1887
Volume 59, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The problem of equivalence in direct current (DC) resistivity and electromagnetic methods for a thin resistive and conducting layer is well‐known. Attempts have been made in the past to resolve this problem through joint inversion. However, equivalence still remains an unresolved problem. In the present study, an effort is made to reduce non‐uniqueness due to equivalence using global optimization and joint inversion by successive refinement of the model space. A number of solutions derived for DC resistivity data using very fast simulated annealing global inversion that fits the observations equally well, follow the equivalence principle and show a definite trend. For a thin conductive layer, the quotient between resistivity and thickness is constant, while for a resistive one, the product between these magnitudes is constant. Three approaches to obtain very fast simulated annealing solutions are tested. In the first one, layer resistivities and thicknesses are optimized in a linear domain. In the second, layer resistivities are optimized in the logarithmic domain and thicknesses in the linear domain. Lastly, both layer resistivities and thicknesses are optimized in the logarithmic domain. Only model data from the mean models, corresponding to very fast simulated annealing solutions obtained for approach three, always fit the observations.

The mean model defined by multiple very fast simulated annealing solutions shows extremely large uncertainty (almost 100%) in the final solution after inversion of individual DC resistivity or electromagnetic (EM) data sets. Uncertainty associated with the intermediate resistive and conducting layers after global optimization and joint inversion is still large. In order to reduce the large uncertainty associated with the intermediate layer, global optimization is performed over several iterations by reducing and redefining the search limits of model parameters according to the uncertainty in the solution. The new minimum and maximum limits are obtained from the uncertainty in the previous iteration. Though the misfit error reduces in the solution after successive refinement of the model space in individual inversion, it is observed that the mean model drifts away from the actual model. However, successive refinement of the model space using global optimization and joint inversion reduces uncertainty to a very low level in 4–5 iterations. This approach works very well in resolving the problem of equivalence for resistive as well as for conducting layers. The efficacy of the approach has been demonstrated using DC resistivity and EM data, however, it can be applied to any geophysical data to solve the inherent ambiguities in the interpretations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00952.x
2011-03-22
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BreitzkeM., DresenL., CsokasJ., GyulaiA. and OrmosT.1987. Parameters estimation and fault detection by three component seismic and geoelectric survey in a coal mine. Geophysical Prospecting35, 832–863.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DobrokaM., GyulaiA., OrmosT., CsokasJ. and DresenL.1991. Joint inversion of seismic and geoelectric data recorded in an underground coal mine. Geophysical Prospecting39, 643–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DossoS.E. and OldenburgD.W.1991. Magnetotelluric appraisal using simulated annealing. Geophysical Journal International106, 379–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EverettM.E. and SchultzA.1993. Two‐dimensional nonlinear mangnetotelluric inversion using genetic algorithm. Journal of Geomagnetic and Geoelectrics45, 1013–1026.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GhoshD.P.1971a. The application of linear filter theory to the direct interpretation of geoelectric sounding measurements. Geophysical Prospecting19, 192–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GhoshD.P.1971b. Inverse filter coefficient for the computation of apparent resistivity sounding curves for a horizontally stratified Earth. Geophysical Prospecting19, 769–775.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. JuanL.F.M., EsperanzaG.G., JoséP.F.Á., HeidiA.K. and CésarO.M.P.2010. PSO: A powerful algorithm to solve geophysical inverse problems: Application to a 1D‐DC resistivity case. Journal of Applied Geophysics71, 13–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. JuppD.L.B. and VozoffK.1977. Resolving anisotropy in layered media by joint inversion. Geophysical Prospecting25, 460–470.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KaikkonenP. and SharmaS.P.1998. 2‐D Nonlinear and joint inversion of VLF and VLF‐R data using simulated annealing. Journal of Applied Geophysics39, 155–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KoefoedO.1979. Geosounding Principles I, Resistivity Sounding Measurements . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KoefoedO., GhoshD.P. and PolmonG.J.1972. Computations of type curves for electromagnetic depth sounding with a horizontal transmitting coil by means of digital linear filter. Geophysical Prospecting20, 406–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. RaicheA.P., JuppD.L.B., RutterH. and VozoffK.1985. The joint use of coincident loop transient electromagnetic and Schlumberger sounding to resolve layered structures. Geophysics50, 1618–1627.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. RothmanD.H.1985. Nonlinear inversion, statistical mechanics and residual statics estimation. Geophysics50, 2784–2796.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RothmanD.H.1986. Automatic estimation of large residual statics correction. Geophysics51, 337–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SenM, BhattacharyaB.B. and StoffaP.L.1993. Nonlinear inversion of resistivity sounding data. Geophysics58, 496–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SenM. and StoffaP.L.1991. Nonlinear one‐dimensional seismic waveform inversion using simulated annealing. Geophysics56, 1624–1638.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SenM. and StoffaP.L.1995. Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversions . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SharmaS.P. and KaikkonenP.1998. Two‐dimensional non‐linear inversion of VLF‐R data using simulated annealing. Geophysical Journal International133, 649–668.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SharmaS.P. and KaikkonenP.1999. Appraisal of equivalence and suppression problems in 1D EM and DC measurements using global optimization and joint inversion. Geophysical Prospecting47, 219–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SinghU.K., TiwariR.K. and SinghS.B.2005. One‐dimensional inversion of geo‐electrical resistivity sounding data using artificial neural networks – A case study. Computers & Geosciences31, 99–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. StoffaP.L. and SenM.1991. Nonlinear multiparametric optimization using genetic algorithm: Inversion of plane wave seismograms. Geophysics56, 1794–1810.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TarantolaA.1987. Inverse Problem Theory, Methods of Data Fitting and Model Parameter Estimation . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TrevinoE.G. and EdwardsR.N.1983. Electromagnetic soundings in sedimentary basins of southern Ontario – A case history. Geophysics48, 311–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. VermaS.K. and SharmaS.P.1993. Resolution of thin layers using joint inversion of electromagnetic and direct current resistivity sounding data. Journal of EM Waves and Applications7, 443–479.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. VozoffK. and JuppD.L.B.1975. Joint inversion of geophysical data. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society42, 977–991.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00952.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00952.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): DC resistivity , EM sounding , Equivalence , Global optimization and Simulated annealing
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