1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

Integrating two or more geophysical datasets is now a common practice as it is of paramount importance to take advantage of all available datasets while constraining sub-surface geology. There are numbers of constraining terms that can be added to the objective function for coupling different properties. Among those, there is the cross-gradient constraint which can be used without any assumption for different methods and different area of studies. However, this constraint only considers the direction of changes in physical properties within the model. The magnitudes of these changes, however, can lead the inversion to a more precise boundary recognition. In this study, we introduce and test a weighted constraint which considers the magnitude as a weighting matrix of the vector product of gradients. The results on a synthetic dataset show a noticeable improvement in model recovery which reveals that the methodology has the potential to be applied to real case scenarios in mineral environments where prior information is available.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202020042
2020-12-07
2021-09-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2020/nsg2020-3rd-mineral-mining/NSG2020_042.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202020042&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Coutant, O., Bernard, M. L., Beauducel, F., Nicollin, F., Bouin, M. P., & Roussel, S.
    (2012). Joint inversion of P-wave velocity and density, application to La Soufrière of Guadeloupe hydrothermal system. Geophysical Journal International, 191(2), 723–742.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gallardo, L. A., & Meju, M. A.
    (2003). Characterization of heterogeneous near-surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(13), 2–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Giraud, J., Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Jessell, M., Lindsay, M., Martin, R., & Ogarko, V.
    (2017). Uncertainty reduction through geologically conditioned petrophysical constraints in joint inversion. Geophysics, 82(6), ID19–ID34.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Jessell, M., Ailleres, L., Kemp, E., De Lindsay, M., Wellmann, F., Hillier, M., … Kemp, D.
    (2017). Geological uncertainty and geophysical inversion: HAL Id: hal-01529651 Geological uncertainty and geophysical inversion. 4–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jessell, M.W., Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Lindsay, M., Giraud, J., & de Kemp, E.
    (2018). Assessing and mitigating uncertainty in three-dimensional geologic models in contrasting geologic scenarios. Metals, Minerals, and Society, 21, 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jessell, Mark, Aillères, L., De Kemp, E., Lindsay, M., Wellmann, J.F., Hillier, M., … Martin, R.
    (2014). Next generation three-dimensional geologic modeling and inversion. Society of Economic Geologists Special Publication, 18(18), 261–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Khoshnavaz, M. J., Bona, A., Hossain, M. S., & Urosevic, M.
    (2016). Interpretation of hard rock seismic data using 3D prestack diffraction imaging. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2016(1), 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lelièvre, P. G., Farquharson, C. G., & Hurich, C. A.
    (2010a). Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration. Society of Exploration Geophysicists International Exposition and 80th Annual Meeting 2010, SEG 2010, 77(1), 1758–1762.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lindsay, M. D., Perrouty, S., Jessell, M. W., & Aillères, L.
    (2013). Making the link between geological and geophysical uncertainty: Geodiversity in the Ashanti Greenstone Belt. Geophysical Journal International, 195(2), 903–922.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lines, L., Schultz, A. K., & Treitel, S.
    (1987). Cooperative inversion of geophysical data. 1987 SEG Annual Meeting, 814–816.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Meju, M. A., & Gallardo, L. A.
    (2016). Structural Coupling Approaches in Integrated Geophysical Imaging. In Integrated Imaging of the Earth, Teory and Application (pp. 49–69). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Moorkamp, M., Lelievre, P. G., Linde, N., & Khan, A.
    (2016). No Title. In Integrated Imaging of The Earth, Theory and Application (pp. 1–6). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Moorkamp, M., Lelièvre, P. G., Linde, N., & Khan, A.
    (2016). Integrated imaging of the earth: Theory and applications (Vol. 218). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun, J., & Li, Y.
    (2015). Multidomain petrophysically constrained inversion and geology differentiation using guided fuzzy c-means clustering. Geophysics, 80(4), ID1–ID18.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Turner, G., Craske, T., Kepic, A., Stolz, E., & Urosevic, M.
    (2007). Seismic reflection surveys to assist nickel and gold exploration in the WA goldfields. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2007(1), 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202020042
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202020042
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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