Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1029/2003JB002716, 2004
Received 31 July 2003; revised 29 December 2003; accepted 8 January 2004; published 27 March 2004.
[1] It is now common practice to perform collocated DC resistivity and seismic refraction
surveys that complement each other in the search for more accurate characterization of the
subsurface. Although conventional separate DC resistivity and seismic models can be
diagnostic, we posit that better results can be derived from jointly estimated models. We
make the assumption that both methods must be sensing the same underlying geology and
have developed an innovative resistivity-velocity cross-gradients relationship to evaluate
the structural features common to both methods. The cross-gradients function is
incorporated as a constraint in a nonlinear least squares problem formulation, which is
solved using the Lagrange multiplier method. The resultant iterative two-dimensional
(2-D) joint inversion scheme is successfully applied to synthetic data (serving as
validation tests here) and to field data from collocated DC resistivity and seismic
refraction profiling experiments and also compared to conventional separate inversion
results. The joint inversion results are shown to be superior to those from separate 2-D
inversions of the respective data sets, since our algorithm leads to resistivity and velocity
models with remarkable structural agreement. INDEX TERMS: 0902 Exploration Geophysics:
Computational methods, seismic; 0925 Exploration Geophysics: Magnetic and electrical methods; 0935
Exploration Geophysics: Seismic methods (3025); 3260 Mathematical Geophysics: Inverse theory;
KEYWORDS: joint inversion, DC resistivity, seismic refraction
Citation: Gallardo, L. A., and M. A. Meju (2004), Joint two-dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-
gradients constraints, J. Geophys. Res., 109, B03311, doi:10.1029/2003JB002716.
B03311 1 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
4
tffi ðmrc ðmsb msr Þ þ mrr ðmsc msb Þ þ mrb ðmsr smsc ÞÞ;
1 rmr ð x; y; zÞ rms ð x; y; zÞ DxDz
qð x; y; zÞ ¼ cos ; ð1Þ
jrmr ð x; y; zÞjjrms ð x; y; zÞj ð4Þ
or related functionals such as 1/(1 cos q), where where the second subscript c, b, or r on mr (logarithm of
rmr(x, y, z) and rms(x, y, z) are the resistivity and seismic resistivity) or ms (slowness) denotes center, bottom or right
property gradients, respectively. However, these nonlinear cell in our heterogeneous 2-D grid as depicted in Figure 1.
functions have discontinuities arising from their angular Dx and Dz are the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the
nature and singularities in areas where rmr(x, y, z) or cells (Figure 1) and serve to normalize for grid differences
rms(x, y, z) vanish, as in homogeneous materials or local in equation (4).
maxima or minima of the physical properties. Instead, the [11] In the rest of this paper, we will develop and evaluate
preferred approach in this paper is to use the cross-gradients an algorithm that is underpinned by the cross-gradients
function [see Gallardo and Meju, 2003], which is given by concept so as to gauge the effectiveness of t as a structural
link between DC resistivity and seismic refraction models in
multidimensional joint inversion.
~
t ð x; y; zÞ ¼ rmr ð x; y; zÞ rms ð x; y; zÞ: ð2Þ
3. Regularized Least Squares Inversion With
This nonlinear second-order function has no problems of
discontinuity or singularity other than those particular to the
Cross-Gradients Constraint
adopted model parameterizations. [12] The conventional regularized inverse problem for-
[8] Using this cross-gradients function, we deem the mulations for separate two-dimensional seismic or DC
resistivity and seismic models to be structurally identical resistivity inversion [e.g., Loke and Barker, 1995; Zelt
if ~ t(x, y, z) = ~
t(x, y, z) vanishes everywhere, i.e., ~ 0, as it and Barton, 1998; Pérez-Flores et al., 2001] involve least
implies full collinearity of simultaneous changes on the squares minimization of data misfit and smoothness con-
resistivity and seismic parameters. straints. The smoothness measures help to overcome the
2 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
problems of nonuniqueness and instability that bedevil The travel time computation is carried out using our
geophysical inversion methods and can be combined with implementation of the progressive finite differences method
the cross-gradients concept to great effect in problem of Vidale [1990], incorporating some of the improvements
formulation. We therefore define our objective function as developed by C. Zelt [Zelt and Barton, 1998]. The Jacobian
[cf. Gallardo and Meju, 2003]: matrix As, composed by the fraction of distance of every ray
path in each model cell, is computed efficiently by ray
min F mr ; ms ¼ ½dr f r ðmr ÞT C1
rr ½dr f r ðmr Þ
tracing through the velocity field generated during the
forward modeling process.
