Читать книгу Mathematics in Computational Science and Engineering - Группа авторов - Страница 52

A good description of resolution, or resolvability, may be explained in terms of a minimum separation of two geological features or anomalies to be delineated [28]. Detectability is usually defined in terms of the size of the anomalous zone or electrical contrast of the anomalous zone that can produce a measurable potential field response [28]. On-site geological noise level must be considered in defining detectability. To delineate and quantify changes within the anomalous zone of interest, changes in geophysical parameters (e.g., electrical conductivity or resistivity) must occur over a distance. A detailed description of “resolvability” and “detectability” may be found in the geophysical literature. Greaves et al. [29] have discussed about the geometry and spatial distribution of current dipoles and potential dipoles giving a better resolution and detectability of the anomalous zone to be monitored.

Resolution may be further improved if the transmitting dipole or receiving dipole is placed into a borehole. Furthermore, it reduces the range of possible solutions and makes the mathematical analysis and interpretation more tractable and concrete. As indicated above in Figure 2.2, ∆-monitoring by inverting the differenced vector of potential field measurements may further enhance detectability if there are no systematic and non-random sources of noise. Narayan [3] has given a through description of theoretical sensitivity analysis and study for the resolvability and detectability of resistivity anomalies. Accordingly, a large amount of the current must flow through the anomalous region of interest. In this way, potential field measurements at the surface are detected effectively. It is important to focus on maximizing current flow through the anomalous zone. Current flow depends on several factors (e.g., spacing of current dipole, location of current dipole, dimension of anomalous region, electrical resistivity contrasts, etc.). It may be evaluated mathematically via theoretical model simulations and using other available data.

Figure 2.3 illustrates that the changes in potential field response as a function of electrical resistivity contrast [3, 28]. This also verifies equation 2.31 numerically. Also, the Figure shows that electrical potential field response varies exponentially with increasing resistivity contrast. A linear relationship has been found for small resistivity changes. The following important observations from this numerically computed result are summarized below:

 The magnitude of the electrical potential field response increases linearly for small resistivity contrasts of the anomalous zone. From the mathematical formulation for sensitivity analysis, this result is expected here.

Figure 2.3 Computation of changes in the potential field response with increasing resistivity contrast.

 An important observation here is that a linear relationship exists up to a change in electrical resistivity by a factor of four. This may be found extremely helpful in implementing a linear resistivity inversion in imaging in-situ processes using a difference of observed potential field data from time A to time B.

 A linearized inversion will be valid only in situations where the resistivity perturbation in the target region is not more than a factor of four during two consecutive resistivity measurements.

 This linearity for small electrical resistivity changes may also be found useful as a basis to introduce the concept of adaptive resistivity inversion.

 Adaptive resistivity inversion should permit interpretation of difference potential field responses in terms of changes in resistivity at depth.

Practically, it is important and advised to maximize current dissipation in and around the region that is to be monitored so that electrical field perturbations are large enough to detect at the surface. It is usually difficult to achieve enough current flowing through an anomalous region if only surface electrodes are used. However, by placing current dipole electrodes at the right depth with an appropriate current dipole spacing, sufficient current flux through the target zone can be achieved that in turn causes substantial variations in surface potential field measurements over the monitoring periods. In addition to increasing current flux, detectability may be enhanced in surface measurements by placing the current dipole adjacent to or across the anomalous zone that is to be monitored.