Resistivity 1D Forward Modelling

GEOPHYSICS
Downloaded 01/19/18 to 128.227.24.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
MATLAB code for data-driven initial model of 1D

Schlumberger sounding curve
Journal: Geophysics
Manuscript ID GEO-2016-0631.R2
Manuscript Type: Geophysical Software and Algorithms
Date Submitted by the Author: 23-Nov-2017
Complete List of Authors: Ogunbo, Jide; Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Keywords: electrical/resistivity, algorithm
Geophysical Software and Algorithms, Electrical and Electromagnetic

Area of Expertise:
Methods
This paper presented here as accepted for publication in Geophysics prior to copyediting and composition.
© 2018 Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Page 1 of 50 GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
MATLAB code for data-driven initial model of 1D Schlumberger sounding
5
6 curve
7
8
9
10 Right Running Head: Data-driven initial model
11
12
13 Jide Nosakare Ogunbo1,2
14
15
16 1
17 Earth Resources Lab
18
19
20
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21
22 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
Department of Applied Geophysics
29
30
31
32 The Federal University of Technology Akure
33
34
35 PMB 704, Ondo state, Nigeria
36
37
38
39 Credit: U.S. Geological Survey
40
41
42 Department of the Interior/USGS
43
44
45
46 U.S. Geological Survey: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1986/0288/report.pdf
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 Jide Nosakare Ogunbo: nosajide@yahoo.com
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS Page 2 of 50
1
2
3
4
Corresponding author: Jide Nosakare Ogunbo
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 ABSTRACT
4
5
6
A MATLAB code is provided to automatically perform partial curve matching of 1D
7
8
9 apparent resistivity data recorded with Schlumberger electrode array configuration. Both two-
10
11 layer master and auxiliary curves are used to systematically match through the branches of data
12
13 extracting corresponding model properties. Partial curve matching is a classical interpretation
14
15
16 procedure of sounding curve which has been done manually. Results from both manual and
17
18 automatic procedures are compared. The matched geoelectrical models from the automatic
19
20 process are retrieved more quickly and these results are consistent since the process is digitalized
21
22
23
and not dependent on human numerical accuracy judgment. Magnitudes of random noise affect
24
25 the final matched model parameters, yet these values are sufficient to be initial models for
26
27 subsequent nonlinear inversion. It is hoped that for an inversion workflow, the code can be
28
29
included to automatically find an initial resistivity model.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 INTRODUCTION
4
5
Orellana and Mooney (1966) used partial curve matching to interpret vertical electrical
6
7
8 sounding (VES). The process involves sectionalizing sounding curve into branches (based on
9
10 change in slope, related to resistivity contrast between layers), and matching each of the branches
11
12 with two or three-layer theoretical curves (Orellana and Mooney, 1966; Bhattacharya and Patra,
13
14
15 1968). Orellana and Mooney (1966) published albums of master and auxiliary curves for
16
17 performing the partial curve matching. Examples of use of the partial curve matching for
18
19 interpreting 1D VES data are abundant (Zohdy, 1965; Orellana and Mooney, 1966; Bhattacharya
20
21
22 and Patra, 1968; Zohdy, 1975). The manual procedure for partial curve matching is laborious for
23
24 3 reasons (Orellana and Mooney, 1966):
25
26
27 1) Field data has to be plotted on a double logarithmic graph with the same modulus as the
28
29 theoretical curves (Orellana and Mooney (1966) used 62.5 mm/cycle modulus).
30
31
32 2) The physical switch among the voluminous theoretical curves (master and auxiliary)
33
34 during the process.
35
36 3) The need to keep the axes of both the theoretical and field data curve parallel during
37
38
39
partial curve matching.
40
41
42 Obviously an automatic process does not eliminate the 3 steps listed above but provides
43
44 an algorithmic ease of executing them. Although the automated partial curve matching process
45
46 promises elegance, the results from this method are only an approximation which can suffice as
47
48
49
initial models for subsequent nonlinear inversion (Mariita, 1986).
50
51
52 An essential component of a gradient based optimization problem is finding an initial
53
54 model (Maiti et al., 2011). Regardless of how powerful an inversion algorithm is, the solution
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 may still be trapped in a local minimum if the initial model is far from the true model. Gaal
4
5
6 (1993) reportedly used as initial model the lithology and thickness of different lithologic units of
7
8 boreholes in the vicinity of the survey. Massoud et al. (2015) obtained initial models from
9
10 geological and hydrogeological information available to them. However, these approaches may
11
12
13
have restricted use. For instance it will be difficult to select a single representative initial model
14
15 from multiple boreholes in the vicinity, with different lithologic units and thicknesses. The
16
17 approaches are also costly and restrictive since there must be boreholes or hydrogeological
18
19
information before the initial model can be prepared. For some 1D electrical resistivity problems,
20
21
22 initial models are usually guessed and are mostly chosen to be homogeneous (e.g. Ekinci and
23
24 Demirci, 2008). Because the units of the data (apparent resistivity) and model (resistivity) are the
25
26 same, it is also possible to use data values as the initial model. However, since the apparent
27
28
29 resistivity is a type of averaging of the subsurface resistivity, this approach may force the
30
31 inversion to have an unnecessarily large number of layers equal to the number of data samples.
32
33
34 I therefore provide a MATLAB code that automates the partial curve matching procedure
35
36 to produce models that are essentially data-driven, that can serve as initial models during a
37
38
39 regularized nonlinear inversion. Since the data are always available, there is no extra overhead
40
41 incurred for finding these types of initial models. I will discuss the partial curve matching
42
43 procedure, and explain how the manual approach is automated on a double logarithmic graph. I
44
45
46
present both synthetic and field data examples to demonstrate the application of the concept. The
47
48 code is written in such a way as to be a subroutine within an inversion algorithm, which can also
49
50 facilitate its use for further research.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 MANUAL PARTIAL CURVE MATCHING
4
5
6
The partial curve matching materials are basically referred to as master and auxiliary
7
8
9 curves. Orellana and Mooney (1966) gave examples of two and three-layer master curves but our
10
11 focus is the use of the two-layer curves. The theoretical two-layer master curve is essentially a
12
13 forward response computed at different half-current electrode spacing over a two-layer resistivity
14
15
16 model. While the resistivity of the first layer is kept as a unit Ohm-m, the resistivity of the
17
18 second layer can vary. The forward (apparent resistivity) response for n number of layers can be
19
20 computed using (Ghosh, 1971):
21
22
=

