See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285795285

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7_46

CITATIONS READS
44 3,132

1 author:

Meng Heng Loke

Geotomo Software
96 PUBLICATIONS   6,524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cole-Cole IP 3-D modeling in time-domain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Meng Heng Loke on 19 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

276 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION

accurate reference conductivity–depth model up to depth Xu, Y., Poe, B. T., Shankland, T. J., and Rubie, D. C., 1998a. Elec-
of the core–mantle boundary and more detailed knowl- trical conductivity of olivine, wadsleyite and ringwoodite under
edge of chemical composition and thermal distribution in upper-mantle condition. Science, 280, 1415–1418.
Xu, Y., McCammon, C., and Poe, B. T., 1998b. Effect of alumina on
the present Earth’s interior by comparison with the results the electrical conductivity of silicate perovskite. Science, 282,
of the electromagnetic surveys. 922–924.
Yoshino, T., 2010. Laboratory electrical conductivity measurement
of mantle minerals. Surveys in Geophysics, 31, 163–206.
Yoshino, T., Matsuzaki, T., Yamashita, S., and Katsura, T., 2006.
Bibliography Hydrous olivine unable to account for conductivity anomaly at
Archie, G. E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in deter- the top of the asthenosphere. Nature, 443, 973–976.
mining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the Amer- Yoshino, T., Manthilake, G., Matsuzaki, T., and Katsura, T., 2008a.
ican Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Dry mantle transition zone inferred from electrical conductivity
Engineers, 146, 54–62. of wadsleyite and ringwoodite. Nature, 451, 326–329.
Badro, J., Fiquet, G., Guyot, F., Rueff, J. P., Struzhkin, V. V., Yoshino, T., Yamazaki, D., Ito, E., and Katsura, T., 2008b. No inter-
Vanko, G., and Monaco, G., 2003. Iron partitioning in Earth’s connection of ferro-periclase in post-spinel phase inferred from
mantle: toward a deep mantle discontinuity. Science, 300, conductivity measurement. Geophysical Research Letters, 35,
789–791. L22303, doi:10.1029/2008GL035932.
Cole, K. S., and Cole, R. H., 1941. Dispersion and absorption in
dielectrics. I. alternating current field. The Journal of Chemical Cross-references
Physics, 9, 341–352.
Duba, A. G., and Constable, S., 1993. The electrical conductivity of Earth’s Structure, Lower Mantle
lherzolite. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, 11885–11899. Earth’s Structure, Upper Mantle
Duba, A. G., and Shankland, T. J., 1982. Free carbon and electrical- Earthquakes, Source Theory
conductivity in the Earth’s mantle. Geophysical Research Magnetotelluric Interpretation
Letters, 9, 1271–1274.
Frost, B. R., Fyfe, W. S., Tazaki, K., and Chan, T., 1989. Grain-
boundary graphite in rocks and implications for high electrical
conductivity in the lower crust. Nature, 340, 134–136. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA
Gaillard, F., Malki, M., Iacono-Marziano, G., Pichavant, M., and INTERPRETATION
Scaillet, B., 2008. Carbonatite melts and electrical conductivity
in the asthenosphere. Science, 322, 1363–1365.
Hashin, Z., and Shtrikman, A., 1962. Avariational approach to the Meng Heng Loke
