Accuracy and Resolution in 2D Resistivity Inversion

by

Jeffrey Z. Snyder

B.S. Geology
Duke University, 1996

Submitted to the Department of

Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Geosystems

at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

May 2001

© Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2001. All rights reserved.

Signature of Author.......... . ... . . ...................................... --

Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
11 May 2001

Certified by .............. %..................--.-.--.-

Frank Dale Morgan
Professor of Geophysics
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by.................. ........................ ................. .. ..... ..........

Ronald G. Prinn
Chairman, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
 Accuracy and Resolution in 2D Resistivity Inversion

by

Jeffrey Z. Snyder

Submitted to the Department of

Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences on 11 May 2001
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Geosystems

Abstract

Two-dimensional resistivity inversion employing regularization enforces a constraint of smoothness that

minimizes error and avoids unrealistically complex solutions to the inverse problem. The insensitivity of surface
array data to deeper targets typically presents an under-determined problem for solution by the inversion algorithm,
and the smoothing function within the algorithm tends to "smear" tomographic imagery. Together, the physical
challenges of electrical resistivity as a geophysical method and the numerical challenges inherent in solving the
inverse problem introduce errors in the accuracy of 2D resistivity imagery.
It is important to know what surface array geometry will provide data that yields the best results from the
inversion. Testing this inversion algorithm on data from several array geometries provides the opportunity to
determine the comparative performance of each survey method.
By introducing two types of resistive anomalies and varying their location within a synthetic homogeneous
half-space, it is possible to generate synthetic data with a forward model algorithm. The data from each array
geometry is then inverted in order to illustrate the accuracy and resolution response of the inversion algorithm. The
inversion images are converted into binary images after defining a critical resistivity that describes the contrast
between background resistivity and target resistivity. The binary images are used as interpretive tools that allow the
user to overcome the "smearing" introduced by the inversion.
Because of its consistent performance from the margins to the center of an array, a left-right sweep geometry
combined with a pseudosection geometry appears to be the best choice for a surface array when there is no
knowledge of the subsurface structure or resistivity distribution.
The critical resistivity and the area of the anomaly are used to describe the performance of the inversion.
When taken as functions of increasing depth, the critical resistivity decreases and the area of anomaly increases,
providing a respective correlation with the current density and the degree of smoothness. Initial results by forming a
product of critical resistivity and area suggest that it is possible to approximate the product from the original forward
model, but further testing is warranted to provide more conclusive results.

Thesis Supervisor: F. Dale Morgan

Title: Professor of Geophysics

Acknowledgements
I'd like to take the opportunity to thank a few folks who helped me complete this work, and this
program:

Professor Dale Morgan, who offered me the latitude to define a problem and run with it. Even to
the end, his efforts to excite me about the science involved in this project, and where it was
leading, helped give me the added motivation to drive forward with the project.

John Sogade, who provided me with the forward and inversion codes, taught me how to use
them, provided me with a sounding board for ideas about the project, and helped me to better
frame the problem as I immersed myself in it. John's guidance and editing were invaluable in
helping me to provide a cohesive framework for the written report.

Dan Bums, whose positive attitude and flexibility helped me to pull this together right at the end.
Dan was also instrumental in getting me to look at the fundamental science in this project, which
made final revisions and alterations so much easier.

My officemates, Jiganesh Patel and Stacy Archfield, who comprised the Geosystems team this
year. Successful completion of a program like this requires teamwork, and their support and
assistance were fantastic.

Darrell Coles, whose MatLab prowess got me out of trouble on more than one occasion, and
whose experience with Geosystems and with ERL made life easier.

I could not have been at MIT without the support of my closest friends and family, so to them I
must say thanks: To my parents, who supported me throughout this entire process. To my sister,
Larissa, who kept an eye out for me in the last few weeks of school and knew how to keep things
under control at home in South Jersey. And to the Breault family, who offered their home in
Rhode Island as a safe haven that I could visit in order to escape MIT.

Very special, heartfelt thanks must go to my fiancee', Lorna. Her immeasurable strength and
support has kept me in the game since I arrived at MIT. Though I'm sure that I pushed the limits
of her flexibility and understanding, she stood by to provide a pillar for me to lean on. Thanks so
much for being there.

Finally, thank you to the Exxon Mobil Corporation for providing MIT with funding that
ultimately paid for my fellowship and allowed me to be here in the first place.
Contents

1 Introduction
1.1 Background 6

1.2 Objectives 10

2 Formulation of the Forward and Inversion Problems

2.1 Current density as a function of depth 12

2.2 The forward model 16

2.3 Selection of grid discretization 22

2.4 Formulation of the inverse problem 22

3 Accuracy and Resolution Testing

3.1 Array geometries to be tested 29

3.2 Determining the critical resistivity 35

3.2.1 Binary plotting of inversion images 35

3.3 Critical resistivity as a function of depth 39

3.4 Calculating the integrated area of the anomaly 47

3.5 Smoothness as a function of depth 54

3.6 The product of per and the integrated area 61

4 Summary and Conclusions

4.1 Summary of Testing Results 68

4.2 Future Work 70

Bibliography 72
Contents (cont.)
Appendices

Appendix 1: Imaging of a 10,000 f-m anomaly. Central location. Al-i

Appendix 2: Imaging of a 500 1-m anomaly. Central location. A2-1

Appendix 3: Imaging of a 10,000 A-m anomaly. Left flank location. A3-1

Appendix 4: Imaging of a 500 9-m anomaly. Left flank location. A4-1

Appendix 5: Imaging of a 1 9-m anomaly. Central location. A5-1

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Background

Electrical resistivity surveying techniques have emerged as useful methods for

determining earth structure. By applying a known electrical current at various point source

locations on the earth's surface, surveyors attempt to infer the subsurface resistivity distribution

based on the different voltage potentials measured at the surface. Due to the sometimes wide

range of electrical resistivity values that certain materials in the earth possess, this technique

provides the surveyor with an effective geophysical method for delineating high contrast features

including reservoirs, cavities, and structure in the subsurface.

When conducting 2D resistivity surveying, researchers use linear arrays that consist of

electrical current sources and voltage potential receivers. The application of current at the surface

interacts with materials, objects, and structure in the subsurface, each with unique resistivity, to

produce voltage potential differences along the array. The locations of the voltage potential

measurements relative to the current sources dictate what area of the subsurface may possess the

resistivity that is effecting the voltage potential measurement. Varying the distance between the

current source electrodes and the magnitude of the current can change the current density and the

depth of current penetration beneath the array geometry. This in turn can affect the ability of the

voltage potential measurements to reflect the true resistivity distribution beneath the array.

Modern interpretation techniques utilize the solution of resistivity forward and inverse

problems. In our case the forward problem is the solution to the two-dimensional differential

equations that govern the relationship between applied currents and measurable potentials at the

surface. Usually, the numerical solution involves finite discretization of the 2D subsurface into a
system of blocks, each with resistivity p, (i =1 to m). The resistivities are called the model

parameters. The sole purpose of the inverse problem is to resolve the model parameters that will

fit the measured data to a prescribed tolerance and in so doing determine the subsurface

resistivity distribution.

Because of the potential to diagnose structure and material properties in the subsurface,

resistivity inversion has been investigated for applicability and effectiveness. Mufti (1976)

conducted 2-D resistivity inversion using a finite difference model utilizing a non-uniform

discretization of the earth. Later, Pelton et al (1978) constructed a faster, more computationally

efficient inversion algorithm using ridge regression and least-squares to achieve fast convergence

on a solution model that accurately represented the subsurface resistivity distribution. Tripp et al

(1984) expanded work in two-dimensional resistivity inversion by addressing the inverse

problem with a non-linear inversion method.

Recent work has attempted to optimize the inversion of surface measurements for the 2-D

and 3-D resistivity problems by utilizing computational methods that further increase the

accuracy and efficiency of algorithms while solving the inverse problem. The transmission

network analogy first developed for use in geophysical applications by Madden (1972) and then

adapted by others (Pelton et al, 1978; Tripp et al 1984; Zhang et al 1995) as a numerical

modeling approach to the resistivity inverse problem has yielded a computationally efficient

inversion algorithm that reduces computing time and minimizes error to produce accurate results.

Unfortunately, several physical and numerical challenges to solving the inverse problem

accompany any application of the resistivity method. The decrease in current density with depth

leaves the surface data relatively insensitive to deeper targets. The equivalence problem,

prominent in potential problems in physics, leads to an inherent non-uniqueness in resistivity

solutions because several subsurface resistivity distributions may be capable of producing

equivalent voltage potential measurements at the surface. The non-unique nature of the

resistivity inverse problem is further compounded by noisy surface data. This is because a

multiplicity of models often fit the surface data to prescribed tolerances. Which of the prescribed

tolerances works best is an open question.

Oftentimes, the surface potential measurements (data) are outnumbered by the model

parameters. This leads to an underdetermined inverse problem. Though determined or

overdetermined problems (where the amount of data is greater than the amount of model

parameters) are preferred, the inversion algorithm should be robust enough to accommodate the

underdetermined problems. Constraints that enforce requirements for acceptable solutions can

also be applied in order to overcome the non-uniqueness of the possible solutions to the inverse

problem.

