1887
Volume 69, Issue 8-9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Electrical resistivity tomography employs norm regularization in many applications. We developed the boundary‐sharping inversion method based on the finite element methods and irregular grid approach, in which the contact areas of elements are used to weight the model parameters. Similar approaches have previously only been used for structured grids. We also designed an electrical resistivity tomography system in the laboratory to conduct experimental data tests. Focusing on the imaging of small‐scale targets, we further compared the behaviour of various regularization schemes, including , and norm stabilizers. Different control parameters were tested and analysed for approximated and norm stabilizers. Three‐dimensional conductivity models were reconstructed from synthetic and experimental data. We found that reconstructed images obtained from smooth sparse regularization, such as , and norm regularization are superior to norm regularization for high‐contrast aquifer and block models. The synthetic and experimental data show that electrical resistivity tomography with smooth sparse regularization has the potential to improve the imaging of small‐scale targets with sharp contours.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13138
2021-10-08
2021-10-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acar, R. and Vogel, C.R. (1994) Analysis of bounded variation penalty methods for ill‐posed problems. Inverse Problems, 10(6), 1217–1229.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auken, E. and Vest Christiansen, A. (2004) Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics, 69(3), 752–761.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergmann, P., Schmidt‐Hattenberger, C., Kiessling, D., Rücker, C., Labitzke, T., Henninges, J., et al. (2012) Surface‐downhole electrical resistivity tomography applied to monitoring of CO2 storage at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics, 77(6), B253–B267.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blaschek, R., Hördt, A. and Kemna, A. (2008) A new sensitivity‐controlled focusing regularization scheme for the inversion of induced polarization data based on the minimum gradient support. Geophysics, 73(2), F45–F54.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsic, A., Graham, B.M., Adler, A. and Lionheart, W.R.B. (2010) In vivo impedance imaging with total variation regularization. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 29(1), 44–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Candansayar, M.E. (2008) Two‐dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data with consecutive use of conjugate gradient and least‐squares solution with singular value decomposition algorithms. Geophysical Prospecting, 56(1), 141–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cao, J., Wang, Y. and Yang, C. (2012) Seismic data restoration based on compressive sensing using regularization and zero‐norm sparse optimization. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 55(2), 239–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheng, K.S., Isaacson, D., Newell, J.C. and Gisser, D.G. (1989) Electrode models for electric current computed tomography. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 36(9), 918–924.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Doetsch, J., Linde, N., Vogt, T., Binley, A. and Green, A.G. (2012) Imaging and quantifying salt‐tracer transport in a riparian groundwater system by means of 3D ERT monitoring. Geophysics, 77(5), B207–B218.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Egbert, G.D. (2012) Hybrid conjugate gradient‐occam algorithms for inversion of multifrequency and multitransmitter EM data. Geophysical Journal International, 190(1), 255–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Farquharson, C.G. (2008) Multidimensional minimum‐structure inversions. Geophysics, 73(1), K1–K9.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gallistl, J., Weigand, M., Stumvoll, M., Ottowitz, D., Glade, T. and Orozco, A.F. (2018) Delineation of subsurface variability in clay‐rich landslides through spectral induced polarization imaging and electromagnetic methods. Engineering Geology, 245, 292–308.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. González, G., Huttunen, J.M.J., Kolehmainen, V., Seppänen, A. and Vauhkonen, M. (2016) Experimental evaluation of 3D electrical impedance tomography with total variation prior. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, 24(8), 1411–1431.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grayver, A.V., Streich, R. and Ritter, O. (2013) Three‐dimensional parallel distributed inversion of CSEM data using a direct forward solver. Geophysical Journal International, 193(3), 1432–1446.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gündogdu, N.Y. and Candansayar, M.E. (2018) Three‐dimensional regularized inversion of DC resistivity data with different stabilizing functionals. Geophysics, 83(6), E399–E407.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Günther, T., Rücker, C. and Spitzer, K. (2006) Three‐dimensional modeling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography‐II: Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 506–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hallaji, M., Seppänen, A. and Pour‐Ghaz, M. (2015) Electrical resistance tomography to monitor unsaturated moisture flow in cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 69, 10–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haslam, E.P., Gunn, D.A., Jackson, P.D., Lovell, M.A., Aydin, A., Prance, R.J. and Watson, P. (2014) Novel laboratory methods for determining the fine scale electrical resistivity structure of core. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 111, 384–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hauptmann, A., Kolehmainen, V., Mach, N.M., Savolainen, T., Seppänen, A. and Siltanen, S. (2017) Open 2D electrical impedance tomography data archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01178.
