1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 65, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 65, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this study, a new two‐dimensional inversion algorithm was developed for the inversion of cross‐hole direct current resistivity measurements. In the last decades, various array optimisation methods were suggested for resistivity tomography. However, researchers have still collected data by using classical electrode arrays in most cross‐hole applications. Therefore, we investigated the accuracy of both the individual and the joint inversion of the classical cross‐hole arrays by using both synthetic and field data with the developed algorithm. We showed that the joint inversion of bipole–bipole, pole–bipole, bipole–pole, and pole–tripole electrode arrays gives inverse solutions that are closer to the real model than the individual inversions of the electrode array datasets for the synthetic data inversion. The model resolution matrix of the suggested arrays was used to analyse the inversion results. This model resolution analysis also showed the advantage of the joint inversion of bipole–bipole, pole–bipole, bipole–pole, and pole–tripole arrays. We also used sensitivity sections from each of the arrays and their superpositions to explain why joint inversion gives better resolution than the any individual inversion result.

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
2016-09-06
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AratoA., GodioA. and SambuelliL.2014. Staggered grid inversion of cross hole 2‐D resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics107, 60–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AthanasiouE.N., TsourlosP.I., PapazachosC.B. and TsokasG.N.2007. Combined weighted inversion of electrical resistivity data arising from different array types. Journal of Applied Geophysics62, 124–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BeasleyC.W. and WardS.H.1988. Cross‐borehole resistivity inversion. 58th SEG annual meeting , Expanded Abstracts, 198–200.
  4. BellmuntF., MarcuelloA., LedoJ., QueraltP., FalgàsE., BenjumeaB. and Vázquez‐SuñéE.2012. Time‐lapse cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography monitoring effects of an urban tunnel. Journal of Applied Geophysics87, 60–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CandansayarM.E. and BaşokurA.T.2001. Detecting small‐scale targets by the 2D inversion of two‐sided three‐electrode data: application to an archaeological survey. Geophysical Prospecting49, 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CandansayarM.E.2008. Two‐dimensional individual and joint inversion of three and four electrode array DC resistivity data. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering5, 290–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CandansayarM.E. and TezkanB.2008. Two‐dimensional joint inversion of radiomagnetotelluric and direct current resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting56, 737–749.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. CassianiG., BoagaJ., VanellaD., PerriM.T. and ConsoliS.2015. Monitoring and modelling of soil–plant interactions: the joint use of ERT, sap flow and eddy covariance data to characterize the volume of an orange tree root zone. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences19, 2213–2225.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CosciaI., GreenhalghS.A., LindeN., DoestschJ., MarescotL., GünterT., VogtT. and GreenA.G.2011. 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water. Geophysics76, G49–G59.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. DailyW. and YorkeyT.J.1988. Evaluation of cross‐borehole resistivity tomography. 58th SEG annual meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 201–203.
  11. DailyW. and OwenE.1991. Cross‐borehole resistivity tomography. Geophysics56, 1228–1235.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DanielsenB. and DahlinT.2010. Numerical modelling of resolution and sensitivity of ERT horizontal boreholes. Journal of Applied Geophysics70, 245–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. DeceusterJ., DelgrancheJ. and KaufmannO.2006. 2D cross‐borehole resistivity tomographies below foundations as a tool to design proper remedial actions in covered karst. Journal of Applied Geophysics60, 68–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three dimensional structures. Geophysics44, 753–780.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DinesK.A. and LytleR.J.1979. Computerized geophysical tomography. Proceedings of the IEEE67, 1065–1073.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DoetschJ., LindeN., VogtT., BinleyA. and GreenA.G.2012. Imaging and quantifying salt‐tracer transport in a riparian groundwater system by means of 3D ERT monitoring. Geophysics77, B207–B218.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. EllisR.G. and OldenburgD.W.1994. The pole‐pole 3‐D DC resistivity inverse problem: a conjugate gradient approach. Geophysical Journal International119, 187–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Non‐linear inversion using general measures of data misfit model structure. Geophysics Journal International134, 213–227.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. FischangerF., MorelliG., RanieriG., SantaratoG. and OcchiM.2013. 4D cross‐borehole electrical resistivity tomography to control resin injection for ground stabilization: a case history in Venice (Italy). Near Surface Geophysics11, 41–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. GallardoL.A. and MejuM.A.2004. Joint two‐dimensional dc resistivity and seismic travel‐time inversion with cross‐gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research109, B03311.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GoesB.J.M. and MeekesJ.A.C.2004. An effective electrode configuration for the detection of DNAPLs with electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics9, 127–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. GüntherT., RückerC. and SpitzerK.2006. Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography—II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. HaberE. and OldenburgD.W.2000. A GCV based method for non‐linear ill‐posed problems. Computational Geosciences4, 41–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. HagreyS.A. and PetersenT.2011. Numerical and experimental mapping of small root zones using optimized surface and borehole resistivity tomography. Geophysics76, 25–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. HagreyS.A.2012. 2D Optimized electrode arrays for borehole resistivity tomography and CO2 sequestration modelling. Pure and Applied Geophysics169, 1283–1292.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. HansenP.C.1992. Analysis of discrete ill‐posed problems by means of the L‐curve. Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics34, 561–580.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. HansenP.C.2001. Regularization tools: A MATLAB package for analysis and solution of discrete ill‐posed problems. Report, Technical University of Denmark.