theory of the effective magnetic permeability of multiphase Geotomo Software Sdn. Bhd., Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
materials. Journal of Applied Physics, 33, 3125–3131.
Huang, X., Xu, Y., and Karato, S., 2005. Water content in the tran-
sition zone from electrical conductivity of wadsleyite and Definition
ringwoodite. Nature, 434, 746–749. Electrical survey. Mapping the subsurface resistivity by
Hyndman, R. D., and Hyndman, D. W., 1968. Water saturation and injecting an electric current into the ground.
high electrical conductivity in the lower continental crust. Earth Electrode. Commonly a metal rod through which current
and Planetary Science Letters, 4, 427–432.
Karato, S., 1990. The role of hydrogen in the electrical conductivity
is injected into the ground, or is used to measure the
of the upper mantle. Nature, 347, 272–273. induced voltage on the ground surface.
Kelbert, A., Shultz, A., and Egbert, G., 2009. Grobal electromag- Least-squares resistivity inversion. Finding the subsurface
netic induction constraints on transition-zone water variation. resistivity model that minimizes the sum of squares of the
Nature, 460, 1003–1006. differences between the measured and calculated apparent
Murakami, M., Hirose, K., Kawamura, K., Sata, N., and Ohishi, Y., resistivity values.
2004. Post-perovskite phase transition in MgSiO3. Science, 304,
855–858.
Ohta, K., Onoda, S., Hirose, K., Shinmyo, R., Shimizu, K., Sata, K.,
Introduction
Ohishi, Y., and Yasuhara, A., 2008. The electrical conductivity Electrical resistivity surveys map the subsurface structure
of post-perovskite in earth’s D00 layer. Science, 320, 89–91. by making electrical measurements near the ground sur-
Roberts, J. J., and Tyburczy, J. A., 1991. Frequency dependent elec- face. An electric current is injected into the ground
trical properties of polycrystalline olivine compacts. Journal of through two electrodes and the voltage difference is mea-
Geophysical Research, 96, 16205–16222.
Shankland, T. J., and Ander, M. E., 1983. Electrical conductivity,
sured between two other electrodes (Figure 1a). The
temperatures and fluids in the lower crust. Journal of Geophysi- true subsurface resistivity can be estimated by making
cal Research, 88, 9475–9484. the measurements of potential difference at different posi-
Shimizu, H., Koyama, T., Baba, K., and Utada, H., 2010. tions of the current and potential electrodes, converting
Revised I-D electrical conductivity structure beneath the North these values into apparent resistivity and then inverting
Pacific. Geophysical Journal International, 180, 1030–1048. the data set. The ground resistivity is related to various
Varotsos, P., and Alexopoulos, K., 1984. Physical properties of geological parameters such as the mineral and fluid
the variations of the electric field of the earth preceding earth-
quakes, I. Tectonophysics, 110, 73–98. content, porosity, and degree of water saturation in the
Wang, D., Mookherjee, M., Xu, Y., and Karato, S., 2006. The effect rock (see Electrical Properties of Rocks). Over the past
of water on electrical conductivity of olivine. Nature, 443, 20 years, the resistivity method has undergone rapid
977–980. developments in the instrumentation, field survey
 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION 277