  20. 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), 1JA–Z98.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnston, D.H. (1987) Physical properties of shale at temperature and pressure. Geophysics, 52(10), 1391–1401.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Karhunen, K., Seppänen, A., Lehikoinen, A., Monteiro, P.J.M. and Kaipio, J.P. (2010) Electrical resistance tomography imaging of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 40(1), 137–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Last, B.J. and Kubik, K. (1983) Compact gravity inversion. Geophysics, 48(6), 713–721.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lovell, M.A., Jackson, P.D., Harvey, P.K. and Flint, R.C. (2006) High‐resolution petrophysical characterization of samples from an aeolian sandstone: the Permian Penrith sandstone of NW England. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 263(1), 49–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ma, H., Tan, H. and Guo, Y. (2015) Three‐dimensional induced polarization parallel inversion using nonlinear conjugate gradients method. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, Article ID 464793.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, T. and Günther, T. (2013) Complex resistivity tomography (CRT) for fungus detection on standing oak trees. European Journal of Forest Research, 132(5–6), 765–776.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mcgillivray, P.R. and Oldenburg, D.W. (1990) Methods for calculating Frechet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem a comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting, 38(5), 499–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nguyen, F., Kemna, A., Robert, T. and Hermans, T. (2016) Data‐driven selection of the minimum‐gradient support parameter in time‐lapse focused electric imaging. Geophysics, 81(1), A1–A5.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Peruzzo, L., Chou, C., Wu, Y., Schmutz, M., Mary, B., Wagner, F.M., et al. (2020) Imaging of plant current pathways for non‐invasive root phenotyping using a newly developed electrical current source density approach. Plant and Soil, 450(1–2), 567–584.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pidlisecky, A., Haber, E. and Knight, R. (2007) RESINVM3D: a 3D resistivity inversion package. Geophysics, 72(2), H1–H10.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pidlisecky, A. and Knight, R. (2008) FW2_5D: a MATLAB 2.5‐D electrical resistivity modeling code. Computers and Geosciences, 34(12), 1645–1654.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Polydorides, N. (2002) Image reconstruction algorithms for soft‐field tomography. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.
  33. Portniaguine, O. and Zhdanov, M.S. (1999) Focusing geophysical inversion images. Geophysics, 64(3), 874–887.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodi, W. and Mackie, R.L. (2001) Nonlinear conjugate gradients algorithm for 1D magnetotelluric inversion. Geophysics, 66(1), 174–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rücker, C., Günther, T. and Wagner, F.M. (2017) PyGIMLi: an open‐source library for modelling and inversion in geophysics. Computers and Geosciences, 109, 106–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rudin, L.I., Osher, S. and Fatemi, E. (1992) Nonlinear total variation‐based noise removal algorithms. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60(1–4), 259–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sasaki, Y. (1994) 3‐D resistivity inversion using the finite‐element method. Geophysics, 59(12), 1839–1848.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schöberl, J. (1997) An advancing front 2D/3D‐mesh generator based on abstract rules. Computing and Visualization in Science, 1(1), 41–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schöberl, J. (2014) C++ 11 implementation of finite elements in NGSolve. Preprint, 30(30).
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sidky, E.Y., Chartrand, R., Boone, J.M. and Pan, X. (2014) Constrained TpV minimization for enhanced exploitation of gradient sparsity: application to CT image reconstruction. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 2, 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tikhonov, A.N. and Arsenin, V.Y. (1977) Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. New York: Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tropp, J.A. and Gilbert, A.C. (2007) Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 53(12), 4655–4666.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vogel, C.R. and OmanM.E. (1996) Iterative methods for total variation denoising. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 17(1), 227–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhai, H., Chang, X., Wang, Y., Xue, Z., Lei, X. and Zhang, Y. (2017) Sensitivity analysis of seismic velocity and attenuation variations for Longmaxi Shale during hydraulic fracturing testing in laboratory. Energies, 10(9), 1393.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, L., Koyama, T., Utada, H., Yu, P. and Wang, J. (2012) A regularized three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion with a minimum gradient support constraint. Geophysical Journal International, 189(1), 296–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang, Y. and Sun, G. (2018) Stagewise arithmetic orthogonal matching pursuit. International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, 25(2), 221–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhdanov, M.S. (2002) Geophysical Inverse Theory and Regularization Problems. Vol. 36. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhdanov, M.S. (2009) New advances in regularized inversion of gravity and electromagnetic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 57(4), 463–478.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhu, W., Chang, X., Wang, Y., Zhai, H. and Yao, Z. (2018) Reconstruction of hydraulic fractures using passive ultrasonic travel‐time tomography. Energies, 11(5), 1321.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13138
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13138
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Electrical resistivity tomography , Inverse problem and Sparse regularization
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