1887
Volume 62, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Magnetic resonance sounding (MRS) has increasingly become an important method in hydrogeophysics because it allows for estimations of essential hydraulic properties such as porosity and hydraulic conductivity. A resistivity model is required for magnetic resonance sounding modelling and inversion. Therefore, joint interpretation or inversion is favourable to reduce the ambiguities that arise in separate magnetic resonance sounding and vertical electrical sounding (VES) inversions. A new method is suggested for the joint inversion of magnetic resonance sounding and vertical electrical sounding data. A one‐dimensional blocky model with varying layer thicknesses is used for the subsurface discretization. Instead of conventional derivative‐based inversion schemes that are strongly dependent on initial models, a global multi‐objective optimization scheme (a genetic algorithm [GA] in this case) is preferred to examine a set of possible solutions in a predefined search space. Multi‐objective joint optimization avoids the domination of one objective over the other without applying a weighting scheme. The outcome is a group of non‐dominated optimal solutions referred to as the Pareto‐optimal set. Tests conducted using synthetic data show that the multi‐objective joint optimization approximates the joint model parameters within the experimental error level and illustrates the range of trade‐off solutions, which is useful for understanding the consistency and conflicts between two models and objectives. Overall, the Levenberg‐Marquardt inversion of field data measured during a survey on a North Sea island presents similar solutions. However, the multi‐objective genetic algorithm method presents an efficient method for exploring the search space by producing a set of non‐dominated solutions. Borehole data were used to provide a verification of the inversion outcomes and indicate that the suggested genetic algorithm method is complementary for derivative‐based inversions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12082
2013-11-05
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkcaI. and BaşokurA. T.2010. Extraction of structure‐based geoelectric models by hybrid genetic algorithms. Geophysics, 75, F15‐F22.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlbouyY., AndrieuxP., RakotondrasoaG., RitzM., DescloitresM., JoinJ. L. and RasolomananaE.2001. Mapping coastal aquifers by joint inversion of DC and TEM soundings‐three case histories. Ground Water, 39, 87–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BaşokurA. T.1984. A numerical direct interpretation method of resistivity soundings using the Pekeris model. Geophysical Prospecting, 32, 1131–1146.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BaşokurA. T.1999. Automated 1‐D interpretation of resistivity soundings by simultaneous use of the direct and iterative methods. Geophysical Prospecting, 47, 149–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BaşokurA. T. and Akcaİ.2011. Object‐based model verification by a genetic algorithm approach: application to archaeological targets. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 74, 167–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BaşokurA. T., AkcaI. and SiyamN. W. A.2007. Hybrid genetic algorithms in view of the evolution theories with application for the electrical sounding method. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 393–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BoschettiF., DentithM. C. and ListR. D.1996. Inversion of seismic refraction data using genetic algorithms. Geophysics, 61, 1715–1727.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BraunM. and YaramanciU.2008. Inversion of resistivity in Magnetic Resonance Sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 66, 3–4, 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BraunM., HertrichM. and YaramanciU.2005. Study on complex inversion of magnetic resonance sounding signals. Near Surface Geophysics, 3, 3, 155–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DebK.2001. Multi‐Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, England.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DebK.2004. Single and multi‐objective optimization using evolutionary computation. KanGAL Report number: 2004002.
  12. DebK., AgrawalS., PratapA. and MeyerivanT.2000. A fast elitist non‐dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi‐objective optimization: NSGA‐II, Tech. Rep. 2000001, Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (KanGAL), Kanpur, India.
