1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Interpretation of a single geophysical data set is not sufficient to get complete subsurface information. Cooperative or joint inversion of geophysical data sets is the preferred method for most case studies. In the present study, we present the results of the cooperative inversion approach of direct current resistivity and gravity data. The algorithm uses fuzzy c‐means clustering to determine the petrophysical relationship between density and resistivity to obtain the similarity. Synthetic data set has demonstrated that the cooperative inversion approach can produce more reliable and better resistivity and density models of the subsurface as compared to those obtained through individual inversions. To utilize the presented cooperative inversion algorithm, the number of geologic units (number of clusters) in the study region must be known . As a field study, the cooperative inversion approach was used to identify the extension of uranium‐bearing target rock around the Beldih open cast mine. We noted the inconsistencies in both resistivity and density models obtained from the individual inversions. However, the presented cooperative inversion approach was able to produce similar resistivity and density models while maintaining the same error level of the respective individual inversions. We have considered four geologic units in the presented cooperative inversion as a field case study. We have also compared our cooperative results with drilled borehole and found to be a reliable tool to differentiate between the target rocks (kaolinite and quartz–magnetite–apatite rocks) and the ultramafic rock (host rock quartzite/alkaline granite). However, this study is subject to certain limitations such as the inability to differentiate between closely spaced kaolinite and quartz–magnetite–apatite rocks.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
2019-02-28
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AcharyyaA., RayS., ChaudhuriB.K., BasuS.K., BhaduriS.K. and SanyalA.K.2006. Proterozoic rock suites along South Purulia Shear Zone, Eastern India: evidence for rift – related setting. Journal of the Geological Society of India68, 1069–1086.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AkcaI.2016. ELRIS2D: a MATLAB package for the 2D inversion of DC resistivity/IP data. Acta Geophysica64, 443–462.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BezdekJ.C.1981. Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms: Plenum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BiswasA. and SharmaS.P.2016. Integrated geophysical studies to elicit the subsurface structures associated with uranium mineralization around South Purulia Shear Zone, India: a review. Ore Geology Reviews72, 1307–1326.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Carter‐McAuslanA., LelièvreP.G. and FarquharsonC.G.2014. A study of fuzzy c‐means coupling for joint inversion, using seismic tomography and gravity data test scenarios. Geophysics80, W1–W15.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. GallardoL.A. and MejuM.A.2003. Characterization of heterogeneous near‐surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data. Geophysical Research Letters30, 1658.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. GallardoL.A. and MejuM.A.2004. Joint two‐dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross‐gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth109, B03311.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. GallardoL.A. and MejuM.A.2007. Joint two‐dimensional cross‐gradient imaging of magnetotelluric and seismic traveltime data for structural and lithological classification. Geophysical Journal International, 169, 1261–1272.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GhalehnoeeM.H., AnsariA. and GhorbaniA.2017. Improving compact gravity inversion using new weighting functions. Geophysical Journal International208, 546–560.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GuntherT. and RuckerC.2006. A new joint inversion approach applied to the combined tomography of DC resistivity and seismic refraction data. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Seattle, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1196–1202.
  11. GuptaA. and BasuA.2000. North Singhbhum Proterozoic mobile belt Eastern India–a review. Special Publication ‐Geological Survey of India55, 195–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HaberE. and GazitM.H.2013. Model fusion and joint inversion. Surveys in Geophysics34, 675–695.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HaberE. and OldenburgD.1997. Joint inversion: a structural approach. Inverse problems13, 63–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HeinckeB., JegenM., MoorkampM. and HobbsR.W.2014. Joint‐inversion of magnetotelluric, gravity and seismic data to image sub‐basalt sediments offshore the Faroe‐Islands. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 770–775.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HeinckeB., JegenM., MoorkampM., ChenJ. and HobbsR.W.2010. Adaptive coupling strategy for simultaneous joint inversions that use petrophysical information as constraints. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2805–2809.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. KalscheuerT., JuanateyM.D.L.Á.G., MeqbelN. and PedersenL.B.2010. Non‐linear model error and resolution properties from two‐dimensional single and joint inversions of direct current resistivity and radio magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International182, 1174–1188.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. KammJ., LundinI.A., BastaniM., SadeghiM. and PedersenL.B.2015. Joint inversion of gravity, magnetic, and petrophysical data—A case study from a gabbro intrusion in Boden, Sweden. Geophysics80, B131–B152.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. KattiV.J., SenJ. and BhattA.K.2010. Uranium potentiality of South Purulia Shear Zone, Eastern India Shield. IAES Technical Committee meeting on low grade uranium deposits, Vienna, Austria.
