1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Electrical resistivity tomography is an ill‐posed and nonlinear inverse problem commonly solved through deterministic gradient‐based methods. These methods guarantee a fast convergence towards the final solution, but the local linearization of the inverse operator impedes accurate uncertainty assessments. On the contrary, numerical Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms allow for accurate uncertainty appraisals, but appropriate Markov chain Monte Carlo recipes are needed to reduce the computational effort and make these approaches suitable to be applied to field data. A key aspect of any probabilistic inversion is the definition of an appropriate prior distribution of the model parameters that can also incorporate spatial constraints to mitigate the ill conditioning of the inverse problem. Usually, Gaussian priors oversimplify the actual distribution of the model parameters that often exhibit multimodality due to the presence of multiple litho‐fluid facies. In this work, we develop a novel probabilistic Markov chain Monte Carlo approach for inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data. This approach jointly estimates resistivity values, litho‐fluid facies, along with the associated uncertainties from the measured apparent resistivity pseudosection. In our approach, the unknown parameters include the facies model as well as the continuous resistivity values. At each spatial location, the distribution of the resistivity value is assumed to be multimodal and non‐parametric with as many modes as the number of facies. An advanced Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm (the differential evolution Markov chain) is used to efficiently sample the posterior density in a high‐dimensional parameter space. A Gaussian variogram model and a first‐order Markov chain respectively account for the lateral continuity of the continuous and discrete model properties, thereby reducing the null‐space of solutions. The direct sequential simulation geostatistical method allows the generation of sampled models that honour both the assumed marginal prior and spatial constraints. During the Markov chain Monte Carlo walk, we iteratively sample the facies, by moving from one mode to another, and the resistivity values, by sampling within the same mode. The proposed method is first validated by inverting the data calculated from synthetic models. Then, it is applied to field data and benchmarked against a standard local inversion algorithm. Our experiments prove that the proposed Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion retrieves reliable estimations and accurate uncertainty quantifications with a reasonable computational effort.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12133
2021-01-20
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12133
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aleardi, M. (2020) Combining discrete cosine transform and convolutional neural networks to speed up the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo inversion of pre‐stack seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, In print. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13025.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleardi, M., Ciabarri, F. and Gukov, T. (2018) A two‐step inversion approach for seismic‐reservoir characterization and a comparison with a single‐loop Markov‐chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Geophysics, 83(3), R227–R244.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aleardi, M., Ciabarri, F. and Mazzotti, A. (2017) Probabilistic estimation of reservoir properties by means of wide‐angle AVA inversion and a petrophysical reformulation of the Zoeppritz equations. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 147, 28–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aleardi, M. and Mazzotti, A. (2017) 1D elastic full‐waveform inversion and uncertainty estimation by means of a hybrid genetic algorithm–Gibbs sampler approach. Geophysical Prospecting, 65(1), 64–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aleardi, M. and Salusti, A. (2020a) Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for target‐oriented and interval‐oriented amplitude versus angle inversions with non‐parametric priors and non‐linear forward modellings. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(3), 735–760.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Aleardi, M. and Salusti, A. (2020b) Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithms for target‐and interval‐oriented amplitude versus angle inversions. Geophysics, 85(3), R177–R194.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aleardi, M., Salusti, A. and Pierini, S. (2020) Transdimensional and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo inversions of Rayleigh‐wave dispersion curves: a comparison on synthetic datasets. Near Surface Geophysics, In print. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12100.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Andersen, K.R., Wan, L., Grombacher, D., Lin, T. and Auken, E. (2018) Studies of parameter correlations in surface NMR using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(2), 206–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Arosio, D., Munda, S., Tresoldi, G., Papini, M., Longoni, L. and Zanzi, L. (2017) A customized resistivity system for monitoring saturation and seepage in earthen levees: installation and validation. Open Geosciences, 9(1), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2017-0035.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Azevedo, L. and Soares, A. (2017) Geostatistical Methods for Reservoir Geophysics. Switzerland:Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Betancourt, M. (2017) A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv, preprint arXiv: 1701, 02434.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bodin, T., Sambridge, M., Tkalčić, H., Arroucau, P., Gallagher, K. and Rawlinson, N. (2012) Transdimensional inversion of receiver functions and surface wave dispersion. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117, B02301.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Crawford, M.M., Bryson, L.S., Woolery, E.W. and Wang, Z. (2018) Using 2‐D electrical resistivity imaging for joint geophysical and geotechnical characterization of shallow landslides. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 157, 37–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Curtis, A. and Lomax, A. (2001) Prior information, sampling distributions, and the curse of dimensionality. Geophysics, 66(2), 372–378.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dosso, S.E., Dettmer, J., Steininger, G. and Holland, C.W. (2014) Efficient trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion for geoacoustic profile estimation. Inverse Problems, 30(11), 114018.