  13. DlugoschR., Mueller‐PetkeM., GüntherT., CostabelS. and YaramanciU.2011. Assessment of the potential of a new generation of surface nuclear magnetic resonance instruments. Near Surface Geophysics, 9, 6, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. EverettM. E. and SchultzA.1993. Two‐dimensional nonlinear magnetotelluric inversion using a Genetic Algorithm. Journal of Geomagnetics and Geoelectrics, 45, 1013–1026.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. FriedelS.2003. Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Journal International, 153, 305–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GhoshD. P.1971. Inverse filter coefficients for the computation of apparent resistivity standard curves for a horizontally stratified earth. Geophysical Prospecting, 19, 760–775.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GoldbergD. E.1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison‐Wesley Publ. Co., Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. GoldmanM., RabinovichB., RabinovichM., GiladD., GevI., and SchirovM.1994. Application of the integrated NMR‐TDEM method in groundwater exploration in Israel. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 31, 1–4, 27–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. GüntherT. and Müller‐PetkeM.2012. Hydraulic properties at the North Sea island Borkum derived from joint inversion of magnetic resonance and electrical resistivity soundings. Hydrology and Earth System Science, 9, 3279–3291.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HertrichM.2008. Imaging of groundwater with nuclear magnetic resonance. Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, 53, 4, 227–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HertrichM. and YaramanciU.2002. Joint inversion of Surface Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Vertical Electrical Sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 50, 179–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. HollandJ.1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. InmanJ. R.1975. Resistivity inversion with ridge regression. Geophysics, 40, 798–817.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KoefoedO.1970. A fast method for determining the layer distribution from the raised kernel function in geoelectrical soundings. Geophysical Prospecting, 18, 564–570.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KonakA., CoitW. D. and SmithE. A.2006. Multi‐objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91, 992–1007.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LachassagneP., BaltassatJ., LegchenkoA. and de GramotH.M.2005. The links between MRS parameters and the hydrogeological parameters. Near Surface Geophysics, 3, 259–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LegchenkoA. and ShushakovO. A.1998. Inversion of surface NMR data. Geophysics, 63, 1, 75–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.2002. A review of the basic principles for proton magnetic resonance sounding measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 50, 3–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LiuB., LiS.C., NieL.C., WangJ., L, X., and ZhangQ. S.2012. 3D resistivity inversion using an improved Genetic Algorithm based on control method of mutation direction. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 87, 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2005. Forward modeling and inversion of MRS relaxation signals using multi‐exponential decomposition. Near Surface Geophysics, 3, 165–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mueller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2010QT inversion – Comprehensive use of the complete surface NMR data set. Geophysics, 75,4, WA199–WA209.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mueller‐PetkeM., DlugoschR. and YaramanciU.2011. Evaluation of surface nuclear magnetic resonance‐estimated subsurface water content, New Journal of Physics, 13, 095002, doi:10.1088/1367‐2630/13/9/095002, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MurakamiY., ZerilliA. and BisdorfR. J.1984. Improved digital filters for the calculation of Schlumberger sounding curves by convolution: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 84–280.
  34. Perez‐FloresM.A. and SchultzA.2002. Application of 2D inversion with genetic algorithms to magnetotelluric data from geothermal areas. Earth, Planets and Space, 54, 607–616.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. SchwarzbachC., BörnerR. U. and SpitzerK.2005. Two‐dimensional inversion of direct current resistivity data using a parallel, multi‐objective genetic algorithm. Geophysical Journal International, 162, 685–695.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. SemenovA., BurshteinA., PusepA. and SchirovM. D.1988. A device for measurement of underground mineral parameters: USSR Patent 1079063.
  37. SoupiosP., AkcaI., MpogiatzisP., BasokurA. T. and PapazachosC.2011. Applications of hybrid genetic algorithms in seismic tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 75, 3, 479–489.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. StoffaP. L. and SenM. K.1991. Nonlinear multiparameter optimization using genetic algorithms: Inversion of plane‐wave seismograms. Geophysics, 56, 1794–1810.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. TikhonovA. N. and ArseninV. Y.1977. Solution of ill posed problems: V. H. Winston and Sons.
  40. VouillamozJ. M., ChatenouxB., MathieuF. and LegchenkoA.2007. Efficiency of joint use of MRS and VES to characterize coastal aquifer in Myanmar. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 61, 2, 142–154.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12082
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12082
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Parameter estimation , Petrophysics and Resistivity
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