  19. LastB.J. and KubikK.1983. Compact gravity inversion. Geophysics48, 713–721.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LelièvreP.G., FarquharsonC.G. and HurichC.A.2012. Joint inversion of seismic travel times and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration. Geophysics77, K1–K15.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1996. 3D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics61, 394–408.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1998. 3D inversion of gravity data. Geophysics63, 109–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LinesR.L., SchultzA.K. and TreitelS.1988. Cooperative inversion of geophysical data. Geophysics53, 8–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LokeM. and BarkerR.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo section by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MandalA., MohantyW.K., SharmaS.P., BiswasA., SenJ. and BhattA.K.2015. Geophysical signatures of uranium mineralization and its subsurface validation at Beldih, Purulia District, West Bengal, India — a case study. Geophysical Prospecting63, 713–726.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MohantyW.K., MandalA., SharmaS.P., GuptaS. and Misra, S.2011. Integrated geological and geophysical studies for delineation of chromite deposits: A case study from Tangarparha, Orissa, India. Geophysics76, B173–B185.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MolodtsovD.M., TroyanV.N., RoslovY.V. and ZerilliA.2013. Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and magnetotelluric data with a directed structural constraint. Geophysical Prospecting61, 1218–1228.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MoorkampM.2017. Integrating electromagnetic data with other geophysical observations for enhanced Imaging of the earth: a tutorial and review. Surveys in Geophysics38, 935–962.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MoorkampM., HeinckeB., JegenM., RobertsA.W. and HobbsR.W.2011. A framework for 3D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International184, 477–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MoorkampM., LelievreP.G., LindeN. and KhanA.2016. Integrated Imaging of the Earth: Theory and Applications. American Geophysical Union.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. MoorkampM., RobertsA.W., JegenM., HeinckeB. and HobbsR.W.2013. Verification of velocity‐resistivity relationships derived from structural joint inversion with borehole data. Geophysical Research Letters40, 3596–3601.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. SantosF.A., SultanS.A., RepresasP. and El SoradyA.L.2006. Joint inversion of gravity and geoelectrical data for groundwater and structural investigation: application to the northwestern part of Sinai, Egypt. Geophysical Journal International165, 705–718.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SharmaS.P., BiswasA. and MittalS.2014. Delineation of extension of uranium mineralization zone using resistivity and VLF surveys around South Purulia Shear Zone, India. Journal of the Geological Society of India84, 645–656.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SinghA. and Sharma, S.P.2017. Modified zonal cooperative inversion of gravity data‐a case study from uranium mineralization. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts1744–1749.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SinghA. and SharmaS.P.2018. Identification of different geologic units using fuzzy constrained resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics148, 127–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. SinghA., SharmaS.P., Akcaİ. and BaranwalV.C.2018. Fuzzy constrained Lp‐norm inversion of direct current resistivity data. Geophysics83, E11–E24.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SunJ. and LiY.2016. Joint inversion of multiple geophysical data using guided fuzzy c‐means clustering. Geophysics81, ID37–ID57.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. TelfordW.M., GeldartL.P. and SheriffR.E.1990. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. TikhonovA.N. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. ZhangJ. and RevilA.2015. 2D joint inversion of geophysical data using petrophysical clustering and facies deformation. Geophysics80, M69–M88.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. ZhdanovM.S., GribenkoA. and WilsonG.2012. Generalized joint inversion of multimodal geophysical data using Gramian constraints. Geophysical Research Letters39, L09301.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
Loading
2D cooperative inversion of direct current resistivity and gravity data: A case study of uranium bearing target rock
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 696 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12763
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cooperative inversion; DC resistivity; Gravity; Mineral exploration; Petrophysical constraints

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