d , 1a
23 ∞
24
25
26
27 where is the Schlumberger electrode configuration half-current spacing ( is henceforth
28
29 denoted by the common notation AB/2), is the first-order Bessel function of the first kind and
30
is the integration variable.
is the resistivity transform given by the recurrence relations:
31
32
33

+ tanh ℎ
34

= , = − 1, … ,1 1b
35
36 [1 +
tanh ℎ
/ ]
37
38
39 where is the number of layers, and ℎ are the resistivity and thickness of the ith layer,
40
41
42 respectively. The MATLAB code for solving equation 1 is published by Ekinci and Demirci
43
44 (2008).
45
46
47 Figure 1 shows a two-layer master curve, with origin (1, 1), computed for various with
48
49
= 1Ωm at various half-current electrode spacings.
50
51
52
53 Auxiliary curves are needed for tracing the trajectory of theoretical curve values through
54
55 the origin of the master curve (1, 1). A two-layer auxiliary curve can either be ascending or
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 descending. The ascending curves are traditionally called A and K (modified A if there is
4
5
6 anisotropy) curves, while the descending curves are called H and Q (modified H) curves
7
8 (Bhattacharya and Patra, 1968). The equation for computing the auxiliary curves is given as
9
10 (Parasnis, 1986):
11
12 #$ #& /#% (
13 = , 2
#% #& /#% ' (/)% )%

