1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 72, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 72, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Many different magnetotelluric response functions such as the impedance and tipper which are converted from measured electromagnetic fields to remove the effects of natural sources have been proposed and studied. To obtain good inversion results, it is important to know that the inversion results depend on the sensitivity patterns of the magnetotelluric response functions used as the input, indicating parts to which the magnetotelluric responses are sensitive. We introduce how to use the sensitivity patterns to determine optimal input magnetotelluric response functions for interpreting field data. For magnetotelluric field data, we use the data acquired at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy survey area. The target structure in the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy survey area is associated with geothermal energy, and most of the sites are located to the left of the target structure. Examining the sensitivity patterns of the major magnetotelluric response functions, that is the components of the impedance tensor and tipper vector, for the target anomaly, the pattern of component of the tipper vector () covers the areas where most of the sites are distributed. This means information about the target structure is mainly contained in . To investigate the impact of on inversion of the target anomalous body, we compare the inversion results for four cases that (1) the ‐ and ‐components of the impedance tensor ( and ) are used; (2) , and are used; (3) , and component of the tipper vector () are applied; and (4) the all components of the impedance tensor (, , and ) are used as the input. This comparison shows that selected as the optimal input from the sensitivity patterns for this case study contributes to retrieving the target anomaly. Through the case study for the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy site, we show how to design a strategy of selecting optimal magnetotelluric response functions based on the sensitivity patterns to effectively image target structures. Our experiment supports that the sensitivity patterns can be used to increase the reliability of magnetotelluric inversion.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
2024-02-21
2025-03-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/3/gpr13455.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Cagniard, L. (1953) Basic theory of the magneto‐telluric method of geophysical prospecting. Geophysics, 18, 605–635.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Caldwell, T.G., Bibby, H.M. & Brown, C. (2004) The magnetotelluric phase tensor. Geophysical Journal International, 158, 457–469.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cantwell, T. (1960) Detection and analysis of low frequency magnetotelluric signals (Ph.D. thesis). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  4. Constable, S.C., Parker, R.L. & Constable, C.G. (1987) Occam's inversion: a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics, 52, 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Geuzaine, C. & Remacle, J.‐F. (2009) Gmsh: a three‐dimensional finite element mesh generator with built‐in pre‐ and post‐processing facilities. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79, 1309–1331.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Heo, J. (2022) Hybrid edge‐based finite element method for the environment with shallow sea and its application to 3D MT data in Gyeongju (Ph.D. thesis). Seoul: Seoul National University.
  7. Jin, J. (2002) The finite element method in electromagnetics, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Kelbert, A., Meqbel, N., Egbert, G.D. & Tandon, K. (2014) ModEM: a modular system for inversion of electromagnetic geophysical data. Computers & Geosciences, 66, 40–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Key, K. (2016) MARE2DEM: a 2‐D inversion code for controlled‐source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 571–588.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Tietze, K. & Ritter, O. (2013) Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion in practice—the electrical conductivity structure of the San Andreas fault in central California. Geophysical Journal International, 195(1) 130–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Luo, W., Wang, K., Cao, H., Duan, C., Wang, T. & Jian, X. (2020) Joint inversion of magnetotelluric impedance and tipper data in 3D axial anisotropic media. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 25, 25–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Moore, J., McLennan, J., Pankow, K., Simmons, S., Podgorney, R., Wannamaker, P. et al. (2020) The Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE): a laboratory for characterizing, creating and sustaining enhanced geothermal systems. 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, April–October 2021, Reykjavik, Iceland. pp. 1–10.
  13. Nocedal, J. & Wright, S. (2006) Numerical Optimization: 2nd edn: Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. New York, NY: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Patro, P.K., Uyeshima, M. & Siripunvaraporn, W. (2013) Three‐dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric phase tensor data. Geophysical Journal International, 192, 58–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Shin, C., Ha, J. & Jeong, S. (1999) Refraction tomography by blocky parameterization. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 8, 143–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Siripunvaraporn, W., Egbert, G., Lenbury, Y. & Uyeshima, M. (2005) Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion: data‐space method. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 150, 3–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Tikhonov, A.N. (1950) On determination of the electrical properties of deep layers of the earth's crust. Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 73, 295–297.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Uhm, J. (2022) Analysis of sensitivity patterns for MT response functions and its application to inversion (Ph.D. thesis). Seoul: Seoul National University.
  19. Uhm, J., Heo, J., Min, D.‐J., Oh, S. & Chung, H.‐J. (2021) Imaging strategies to interpret 3‐D noisy audio‐magnetotelluric data acquired in Gyeongju, South Korea: data processing and inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 225, 744–758.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Uhm, J., Oh, J.‐W., Min, D.‐J. & Heo, J. (2023) Analysis of sensitivity patterns for characteristics of magnetotelluric (MT) response functions in inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 233, 1746–1771.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Vozoff, K. (1991) The magnetotelluric method. In: Nabighian, M.N. (Ed.) Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics: Volume 2, Application, Parts A and B. Houston, TX: SEG, pp. 641–712.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang, K., Cao, H., Duan, C., Huang, J. & Li, F. (2019) Three‐dimensional scalar controlled‐source audio‐frequency magnetotelluric inversion using tipper data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 164, 75–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wannamaker, P. (2021) SubTER final magnetotelluric (MT) data: mineral mountains, Utah. United States. https://doi.org/10.15121/1822377
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Wannamaker, P. & Maris, V. (2020) Utah FORGE: phase 3 magnetotelluric (MT) data. United States. https://doi.org/10.15121/1776598
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Wannamaker, P., Maris, V., Mendoza, K. & Moore, J. (2021) Deep heat and fluid sources for Roosevelt Hot Springs hydrothermal system and potential heat for the Utah FORGE EGS from 3D FORGE and SubTER magnetotelluric coverage. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 45, 847–863.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Wannamaker, P.E., Simmons, S.F., Miller, J.J., Hardwick, C.L., Erickson, B.A., Bowman, S.D. et al. (2020) Geophysical Activities over the Utah FORGE Site at the Outset of Project Phase 3. 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 1–14.
  27. Whitney, H. (1957) Geometric integration theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
Loading
Application of sensitivity patterns to inversion of magnetotelluric field data in Utah for selecting optimal input
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1163 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13455
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): computing aspects; electromagnetics; inversion; magnetotelluric; numerical study; passive method; sensitivity pattern; Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy

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