1887
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Time‐lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) can be used to characterize dynamic processes occurring in the subsurface of the Earth. It involves the installation of a permanent array of electrodes to monitor changes in resistivity associated with changes in pore‐water properties (salinity, temperature, water content) or porosity (compaction or dilation). The interpretation of time‐lapse data is complicated by both the presence of noise in the data and the influence of low sensitivity in parts of the model. A uniform space and time constraint is not able to address this problem. In this work, we propose a new approach to distinguish noise‐related artefacts to true changes in resistivity, while at the same time addressing the problem of the lack of sensitivity of electrical resistivity tomography with depth. We propose transforming the space and time constraints to be active, meaning that the regularization parameters are distributed rather than being uniform for the entire model. This way, both time‐related noise (assumed to be random) in the data and the lack of sensitivity are addressed and we can incorporate prior information in a natural way into the inversion scheme. Using this strategy, the inversion scheme is able to favour areas where the expected changes are likely to occur while filtering out areas where no changes should occur. The favoured areas can be either selected from a preliminary analysis of the data, or by incorporating other types of prior information into the system based on the process that is monitored.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013004
2013-01-01
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/12/1/nsg2013004.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013004&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AsterR.C., BorchersB. and ThurberC.H.2012. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. 2nd edition. Elsevier, ISBN‐10: 0123850487.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Constable Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300
    [Google Scholar]
  3. HolderD.S.2004. Electrical Impedance Tomography: Methods, History and Applications. Institute of Physics. ISBN 0‐7503‐0952‐0.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. JohnsonT.C., VersteegR.J., WardA., Day‐LewisF.D. and RevilA.2010. Improved hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through high performance electrical geophysical modeling and inversion. Geophysics75(4), WA27–WA41. doi: 10.1190/1.3475513.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KaraoulisM., KimJ.‐H. and TsourlosP.I.2011a. 4D Active Time Constrained Inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics73, 25–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KaraoulisM., RevilA., WerkemaD.D., MinsleyB.J., WoodruffW.F. and KemnaA.2011. Time‐lapse three‐dimensional inversion of complex conductivity data using an active time constrained (ATC) approach. Geophysical Journal International187(1), 237–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1365246X.2011.05156.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KemnaA.2000. Tomographic inversion of complex resistivity‐theory and application. Ph.D dissertation, Ruhr‐University of Bochum, Germany, 196 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KimJ.‐H.2005. Four dimensional inversion of DC resistivity monitoring data. Proceedings of Near Surface 2005, the 11th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, A006.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KimJ.‐H., YiM.J., ParkS.G. and KimJ.G.2009. 4‐D inversion of DC resistivity monitoring data acquired over a dynamically changing earth model. Journal of Applied Geophysics68(4), 522–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LaBrecqueD.J. and YangX.2001. Difference inversion of ERT data: A fast inversion method for 3‐D in situ monitoring. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics5, 83–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LegazA., VandemeulebrouckJ., RevilA., KemnaA., HurstA.W., ReevesR. and PapasinR.2009. A case study of resistivity and self‐potential signatures of hydrothermal instabilities, Inferno Crater Lake, Waimangu, New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters36, L12306.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1995. Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MüllerK., VanderborghtJ., EnglertA., KemnaA., HuismanJ.A., RingsJ. and VereeckenH.2010. Imaging and characterization of solute transport during two tracer tests in a shallow aquifer using electrical resistivity tomography and multilevel groundwater samplers. Water Resources Research46, W03502. doi:10.1029/2008WR007595.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. PidliseckyA., HaberE. and KnightR.2007. RESINVM3D: A 3D resistivity inversion package. Geophysics72(2), H1–H10.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PidliseckyA. and KnightR.2008. FW2_5D: A MATLAB 2.5‐D electrical resistivity modeling code. Computers and Geosciences34(12), 1645–1654.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. PollockD. and CirpkaO.A.2012. Fully coupled hydrogeophysical inversion of a laboratory salt tracer experiment monitored by electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resources Research48, W01505. doi:10.1029/2011WR010779.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. PowerC., GerhardJ.I., TsourlosP. and GiannopoulosA.2011. Mapping Site Remediation with Electrical Resistivity Tomography Explored via Coupled‐Model Simulations. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011. Abstract H31D–1191.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. RevilA.2012. Spectral induced polarization of shaly sands: Influence of the electrical double Layer. Water Resources Research48, W02517. doi:10.1029/2011WR011260.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. RevilA. and SkoldM.2011. Salinity dependence of spectral induced polarization in sands and Sandstones. Geophysical Journal International187, 813–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1365 246X.2011.05181.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TsourlosP., KimJ.H., VargemezisG. and YiM.J.2008. ERT Monitoring of Recycled Water Injection in a Confined Aquifer. Proceedings of SAGEEP 2008, 1132–1137.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. YiM.‐J., KimJ.‐H. and ChungS.‐H.2003. Enhancing the resolving power of least‐squares inversion with active constraint balancing. Geophysics68, 931–941.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. ZhangY., GhodratiA. and BrooksD.H.2005. An analytical comparison of three spatio‐temporal regularization methods for dynamic linear inverse problems in a common statistical framework. Inverse Problems21, 357–382.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013004
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013004
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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