14
where + is the effective resistivity for resistivity connected in parallel, is the first layer
15
16
17
18 resistivity, is the second layer resistivity, and , = ℎ + ℎ (assuming a third layer with same
19
20 effective resistivity as the two layers model at large separation); where h1 and h2 are the first and
21
22
23 second layer thicknesses respectively. Figure 2 shows a two-layer auxiliary curve
24
25
26 Partial curve matching steps are summarized as follows (Orellana and Mooney,1966):
27
28
29 1) Plot the VES data on a transparent paper on logarithmic scale (the ordinate, apparent
30
31 resistivity and the abscissa AB/2)
32
33
2) Sectionalize the data curve into branches based on the gradient change in the curve which
34
35
36 relate to resistivity contrast between layers.
37
38 3) Place the transparent paper of data curve onto the master curve (keeping all axes parallel)
39
40 to match the first branch to the two-layer master curve. Mark the position of the
41
42
43 coordinate origin on the transparent paper and record the resistivity ratio value.
44
45 4) Transfer the transparent paper onto the auxiliary curve (keeping all axes parallel) and
46
47 trace the curve corresponding to the resistivity ratio value from the marked position on
48
49
50
the transparent paper. This serves as trajectory through the origin of the two-layer master
51
52 curve for matching the next branch of the field curve.
53
54 5) Repeat (3) and (4) until all branches are matched.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 All resistivity and thickness ratios are stored during the partial curve matching to estimate the
4
5
6 electrical properties for each layer after the process.
7
8
9 AUTOMATIC ALGORITHMIC CODE IMPLEMENTATION
10
11 Once the VES data curve is sectionalized into branches, each branch is matched first to
12
13 the master curve. Neither the two-layer master curve nor the two-layer auxiliary curve is stored
14
15
16 in the computer memory, but equations 1 and 2 are used to generate them on the fly for range of
17
18 AB/2 within the branch. One reason for this is that it provides flexibility and versatility for using
19
20 different geoelectrical acquisition parameters (e.g. half-current electrode spacing). The first
21
22
23
branch is differently matched on the master curve because it is the beginning of the process with
24
25 no preexisting trajectory provided by auxiliary curve. This involves sliding the sounding curve
26
27 vertically and horizontally across the master curve. Each time a match is sought for a branch of
28
29
the data curve, this portion of the data curve will be normalized by the point currently at the
30
31
32 origin of the master curve. This is because the origin of the two-layer master curve is (1, 1). The
33
34 normalized section of first branch sweeps across the master curve in search of the best match.
35
36 The best match gives the smallest deviation between the normalized data curve and the computed
37
38
39 theoretical master curve for that branch. The resistivity ratio of the best match is stored in a
40
41 vector variable R; the coordinates for R are also saved.
42
43 The next step is to draw the corresponding auxiliary curve for R onto the data curve to
44
45
46
cover the AB/2 section of the first branch spanning to the end of the sounding curve. This serves
47
48 as a trajectory that slides through the origin of the master curve as the second branch finds its
49
50 best match on the master curve. The auxiliary curve is then slid through the origin of the master
51
52
curve. For each sliding, the next branch of the data curve is matched with the master curve for
53
54
55 the AB/2 section of the data curve.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 3 illustrates how the magnitude of sliding is quantified. On a logarithmic scale
4
5
6 different portions of the curve will have different displacement because they are decades apart.
7
8 Although the logarithmic magnitudes may be different for different portions of the curve they
9
10 cover the same displacement on a linear scale. Therefore there is a need to calculate linear
11
12
13
displacement of the sliding in both ordinate and abscissa directions. Application of the same
14
15 linear displacements accounts for the appropriate logarithmic displacements at different portions
16
17 of the data curve. This is similar to ensuring that all the curves are produced with the same
18
19
modulus (Orellana and Mooney (1966) used 62.5 mm/cycle modulus). The physical or linear
20
21
22 displacement is calculated with
23
24
25 XLIN = 4536.1855 ∗ 8log10XNEXT
?, 3

26
27
28 where XNEXT is the abscissa of the next sample point on the auxiliary curve to slide to the origin
29
30
31
of the master curve. The corresponding magnitude of abscissa shift on the logarithmic scale will
32
33 be
34
35
36 XLOG = 10BCD EFG
'EHIJ/KLMN. OLL
, 4
37
38
39 where XAB2 is the AB/2 value for the next branch to match.
40
41
42
Similar linear-logarithmic transformation can be done along the ordinate (for resistivity axis)
43
44 using
45
46 YLIN = 4536.1855 ∗ 8log10YNEXT/YCUR
?, 5