þ ½ds f s ðms ÞT C1
ss ½ds f s ðms Þ [15] Similarly, the linearization of the cross-gradients
þ a2r mTr DT Dmr þ a2s mTs DT Dms constraint in equation (5) is accomplished using a first-
order Taylor expansion (neglecting higher orders), namely,
mr mRr T 1 mr mRr
þ CRR 0 1
ms mRs ms mRs mr m0r
subject to t ðmr ; ms Þ ¼ 0: ð5Þ t ðmr ; ms Þ ffi t ðm0r ; m0s Þ þ B@ A: ð8Þ
ms m0s
Here, dr (logarithm of apparent resistivity) and ds (seismic
travel times) are the observed data, fr(mr) are the computed In this case, we require a reference resistivity model m0r,
apparent resistivities, fs(ms) are the computed travel times, a reference slowness model m0s and the derivatives of t
Crr is the covariance matrix of the resistivity data (which are with respect to the model parameters given by B. The
assumed to be uncorrelated) and Css is the covariance relevant expressions for computing B are obtained from
matrix of the observed travel times (also assumed the 2-D discrete version of t given in equation (4). These
uncorrelated). t(mr, ms) contains the cross-gradients for all are
the cells making up the model. D is the smoothness matrix,
ar and as are weighting factors that define the level of @t 4 @t 4
smoothness required in the models, and mRr and mRs are the ffi ðmsb msr Þ; ffi ðmrr mrb Þ;
@mrc DxDz @msc DxDz
a priori model parameters with covariance CRR. The @t 4 @t 4
superscripts T and 1 denote matrix transpose and matrix ffi ðmsc msb Þ; ffi ðmrb mrc Þ; ð9Þ
@mrr DxDz @msr DxDz
inverse, respectively. Note that reliable prior knowledge of
@t 4 @t 4
petrophysical relationships linking resistivity and seismic ffi ðmsr msc Þ; and ffi ðmrc mrr Þ:
parameters [e.g., Berge et al., 2000; Kozlovskaya, 2001; @mrb DxDz @msb DxDz
Meju et al., 2003] can be incorporated into the objective
function via the a priori model parameters (mRr and mRs) [16] Using equations (6), (7), and (8), the linearized
and off-diagonal elements of their covariance matrix CRR, weighted equivalent of equation (5) is stated as
but this issue will not be addressed in this paper.
[13] Our objective function (5) is nonlinear since the DC
resistivity and seismic forward problems as well as the 1
min FL ðmr ; ms Þ ¼ 2 ½dr Ar mr T C1
rr ½dr Ar mr
cross-gradients constraint are nonlinear. Our solution to b
equation (5) is thus achieved by linearization. For the DC 1
þ 2 ½ds f s ðm0s ÞAs ðms m0s ÞT
resistivity forward problem, we adopt the approach of b
Pérez-Flores et al. [2001] founded on the nonlinear integral
C1
ss ½ds f s ðm0s ÞAs ðms m0s Þ
equations for electromagnetic inverse problems of Gómez-
Treviño [1987]. In this approach, the DC resistivity forward þ a2r mTr DT Dmr þ a2s mTs DT Dms
computation simplifies to a linear problem of the form mr mRr T 1 mr mRr
þ CRR
f r ðmr Þ ffi Ar mr ; ð6Þ ms mRs ms mRs
mr m0r
where Ar defines the Jacobian matrix, evaluated using the subject to t ðm0r ; m0s Þ þ B ¼ 0; ð10Þ
ms m0s
formulas given by Pérez-Flores et al. [2001]. Note that Ar is
independent of any particular mr thus it is computed only
once and is recurrently used in later calculations. We have where b is an auxiliary damping factor.
adopted this approximate model for the 2-D DC resistivity [17] The solution of equation (10) is determined, using
forward problem because of its computational speed; Lagrange multipliers [see e.g., Menke, 1984; Tarantola,
however, a more rigorous 2-D forward model can be used 1987], by solving the system of equations:
in the cross-gradients inversion approach. ( " #)
[14] The relationship between seismic travel time and @ X
n X2n
slowness in the functional fs(ms) is nonlinear since the FL þ 2 lj bj;k ðmk m0k Þ þ t ðm0 Þj ¼0
@mi j¼1 k¼1 ð11Þ
trajectory of the seismic ray path in the subsurface depends
upon the slowness [see Hole, 1992], but it can be linearized for i ¼ 1; 2n
by considering a small perturbation of the slowness about a
reference slowness model, m0s. The resulting linearized
expression is X
2n
bp;j mj m0j þ t ðm0 Þp ¼ 0 for p ¼ 1; n; ð12Þ
f s ðms Þ ffi f s ðm0s Þ þ As ðms m0s Þ: ð7Þ j¼1
3 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
where lj are the required Lagrange multipliers, bj,k are the the data as b is varied while a substage minimization
coefficients of B and n refers to the total number of cells in ensures structural similarity by seeking the solution satisfy-
the rectangular model grid. In these expressions mi (i = 1, n) ing the cross-gradients constraint for a constant b.
