1887
Volume 62 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The use of optimized arrays generated using the ‘Compare R’ method for cross‐borehole resistivity measurements is examined in this paper. We compare the performances of two array optimization algorithms, one that maximizes the model resolution and another that minimizes the point spread value. Although both algorithms give similar results, the model resolution maximization algorithm is several times faster. A study of the point spread function plots for a cross‐borehole survey shows that the model resolution within the central zone surrounded by the borehole electrodes is much higher than near the bottom end of the boreholes. Tests with synthetic and experimental data show that the optimized arrays generated by the ‘Compare R’ method have significantly better resolution than a ‘standard’ measurement sequence used in previous surveys. The resolution of the optimized arrays is less if arrays with both current (or both potential) electrodes in the same borehole are excluded. However, they are still better than the ‘standard’ arrays.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12072
2013-10-11
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AukenE., PellerinL., ChristensenN.B. and SørensenK.2006. A survey of current trends in near‐surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics71, G249–G260.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CarpenterE.W. and HabberjamG.M.1956. A tri‐potential method of resistivity prospecting. Geophysics11, 455–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ChambersJ.E., KurasO., MeldrumP.I., OgilvyR.O. and HollandsJ.2006. Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, hydrogeologic, and engineering investigations at a former waste‐disposal site. Geophysics71, B231–B239.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChambersJ.E., WilkinsonP.B., WealthallG.P., LokeM.H., DeardenR., WilsonR. and OgilvyR.D.2010. Hydrogeophysical Imaging of Deposit Heterogeneity and Groundwater Chemistry Changes during DNAPL Source Zone Bioremediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology118, 43–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DahlinT.1996. 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering applications. First Break14, 275–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modelling for arbitrary shaped two‐dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting27, 106–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EllisR.G. and OldenburgD.W.1994. Applied geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International116, 5–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FarberR.2011. CUDA Application Design and Development. Elsevier. IBSN 9780123884268.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FarquharsonC.G.2008. Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimum‐structure inversions. Geophysics73, K1–K9.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.2004. A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non‐linear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International156, 411–425.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. FriedelS.2003. Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Journal International153, 305–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GolubG.H. and van LoanC.F.1989. Matrix Computations (2nd edn). The John Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801854148.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GriffithsD.H., TurnbullJ. and OlayinkaA.I.1990. Two‐dimensional resistivity mapping with a computer‐ controlled array. First Break8, 121–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. JamesJ.F.2011. A Student's Guide to Fourier Transforms: With Applications in Physics and Engineering (3rd Edition). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521176835.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. al HagreyS.A.2012. 2D optimized electrode arrays for borehole resistivity tomography and CO2 sequestration modelling. Pure and Applied Geophysics169, 1283–1292.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LokeM.H.2011. Electrical resistivity surveys and data interpretation. In: Encyclopaedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Vol. 1 (ed. H.K.Gupta ), pp. 276–283. Springer‐Verlag. IBSN 9789048187010.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT., 2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1995. Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E. and KurasO.2011. Instrumentation, electrical resistivity. In: Encyclopaedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Vol. 1 (ed. H.K.Gupta ), pp. 599–604. Springer‐Verlag. IBSN 9789048187010.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP. and ChambersJ.2010a. Fast computation of optimized electrode arrays for 2D resistivity surveys. Computers & Geosciences36, 1414–1426.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP. and ChambersJ.2010b. Parallel computation of optimized arrays for 2‐D electrical imaging. Geophysical Journal International183, 1202–1315.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MenkeW.1989. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory (Revised edition). Academic Press Inc. IBSN 0124909213.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MillerC.R. and RouthP.S.2007. Resolution analysis of geophysical images: Comparison between point spread function and region of influence measures. Geophysical Prospecting55, 835–852.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NennaV., PidliseckyA. and KnightR.2011, Informed experimental design for electrical resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics9, 469–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. OldenborgerG.A. and RouthP.S.2009. The point‐spread function measure of resolution for the 3D electrical resistivity experiment. Geophysical Journal International176, 405–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. PressW.H., TeukolskyS.A., VetterlingW.T. and FlanneryB.P.2007. Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press. IBSN 9780521880688.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. RouthP.S., OldenborgerG.A. and OldenburgD.W.2005. Optimal survey design using the point spread function measure of resolution. 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1033–1036.
  28. RückerC. and GüntherT.2011. The simulation of finite ERT electrodes using the complete electrode model. Geophysics76, F227–F238.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SlaterL., BinleyA.M., DailyW. and JohnsonR.2000. Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69, 120–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., LelliottM., WealthallP. and OgilvyR.D.2008. Extreme sensitivity of crosshole electrical resistivity tomography measurements to geometric errors. Geophysical Journal International173, 49–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., MeldrumP.I., OgilvyR.D. and CauntS.2006a. Optimization of array configurations and panel combinations for the detection and imaging of abandoned mineshafts using 3D cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics11, 213–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO. and OgilvyR.D.2006b. Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophysical Journal International167, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. WilkinsonP.B., LokeM.H., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO., GunnD.A. and OgilvyR.D.2012. Practical aspects of applied optimised survey design for electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International189, 428–440.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12072
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12072
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition; Borehole geophysics; Inversion; Resistivity; Tomography

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error