  29. LaBrecqueD.J., RamirezA.L., DailyW.D., BinleyA.M. and SchimaS.A.1996. ERT monitoring of environmental remediation. Measurement Science and Technology7, 375–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. LeontarakisK. and ApostolopoulosG.2012. Laboratory study of the cross‐hole resistivity tomography: the model stacking (MOST) Technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics80, 67–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. LeontarakisK. and ApostolopoulosG.2013. Model stacking (MOST) technique applied in cross‐hole ERT field data for the detection of Thessaloniki ancient walls’ depth. Journal of Applied Geophysics93, 101–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1995. Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP. and ChambersJ.2010. Fast computation of optimized electrode arrays for 2D resistivity surveys. Computers and Geosciences36, 1414–1426.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E. and StruttM.2014. Optimized arrays for 2D cross‐borehole electrical tomography surveys. Geophysical Prospecting62, 172–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., UhlemannS.S. and SorensenJ.P.R.2015. Optimized arrays for 2‐D resistivity survey lines with a large number of electrodes. Journal of Applied Geophysics112, 136–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. McGillivrayP.R. and OldenburgD.W.1990. Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem: a comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting38, 499–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. MTA
    MTA . 1994. Ankara Çevre Jeolojisi ve Doğal Kaynaklar Projesi. MTA Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. MenkeW.1989. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory. Academic Press Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. MillerC.R. and RouthP.S.2007. Resolution analysis of geophysical images: comparison between point spread function and region of data influence measures. Geophysical Prospecting55, 835–852.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. MorrowF.J., InghamM.R. and McConchieJ.A.2010. Monitoring of tidal influences on the saline interface using resistivity traversing and cross‐borehole resistivity tomography. Journal of Hydrology389, 69–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. OldenborgerG.A., RouthP.S. and KnollM.D.2005. Sensitivity of electrical resistivity tomography data to electrode position errors. Geophysical Journal International163, 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. OxbyL., KurasO., WilkinsonP.B. and MeldrumP.I.2014. Simultaneous 4D cross‐borehole ERT inversion to guide leak monitoring in nuclear decommissioning. 20th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts, 555–559.
  45. PerriM.T., CassianiG., GervasioI., DeianaR. and BinleyA.2012. A saline tracer test monitored via both surface and cross‐borehole electrical resistivity tomography: comparison of time‐lapse results. Journal of Applied Geophysics79, 6–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SasakiY.1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting40, 453–463.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. ShimaH. and SaitoH.1988. Application of resistivity tomography for detection of faults and evaluation of their hydraulic continuity: some numerical experiments. 58th SEG annual meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 204–207.
  48. ShimaH.1992. 2‐D and 3‐D resistivity image reconstruction using crosshole data. Geophysics57, 1270–1281.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. SpitzerK.1998. The three dimensional DC sensitivity for surface and subsurface sources. Geophysical Journal International134, 736–746.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. SpitzerK. and ChouteauM.2003. A DC resistivity and IP borehole survey at the Casa Berardi Gold Mine in Northwestern Quebec. Geophysics68, 453–463.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69, 120–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. TsokasG.N., TsourlosP.I., VargemezisG.N. and PazarasN.T.2011. Using surface and cross‐hole resistivity tomography in an urban environment: an example of imaging the foundations of the ancient wall in Thessaloniki, North Greece. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36,1310–1317.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. TikhonovA.N., GoncharskyA.V., StepanovV.V. and YagolaA.G.1995. Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. UlugergerliE.2011. Two dimensional combined inversion of short‐ and long‐DC resistivity well log data. Journal of Applied Geophysics73, 130–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO. and OgilvyR.D.2006. Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophysical Journal International167, 1119–1126.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., KurasO., ChambersJ.E., HolyoakeS.J. and OgilvyR.D.2010. High‐resolution electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a tracer test in a confined aquifer. Journal of Applied Geophysics70, 268–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. WilkinsonP.B., LokeM.H., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO., GunnD.A. and OgilvyR.D.2012. Practical aspects of applied optimized survey design for electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International189, 428–440.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. ZhouB. and GreenhalghS.A.1997. A synthetic study on crosshole resistivity imaging with different electrode arrays. Exploration Geophysics28, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. ZhouB. and GreenhalghS.A.2000. Cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations. Geophysical Prospecting48, 887–912.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics1, 105–117.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
Loading
Two‐dimensional joint inversions of cross‐hole resistivity data and resolution analysis of combined arrays
Geophysical Prospecting 65, 876 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12432
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cross‐hole; Joint inversion; Model resolution; Resistivity tomography; Sensitivity section

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