1887
Volume 15 Number 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Surface nuclear magnetic resonance is a geophysical technique providing non‐invasive aquifer characterization. Two approaches are commonly used to invert surface nuclear magnetic resonance data: (1) inversions involving many depth layers of fixed thickness and (2) few‐layer inversions without predetermined layer thicknesses. The advantage of the many‐layer approach is that it requires little knowledge. However, the many‐layer inversion is extremely ill‐posed and regularisation must be used to produce a reliable result. For optimal performance, the selected regularisation scheme must reflect all available information. The standard regularisation scheme for many‐layer surface nuclear magnetic resonance inversions employs an L smoothness stabiliser, which results in subsurface models with smoothly varying parameters. Such a stabiliser struggles to reproduce sharp contrasts in subsurface properties, like those present in a layered subsurface (a common near‐surface hydrogeological environment). To investigate if alternative stabilisers can be used to improve the performance of the many‐layer inversion in layered environments, the performance of the standard smoothness stabiliser is compared against two alternative stabilisers: (1) a stabiliser employing the L‐norm and (2) a minimum gradient support stabiliser. Synthetic results are presented to compare the performance of the many‐layer inversion for different stabiliser functions. The minimum gradient support stabiliser is observed to improve the performance of the many‐layer inversion for a layered subsurface, being able to reproduce both smooth and sharp vertical variations of the model parameters. Implementation of the alternative stabilisers into existing surface nuclear magnetic resonance inversion software is straightforward and requires little modification to existing codes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017027
2017-05-01
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data.Geophysics69(3), 752–761.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V., KirkegaardC., FiandacaG., SchamperC., BehroozmandA.A.et al. 2015. An overview of a highly versatile forward and stable inverse algorithm for airborne, ground‐based, and borehole electromagnetic and electric data.Exploration Geophysics46(3), 223–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BehroozmandA.A., AukenE., FiandacaG. and ChristiansenA.V.2012. Improvement in MRS parameter estimation by joint and laterally constrained inversion of MRS and TEM data.Geophysics77(4), WB191–WB200.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BlaschekR., HordtA. and KemnaA.2008. A new sensitivity‐controlled focusing regularization scheme for the inversion of induced polarization data based on the minimum gradient support.Geophysics73(2), F45–F54.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EllisR.G. and OldenburgD.W.1994. Applied geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International116, 5–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Non‐linear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure.Geophysics134, 213–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. FiandacaG., DoetschJ., VignoliG. and AukenE.2015. Generalized focusing of time‐lapse changes with applications to direct current and time‐domain induced polarization inversions.Geophysical Journal International203(2), 1101–1112.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GuillenA. and LegchenkoA.2002. Inversion of surface nuclear magnetic resonance data by an adapted Monte Carlo method applied to water resource characterization.Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 193–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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(9), 3279–3291.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HertrichM.2008. Imaging of groundwater with nuclear magnetic resonance.Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Spectroscopy53, 227–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. IronsT.P. and LiY.2014. Pulse and Fourier transform surface nuclear magnetic resonance: comprehensive modeling and inversion incorporating complex data and static dephasing dynamics.Geophysical Journal International199, 1372–1394.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LastB.J. and KubikK.1983. Compact gravity inversion.Geophysics48(6), 713–721.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LegchenkoA. and VallaP.2002. A review of the basic principles for proton magnetic resonance sounding measurements.Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 3–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys.Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2002. Smooth and block inversion of surface NMR amplitudes and decay times using simulated annealing.Journal of Applied Geophysics50(1)–(2), 163–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2010. QT inversion—Comprehensive use of the complete surface NMR data set.Geophysics75(4), WA199–WA209.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. PagliaraG. and VignoliG.2006. Focusing inversion techniques applied to electrical resistance tomography in an experimental tank.Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for Mathematical Geology.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. PortniaguineO. and ZhdanovM.S.1999. Focusing geophysical inversion images.Geophysics64(3), 874–887.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SchirovM., LegchenkoA. and CreerG.1991. A new direct non‐invasive groundwater detection technology for Australia.Exploration Geophysics22(2), 333–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TikhonovA.N. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solutions of Ill‐Posed Problems.Washington, DC: Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. VignoliG., FiandacaG., ChristiansenA.V., KirkegaardC. and AukenE.2015. Sharp spatially constrained inversion with applications to transient electromagnetic data.Geophysical Prospecting63, 243–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. WeichmanP.B., LunD.R., RitzwollerM.H. and LavelyE.M.2002. Study of surface nuclear magnetic resonance inverse problems.Journal of Applied Geophysics50(1)–(2), 129–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ZhdanovM. and TolstayaE.2004. Minimum support nonlinear parameterization in the solution of a 3D magnetotelluric inverse problem.Inverse Problems20(3), 937–952.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ZhdanovM.S., VignoliG. and UedaT.2006. Sharp boundary inversion in crosswell travel‐time tomography.Journal of Geophysics and Engineering3(2), 122–134.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017027
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017027
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