the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
20 Jan 2021
20 Jan 2021
tTEM20AAR: a benchmark geophysical dataset for unconsolidated fluvio-glacial sediments
- 1Centre of Hydrogeology and Geothermics, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
- 2Department of Earth Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
- 3Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- 1Centre of Hydrogeology and Geothermics, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
- 2Department of Earth Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
- 3Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Abstract. Quaternary deposits are complex and heterogeneous. They contain some of the most abundant and extensively used aquifers. In order to improve the knowledge of the spatial heterogeneity of such deposits, we acquired a large (more than 1400 hectares) and dense (20 m spacing) Time Domain ElectroMagnetic (TDEM) dataset in the upper Aare Valley, Switzerland. TDEM is a fast and reliable method to measure the magnetic field directly related to the resistivity of the underground. In this paper, we present the inverted resistivity models derived from this acquisition, and all the necessary data in order to perform different inversions on the processed data (https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4269887 (Neven et al., 2020)). The depth of investigation ranges between 40 to 120 m depth, with an average data residual contained in the standard deviation of the data. These data can be used for many different purposes: from sedimentological interpretation of quaternary environments in alpine environments, geological and hydrogeological modeling, to benchmarking geophysical inversion techniques.
Alexis Neven et al.
Status: open (until 21 Mar 2021)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2020-390', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Feb 2021
reply
General comments
Neven et al. publish what appears to be a good quality dataset that has a good potential for being adopted by the community. The geological context, acquisition parameters and procedure are well described and appropriate references are given for the reader to obtained additional information if needed. The authors are distributing the processed data as well as 1D inversion results. It is thus possible for researchers to immediately use the results, but also to extend the level of information attainable with the data by performing sophisticated inversion processes. The file formats are simple and also clearly defined, which should facilitate adoption of the dataset.
Specific comments
Are the data and methods presented new?
Yes for the data. The methods used have been published before.
Is there any potential of the data being useful in the future?
Yes
Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail?
Overall, yes, but details about the method used to detect coupled structures (line 102) should be added.
Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate?
No, except @ line 69: ref to Christiansen is incomplete
Is the data set accessible via the given identifier?
Yes
Is the data set complete?
Yes
Are error estimates and sources of errors given (and discussed in the article)?
Yes, to some extent
Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. state of the art?
Yes
Are common standards used for comparison?
N/A
Are there any inconsistencies within these, implausible assertions or data, or noticeable problems which would suggest the data are erroneous (or worse)?
No
As the data set usable in its current format and size?
Yes
Are the formal metadata appropriate?
Yes
Is the length of the article appropriate?
Overall, yes. In the conclusion, the authors mention that various so far unexplained geological structures are revealed by the new data, and I think that the paper would greatly benefit if 1-2 examples could be given.
Is the overall structure of the article well-structured and clear?
Yes
Is the language consistent and precise?
Yes
Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
Overall, yes, but section 3 (Data Validation) starts directly with an equation, and a sentence should be added first to introduce the topic.
Are figures and tables correct and of high quality?
The figures are of good quality. I think however that additional subfigures are needed. For instance, Figure 4 should also include the cross section with sharpness constraint inversion. Figure 5 should also show the results of a 1D inversion with sharpness constraint applied. A noisy sounding should also be shown, for the reader to appreciate the overall quality of the data.
Other comments
Around line 45, the authors should add that the dataset could also be used in future studies where other geophysical methods are used, to complement the analysis by performing joint inversion.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Neven, 16 Feb 2021
reply
Thanks for the positive evaluation and all the comments. We agree with the suggestions, they will improve the manuscript. All text modifications will be included in the revised version. We will also include both regularizations in all the figures presenting resistivity models and include some examples of unexplained geological structures.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Neven, 16 Feb 2021
reply
Alexis Neven et al.
Data sets
tTEM20AAR: a tTEM geophysical dataset Alexis Neven, Pradip Kumar Maurya, Anders Vest Christiansen, and Philippe Renard https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4269887
Alexis Neven et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 213 | 127 | 9 | 349 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 213
- PDF: 127
- XML: 9
- Total: 349
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1