The point-spread function measure of resolution for the 3-D electrical resistivity experiment

SUMMARY The solution appraisal component of the inverse problem involves investigation of the relationship between our estimated model and the actual model. However, full appraisal is difficult for large 3-D problems such as electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). We tackle the appraisal problem for 3-D ERT via the point-spread functions (PSFs) of the linearized resolution matrix. The PSFs represent the impulse response of the inverse solution and quantify our parameter-specific resolving capability. We implement an iterative least-squares solution of the PSF for the ERT experiment, using on-the-fly calculation of the sensitivity via an adjoint integral equation with stored Green's functions and subgrid reduction. For a synthetic example, analysis of individual PSFs demonstrates the truly 3-D character of the resolution. The PSFs for the ERT experiment are Gaussian-like in shape, with directional asymmetry and significant off-diagonal features. Computation of attributes representative of the blurring and localization of the PSF reveal significant spatial dependence of the resolution with some correlation to the electrode infrastructure. Application to a time-lapse ground-water monitoring experiment demonstrates the utility of the PSF for assessing feature discrimination, predicting artefacts and identifying model dependence of resolution. For a judicious selection of model parameters, we analyse the PSFs and their attributes to quantify the case-specific localized resolving capability and its variability over regions of interest. We observe approximate interborehole resolving capability of less than 1–1.5 m in the vertical direction and less than 1–2.5 m in the horizontal direction. Resolving capability deteriorates significantly outside the electrode infrastructure.

[1]  W. Barrash,et al.  Hierarchical geostatistics and multifacies systems: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Boise, Idaho , 2002 .

[2]  Roel Snieder,et al.  The Anatomy of Inverse Problems , 2000 .

[3]  Jie Zhang,et al.  3-D resistivity forward modeling and inversion using conjugate gradients , 1995 .

[4]  Douglas W. Oldenburg,et al.  Optimal Survey Design Using the Point Spread Function Measure of Resolution , 2005 .

[5]  Roel Snieder The role of nonlinearity in inverse problems , 1998 .

[6]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Sensitivity of electrical resistivity tomography data to electrode position errors , 2005 .

[7]  S. Friedel,et al.  Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach , 2003 .

[8]  Douglas W. Oldenburg,et al.  3-D inversion of induced polarization data3-D Inversion of IP Data , 2000 .

[9]  Z. Bing,et al.  Finite element three-dimensional direct current resistivity modelling: accuracy and efficiency considerations , 2001 .

[11]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes: FORTRAN , 1988 .

[12]  Douglas LaBrecque,et al.  Monitoring an underground steam injection process using electrical resistance tomography , 1993 .

[13]  W. Menke Geophysical data analysis , 1984 .

[14]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Time-lapse ERT monitoring of an injection/withdrawal experiment , 2006 .

[15]  D. Oldenburg,et al.  3-D inversion of induced polarization data , 2001 .

[16]  Stephen K. Park,et al.  Inversion of pole-pole data for 3-D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes , 1991 .

[17]  R. Pascual-Marqui Review of methods for solving the EEG inverse problem , 1999 .

[18]  Gregory A. Newman,et al.  Image appraisal for 2-D and 3-D electromagnetic inversion , 2000 .

[19]  Robert H. Halstead,et al.  Matrix Computations , 2011, Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing.

[20]  R. Parker Geophysical Inverse Theory , 1994 .

[21]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Theoretical development of the differential scattering decomposition for the 3D resistivity experiment , 2006 .

[22]  D. Oldenburg Funnel functions in linear and nonlinear appraisal , 1983 .

[23]  J. Virieux,et al.  Explicit, approximate expressions for the resolution and a posteriori covariance of massive tomographic systems , 1999 .

[24]  G. Backus,et al.  The Resolving Power of Gross Earth Data , 1968 .

[25]  Luis Tenorio,et al.  Data and model uncertainty estimation for linear inversion: Geophys , 2002 .

[26]  W. Menke Geophysical data analysis : discrete inverse theory , 1984 .

[27]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in Fortran 77 : the art of scientificcomputing. , 1992 .

[28]  A. Dey,et al.  Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional structures , 1979 .

[29]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Matrix computations (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[30]  D. Oldenburg,et al.  Inversion of induced polarization data , 1994 .

[31]  G. Backus,et al.  Uniqueness in the inversion of inaccurate gross Earth data , 1970, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[32]  Robin Newmark,et al.  Electrical Resistance Tomography for Steam Injection Monitoring and Process Control , 1995 .

[33]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Model reliability for 3D electrical resistivity tomography: Application of the volume of investigation index to a time-lapse monitoring experiment , 2007 .

[34]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Resolution analysis of geophysical images: Comparison between point spread function and region of data influence measures , 2007 .