1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 69, Issue 7
  5. Article
Volume 69, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Different geophysical methods use different model parameterizations and inversion algorithms. Thus, combining these different inversion systems and yet adding the nonlinear cross‐gradient constraint in a joint inversion framework might be a big challenge, for instance, as explained further by Moorkamp et al. in 2011, there is a complex interaction between the data misfit terms, regularization and cross‐gradient terms and an imperfect fit to the data is expected. In this paper, we use a sequential algorithm for a two‐dimensional joint inversion of gravity and magnetic data, which tries to avoid these issues by decoupling the gravity inversion, the magnetic inversion and the cross‐gradient minimization processes. The efficiency of the algorithm and developed code is demonstrated by the joint inversion of noisy synthetic data. The results show a significant improvement in the respective models obtained by introducing the cross‐gradient joint inversion over the models obtained by separate inversions for synthetic data and then for field data targeting potash ore source in the AjiChai salt deposit in north‐western Iran.

In this application case, the lower density of salt minerals such as potash, compared to its surrounding sedimentary sequences, motivates a gravity study. Furthermore, the relative lower susceptibility of these salt minerals, alongside their diamagnetic effect, makes them a suitable target for magnetic surveys. Separate gravity and magnetic studies had been performed over the deposit; however, a constitutive relationship between density and magnetization within the area of interest supporting a joint inversion had not been established. In this paper, we apply the sequential cross‐gradient approach to perform the first full joint inversion for the AjiChai salt deposit. The magnetic inversion here is performed to recover the magnetization amplitudes rather than the magnetization vector. In fact, we assume there is no remanent magnetization and, therefore, that the magnetization vector is constant and parallel to the geomagnetic field direction. The constructed density and magnetization models are of high concordance with available geological information and previous studies including drilling results. In addition, unlike previous separate inversion models, the models are structurally and geometrically similar.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
2021-08-09
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abedi, M. (2018) An integrated approach to evaluate the AjiChai potash resources in Iran using potential field data. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 139, 379–391.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abedi, M., Gholami, A., Norouzi, G.‐H. and Fathianpour, N. (2013) Fast inversion of magnetic data using Lanczos bidiagonalization method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 90, 126–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Arfaoui, M., Inoubli, M.H., Tlig, S. and Alouani, R. (2011) Gravity analysis of salt structures. An example from the El Kef‐Ouargha region (northern Tunisia). Geophysical Prospecting, 59, 576–591.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. and Thurber, C.H. (2019) Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems (3rd ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbosa, V.C.F. and Silva, J.B.C. (2011) Reconstruction of geologic bodies in depth associated with a sedimentary basin using gravity and magnetic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 59, 1021–1034.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Belge, M., KilmerM.E. and MillerE.L. (2002) Efficient determination of multiple regularization parameters in a generalized L‐curve framework. Inverse Problems, 18, 1161–1183.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennington, N.L., Zhang, H., Thurber, C.H. and Bedrosian, P.A. (2015) Joint inversion of seismic and magnetotelluric data in the parkfield region of California using the normalized cross‐gradient constraint. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(5), 1033–1052.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Blakely, R.J. (1996) Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Candansayar, M.E. and Tezkan, B. (2008) Two‐dimensional joint inversion of radiomagnetotelluric and direct current resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting, 56(5), 737–749.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cella, F. and Fedi, M. (2012) Inversion of potential field data using the structural index as weighting function rate decay. Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 313–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Coleman, T.F. and Li, Y. (1996) A reflective Newton method for minimizing a quadratic function subject to bounds on some of the variables. SIAM Journal of Optimization, 6, 1040–1058.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Darvishzadeh, A. (1991) Geology of Iran. Tehran: Nashre Danesh Emroz Publisher, 391 pp (in Persian).