Publication Type:Journal Article
Source:Journal of Applied Geophysics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Volume 150, p.93-100 (2018)
Keywords:amplitude, Canada, case studies, conductivity, data processing, eastern canada, elastic waves, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic methods, field studies, frequency, geophysical methods, models, noise, Ontario, resistivity, Sudbury Ontario, tilt
We present two examples of using the contrast source inversion (CSI) method to invert synthetic radio-imaging (RIM) data and field data. The synthetic model has two isolated conductors (one perfect conductor and one moderate conductor) embedded in a layered background. After inversion, we can identify the two conductors on the inverted image. The shape of the perfect conductor is better resolved than the shape of the moderate conductor. The inverted conductivity values of the two conductors are approximately the same, which demonstrates that the conductivity values cannot be correctly interpreted from the CSI results. The boundaries and the tilts of the upper and the lower conductive layers on the background can also be inferred from the results, but the centre parts of conductive layers in the inversion results are more conductive than the parts close to the boreholes. We used the straight-ray tomographic imaging method and the CSI method to invert the RIM field data collected using the FARA system between two boreholes in a mining area in Sudbury, Canada. The RIM data include the amplitude and the phase data collected using three frequencies: 312.5 kHz, 625 kHz and 1250 kHz. The data close to the ground surface have high amplitude values and complicated phase fluctuations, which are inferred to be contaminated by the reflected or refracted electromagnetic (EM) fields from the ground surface, and are removed for all frequencies. Higher-frequency EM waves attenuate more quickly in the subsurface environment, and the locations where the measurements are dominated by noise are also removed. When the data are interpreted with the straight-ray method, the images differ substantially for different frequencies. In addition, there are some unexpected features in the images, which are difficult to interpret. Compared with the straight-ray imaging results, the inversion results with the CSI method are more consistent for different frequencies. On the basis of what we learnt from the synthetic study, we interpret that there is one resistive layer across the middle of the borehole plane and two more conductive areas above and below this layer. Though there are some limitations in the study, such as large transmitter steps and the precise amplitudes and dipole moments being unknown, we conclude that the CSI method provides more interpretable images compared with the straight-ray method.
GeoRef, Copyright 2018, American Geological Institute.<br/>818467-9<br/>contrast source inversion<br/>radio-imaging