1887
Volume 12 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Development in instrumentation and data analysis of surface nuclear magnetic resonance has recently moved on from one‐dimensional (1D) soundings to two‐dimensional (2D) surveys, opening the method to a larger field of hydrological applications. Current analysis of 2D data sets, however, does not incorporate relaxation times and is therefore restricted to the water content distribution in the subsurface.

We present a robust 2D inversion scheme, based on the qt approach, which jointly inverts for water content and relaxation time by taking the complete data set into account. The spatial distribution of relaxation time yields structural information of the subsurface and allows for additional petrophysical characterization. The presented scheme handles separated loop configurations for increased lateral resolution. Assuming a mono‐exponential relaxation in each model cell, using irregular meshes, and gate‐integrating the signal, the size of the inverse problem is significantly reduced and can be handled on a standard personal computer.

A synthetic study shows that contrasts in both the quantities – water content and relaxation time – can be imaged. Inversion of a field data set outlines a buried glacial valley and allows the distinguishing of two aquifers with different grain sizes, which can be concisely interpreted together with a resistivity profile. The impact of the anisotropic weighting factor and subsurface resistivity on the inversion result are shown and discussed. A comparison of the results obtained by the previously used initial value and time‐step inversion approaches illustrates the improved stability and resolution capabilities of the 2D qt inversion scheme.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013062
2013-09-01
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BehroozmandA.A., AukenE., FiandacaG., ChristiansenA.V. and ChristensenN.B.2012. Efficient full decay inversion of MRS data with a stretched‐exponential approximation of the distribution. Geophysical Journal International190, 900–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BraunM. and YaramanciU.2008. Inversion of resistivity in Magnetic Resonance Sounding. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BraunM., HertrichM. and YaramanciU.2005. Study on complex inversion of magnetic resonance sounding signals. Near Surface Geophysics3, 155–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BrownR.J.S. and GamsonB.W.1960. Nuclear magnetism logging. Journal of Petroleum Technology219, 199–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BrownsteinK.R. and TarrC.E.1979. Importance of classical diffusion in NMR studies of water in biological cells. Physical Review A19, 2446–2453.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CosciaI., GreenhalgS., LindeN., DoetschJ., MarescotL., GüntherT. and GreenA.2011. 3D crosshole apparent resistivity static inversion and monitoring of a coupled river‐aquifer system. Geophysics76, G49–G59.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DlugoschR., GüntherT., Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2013. Improved prediction of hydraulic conductivity for coarse‐grained, unconsolidated material from nuclear magnetic resonance. Geophysics78, EN55‐EN64.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DlugoschR., Müller‐PetkeM., GüntherT., CostabelS. and YaramanciU.2011. Assessment of the potential of a new generation of surface NMR instruments. Near Surface Geophysics9, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FukushimaE. and RoederS.B.W.1981. Experimental Pulse NMR ‐ A Nuts and Bolts Approach.Westview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GirardJ.F., BoucherM., LegchenkoA. and BaltassatJ.M.2007. 2D magnetic resonance tomography applied to karstic conduit imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics63, 103–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GrunewaldE. and KnightR.2011. The effect of pore size and magnetic susceptibility on the surface NMR relaxation parameter T2* . Near Surface Geophysics9, 169–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GüntherT. and Müller‐PetkeM.2012. Hydraulic properties at the North Sea island of Borkum derived from joint inversion of magnetic resonance and electrical resistivity soundings. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences16, 3279–3291.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GüntherT., RückerC. and SpitzerK.2006. Three‐dimensional modeling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography ‐ Part II: Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HertrichM., BraunM., GüntherT., GreenA.G. and YaramanciU.2007. Surface Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Tomography. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing45, 3752–3759.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HertrichM., BraunM. and YaramanciU.2005. Magnetic resonance soundings with separated transmitter and receiver loops. Near Surface Geophysics3, 141–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HertrichM., GreenA.G., BraunM. and YaramanciU.2009. High resolution surface‐NMR tomography of shallow aquifers based on multi‐offset measurements. Geophysics74, G47–G59.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. JamesR.A. and EhrlichR.1999. Core‐Based Investigation of NMR Logging as a Tool for Characterization of Shallow Unconsolidated Aquifers. Ground Water37, 48–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KenyonW.E., DayP.I., StraleyC. and WillemsenJ.F.1988. A Three‐Part Study of NMR Longitudinal Relaxation Properties of Water‐Saturated Sandstones. SPE Formation Evaluation3, 622–636.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LegchenkoA. and ShushakovO.A.1998. Inversion of surface NMR data. Geophysics63, 75–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.2002, A review of the basic principles for proton magnetic resonance sounding measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 3–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ.M., BeauceA. and BernardJ.2002. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a geophysical tool for hydrogeologists. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 21–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ.M., BobachevA., MartinC., RobainH. and VouillamozJ.‐M.2004. Magnetic Resonance Sounding Applied to Aquifer Characterization. Ground Water42, 363–373.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LegchenkoA., VouillamozJ.‐M. and RoyJ.2009. Magnetic resonance sounding in inhomogeneous Earth’s field. 4th MRS International Workshop, Grenoble, France, 119–124.