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Demircia, İ., Dikmena, U. and Candansayara, M.E. (2018) Two‐dimensional joint inversion of magnetotelluric and local earthquake data: Discussion on the contribution to the solution of deep subsurface structures. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 275, 56–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fregoso, E. and Gallardo, L.A. (2009) Cross‐gradients joint 3D inversion with applications to gravity and magnetic data. Geophysics, 74(4), L31–L42.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fregoso, E., Gallardo, L.A. and García‐Abdeslem, J. (2015) Structural joint inversion coupled with Euler deconvolution of isolated gravity and magnetic anomalies. Geophysics, 80(2), G67–G79.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gallardo, L.A. (2007) Multiple cross‐gradient joint inversion for geospectral imaging. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L19301.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gallardo, L.A. and Meju, M.A. (2003) Characterization of heterogeneous near‐surface materials by joint 2D inversion of DC resistivity and seismic data. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(13), 1658.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallardo, L.A. and Meju, M.A. (2004). Joint two‐dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross‐gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 109, B03311. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002716
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gallardo, L.A. and Meju, M.A. (2007) Joint two‐dimensional cross‐gradient imaging of magnetotelluric and seismic traveltime data for structural and lithological classification. Geophysical Journal International, 169(3), 1261–1272.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gallardo, L.A. and Meju, M.A. (2011) Structure‐coupled multiphysics imaging in geophysical sciences. Reviews of Geophysics, 49(1), 2010RG000330.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gao, J. and Zhang, H. (2018) An efficient sequential strategy for realizing cross‐gradient joint inversion: Method and its application to two dimensional cross borehole seismic travel time and DC resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 213(2), 1044–1055.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Golub, G., HeathM. and WahbaG. (1979) Generalized cross‐validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter. Technometrics, 21, 215–223.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gross, L. (2019) Weighted cross‐gradient function for joint inversion with the application to regional 3‐D gravity and magnetic anomalies. Geophysical Journal International, 217(2019), 2035–2046.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamdi‐Nasr, I., Inoubli, M.H., Salem, A.B., Tlig, S. and Mansouri, A. (2009) Gravity contributions to the understanding of salt tectonics from the Jebel Cheid area (dome zone) Northern Tunisia). Geophysical Prospecting, 57, 719–728.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hansen, P.C., KilmerM.E. and KjeldsenR.H. (2006) Exploiting residual information in the parameter choice for discrete ill‐posed problems. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 46, 41–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Helmi, F. (2000) A Depiction of Halite and, Potash, and Their Distribution in Iran. Tehran: Geological Survey of Iran, 176 p (in Persian).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Joulidehsar, F., Moradzadeh, A. and Doulati Ardejani, F. (2018) An improved 3D joint inversion method of potential field data using cross‐gradient constraint and LSQR method. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175, 4389–4409.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lelièvre, P.G. and Farquharson, C.G. (2013) Gradient and smoothness regularization operators for geophysical inversion on unstructured meshes. Geophysical Journal International, 195, 330–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lelièvre, P.G., Farquharson, C.G. and Hurich, C.A. (2012) Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration. Geophysics, 77(1), k1–k15.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lelièvre, P.G., Oldenburg, D.W. and Williams, N.C. (2009) Integrating geological and geophysical data through advanced constrained inversions. Exploration Geophysics, 40, 334–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Y. and Oldenburg, D.W. (1996) 3‐D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics, 77(1), 394–408.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, R., Monteiller, V., Komatitsch, D., Jessell, M., Bonvalot, S. and Lindsay, M. (2013) Gravity inversion using wavelet‐based compression on parallel hybrid CPU/GPU systems: application to Southwest Ghana. Geophysical Journal International, 195, 1594–1619.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Meju, M.A. (1994), Geophysical Data Analysis Understanding Inverse Problem Theory and Practice The Society of Exploration Geophysicist.