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Doyen, P. (2007) Seismic Reservoir Characterization: An Earth Modelling Perspective. Houten: EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández‐Martínez, J.L., Mukerji, T., García‐Gonzalo, E. and Fernández‐Muñiz, Z. (2011) Uncertainty assessment for inverse problems in high dimensional spaces using particle swarm optimization and model reduction techniques. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 54(11–12), 2889–2899.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fiandaca, G., Madsen, L.M. and Maurya, P.K. (2018) Re‐parameterisations of the Cole–Cole model for improved spectral inversion of induced polarization data. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(4), 385–399.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fichtner, A., Zunino, A. and Gebraad, L. (2019) Hamiltonian Monte Carlo solution of tomographic inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International, 216(2), 1344–1363.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Galetti, E. and Curtis, A. (2018) Transdimensional Electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(8), 6347–6377.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gamerman, D. and Lopes, H.F. (2006) Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference. CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gebraad, L., Boehm, C. and Fichtner, A. (2020) Bayesian elastic full‐waveform inversion using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(3), e2019JB018428
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S. and Rubin, D.B. (1995) Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall,
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Grana, D. and Della Rossa, E. (2010) Probabilistic petrophysical‐properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion. Geophysics, 75(3), O21–O37.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gunning, J. and Sams, M. (2018) Joint facies and rock properties Bayesian amplitude‐versus‐offset inversion using Markov random fields. Geophysical Prospecting, 66(5), 904–919.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hermans, T. and Paepen, M. (2020) Combined inversion of land and marine Electrical resistivity tomography for submarine groundwater discharge and saltwater intrusion characterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(3), e2019GL085877.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Ivanov, V.I., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Scaioni, M., et al. (2019a) Geoelectrical characterization and monitoring of slopes on a rainfall‐triggered landslide simulator. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 170, 103844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.103844.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Tresoldi, G. and Zanzi, L. (2019b) Installation and Validation of a Customized Resistivity System for Permanent Monitoring of a River Embankment. EAGE‐GSM 2nd Asia Pacific Meeting on Near Surface Geoscience and Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201900421.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Loke, M.H., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Tresoldi, G. and Zanzi, L. (2019c) Assessment of 3D Geometry Effects on 2D ERT Data of a Permanent Monitoring System along a River Embankment. EAGE‐GSM 2nd Asia Pacific Meeting on Near Surface Geoscience and Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201900427.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hojat, A., Arosio, D., Ivanov, V.I., Loke, M.H., Longoni, L., Papini, M., et al. (2020) Quantifying seasonal 3D effects for a permanent electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) monitoring system along the embankment of an irrigation canal. Near Surface Geophysics, 18, 427–443, https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12110.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes, C., Krzysztof, L. and Pompe, E. (2017) Adaptive MCMC for multimodal distributions. Technical report. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c75d/f035c23e3c0425409e70d457cd43b174076f.pdf.
  32. Horta, A. and Soares, A. (2010) Direct sequential co‐simulation with joint probability distributions. Mathematical Geosciences, 42(3), 269–292.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Irving, J. and Singha, K. (2010) Stochastic inversion of tracer test and electrical geophysical data to estimate hydraulic conductivities. Water Resources Research, 46, W11514.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jardani, A., Revil, A. and Dupont, J.P. (2013) Stochastic joint inversion of hydrogeophysical data for salt tracer test monitoring and hydraulic conductivity imaging. Advances in Water Resources, 52, 62–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, T.C., Versteeg, R.J., Ward, A., Day‐Lewis, F.D. and Revil, A. (2010) Improved hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through parallel modeling and inversion of time‐domain resistivity and induced‐polarization data. Geophysics, 75(4), WA27–WA41.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaipio, J.P., Kolehmainen, V., Somersalo, E. and Vauhkonen, M. (2000) Statistical inversion and Monte Carlo sampling methods in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems, 16(5), 1487.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Karaoulis, M., Revil, A., Tsourlos, P., Werkema, D.D. and Minsley, B.J. (2013) IP4DI: a software for time‐lapse 2D/3D DC‐resistivity and induced polarization tomography. Computers & Geosciences, 54, 164–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Karaoulis, M., Tsourlos, P., Kim, J.H. and Revil, A. (2014) 4D time‐lapse ERT inversion: introducing combined time and space constraints. Near Surface Geophysics, 12(1), 25–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Legaz, A., Vandemeulebrouck, J., Revil, A., Kemna, A., Hurst, A.W., Reeves, R. and Papasin, R. (2009) A case study of resistivity and self‐potential signatures of hydrothermal instabilities, Inferno Crater Lake, Waimangu, New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(12),.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Linde, N., Binley, A., Tryggvason, A., Pedersen, L.B. and Revil, A. (2006) Improved hydrogeophysical characterization using joint inversion of cross‐hole electrical resistance and ground‐penetrating radar traveltime data. Water Resources Research, 42, W12404.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Loke, M.H. (2018) Rapid 2‐D resistivity and IP inversion using the least‐squares method. www.geotomosoft.com, last accessed on 3 July 2020.
