1887
Volume 16 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Surface nuclear magnetic resonance is a technique capable of providing insight into subsurface aquifer properties. To produce estimates of aquifer properties (such as the spatial distribution of water content and parameters controlling the duration of the nuclear magnetic resonance signal), an inversion is required. Essential to the reliable interpretation of the estimated subsurface models is an understanding of the uncertainty and correlation between the parameters in the estimated models. To quantify parameter uncertainty and correlation in the surface nuclear magnetic resonance inversion, a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach is demonstrated. Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches have been previously employed to invert surface nuclear magnetic resonance data, but the primary focus has been on quantifying parameter uncertainty. The focus of this paper is to further investigate whether the parameters in the estimated models exhibit correlation with one another; equally important to building a reliable interpretation of the subsurface is an understanding of the parameter uncertainty. The utility of the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach is demonstrated through the investigation of three questions. The first question investigates whether the parameters describing the water content and thickness of a layer exhibit a strong correlation. This question stems from applying concepts known to electromagnetic surveys (that the layer thickness and layer resistivity parameters are strongly correlated) to the surface nuclear magnetic resonance inversion. A water content–layer thickness correlation in surface nuclear magnetic resonance would not have large effects for quantifying total water content but would affect the ability to identify layer boundaries. The second question examines whether the parameter controlling the duration of the nuclear magnetic resonance signal exhibits a correlation with the water content and layer thickness parameters. The resolution of surface nuclear magnetic resonance typically does not consider the duration of the signal and focuses primarily on the distribution of current amplitudes that form the suite of transmit pulses. It is common to treat regions with short‐duration signal with greater uncertainty, but it is important to understand whether the signal duration controls resolution for medium to long duration signals as well. The third question explores if the parameter uncertainty produced by the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach is consistent with that produced by an alternative approach based upon the posterior covariance matrix (for the linearised inversion). The ability of the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach to more thoroughly explore the model space provides a means to improve the reliability of surface nuclear magnetic resonance aquifer characterisations by quantifying parameter uncertainty and correlation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017064
2017-11-01
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BehroozmandA.A., AukenE., FiandacaG. and ChristiansenA.V.2012. Improvement in MRS parameter estimation by joint and laterally constrained inversion of MRS and TEM data.Geophysics74, WB191–WB200.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BehroozmandA.A., DalgaardE., ChristiansenA.V. and AukenE.2013. A comprehensive study of the parameter determination in a joint MRS and TEM data analysis scheme.Near Surface Geophysics11, 557–567.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BlochF.1946. Nuclear induction.Physical Review70, 460–474.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BraunM. and YaramanciU.2008. Inversion of resistivity in magnetic resonance sounding.Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BrooksS., GelmanA., JonesG.L. and MengX.‐L.2011. Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. CRC Press.
  6. ChevalierA., LegchenkoA., GirardJ.F. and DescloitresM.2014. Monte Carlo inversion of 3‐D magnetic resonance measurements.Geophysical Journal International198, 216–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CostabelS. and YaramanciU.2013. Estimation of water retention parameters from nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation time distributions.Water Resources Research49, 2068–2079.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DlugoschR., GüntherT., Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2013. 2D qt‐inversion to investigate spatial variations of hydraulic conductivity using SNMR.Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DlugoschR., GüntherT., Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2014. Two‐dimensional distribution of relaxation time and water content from surface nuclear magnetic resonance.Near Surface Geophysics12, 231–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GirardJ.F., LegchenkoA. and BoucherM.2005. Stability of MRS signal and estimation of data quality.Near Surface Geophysics, 187–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. HertrichM.2008. Imaging of groundwater with nuclear magnetic resonance.Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy53, 227–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HertrichM. and YaramanciU.2002. Joint inversion of surface nuclear magnetic resonance and vertical electrical sounding.Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 179–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ.‐M., BeauceA. and BernardJ.2002. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a geophysical tool for hydrogeologists.Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 21–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ.‐M., BobachevA., MartinC., RobainH. and VouillamozJ.‐M.2004. Magnetic resonance sounding applied to aquifer characterization.Groundwater42, 363–373.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LegchenkoA., EzerskyM., CamerlynckC., Al‐ZoubiA. and ChalikakisK.2009. Joint use of TEM and MRS methods in a complex geological setting.Comptes Rendus Geoscience341, 908–917.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LegchenkoA.V. and ShushakovO.A.1998. Inversion of surface NMR data.Geophysics63, 75–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MalinvernoA.2002. Parsimonious Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion in a nonlinear geophysical problem.Geophysical Journal International151, 675–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. MinsleyB.J.2011. A trans‐dimensional Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for model assessment using frequency‐domain electromagnetic data.Geophysical Journal International187, 252–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2002. Smooth and block inversion of surface NMR amplitudes and decay times using simulated annealing.Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 163–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2008. Resolution studies for magnetic resonance sounding (MRS) using the singular value decomposition.Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 165–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2010. QT inversion—Comprehensive use of the complete surface NMR data set.Geophysics75, WA199–WA209.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ParsekianA.D. and GrombacherD.2015. Uncertainty estimates for surface nuclear magnetic resonance water content and relaxation time profiles from bootstrap statistics.Journal of Applied Geophysics119, 61–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. PrangeM. and SongY.Q.2010. Understanding NMR T‐2 spectral uncertainty.Journal of Magnetic Resonance204, 118–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SambridgeM. and MosegaardK.2002. Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems.Reviews of Geophysics40.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. TarantolaA. and ValetteB.1982a. Generalized nonlinear inverse problems solved using a least squares criterion.Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics20, 219–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. TarantolaA. and ValetteB.1982b. Inverse problems = quest for information.Journal of Geophysics50, 159–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. TrushkinD.V., ShushakovO.A. and LegchenkoA.V.1995. Surface NMR applied to an electroconductive medium.Geophysical Prospecting43, 623–633.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. WeichmanP.B., LavelyE.M. and RitzwollerM.H.2000. Theory of surface nuclear magnetic resonance with applications to geophysical imaging problems.Physical Review E ‐ Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics 62, 1290–1312.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017064
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017064
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