1887
Volume 67, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Self‐potential is a passive geophysical method that can be applied in a straightforward manner with minimum requirements in the field. Nonetheless, interpretation of self‐potential data is particularly challenging due to the inherited non‐uniqueness present in all potential methods. Incorporating information regarding the target of interest can facilitate interpretation and increase the reliability of the final output. In the current paper, a novel method for detecting multiple sheet‐like targets is presented. A numerical framework is initially described that simulates sheet‐like bodies in an arbitrary 2D resistivity distribution. A scattered field formulation based on finite differences is employed that allows the edges of the sheet to be independent of the grid geometry. A novel analytical solution for two‐layered models is derived and subsequently used to validate the accuracy of the proposed numerical scheme. Lastly, a hybrid optimization is proposed that couples linear least‐squares with particle‐swarm optimization in order to effectively locate the edges of multiple sheet‐like bodies. Through numerical and real data, it is proven that the hybrid optimization overcomes local minimal that occurs in complex resistivity distributions and converges substantially faster compared to traditional particle‐swarm optimization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12793
2019-04-25
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbramowitzM. and StegunI.1964. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, Applied Mathematics Series (National Bureau of Standards). US GPO, Washington, DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AizawaK.2004. A large self‐potential anomaly and its changes on the quiet Mt. Fuji, Japan. Geophysical Research Letters31, 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AkgunM.2001. Estimation of some bodies parameters from the self‐potential method using Hilbert transform. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical society4, 24–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ArfkensG.B. and WeberH.J.2001. Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 5th edn. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. AtchutaR.D., RambabuH.V. and SivakumarS.G.D.R.1982. Fourier transform method for the interpretation of self‐potential anomalies due to two dimensional inclined sheets of finite depth extent. Pure and Applied Geophysics120, 365–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BaşokurA.T. and AkçaI.2011. Object‐based model verification by a genetic algorithm approach: application to archaeological targets. Journal of Applied Geophysics74, 167–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BaşokurA.T., AkçaI. and SiyamN.W.A.2007. Hybrid genetic algorithms in view of the evolution theories with application for the electrical sounding method. Geophysical Prospecting55, 393–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BhattacharyaB.B. and RoyN.1981. A note on the use of a nomogram for self‐potential anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting29, 102–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BirchF.S.1998. Imaging the water table by filtering self‐potential profiles. Ground Water36, 779–782.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. BiswasA.2015. Interpretation of residual gravity anomaly caused by simple shaped bodies using very fast simulated annealing global optimization. Geoscience Frontiers6, 875–893.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. BiswasA. and SharmaS.P.2014a. Optimization of self‐potential interpretation of 2‐D inclined sheet‐type structures based on very fast simulated annealing and analysis of ambiguity. Journal of Applied Geophysics105, 235–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. BiswasA. and SharmaS.P.2014b. Resolution of multiple sheet‐like structures in self‐potential measurement. Journal of Earth System Science123, 809–825.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.C. and ConstableG.G.1987. Occam's inversion: a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from EM sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. CorwinR.F. and HooverD.B.1979. The self‐potential method in geothermal exploration. Geophysics44, 226–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped two‐dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting27, 106–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DieterichJ.M., HartkeB.2000. Empirical review of standard benchmark functions using evolutionary global optimization. Applied Mathematics3, 1552–1564.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DwaS. and WarnanaD.D.2018. Black hole algorithm for determining model parameter in self‐potential data. Journal of Applied Geophysics148, 189–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. EppelbaumV.L. and KhesinB.2012. Geophysical studies in the Caucasus. Springer.