Sometimes data seems to be insensitive to certain parameters or combinations of

parameters, which means that these parameters are irrelevant in an inversion sense. Similarly,

certain data points seem not to be affected by any of the parameters, so these are unimportant

data points. While survey arrays must be optimized to avoid unimportant data points, and models

should be chosen to avoid irrelevant parameters, situations often arise where such data points or

parameters exist in the formulation of an inverse solution. This leads to an ill-posed inverse

problem with consequent numerical instability.

Calculation of the inverse problem can yield several non-unique solutions that minimize

error in the forward model, when only one unique resistivity distribution should exist for a given

area. Assuming that there is no a priori knowledge of the subsurface resistivity distribution,

inaccurate values in the initial resistivity model may cause iterative inversion algorithms to
converge on inappropriate local minimum error solutions rather than global minimum solutions.

As a result, it is possible for inversion methods to yield any number of "rough" solutions that are

far more complex than the data or the reality of the earth may demand.

One approach towards overcoming the problem of non-uniqueness has been to apply

regularization to enforce a constraint of minimum roughness between nearest neighbors for each

iterative solution. This regularization pushes the inversion algorithm towards the simplest model

demanded by the data. It is equivalent to selecting a certain class of solution with prescribed

properties from amongst a variety of non-unique solutions (Shi 1998). In electromagnetic

sounding inversion, Constable et al (1987) coined the term "Occam's inversion" because their

inversion algorithm sought the simplest possible model demanded by the data. Their justification

was that "the real profile must be at least as rich as the profile found, but never less complex in

structure." LaBrecque (1996) later adapted this concept to inverting crosshole resistivity data.

While regularization yields simple, low error solutions, the affect of smoothing tends to

"smear" the results such that sharp boundaries are avoided if at all possible. There is then a loss

of accuracy and resolution in the subsurface resistivity model that becomes evident in the

resulting imagery created by the inversion.

The spatial distortion that accompanies this technique hinders appropriate interpretation of

subsurface imagery. In order to more effectively utilize the inversion method and its output

imagery, users should possess a perspective whereby they can expect the accuracy and resolution

behavior of the method in response to data produced by different anomaly types and locations

within the subsurface.

1.2 Objectives

To date, there has been little attempt to test this inversion method and standardize an

understanding of its accuracy response to different targets and locations relative to the surface

survey. Because of the physical challenges inherent with the resistivity method and the side

effects of overcoming the numerical challenges in the inverse problem, there are two primary

sources of inaccuracy and resolution loss. First, the weakening current density as a function of

depth and the insensitivity that it invokes in surface potential measurements makes it difficult to

"illuminate" relatively deep resistive or conductive anomalies within the subsurface. Second, the

nearest-neighbor approximation and smoothing introduced by the regularization of the inverse

problem creates a smearing and homogenization of deep anomalies. Understanding the roles that

these two factors play in effecting an accurate and well-resolved response from the resistivity

inverse problem will provide a perspective with which to interpret resistivity imagery, and

perhaps provide an avenue for future optimization of the inversion method.

In order to illustrate the accuracy and resolution behavior of this resistivity inversion

technique, this investigation will provide a catalog of images produced by the inversion

algorithm in response to synthetic data from two resistive anomaly types across a variety of

locations. After defining a critical threshold resistivity value in the imagery, we will use that

threshold value to create binary images as an added interpretive tool. The threshold value will

also be used to determine the integrated area of a resistive anomaly, enabling simultaneous

comparison of the current density, the degree of smoothing, and the integrated area of the

anomaly as a function of depth. This will illustrate how the physical challenges of the electrical
method and the numerical challenges of the inverse problem combine to affect the overall

accuracy performance of the inversion.

Finally, the testing regimen will be conducted for several surface array geometries,

expanding upon similar work conducted by Shi and Morgan (1997), in order to exhibit how

different data collection methods might provide more complete data to make the inverse problem

better determined. Because real-world applications provide little real data or imagery with which

to verify the accuracy of the inversion, the approach used here is to create synthetic surface data

using an algorithm that incorporates known electrical currents and a prescribed resistivity

distribution to solve the forward problem and produce surface potential measurements. The

synthetic data will then be utilized in the algorithm to solve the inverse problem, and the

resulting resistivity model can be compared with the initially prescribed model. By varying the

locations and the magnitudes of the prescribed resistivity anomalies, it is possible to assess some

standard behaviors of the algorithm so that we may gain a better understanding of the limitations

of the method and thus be better prepared to interpret imagery produced by this technique.
Chapter 2
Formulation of the Forward and Inverse Problems

2.1 Current density as a function of depth

The ability of current to penetrate the subsurface, travel through the earth, and return to

the surface to yield surface data measurements seriously affects the ability of the any inversion

method to solve for deep resistive anomalies. A consideration of the 1-D case for a point current

source on the surface of a homogeneous isotropic earth illustrates how the voltage potential at a

location within the earth decreases with respect to increasing depth. Given Ohm's Law,

V= IR (2.1)

where V is the voltage potential at a given point, I is current flowing through the point, and R is

the resistance of the path. This can be expanded to consider the resistivity of the material in the

current path and the distance between the source and the point of interest, yielding

vIp 1
V= (2.2)
2;r r

Next, consider the 2-D case where there are two current source electrodes placed on the surface.

Figure 2.1(a) illustrates an example of a pair of current source electrodes and receiver potential

electrodes. The voltage difference between any two points on the surface, as a result of the

current flowing from one electrode to the other, can be given by

AV= - (2.3)
2rct r, r2 r3 r4

Where AV is the voltage potential difference between two points, P, and P 2 . I is the current

applied at each current source C1 and C2, and p is the resistivity of the subsurface.
 Power

Figure 2.1(a). A sample current electrode pairand voltage potentialpair,used to illustrate

equation (2.3). Reproducedfrom (Telford, 1990).

Power

Figure 2.1 (b). Solving for current density at depth with a dipole source at the surface.
Reproducedfrom (Telford 1990).
 Given these relations, we can also determine the horizontal current density within a

homogeneous medium with resistivity p as

Ji = (-) (2.4)
P &

x= I){x (x-L) (2.5)

2;r r,'r

(Refer to Figure 2.1(b) for a graphic representation of (2.5)) If we wish to find the current

density at a point P in the subsurface at a depth of z, and we assume that P lies on a line

perpendicular to the midpoint between the current sources, then (2.5) becomes

J =( ) 3> (2.6)
2; {(z 2 +L)2
4.

where L represents the distance between the current sources and I represents the current. Holding

the current I constant, we can solve for J, (in amperes/m 2 ) as a function of z for various values of

L. Figure 2.1(c) illustrates how the current density varies with L and z. The magnitude of the

current density at shallow depths is highest when the current source electrodes are closest

together. However, it is possible to increase the current density at depth by increasing the

distance between the current sources. The cost of achieving greater penetration is a loss of

current density in the shallow subsurface, and in all cases the general trend is for current density

to decrease as a function of depth.

 Current Density
I=I
-0

-10'

10 10 10 10', 10
log Current Density, J (Mps/m2)

Figure2.1(c). Currentdensity as afunction of depth, with I (current)being held constant.

2.2 The forward model

Expansion of Ohm's Law into the three-dimensional case yields a system of nonlinear

differential equations that describe the relationship between applied surface currents, subsurface

resistivity, and surface voltage potential measurements. The system of equations is

V V(x, y, z) = -p(x, y, z)J(x, y, z) (2.7)

V -J(x, y, z) = I(x, y, z) (2.8)

where again V represents the voltage potential, p is the resistivity, J is the current density, and I

is the current.

The resistivity forward model has a transmission network analog, first developed in

electrical engineering but later adapted to geophysical applications by Madden (1972). It consists

of network nodes, boundary nodes, and impedance branches. Based on this transmission network

model, the resistivity forward problem described by Equations (2.7) and (2.8) below can be

converted to a linear set of algebraic equations using Kirchoff s current law, which is then solved

using a bi-conjugate gradient algorithm. The schematic in Figure 2.2(a) exhibits the construction

of the transmission network. Note that for the geophysical resistivity problem, current sources

can be placed at network nodes, and voltage values are placed at nodes located on the top center

of each discretized block within the transmission network (Zhang et al 1995 and Shi 1998).