techniques, and data interpretation. It has now become one surveys was mainly qualitative. The second type of survey
of the standard geophysical exploration techniques widely is the vertical sounding method, such as the Schlumberger
used in environmental, engineering, hydrogeological, and survey (Figure 1b), where the center point of the elec-
mining investigations. trodes array remains fixed but the spacing between the
The basic data from a resistivity survey are the posi- electrodes is increased to obtain information about the
tions of the current and potential electrodes, the current deeper sections of the subsurface. The Schlumberger array
(I) injected into the ground and the resulting voltage dif- is usually used for sounding surveys. Apparent resistivity
ference (DV ) between the potential electrodes plotted as a function of the current electrode spacing gives
(Figure 1a). The current and voltage measurements are information about the subsurface resistivity variations.
then converted into apparent resistivity (ra ) by using the A sample sounding curve is shown in Figure 2.
following formula Quantitative data interpretation for sounding surveys
uses a one-dimensional (1-D) earth model with a series
DV of horizontal layers (Figure 3a). A major advance in auto-
ra ¼ k ; (1)
I matic data modeling was made in the 1970s with the
where k is the geometric factor that depends on the config- development of the linear filter method (Ghosh, 1971) that
uration of the current and potential electrodes (Koefoed, greatly reduced the computer time required to calculate the
1979). Over the years, various electrode configurations apparent resistivity values. This made it practical to carry
(or arrays) have been developed. Figure 1 shows the out automatic inversion of resistivity-sounding data even
arrangements for some commonly used arrays. on relatively slow early microcomputers (Koefoed,
A discussion on the merits of the different arrays is given 1979). One commonly used method for 1-D data inversion
by Dahlin and Zhou (2004). Determining the true subsur- is the damped least-squares method (see Inverse Theory,
face resistivity from the apparent resistivity values is the Linear) (Inman, 1975) that is based on the following
data inversion problem. equation
! T
J J þ lI Dq ¼ JT Dg;
"
(2)
Traditional profiling and sounding surveys
The resistivity survey method has its origin in the 1920s where the discrepancy vector Dg contains the difference
due to the work of the Schlumberger brothers. Tradition- between the logarithms of the measured and the calculated
ally resistivity surveys were divided into profiling and apparent resistivity values and Dq is a vector consisting of
sounding surveys. The distances between the electrodes the deviation of the estimated model parameters from the
are kept fixed in a profiling survey, such as in the Wenner true model. Here, the model parameters are the logarithms
survey (Figure 1a), and the four electrodes are moved of the resistivity and thickness of the model layers. J is the
along the survey line. The data interpretation for profiling Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives of apparent

