1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Three‐dimensional resistivity surveys and their associated inversion models are required to accurately resolve structures exhibiting very complex geology. In the same light, 3D resistivity surveys collected at multiple times are required to resolve temporally varying conditions. In this work we present 3D data sets, both synthetic and real, collected at different times. The large spatio‐temporal data sets are then inverted simultaneously using a least‐squares methodology that incorporates roughness filters in both the space and time domains. The spatial roughness filter constrains the model resistivity to vary smoothly in the x‐, y‐ and z‐directions. A temporal roughness filter is also applied that minimizes changes in the resistivity between successive temporal inversion models and the L‐curve method is used to determine the optimum weights for both spatial and temporal roughness filters. We show that the use of the temporal roughness filter can accurately resolve changes in the resistivity even in the presence of noise. The L1‐ and L2‐norm constraints for the temporal roughness filter are first examined using a synthetic model. The synthetic data test shows that the L1‐norm temporal constraint produces significantly more accurate results when the resistivity changes abruptly with time. The model obtained with the L1‐norm temporal constraint is also less sensitive to random noise compared with independent inversions (i.e., without any temporal constraint) and the L2‐norm temporal constraint. Anomalies that are common in models using independent inversions and the L2‐norm and L1‐norm temporal constraints are likely to be real. In contrast, anomalies present in a model using independent inversions but that are significantly reduced with the L2‐norm and L1‐norm constraints are likely artefacts. For field data sets, the method successfully recovered temporal changes in the subsurface resistivity from a landfill monitoring survey due to rainwater infiltration, as well as from an experiment to map the migration of sodium cyanide solution from an injection well using surface and borehole electrodes in an area with significant topography.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
2013-03-01
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/12/1/nsg2013025.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. BentleyL.R. and GharibiM.2004. Two‐ and three‐dimensional electrical resistivity imaging at a heterogeneous remediation site. Geophysics69, 674–680.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. CassianiG., BrunoV., VillaA., FusiN. and BinleyA.M.2006. A saline trace test monitored via time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics59, 244–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ChambersJ.C., KurasO., MeldrumP.I., OgilvyR.D. and HollandsJ.2006. Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, hydrogeo‐logic, and engineering investigations at a former waste disposal site. Geophysics71, B231–B239.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. DahlinT., BernstoneC. and LokeM.H.2002. A 3D resistivity investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken in Sweden. Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DahlinT., RosqvistH., JohanssonS., MånssonC.‐H., SvenssonM., LindsjöM. and LokeM.H.2011. Geoelectrical Monitoring for Mapping of Gas and Water Migration in Landfills. Berichte Geologischen Bundesanstalt93, 260‐264. ISSN 1017‐8880
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DailyW., RamirezA., LabrecqueD. and NitaoJ.1992. Electrical‐resistivity tomography of vadose water‐movement. Water Resources Research28, 1429–1442.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three‐dimensional shaped structures. Geophysics44, 753–780.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. FarquharsonC.G.2008. Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimum structure inversions. Geophysics73, K1–K9.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Nonlinear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure. Geophysical Journal International134, 213–227.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.2004. A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in nonlinear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International156, 411–425.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. GharibiM. and BentleyL.R.2005. Resolution of 3‐D electrical resistivity images from inversions of 2‐D orthogonal lines. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics10, 339–349.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GuntherT., RuckerC. and SpitzerK.2006. Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography ‐ II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HansenP.C.1998. Rank deficient and discrete ill‐posed problems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PA.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HayleyK.L., BentleyL.R. and GharibiM.2009. Time‐Lapse Electrical Monitoring of Salt‐Affected Soil and Groundwater. Water Resources Research45, W07425.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HayleyK., PidliseckyA. and BentleyL.R.2011. Simultaneous time‐lapse electrical resistivity inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics75, 401–411.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HolcombeH.T. and JiracekG.R.1984. Three‐dimensional terrain corrections in resistivity surveys. Geophysics49, 439–452.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. JohanssonB., JonesS., DahlinT. and FlyhammarP.2007. Comparisons of 2D‐ and 3D‐inverted resistivity data as well as of resistivity‐ and IP‐surveys on a landfill. Near Surface 2007, Istanbul, Turkey, Expanded Abstracts, P42
     [Google Scholar]
  18. KaraoulisM.C., KimJ.‐H. and TsourlosP.I.2011a. 4D active time constrained resistivity inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics73, 25–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KaraoulisM., RevilA., WerkemaD.D., MinsleyB.J., WoodruffW.F. and KemnaA.2011b. Time lapse three‐dimensional inversion of complex conductivity data using an active time constrained (ATC) approach. Geophysical Journal International187, 237–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KemnaA., BinleyA., RamirezA. and DailyW.2000. Complex resistivity tomography for environmental applications. Chemical Engineering Journal77, 11–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KimK.‐J. and ChoI.‐K.2011. Time‐lapse inversion of 2D resistivity monitoring data with a spatially varying cross‐model constraint. Journal of Applied Geophysics74, 114–122