These expressions can then be solved numerically for the forward model by using a

discretized 3-D model of the subsurface. The 2-D forward model algorithm used in this

investigation uses a three-dimensional discretized subsurface region that is always three elements

thick in the y-direction while the x and z ranges are specified by the user and the middle slice is

extracted to consider the 2-D result.

 z

* - network node

o - boundary node

Figure 2.2(a). A schematic of the transmissionnetwork analog as appliedto the resistivity

problem. Reproducedfrom (Zhanget al 1995).
 In order to perform the testing and analysis of the resistivity inversion algorithm, it is

necessary to produce synthetic data from a known field of structure. In this case, the forward

model utilizes a 15 x 30 grid of blocks to represent a discretized subsurface cross-section. Each

block represents a spatial value of size and resistivity as prescribed by the user. For the purposes

of this investigation, each grid column entry will be 1 m (meter) specifying the width of the

block, and each row grid entry will be 1 m specifying the thickness of each block. However, the

first and thirtieth columns will possess a width of 150 m and the second and twenty-ninth

columns will possess a 50 m width in order to maintain appropriate boundary conditions that will

improve the accuracy of the forward model results. Figure 2.2(b) illustrates this spatial grid. A

100 Q-m homogeneous body will represent the background resistivity of the field of interest. The

forward model allows users to choose the number of anomalies to introduce into the cross-

section; however, this study will utilize a target block of dimensions 2 m high by 4 m wide with

varying resistivity and/or position.

The forward model algorithm requires the user to provide an input data file that

represents the survey geometry. Figure 2.2(c) shows an example of a dipole-dipole

pseudosection data set, and Figure 2.2(d) is an example of a left-right sweep data set developed

at the Earth Resources Laboratory (MIT).

The user possesses the flexibility of creating synthetic data sets that mimic selected

survey geometries and of creating data sets in response to varying subsurface resistivity

distributions. It is important to note that, in the physical sense, a variety of subsurface resistivity

distributions could be constructed to yield identical surface data sets. This problem of

equivalence will take on an even greater role of importance when we consider the inverse

problem and the difficulties that arise in solving a problem with non-unique solutions.
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150
150 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 150

Figure 2.2(b). Spatial gridemployed in forward modeling algorithm.

 Voltage (mV) Current (mA)

Total number of electrode source pairs

Initial source pair locations

Number of receiver pairs 3 4 -4.08416 1
Receiver pair locations 4 5 -1.67314 1
5 6 -0.83572 1
6 7 -0.47804 1
7 8 -0.29642 1
8 9 -0.19191 1
9 10 -0.12718 1
2 3 7
4 5 -4.08416 1
5 6 -1.67314 1
6 7 -0.83572 1
7 8 -0.47804 1
8 9 -0.29642 1
9 10 -0.19191 1
10 11 -0.12718 1

Figure 2.2(c). Example offorward model dataformatfor dipole-dipolepseudosection array.

 Voltage (mV) Current (mA)

Total number of electrode source pairs

34
Initial source pair locations
Number of receiver pairs 2 3 -4.08416 1
Receiver pair locations 3 4 -1.67314 1
4 5 -0.83572 1
5 6 -0.47804 1
6 7 -0.29642 1
7 8 -0.19191 1
8 9 -0.12718 1
9 10 -0.10153 1
10 11 -4.08416 1
11 12 -1.67314 1
12 13 -0.83572 1
13 14 -0.47804 1
14 15 -0.29642 1
15 16 -0.19191 1
16 17 -0.12718 1

Figure 2.2(d). Example offorward model dataformatfor dipole-dipole left-right sweep array.
(Note: Potentialvalues are not representative of actual data. Figure has been provided only to
display format type.)
 2.3 Selection of grid discretization

In order to conduct tests on the behavior of the inversion, it was necessary to establish an

appropriate grid discretization for use in the forward model. In this investigation, we have chosen

the simplest approach by using equivalent grid discretizations in both the forward and inversion

grids. The forward model produces data based on a 15 x 30 element grid as illustrated in Figure

2.2(b), where each grid element within the boundaries is 1 m by 1 m in size. The inversion

algorithm solves for model parameters based on the same grid discretization.

2.4 Formulation of the inverse problem

For the purposes of numerical calculations, the subsurface of the earth is discretized into

a grid similar to that shown in Figure 2.4(a). Each block in the grid represents a resistivity value

and a spatial dimension, such that the discretized subsurface electrical resistivity represents the

parameters of the model, m, that are to be inverted. The data, d, constitutes all of the measured

voltage-current pairs that are taken along a survey line at the surface.

The non-linear resistivity inverse problem requires solution of an iterative linear system

of equations. This system of linear equations may be ill-posed because the initial guess for a

solution in the iterative inversion algorithm may be far from the truth, and some of the data

and/or model parameters may be irrelevant or unimportant to the solution of the inverse problem.

Without a prioriknowledge of the subsurface structure forcing the inversion to converge

on a particular solution, it would be quite possible for the inversion to yield an unrealistically

complex, or "rough" solution. Though such a solution may be a minimum error result, the

complexity or roughness may be unnatural or perhaps more complex than the original data

demands. In order to overcome this problem of non-uniqueness, the inversions are designed to
 Surface data observations, d

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I -, -, -I- 1-I-u - I- ~- I-I-I-I - I-

4-

4-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - m - - -

- - - - - ------ 4. E~E E~E -

model parameters, m
representing resistive
blocks within the
discretized subsurface.

Figure 2.4(a). Schematic comparison between surface data measurements and model
parameters.
seek a low error solution while also enforcing a constraint of smoothing on the inversion.

Assuming that simplest solutions and the structures they represent are appropriate for

geophysical interpretation of high contrast structure in the real earth, the nearest-neighbor

regularization imposes a condition of uniqueness on the solution to the inverse problem by

requiring that it be the simplest low-error solution demanded by the data (Shi 1998).

To see how this regularization can be imposed, first consider a generic linear

algebraic case:

d =Gm + e (2.9)

For the resistivity inverse problem, d represents the surface data measurements (voltage

potentials), G represents the forward model that relates current, voltage, and resistivity in space;

m represents the unknown resistivity distribution in the subsurface; and e is the misfit error.

The Tikhonov regularization requires the definition and minimization of a function that

combines data misfit and the roughness of the model:

T = (d -Gm)) T
R -'(d - Gm))+ r(m - m )T L L(m - mo) (2.10)

where ![ function that must be minimized, R is the data covariance matrix, r is the regularization

parameter, and L is a linear operator (Tikhonov 1977). In (2.10), the first term represents the data

misfit produced by the model and the second term represents the "stabilizing functional" that

defines the spatial roughness of the model parameters so that (2.10) can be redefined as

T = s, + rs2 (2.11)

The inversion algorithm employs a non-linear conjugate gradient method that iteratively

attempts to find a solution model to the inverse problem while minimizing the function V.Each

successive iteration varies the value of the regularization parameter z according to the behavior
of . For relatively high values of , s, dominates the behavior of the algorithm in attempting to

minimize . For low values of r, sj dominates the inversion algorithm.

If [ approaches a minimum value for both the first and second terms, the algorithm will

stop iterating in order to prevent it from relaxing the smoothness constraint while in pursuit of

even lower error solutions. This ensures that the algorithm converges on the smoothest, low-error

solution. Figure 2.4(b) illustrates the behavior of V, z , s1 , and S2 with advancing iterations.

While the smoothing constraint yields a simple, low error solution, the effect of the

smoothing also tends to "smear" the results, such that there is a loss in accuracy and resolution

that is evident in the subsurface imagery attained by the inversion. Figure 2.4(c) is a comparison

between imagery from a forward model and the related inversion. The top image is a graphic

representation of a single resistive block anomaly that was used to create synthetic surface data

in the forward model algorithm. The bottom image is the graphic representation of the inversion

results. The inversion tends to smear the anomaly downward, and it changes the values of the

resistivity in the target. The smearing in the imagery illustrates the effect that the nearest-

neighbor smoothing constraint has when producing the simplest model. The decrease in

resistivity values can be attributed to both the nearest neighbor smoothing during the inversion

and the increasing insensitivity of the surface data to relatively deeper targets.

Because of this spatial distortion, it is important for users of this inversion technique to

understand the accuracy and resolution response of the inversion based on the current density

provided by different survey geometries and the location of anomalies within the subsurface.

The design of this inversion algorithm for 2D resistivity produces a distinctive

manifestation in the output imagery, in that anomalies in the 'inverted' images are smeared as a

result of regularization. When the Tikhonov regularization imposes the constraint on smoothness
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Iteration

Figure 2.4(b). An example of the behavior of W, r, si, and s2for an inversion of synthetic data.
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
2
8000
4
E 6 6000

4000
10
2000
12
14
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)
inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
7000
2
6000
4 5000
4000
'M 8 3000
10 2000
12 1000
14
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure 2.4(c). A comparison between a syntheticforward model (top) and the modelproducedby
inversion (bottom) of the data generatedby the forward model.
in this inversion method, the inversion creates a smearing of resistivity anomalies in the imagery

that can lead to misinterpretation by the user. This smearing effect is further compounded by the

decrease in data density and sensitivity for deeper targets. Due to the physics that govern the

flow of electrical current in the solid earth, the current density from surface sources decays with

depth. This combination of regularization and data density distorts accuracy and resolution with

increasing depth.