Wenner Wenner–schlumberger
C1 P1 P2 C2 C1 P1 P2 C2
+1 V -l

a a a na a na
a k = 2 πa b k = π n (n + 1) (n + 2)

Pole–dipole Dipole–dipole
C1 P1 P2 C2 C1 P1 P2

na a a na a
c k = 2 π n (n + 1) (n + 2) d k = π n (n + 1) (n + 2) (n + 3)

Pole–Pole Gradient
C1 P1 C1 P1 P2 C2

a na a ma
e k=2πa f k = 2 π n (n + 1) m (m + 1) a/[n(n + 1) + m (m + 1)]

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 1 Common arrays used in resistivity surveys and their geometric
factors. The current is injected into the ground through the C1 and C2 electrodes while the voltage difference is measured between
the P1 and P2 electrodes. For the arrays with less than four electrodes, the remaining electrodes are placed at sufficiently large
distances so that they do not affect the measurements.
278 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION

Iteration 5, Data misfit = 2.5% Depth of layers

0.5 5.0 50.0 500
1,000

Apparent resistivity 100

10.0

1.0
1.0 10.0 100 1,000
Electrode spacing
Calculated apparent resistivity Measured apparent resistivity Inversion model

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 2 Example of a 1-D resistivity sounding curve and interpretation
model with 3 layers.

1-D model 2-D model 3-D model

r1
r2 r2
r6 r3
r2
r1 r3
r1
r3 r4 r4
r5

r5
a r4 b

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 3 The three different models used in the interpretation of resistivity
measurements.

resistivity with respect to the model parameters. l is water-table) where the 1-D model is approximately true.
a damping or regularization factor (Marquardt, 1963) that The greatest limitation of this method is that it does not
stabilizes the ill-condition Jacobian matrix usually encoun- take into account lateral changes in the subsurface resistiv-
tered for geophysical problems (see Inverse Theory, Singu- ity. Such changes are probably the rule rather than the
lar Value Decomposition). Starting from an initial model exception. The failure to include the effect of lateral
(such as a homogeneous earth model), this method itera- changes can result in errors in the interpreted resistivity
tively refines the model so as to reduce the data misfit to and thickness of the layers. The offset Wenner method
a desired level (usually less than 5%). Figure 2 also shows was introduced by Barker (1978) to reduce the effect of
an example of a 1-D interpretation model. lateral variations on the sounding data. However, to obtain
The resistivity sounding method has been used for a more accurate picture of the subsurface resistivity distri-
many years, particularly in groundwater exploration. It bution, a two-dimensional (2-D) survey and interpretation
gives useful results for geological situations (such as the model is required.
 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION 279