  34. Menichetti, V. and Guillen, A. (1983) Simultaneous interactive magnetic and gravity inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 31, 929–944.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mojabi, P. and LoVetri, J. (2008) Adapting the normalized cumulative periodogram parameter‐choice method to the Tikhonov regularization of 2D/TM electromagnetic inverse scattering using Born iterative method. Progress in Electromagnetics Research M, 1, 111–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Moorkamp, M., Heincke, B., Jegen, M., Roberts, A.W. and Hobbs, R.W. (2011) A framework for 3D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International, 184(1), 477–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nabavi, M.G. (1976) An Introduction to the Geology of Iran. Geological Survey of Iran, 109 p (in Persian).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Oliver‐Ocañoab, F.M., Gallardoa, L.A., Romo‐Jonesab, J.M. and Pérez‐Floresab, M.A. (2020) Structure of the Cerro Prieto Pull‐apart basin from joint inversion of gravity, magnetic and magnetotelluric data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 170, 103835.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Paoletti, V., Milano, M., Baniamerian, J. and Fedi, M. (2020) Magnetic field imaging of salt structures at Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(18), 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Rahimpour‐Bonab, H. and Alijani, N. (2003) Petrography, diagenesis and depositional model for potash deposits of north central Iran, and use of bromine geochemistry as a prospecting tool. Carbonates and Evaporates, 18, 19–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Rahimpour‐Bonab, H. and Kalantarzadeh, Z. (2005) Origin of secondary potash deposits; a case from Miocene evaporates of NW central Iran. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 25, 157–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rajablou, R., Alvandi, A. and Toushmalani, (2012) Direct interpretation of the residual gravity anomalies of the AjiChai salt dome for Potash exploration. The 4th National Conference of Economic Geology, Iran, 14p. (in Persian).
  43. Razvi, S.A. and Jafari, F. (2008) Potash exploration via magnetometry and gravity methods in AjiChai (East Azerbaijan) and Ghareh‐Aghaj (Zanjan province). A Report in Geological Survey of Iran, 75 p (in Persian).
  44. Rezaie, M., Moradzadeh, A. and Kalateh, A.N. (2017) Fast 3D inversion of gravity data using solution space prior conditioned lanczos bidiagonalization. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 136, 42e50.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rezaie, M. (2017) An improved algorithm for inversion of potential field data. PhD thesis. Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Samimi Namin, S. (2011) Depth and shape estimation of gravity anomaly via Ahmad Salem's method, a case study. First National Conference of Iran Geology, 8 p (in Persian).
  47. Saunders, J.H., Herwanger, J.V., Pain, C.C., Worthington, M.H. and Oliveira, C.R.E. (2005) Constrained resistivity inversion using seismic data. Geophysical Journal International, 160(3), 785–796.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Silva Dias, F.J.S., Barbosa, V.C.F. and Silva, J.B.C. (2011) Adaptive learning 3D gravity inversion for salt‐body imaging. Geophysics, 76, I49–I57.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tikhonov, A.N., Arsenin, V.I. and John, F. (1977) Solutions of ill‐Posed Problems. Washington, DC: Winston, p. 258.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Vernant, P., Masson, F., Bayer, R. and Paul, A. (2002) Sequential inversion of local earthquake traveltimes and gravity anomaly the example of the western Alps. Geophysical Journal International, 150(1), 79–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Vogel, C.R. (2002) Computational Methods for Inverse Problems, vol. 23. SIAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Vozoff, K. and Jupp, D.L.B. (1975) Joint inversion of geophysical data. Geophysical Journal International, 42, 977–991.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, X., Fang, J. and Hsu, H. (2011) Three‐dimensional crustal density distribution beneath North China by sequential inversion of local earthquake traveltimes and gravity anomaly. Earthquake Science, 24(2), 135–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, Y. and Wang, Y. (2020) Three‐dimensional gravity‐magnetic cross‐gradient joint inversion based on structural coupling and a fast gradient method. Journal of Computational Mathematics, 37(6), 758–777.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhou, J., Meng, X., Guo, L. and Zhang, S. (2015) Three‐dimensional cross‐gradient joint inversion of gravity and normalized magnetic source strength data in the presence of remanent magnetization. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 119, 51–60.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
Loading
Sequential joint inversion of gravity and magnetic data via the cross‐gradient constraint
Geophysical Prospecting 69, 1542 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13120
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cross gradient; Gravity; Inverse problems; Joint inversion; Magnetic

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