English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Global optimization of data quality checks on 2-D and 3-D networks of GPR cross-well tomographic data for automatic correction of unknown well deviations Douglas S. Sassen*, and John E. Peterson, Earth Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Summary Mislocation of the transmitter and receiver stations of GPR cross-well tomography data sets can lead to serious imaging artifacts if not accounted for prior to inversion. Previously, problems with tomograms have been treated manually prior to inversion. In large data sets and/or networks of tomographic data sets, trial and error changes to well geometries become increasingly difficult and ineffective. Our approach is to use cross-well data quality checks and a simplified model of borehole deviation with particle swarm optimization (PSO) to automatically correct for source and receiver locations prior to tomographic inversion. We present a simple model of well deviation, which is designed to minimize potential corruption of actual data trends. We also provide quantitative quality control measures based on minimizing correlations between take-off angle and apparent velocity, and a quality check on the continuity of velocity between adjacent wells. This methodology is shown to be accurate and robust for simple 2-D synthetic test cases. Plus, we demonstrate the method on actual field data where it is compared to deviation logs. This study shows the promise for automatic correction of well deviations in GPR tomographic data. Analysis of synthetic data shows that very precise estimates of well deviation can be made for small deviations, even in the presence of static data errors. However, the analysis of the synthetic data and the application of the method to a large network of field data show that the technique is sensitive to data errors varying between neighboring tomograms. Introduction Significant errors related to poor time zero estimation, well deviation or mislocation of the transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX) stations can render even the most sophisticated modeling and inversion routine useless. Previous examples of methods for the analysis and correction of data errors in geophysical tomography include the works of Maurer and Green (1997), Squires et al. (1992) and Peterson (2001). Here we follow the analysis and techniques of Peterson (2001) for data quality control and error correction. Through our data acquisition and quality control procedures we have very accurate control on the surface locations of wells, the travel distance of both the transmitter and receiver within the boreholes, and the change in apparent zero time. However, we often have poor control on well deviations, either because of economic constraints or the nature of the borehole itself prevented the acquisition of well deviation logs. Also, well deviation logs can sometimes have significant errors. Problems with borehole deviations can be diagnosed prior to inversion of travel-time tomography data sets by plotting the apparent velocity of a straight ray connecting a transmitter (TX) to a receiver (RX) against the take-off angle of the ray (Figure 1). Figure1. Scatter plots of the calculated velocity of a straight ray between source and receiver pairs verses the take-off angle. The QC scatter plots for the correct well geometry without static errors (A), and a for a deviated well (B) show variations in correlation between apparent velocity and take-off angle. Issues with the time-zero pick or distances between wells appear as symmetric smiles or frown in these QC plots. Well deviation or dipping-strong anisotropy will result in an asymmetric correlation between apparent velocity and take-off angle (Figure 1-B). In addition, when a network of interconnected GPR tomography data is available, one has

osti oai (u.s. department of energy office of scientific and technical information)

Global optimization of data quality checks on 2‐D and 3‐D networks of GPR cross‐well tomographic data for automatic correction of unknown well deviations