are the elements of mr, mi (i = n + 1, 2n) are the elements of [20] To track the evolution of the misfit at every iterative
ms and the zero subscript refers to the initial model and step the rms values of the normalized residuals of the fitted
thereafter to the previous iterate. data are computed as
[18] Using matrix notation, let us define the variables
2 3 2 3 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mr m0r ½dr f r ðmr ÞT C1 ddr ½dr f r ðmr Þ
rmsr ¼ ; ð15Þ
m¼4 5; m0 ¼ 4 5 nr
ms m0s
4 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
5 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
6 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
Figure 6. Recovered models for the hypothetical two-box example. Shown are (a) resistivity and
(b) seismic velocity models from separate inversion. Also shown are the (c) resistivity model and
(d) seismic velocity model from joint inversion.
7 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
8 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
Figure 10. Evolution of the joint inversion process. Shown are the resultant resistivity and velocity
models for each iteration. Note the gradual development of common structural features in both sets of
models during the process. See color version of this figure in the HTML.
that the rmsr and rmss values per iteration were gradually local minima but also controlled the development of im-
reduced as the b factor was varied. Figure 10 shows the portant common features in both models. As a result, the
resistivity and seismic models obtained for each iteration. final resistivity and seismic models (at iteration 8) show a
Note that this gradual process of joint solution reconstruc- remarkable structural resemblance, which can be gleaned
tion not only reduced the possibility of being trapped in from the shape of the contours in Figure 10.
9 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
6. Conclusions
[37] We have demonstrated in this paper that the cross-
gradients function offers a quantitative means to evaluate
structural similarities between two smooth images. The
cross-gradients function can be applied to geophysical
images from heterogeneous geological environments, and
can be used to provide a link between two seemingly
disparate geophysical models. We have incorporated it as
a constraint into a simple 2-D joint inversion procedure for
Figure 11. The fit between the Quorn field data and the DC resistivity and seismic travel time data from collocated
responses of the seismic and resistivity models resulting surveys.
from joint inversion. (a) DC apparent resistivity data. The [38] The results from inversion experiments using syn-
positions of the DC soundings on the survey line are thetic and field data revealed several interesting features of
indicated in the top right-hand corners of the plots. our joint inversion procedure. The algorithm yields resis-
(b) Seismic travel time data. In both cases, the cross tivity and seismic models that are consistent with the
symbols represent field data, while the solid lines represent experimental data and have improved structural similarity.
the computed response of the final models of Figure 10. Importantly, this conformity is reached without forcing or
[35] Figures 11a and 11b show the fit obtained for the
resistivity and seismic data in the final iteration of this joint
inversion exercise. The normalized values of the residuals
for the final iteration were rmsr = 1.004 for the apparent
resistivity data and rmss = 0.864 for the travel time data.
This suggests that the data were fitted to the expected levels
even though there were no actual field data errors available.
Note that there are some larger misfits in particular seg-
ments of the travel time data that can only be fitted by more
complex models or are manifestations of 3D effects on the
data. In the final iteration, some parts of the models still
show slight differences from that of the previous iterates
(defining a convergence factor of 3%), but they do not
substantially change the fit of the data and will only
marginally affect the cross-gradients function.
[36] The same field data sets were previously inverted
separately by Meju et al. [2003] and the resultant models
were interpreted as having similar structural features. How-
ever, we show that there are subtle differences in structure
between the separate models of Meju et al. [2003] as
evidenced by the values of the computed cross-gradients
function of their models (Figure 12a). The largest values of t
in the top 2 meters are due to the high gradients shown by
both sets of model parameters (from 4 to 1 in the log of Figure 12. Comparison of cross-gradients values com-
resistivity and from 3 to 0.1 s/km in slowness). On the other puted for the (a) separate inversion and (b) joint inversion of
hand, the smallest t values at the bottom of the resistivity the Quorn field data. See color version of this figure in the
and seismic models relate to less abrupt gradients (2 to 3 in HTML.
10 of 11
B03311 GALLARDO AND MEJU: JOINT 2-D RESISTIVITY AND SEISMIC INVERSION B03311
assuming the form of the relationship between electrical Hole, J. A. (1992), Non-linear high-resolution three-dimensional travel time
tomography, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 6553 – 6562.
resistivity and seismic velocity. The algorithm is also Kozlovskaya, E. (2001), Theory and application of joint interpretation of
flexible in the sense that it can admit boundaries that are multimethod geophysical data, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Oulu, Oulu,
only constrained by one method and not the other. The Finland.
inversion scheme is robust since it showed adequate con- Lines, L. R., A. K. Schultz, and S. Treitel (1988), Cooperative inversion of
geophysical data, Geophysics, 53, 8 – 20.
