مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران

مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران

تحلیل تاثیر ماتریس وزنی داده‌ها بر دقت مدل‌سازی وارون‌ داده‌های توموگرافی مقاومت‌ویژه الکتریکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی‌

نویسندگان
1 استادیار، موسسه ژئوفیزیک، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار، موسسه ژئوفیزیک، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در این تحقیق، به بررسی تاثیر ماتریس وزنی داده­ها بر دقت وارون‌سازی داده‌های توموگرافی مقاومت­ویژه الکتریکی پرداخته می­شود. روش وارون‌سازی اُکام به عنوان چارچوب اصلی برای مدلسازی­ وارون غیرخطی داده­های مقاومت­ویژه الکتریکی همراه با اعمال ماتریس‌های وزنی و قیود فیزیکی مختلف به کار گرفته شد. تحلیل‌ها نشان می­دهد که به دلیل وجود نوفه‌های تصادفی با توزیع­های آماری مختلف، تغییرات نسبت سیگنال به نوفه، فاصله الکترودها، و پیچیدگی‌های زمین‌شناسی، بکارگیری ماتریس وزنی داده‌ها ضروری است. با هدف بررسی این موضوع داده­های مصنوعی و یک مجموعه اندازه­گیری صحرایی در شرایط زمین­شناسی پیچیده وجود نوفه­های محیطی مختلف استفاده شد. ­نتایج وارون­سازی داده­های مصنوعی و صحرائی نشان داد که اعمال ماتریس وزنی داده­ها می‌تواند به بهبود  تصویرسازی لایه­های زیرسطحی و کاهش خطاهای وارون‌سازی کمک کند. در مدل‌های صحرائی، صحت‌سنجی نشان داد که نتایج وارون‌سازی با ماتریس وزنی به واقعیت زمین‌شناسی نزدیک‌تر است. ارزیابی مقاطع حاصل از وارون‌سازی با استفاده از مقاطع بیشینه تغییرات مدل، چگالی تفکیک‌پذیری، و ماتریس حساسیت نشان داد که استفاده از ماتریس وزنی منجر به نتایج معتبرتری می‌شود. همچنین بررسی­های عددی نشان می­دهد که در صورت برآورد صحیح از سطح نوفه و به دنبال آن تشکیل ماتریس وزنی داده­ها، امکان بهبود دقت و کاهش خطاهای مدلسازی­وارون در داده­های توموگرافی الکتریکی وجود دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Analysis of the effect of data weighting matrix on the accuracy of electrical resistivity tomography data inversion