47
48
where YCUR is the resistivity value currently at the origin of the master curve; YNEXT is the
49
50
51
52 resistivity value of the next sample point on the auxiliary curve to slide to the origin of the
53
54 master curve. The corresponding magnitude of ordinate shift on the logarithmic scale will be
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
YLOG = 10BCD TFG
'THIJ/KLMN. OLL
, 6
4
5
6
7
where YAB2 are the resistivity values for the next branch to match.
8
9 To demonstrate the quantification of sliding the values in Figure 3 are used. The XNEXT
10
11 for the next point on auxiliary curve is 2m and the XAB2 of the first point on the next branch is
12
13
10.5m. Using equations (3) and (4) their new positions after sliding will become 1 and 5.25m
14
15
16 respectively. Similarly, YCUR is 1Ωm, YNEXT is 2 Ωm and YAB2 of the first point on the next
17
18 branch is 20 Ωm. Using equations (5) and (6), the next point on the auxiliary curve and the first
19
20
point on the next branch slide to 1 and 10 Ωm respectively. The same computation is done for all
21
22
23 the points on the auxiliary curve trajectory and all points on subsequent branches.
24
25 Once the amount of sliding is quantified on the logarithmic scale, the particular portion
26
27
on the master curve where the data curve is currently at can be accurately known. Thus the
28
29
30 master curve in this portion is accurately computed and matched with the data curve for
31
32 comparison. As soon as the best match is found for the branch, the corresponding resistivity ratio
33
34 value is stored in R and the coordinate for R is marked on the data curve to draw the next
35
36
37 trajectory from the auxiliary curve. The process continues until all branches are matched. There
38
39 will be an overlap between trajectories from the auxiliary curves if the best match is found for
40
41 the next branch before traversing to the end of the current trajectory.
42
43
44
Resistivity values read on the ordinates of R from the data curve are usually referred to as
45
46 replacement resistivity, from which true resistivity can be calculated as follows:
47
48 = U , 7
49
50
= '
U
∗ W' , = 2,3, … , 8
51
52
53 where XU is the replacement resistivity of layer ; Y is true resistivity of layer − 1; WX is the
54
55 ratio of resistivities of layers + 1 and .
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Similarly, true layer thickness can be calculated from replacement thicknesses; the replacement
4
5
6 thicknesses are the abscissa of the coordinates of R’s from auxiliary curve (thickness ratios). The
7
first layer thickness is the first layer replacement thickness ℎ U :
8
9
10 ℎ = ℎ U . 9