Sasaki (1992) undertook a resolution analysis of an inversion method that dealt with

borehole and surface potential measurements. The analysis he presented focused primarily on

factors internal to the inversion algorithm, such as grid discretization and damping coefficient

(T), with some investigation into electrode placement within the survey array. However,

systematic testing of the inversion in response to resistive anomalies that vary with location and

magnitude has yet to be done, and in this case may yield some consistent qualitative standards of

interpretation and performance, particularly when compared with the amount of smoothing

imposed by the inversion and the current density. Furthermore, there may also be ways to

increase the accuracy of the inversion by providing it better data in order to better determine the

inverse problem. Applying different array geometries may yield better current density or greater

sampling at depth. The remainder of this investigation will consist of a series of simple yet

elegant analytical tests that will qualify the accuracy behavior of the inversion in response to

different anomalies and array geometries.

Chapter 3
Accuracy And Resolution Testing

3.1 Array geometries to be tested

To illustrate the potential for improvement in inversion results, five surface array

geometries will be used to produce synthetic data from the forward model. Recall that our

forward model will utilize a 15 x 30 discretized grid to represent the subsurface, and the first,

second, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth columns are use only to provide boundaries to the grid. Also,

referring back to the transmission network analogy reminds us that voltage values can be

assigned to the top center of each block and current values can be assigned to any network node.

For the purposes of creating synthetic data sets, current source locations and receiver locations

can be at any location between 3 and 28.

In this case, the dipole-dipole pseudosection array uses 23 current source pair locations.

Starting at the extreme left side of a field to be imaged, two adjacent electrodes (positions 3 and

4) are selected as the current source pair. Then, the receiver pairs are staggered across the

remainder of the electrodes along the survey line, with the terminus being the 2 8 th position. The

source pairs are then shifted one position to the right, and again the receiver pairs extend from

the source pair to the terminus. With this array geometry, a complete survey has a total of 276

potential measurements. Figure 3.1 displays a simple schematic of the survey geometry.

The left-right sweep begins with the current source pair placed at the extreme ends of the

survey line, such that one current electrode starts at the 3 position and the other begins at the 28

position. Potential measurements are then taken at all of the electrode positions between the

current source electrodes. After the measurements are taken, the left hand electrode is then

shifted to the right so that the current source electrodes are at the 4 and 28 positions. Again, the
measurements are only taken between the source electrodes. This procedure continues until the

survey has utilized a total of 50 source pair locations for a total of 552 measurements. Figure

3.1(b) is a schematic of the left-right sweep.

The dipole-dipole middle sweep begins with the current source electrodes paired at the

extreme ends of the array line. The mid-point of the line is designated as an axis of symmetry.

All receiver electrodes are paired so that they are equidistant from the mid-point of the array.

This procedure requires a total of 13 source pair locations for a total of 156 measurements.

Figure 3.1(c) is a schematic of the middle-sweep.

The final two arrays to be tested will be hybrids of those mentioned. One array will be a

left-right-pseudo, the other will be a left-right-middle sweep. For example, adding the data

collected from a left-right-sweep survey to a pseudosection survey gives us the left-right-pseudo

hybrid.

Figure 3.1(d) is a test matrix that describes the different parameters that will be varied in

the testing of the array geometries.

 r&"ti r__3
4AW*b 4 4
V 4 A, V

4 4

, 4
9,
4
n=1
9
n=2
. 4
n=3
1*0

Figure 3.1(a). The dipole-dipolepseudosection arraygeometry. The currentsource dipole is

located at the top left handside of the survey line, and the receiver dipoles arepaired to the
right. Reprintedfrom (Shi 1998).
 rtv V1

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

Figure 3.1(b). The left-right sweep. The current source electrodes begin at the extreme ends of
the survey geometry, and all of the receiverpairs are between the source pairs. The left hand
electrode is then swept to the right towards the right electrode. The process is repeatedin order
to sweep the right-handelectrode to the left. Reprintedfrom (Shi 1998).
 Figure 3.1(c). The middle-sweep. The current source electrodes arepaired,beginning at the
extreme ends of the survey geometry. Receiver pairs are centered, symmetric to the mid-point of
the array line. The source electrodes are then swept towards the center of the arrayline.
 2D Resistivity Inversion Test Matrix
Array Geometry Anomaly Type Anomaly Size Anomaly Depth Location
Varied Varied Constant Varied Varied

Pseudosection 10,000 92m 4 m wide x 2 m thick 1 m to 8 m depth Center of grid

Left-Right Sweep 500 Qm Left flank of grid

Middle Sweep 1 Q-m

Left-Right-Pseudo

Left-Right-Middle

Background Resistivity: Constant, 100 Q-m.

Figure 3.1(d). Matrixfor variedparametersin 2D resistivity inversion accuracy testing.

Note that the 1 -m has only been testedfor centrally located anomalies.
3.2 Determining the critical resistivity

In order to determine the size and magnitude of the resistive anomaly produced by the

inversion algorithm, it is necessary to define a threshold resistivity value for each model that the

inversion produces. This critical resistivity, per, can be used as a baseline to create binary plots

and integrated area plots, and it can also be used as a proxy for the decay of resistivity values that

can be witnessed for deeper targets in the forward model. Using the definition provided by Beard

and Morgan (1991) for resistive anomalies set against relatively conductive backgrounds,

x= log 10 Pmax (3.1)

x= log 10 Pmin (3.2)
Ax = (xh -x,)/3 (3.3)

Pcr =1 OXh (3.4)

For conductive anomalies set against relatively resistive backgrounds, the solution for critical

resistivity becomes

Pcr = lOx+ (3.5)

The calculation of the critical resistivity value contains information about the actual resistivity

contrast in the image that can be used as a simple descriptor of the accuracy in resistivity

magnitude that the inversion produces.

3.2.1 Binary plotting of inversion images

With our definition for the critical resistivity, we conduct an element-wise comparison of

the model parameters in the inversion grid to Per. Values in the inversion grid that are greater

than Per will are assigned the value of 1 (resistive), and those values that are less than Per received

a value of 0 (conductive). The resulting binary plots were then plotted on figures that included
the original forward model resistivity distribution that was used to create synthetic data, and the

solution model that was found by the inversion.

All of the figures for these tests can be found in the appendices. In each appendix, there

are test results for each of the five arrays (pseudosection, left-right sweep, middle sweep, left-

right-pseudo sweep, and left-right-middle sweep). The appendices have been ordered according

to the following test examples: Appendix 1 possesses test results for a 10,000 Q-m target that

was located near the surface, along the midpoint of the array line. Appendix 2 is for a 500 Q m

anomaly located near the surface along the midpoint. Appendices 3 and 4 are for 10,000 2-m

and 500 Q-m targets, respectively, that were located near the left margin. Appendix 5 possesses

results from the 1 9-m case for centrally located anomalies.

Based on the inversion images and the binary plots in Appendices 1 and 2, it would

appear at first glance that the pseudosection array actually produced better imagery than the left-

right sweep, particularly for the anomalies on the centerline. The left-right-pseudo also produced

an accurate response that was comparable to the pseudosection alone. For a shallow target, the

inversion placed the anomaly at the appropriate depth with the appropriate size in response to

both the pseudosection data (Fig. Al-1) and the left-right-pseudo data (A 1-4), but there appears

to be some loss of resolution in the left-right sweep test case (Fig. A1-2). As evidenced in the

binary plots, the left-right-middle sweep (Fig. A 1-5) was nominally less effective than the

pseudosection and left-right-pseudo sweep, particularly for the 10,000 Q m target. The middle

sweep was very inaccurate for all centerline targets (Figs. Al-3, Al-8, A2-3, A2-8), producing

heavily smeared anomalies and significantly reduced resistivity values.

If we recall from Figure 2.1(c), the current density was greatest at the surface when L, the

distance between the current source electrodes, was minimized. This explains the comparatively
better performance of the pseudosection array in response to centerline shallow targets, as the

distance between current source electrodes was always 1 meter. The increased current density in

shallow areas beneath the midpoint of the array made the surface potential measurements more

sensitive to resistive targets located there.

The images in Appendices 3 and 4 represent repetitions of the same experiments except

that the anomaly was located along the left margin of the subsurface grid. The utility of the left-

right sweep, and particularly the left-right-pseudo sweep becomes immediately apparent by their

ability to better resolve anomalies along the flanks. The left-right-pseudo sweep also produced a

closer approximation of the magnitude of resistivity.

The pseudosection array, with its apparently triangular capture zone, completely lost

accuracy and the ability to resolve any targets near the margins. The inversion rendered tear-drop

shaped anomalies smeared down and towards the center and much lower resistivity values in

response to data from the pseudosection array. The middle-sweep appeared to be very inaccurate

when applied alone; the results it provided permitted the inversion to render anomalies on both

flanks when only one target was introduced in the forward model. It would appear that the left-

right-middle sweep was not made more effective by the added presence of the middle-sweep

data.

By these images, we can see how the different array geometries used current source

placement and voltage receiver placement to determine current density and subsurface sampling.

In the case of the pseudosection geometry, it accurately (relative to the other geometries)

captured shallow resistive targets near the centerline, but the geometry limited its ability to

sample the subsurface completely on the flanks.