vergence characteristics. We conclude that our algorithm is Loke, M. H., and R. D. Barker (1995), Least-squares deconvolution of
an effective procedure for jointly interpreting resistivity and apparent resistivity pseudosections, Geophysics, 60, 1682 – 1690.
seismic data sets from complex two-dimensional environ- Meju, M. A., L. A. Gallardo, and A. K. Mohamed (2003), Evidence for
correlation of electrical resistivity and seismic velocity in heterogeneous
ments. A drawback of our present inversion scheme is that it near-surface materials, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(7), 1373, doi:10.1029/
uses an approximate 2-D resistivity forward model for 2002GL016048.
computational efficiency. For an alternative and more rig- Menke, W. (1984), Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory,
orous approach we recommend using the approximate Academic, San Diego, Calif.
Musil, M., H. R. Maurer, and A. G. Green (2003), Discrete tomography and
method for initial convergence and then switching to a joint inversion for loosely connected or unconnected physical properties:
proper resistivity finite difference solution for the final Application to crosshole seismic and georadar data sets, Geophys. J. Int.,
iterations. 153, 389 – 402.
Pérez-Flores, M. A., S. Méndez-Delgado, and E. Gómez-Treviño (2001),
[39] Although we have demonstrated the cross-gradients Imaging low-frequency and DC electromagnetic fields using a simple
method for the 2-D case and using only resistivity and linear approximation, Geophysics, 66, 1067 – 1081.
seismic data, the method should also be extendable to any Sasaki, Y. (1989), Two-dimensional joint inversion of magnetotelluric and
dipole-dipole resistivity data, Geophysics, 54, 254 – 262.
other geophysical methods and in three-dimensions. Scott, J. B. T., R. D. Barker, and S. Peacock (2000), Combined seismic
refraction and electrical imaging, paper presented at 6th Meeting of En-
[40] Acknowledgments. We acknowledge SUPERA-ANUIES in vironmental and Engineering Geophysics, Environ. and Eng. Geophys.
Mexico for a scholarship award to Luis A. Gallardo. We also thank Colin Soc., Bochum, Germany.
Zelt and Marco A. Pérez-Flores for making their codes available. We are Tarantola, A. (1987), Inverse Problem Theory, Elsevier Sci., New York.
grateful to K. Whaler, S. K. Park, and J. Berryman for their incisive Tikhonov, A. N., and V. Y. Arsenin (1977), Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems,
comments, which improved the clarity of this paper. John Wiley, Hoboken, N. J.
Tillmann, A., and T. Stöcker (2000), A new approach for the joint inversion
References of seismic and geoelectric data, paper presented at 63rd EAGE Conference
and Technical Exhibition, Eur. Assoc. of Geosci. and Eng., Amsterdam.
Berge, P. A., J. G. Berryman, H. Bertete-Aguirre, P. Bonner, J. J. Roberts, Twomey, S. (1977), An Introduction to the Mathematics of Inversion in
and D. Wildenschild (2000), Joint inversion of geophysical data for site Remote Sensing and Indirect Measurement, Elsevier Sci., New York.
characterization and restoration monitoring, LLNL Rep. UCRL-ID- Vidale, J. E. (1990), Finite-difference calculation of traveltimes in three-
128343, Proj. 55411, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab., Livermore, Calif. dimensions, Geophysics, 55, 521 – 526.
Dey, A., and H. F. Morrison (1979), Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily Zelt, C. A., and P. J. Barton (1998), Three-dimensional seismic refraction
shaped two-dimensional structures, Geophys. Prospect., 27, 106 – 136. tomography: A comparison of two methods applied to data from the
Gallardo, L. A., and M. A. Meju (2003), Characterization of heterogeneous Faeroe Basin, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 7187 – 7210.
near-surface materials by joint 2D inversion of DC resistivity and seismic Zhang, J., and F. D. Morgan (1996), Joint seismic and electrical tomography,
data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(13), 1658, doi:10.1029/2003GL017370. paper presented at EEGS Symposium on Applications of Geophysics to
Gallardo-Delgado, L. A., M. A. Pérez-Flores, and E. Gómez-Treviño Engineering and Environmental Problems, Environ. and Eng. Geophys.
(2003), A versatile algorithm for joint 3-D inversion of gravity and mag- Soc., Keystone, Colo.
netic data, Geophysics, 68, 949 – 959.
Gómez-Treviño, E. (1987), Nonlinear integral equations for electromag-
netic inverse problems, Geophysics, 52, 1297 – 1302. L. A. Gallardo and M. A. Meju, Department of Environmental Science,
Haber, E., and D. Oldenburg (1997), Joint inversion: A structural approach, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK. (lgallard@cicese.mx;
Inverse Problems, 13, 63 – 77. m.meju@lancaster.ac.uk)
11 of 11