     [Google Scholar]
  22. KimJ.H., YiM.J., AhnH.Y. and KimK.S.2010. 4‐D inversion of resistivity monitoring data using L1 norm minimization. Near Surface 2010, Zurich, Switzerland, Expanded Abstracts, A15
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KimJ.H., YiM.J., ParkS.G. and KimJ.G.2009. 4‐D inversion of DC resistivity monitoring data acquired over a dynamically changing earth model. Journal of Applied Geophysics68, 522–532.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LaBrecqueD.J. and YangX.2001. Difference inversion of ERT data: A fast inversion method for 3D in situ monitoring. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics6, 83–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LegaultJ.M., CarriereD. and PetrieL.2008. Synthetic model testing and distributed acquisition DC resistivity results over an unconformity uranium target from the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. The Leading Edge27(1), 46–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1996. 3D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics61, 394–408.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LiY. and OldenburgD. W.1999. 3‐D inversion of DC resistivity data using an L‐curve criterion. Expanded Abstracts of the 69th Annual International Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,251–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LokeM.H.2000. Topographic modelling in resistivity imaging inversion. 62nd EAGE Conference & Technical Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, D–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. LokeM.H.2011. Electrical resistivity surveys and data interpretation. In: Solid Earth Geophysics Encyclopedia (2nd Edition) “Electrical & Electromagnetic”, (ed. H.Gupta ), 276–283. Springer Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E. and KurasO.2011. Instrumentation, electrical resistivity. In: Solid Earth Geophysics Encyclopedia (2nd Edition) “Electrical & Electromagnetic”, (ed. H.Gupta ), 599–604. Springer‐Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2010. Methods to reduce banding effects in 3‐D resistivity inversion. Near Surface 2010, Zurich, Switzerland, Expanded Abstracts, A16.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. MarescotL., LopesS.P., RigobertS. and GreenA.G., 2008. Nonlinear inversion of geoelectric data acquired across 3‐D objects using a finite‐element approach. Geophysics73, F121–F133.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. McGillivrayP.R. and OldenburgD.W.1990. Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem: A comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting38, 499–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. OldenborgerG.A, KnollM.D., RouthP.S. and LaBrecqueD.J.2007. Time‐lapse ERT monitoring of an injection/withdrawal experiment in a shallow unconfined aquifer. Geophysics72, F177–F187.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. RosqvistH., LerouxV., DahlinT., JohanssonS. and SvenssonM.2010. An evaluation of the potential of the geoelectrical resistivity method for mapping gas migration in landfills. SAGEEP 2010 Proceedings (Volume 1),Keystone, Colorado, 369–378.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. RuckerD.F., CrookN., WintertonJ., McNeillM., BaldygaC.A., NoonanG. and FinkJ.B.2013. Real‐Time Electrical Monitoring of Reagent Delivery during a Subsurface Amendment Experiment. Near Surface Geophysics12(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  39. RuckerD.F., FinkJ.B. and LokeM.H.2011. Environmental monitoring of leaks using time lapsed long electrode electrical resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics74, 242–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. RuckerD.F., LevittM.T. and GreenwoodW.J.2009a. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity model of a nuclear waste disposal site. Journal of Applied Geophysics69, 150–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. RuckerD.F., LokeM.H., LevittM.T. and NoonanG.E.2010. Electrical Resistivity Characterization of an Industrial Site using Long Electrodes. Geophysics75, WA95–WA104.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. RuckerD.F., McNeillM., SchindlerA. and NoonanG.E.2009b. Monitoring of a secondary recovery application of leachate injection into a heap. Hydrometallurgy99, 238–248
     [Google Scholar]
  43. RuckerD.F. and NoonanG.E.2013. Using marine resistivity to map geotechnical properties: A case study in support of dredging the Panama Canal. Near Surface Geophysics11(6). doi:10.3997/1873‐0604.2012017
     [Google Scholar]
  44. SasakiY.1994. 3‐D resistivity inversion using the finite element method. Geophysics59, 1839–1848.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. SinghaK. and GorelickS.M.2006. Effects of spatially variable resolution on field‐scale estimates of tracer concentration from electrical inversions using Archie’s law. Geophysics71, G83–G91.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SpitzerK., ChouteauM. and BoulangerO.1999. Grid‐independent electrode positioning for 3D DC and IP forward modeling. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on 3D Electromagnetics,189–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., MeldrumP.I., OgilvyR.D. and CauntS.2006. Optimization of array configurations and panel combinations for the detection and imaging of abandoned mineshafts using 3D cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics11, 213–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics1, 105–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. ZhouB. and GreenhalghS.A.2001. Finite element three‐dimensional direct current resistivity modelling: Accuracy and efficiency considerations. Geophysical Journal International145, 679–688.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
Loading
Smoothness‐constrained time‐lapse inversion of data from 3D resistivity surveys
Near Surface Geophysics 12, 5 (2014); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013025
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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