Contrast between 2D inversion and 3D inversion based on 2D high-density resistivity data

Abstract

The 2D data processing adopted by the high-density resistivity method regards the geological structures as two degrees, which makes the results of the 2D data inversion only an approximate interpretation; the accuracy and effect can not meet the precise requirement of the inversion. Two typical models of the geological bodies were designed, and forward calculation was carried out using finite element method. The forward-modeled profiles were obtained. 1% Gaussian random error was added in the forward models and then 2D and 3D inversions using a high-density resistivity method were undertaken to realistically simulate field data and analyze the sensitivity of the 2D and 3D inversion algorithms to noise. Contrast between the 2D and 3D inversion results of least squares inversion shows that two inversion results of high-density resistivity method all can basically reflect the spatial position of an anomalous body. However, the 3D inversion can more effectively eliminate the influence of interference from Gaussian random error and better reflect the distribution of resistivity in the anomalous bodies. Overall, the 3D inversion was better than 2D inversion in terms of embodying anomalous body positions, morphology and resistivity properties.