  19. EssaS.K. and ElhusseinM.2017. A new approach for the interpretation of self‐potential data by 2‐D inclided plate. Journal of Applied Geophysics136, 455–461.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. FournierC.1989. Spontaneous potentials and resistivity surveys applied to hydrogeology in a volcanic area: case history of the Chaine des Puys (Puy‐de‐dome, France). Geophysical Prospecting37, 647–668.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GiannakisI., TsourlosP., PapazachosC. and VargemezisG.2012. Modeling and inversion of self‐potential anomalies due to sheet‐like bodies under the presence of arbitary 2‐D resistivity distributions. Proceedings of the 18th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Paris, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. GokturklerG. and BalkayaC.2012. Inversion of self‐potential anomalies caused by simple‐geometry bodies using global optimization algorithms. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering9, 498–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. GrechR., CassarT., MuscatJ., CamilleriK.P., FabriS.G., ZervakisM., et al.. 2008. Review on solving the inverse problem in EEG source analysis. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation5, 18990257.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. HaasA.K., RevilA., KaraoulisM., FrashL., HamptonJ., GutierrezM., et al. 2013. Electrical potential source localization reveals a borehole leak during hydraulic fracturing. Geophysics78, 2, D93–D113.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. HaijunY., YongzhongX., GengxinP., GuipingY., MengC., WenshengD., et al.. 2017. Particle swarm optimization and its application to seismic inversion of igneous rocks. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology27, 349–357.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. HansenP.C.1992. Analysis of discrete ill‐posed problems by means of the L‐curve. SIAM Review34, 561–580.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. HansenP.C.1993. The use of the L‐curve in the regularization of discrete ill‐posed problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing14, 1487–1503.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HeinshonG., WhiteA., RobinsonD. and FathianpourN.2005. Marine self‐potential gradient exploration of the continental margin. Geophysics70, G109–G118.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. HeshamM., KalioubyE., MansourA. and GarniA.2009. Inversion of self‐potential anomalies caused by 2D inclined sheets using neural networks. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering6, 29–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. JagannadhaR.S., Rama RaoP. and Radhakrishna MurthyI.V.1993. Automatic inversion of self‐potential anomalies of sheet‐like bodies. Computers & Geosciences19, 61–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. JouniauxL., MaineultA., NaudetV., PesselM. and SailhacP.2009. Review of self‐potential methods in hydrogeophysics. Applied Geophysics928–936.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. KaraoulisM., RevilA., MinsleyB., TodescoM., ZhangJ. and WerkemaD.D.2014. Time‐lapse gravity inversion with an active time constraint. Geophysical Journal International196, 748–759.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. KawadaY. and KasayaT.2017. Marine self‐potential survey for exploring seafloor hydrothermal ore deposits. Nature7, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. KelleyD.F., DestanT.J. and LuebbersR.J.2007. Debye function expansions of complex permittivity using a hybrid particle swarm‐least squares optimisation approach. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation55, 1999–2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. KennedyJ. and EberhartR.C.1995. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, WA, Vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. KennedyJ. and SpearsW.M.1998. Matching algorithms to problems: an experimental test of the particle swarm and some genetic algorithms on multi modal problem generator. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, AK.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. LastB.J. and KubikK.1983. Compact gravity inversion. Geophysics48, 713–721.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1996. 3‐D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics61, 394–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1998. 3‐D inversion of gravity data. Geophysics63, 109–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. MaioR.D., RaniP., PiegariE. and MilanoL.2016. Self‐potential data inversion through a genetic‐price algorithm. Computers & Geosciences94, 86–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MaoD., RevilA., HortR.D., Munakata‐MarrJ., AtekwanaE.A. and KulessaB.2015. Resistivity and self‐potential tomography applied to groundwater remediation and contaminant plumes: sandbox and field experiments. Journal of Hydrology530, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. MarquadtD.W.1963. An algorithm for least‐squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11, 431–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. MarshallD.J. and MaddenT.R.1959. Induced polarization, a study of its causes. Geophysics24, 790–816.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. MartinezJ.L.F., GonzaloE.G., AlvarezJ.P.F., KuzmaH.A. and PerezC.O.2010. PSO: a powerful algorithm to solve geophysical inverse problems. Application to a 1D‐DC resistivity case. Journal of Applied Geophysics71, 13–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. MeiserP.1962. A method of quantitative interpretation of self‐potential measurements. Geophysical Prospecting10, 203–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. MinsleyB.J.2007. Modeling and inversion of self‐potential data. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  47. MinsleyB.J., ColesD.A., VichabianY. and MorganF.D.2008. Minimization of self‐potential survey mis‐ties acquired with multiple reference locations. Geophysics73, F71–F81.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. MinsleyB.J., SogadeJ. and MorganF.D.2007. Three‐dimensional source inversion of self‐potential data. Journal of Geophysical Research112, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. NaudetV., RevilA. and BotteroJ.Y.2003. Relationship between self‐potential (SP) signals and redox conditions in contaminated groundwater. Geophysical Research Letters30, 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. NostrandR.G. and CookK.L.1966. Interpretation of Resistivity Data. United States Government Printing Office.