Two-dimensional resistivity imaging surveys a Wenner-array pseudosection where the real structure is
In recent years, development of the multielectrode resis- a rectangular block model (Figure 4b) in a homogenous
tivity meter system (see Instrumentation, Electrical medium. An inversion of the data set using a 2-D model
Resistivity) has made 2-D surveys a practical tool for is necessary to obtain an accurate picture of the subsurface
mapping moderately complex geological environments. resistivity.
The apparent resistivity measurements from the survey A 2-D model that consists of a large number of rectan-
are commonly plotted in the form of a pseudosection gular cells is commonly used to interpret the data (Loke
(Figure 4a). The horizontal position of a data point is the and Barker, 1996a). Figure 4c shows an example of
average of the locations of the electrodes in the array used a 2-D model where the distribution of the data points in
to make the measurement. The vertical position of the pseudosection is used as a guide in setting the arrange-
the plotting point is commonly set at the median depth ment of the model cells. The resistivity of the cells is
of investigation (Edwards, 1977) of the array. The allowed to vary in the vertical and the horizontal direction,
pseudosection is a useful method to present the data in but the size and position of the cells are fixed. An inver-
a pictorial form and as an initial guide for further quantita- sion scheme is used to determine the resistivity of the cells
tive interpretation. One useful practical application of the that will produce a response that agrees with the measured
pseudosection is in identifying bad apparent resistivity values. The finite-difference (see Numerical Methods,
measurements that usually appear as points with unusually Finite Difference) or finite-element method (see Numerical
high or low values. The pseudosection gives a distorted Methods, Finite Element) is used to calculate the apparent
picture of the subsurface because the shapes of the con- resistivity values for the 2-D model. A non-linear opti-
tours depend on the type of array used as well as the true mization method is then used to automatically change the
subsurface resistivity. Figure 4a shows an example of resistivity of the model cells to minimize the difference

Pseudo
depth 0 8 16 24 32 35 m.
0.5
1.5
2.6
3.6
4.6
Unit electrode spacing 1 m.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
a Apparent resistivity in Ohm.m

Depth 0 8 16 24 32 35 m.
0.3
1.0
2.2
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.2

Model resistivity values

b 10 100

c Model cell Data point Number of model cells = 182 Number of data points = 195

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 4 (a) Example of an apparent resistivity pseudosection
(Wenner array). (b) The actual structure with a high resistivity block in a homogenous medium. (c) Example of a 2-D model
showing the arrangement of the model cells.
 280

Bauchi groundwater survey

Pseudo
0 80 160 240 320 400 m.
depth
5.12
15.4
25.6
35.8
a Measured apparent resistivity pseudosection
Pseudo
0 80 160 240 320 400 m.
depth
5.12
15.4
25.6
35.8
b Calculated apparent resistivity pseudosection
Borehole
Iteration 7 data misfit = 2.8%
Depth 0 80 160 240 320 400 m.
1.25
8.86
16.7
24.8
30.3
35.9
41.7
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION

Inverse model resistivity section Fracture zone

Unit electrode spacing 10 m.
10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280
c Resistivity in Ω.m

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 5 2-D apparent resistivity pseudosection and inversion model from a groundwater survey in the Bauchi
area, Nigeria.
 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION 281

between the measured and calculated apparent resistivity following equation includes a model smoothness con-
values. The inversion problem is frequently ill-posed straint to the least-squares optimization method,
due to incomplete, inconsistent and noisy data. Smooth-
ness or other constraints (e.g., in Equation 2) are usually ! T
J J þ lF Dqk ¼ JT Dgk $ lFqk$1 ; where
"
incorporated to stabilize the inversion procedure such (3)
that numerical artifacts are avoided. As an example, the F ¼ ax CTx Cx þ az CTz Cz :

3D geological model area

N
ERT survey lines
Borehole

x(
m)

m)
y(

z (m)

z (m)

