1887
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Resistivity imaging in combination with borehole information is a powerful tool for site investigation. We show that the combination of 1D laterally constrained inversion (1D‐LCI) with the use of information from borehole data and 2D smooth inversion adds significant value to the interpretation of continuous vertical electrical sounding (CVES) data. The 1D‐LCI offers an analysis of the resolution of the model parameters. This is helpful when evaluating the integrity of the model. Furthermore, with the 1D‐LCI it is possible to constrain model parameters with information, e.g. depth‐to‐layer interfaces, based on borehole information.

We show that 2D smooth inversion resolves lateral changes well, while 1D‐LCI results in well‐defined horizontal layer interfaces. In geological environments where the lateral variations are not too pronounced, the 1D‐LCI contributes to a geological interpretation of the resistivity measurements. Depths to layers can be interpreted with greater certainty than if using results from 2D smooth inversion only. The inclusion of information in the inversion reveals further details and enhances the geological interpretation significantly.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005002
2005-02-01
2020-01-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics69, 752–761.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BjelmL. and WisénR.2000. Part of site investigation at Lockarp (in Swedish). Internal report for the City Tunnel Project (CTP), Lund, Sweden.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ClaerboutJ.F. and MuirF.1973. Robust modelling with erratic data. Geophysics38, 826–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DahlinT.1996. 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering applications. First Break14, 275–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DahlinT., BjelmL. and SvenssonC.1999. Use of electrical imaging in site investigations for a railway tunnel through the Hallandsås Horst, Sweden. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology32, 163–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.1998. Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modelling. Journal of Applied Geophysics38, 237–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. FogedN.2001. Inversion of 2‐dimensional resistivity distributions using laterally constrained models (in Danish: Inversion med lateralt sammenbundne modeller af 2‐dimensionale stokastiske resistivitets‐fordelinger). Thesis, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GriffithsD.H. and TurnbullJ.1985. A multi‐electrode array for resistivity surveying. First Break3(7), 16–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2002. A comparison of the Gauss‐Newton and quasi‐Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics49, 149–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LokeM.H., DahlinT. and AcworthI.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2‐D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. OlayinkaA.I. and YaramanciU.2000. Use of block inversion in the 2‐D interpretation of apparent resistivity data and its comparison with smooth inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics45, 63–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1994. Inversion of induced polarization data. Geophysics59, 1327–1341.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. van OvermeerenR.A. and RitsemaI.L.1988. Continuous vertical electrical sounding. First Break6, 313–324.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PainC.C., HerwangerJ.V., WorthingtonM.H. and de OliveiraC.R.E.2002. Effective multidimensional resistivity inversion using finite‐element techniques. Geophysical Journal International151, 710–728.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. PellerinL.2002. Applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods for environmental and geotechnical investigations. Surveys in Geophysics23, 101–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SørensenK.I.1996. Pulled Array Continuous Electrical Profiling. First Break14, 85–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. TirénS.A., WänstedtT. and SträngT.2001. Moredalen ‐ a canyon in the Fennoscandian Shield and its implication on site selection for radioactive waste disposal in south‐eastern Sweden. Engineering Geology61, 9–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. VickeryA. and HobbsB.A.2003. Resistivity imaging to determine clay cover and permeable units at an ex‐industrial site. Near Surface Geophysics1, 21–30.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005002
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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