11
12
13 To compute subsequent layer thickness, for cases where the resistivity is increasing with depth,
14
15 the true layer thickness, ℎY , can be calculated with (Zohdy, 1975):
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 YU ℎYU − Y'
U
ℎY'
U
ℎY = , [ = 2,3, … , − 1 10
23
Y
24
25
26 However, for decreasing resistivity with depth, the true layer thickness is computed using
27
28 (Zohdy, 1975):
29
30
ℎYU ℎY'
U
31 ℎY = Y \ U − U ] , [ = 2,3, … , − 1 11
32 Y Y'
33
34
where Y is true resistivity of layer − 1 already computed; ℎX'
U
is the replacement thickness
35
36
37 of layer − 1.
38
39 Running the code
40
41
42 The code is structured to accept apparent resistivity data and the values of the half-current
43
44
45 electrode spacing (AB/2) of branches as input parameters. For a synthetic example the forward
46
47 response is computed, but for field data the apparent resistivity is recorded. It is possible to
48
49 implement automatic computation of slope of the apparent resistivity data; however, the
50
51
52 preference is using the values of the AB/2 for the flexibility of varying the number of layers for
53
54 the same data set in a different experiment. The output from the code is the matched model (layer
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 resistivities and thicknesses). The number of layers from the partial curve matching procedure is
4
5
6 equal to number of branches plus one.
7
8
9 SYNTHETIC EXAMPLES
10
11 Since the number of layers from the partial curve matching procedure is equal to number
12
13 of branches plus one it implies that the minimum number of layers that can be retrieved from the
14
15
16 procedure is 2 (since the minimum number of branches that can be specified is 1). However, for
17
18 a homogeneous model (1 layer, infinitely deep), one branch may be specified as input which will
19
20 give two layers with same resistivity value.
21
22
23
Model examples with 2, 3 and 4 layers will be used to perform the automatic partial
24
25 curve matching. 0% - 3% random noise will be added to the data to learn about the influence of
26
27 noise on the final matched resistivity models.
28
29
Two-layer model
30
31
32 With an infinitely deep second layer, the layers’ electrical properties of the two-layer model
33
34 used are = [5, 2] Ωm and ℎ = 3 m. The entire sounding curve is taken as the only branch, from
35
36
AB/2=0.5 m to AB/2=300 m. Figure 4a shows the partial curve matching for noise-free data.
37
38
39 Resistivity ratio R=0.4 is the value that gives the best fit. The geoelectrical parameters matched
40
41 are = [5, 2] Ωm and ℎ = 2.94 m which excellently agree with the true values. These values are
42
43 drawn in Figure 4b.
44
45
46 Keeping constant all parameters in the previous partial curve matching but adding 1% - 3%
47
48 random noise to the data, Figure 4c displays the partial curve matching result for 1% noisy data.
49
50 The R value remains 0.4, but the matched geoelectrical properties slightly change in values, such
51
as: = [5.02, 2] Ωm and ℎ = 2.94 m. Figure 4d shows these results. Figure 4e is the partial curve
52
53
54
55 matching result for data randomly contaminated with 2% noise. While R stays as 0.4, the
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 magnitudes of the matched geoelectrical parameters change in proportion to the noise level, such
4
as: = [5.04, 2.01] Ωm and ℎ = 2.94 m. These values are drawn in Figure 4f. Finally, 3%
5
6
7
8 random noise is used to contaminate the data and the partial curve matching result is displayed in
9
10 Figure 4g. Again, the R value is 0.4 but effect of noise is more pronounced on the matched layer
11
resistivities and the first layer thickness than the previous experiments: = [4.93, 1.97] Ωm and
12
13
14
15 ℎ = 3.13 m. Due to the noise, it is observed that layer resistivity values are underestimated while
16
17 the thickness is overestimated. Figure 4h displays the plot of the geoelectric parameters.
18
19
20 Three-layer model
21
22 The three-layer model experiments will follow the same sequence as that of two-layer model
23
24 experiments, however, the true geoelectric model used is = [50, 20, 50] Ωm with ℎ = [5, 10] m.
25
26
27
Here the sounding curve is split into two branches. The first branch starts at AB/2=1 m and ends
28
29 at AB/2=10 m. The second branch is from AB/2=50m to 150 m. For the noise-free data, Figure
30
31 5a shows the partial curve matching with resistivity ratios R= [0.4, 2]. Displayed in Figure 5b is
32
33
the plot of the matched geoelectrical parameters matched whose values are = [49.99, 19.99,
34
35
36 50.62] Ωm and ℎ = [5.26, 9.77] m. The layer resistivity values agree closely with the true values
37
38 while the layer thicknesses are within acceptable ranges. Figure 5c displays the partial curve
39
40 matching result for 1% noisy data. The R values have equally changed to [0.5, 1.5] with
41
corresponding effects on the matched geoelectrical properties: = [50.44, 25.22, 45.39] Ωm and
42
43
44
45 ℎ = [4.35, 8.69] m. It is only the first layer resistivity value that matches well with its true value.
46
47 Whereas the second layer resistivity value is overestimated, the third layer resistivity is
48
49
50 underestimated due to noise. Both layer thicknesses are underestimated by the presence of noise.
51
52 Figure 5e is the partial curve matching result for data with 2% random noise. Again, the R
53
54 values have changed to [0.3, 3]. The matched geoelectrical parameters are: = [49.27, 14.78,
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 58.74] Ωm and ℎ = [5.88, 10.92] m. Here the noise effect is an overestimation of layer
4
5
6 thicknesses and third layer resistivity. Second layer resistivity is smaller than the true resistivity.
7
8 These values are drawn in Figure 5f. The partial curve matching for the data contaminated with