  42. Maurer, H. and Friedel, S. (2006) Outer‐space sensitivities in geoelectrical tomography. Geophysics, 71(3), G93–G96.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Moradipour, M., Ranjbar, H., Hojat, A., Karimi‐Nasab, S. and Daneshpajouh, S. (2016) Laboratory and field measurements of electrical resistivity to study heap leaching pad no. 3 at Sarcheshmeh copper mine. 22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201602140.
  44. Müller, K., Vanderborght, J., Englert, A., Kemna, A., Huisman, J.A., Rings, J. and Vereecken, H. (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 Research, 46(3), 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pidlisecky, A. and Knight, R. (2008) FW2_5D: a MATLAB 2.5‐D electrical resistivity modeling code. Computers & Geosciences, 34(12), 1645–1654.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Pollock, D. and Cirpka, O.A. (2012) Fully coupled hydrogeophysical inversion of a laboratory salt tracer experiment monitored by electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resources Research, 48(1), W01505.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ramirez, A.L., Nitao, J.J., Hanley, W.G., Aines, R., Glaser, R.E., Sengupta, S.K., et al. (2005) Stochastic inversion of electrical resistivity changes using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B2), B02101.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sambridge, M. and Mosegaard, K. (2002) Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3), 3–1.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Scalzo, R., Kohn, D., Olierook, H., Houseman, G., Chandra, R., Girolami, M. and Cripps, S. (2019) Efficiency and robustness in Monte Carlo sampling for 3‐D geophysical inversions with Obsidian v0. 1.2: setting up for success. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(7), 2941–2960.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sen, M.K. and Stoffa, P.L. (2013) Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Siemon, B., van Baaren, E., Dabekaussen, W., Delsman, J., Dubelaar, W., Karaoulis, M. and Steuer, A. (2019) Automatic identification of fresh–saline groundwater interfaces from airborne electromagnetic data in Zeeland, the Netherlands. Near Surface Geophysics, 17(1), 3–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Soares, A. (2001) Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Mathematical Geology, 33(8), 911–926.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse Problem Theory.SIAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ter Braak and C.J. (2006) A Markov chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm differential evolution: easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces. Statistics and Computing, 16(3), 239–249.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tresoldi, G., Arosio, D., Hojat, A., Longoni, L., Papini, M. and Zanzi, L. (2019) Long‐term hydrogeophysical monitoring of the internal conditions of river levees. Engineering Geology, 259, 105139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.05.016.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Turner, B.M., Sederberg, P.B., Brown, S.D. and Steyvers, M. (2013) A method for efficiently sampling from distributions with correlated dimensions. Psychological methods, 18(3), 368.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ulvmoen, M. and Omre, H. (2010) Improved resolution in Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion from prestack seismic data and well observations: Part 1—Methodology. Geophysics, 75(2), R21–R35.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vagis, A.A. (2010) Bayesian recognition procedures on Networks. Journal of Automation and Information Sciences, 42(11), 58–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Vrugt, J.A. (2016) Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 273–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Whiteley, J., Chambers, J.E. and Uhlemann, S., (2017) Integrated monitoring of an active landslide in Lias group Mudrocks, north Yorkshire, UK. In: Hoyer, S. (Ed.) GELMON 2017: 4th International Workshop on GeoElectrical Monitoring, 27.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhang, Y., Ghodrati, A. and Brooks, D.H. (2005) An analytical comparison of three spatio‐temporal regularization methods for dynamic linear inverse problems in a common statistical framework. Inverse Problems, 21(1), 357.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhou, B. and Dahlin, T. (2003) Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics, 1(3), 105–117.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12133
Loading
A geostatistical Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion algorithm for electrical resistivity tomography
Near Surface Geophysics 19, 7 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12133
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12133
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12133
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): electrical resistivity tomography; inversion

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