preferred model.
UBC Earth and Ocean Sciences, F. Jones.