CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Exploration Geophysics
  The Bulletin of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
You are here: Journals > Exploration Geophysics   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Committee
Editorial Contact
Sites of Interest
Print Publication Dates
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How To Order
For Advertisers

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys

M.H. Loke, I. Acworth and T. Dahlin

Abstract

Two-dimensional electrical imaging surveys are now widely used in engineering and environmental surveys to map moderately complex structures. In order to adequately resolve such structures with arbitrary resistivity distributions, the regularised least-squares optimisation method with a cell-based model is frequently used in the inversion of the electrical imaging data. The L2 norm based least-squares optimisation method that attempts to minimise the sum of squares of the spatial changes in the model resistivity is often used. The resulting inversion model has a smooth variation in the resistivity values. In cases where the true subsurface resistivity consists of several regions that are approximately homogenous internally and separated by sharp boundaries, the result obtained by the smooth inversion method is not optimal. It tends to smear out the boundaries and give resistivity values that are too low or too high. The blocky or L1 norm optimisation method can be used for such situations. This method attempts to minimise the sum of the absolute values of the spatial changes in the model resistivity. It tends to produce models with regions that are piecewise constant and separated by sharp boundaries. Results from tests of the smooth and blocky inversion methods with several synthetic and field data sets highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both methods. The smooth inversion method gives better results for areas where the subsurface resistivity changes in a gradual manner, while the blocky inversion method gives significantly better results where there are sharp boundaries. While fast computers and software have made the task of interpreting data from electrical imaging surveys much easier, it remains the responsibility of the interpreter to choose the appropriate tool for the task based on the available geological information.

Exploration Geophysics 34(3) 182 - 187  doi:10.1071/EG03182

  
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (805 KB) $25
Export Citation
Cited by
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010