نویسندگان English

Mahdi Fallahsafari 1
Reza Ghanati 2
1 Assictant Professor, Department of Earth Physics, Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Earth Physics, Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a widely used for investigating subsurface properties, particularly in near-surface studies. It has found broad application in various fields, such as groundwater exploration, archaeology, environmental monitoring, and hydrogeophysical research, including the evaluation of aquifer parameters. In ERT, electrodes are strategically placed according to the survey goals and site characteristics to gather data. These measurements, which represent the distribution of potential or apparent resistivity, are then analyzed using inverse modeling techniques to obtain the actual resistivity distribution. This process involves solving a nonlinear inverse problem, which aims to minimize discrepancies between field data and theoretical predictions by optimizing an objective function.
    The method is based on forward modeling, which simulates the physical behavior of the system, often by solving Poisson’s equation through a finite difference approach. Accurate forward modeling is crucial for effective inversion. In this study, resistivity responses are derived by simulating the flow of current through the Earth's surface, with Poisson's equation serving as the guide. A finite-difference algorithm is employed to discretize the models, incorporating mixed boundary conditions to enhance precision and reliability. One key advantage of the finite-difference method over other approaches is its established ability to quickly approximate solutions for complex and arbitrary structural models, often providing faster results than the finite-element method. The partial differential equations that describe the resistivity problem are derived using the principles of charge conservation and the continuity equation. To solve the inverse problem, the equations are linearized through iterative processes.
    A central focus of this study is the application of inverse modeling to electrical resistivity data. The forward and inverse problem formulations, along with their respective solutions, have been implemented in MATLAB, with performance improvements achieved through C programming for computational efficiency. Field data are subject to noise, which may arise from factors such as imperfect measuring instruments, suboptimal field conditions, operator errors, and geological influences. These noise components can significantly affect the inversion process, given the inherent challenges of the inverse problem.
    This study investigates the impact of data weighting matrices on the accuracy of geoelectrical data inversion, with focus on electrical resistivity data. The Occam inversion method was utilized as the primary framework for applying various weighting matrices and constraints during the inversion process. Our analysis shows that due to the presence of random noise, variations in the signal-to-noise ratio, the spacing between current and potential electrodes, the different arrays used along a profile, and geological complexities at the data acquisition site, employing data weighting matrices is essential for accurate inversion. Results from synthetic and field models demonstrate that applying a weighting matrix significantly improves the representation of conductive layers and reduces inversion errors. In field studies, validation using agricultural water wells confirmed that inversion results with a weighting matrix closely match geological realities. Additionally, the evaluation of inversion sections using resolution density, upper bounds of the resistivity variation, and sensitivity pattern indicates that the application of weighting matrices produces more reliable results.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Data weighting matrix, resolution density, upper bounds of the resistivity variation, sensitivity pattern
Backus, G., and J.F. Gilbert, Numerical applications of a formalism for geophysical inverse problems, Geophys. J.R. Astron. Soc., 13, 247-276, 1967.
Backus, G., and J.F. Gilbert, The resolving power of gross earth data, Geophys. J.R. Astron. Soc., 16, 169-205, 1968.
Binley, A., Tools and Techniques: DC Electrical Methods, In: Treatise on Geophysics, 2nd Edition, G Schubert (Ed.), Elsevier, Vol. 11, 233-259, 2015.
Chambers, J., Kuras, O., Meldrum, P., Ogilvy, R., & Hollands, J. (2006). Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, geologic, hydro-geologic, and engineering investigations at a waste-disposal site. Geophysics, 71(6), 1ND-Z126. doi:10.1190/1.2360184
Constable, S., Parker, R., & Constable, C. (1987). Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics, 52(3), 289-300. doi:10.1190/1.1442303
Dahlin, T., & Zhou, B. (2004). A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 52, 379–398. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00423.x
deGroot‐Hedlin, C., & Constable, S. (1990). Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55(12), 1530-1652. doi:10.1190/1.1442813
Dey, A., & Morrison, H. (1979, March). Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting, 27(1), 106-136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1979.tb00961.x
Fallahsafari, M., & Ghanati, R. (2022). DC Electrical Resistance Tomography Inversion. Journal of the Earth and Space Physics, 47(4), 87-98. doi:10.22059/jesphys.2021.323911.1007321
Ghanati, R., & Fallahsafari, M. (2022). Fréchet Derivatives calculation for electrical resistivity imaging using forward matrix method. Iranian Journal of Geophysics, 15(4), 153-163. doi:0.30499/IJG.2021.283620.1325
Ghanati, R., Azadi, Y., & Fakhimi, R. (2020). RESIP2DMODE: A MATLAB-Based 2D Resistivity and Induced Polarization Forward Modeling Software. Iranian Journal of Geophysics, 13(4), 60-78. doi:10.30499/ijg.2020.104784
Günther, T., Rücker, C., & Spitzer, K. (2006). Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography - II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 506–517. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03011.x
Kim , H., & Kim , Y. (2011). A unified transformation function for lower and upper bounding constraints on model parameters in electrical and electromagnetic inversion. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 8(1), 21–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/8/1/004
Lesparre, N., Nguyen, F., Kemna, A., Robert, T., Hermans, T., Daoudi, M., & Flores-Orozco, A. (2017). A new approach for time-lapse data weighting in electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysics, 82(6), E325–E333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0024.1
Loke, M., & Barker, R. (1996). Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting, 44(1), 131-152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00142.x
McGillivray, P., & Oldenburg, D. (1990, July). Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the nonlinear inverse problem: a comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting, 38(5), 499-524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01859.x
Oldenborger, G., Routh, P., & Knoll, M. (2007). Model reliability for 3D electrical resistivity tomography: Application of the volume of investigation index to a time-lapse monitoring experiment. Geophysics, 72(4), A47-Z71. doi:10.1190/1.2732550
Pang, Y., Nie, L., Liu, B., Liu, Z., & Wang, N. (2020). Multiscale resistivity inversion based on convolutional wavelet transform. Geophysical Journal International, 223(1), 132–143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa302
Pelton, C., Rijio, L., & Swift, C. (1978). Inversion of two-dimensional resistivity and induced-polarization data. Geophysics, 43(4), 788-803. doi:10.1190/1.1440854
Shamara, Z., Leticia, F., Andres, T., Adri´an, M., & Ren´e, E. (2023). Inversion of ERT-3D data using PSO and weighting functions. J. Appl. Geophys., 215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2023.105091
Smith, N., & Vozoff, K. (1984). Two dimensional DC resistivity inversion for dipole-dipole data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GE-22, 21-28. doi:10.1109/TGRS.1984.350575.
Tong, L. T., & Yang, C.‐H. (1990). Incorporation of topography into two‐dimensional resistivity inversion. Geophysics, 55(3), 266-379. doi:10.1190/1.1442843
Tripp, A., Hohmann, G., & Swift, C. (1984). Two dimensional resistivity inversion. Geophysics, 49(10), 1580-1813. doi:10.1190/1.1441578
Tso, C.-H., Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P., Uhlemann, S., Chambers, J., Meldrum, P., . . . Binley, A. (2017). Improved characterisation and modelling of measurement errors in electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 146, 103-119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.09.009
Zhdanov, M., & Tolstaya, E. (2006). A novel approach to the model appraisal and resolution analysis of regularized geophysical inversion. Geophysics, 71(6), R79-R90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2336347
Zhou, B., & Dahlin, T. (2003). Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics, 1(3), 105-117. doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2003001
Zhou, J., Revil, A., Karaoulis, M., Hale, D., & Doets, J. (2014). Image-guided inversion of electrical resistivity data. Geophysical Journal International, 197, 292–309. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu001.