4.6 Article

Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data

期刊

GEOPHYSICS
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 752-761

出版社

SOC EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICISTS
DOI: 10.1190/1.1759461

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a sedimentary environment, quasi-layered models often can represent the actual geology more accurately than smooth minimum-structure models. We present a 2D inversion scheme with lateral constraints and sharp boundaries (LCI) for continuous resistivity data. All data and models are inverted as one system, producing layered solutions with laterally smooth transitions. The models are regularized through lateral constraints that tie interface depths or thicknesses and resistivities of adjacent layers. A priori information, used to resolve ambiguities and to add, for example, geological information, can be added at any point of the profile and migrates through the lateral constraints to parameters at adjacent sites. Similarly, information from areas with well-resolved parameters migrates through the constraints to help resolve areas with poorly constrained parameters. The estimated model is complemented by a full sensitivity analysis of the model parameters supporting quantitative evaluation of the inversion result. A simple synthetic model proves the need for a quasi-layered, 2D inversion when compared with a traditional 2D minimum-structure inversion. A 2D minimum-structure inversion produces models with spatially smooth resistivity transitions, making identification of layer boundaries difficult. A continuous vertical electrical sounding field example from Sweden with a depression in the depth to bedrock supports the conclusions drawn from the synthetic example. A till layer on top of the bedrock, hidden in the traditional inversion result, is identified using the 2D LCI scheme. Furthermore, the depth to the bedrock surface is easily identified for most of the profile with the 2D LCI model, which is not the case with the model from the traditional minimum-structure inversion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据