Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6

Metaheuristics in applied geophysics

Uygulamalı jeofizikte metasezgiseller

Pages
563–580
Publication Date
2016-12-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Since the metaheuristics used here produced satisfactory results for estimating the model parameters of a variety of the geophysical problems, it can be concluded that these algorithms can be applied to low- and relatively high-dimensional geophysical data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, four metaheuristic algorithms including particle swarm optimization (PSO), genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution (DE) and simulated annealing (SA) were used for one-, two- and three-dimensional (1D, 2D and 3D) geophysical inverse problems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:PSO was used to determine model parameters (i.e., the electric dipole moment, polarization angle, depth, shape factor and origin of the anomaly) of SP anomalies which are both synthetically generated and measured over a graphite deposit in the southern Bavarian woods, Germany.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Since the metaheuristics used here produced satisfactory results for estimating the model parameters of a variety of the geophysical problems, it can be concluded that these algorithms can be applied to low- and relatively high-dimensional geophysical data.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Metasezgisel · Parçacık sürü optimizasyonu · Genetik algoritma

Abstract

In this study, four metaheuristic algorithms including particle swarm optimization (PSO), genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution (DE) and simulated annealing (SA) were used for one-, two- and three-dimensional (1D, 2D and 3D) geophysical inverse problems. Theoretical and/or field data sets obtained by self-potential (SP), direct current resistivity (DCR), magnetic and crosshole radar applications were interpreted by one of the above-mentioned metaheuristics. PSO was used to determine model parameters (i.e., the electric dipole moment, polarization angle, depth, shape factor and origin of the anomaly) of SP anomalies which are both synthetically generated and measured over a graphite deposit in the southern Bavarian woods, Germany. A real-valued GA was used for estimating the parameters of a horizontally-layered earth model (i.e., resistivity and thickness of each layer) from vertical electrical sounding curves via the data sets based on both theoretical and a field experiment in a karstic environment in Bozdağ, İzmir (Turkey). A synthetic crosshole radar data set was considered for 2D imaging of the subsurface radar velocity distribution by a hybrid approach based on sequential use of SA and a linearized smoothness-constrained least-squares scheme, and DE algorithm was applied for a 3D inversion of a synthetically produced total field magnetic anomaly map. User-defined parameters required by each metaheuristic algorithm were determined by test studies considering the problems studied. Confidences in the results obtained by the metaheuristics were also examined by various uncertainty and statistical analyses. Since the metaheuristics used here produced satisfactory results for estimating the model parameters of a variety of the geophysical problems, it can be concluded that these algorithms can be applied to low- and relatively high-dimensional geophysical data.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, parçacık sürü optimizasyonu (PSO), genetik algoritma (GA), farksal evrim (FE) ve yapay ısıl işlem (YIİ) algoritmalarını kapsayan dört metasezgisel algoritma jeofiziğin bir, iki ve üç boyutlu (1B, 2B ve 3B) ters çözüm problemlerinde kullanılmıştır. Doğal uçlaşma (DU), doğru akım özdirenç (DAÖ), manyetik ve karşılıklı kuyu yer radarı uygulamalarından elde edilen kuramsal ve/veya alan veri kümeleri yukarıda değinilen metasezgisellerden biriyle değerlendirilmiştir. PSO, hem sentetik olarak üretilen hem de Güney Bavyera’da (Almanya) bir grafit yatağında ölçülen DU anomalilerinin model parametrelerinin (elektrik dipol moment, uçlaşma açısı, derinlik, biçim faktörü ve anomali orijini) belirlenmesinde kullanılmıştır. Gerçel değer kodlamalı GA, hem kuramsal hem de Bozdağ, İzmir’de (Türkiye) karstik bir ortamda toplanan düşey elektrik sondajı veri kümelerinden yatay tabakalı yer modelinin parametrelerini (tabaka özdirenç ve kalınlıklarını) kestirmek için kullanılmıştır. Sentetik bir karşılıklı kuyu yer radarı verisinden 2B’lu yeraltı radar hız dağılımının görüntülenmesi amacıyla YIİ ve yuvarlatma kısıtlı doğrusallaştırılmış en küçük kareler yönteminin ardışık kullanılmasına dayanan melez bir yaklaşım uygulanırken; FE algoritması kuramsal olarak üretilen bir toplam alan manyetik anomali haritasının 3B’lu ters çözümünde kullanılmıştır. Her bir metasezgisel algoritmanın gerek duyduğu kullanıcı tanımlı parametreler incelenen problemler dikkate alınarak test çalışmalarıyla belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, metasezgiseller tarafından elde edilen sonuçların güvenilirlikleri çeşitli istatistiksel ve belirsizlik analizleriyle araştırılmıştır. Burada kullanılan metasezgisellerin çeşitli jeofizik problemlerin model parametrelerinin kestiriminde başarılı sonuçlar üretmesi bu algoritmaların, jeofiziğin küçük ve görece büyük boyutlu veri kümelerine uygulanabilirliğini göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKTÜRKLER, G., BALKAYA, Ç., EKİNCİ, Y. L., TURAN, S. (2016). Metaheuristics in applied geophysics. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6, 563–580. https://ajindex.com/articles/42597

