Advanced

Resistivity inversion software comparison

Hellman, K. LU ; Johansson, Sara LU ; Olsson, Per-Ivar LU and Dahlin, Torleif LU (2016) 22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Near Surface Geoscience 2016 In 22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Near Surface Geoscience 2016
Abstract

The application of geophysics may assist in solving environmental, geotechnical and exploration problems. One commonly used method in such applications is electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). In order to interpret the results, inversion is needed to create models estimating distribution of resistivity in the ground. Several inversion programs are available for geophysicists to use. It is therefore important to investigate if different software's give similar results for a given data set. In this paper, three different inversion software's have been compared through inversion of the forward response of the same synthetic model. The programs used are Res2Dinv, Aarhusinv and BERT. Two synthetic forward models have been used. As... (More)

The application of geophysics may assist in solving environmental, geotechnical and exploration problems. One commonly used method in such applications is electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). In order to interpret the results, inversion is needed to create models estimating distribution of resistivity in the ground. Several inversion programs are available for geophysicists to use. It is therefore important to investigate if different software's give similar results for a given data set. In this paper, three different inversion software's have been compared through inversion of the forward response of the same synthetic model. The programs used are Res2Dinv, Aarhusinv and BERT. Two synthetic forward models have been used. As expected, Res2Dinv generally tends to exaggerate structures vertically and Aarhusinv to exaggerate them vertically. BERT seems to be somewhere in between, but does not seem to resolve sharp features in the synthetic forward model, resulting in rounded anomalies. A square-like feature close to the ground surface in the forward model was well resolved by all inversion software. However, it was not possible to resolve inclined blocks in any of the inversions. Possible explanations might be poor data coverage at deeper depths in the model and model discretization that cannot resolve inclined geometries.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
in
22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Near Surface Geoscience 2016
publisher
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE
conference name
22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Near Surface Geoscience 2016
external identifiers
  • scopus:85007380055
ISBN
2214-4609
DOI
10.3997/2214-4609.201602016
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
c0b6e497-c0d7-4e3a-92c4-01ade263f725
date added to LUP
2017-02-21 09:58:11
date last changed
2017-09-11 11:19:58
@inproceedings{c0b6e497-c0d7-4e3a-92c4-01ade263f725,
  abstract     = {<p>The application of geophysics may assist in solving environmental, geotechnical and exploration problems. One commonly used method in such applications is electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). In order to interpret the results, inversion is needed to create models estimating distribution of resistivity in the ground. Several inversion programs are available for geophysicists to use. It is therefore important to investigate if different software's give similar results for a given data set. In this paper, three different inversion software's have been compared through inversion of the forward response of the same synthetic model. The programs used are Res2Dinv, Aarhusinv and BERT. Two synthetic forward models have been used. As expected, Res2Dinv generally tends to exaggerate structures vertically and Aarhusinv to exaggerate them vertically. BERT seems to be somewhere in between, but does not seem to resolve sharp features in the synthetic forward model, resulting in rounded anomalies. A square-like feature close to the ground surface in the forward model was well resolved by all inversion software. However, it was not possible to resolve inclined blocks in any of the inversions. Possible explanations might be poor data coverage at deeper depths in the model and model discretization that cannot resolve inclined geometries.</p>},
  author       = {Hellman, K. and Johansson, Sara and Olsson, Per-Ivar and Dahlin, Torleif},
  booktitle    = {22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Near Surface Geoscience 2016},
  isbn         = {2214-4609},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE},
  title        = {Resistivity inversion software comparison},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201602016},
  year         = {2016},
}