9
10 3% random noise is displayed in Figure 5g. This noise magnitude evidently reflects in the values
11
12
13
of R, [0.5, 2]. The first layer resistivity remains close to true value but the second and third layer
14
15 resistivities and second layer thickness are overestimated: = [50.21, 25.10, 55.79] Ωm and ℎ =
16
17 [4.55, 18.18]m. Figure 5h shows the plot of these geoelectric parameters.
18
19
20
Four-layer model
21
22 The true geoelectric model used is = [1000, 3000, 211, 2750] Ωm with ℎ = [10, 25, 75] m.
23
24 Three branches are used for the partial curve matching. The first branch covers AB/2=5 m to
25
26
28.11 m; the second branch is from AB/2=66.67 m to 158.11 m and the third branch spans from
27
28
29 AB/2=281.17 m to 500 m. Results from the partial curve matching for the noise-free data is
30
31 shown in Figure 6a with resistivity ratios R= [2.5, 0.11, 5]. Displayed in Figure 6b is the plot of
32
33 the matched geoelectrical parameters matched whose values are = [1001.05, 2502.63, 217.32,
34
1853.73] Ωm and ℎ = [9.8, 39.60, 63.44] m. These values correlate with the true ones. Figure 6c
35
36
37
38 displays the partial curve matching result for 1% noisy data. Although, R values and layer
39
40 thicknesses remain the same as those of noise-free parameters, the layer resistivities have
41
changed due to the presence of noise: = [997.38, 2493.44, 216.52, 1846.92] Ωm.
42
43
44
45 Resistivity ratio values, R, remain the same as the previous ones for data contaminated with
46
47 2% random noise. Figure 6e is the partial curve matching result with the matched geoelectrical
48
parameters as: = [988.18, 2470.46, 214.53, 1805.39] Ωm and ℎ = [9.62, 38.84, 64.50] m.
49
50
51
52 These values are drawn in Figure 6f. The partial curve matching for the data contaminated with
53
54 3% random noise is shown in Figure 6g. This noise magnitude now causes a change in the third
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 value of R, [2, 0.11, 7]. The last layer resistivity remains close to the true value but the second,
4
third layer resistivities, first and third layer thickness are underestimated: = [999.70, 1999.41,
5
6
7
194.06, 2424.65] Ωm and ℎ = [7.81, 47.79, 59.98]m. Figure 6h shows the plot of these
8
9
10 geoelectric parameters.
11
12
13
14
15 DISCUSSION
16
17
18 In comparison to the manual partial curve matching, the automatic version presented in this
19
20 research is easier, faster and produces consistent results independent of users. It takes about 1.2s
21
22
23 for completing the partial curve matching of the four-layer model whose sounding curve was
24
25 divided into 3 branches. That could take minutes to hours doing the same manually. The
26
27 resistivity ratios from the noise-free data from the four-layer model example for both manual and
28
29
30
automatic procedures are: [2.5, 0.1 10] and [2.5, 0.11, 5] respectively. Layer resistivity values for
31
32 both manual and automatic partial curve matching are: [1000, 2500, 200, 3200] Ωm and
33
34 [1001.05, 2502.63, 217.32, 1853.73] Ωm respectively. Both methods produce resistivity values
35
36
37
within comparable sensitivity ranges of the true values [1000, 3000, 211, 2750] Ωm, however,
38
39 the manual approach overestimates the overburden thickness as 137.5 m, whereas the overburden
40
41 thickness calculated from the automatic approach is just 2.84 m more than the true overburden
42
43
thickness, 110 m. In addition, even if all the parameters are left unchanged results from the
44
45
46 manual procedure may change because it depends on the numerical judgments of the users.
47
48 However, the result will be consistent using the automatic approach regardless of the users as
49
50 long as the parameter settings remain fixed.
51
52
53
54
In the synthetic examples given in the previous section, the effect of noise on data was either
55
56 overestimation or underestimation of the geoelectric parameters. Although, there is no simple
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 direct relation between magnitudes of noise and overestimation and underestimation, it can be
4
5
6 established that the presence of noise changes the matched model parameters. This is because the
7
8 partial curve matching is like a local (branch) minimization between field/computed data and
9
10 smooth auxiliary and master curves. Whereas the auxiliary and master curves remain smooth, the
11
12
13
field/computed data may not remain smooth due to the presence of noise. The implication is that
14
15 the presence of noise introduces larger deviations to a previously small deviation and reduces
16
17 deviation from a previously large one. This translates into selecting different model parameters
18
19
as interpreted as overestimation and/or underestimation of matched geoelectric parameters in the
20
21
22 synthetic examples. It is therefore recommended to perform some pre-processing of the sounding
23
24 data to eliminate outliers that can adversely affect the matched geoelectric results. Nevertheless,
25
26 it is noteworthy that all the matched geoelectric parameters from the synthetic examples are
27
28
29 reasonable enough to serve as initial models for further gradient based inversion.
30
31
32 The concept is applied to find an initial model for the field data acquired at Iloko town in
33
34 Osun state, Nigeria. The data was acquired for solid mineral prospecting. Results are presented
35
36 in Figure 7. The field sounding curve is divided into two branches. The first and the second
37
38
39 branches are from 1 to 12m, and 15 to 100m of AB/2 respectively. In Figure 7a, the matched
40
41 model is essentially a 2-layer model (although two branches should produce a 3-layer model) as
42
43 the second and third layers have the same resistivity value. The matched first layer resistivity is