 Appendix 5 contains images from tests of a conductive (1 t-m) target set against a

relatively resistive background. The imagery tends to be much more difficult to interpret, as the

inversion tended to return a more smeared anomaly than we saw in the cases of resistive targets.

While the resistive targets tended to be underestimated by the inversion, the conductive targets

tended to be overestimated in magnitude. However, the determination of the critical resistivity

value and the creation of the binary plot appeared to be a relatively robust approach towards

interpreting the imagery for the conductive targets. The performance of the inversion appeared to

be consistent with that witnessed for the resistive targets with one notable exception: though the

left-right-pseudo sweep offered the best performance, the left-right sweep outperformed the

pseudosection for the conductive target.

To summarize, the performance of the inversion response to the following surveys

geometries can be ranked as follows:

For capturing a resistive anomaly near the array midpoint

1. Left-Right-Pseudo Sweep
2. Pseudosection
3. Left-Right Sweep
4. Left-Right-Middle Sweep
5. Middle Sweep

For capturing a resistive anomaly near the array margins

1. Left-Right-Pseudo Sweep
2. Left-Right Sweep
3. Left-Right-Middle Sweep
4. Pseudosection
5. Middle Sweep

For capturing a conductive anomaly near the array midpoint

1. Left-Right-Pseudo Sweep
2. Left-Right Sweep
3. Left-Right-Middle Sweep
4. Pseudosection
5. Middle Sweep

Overall Choice: Left-Right-Pseudo Sweep

3.3 Critical resistivity as a function of depth

It is convenient that pc, is determined by the resistivity values within the solution to the

inverse problem because the critical resistivity can also be used as proxy for the behavior of the

inversion. The response of the inversion tends to yield decaying resistivity values as a function of

depth; the full field plots in the appendices exhibit this behavior. However, plotting per as a

function of the depth of the anomaly can yield insight into the decay in resistivity that the

inversion produces. The decay in resistivity is in response to the lack of sensitivity in the data for

deeper targets. A plot of pr for a 10,000 Q-m and 500 &-m, centrally located anomaly in

response to pseudsection array data can be found in Figure 3.3(a). A similar plot for the inversion

results borne from left-right sweep data can be found in Figure 3.3(b), and 3.3(c) refers to the

left-right-pseudo sweep. All experiments were repeated for anomalies on the flanks, and the

results are plotted in Figures 3.3(d)-(f).

(Further testing will be performed on the 10,000 Q-m and 500 Q-m targets. The middle

and left-right-middle sweeps will be omitted from further testing. The results in Section 3.2

suggested that the left-right-middle sweep was not competitive with the left-right-pseudo sweep,

and the middle sweep is quite inaccurate as a stand-alone survey.)

Recall that in Figure 2.1(c), we illustrated how current density decays with increasing

depth. In response to data from each array geometry, the critical resistivity value decays with

increasing depth, though the 500 9-m cases decay more gradually than the 10,000 Q-m cases. It

appears that the critical resistivity shares a directly proportional relationship with the natural

behavior of current density in the subsurface, but the rate and magnitude of decay of the critical

resistivity is unique to the magnitude of the actual target.

 In comparing the quality of the results for these three array types, it appears that the left-

right-pseudo sweep data produced consistently better results, particularly because pcr reached an

absolute maximum in response to the left-right-pseudo sweep data and because per was

consistently higher as a function of depth. The significance of this higher critical resistivity value

is that it describes, essentially, a higher magnitude of contrast between the target anomaly and

the background and thus a more accurate response. Physically, this is most likely a function of

the increased current density that the larger distances between current source electrodes tend to

produce for deeper targets.

It is interesting to note that the pseudosection produced a critical resistivity value for the

500 Q-m at 1 m that was a near match for the critical resistivity value in the forward model

(Figure 3.3(a), lower plate). These results agree with the concept that the shorter dipole lengths

in the pseudosection array produced higher current density at shallow depths, thus providing

more current to interact with resistive targets in the shallow subsurface.

When targets on the margins were considered, the results show that the pseudosection

data produced a rapid decay for per. The left-right sweep and the left-right-pseudo sweep

produced more gradual decay with increasing depth, consistent with the results from Section 3.3

that indicated better capture in the margins by the left-right sweep and its hybrid, the left-right-

pseudo sweep.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly

S-2
E
0
c -3

IL.- 6

C,--

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

-1

E
0-
-3 F

0-5
.r -4
- Inversion Rho
1L ocr
__Forward Rhoc
CD-

-8'
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(a). Critical resistivity as ajfunction of depth. The inversion algorithm was run using
synthetic dipole-dipolepseudosection data generatedin response to the two centrally located
anomaly types. Notice the behavior of the criticalresistivity with respect to depth, and the
similarity with current density as a function of depth (Figure2.1(c)).
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1
$ -2-
E
0-
-

4
0-5

o -
Q.
-80- -

-8 L
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

-1

E -
0 -
-3
-I -
-l4

0-5 -_-- Inversion Rhocr

-r
Forward Rhoor

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(b). Criticalresistivity as afuinction of depth. The inversion algorithm was run using
synthetic left-right sweep data generated in response to the two centrally located anomaly types.
Notice the behavior of the criticalresistivity with respect to depth, and the similarity with current
density as a function of depth (Figure2.1(c)).
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1 -

E
0
C -3

IL
5
0 c 6-

o -7
-8 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

___ Inversion Rhocr

-- Forward Rhoor
-6
-r -
-7
-81 - -

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(c). Criticalresistivity as a function of depth. The inversion algorithm was run using
synthetic left-right-pseudosweep data generatedin response to the two centrally located
anomaly types. Notice the behavior of the critical resistivity with respect to depth, and the
similarity with current density as a function of depth (Figure2.1(c)).
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly

' -2
E
0-
-3
o -4
I-5

5-6
.
0 -

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Resistivity (Ohm-m)
500 ohm-m Anomaly
I I I F

-2
E
0-
-3
Inversion Rhoc
Forward Rho
0-5 I-
-6
8-7
I a a
-8
'0 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(d). Criticalresistivity as afunction of depth. Dipole-dipolepseudosection data in

response to margin-locatedanomalies.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1
S-2
E
0-
c -3
-z4
)
0-5

0 -6
(.
o -7
-8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

-1
S-2
E
0
C -3

-54

-_~- Inversion Rhoor

0U) -6
_ Forward Rho
- or
o -7
-8
i 0 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(e). Critical resistivity as a function of depth. Left-right sweep data in response to
margin-locatedanomalies.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1

E
0
C -3

0 -5
o.
0.

o -7
-8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

E-2
E
0
c -3

0-5

.- 6
0.
c-7

-810
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Figure 3.3(f). Criticalresistivity as a finction of depth. Left-right-pseudo sweep data in response

to margin-locatedanomalies.
3.4 Calculating integrated area of anomaly

Using the critical resistivity values and the binary plots created from the inversion results,

it is also possible to characterize the smoothing imposed by the algorithm by integrating the area

of the anomaly and plotting it as a function of depth. Figures 3.4(a)-(c) are integrated area plots

based for anomalies produced by the inversion in response to 10,000 Q-m and 500 Q-m,

centrally located anomalies that were used to produce synthetic pseudosection array, left-right

sweep, and left-right-pseudo sweep array data, respectively. Figures 3.4(d)-(f) are integrated area

plots based on targets located near the margins.

Notice that as depth increases in each case, and as pcr decreases in Figures 3.3(a)-(f), the

area of the anomaly increases due to smearing. (This inversely proportional relationship between

the critical resistivity and the integrated area will be addressed in section 3.6.)

This smearing is notably more erratic for the margin-located anomalies that were imaged

with pseudosection data, but such behavior is expected when compared with the results in

Sections 3.2 and 3.3, further reinforcing the concept that pseudosection subsurface illumination

near the margins is poor when compared to the left-right sweep arrays.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly

S-2 -
E
0-
C -3

4
LL

.- 6-
Q.
$ 7-
-8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Area (m3)
500 ohm-m Anomaly
-1-

0-3
-32

--

C -6-

a)
o -7
-8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Area (m3 )

Figure 3.4(a). Integrated area of anomaly. The anomaly size is calculatedbased on the size of
the binaryplot (createdwith the criticalresistivity value Pcr ). The inversion was run in response
to synthetic dipole-dipole pseudoseclion arraydata generatedfor centrally located anomalies.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1-
S-2-
E
0-
C-3

0-5-

0-6-

-7-
-8 L
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Area (m 3)

500 ohm-rn Anomaly

-1 -

$ 2-
E
0-
C -3

0-5-

0-6-
o -7
-8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50
Area (m3)

Figure 3.4(b). Integratedarea of anomaly. The anomaly size is calculatedbased on the size of
the binary plot (createdwith the criticalresistivity value p,). The inversion was run in response
to synthetic left-right sweep arraydata generatedfor centrally located anomalies.
 10,000 ohm-rn Anomaly
-1 -

N -2-
E
0-
-3

-54

a.
0-5
U-

o -7
-8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50
Area (m3)
500 ohm-m Anomaly
-1 -

S-2 -
E
0-
-3

5-
~6
a.
8 7-

-8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Area (m3)

Figure3.4(c). Integratedarea of anomaly. The anomaly size is calculated based on the size of
the binary plot (createdwith the critical resistivity value Pcr). The inversion was run in response
to synthetic left-right-pseudo sweep arraydata generatedfor centrally located anomalies.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1 -

-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Area (m 3)

500 ohm-m Anomaly

-1 ' I I

E
0
c -3

0-6-
Q-7
I
-8 L~

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
3
Area (m )

Figure 3.4(d). Integratedarea ofanomaly. Pseudosection data.Margin-locatedanomalies.