)
m
y(

x(
m)
N

Resistivity (Ωm)

b 19 38 76 151 301 600 1064

Electrical Resistivity Surveys and Data Interpretation, Figure 6 (a) Map showing the survey grid of the BGS survey at Ingham,
Suffolk (Aerial Photography © UKP/Getmapping License No. UKP 2010/01). (b) 3-D resistivity inversion model with cut-outs,
annotation and borehole logs. The target of the survey is the Ingham sand and gravel (ISG) deposits. Details on the boreholes are
available in Chambers et al. (2007). Reproduced with permission of the British Geological Survey and Tarmac Ltd.
282 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AND DATA INTERPRETATION

Here, Cx and Cz are the roughness filter matrices in the survey and also allows for 2-D inversions of each individ-
horizontal (x) and vertical (z) directions, and ax and az are ual line. The data interpretation techniques used for 2-D
the respective relative weights of the roughness filters. surveys can be extended to 3-D surveys (Loke and Barker,
k represents the iteration number. One common form of 1996b). Fast computer software that takes minutes to
the roughness filter is the first-order difference matrix hours to invert a 3-D data set (depending on the size of
(deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990), but the elements the data set) on multicore PCs is now available (Rucker
of the matrices can be modified to introduce other desired et al., 2010). Other non-linear optimization methods such
characteristics into the inversion model (Pellerin and as neural networks, simulated annealing and conjugate
Wannamaker, 2005; Farquharson, 2008). The method gradient techniques have also been used for resistivity data
can also be modified to produce “blocky” models for inversion (Pellerin and Wannamaker, 2005).
regions that are piecewise constant and separated by sharp Figure 6 shows an example of such a 3-D survey at
boundaries (Loke et al., 2003). The laterally constrained Ingham, Suffolk by the British Geological Survey
inversion method (Auken and Christiansen, 2004) that (Chambers et al., 2007) to map sand and gravel deposits.
includes sharp boundaries has been successfully used in Most of the survey lines are in an approximately east–west
areas with a layered subsurface structure. A number of direction with a few crosslines near the edges (Figure 6a).
microcomputer based software is now available that can The area has a fairly complex geology with Chalk bedrock
automatically carry out the inversion of a 2-D survey data overlain by the fluvial Ingham sand and gravel, glacial
set in seconds. sand, and clayey till (Figure 6b). The till has the lowest
Figure 5a shows an example of a measured apparent resistivity values of below 50 O%m while the sand and
resistivity pseudosection from a groundwater survey gravel is generally between 100 to 1,000 O%m. The Chalk
(Acworth, 1987) using the Wenner array. The resistivity shows a distinct increase of resistivity with depth due to
model after inversion and the calculated apparent resistiv- weathering.
ity pseudosection for this model are shown in Figure 5c The data inversion methods have been adapted for other
and 5b, respectively. The model obtained after inversion types of surveys such as induced polarization (IP) surveys
has a prominent low resistivity fracture zone in the bed- (White et al., 2001), measurements across boreholes
rock (approximately between the 180 and 230 m marks (Wilkinson et al., 2008), surveys in water covered
and below a depth of 20 m). A borehole that was placed areas (Loke and Lane, 2005), and for cylindrical geome-
at the 175 m mark had yields that were lower than tries (Chambers et al., 2003; al Hagrey et al., 2004). The
expected, possibly because it lies at the edge of the frac- least-squares optimization method has also been modified
ture zone. The placement of the well was partly based on for time-lapse surveys so as to minimize temporal changes
EM profiling data. The shallow low resistivity anomaly in the model resistivity values (Loke, 2001; Kim et al.,
with values of less than 40 O%m in the overburden had 2009).
probably shifted the EM anomaly to the left of the fracture
zone. Summary
The electrical resistivity survey method has undergone tre-
Three-dimensional resistivity imaging surveys mendous changes over the past 20 years. While traditional
resistivity profiling and sounding surveys are still widely
Since all geological structures are three-dimensional (3-D) used, 2-D imaging survey is now the method of choice
in nature, a 3-D resistivity survey and interpretation model for most areas as this can accurately map moderately com-
(Figure 3c) should give the most accurate results. plex structures. The field equipment and computer inter-
Although it has not reached the same level of usage as pretation software are widely available. 3-D surveys now
2-D surveys, it is now more widely used in very complex play an increasingly important role in very complex areas.
areas such as in many environmental (Dahlin et al., 2002; In many cases the 3-D data set is collated from a series of
Chambers et al., 2006; Rucker et al., 2010) and mineral parallel 2-D survey lines to reduce the survey cost.
(White et al., 2001; Bingham et al., 2006) exploration sur-
veys. Much of the early 3-D surveys used the pole-pole
array over relatively small grids (up to about 20 by 20 Acknowledgments
electrodes) with measurements in different directions I would like to thank the British Geological Survey and
(Park and Van, 1991; Li and Oldenburg, 1992). The use Tarmac Ltd for permission to use the figures for the
of other arrays, such as the pole-dipole and Wenner– Ingham survey.
Schlumberger, is now becoming more common in 3-D
surveys that involve thousands of electrode positions
(White et al., 2001; Chambers et al., 2006). A true 3-D
Bibliography
survey requires placing of electrodes in the form of a Acworth, R. I., 1987. The development of crystalline basement
aquifers in a tropical environment. Quarterly Journal of
2-D grid. However, a cost-effective strategy is usually Engineering Geology, 20, 265–272.
followed wherein 3-D data sets are collated from indepen- al Hagrey, S. A., Meissner, R., Werban, U., Rabbel, W., and
dent parallel 2-D survey lines with possibly a few Ismaeil, A., 2004. Hydro-, bio-geophysics. The Leading Edge,
crosslines. This strategy greatly reduces the cost of a 3-D 23, 670–674.
 ELECTRONIC GEOPHYSICAL YEAR 283