  24. LegchenkoA., VouillamozJ.‐M. and RoyJ.2010. Application of the magnetic resonance sounding method to the investigation of aquifers in the presence of magnetic materials. Geophysics75, L91–L100.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lehmann‐HornJ.A., HertrichM., GreenhalghS.A. and GreenA.G.2011. Three‐Dimensional Magnetic Field and NMR Sensitivity Computations Incorporating Conductivity Anomalies and Variable‐Surface Topography. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing49, 3878–3891.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2008. Pore size distributions and hydraulic conductivities of rocks derived from Magnetic Resonance Sounding relaxation data using multi‐exponential decay time inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 73–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mueller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2010. QT inversion ‐ Comprehensive use of the complete surface NMR data set. Geophysics75, WA199–WA209.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. NocedalJ. and WrightS.2006. Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed. Springer Verlag, Volume XXII of Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. PerssonP.O. and StrangG.2004. A Simple Mesh Generator in MATLAB. SIAM Review46, 329–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. RamakrishnanT.S., SchwartzL.M., FordhamE.J., KenyonW.E. and WilkinsonD.J.1999. Forward Models for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Carbonate Rocks. The Log Analyst40, 260–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. SeeversD.O.1966. A nuclear magnetic method for determining the permeability of sandstones. SPWLA 7th Annual Logging Symposium14.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SemenovA.G.1987. NMR hydroscope for water prospecting. Proceedings of the Seminar on Geotomography,66–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. WalbreckerJ.O., HertrichM. and GreenA.G.2009. Accounting for relaxation processes during the pulse in surface NMR data. Geophysics74, G27–G34.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. WalbreckerJ.O., HertrichM. and GreenA.G.2011a. Off‐resonance effects in surface nuclear magnetic resonance. Geophysics76(2), G1–G12.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. WalbreckerJ.O., HertrichM., Lehmann‐HornJ.A. and GreenA.G.2011b. Estimating the longitudinal relaxation time T1 in surface NMR. Geophysics76, F111–F122.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. WalshD.O.2008. Multi‐channel surface NMR instrumentation and software for 1D/2D groundwater investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 140–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. WalshD.O., GrunewaldE., TurnerP., HinnellA. and FerreP.2011. Practical limitations and applications of short dead time surface NMR. Near Surface Geophysics9, 103–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. WardS.H. and HohmannG.W.1988. Electromagnetic theory for geophysical applications. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, vol. 1. SEG, 4, 131–311.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. WeichmanP.B., LavelyE.M. and RitzwollerM.H.1999. Surface Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Large Systems. Physical Review Letters82, 4102–4105.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. WeichmanP.B., LavelyE.M. and RitzwollerM.H.2000. Theory of surface nuclear magnetic resonance with applications to geophysical imaging problems. Physical Review E62, 1290–1312.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. WeichmanP.B., LunD.R., RitzwollerM.H. and LavelyE.M.2002. Study of surface nuclear magnetic resonance inverse problems. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 129–147.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013062
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013062
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