 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly

S-2
E
0-
-3

o-5
-6
o -7
-8
10 15 20 25
Area (m3)
500 ohm-m Anomaly
-1 -

E
0-
-3

-4

r 6-
C.
o -7
-8 -
5 10 15 20 25
Area (m3)

Figure 3.4(e). Integratedarea of anomaly. Left-right sweep data. Margin-locatedanomalies.

 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
-1

-@-2
E
0-
-3

-4

U-0-5

0 -6
8 7
-8
10 15 20 25
Area (m3)
500 ohm-m Anomaly
-1

LL
0-5 -

5 10 15 20 25
Area (m3)

Figure 3.4(). Integratedarea of anomaly. Left-right-pseudo sweep data. Margin-located

anomalies.
3.5 Smoothness as a function of depth

Recall from equation (2.10), the functional f to be minimized. The second term of the

equation represents the roughness of the model and is given by

s2 = (m -m O)T LTL(m - mo) (3.6)

If we take the inverse of the roughness, then we can arrive at the smoothness of the model at the

final iteration such that

Smoothness= (3.7)
S2

Plotting final iteration smoothness as a function of depth reveals how the smoothness

increases as the inversion algorithm attempts to impose minimal structure while solving an

increasingly underdetermined problem. Figure 3.5(a) is an example of this type of graph for

10,000 92-m and 500 -m anomalies that were used to produce forward model data analogous to

a dipole-dipole pseudosection array geometry. Both the smoothness graph and the integrated area

graph tend to exhibit proportional behavior, such that they both appear to increase with depth.

This illustrates evidence of the smearing that the inversion algorithm imposes on anomalies.

Figure 3.5(b) and 3.5(c) are plots of inversion behavior in response to left-right sweep and left-

right-pseudo sweep data. Figures 3.5(d)-(f) repeat the tests in response to the geometries, but for

margin-located anomalies.
 10,000 Ohm-m anomaly

-6

-8

-10
- -

-12 -

0 4
Smoothness
500 Ohm-m anomaly

II I ||

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Smoothness

Figure 3.5(a). Final iterationsmoothness as a function of depth. Pseudosectiondata. Centrally

located anomalies.Notice that the trend isfor the smoothness to increase with depth.
 10,000 Ohm-m anomaly

-12 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Smoothness
500 Ohm-m anomaly

-2

-6

-
.1

-10-

-12'
0 5 10 15 20 25
Smoothness

Figure 3.5(b). Final iterationsmoothness as a function of depth. Left-right sweep data. Centrally
located anomalies.Notice that the trend isfor the smoothness to increase with depth.
 10,000 Ohm-m anomaly

-2
E
E -4 -

-6-

-8 -
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Smoothness
500 Ohm-m anomaly
-1 -

-2-

-3

-4-

-5 -
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Smoothness

Figure 3.5(c). Final iterationsmoothness as a function of depth. Left-right-pseudo sweep data.

Centrally located anomalies. Notice that the trend isfor the smoothness to increase with depth.
 10,000 Ohm-rn anomaly
0
I II I I-

-2

-~-4
-N

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.

Smoothness
500 Ohm-m anomaly
0 I I I I I

-2
E
E -4

-6

I I I I I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Smoothness

Figure 3.5(d). Finaliterationsmoothness as afunction of depth. Pseudosectiondata. Margin-

located anomalies.
 10,000 Ohm-m anomaly

Smoothness
500 Ohm-rn anomaly
0-

-2-
E
50. -4 -

-6-

-8 -
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Smoothness

Figure 3.5(e). Final iterationsmoothness as a function of depth. Left-right sweep data. Margin-
located anomalies.
 10,000 Ohm-rn anomaly

-2
E
E0. -4

-6

-8 I I I I
.
I
. .

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Smoothness
500 Ohm-m anomaly
-1-

-2-

_-3-
E
S-4-
0.

-5-

-6

-7-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Smoothness

Figure 3.5(f). Finaliterationsmoothness as afunction of depth. Left-right-pseudo sweep data.

Margin-locatedanomalies. Notice that the trend is for the smoothness to increase with depth, but
that the smoothness is erratic.

60
3.6 The product of per and the integrated area

A closer inspection of the graphs of per as a function of depth and the integrated area as a

function of depth reveals that the two descriptors tend to exhibit inversely proportional behavior.

While the critical resistivity of the subsurface decreases for deeper targets, the integrated area

increases. However, we know that for the forward model, the critical resistivity and the

integrated area remain constant for all depths. It would seem plausible that, perhaps, it is possible

to capture a quality within the inversion imagery that reflects both the critical resistivity value

and the integrated area when taken as a product. In its simplest form, the product would be:

P(z) = per (z) x area(z) (3.7)

where P(z) is the product at a given depth. In this sense, it is a calculation of bulk resistivity,

because we are defining our target as an anomaly that possesses resistivity and area. This is

analogous to the approach adopted by Madden (1971), who resolved subsurface resistivity in the

ID case as a product of resistivity and thickness. The inversion algorithm may only be capable of

resolving the product as opposed to resolving the resistivity alone. Figure 3.6(a) illustrates this

product for the 10,000 Q-m and 500 Q m centrally located anomalies that have been imaged with

the left-right-pseudosection array. In its purest form, the product of the inversion-derived Per (z)

and the area diverges from the constant forward product. For the 10,000 Q-m case, this is caused

by the significant decay in the critical resistivity value for depths from 1 to 4 meters. The critical

resistivity value, determined from the contrast between the anomaly and the background, decays

so quickly as a function of depth that the increase in area is unable to compensate. Once the

target has reached a greater depth, the continued increase in anomaly area begins to compensate

for the low resistivity values. In the case of the 500 Q-m anomaly, the opposite behavior occurs:
the expansion of the integrated area of the anomaly outpaces the decrease in value of the critical

resistivity, causing the product to increase as a function of depth.

It is possible to apply a consistent correction to the product that takes into account the

behavior of the product with increasing depth. For example, the 10,000 9-m case requires a

corrective increase in value for shallow depths in order to overcome the significant decrease in

critical resistivity; this allows the corrected product of the inversion solution to approach the

actual product of the forward model. This correction must be decreased as the depth increases

since the inversion returns an increasingly larger area for the anomaly. One possible correction

may be:

P(z)'cwor ,,, = [Pcr(Z) x area(z)]x I+ -Z (3.8)

The results of this correction are also shown in Figure 3.6(a).

The 500 Q-m case requires a different depth correction, since the expansion of the area as

a function of depth must be weighed less in order to reduce the overall product and thus

approximate the forward model product; but, this correction need only be applied for target

depths greater than 4 meters. In this case the product becomes

Ifz > 4 meters,

P(z)o',= Pr (z) x area(z)]x 1 (3.9)

These corrected results are also shown in Figure 3.6(a). Figure 3.6(b) shows the ratio between

the inversion product and the forward product for both the uncorrected and corrected cases.

Unfortunately, this correction only appears to correct and better approximate the product

for centrally located anomalies. Figures 3.6(c) and 3.6(d) illustrate this product between critical

resistivity and area for an anomaly located on the left flank. The correction applied for the
centrally located anomaly, when applied to anomalies on the flanks, does not capture a product

appropriate to the forward model.

In this short test, it has been shown that it may be possible to capture the bulk resistivity

of a target in a 2D case. Because of the smearing introduced to the imagery and the decrease in

current density at depth, the product that describes this bulk resistivity must be corrected in order

to lend greater weight to the resistivity as a function of depth, or less weight to the area as a

function of depth. Determining the appropriate correction can be performed by identifying three

key variables: the critical resistivity, p,, (z), which seems to be unique to the depth and

magnitude of the actual anomaly; the depth of the anomaly, z; and the horizontal location of the

anomaly, x. Using these three variables it may be possible to prescribe a consistent methodology

to correct a critical resistivity - integrated area product and quite possibly capture resistive

anomalies at depths that otherwise would not be resolvable.