Auken, E., and Christiansen, A. V., 2004. Layered and laterally Loke, M. H., Acworth, I., and Dahlin, T., 2003. A comparison of
constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics, 69, smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging
752–761. surveys. Exploration Geophysics, 34, 182–187.
Barker, R. D., 1978. The offset system of electrical resistivity Marquardt, D. W., 1963. An algorithm for least-squares estimation
sounding and its use with a multicore cable. Geophysical of nonlinear parameters. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics,
Prospecting, 29, 128–143. 11, 431–441.
Bingham, D., Nimeck, G., Wood, G., and Mathieson, T., 2006. 3D Park, S. K., and Van, G. P., 1991. Inversion of pole-pole data for 3-D
resistivity in the Athabasca basin with the pole-pole array. In resistivity structures beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics,
Geophysical methods and techniques applied to uranium explo- 56, 951–960.
ration workshop proceedings. SEG Annual General Meeting Pellerin, L., and Wannamaker, P. E., 2005. Multi-dimensional
2006, New Orleans. electromagnetic modeling and inversion with application to
Chambers, J. E., Loke, M. H., Ogilvy, R. D., and Meldrum, P. I., near-surface earth investigations. Computers and Electronics in
2003. Non-invasive monitoring of DNAPL migration through Agriculture, 46, 71–102.
a saturated porous medium using electrical impedance tomogra- Rucker, D., Loke, M. H., Levitt, M. T., and Noonan, G. E., 2010.
phy. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 68, 1–22. Electrical resistivity characterization of an industrial site using
Chambers, J. E., Kuras, O., Meldrum, P. I., Ogilvy, R. D., and long electrodes. Geophysics, 75, WA95–WA104.
Hollands, J., 2006. Electrical resistivity tomography applied to White, R. M. S., Collins, S., Denne, R., Hee, R., and Brown, P.,
geologic, hydrogeologic, and engineering investigations at 2001. A new survey design for 3D IP modelling at Copper hill.
a former waste-disposal site. Geophysics, 71, B231–B239. Exploration Geophysics, 32, 152–155.
Chambers, J. E., Weller, A. L., Wilkinson, P. B., Burke, H. F., Wilkinson, P. B., Chambers, J. E., Lelliott, M., Wealthall, P., and
Ogilvy, R. D., Aumonier, J., Penn, S., Kuras, O., and Meldrum, Ogilvy, R. D., 2008. Extreme sensitivity of crosshole electrical
P. I., 2007. The Development of Electrical Resistivity Tomogra- resistivity tomography measurements to geometric errors.
phy (ERT) for Sand and Gravel Resource Visualisation: Case Geophysical Journal International, 173, 49–62.
Histories. Nottingham: British Geological Survey Commis-
sioned Report, CR/07/175. Cross-references
Dahlin, T., and Zhou, B., 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D
resistivity imaging with ten electrode arrays. Geophysical Electrical Properties of Rocks
Prospecting, 52, 379–398. Instrumentation, Electrical Resistivity
Dahlin, T., Bernstone, C., and Loke, M. H., 2002. A 3D resistivity Inverse Theory, Linear
investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken in Sweden. Inverse Theory, Singular Value Decomposition
Geophysics, 60, 1682–1690. Numerical Methods, Finite Difference
deGroot-Hedlin, C., and Constable, S., 1990. Occam’s inversion to Numerical Methods, Finite Element
generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric
data. Geophysics, 55, 1613–1624.
Edwards, L. S., 1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and
induced-polarization. Geophysics, 42, 1020–1036. ELECTRONIC GEOPHYSICAL YEAR
Farquharson, C. G., 2008. Constructing piecewise-constant models
in multidimensional minimum-structure inversions. Geophysics,
73, K1–K9. William K. Peterson1, Daniel N. Baker1, C. E. Barton2,
Ghosh, D. P., 1971. The application of linear filter theory to the Peter Fox3, M. A. Parsons4, Emily A. CoBabe-Ammann5
1
direct interpretation of geoelectrical resistivity sounding Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics,
measurements. Geophysical Prospecting, 19, 192–217. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
Inman, J. R., 1975. Resistivity inversion with ridge regression. 2
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Geophysics, 40, 798–817. 3
Kim, J. H., Yi, M. J., Park, S. G., and Kim, J. G., 2009. 4D inversion
Rensslear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA
4
of DC resistivity monitoring data acquired over a dynamically National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of
changing earth model. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68, Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
5
522–532. Emily A. CoBabe and Associates, Boulder, CO, USA
Koefoed, O., 1979. Geosounding Principles 1: Resistivity Sounding
Measurements. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing
Company.
Definition
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1992. Approximate inverse mappings eGY. Electronic Geophysical Year. An international sci-
in DC resistivity problems. Geophysical Journal International, ence year (2007–2008) celebrating the IGY+50 anniver-
109, 343–362. sary that focused on increasing access to scientific data
Loke, M. H., 2001. Constrained time-lapse resistivity imaging and information for all people.
inversion. In Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
Problems (SAGEEP). EEGS, Denver, Colorado, March 4–7. Introduction and concept
Loke, M. H., and Barker, R. D., 1996a. Rapid least-squares Sharing scientific data and information for the common
inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi- good has long been at the heart of good scientific practice.
Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 131–152. For the geosciences, this culminated in the outstandingly
Loke, M. H., and Barker, R. D., 1996b. Practical techniques for 3D
resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting,
successful International Geophysical Year, 1957–1958
44, 499–523. (IGY). During IGY, in addition to the initiation of much
Loke, M. H., and Lane, J. W., Jr., 2005. Inversion of data from new research, scientists and member countries worked
electrical resistivity imaging surveys in water-covered areas. together to emplace a large number of geophysical obser-
Exploration Geophysics, 35, 266–271. vatories around the globe, and establish a network of

View publication stats