44
45
46 294.8Ωm and it is 5.26m thick; the second layer (and third layer) is more resistive (737.11Ωm).
47
48 Although the drilling log shows 3-layer profile, the top layer is too thin to be distinguished and
49
50 thus compares well with the 2-layer matched result—affirming the interpretation equivalence of
51
52
53
a 3-layer model by a 2-layer model. This comparison is similar to those observed in the noisy
54
55 synthetic examples given in the previous section with an underestimated top layer thickness. In
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 any case, the matched model can serve as an initial model in a regularized nonlinear inversion to
4
5
6 further minimize the data misfit, in Figure 7b, while being careful not to over-fit the data with
7
8 noise.
9
10
11 The MATLAB code has been used to find geoelectrical models that can serve as initial
12
13 models for regularized gradient based inversion but the number of branches, and location of
14
15
16 branches are still manually supplied as inputs. Although this has the advantage of investigating
17
18 equivalent models that explain the same data set with different matched models, it will be
19
20 appropriate to research automating the number and location of branches. Also, another
21
22
23
improvement on the code will be to include data pre-processing algorithm to minimize the effect
24
25 of noise on the results.
26
27
28 CONCLUSIONS
29
30 A MATLAB code is written for performing automatic partial curve matching of
31
32
33 Schlumberger sounding curve. It provides algorithmic ease of systematically matching branches
34
35 of sounding curve with two-layer master and auxiliary curves. The resulting output from the
36
37 process may be taken as initial model for nonlinear least square inversion. Thus the MATLAB
38
39
code can be included into the inversion workflow. The automatic partial curve matching process
40
41
42 is not only faster but also provides more consistent results than the manual procedure. Because
43
44 the effects of noise on the data produce overestimated and/or underestimated results it is
45
46 recommended that a pre-processing of the sounding curve is carried out to reduce the influence
47
48
49 of outliers in the process.
50
51
52
53 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 I appreciate the financial supports from the Earth Resources Laboratory (ERL), the
4
5
6 department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) and the Dean of Sciences of
7
8 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for post-doctoral fellowship. I equally thank the
9
10 department of Applied Geophysics of the Federal University of Technology for permission to
11
12
13
use the field data. Finally, I appreciate the immense contributions of the reviewers.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5
6
Bhattacharya P. K., and H.P. Patra, 1968, Direct Current Geoelectric Sounding Principles and
7
8
9 Interpretation. Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 135pp.
10
11
12 Ekinci, Y. L., and A. Demirci, 2008, A damped least-squares inversion program for the
13
14 interpretation of Schlumberger sounding curves. Journal of Applied Sciences 8 (22),
15
16
17
4070-4078.
18
19
20 Gaal, V., 1993, Fitter version 2.02. Orpheus Geophysik. FRG 06192143 264.
21
22
23 Ghosh, D. P., 1971, The application of linear filter theory to the direct interpretation of
24
25 geoelectrical resistivity sounding measurements. Geophysical Prospecting 19, 192-217.
26
27
28 Maiti, S., G. Gupta, V.C. Erram, and R.K. Tiwari, 2011, Inversion of Schlumberger resistivity
29
30
sounding data from the critically dynamic Koyna region using the Hybrid Monte Carlo-
31
32
33 based neural network approach. Nonlinear Process in Geophysics 18, 179-192.
34
35
36 Mariita, N. O., 1986, Schlumberger Vertical Soundings: Techniques and Interpretation with
37
38 examples from Krisuvik and Glerardalur, Iceland and Olkaria, Kenya. Report 5, 48pp.
39
40
41 Massoud, U., M. Soliman, A. Taha, A. Khozym, and H. Salah, 2015, 1D and 3D inversion of
42
43
44 VES data to outline a fresh water zone floating over saline water body at the
45
46 northwestern coast of Egypt. National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics
47
48 Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics 4, 283-292.
49
50
51 Orellana, E., and H.M. Mooney, 1966, Master Tables and Curves for Vertical Electrical
52
53
54 Sounding over Layered Structures. Interciencia, Madrid.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Parasnis, D. S., 1986, Principles of Applied Geophysics, Fourth Edition. Chapman and Hall,
4
5
6 New York, 402pp.
7
8
9 Zohdy, A, A, R., 1965, The Auxiliary point method of electrical sounding interpretation, and its
10
11 relationship to the Dar Zarrouk parameters. Geophysics vol 30, no. 4, p. 644-660.
12
13
14 Zohdy, A, A, R., 1975, Automatic Interpretation of Schlumberger Sounding Curves using
15
16
17
Modified Dar Zarrouk Functions, Issue 1313, New Techniques in Direct-Current
18
19 Resistivity Exploration. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 39pp.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 LIST OF FIGURES
4
5
6 Figure 1: A two-layer master curve of ratio of apparent resistivity to the first layer at different
7
8
half-current spacing.
9
10
11
Figure 2: A two-layer auxiliary curve of the ratio of effective resistivity to the first layer
12
13
14
resistivity against the ratio of second layer resistivity to the first layer resistivity.
15
16
Figure 3: Sliding of auxiliary curve (gray) and branch of the sounding curve (black) on the
17
18
19 master curve. When a point on the auxiliary curve moves to the origin of the master curve
20
21 covering “Aux XLOG”, and “Aux YLOG”, points on the branch will cover corresponding
22
23 “Branch XLOG”, and “Branch YLOG”.