 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
0

E -2

0
L.
* -6

O -8

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Product = Rhocr * Integrated Area
x 104
500 ohm-m Anomaly
0
- Inversion Product
- - Depth-Corrected
E -2 I- Inversion Product
-..... Forward Product

u.
0

I-

U-8
I i t I

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Product = Rhocr * Integrated Area

Figure 3.6(a). The product between the critical resistivity value and the integratedarea of
anomaly, taken as afunction of depth for centrally located 10,000 9-m and 500 Q-m anomalies.
Synthetic data was createdbased on a left-right-pseudosection arraygeometry. The graphs show
the uncorrectedproductfor the inversion solution, the correctedproductfor the inversion
solution, and the productfor the forwardmodel.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
0

0 -2-I
c2
C

-o -
LL
5
0. -6-

0 -8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Ratio of Inverse Product to Forward Product
500 ohm-m Anomaly
0
-- Inv/Fwd
- Corrected Inv/Fwd

0
E -4-
-

0.
0-6

I I I I I I
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Ratio of Inverse Product to Forward Product

Figure 3.6(b). Ratio between the productsfor the inversion solution and the forwardmodel,
taken as afunction of depthfor centrally located 10,000 Q-m and 500 Q-m anomalies. Synthetic
data was created based on a left-right-pseudosectionarraygeometry. The graphs show the ratio
between the uncorrectedproductfor the inversion solution and the forwardmodel, and between
the correctedproductfor the inversion solution and the forward model.
 10,000 ohm-m Anomaly
0

c -2 --
CL

0- -

500oh-m noal
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Product = Rhoor * Integrated Area 4

500 ohm-n Anomaly

0 L
/ - -e-Inversion Product
CU - -Depth-Corrected
-8-
-2 Inversion Product
I I1
II I
Forward Product
S-4-

LS~ -8

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Product = Rhoc * Integrated Area

Figure 3.6(c). The product between the critical resistivity value and the integratedarea of
anomaly, taken as a function of depthfor left-flank located 10, 000 Q -m and 500 Q£?m anomalies.
Synthetic data was created based on a left -right-pseudosectionarray geometry. The graphs show
the uncorrectedproductfor the inversion solution, the correctedproductfor the inversion
solution, and the productfor the forward model.
 10,000 ohm-rm Anomaly

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Ratio of Inverse Product to Forward Product
500 ohm-m Anomaly

E-2

~4
0

5-6
%

0-

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Ratio of Inverse Product to Forward Product

Figure 3.6(d). Ratio between the productsfor the inversion solution and theforward model,
taken as afunction of depth for left-flank located 10,000 Q-m and 500 Q -m anomalies. Synthetic
data was createdbased on a left-right-pseudosectionarraygeometry. The graphsshow the ratio
between the uncorrectedproductfor the inversion solution and the forward model, and between
the correctedproductfor the inversion solution and the forwardmodel.
Chapter 4
Summary and Conclusions
4.1 Summary of Testing Results

Prior to testing the resistivity inversion algorithm developed by (Shi 1998), we developed

the forward problem and the inverse problem in an attempt to bring forth some of the challenges

that arise when we attempt to infer 2-D subsurface structure from surface potential

measurements. We investigated the possibility of improving the result of the inverse problem by

utilizing different array geometries. The pseudosection array produced data with an inversion

capture zone for centrally located anomalies, whereas the left-right sweep enabled the capture

zone to the flanks. The hybrid of these two array geometries seemed to outperform the other four

array types.

It would appear that utilizing the left-right-pseudo sweep as a first-choice application to

collect surface measurements over a field of unknown structure is an appropriate strategy. Its

ability to capture resistive and conductive targets throughout the subsurface with higher accuracy

than the other array geometries makes it a strong first choice.

An alternative approach may be to utilize a left-right sweep alone to determine the

presence of any resistive anomalies. Once the relative locations of targets in the subsurface can

be determined, secondary and tertiary surveys with the pseudosection array can be performed by

centering the array geometry over specific targets. This way, they may be more accurately

resolved by the inversion.

The insensitivity that surface measurements experience in response to deeper targets

makes it difficult to achieve accurate sampling of the deep subsurface. By testing the algorithm

in response to synthetic data generated from a forward model, we illustrated how the

insensitivity related to decreasing current density with depth manifests itself in the critical
resistivity values used to create binary plots from the inversion output. The current density

distribution and the critical resistivity values appear to exhibit similar asymptotic decay profiles

as a function of depth. The decrease of resistivity values could also be witnessed in the imagery

produced by the inversion. The utility of the critical resistivity value in the development of 2D

binary plots from inversion imagery proved to be valuable as an interpretive tool for identifying

the accurate depth and general shape of the targets. However, the binary plots also captured the

"smearing" and expansion of the anomaly for deeper targets.

The regularization used to overcome the numerical ill-posedness and instability of the

inverse problem also presents a mechanism for loss of accuracy and resolution. The

regularization approach used in the algorithm tested here applies a constraint of minimum

roughness in the model. This constraint, coupled with the insensitivity of the surface

measurements to deeper targets, causes a smearing in the imagery and a homogenization of

resistivity values that increases with depth. The testing performed in this investigation illustrated

how the area of the anomaly increased with depth. This behavior could also be compared with

the trend in the final smoothness condition of each inverse problem solution, and the results

yielded a generally proportional correlation between the area of the anomaly and the level of

smoothness with increasing depth.

Finally, we investigated the possibility of calculating a product between the critical

resistivity and the integrated area of an anomaly produced by the inversion, in order to capture a

bulk resistivity that is comparable to that of the forward model target. It appears possible to

calculate an appropriate product by applying corrections that are unique to the critical resistivity

and depth, but there is also be a requirement for a correction based on horizontal location.
4.2 Future Work

Most of the work conducted in this study was based on identifying resistive targets

against relatively conductive backgrounds. Though some testing was performed on conductive

anomalies, it would be appropriate to further investigate the behavior of the inversion in response

to conductive targets. In particular, a similar approach that incorporates the use of critical

resistivity values to determine resistivity contrast, binary plots, and integrated areas of anomaly

would yield significant insight into the performance of the inversion and the survey method for

locating conductive anomalies. It would also be interesting to pursue such a study from the

perspective of conductivity as opposed to resistivity, to see if the testing methodology improves

the utility and interpretation of inversion imagery.

The penetration of current density makes it difficult to collect data that illuminates deep

targets. When data is introduced into the algorithm, the inversion algorithm iterates to produce a

minimum error solution; unfortunately, the solution reflects lower than appropriate resistivities

for deep targets. One approach to overcoming this discrepancy is to "weigh" data samples for

deeper locations so that the algorithm may place greater importance on data that otherwise would

have left the problem underdetermined.

Another approach would be to conduct an a posteriori correction to the inversion results,

based on the critical resistivity value. The testing conducted in Chapter 3 alluded to the

possibility that there is a unique correlation between the actual resistivity of the target, the actual

depth of the target, and the critical resistivity in the associated model produced by the inversion.

Where weighting of data for deeper sampling blocks may be considered as a conditioning of

data, there may be a way to exploit this functional relationship in order to condition the model

parametersproduced by the inversion.

 The smoothness operator employed in the inversion algorithm must be utilized in order to

arrive at an acceptable low-error solution. Unfortunately the smoothing condition and the

insensitivity of the data measurements tends to result in excessive smearing of deeper targets.

Like the correlation between critical resistivity values and current density, there also appears to

be a correlation between the integrated area of the anomaly (as calculated with the critical

resistivity value) and the final smoothness of the model produced by the inversion. Again, an a

posterioricorrection to "shrink" anomalies in model space may be possible based on the

potentially unique functional relationship between area, smoothness, depth, and critical

resistivity. Further investigation into this unique function may yield a methodology for filtering

imagery produced by the inversion.

The potential for capturing the bulk resistivity of resistive targets set against relatively

conductive backgrounds should be further explored. Though it may not be possible to identify

the true shape and absolute resistivity of a deep resistive target, it may be possible to identify the

target as a resistive body that is comprised of both material resistivity and size. The ability to

estimate the product of these two values (resistivity and area) by using appropriate and consistent

corrections for depth may be a significant development towards improving the applicability and

accuracy of the resistivity method.

 Bibliography

[1] Beard, L. P., and Morgan, F. D., 1991, Assessment of 2-D resistivity structures using 1-D
inversion, Geophysics, 56, 874-883.

[2] Constable, S. C., Parker, R. L., Constable, C. G., 1987, Occam's Inversion: A practical
algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data,
Geophysics, 52, 289-298.

[3] LaBrecque, D. J., Miletto, M., Daily, W., Ramirez, A., and Owen, E., 1996, The affects
of noise on Occam's inversion of resistivity tomography data, Geophysics, 61, 538-548.

[4] Madden, T.R., 1971, The resolving power of geoelectrical measurements for delineating
resistive zones within the earth's crust: The structure and physical properties of the
earth's crust, Heacock, J.G., Ed., American Geophysical Union Monographs, 14, 95-105.

[5] Madden, T. R., 1972, Transmission system and network analogies to geophysical forward
and inverse problems, Office ofNaval Research Technical Report, 72-73.

[6] Mufti, I. R., 1976, Finite-difference resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped two-
dimensional structures, Geophysics, 41, 62-78.