  51. NyquistJ.E. and CorryC.E.2002. Self‐potential: the ugly duckling of environmental geophysics. The Leading Edge21, 446–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. PalleroJ.L.G., MartinezJ.L.F., BonvalotS. and FudymO.2015. Gravity inversion and uncertainty assessment of basement relief via particle swarm optimization. Journal of Applied Geophysics116, 180–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. PalleroJ.L.G., MartinezJ.L.F., BonvalotS. and FudymO.2017. 3D gravity inversion and uncertainty assessment of basement relief via particle swarm optimization. Journal of Applied Geophysics139, 338–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. PedersenL.B.1977. Interpretation of potential field data a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Prospecting25, 199–230.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. PeksenE., YasT., KaymanA.Y. and zkanC.2011. Application of particle swarm optimization on self‐potential data. Journal of Applied Geophysics75, 305–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. PortniaguineO. and ZhdanovS.M.1999. Focusing geophysical inversion images. Geophysics64, 874–887.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. RaoA.D. and BabuR.H.V. 1983. Quantitative interpretation of self‐potential anomalies due to two‐dimensional sheet‐like bodies. Geophysics481659–1664.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. RobinsonJ. and Rahmat‐SamiiY.2004. Particle swarm optimization in electromagnetics. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation52, 397–407.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. SantosF.A.M.2010. Inversion of self‐potential of idealized bodies anomalies using particle swarm optimization. Computers & Geosciences36, 1185–1190.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. SatoM. and MooneyH.M.1960. The electrochemical mechanism of sulfide self‐potentials. Geophysics25, 226–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. ShaoZ., WangD., WangY. and ZhongX.2014. Theory and application of magnetic and self‐potential methods in the detection of the Heshituoluogai coal fire, China. Journal of Applied Geophysics104, 64–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. ShaoZ., WangD., WangY., ZhongX., ZhangY. and SongW.2017. Experimental study of the self‐potential anomaly caused by coal fires. Journal of Applied Geophysics145, 124–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. SharmaP.V.1997. Enviromental and Engineering Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. ShawR. and SrivastavaS.2007. Particle swarm optimization: a new tool to invert geophysical data. Geophysics72, F75–F83.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. ShiY. and EberhartR., 1998, A modified particle swarm optimizer. IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No. 98TH8360), Anchorage, AK, pp. 69–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. SoupiosP., AkcaI., MpogiatzisP., BaşokurA.T. and PapazachosC.2011. Application of hybrid genetic algorithms in seismic tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics75, 479–489.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. SpitzerK., ChouteauM. and BoulangerO.1999. Grid‐independent electrode positioning for 3D DC resistivity and IP forward modelling. Extended Abstracts Book, 2nd International Symposium on Three‐Dimensional Electromagnetics, pp. 189–192, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. TangJ., WangF., XiaoX. and ZhangL.2011. 2.5‐D DC resistivity modelling considering flexibility and accuracy. Journal of Earth Science22, 124–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. TikhonovA. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. V.H. Winston and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. TurcotteD.L.1992. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. VargemezisG., TsourlosP., StampolidisA., FikosI., BallasD. and PapadopoulosN.2012. A focusing approach to ground water detection by means of electrical and EM methods: the case of Paliouri, Northern Greece. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica56, i–xvi.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. XuS.Z., DuanB. and ZhangD.2000. Selection of the wavenumbers k using an optimization method for the inverse Fourier transform in 2.5D electrical modeling. Geophysical Prospecting48, 789–796.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12793
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12793
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Inversion; Modelling; Numerical study; Passive method; Potential field

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