24
25
26 Figure 4: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise;
27
28 4(e) 2% noise; 4(g) 3% noise. Their respective matched geoelectric models are Figures 4(b), 4(d),
29
30 4(f) and 4(h).
31
32
33 Figure 5: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise;
34
36
37 5(f) and 5(h).
38
39
40 Figure 6: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise;
41
43
44 6(f) and 6(h).
45
46
47 Figure 7: (a) Matched model from partial curve matching and the drilling log model of field data
48
49 at Iloko site; (b) true VES 1 data from Iloko site and the matched data.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 1: A two-layer master curve of ratio of apparent resistivity to the first layer at different half-current
46 spacing.
47
48 143x182mm (300 x 300 DPI)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 2: A two-layer auxiliary curve of the ratio of effective resistivity to the first layer resistivity against
46 the ratio of second layer resistivity to the first layer resistivity.
47
48 140x176mm (300 x 300 DPI)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Figure 3: Sliding of auxiliary curve (gray) and branch of the sounding curve (black) on the master curve.
33 When a point on the auxiliary curve moves to the origin of the master curve covering “Aux XLOG”, and “Aux
34 YLOG”, points on the branch will cover corresponding “Branch XLOG”, and “Branch YLOG”.
35
105x82mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 4a: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
34 noise; 4(g) 3% noise. Their respective matched geoelectric models are Figures 4(b), 4(d), 4(f) and 4(h).
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 4b: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
36
108x90mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 4c: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 4d: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
36
108x90mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 4e: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 4f: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
36
108x90mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 4g: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 4h: Partial curve matching of data from 2 layer model with 4(a) noise-free; 4(c) 1% noise; 4(e) 2%
36
108x90mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Figure 5a: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x89mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 5b: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x88mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Figure 5c: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x89mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 5d: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x88mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 5e: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
noise; 5(g) 3% noise. Their respective matched geoelectric models are Figures 5(b), 5(d), 5(f) and 5(h).
35
36 108x90mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 5f: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x88mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Figure 5g: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x89mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 5h: Partial curve matching of data from 3-layer model with 5(a) noise-free; 5(c) 1% noise; 5(e) 2%
35
36 108x88mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6a: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6b: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x86mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6c: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6d: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x86mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6e: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6f: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x86mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6g: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 6h: Partial curve matching of data from 4-layer model with 6(a) noise-free; 6(c) 1% noise; 6(e) 2%
35 108x86mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 7a: (a) Matched model from partial curve matching and the drilling log model of field data at Iloko
34 site; (b) true VES 1 data from Iloko site and the matched data.
35
36 108x88mm (300 x 300 DPI)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 7b: (a) Matched model from partial curve matching and the drilling log model of field data at Iloko
34 site; (b) true VES 1 data from Iloko site and the matched data.
35 108x87mm (300 x 300 DPI)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Resistivity 1D Forward Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resistivity 1D Forward Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOPHYSICS

MATLAB code for data-driven initial model of 1D

Manuscript Type: Geophysical Software and Algorithms

Date Submitted by the Author: 23-Nov-2017

Complete List of Authors: Ogunbo, Jide; Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Keywords: electrical/resistivity, algorithm

Geophysical Software and Algorithms, Electrical and Electromagnetic

#% #& /#% ' (/)% )%

You might also like

Resistivity 1D Forward Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resistivity 1D Forward Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOPHYSICS

MATLAB code for data-driven initial model of 1D

Manuscript Type: Geophysical Software and Algorithms

Date Submitted by the Author: 23-Nov-2017

Complete List of Authors: Ogunbo, Jide; Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Keywords: electrical/resistivity, algorithm

Geophysical Software and Algorithms, Electrical and Electromagnetic

#% #& /#% ' (/)% )%

You might also like

#% #& /#% ' (/)% )%