[7] Pelton, W. H., Rijo, L., Swift, C. M., 1978, Inversion of two dimensional resistivity and
induced polarization data, Geophysics, 43, 788-803.

[8] Sasaki, Y., 1992, Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical
simulation, Geophysical Prospecting,40, 453-463.

[9] Shi, Weiqun, and Morgan, F. D., 1997, Application of electrical resistivity tomography to
image Harrison Caves in Barbados, West Indies, Society ofExploration Geophysics 6 7th
Annual Meeting: ExpandedAbstracts, 1, 350-353.

[10] Shi, Weiqun, 1998, PhD Dissertation: Advanced Modeling and Inversion Techniques for
Three-dimensional Geoelectrical Surveys, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[11] Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sherriff, R. E., 1990, Applied Geophysics, 2 "dEdition,
Cambridge University Press.

[12] Tripp, A. C., Hohmann, G. W., Swift, C. M., 1984, Two-dimensional resistivity
inversion, Geophysics, 49, 1708-1717.

[13] Zhang, J., Mackie, R. L., Madden, T. R., 1995, 3-D Resistivity forward modeling and
inversion using conjugate gradients, Geophysics, 60, 1313-1325.
Appendix 1: Imaging of a 10,000 fl-m anomaly. Central location.

Al-
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
6000
4000
10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
6000
E5
4000

0.
10 2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.5
.0.5
0
0 10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA]-1. Pseudosectionimagery. Anomaly depth = 1 m below surface.

A1-2
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
6000
4000
010
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
6000
E,5
M 4000

10 2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.5
005

010

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A1-2. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 1 m below surface.

A1-3
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

160

140

120

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
1

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureAl-3. Middle-sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 1 m below surface.

A1-4
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
- 4000
010
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 8000

6000

4000

10 2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

05
0.5
a.
10

- 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A]-4. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth 1 m below surface.

A1-5
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
4000
1.0
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 8000

6000

4000
10 2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
a.
O10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA1-5. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth 1 m below surface.

A1-6
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
4000
10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500
400
E5
300
0.
S10 200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
CL
0.5
0.
O 10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA1-6. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A1-7
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
6000
4000
O0
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
400

i5 300

200
0 10
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

5
0.5

0 10
00
- - 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA 1-7. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A1-8
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
6000
CL

0) 4000
o10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
110
E5
105
010
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E 5
0.5
0
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A]-8. Middle-sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A1-9
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
E 5
6000
4000
o10
2000

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
500
400
300
200
100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
1

5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA 1-9. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

Al-10
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
,5 6000
0. 4000
0 10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
250

200

150

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E 5 I I
0.0
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA.l-10. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A l-I
Appendix 2: Imaging of a 500 fl-m anomaly. Central location.

A2-1
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

CL 300
10
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
500
5 400
'S. 300
10
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

05
0.5
a)
0 10

0 5 0
10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA2-1. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly depth = 1 m below surface.

A2-2
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
500

400

300

200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

500
400
300
200
100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
.1

0.5

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA2-2. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = m below surface.

A2-3
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

a. 300
0
010
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

140

'S.
0 120
010

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
010

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA2-3. Middle-sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 1 m below surface.

A2-4
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
5
300
10 200
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
500

5 400
C. 300
10
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5

C. 0.5
O 10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A2-4. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth 1 m below surface.

A2-5
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

300
10 200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0-
500
5 400
300
010
200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5

0010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A2-5. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth =1 m below surface.

A2-6
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
5
300
010 200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0

200

150
010
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
0.
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA2-6. Pseudosection imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A2-7
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
500

400

300

200

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
200
E5

150
0
010
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0

E5
.
0
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A2-7. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A2-8
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
E.5

0. 300
o10 200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
108
E.5 106
104
0.
102
010
100
98
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E,5

0. 0.5
o

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A2-8. Middle-sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A2-9
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
E 5
300
010
200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0

200
E5

.1 150
010
100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0

E5

.
0 10

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A2-9. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A2-10
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 -500

400

300
10
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
180
5 160
0. 140
010 120
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

50.5 00.

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 0
Distance (m)

FigureA2-10. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth 3 m below surface.

A2-1 1
Appendix 3: Imaging of a 10,000 fQ-m anomaly. Left flank location.

A3-1
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
E5 6000
.
4000
10
2000

C 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 180
160
E5
.
140

010 120
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 i1

E 5
0.5
010

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A3-1. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A3-2
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
4000
10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
500

5 400

0.
300
10 200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
a
0.
0 10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA3-2. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A3-3
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

140
E, 5
120
.1
0 10
100

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)

5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA3-3. Middle-sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A3-4
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
4000
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 1000
800
%E, 5
600
400
10
200

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
M 0.5
0.
S10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A3-4. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth 2 m below surface.

A3-5
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
E 5
6000

10
4000
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

a. 300
010 200
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5

a. 0.5
O 10
00

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA3-5. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth 2 m below surface.

A3-6
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5
6000
4000
10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
250
E5
200
C.
010 150

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

I I
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A3-6. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A3-7
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
6000
4000
010
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0

300

C. 200
10
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

5
0.5
C1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A3-7. Left-right sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A3-8
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
E 5
6000
4000
10
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0

120
0.5
110

100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.5
0
010

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A3-8. Middle-sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A3-9
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 10000
8000
5 6000
4000
010
2000

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 400

5 300

200
10
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

05
0.5
a.
Q 10
00
- 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA3-9. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A3-10
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 300
250
E 5
200
0.
a.
0 10 150
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
a.
0 10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA3-10. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A3-11
Appendix 4: Imaging of a 500 12-m anomaly. Left flank location.

A4-1
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
300
C1
010
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
140
E 5 130
120
10 110
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

05
0.5

010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-1. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A4-2
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

0. 300
0
010
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 300
250
0.5
200
0.
10 150
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.5
0
010

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-2. Left-right sweep imagery.Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A4-3
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
%-5
. 300
0 10
200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

120
%O5
110
a.
010
100

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

015
0.5
0 10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-3. Middle-sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A4-4
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
05
300
10
200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
300
%O5
0. 200
010
100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

015
0.5
S10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-4. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A4-5
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400

300
010
200

0 5 10 15 20 25 100
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
250

5 200
0.
)0 150
010

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

05
0.5
a)
O 10
00

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-5. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 2 m below surface.

A4-6
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
E5

0. 300
010
200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
120
E5

110
0.
a.
010
100

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

*O5
0.5
0
010

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-6. Pseudosectionimagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A4-7
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
500

400

. 300
10 200

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
C
200

150

100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
10

CL
0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA 4-7. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A4-8
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

-- % 400

300
10 200

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 115

110

105
10 m- 100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E5
0.5
a.
0.
010

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-8. Middle-sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A4-9
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500

400
E15
300
010 200

100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
200

E5
150

010
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

5
0.5
a.
G)1

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA4-9. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A4-10
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 500
400
E5
300
10
200

100
5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
180
E5 160
140
0
010 120
100

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
1

5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A4-10. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A4- 11
Appendix 5: Imaging of a 1 fl-m anomaly. Central location.

A5-1
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
100
80
60
40
20

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

150

100

10 50

0 5 10 15
Inversion (Binary Image)
0

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-1. Pseudosection imagery.Anomaly Depth =1 m below surface.

A5-2
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E5
60
0.
010 40
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
120
100
80
CL
0 60
010 40
20
E5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.
0.5

0 5 10 0
15 20 25
Distance (in)

FigureA 5-2. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth 1 m below surface.

A5-3
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 -100

80
E 5
60
.
0 40
010
20

0 5 10 15 20 25
inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
150
E5
100

10
50

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E 5
0.5
0
0 10

0 0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-3. Middle-sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 1 m below surface.

A5-4
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E5
60
4) 40
010
20

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)

150

100

50

10 15
Inversion (Binary Image)

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-4. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 1 m below surface.

A5-5
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E5
60
40
10
20

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
200

E5 150
100
0 10
50

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

0.5

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-5. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly Depth = 1 m below surface.

A5-6
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E, 5 60

0 40
010
20

10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 150

E5 100

10 50

0 5 10 15
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

5
0.5

10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-6. Pseudosectionimagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A5-7
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
100
80
60
40
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
120
100
80
60
40
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

E. 5
0.5
.
O 10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-7. Left-right sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A5-8
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E5
60
40
010
20

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
110

100
5
C1 90
0

80

0 5 10 15
Inversion (Binary Image)

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-8. Middle-sweep imagery.Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A5-9
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E 5
60
40
010
20

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0
200

5 150
100
0
50

0 5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
0 1

%,5
a. 0.5
010

0 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

Figure A5-9. Left-right-pseudo sweep imagery. Anomaly depth 3 m below surface.

A5-10
 Forward: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 100
80
E5
60
0 40
010
20

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion: Resistivity (Ohm-m)
0 250
200
E 5
150
100
10
50

5 10 15 20 25
Inversion (Binary Image)
1

0.5

0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (m)

FigureA5-10. Left-right-middle sweep imagery. Anomaly depth = 3 m below surface.

A5-11