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Luke S. Essentials of Metaheuristics. 2nd ed. Lulu Com, 2013. (http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/book/metaheuristics/).
  2. Göktürkler G, Balkaya Ç. “Inversion of self-potential anomalies caused by simple-geometry bodies using global optimization algorithms”. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 9(5), 498-507, 2012. Karaboğa D. Yapay Zekâ Optimizasyon Algoritmaları. 3. baskı. Ankara,
  3. Türkiye, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 2014.
  4. Wikipedia.“Metaheuristic”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaheuristic (11.05.2015).
  5. Corwin RF, Hoover DB. “The self-potential method in geothermal exploration”. Geophysics, 44(2), 226-245, 1979.
  6. Yüngül S. “Spontaneous potential survey of a copper deposit at Sarıyer, Turkey”. Geophysics, 19(3), 455-458, 1954.
  7. Bogoslovsky VA, Ogilvy AA. “Geophysical methods for the investigation of landslides”. Geophysics, 42(3), 562-571, 1977.
  8. Drahor MG, Berge MA. “Geophysical investigation of the Seferihisar geothermal area, Western Anatolia, Turkey”. Geothermics, 35(3), 302-320, 2006.
  9. Göktürkler G, Balkaya Ç, Erhan Z, Yurdakul A. “Investigation of a shallow alluvial aquifer using geoelectrical methods: a case from Turkey”. Environmental Geology, 54(6), 1283-1290, 2008. Bolève A, Janod F, Revil A, Lafon A, Fry J-J. “Localization and quantifiation of leakages in dams using time-lapse self-potential measurements associated with salt tracer injection”. Journal of Hydrology, 403(3-4), 242-252, 2011.
  10. El-Qady G, Ushijima K, Ahma ES. “Delineation of geothermal reservoir by 2D inversion of resistivity data at Hamam Faraun area, Sinai, Egypt”. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress. Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 28 May-10 June, 2000.
  11. Karlık G, Kaya MA. “Investigation of groundwater contamination using electric and electromagnetic methods at an open waste-disposal site: a case study from Isparta, Turkey”. Environmental Geology, 40(6), 725-731, 2001.
  12. Hamzah U, Samsudin AR, Malim AP. “Groundwater investigation in Kuala Selangor using vertical electrical sounding (VES) surveys”. Environmental Geology, 51(8), 1349-1359, 2007.
  13. Kaya MA, Özürlan G, Balkaya Ç. “Geoelectrical investigation of seawater intrusion in the coastal urban area of Çanakkale, NW Turkey”. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(3), 1151-1160, 2015.
  14. Quesnel Y, Jrad A, Mocci F, Gattacceca J, Mathe PE, Parisot JC, Hermitte D, Dumas V, Dussouilez P, Walsh K, Miramont C, Bonnet S, Uehara M. “Geophysical signatures of a Roman and early medieval necropolis”. Archaeological Prospecting, 18(2), 105-115, 2011.
  15. Stampolidis A, Tsokas GN. “Use